Before and After April 2017

I haven’t done a Before and After installment for a while. This time around, I chose to not focus on any single neighborhood.

First up is a photo of the construction of the Columbus Interurban Terminal, looking northwest from 3rd. The photo was taken on October 5, 1911, about 3 months before the building opened. The interurban system was relatively short-lived in the city, and the terminal closed after only 26 years in 1938. The building survived as a grocery store through the mid-1960s before the building was demolished in 1967 as part of the construction of the Greyhound Bus Terminal across the street. The actual location of the building was not on the Greyhound site, but was used as an overflow parking lot. It remained a parking lot until the mid-1980s, when it became part of the City Centre Mall site. Today, plans are for the site to become the location for the 12-story, Two25 mixed-use project.

Here is the same place in September 2016.

And the near future.

The second historic photo is of the #57 streetcar on Kelton Avenue just south of the Oak Street intersection. The photo, which looks north, was taken on June 30, 1915 and includes 3 separate visible buildings as well. The house on the left actually survived until 1977, when it and the rest of the east half of the block was demolished. The building visible on the right is the surviving streetcar barn. Today, it is in bad shape, and while many would like to see it renovated and saved, time seems to be running out. The other surviving building, barely visible in the 1915 photo, is the tenement building on the northwest corner of Oak and Kelton.

And in November 2015.

Third in this list is a photo of the demolition of the old Franklin County Jail, once located at 36 E. Fulton Street in Downtown. Built in 1889, the structure survived until the fall of 1971, when the building, which by then had become outdated for its intended purpose, was torn down to make way for- what else- a parking garage. The parking garage remains to the present day. Columbus leaders at the time should’ve been flogged for such short-sighted thinking, something that was repeated over and over and over again during that era. Today, such a very cool, gothic building would’ve made an excellent candidate for mixed-use conversion.

And in August 2016.

Finally, this next photo isn’t really historic. It was taken a mere 15 years ago in February, 2002, looking northwest from the corner of N. High Street and 10th Avenue. At the time, this area had been made up of low-rise historic buildings that had long held bars for OSU students. All these buildings in the photo, and many more, were demolished not long after the photo was taken in order to make room for the South Campus Gateway, now more or less just called the Gateway. Similar large-scale demolitions are taking place to the north and south as the entirety of the High Street corridor around Campus is transformed. Whether that is good or bad depends on who you ask. What can be agreed upon, however, is that the corridor will be almost unrecognizable in the end.

And in October, 2016.

Franklin County Gentrification Trends 1990-2015



style="display:inline-block;width:728px;height:90px"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-4864697986057597"
data-ad-slot="7110507461">

**Note: This was originally posted on March 8, 2016. However, the data went to 2014 rather than 2015 and I actually posted it without adding all the maps and other information intended.

I saw this post (http://www.citylab.com/housing/2016/03/mapping-the-resegregation-of-diverse-neighborhoods-in-4-us-cities/472086/) the other day about changing neighborhood demographics in certain cities, particularly when it comes to racial segregation and gentrification. Surprisingly, of all the maps and posts I’ve done on demographics, I hadn’t thought to do one like this. Well, now I have.

A bit of an explanation is needed for the color coding:
-For those categories marked “Steady”, the demographic listed has been the majority throughout the period, with little to no change of other demographics.
-For those mixed categories of one decline and one rise, it means that the majority demographic has declined at least 5 percentage points, while a secondary demographic has risen at least 5 percentage points.
-For the category of recent or steady integration, there are at least 2 demographics at 10% or more of the total population, as well as a 3rd demographic reaching at least 5% of the population.

A few things that stand out to me: The eastern half of the county is in much greater flux than the western half, and integration is respectable county-wide. These neighborhoods of demographic equilibrium are largely the result of increasing Hispanic and Asian populations, particularly on the Northeast and West Sides, as well as the Whitehall area. In the center core, almost all of the High Street corridor has remained Steady White, suggesting that other demographics have, so far, been unable to tap into the building boom along and adjacent to this corridor. One other thing I notice is that there are FAR more tracts with a growing black population than there are with a growing White population, suggesting that perhaps the idea of Whites moving into neighborhoods and displacing residents is not quite as big of an issue as some might believe.

Here are the integrated tracts by year, based the above criteria, and their racial breakdown.

Top 10 Tracts with the Highest White Population

1990
1. 7205: 99.6%
2. 98: 99.1%
3. 7207: 98.9%
4. 120, 9240: 98.8%
5. 7201, 7203, 80: 98.7%
6. 7922, 9440, 9752: 98.6%
7. 9751, 10601: 98.5%
8. 110, 8141, 8821, 9711, 9740: 98.4%
9. 9450, 9800: 98.3%
10. 6230, 7210: 98.2%
2015
1. 65: 98.7%
2. 6810: 97.4%
3. 6822, 9712: 97.0%
4. 98: 96.0%
5. 6721, 6950: 95.9%
6. 220: 95.8%
7. 9497: 95.6%
8. 66: 95.5%
9. 6330: 94.8%
10. 7394: 94.7%

Breakdown of # of Tracts by % of White Population
1990
95% or Higher: 80
90%-94.9%: 73
80%-89.9%: 64
70%-79.9%: 10
60%-69.9%: 11
50%-59.9%: 6
Total Majority White Tracts: 244
40%-49.9%: 7
30%-39.9%: 9
20%-29.9%: 5
10%-19.9%: 9
0.1%-9.9%: 9
0%: 0
Total Minority White Tracts: 39
2015
95% or Higher: 11
90%-94.9%: 35
80%-89.9%: 62
70%-79.9%: 52
60%-69.9%: 30
50%-59.9%: 19
Total Majority White Tracts: 209
40%-49.9%: 11
30%-39.9%: 17
20%-29.9%: 25
10%-19.9%: 15
0.1%-9.9%: 6
0%: 0
Total Minority White Tracts: 74

Top 10 Tracts with the Highest Black Population
1990
1. 730: 94.2%
2. 5420: 93.4%
3. 15, 28: 92.3%
4. 36: 91.8%
5. 5410: 91.4%
6. 7551: 91.1%
7. 7512: 90.9%
8. 23: 89.0%
9. 2520: 87.4%
10. 29: 87.2%
2015
1. 7512: 88.1%
2. 9337: 87.7%
3. 730: 84.9%
4. 7511: 83.6%
5. 23: 82.2%
6. 15: 81.9%
7. 55: 81.4%
8. 5420, 9332: 81.0%
9. 29: 80.9%
10. 8813: 79.1%

Breakdown of # of Tracts by % of Black Population
1990
95% or Higher: 0
90%-94.9%: 7
80%-89.9%: 10
70%-79.9%: 4
60%-69.9%: 8
50%-59.9%: 6
Total Majority Black Tracts: 35
40%-49.9%: 7
30%-39.9%: 10
20%-29.9%: 9
10%-19.9%: 32
0.1%-9.9%: 190
0%: 0
Total Minority Black Tracts: 248
2015
95% or Higher: 0
90%-94.9%: 0
80%-89.9%: 9
70%-79.9%: 8
60%-69.9%: 28
50%-59.9%: 9
Total Majority Black Tracts: 52
40%-49.9%: 20
30%-39.9%: 17
20%-29.9%: 24
10%-19.9%: 44
0.1%-9.9%: 126
0%: 0
Total Minority Black Tracts: 231

Top 10 Tracts with the Highest Asian Population
1990
1. 7820: 23.3%
2. 1122: 11.2%
3. 1110: 10.8%
4. 105: 9.0%
5. 1810: 8.2%
6. 6372: 7.6%
7. 6384: 7.3%
8. 1121: 7.2%
9. 6386: 6.9%
10. 6395: 6.8%
2015
1. 7820: 34.1%
2. 7721: 26.8%
3. 6230: 26.7%
4. 1122: 21.9%
5. 7830: 17.0%
6. 1110: 16.6%
7. 105: 16.2%
8. 6395: 15.5%
9. 6372: 15.3%
10. 6386: 14.9%

Breakdown of # of Tracts by % of Asian Population
1990
95% or Higher: 0
90%-94.9%: 0
80%-89.9%: 0
70%-79.9%: 0
60%-69.9%: 0
50%-59.9%: 0
Total Majority Asian Tracts: 0
40%-49.9%: 0
30%-39.9%: 0
20%-29.9%: 1
10%-19.9%: 2
0.1%-9.9%: 273
0%: 7
Total Minority Asian Tracts: 283
2015
95% or Higher: 0
90%-94.9%: 0
80%-89.9%: 0
70%-79.9%: 0
60%-69.9%: 0
50%-59.9%: 0
Total Majority Asian Tracts: 0
40%-49.9%: 0
30%-39.9%: 1
20%-29.9%: 4
10%-19.9%: 17
0.1%-9.9%: 215
0%: 46
Total Minority Asian Tracts: 283

Top 10 Tracts with the Highest Hispanic Population
1990
1. 7820: 2.9%
2. 1122, 7209: 2.5%
3. 1810, 30: 2.3%
4. 8163, 9323, 9336: 2.1%
5. 6352, 7830: 2.0%
6. 1110, 1121, 2750: 1.9%
7. 10, 32, 40, 42, 7533: 1.8%
8. 12, 17, 1901, 6353, 7041, 7199: 1.7%
9. 6, 1820, 6945, 7531, 7551, 7721, 9326, 99: 1.6%
10. 13, 2710, 6933, 7120, 7532, 8164, 8230, 8730, 103: 1.5%
2015
1. 8230: 39.3%
2. 8164: 28.7%
3. 8163: 26.4%
4. 26: 24.2%
5. 9321: 22.7%
6. 8210: 22.6%
7. 99: 21.4%
8. 9230: 21.0%
9. 7043: 19.8%
10. 6945: 18.9%

Breakdown of # of Tracts by % of Hispanic Population
1990
95% or Higher: 0
90%-94.9%: 0
80%-89.9%: 0
70%-79.9%: 0
60%-69.9%: 0
50%-59.9%: 0
Total Majority Hispanic Tracts: 0
40%-49.9%: 0
30%-39.9%: 0
20%-29.9%: 0
10%-19.9%: 0
0.1%-9.9%: 278
0%: 5
2015
95% or Higher: 0
90%-94.9%: 0
80%-89.9%: 0
70%-79.9%: 0
60%-69.9%: 0
50%-59.9%: 0
Total Majority Hispanic Tracts: 0
40%-49.9%: 0
30%-39.9%: 1
20%-29.9%: 7
10%-19.9%: 33
0.1%-9.9%: 241
0%: 9

Integrated Tracts By Year
1990: 2
2015: 98

Most Integrated Tract by Year
1990
1122: White: 76.6% Black: 9.6% Asian: 11.2% Hispanic: 2.5%
2015
7721: White: 33.9% Black: 31.2% Asian: 26.8% Hispanic: 10.1%

All in all, the data shows that the county is much less racially stratified/segregated now than it was in 1990, and that it doesn’t appear that gentrification is really affecting many areas in terms of forcing out one racial group for another.

The Origins of the Columbus Metro’s Domestic Migration

Top 30 Largest Net Domestic In-Migration Origins (Ohio Counties and States)

2006-2010————————2009-2013—————————-2010-2014
1. Cuyahoga: 1602———-1. Cuyahoga: 1905————–1. Cuyahoga: 1702
2. Montgomery: 1020——-2. Michigan: 1425—————-2. Michigan: 1473
3. Michigan: 893————-3. Montgomery: 1123————3. Montgomery: 1098
4. Maryland: 745————-4. Summit: 744——————–4. Washington (state): 740
5. Lorain: 740—————–5. Lorain: 715———————-5. Summit: 689
6. Virginia: 636—————6. Indiana: 694———————6. Lucas: 635
7. Mahoning: 603————7. Lucas: 569———————–7. Stark: 632
8. Stark: 584——————8. Maryland: 512——————-8. New Jersey: 579
9. Lucas: 554—————–9. Hamilton: 504——————–9. Indiana: 536
10. Summit: 531————-10. Clermont: 466—————–10. Medina: 465
11. Highland: 499———–11. Stark: 466———————–11. Richland: 465
12. New Jersey: 497——-12. Arizona: 463——————–12. Fayette: 436
13. Hamilton: 483———–13. Alabama: 431——————-13. Trumbull: 404
14. New York: 419———-14. Trumbull: 401——————-14. Wayne: 383
15. Allen: 384—————-15. Mahoning: 387——————15. Erie: 368
16. Tennessee: 375——–16. Fayette: 354———————16. Clermont: 355
17. Logan: 328—————17. Washington (state): 353—–17. Illinois: 355
18. Trumbull: 325————18. Coshocton: 346—————-18. Massachusetts: 325
19. Coshocton: 310———19. Medina: 322——————–19. Allen: 320
20. Jefferson: 290———–20. Allen: 302————————20. Maryland: 294
21. Scioto: 259—————21. Erie: 290————————-21. Butler: 275
22. Belmont: 254————22. Highland: 270——————-22. Puerto Rico: 268
23. Huron: 245—————23. Puerto Rico: 265—————23. Lake: 267
24. Darke: 217—————24. Adams: 260———————24. West Virginia: 257
25. Lake: 212—————-25. Warren: 260———————25. Highland: 256
26. Tuscarawas: 202——-26. Massachusetts: 259———-26. Lorain: 249
27. Iowa: 200—————–27. Wayne: 259———————27. Mahoning: 244
28. Shelby: 199————–28. Morgan: 255——————–28. Adams: 226
29. Medina: 196————-29. Tuscarawas: 253————–29. Columbiana: 225
30. Massachusetts: 192—30. Ashtabula: 244—————–30. Arizona: 221

Top 30 Largest Net Domestic Out-Migration Destinations (Ohio counties and States)

2006-2010——————————-2009-2013—————————-2010-2014
1. Texas: -1371———————-1. Georgia: -1024—————-1. Florida: -1243
2. Knox: -942————————-2. Florida: -1013——————2. Georgia: -984
3. North Carolina: -782————3. Greene: -524——————-3. Knox: -608
4. Georgia: -718———————4. Missouri: -516——————4. Colorado: -456
5. Athens: -679———————-5. Colorado: -448—————–5. Minnesota: -405
6. Kentucky: -516——————-6. California: -436—————–6. California: -396
7. South Carolina: -499———–7. South Carolina: -431———-7. Greene: -382
8. California: -364——————-8. Knox: -418———————-8. Athens: -375
9. Florida: -360———————-9. North Carolina: -417———-9. Missouri: -348
10. Wood: -351———————10. Wisconsin: -395————–10. Utah: -325
11. Richland: -344——————11. Athens: -336——————11. Tennessee: -264
12. Greene: -239——————–12. Minnesota: -308————-12. Logan: -242
13. West Virginia: -236————13. Utah: -290———————13. Mississippi: -214
14. Missouri: -219——————-14. Richland: -266—————14. Wisconsin: -197
15. Crawford: -209——————15. Portage: -265—————–15. Oregon: -161
16. Hardin: -179———————16. Kentucky: -257—————16. Texas: -156
17. Noble: -177———————-17. Logan: -242——————-17. South Carolina: -144
18. Muskingum: -175—————18. Pennsylvania: -242———18. Seneca: -141
19. Butler: -173———————-19. Tennessee: -200————19. Louisiana: -140
20. Holmes: -163——————–20. Oregon: -187—————-20. Sandusky: -134
21. Marion: -138———————21. Wood: -166——————21. Wood: -134
22. Portage: -134——————-22. Sandusky: -157————–22. Darke: -109
23. Ottawa: -131——————–23. Mississippi: -151————-23. Jefferson: -103
24. Sandusky: -124—————-24. Jefferson: -127—————24. Noble: -98
25. Oregon: -120——————-25. Kansas: -98——————-25. Hardin: -96
26. Indiana: -116——————-26. Delaware (state): -88——-26. Idaho: -89
27. Idaho: -115———————27. Idaho: -74———————-27. Kansas: -81
28. Utah: -103———————- 28. Crawford: -73—————–28. Marion: -78
29. Fayette: -93———————29. Hardin: -68——————–29. Meigs: -70
30. Kansas: -90———————30. Seneca: -66——————-30. Ottawa: -67

Top 25 Largest Positive Swings Between 2006-2010 and 2010-2014
1. Texas: +1215
2. North Carolina: +808
3. Washington: +807
4. Kentucky: +675
5. Indiana: +652
6. Michigan: +580
7. West Virginia: +493
8. Athens: +369
9. Knox: +358
10. South Carolina: +355
11. Arizona: +288
12. Alaska: +283
13. Puerto Rico: +268
14. Illinois: +236
15. Hardin: +198
16. Marion: +187
17. Maine: +160
18. Alabama: +153
19. Logan: +149
20. Darke: +139
21. Massachusetts: +133
22. Rhode Island: +131
23. Wyoming: +127
24. Greene: +104
25. Champaign: +101

Top 25 Largest Negative Swings Between 2006-2010 and 2010-2014
1. Florida: -883
2. Tennessee: -639
3. Colorado: -619
4. Virginia: -595
5. Minnesota: -529
6. Maryland: -451
7. Lucas: -392
8. Montgomery: -384
9. New York: -308
10. Cuyahoga: -288
11. Muskingum: -276
12. Georgia: -266
13. Stark: -246
14. Utah: -222
15. Wisconsin: -215
16. Hamilton: -193
17. Scioto: -170
18. Miami: -154
19. Mississippi: -150
20. Clermont: -142
21. New Mexico: -140
22. Louisiana: -137
23. Mahoning: -131
24. Missouri: -129
25. Pennsylvania: -116

Total Counts By Period
Positive Ohio Counties
2006-2010: 53
2009-2013: 57
2010-2014: 53

Positive States, including DC and Puerto Rico
2006-2010: 21
2009-2013: 24
2010-2014: 29

Total Net In-Migration
Ohio
2006-2010: +8,008
2009-2013: +11,366
2010-2014: +10,101

Outside Ohio
2006-2010: -1,158
2009-2013: -466
2010-2014: +1,007

Ohio and Outside Ohio
2006-2010: +6,850
2009-2013: +10,900
2010-2014: +11,108

All these figures show that the Columbus metro has net positive domestic migration. While the majority of that comes from within the state, Columbus’ previously negative net total from outside the state has more recently become positive as well. Combined, the net total has been climbing. For a long time, Columbus’ relative success was not well-known outside of the state, but perhaps word is finally getting out.

The Recovery of Ohio’s 3-C Downtowns: Revisit

A little more than 4 years ago, I posted numbers on how Columbus, Cincinnati and Cleveland were recovering in their urban cores. See that post here: http://allcolumbusdata.com/?p=289 and here: http://allcolumbusdata.com/?p=312 That post has proven to be one of the site’s most popular. I figured it was time to take a look at their continuing changes.

You can see by the chart for the 1950 Boundary population, the urban core of each city, that all 3-Cs suffered population losses post-1950. However, the rate of losses gradually declined, and 2 of the cities, Columbus and Cincinnati, appear to be growing in this boundary since at least 2010. Cleveland continues to lose.

This is shown further by the chart below.

As far as the actual Downtowns of each, here are the population trends.

For the most part, population declines in the 3-Cs peaked around 1980, give or take a decade. Since then, all of them have seen increases, with Cleveland seeing the most rapid increase and Cincinnati the least. Columbus has seen steady, but increasingly rapid growth with each subsequent decade since 1980.

Here is the chart for Downtown growth by decade.

Young Professionals: A Comparison

**Updated 2/3/2017 with 2015 data. Originally posted 1/21/2016.

Millennials and Young Professionals are big news these days. Millennials are the largest generation ever in terms of total numbers (exceeding 76 million), and their choices are already having big impacts on everything from housing to the economy, and Young Professionals have long been an important urban demographic. I wanted to look at Columbus and its peers to see where it ranks in terms of attracting the 25-34 age group that include these demographics.

For the comparison, I looked at metro areas of 1.5-2.5 million as well as major Midwest metros and then used their core cities to get the numbers.

Rank of Total Population Aged 25-34

2005_______________________2010___________________2015

1. Chicago: 463,236_______1. Chicago: 510,042________1. Chicago: 530,508
2. San Antonio: 180,981_____2. San Antonio: 200,645____2. San Antonio: 238,111
3. Austin: 137,523_________3. Austin: 162,247_________3. Austin: 211,528
4. San Jose, CA: 133,144___4. Columbus: 147,584______4. Columbus: 174,059
5. Columbus: 131,641______5. San Jose, CA: 142,551___5. San Jose, CA: 159,172
6. Indianapolis: 114,532_____6. Indianapolis: 133,088____6. Charlotte, NC: 145,573
7. Detroit: 110,759_________7. Charlotte, NC: 127,539___7. Indianapolis: 140,838
8. Charlotte, NC: 100,025____8. Portland, OR: 113,210___8. Nashville: 127,646
9. Portland, OR: 90,023_____9. Nashville: 110,882______9. Portland: 125,173
10. Las Vegas: 84,418______10. Milwaukee: 97,359____10. Milwaukee: 100,826
11. Milwaukee: 82,060______11. Detroit: 85,023_______11. Detroit: 95,474
12. Sacramento, CA: 75,497___12. Minneapolis: 81,532__12. Minneapolis: 93,282
13. Minneapolis: 74,208___13. Las Vegas: 81,212______13. Sacramento: 88,819
14. Kansas City, MO: 68,060__14. Sacramento: 78,527__14. Las Vegas: 87,951
15. Virginia Beach: 60,749__15. Kansas City: 73,872____15. Virginia Beach: 76,061
16. Omaha, NE: 56,248____16. Virginia Beach: 67,614__16. Kansas City: 75,582
17. Wichita, KS: 52,426____17. Omaha: 62,396________17. Omaha: 71,910
18. Cleveland: 50,558_____18. St. Louis: 57,627_______18. Orlando: 63,936
19. St. Louis: 48,137______19. Wichita: 56,737________19. Pittsburgh: 62,703
20. Cincinnati: 44,945_____20. Cleveland: 54,428______20. St. Louis: 61,874
21. Toledo: 43,134_______21. Pittsburgh: 51,109______21. Cleveland: 58,209
22. Orlando: 40,846______22. St. Paul: 50,107________22. Wichita: 56,933
23. St. Paul, MN: 39,676__23. Cincinnati: 49,067_______23. St. Paul: 55,956
24. Lincoln, NE: 38,893___24. Orlando: 48,102________24. Cincinnati: 55,826
25. Madison, WI: 38,826___25. Madison: 44,662_______25. Madison: 47,551
26. Pittsburgh: 38,744____26. Lincoln: 42,034_________26. Toledo: 43,645
27. Grand Rapids: 35,287__27. Toledo: 41,580________27: Lincoln: 41,602
28. Des Moines: 32,640__28. Fort Wayne: 35,193______28. Grand Rapids: 38,044
29. Fort Wayne, IN: 31,738__29. Providence: 31,044____29. Fort Wayne: 36,915
30. Akron: 30,436_______30. Grand Rapids: 30,963____30. Des Moines: 35,123
31. Providence, RI: 29,307__31. Des Moines: 30,376____31. Providence: 32,615
32. Dayton: 18,591_______32. Akron: 27,446_________32. Akron: 28,645
33. Youngstown: 8,505____33. Dayton: 20,278________33. Dayton: 20,527
34. Nashville, TN: N/A___34. Youngtown: 8,484_______34. Youngstown: 9,110

So Columbus ranks highly among total population in the 25-34 age group. But what about growth?

Total Growth Rank in 25-34 Population 2005-2015

1. Austin, TX: 74,005
2. Chicago: 67,272
3. San Antonio, TX: 57,130
4. Charlotte, NC: 45,548
5. Columbus: 42,418
6. Portland, OR: 35,150
7. Indianapolis: 26,306
8. San Jose, CA: 26,028
9. Pittsburgh, PA: 23,959
10. Orlando, FL: 23,090
11. Minneapolis, MN: 19,074
12. Milwaukee, WI: 18,766
13. St. Paul, MN: 16,280
14. Omaha, NE: 15,662
15. Virginia Beach, VA: 15,312
16. St. Louis, MO: 13,737
17. Sacramento, CA: 13,332
18. Cincinnati: 10,881
19. Madison, WI: 8,725
20. Cleveland: 7,651
21. Kansas City, MO: 7,522
22. Fort Wayne, IN: 5,177
23. Wichita, KS: 4,507
24. Las Vegas, NV: 3,533
25. Providence, RI: 3,308
26. Grand Rapids, MI: 2,757
27. Lincoln, NE: 2,709
28. Des Moines, IA: 2,483
29. Dayton: 1,936
30. Youngstown: 605
31. Toledo: 511
32. Akron: -1,791
33. Detroit: -15,285
34. Nashville, TN: N/A

Again, Columbus ranks near the top during this period. What about more recently, since 2010?

Total Growth Rank of 25-34 Population 2010-2015

1. Austin: 49,281
2. San Antonio: 37,466
3. Columbus: 26,475
4. Chicago: 20,466
5. Charlotte: 18,034
6. Nashville: 16,764
7. San Jose: 16,621
8. Orlando: 15,834
9. Portland: 11,963
10. Minneapolis: 11,750
11. Pittsburgh: 11,594
12. Detroit: 10,451
13. Sacramento: 10,292
14. Omaha: 9,514
15. Virginia Beach: 8,447
16. Indianapolis: 7,750
17. Grand Rapids: 7,081
18. Cincinnati: 6,759
19. Las Vegas: 6,739
20. St. Paul: 5,849
21. Des Moines: 4,747
22. St. Louis: 4,247
23. Cleveland: 3,781
24. Milwaukee: 3,467
25. Madison: 2,889
26. Toledo: 2,065
27. Fort Wayne: 1,722
28. Kansas City: 1,710
29. Providence: 1,571
30. Akron: 1,199
31. Youngstown: 626
32. Dayton: 249
33. Wichita: 196
34. Lincoln: -432

So Columbus is doing even better since 2010 than it did in the earlier period and attracts significantly more people in the 25-34 age group than cities often cited for this very metric.

Next, let’s look at percentage growth, as city size can affect this.

Total Percent Growth 2005-2015 in 25-34 Population

1. Pittsburgh: +61.8%
2. Orlando: +56.5%
3. Austin: +53.8%
4. Charlotte: +45.5%
5. St. Paul: +41.0%
6. Portland: +39.0%
7. Columbus: +32.2%
8. San Antonio: +31.6%
9. St. Louis: +28.5%
10. Omaha: +27.8%
11. Minneapolis: +25.7%
12. Virginia Beach: +25.2%
13. Cincinnati: +24.2%
14. Indianapolis: +23.0%
15. Milwaukee: +22.9%
16. Madison: +22.5%
17. San Jose: +19.5%
18. Sacramento: +17.6%
19. Fort Wayne: +16.3%
20. Cleveland: +15.1%
21. Chicago: +14.5%
22. Providence: +11.3%
23. Kansas City: +11.1%
24. Dayton: +10.4%
25. Wichita: +8.6%
26. Grand Rapids: +7.8%
27. Des Moines: +7.6%
28. Youngstown: +7.1%
29. Lincoln: +7.0%
30. Las Vegas: +4.2%
31. Toledo: +1.2%
32. Akron: -5.9%
33. Detroit: -13.8%
34. Nashville: N/A

So Columbus again performs fairly well in percentage growth, despite having one of the largest populations in the age group.

Finally, now that we know the totals and the growth, what is the % of total city population that the 25-34 age group makes up?

25-34 % of Total City Population 2015

1. Orlando: 23.6%
2. Austin: 22.7%
3. Minneapolis: 22.7%
4. Pittsburgh: 20.6%
5. Columbus: 20.5%
6. Portland: 19.8%
7. St. Louis: 19.6%
8. Chicago: 19.5%
9. Nashville: 19.5%
10. Grand Rapids: 19.4%
11. Madison: 19.1%
12. Cincinnati: 18.7%
13. St. Paul: 18.6%
14. Providence: 18.2%
15. Sacramento: 18.1%
16. Charlotte: 17.6%
17. Milwaukee: 16.8%
18. Virginia Beach: 16.8%
19. Des Moines: 16.7%
20. Indianapolis: 16.6%
21. Omaha: 16.2%
22. San Antonio: 16.2%
23. Kansas City: 15.9%
24. Toledo: 15.6%
25. San Jose: 15.5%
26. Cleveland: 15.0%
27. Lincoln: 15.0%
28. Dayton: 14.6%
29. Wichita: 14.6%
30. Akron: 14.5%
31. Fort Wayne: 14.3%
32. Detroit: 14.1%
33. Las Vegas: 14.1%
34. Youngstown: 14.1%

Columbus has an existing large population of the 25-34 age demographic, and looks to be one of the strongest performers into the near future.
Some would ask why that would be considering that Columbus transit is woefully lacking and has a reputation (very undeservedly, in my opinion) of being suburban- characteristics that Millennials/YPers supposedly almost universally reject. Perhaps the bottom line is that economics trump all other desires. Cost of living and employment tend to be higher up the list than rail lines, and Columbus has both a strong economy and relatively low COL. Whatever the case may be, Columbus seems to be doing something right.