Columbus Area Murders by Census Tract 2008-2012

A few days ago, I posted maps for murders by zip code. Because zip codes encompass such large areas, they aren’t as accurate in showing where murders are taking place within them. To help show this more, I broke the maps down into census tracts. While the tracts can include large areas also, they are much smaller than zip codes and allow us to see more at the neighborhood level.

So here they are.

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

The same forces spreading murder further out into the suburbs in the zip codes seems to be at play in tracts as well.

2008-2012

The High Street corridor from Merion Village up through Worthington has very low or non-existent murder rates. This is also true for most of Whitehall, surprisingly, Bexley, most of the Northwest Side and much of the North Side, apart from the Tamarack Circle area.



style="display:inline-block;width:336px;height:280px"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-4864697986057597"
data-ad-slot="6970906667">

April Jobs Data

Columbus City
Unemployment Rate: 5.7%
Unemployment Rate Change since April 2012: -0.6
Unemployment Rate Change since January 2013: -1.1
Civilian Labor Force: 425,600
Civilian Labor Force Change since April 2012: +200
Civilian Labor Force Change since January 2013: -800
Employment: 401,400
Employment Change since April 2012: +2,800
Employment Change since January 2013: +4,100
Unemployment: 24,200
Unemployment Change since April 2012: -2,500
Unemployment Change since January 2013: -4,900

Franklin County
Unemployment Rate: 5.7%
Unemployment Rate Change since April 2012: -0.5
Unemployment Rate Change since January 2013: -1.1
Civilian Labor Force: 622,300
Civilian Labor Force Change since April 2012: +600
Civilian Labor Force Change since January 2013: -1,400
Employment: 587,100
Employment Change since April 2012: +4,100
Employment Change since January 2013: +6,100
Unemployment: 35,200
Unemployment Change since April 2012: -3,400
Unemployment Change since January 2013: -7,400

Columbus Metro Area
Unemployment Rate: 5.7%
Unemployment Rate Change since April 2012: -0.4
Unemployment Rate Change since January 2013: -1.3
Civilian Labor Force: 964,400
Civilian Labor Force Change since April 2012: +1,700
Civilian Labor Force Change since January 2013: -3,500
Employment: 909,800
Employment Change since April 2012: +6,300
Employment Change since January 2013: +9,300
Unemployment: 54,600
Unemployment Change since April 2012: -4,600
Unemployment Change since January 2013: -12,800

Ohio Overall
Unemployment Rate: 7.0%
Unemployment Rate Change since April 2012: -0.3
Unemployment Rate Change since January 2013 : +0.0
Civilian Labor Force: 5,741,116
Civilian Labor Force Change since April 2012: -22,664
Civilian Labor Force Change since January 2013: +824
Employment: 5,341,401
Employment Change since April 2012: -1,270
Employment Change since January 2013: +549
Unemployment: 399,715
Unemployment Change since April 2012: -21,394
loyment Change since January 2013: +275

Non-Farm Jobs
Total: 954,100
Change from April 2012: +7,000
Change from January 2013: +9,500

By Industry
Mining/Logging/Construction Total: 28,400
Change from April 2012: -500
Change from January 2013: +1,500

Manufacturing Total: 66,500
Change from April 2012: +700
Change from January 2013: +1,500

Trade/Transportation/Utilities Total: 179,600
Change from April 2012: -900
Change from January 2013: -3,600

Information Total: 16,400
Change from April 2012: -300
Change from January 2013: -100

Financial Activities Total: 71,400
Change from April 2012: +300
Change from January 2013: -300

Professional and Business Services Total: 158,300
Change from April 2012: +1,000
Change from January 2013: +2,700

Education and Health Services Total: 141,000
Change from April 2012: +3,000
Change from January 2013: +1,500

Leisure and Hospitality Total: 95,200
Change from April 2012: +3,800
Change from January 2013: +6,700

Other Services Total: 36,100
Change from April 2012: -100
Change from January 2013: -100

Government Total: 161,200
Change from April 2012: +0
Change from January 2013: +700

Columbus Poverty vs. Ohio

The following numbers are based off the American Community Survey. They are estimates, not physical counts like the population census, so there is a definite fudge factor involved with them as to their overall accuracy. 2011 is the latest year available for the ACS estimates.

2011 % of City Population Living in Poverty, Lowest to Highest
1. Columbus: 23.2%
2. Akron: 28.9%
3. Cincinnati: 29.5%
4. Toledo: 30.1%
5. Youngstown: 33.2%
6. Cleveland: 34.3%
7. Dayton: 35.7%

Change from 2010-2011
Cincinnati: -3.6%
Akron: -1.7%
Cleveland: +0.9%
Columbus: +2.7%
Dayton: +3.5%
Youngstown: +4.4%
Toledo: +16.7%
Change from 2007-2011
Youngstown: +1.8%
Columbus: +10.5%
Cleveland: +16.3%
Dayton: +18.2%
Akron: +22.5%
Cincinnati: +25.5%
Toledo: +33.2%

Change from 2000-2011
1. Cleveland: +30.4%
2. Youngstown: +33.9%
3. Cincinnati: +34.7%
4. Dayton: +55.2%
5. Columbus: +56.8%
6. Akron: +65.1%
7. Toledo: +68.2%

2011 % of Metro Population Living in Poverty, Lowest to Highest
1. Cincinnati: 14.3%
2. Columbus: 15.4%
3. Cleveland: 16.0%
4. Youngstown: 16.1%
5. Akron: 16.6%
6. Dayton: 17.6%
7. Toledo: 20.2%

Change from 2010-2011
1. Youngstown: -5.8%
2. Columbus: -1.9%
3. Cincinnati: +2.1%
4. Cleveland: +6.0%
5. Akron: +7.1%
6. Dayton: +8.0%
7. Toledo: +16.1%

Change from 2007-2011
1. Youngstown: +8.8%
2. Columbus: +14.9%
3. Akron: +23.9%
4. Cleveland: +26.0%
5. Cincinnati: +28.8%
6. Toledo: +36.5%
7. Dayton: +37.5%

Change from 2000-2011
1. Youngstown: +40.0%
2. Cleveland: +48.1%
3. Cincinnati: +50.5%
4. Columbus: +55.5%
5. Toledo: +66.9%
6. Akron: +69.4%
7. Dayton: +76.0%


Tract Profile #2- Tract 2, 210 and 220

Tract #2 was formed on the North Side in 1930 and included parts of Clintonville and Northmoor. It contains the rest of Clintonville that Tracts 1, 110 and 120 didn’t include, including the downtown area.

Like #1, Tract #2 grew early on in its history, and was split in two tracts in 1960. Unlike #1, Tract #2 contained an older area already highly populated.

**The rankings for the statistics below are based on the 156 tracts within the Columbus city boundaries in 2010.

Population of Tract #2, #210 and #220 Combined
1930: 5,682
1940: 6,308
1950: 7,615
1960: 9,359
1970: 9,208
1980: 7,664
1990: 7,246
2000: 6,924
2010: 6,662

Tract Population Rank
210: 83rd
220: 45th

Total and % Change By Decade
1940: +626 +11.02%
1950: +1,307 +20.72%
1960: +1,744 +22.9%
1970: -151 -1.61%
1980: -1,544 -16.77%
1990: -418 -5.45%
2000: -322 -4.44%
2010: -262 -3.78%

Population Density
1960: 6,637.6
1970: 6,530.5
1980: 5,435.5
1990: 5,139.0
2000: 4,910.6
2010: 4,698.2

Population Density Rank
210: 91st
220: 84th

Housing 2010
Area Occupied Units: 96.8%
Vacant Units: 3.2%
Average Year Built: 1944
Housing Units built before 1959: 91.4%
Housing Units built 1960 and Later: 8.6%
Median Rent: $586
Median Home Price: $227,300

Demographics for Area

White
2010: 6,309 94.7%
2000: 6,652 96.1%
1990: 7,142 98.6%
Black
2010: 84 1.3%
2000: 58 0.8%
1990: 34 0.5%
Asian
2010: 87 1.3%
2000: 87 1.3%
1990: 57 0.8%
Hispanic
2010: 118 1.8%
2000: 62 0.9%
1990: 58 0.8%
Other
2010: 182 2.7%
2000: 127 1.8%
1990: 13 0.2%

White Population Tract Ranking
210: 4th
220: 3rd
Black Population Tract Ranking
210: 153rd
220: 156th
Asian Population Tract Ranking
210: 100th
220: 80th
Hispanic Population Tract Ranking
210: 141st
220: 144th

The population of tracts 210 and 220 is clearly very White and the diversity of this area ranks as one of Columbus’ worst.

Breakdown of First Reported Ancestry
German: 39.73%
Irish: 20.38%
English: 16.43%
Italian: 7.70%
Scottish: 4.99%
French: 4.60%
American: 4.36%
Polish: 4.31%
Welsch: 3.24%
Scotch-Irish: 2.84%
Swedish: 2.42%
Dutch: 2.19%
Norwegian: 1.69%
Hungarian: 1.61%
Swiss: 1.46%
Russian: 0.85%
Czech: 0.67%
Arab: 0.51%
Ukrainian: 0.44%
Danish: 0.26%
Greek: 0.14%
Portuguese: 0.14%
Sub-Saharan: 0.0%

Ancestry of Asian Population
Chinese: 32.39%
Japanese: 12.62%
Other: 10.91%
Filipino: 10.80%
Indian: 10.54%
Korean: 8.58%
Vietnamese: 5.6%

Native Born: 97.5%
Foreign Born: 2.5%
English Spoken at Home: 92.0%
Spanish Spoken at Home: 4.0%
Other Languages Spoken at Home: 4.0%

Gender and Age
Under 5: 6.2%
5 to 9: 4.9%
10 to 14: 4.5%
15 to 19: 4.1%
20 to 24: 3.2%
25 to 34: 14.5%
35 to 44: 15.1%
45 to 54: 17.5%
55 to 64: 18.4%
65 to 74: 6.9%
75 and Over: 4.7%

Median Male Age: 42.2
Median Female Age: 44.4
Median Age: 43.3

Tract Median Age Rank
210: 42.8 143rd
220: 43.8 147th

Income and Poverty
Per-Capita Income: $42,104
Median Individual Income: $45,623.50
Median Household Income: $85,909

Population in Poverty: 5.8%
Families in Poverty: 2.2%

Educational Attainment
Less than High School: 2.1%
High School Graduate: 7.9%
Some College: 16.3%
Bachelor’s Degree: 44.8%
Masters/Doctorate/Professional: 29.1%

Tract Average Education Index and Rank
210: 15.96 8th
220: 16.18 3rd

School Enrollment Preference
Public Schools: 60.4%
Private Schools: 39.6%

Commuting Patterns

Average Commute Time: 17.7 Minutes

Tract Commute Rank
210: 16.9 Minutes 136th
220: 18.4 Minutes 118th

Drove Alone to Work: 82.0%
Carpooled to Work: 6.5%
Take Public Transit to Work: 2.4%
Walk to Work: 1.6%
Other: 3.2%
Work from Home: 4.6%

Columbus Area Residential Development Booming

During and just after the recession’s housing crash, single-family home construction in the Columbus area seemed to fall apart, much like it did across the nation. Foreclosure rates soared, prices fell and builders were suddenly left with too many homes they couldn’t get rid of.

Out of the ashes of this market rose a surge in rental demand. It suddenly made more and more sense to rent rather than to own, especially for young professionals and empty nesters who wanted to downsize during tough economic times. Not only did what housing people wanted change, but so did where they wanted it to be located.

Columbus experienced a relative boom in rental housing during the late 1990s into the first few years of the 2000s, but almost all of that rental housing was constructed along and outside of I-270, where the suburbs were exploding with growth. Inside of 270 saw little of this, and the urban core neighborhoods around Downtown were almost completely ignored altogether. Single-family housing became popular again during the early 2000s mild recession, and the housing boom that would help lead to the Great Recession of 2007-2009 really began at that time. However, it was in 2002 that the City and Mayor Coleman came up with a 10-year plan to help bring more residents to Downtown. It began offering tax incentives to developers who would build there, in some cases 100% abatements, in a goal to have 10,000 residential units built in and around Downtown by 2012.

I’ve done a ton of research on the results of this move by the city, and it did have an impact. From what I’ve been able to find (so far), Downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods saw the addition of less than 200 residential units between 2000 and 2002. 2003 saw over 500 alone with the new incentives package in place. Between 2003 and 2006, the area added over 2,000 new residential units, most of them condos. As the Great Recession hit in 2007, the rate of new projects slowed to half of what it was, though still higher than it was prior to 2003.

As the Great Recession eased and more financing became available, construction began to pick up once more. With the new trends in favor of urban living and rentals, the rental market exploded, as represented by the chart below that details the 2007-2014 period of complete/planned total residential units by year.

Online Graphing
Graph

Of course, for 2014-2015, the numbers are fairly preliminary as more projects will inevitably be added. These numbers also only show Downtown and its immediate surrounding neighborhoods, while there is infill going on across the city.