Columbus City Diversity and Comparison to Peers




In the 2nd post related to the recently-released Census demographic data, I’ll look at city diversity and how it’s been changing since 2005.

Rank by City of Total White, non-Hispanic Population by Year
2005————————————–2010————————————-2017

1. Chicago, IL: 819,215————1. Chicago: 853,910—————1. Chicago: 879,334
2. Indianapolis, IN: 491,044——2. Indianapolis: 482,195———–2. Columbus: 490,149
3. Columbus: 442,958————-3. Columbus: 470,971————-3. Indianapolis: 468,665
4. Portland, OR: 382,033———-4. Portland: 417,876—————4. Austin: 453,801
5. San Antonio, TX: 356,420—–5. Austin: 384,065——————5. Portland: 452,132
6. Austin, TX: 347,013————-6. San Antonio: 351,420———6. San Antonio: 375,463
7. Nashville, TN: 314,518——–7. Nashville: 339,030————–7. Nashville: 368,195
8. Charlotte, NC: 302,789——-8. Charlotte: 331,357—————8. Charlotte: 360,270
9. Virginia Beach, VA: 290,891–9. Virginia Beach: 282,812——9. Omaha: 311,349
10. San Jose, CA: 281,822—–10. Las Vegas: 280,604———–10. Las Vegas: 280,201
11. Las Vegas, NV: 281,679—-11. Omaha: 277,606———–11. Virginia Beach: 277,338
12. Omaha, NE: 267,685——–12. San Jose: 265,311————12. Kansas City: 272,548
13. Kansas City, MO: 249,123—13. Kansas City: 247,473——13. San Jose: 267,315
14. Wichita, KS: 245,527———-14. Wichita: 245,146————14. Minneapolis: 252,304
15. Milwaukee, WI: 219,891——15. Minneapolis: 242,848——15. Wichita: 243,143
16. Minneapolis, MN: 216,975—16. Milwaukee: 221,514——–16. Lincoln: 226,297
17. Lincoln, NE: 197,287———-17. Lincoln: 216,076————-17. Milwaukee: 207,043
18. Toledo: 183,746—————-18. Pittsburgh: 203,622———18. Pittsburgh: 196,687
19. Pittsburgh, PA: 180,725——19. Fort Wayne: 179,646——-19. Madison: 187,566
20. Madison, WI: 161,631——–20. Madison: 178,307————20. Fort Wayne: 166,912
21. St. Paul, MN: 161,329——–21. Toledo: 177,341————–21. Toledo: 164,104
22. Sacramento, CA: 160,599—22. Sacramento: 165,610——22. Sacramento: 159,291
23. Fort Wayne, IN: 157,672—–23. St. Paul: 159,704———–23. St. Paul: 152,558
24. Des Moines, IA: 149,786—–24. Des Moines: 145,937——24. Cincinnati: 143,028
25. Cleveland: 147,359———–25. Cincinnati: 143,120———25. Des Moines: 137,235
26. St. Louis, MO: 143,590——26. Cleveland: 137,977———26. St. Louis: 134,471
27. Cincinnati: 138,486———–27. St. Louis: 134,146———–27. Cleveland: 126,714
28. Akron: 128,976—————-28. Akron: 120,800————–28. Grand Rapids: 114,349
29. Grand Rapids, MI: 113,791—29. Grand Rapids: 104,636—29. Akron: 113,951
30. Orlando, FL: 92,326———–30. Orlando: 96,867————-30. Orlando: 95,876
31. Detroit, MI: 77,163————-31. Dayton: 72,663————–31. Dayton: 71,094
32. Dayton: 67,581—————–32. Providence: 64,284——–32. Detroit: 70,931
33. Providence, RI: 64,223——-33. Detroit: 55,298————–33. Providence: 59,321

Columbus moved from 3rd to 2nd over the period.

Rank by City of Total Black, non-Hispanic Population by Year
2005—————————————–2010———————————2017

1. Chicago: 938,097—————–1. Chicago: 895,294———–1. Chicago: 797,253
2. Detroit: 683,999——————–2. Detroit: 587,707————-2. Detroit: 529,593
3. Milwaukee: 222,040————–3. Charlotte: 251,274———-3. Charlotte: 292,104
4. Cleveland: 221,797—————4. Milwaukee: 230,473——–4. Columbus: 248,476
5. Charlotte: 205,216—————-5. Indianapolis: 226,314——-5. Indianapolis: 236,606
6. Indianapolis: 193,948————6. Columbus: 216,486———6. Milwaukee: 228,720
7. Columbus: 179,197—————7. Cleveland: 208,528———7. Cleveland: 186,073
8. St. Louis: 168,768—————-8. Nashville: 171,104———–8. Nashville: 180,830
9. Nashville: 148,051—————-9. St. Louis: 157,382———–9. St. Louis: 143,761
10. Kansas City: 131,694———-10. Kansas City: 138,461—–10. Kansas City: 138,346
11. Cincinnati: 131,010————-11. Cincinnati: 131,909——–11. Cincinnati: 127,589
12. Pittsburgh: 81,758————–12. Virginia Beach: 79,583—-12. San Antonio: 97,925
13. Virginia Beach: 80,004——–13. San Antonio: 79,307——13. Virginia Beach: 82,181
14. Orlando: 73,736—————–14. Toledo: 75,033————-14. Minneapolis: 75,006
15. Toledo: 72,190——————-15. Pittsburgh: 71,539——–15. Toledo: 74,906
16. Sacramento: 71,452————16. Orlando: 70,988————16. Orlando: 72,796
17. San Antonio: 70,723————17. Minneapolis: 63,749——17. Austin: 69,860
18. Dayton: 60,196——————-18. Sacramento: 61,976——18. Sacramento: 67,305
19. Akron: 59,810——————–19. Austin: 61,833————–19. Las Vegas: 65,663
20. Las Vegas: 59,780————–20. Dayton: 61,402————-20. Pittsburgh: 65,268
21. Austin: 59,583——————-21. Akron: 60,653—————-21. Akron: 61,461
22. Minneapolis: 57,499————22. Las Vegas: 60,187———22. Dayton: 57,043
23. Omaha: 50,333——————23. Omaha: 55,086————-23. Omaha: 56,098
24. Grand Rapids: 40,408———24. Wichita: 42,662————-24. St. Paul: 51,737
25. Wichita: 39,165—————–25. Grand Rapids: 41,848—–25. Wichita: 40,756
26. Fort Wayne: 35,221———–26. St. Paul: 41,923————-26. Grand Rapids: 38,130
27. St. Paul: 34,903—————-27. Fort Wayne: 39,016——–27. Fort Wayne: 37,941
28. Portland: 30,828—————28. Portland: 37,355————28. Portland: 34,624
29. San Jose: 27,446————–29. San Jose: 29,831———-29. San Jose: 28,126
30. Providence: 18,794———–30. Des Moines: 19,962——-30. Providence: 27,274
31. Des Moines: 16,709———-31. Providence: 19,265——–31. Des Moines: 22,170
32. Madison: 12,660————–32. Madison: 17,560————32. Madison: 14,185
33. Lincoln: 7,082——————33. Lincoln: 9,023—————33. Lincoln: 11,487

Columbus moved up from 7th to 4th in total Black, non-Hispanic during the period. Surprisingly, quite a few cities have actually been losing this demographic since 2010 at least.

Rank by City of Total Asian, non-Hispanic Population by Year
2005————————————-2010——————————————2017

1. San Jose: 269,186————–1. San Jose: 303,227—————–1. San Jose: 366,134
2. Chicago: 127,686—————-2. Chicago: 148,280——————2. Chicago: 179,176
3. Sacramento: 80,307————3. Sacramento: 84,556————-3. Sacramento: 93,476
4. Portland: 36,278—————–4. Austin: 46,575———————-4. Austin: 71,539
5. Austin: 35,239——————–5. Portland: 43,185——————-5. St. Paul: 61,082
6. St. Paul: 35,184——————6. St. Paul: 41,989——————-6. Charlotte: 55,142
7. Columbus: 27,125—————7. Las Vegas: 37,406—————7. Columbus: 53,027
8. Las Vegas: 25,077————–8. Charlotte: 37,181—————–8. Portland: 52,219
9. Charlotte: 23,356—————-9. Columbus: 35,468—————-9. Las Vegas: 44,735
10. Virginia Beach: 22,501——10. San Antonio: 29,200———–10. San Antonio: 38,119
11. San Antonio: 20,492———11. Virginia Beach: 27,303—–11. Virginia Beach: 29,735
12. Minneapolis: 20,189———12. Milwaukee: 22,670————–12. Minneapolis: 26,833
13. Milwaukee: 19,596———–13. Minneapolis: 21,426————13. Indianapolis: 26,548
14. Nashville: 16,943————-14. Wichita: 19,420——————14. Milwaukee: 25,624
15. Wichita: 15,417—————15. Indianapolis: 17,137————15. Madison: 24,455
16. Madison: 12,708————–16. Nashville: 17,045—————16. Nashville: 24,034
17. Indianapolis: 12,312———17. Madison: 16,671—————-17. Wichita: 19,548
18. Providence: 10,751———-18. Pittsburgh: 12,036————–18. Pittsburgh: 19,357
19. Pittsburgh: 10,727————19. Providence: 11,497————19. Omaha: 17,412
20. Kansas City: 10,674———20. Lincoln: 10,452——————20. Des Moines: 17,143
21. Detroit: 9,577——————21. Kansas City: 10,263———–21. Kansas City: 15,213
22. Des Moines: 8,796———–22. Des Moines: 8,867————-22. Fort Wayne: 14,039
23. Lincoln: 7,513—————–23. St. Louis: 8,717—————–23. Lincoln: 13,992
24. St. Louis: 7,046—————24. Omaha: 8,397——————-24. Orlando: 11,852
25. Omaha: 6,971—————–25. Orlando: 7,870——————25. Detroit: 11,790
26. Cincinnati: 6,874————-26. Fort Wayne: 6,945————–26. St. Louis: 10,404
27. Cleveland: 6,289————27. Detroit: 6,549———————27. Providence: 9,361
28. Orlando: 5,528—————28. Cincinnati: 5,938—————-28. Cleveland: 9,217
29. Fort Wayne: 4,241———-29. Cleveland: 5,392—————-29. Akron: 8,007
30. Toledo: 4,150—————-30. Akron: 4,567———————30. Cincinnati: 7,906
31. Akron: 3,497—————–31. Grand Rapids: 3,695———–31. Grand Rapids: 7,056
32. Grand Rapids: 2,847——32. Toledo: 3,125——————–32. Toledo: 3,679
33. Dayton: 1,827—————33. Dayton: 1,231——————–33. Dayton: 848

Columbus maintained its rank since 2005.

Rank by City of Total Hispanic Population by Year

2005——————————————–2010————————————2017

1. Chicago: 778,234—————1. San Antonio: 853,654———-1. San Antonio: 969,065
2. San Antonio: 735,458———–2. Chicago: 763,968—————2. Chicago: 787,978
3. San Jose: 279,420————–3. San Jose: 318,389————–3. San Jose: 332,603
4. Austin: 223,361——————4. Austin: 288,130——————4. Austin: 324,973
5. Las Vegas: 153,813————5. Las Vegas: 181,923————-5. Las Vegas: 219,220
6. Sacramento: 111,559———6. Sacramento: 124,461———–6. Sacramento: 141,752
7. Milwaukee: 80,945————-7. Milwaukee: 104,619————-7. Milwaukee: 133,812
8. Providence: 60,008————-8. Charlotte: 96,246—————-8. Charlotte: 122,904
9. Charlotte: 58,466—————9. Indianapolis: 78,467————-9. Indianapolis: 93,042
10. Wichita: 49,928—————10. Providence: 76,645————10. Orlando: 86,305
11. Indianapolis: 47,764———11. Nashville: 61,212—————11. Providence: 77,893
12. Detroit: 46,993—————-12. Wichita: 59,823——————12. Nashville: 69,574
13. Orlando: 43,978————–13. Portland: 58,986—————–13. Wichita: 68,389
14. Portland: 43,324————–14. Orlando: 56,061—————–14. Portland: 67,551
15. Omaha: 39,674—————15. Omaha: 53,661——————15. Omaha: 66,056
16. Nashville: 37,463————-16. Kansas City: 49,800————16. Columbus: 55,782
17. Minneapolis: 37,017———17. Detroit: 45,580——————-17. Detroit: 48,328
18. Kansas City: 35,995———18. Columbus: 43,276————–18. Cleveland: 47,962
19. Grand Rapids: 32,368——19. Cleveland: 36,067————–19. Minneapolis: 46,375
20. Cleveland: 32,085———–20. Minneapolis: 34,504———–20. Kansas City: 45,975
21. Columbus: 24,607———–21. Grand Rapids: 30,659——21. Virginia Beach: 36,723
22. St. Paul: 22,402————–22. Virginia Beach: 29,206—–22. Grand Rapids: 32,016
23. Virginia Beach: 20,803—–23. St. Paul: 28,725————–23. Des Moines: 31,333
24. Des Moines: 18,952——–24. Des Moines: 23,832———-24. St. Paul: 30,007
25. Toledo: 18,404————–25. Toledo: 21,346——————25. Fort Wayne: 24,724
26. Fort Wayne: 16,438——-26. Fort Wayne: 19,576————26. Toledo: 22,796
27. Madison: 11,997———–27. Lincoln: 16,007——————27. Lincoln: 21,921
28. Lincoln: 9,672—————28. Madison: 14,062—————28. Madison: 20,741
29. St. Louis: 8,268————-29. St. Louis: 11,207————–29. St. Louis: 12,447
30. Pittsburgh: 5,018———-30. Cincinnati: 8,710—————30. Cincinnati: 11,787
31. Cincinnati: 3,855———–31. Pittsburgh: 7,282————–31. Pittsburgh: 9,212
32. Akron: 3,485—————-32. Akron: 3,990——————–32. Dayton: 5,765
33. Dayton: 1,693————–33. Dayton: 3,180——————-33. Akron: 5,536

Columbus moved up from 21st to 16th in the total Hispanic population.

Rank by City of Total Other, non-Hispanic Population by Year

2005——————————————-2010—————————————–2017

1. Chicago: 38,694—————1. Chicago: 37,379——————–1. Chicago: 58,721
2. San Jose: 29,456————2. San Jose: 32,439——————–2. Portland: 41,595
3. Sacramento: 21,370———-3. Sacramento: 30,900—————3. San Jose: 41,175
4. Portland: 21,164————–4. Portland: 28,027———————4. Sacramento: 40,066
5. Indianapolis: 20,242———-5. Las Vegas: 24,521—————–5. Columbus: 34,467
6. Columbus: 20,096————-6. Columbus: 23,738—————–6. Indianapolis: 32,525
7. San Antonio: 19,130———-7. San Antonio: 20,778————–7. Las Vegas: 31,889
8. Minneapolis: 18,580———-8. Minneapolis: 20,753————–8. San Antonio: 31,341
9. Detroit: 18,324—————–9. Virginia Beach: 20,268———-9. Austin: 30,541
10. Las Vegas: 18,304———-10. Indianapolis: 20,086———-10. Charlotte: 28,632
11. Virginia Beach: 16,685—-11. Charlotte: 18,360————–11. Virginia Beach: 24,458
12. Milwaukee: 14,476———-12. Detroit: 16,776—————–12. Nashville: 23,334
13. Kansas City: 13,399——–13. Milwaukee: 16,311———–13. Minneapolis: 21,808
14. Austin: 13,261—————-14. Wichita: 16,091—————14. Milwaukee: 20,166
15. Charlotte: 11,771————-15. Omaha: 15,519————–15. Wichita: 18,763
16. Wichita: 11,545—————16. Austin: 14,915—————-16. Kansas City: 16,743
17. Omaha: 8,552—————–17. Kansas City: 14,668——–17. Omaha: 15,988
18. St. Paul: 7,741—————-18. Nashville: 14,227————18. Cleveland: 15,586
19. Toledo: 7,447—————–19. St. Paul: 13,098————–19. Orlando: 13,429
20. Cincinnati: 7,315————-20. Pittsburgh: 11,280———–20. Detroit: 12,461
21. Cleveland: 7,004————-21. Toledo: 10,134—————21. Pittsburgh: 11,890
22. Providence: 6,488———–22. Akron: 9,020——————22. St. Paul: 11,220
23. Pittsburgh: 6,138————23. Fort Wayne: 8,513———–23. Fort Wayne: 11,180
24. St. Louis: 6,058————–24. Cleveland: 8,276————-24. Lincoln: 11,037
25. Fort Wayne: 5,774———-25. St. Louis: 7,704————–25. Toledo: 11,009
26. Orlando: 5,731—————26. Lincoln: 7,483—————-26. Cincinnati: 10,995
27. Nashville: 5,687————-27. Grand Rapids: 7,376——–27. Des Moines: 9,627
28. Madison: 4,708————–28. Orlando: 7,251—————28. Akron: 8,894
29. Lincoln: 4,508—————-29. Cincinnati: 7,230————29. Madison: 8,292
30. Akron: 4,431—————–30. Madison: 7,177————–30. St. Louis: 7,543
31. Grand Rapids: 4,154——31. Providence: 6,471———–31. Grand Rapids: 7,260
32. Des Moines: 2,674———32. Des Moines: 5,598———-32. Providence: 6,539
33. Dayton: 1,382—————33. Dayton: 3,025—————-33. Dayton: 5,629

Finally, Columbus moved up from 6th to 5th in the total of Other, non-Hispanic population. Overall, Columbus ranks fairly well in totals vs. its peers, as one might expect given that it is one of the largest cities in the grouping. However, to truly find out how it compares with these other cities, you have to look at percentages, which tells how much of the city’s population is made up of each group.


Columbus ranks in the middle of the pack for its % of Non-Hispanic White population. Like in most cities, even while this demographic is growing in total numbers in Columbus, the % of total population continues to fall.


Columbus ranked in the top 3rd of peer cities for its % of Non-Hispanic Black population.


Columbus also ranked in the top 3rd for its Non-Hispanic Asian population.


Columbus ranks poorly with Hispanics in the group, ranking near the bottom.


Finally, Columbus ranks in the middle for its Non-Hispanic Other population.

So what’s the final ranking for where Columbus is with diversity compared to its peers in 2017? To find out, I assigned points based on ranked position in each 5 racial categories and took the average of the positions in each 5. The result is that the higher the average number, the lower the overall diversity.

So based on this, Columbus ranks in the top half of national and Midwest peers for diversity.

*Note: Normally, Youngstown would be included, but the data was not available.




Young Professionals: A Comparison

**Updated 11/22/2017.

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___________________2016

1. Chicago: 463,236_______1. Chicago: 510,042________1. Chicago: 532,349
2. San Antonio: 180,981_____2. San Antonio: 200,645____2. San Antonio: 241,783
3. Austin: 137,523_________3. Austin: 162,247_________3. Austin: 214,687
4. San Jose, CA: 133,144___4. Columbus: 147,584______4. Columbus: 180,685
5. Columbus: 131,641______5. San Jose, CA: 142,551___5. San Jose, CA: 165,408
6. Indianapolis: 114,532_____6. Indianapolis: 133,088____6. Charlotte, NC: 149,024
7. Detroit: 110,759_________7. Charlotte, NC: 127,539___7. Indianapolis: 143,328
8. Charlotte, NC: 100,025____8. Portland, OR: 113,210___8. Nashville: 130,593
9. Portland, OR: 90,023_____9. Nashville: 110,882______9. Portland: 127,557
10. Las Vegas: 84,418______10. Milwaukee: 97,359____10. Milwaukee: 101,449
11. Milwaukee: 82,060______11. Detroit: 85,023_______11. Detroit: 101,246
12. Sacramento, CA: 75,497___12. Minneapolis: 81,532__12. Sacramento: 92,883
13. Minneapolis: 74,208___13. Las Vegas: 81,212______13. Minneapolis: 90,022
14. Kansas City, MO: 68,060__14. Sacramento: 78,527__14. Las Vegas: 84,756
15. Virginia Beach: 60,749__15. Kansas City: 73,872____15. Kansas City: 81,532
16. Omaha, NE: 56,248____16. Virginia Beach: 67,614__16. Virginia Beach: 75,365
17. Wichita, KS: 52,426____17. Omaha: 62,396________17. Omaha: 72,055
18. Cleveland: 50,558_____18. St. Louis: 57,627_______18. Orlando: 63,947
19. St. Louis: 48,137______19. Wichita: 56,737________19. Pittsburgh: 62,515
20. Cincinnati: 44,945_____20. Cleveland: 54,428______20. St. Louis: 61,777
21. Toledo: 43,134_______21. Pittsburgh: 51,109______21. Cleveland: 58,773
22. Orlando: 40,846______22. St. Paul: 50,107________22. Wichita: 57,869
23. St. Paul, MN: 39,676__23. Cincinnati: 49,067_______23. St. Paul: 55,306
24. Lincoln, NE: 38,893___24. Orlando: 48,102________24. Cincinnati: 54,754
25. Madison, WI: 38,826___25. Madison: 44,662_______25. Madison: 48,759
26. Pittsburgh: 38,744____26. Lincoln: 42,034_________26. Lincoln: 43,882
27. Grand Rapids: 35,287__27. Toledo: 41,580________27: Toledo: 42,888
28. Des Moines: 32,640__28. Fort Wayne: 35,193______28. Grand Rapids: 39,829
29. Fort Wayne, IN: 31,738__29. Providence: 31,044____29. Fort Wayne: 37,372
30. Akron: 30,436_______30. Grand Rapids: 30,963____30. Des Moines: 34,961
31. Providence, RI: 29,307__31. Des Moines: 30,376____31. Providence: 30,630
32. Dayton: 18,591_______32. Akron: 27,446_________32. Akron: 29,786
33. Youngstown: 8,505____33. Dayton: 20,278________33. Dayton: 22,930
34. Nashville, TN: N/A___34. Youngtown: 8,484_______34. Youngstown: 7,621

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

Total Growth Rank in 25-34 Population 2005-2016

1. Austin, TX: 77,164
2. Chicago: 69,113
3. San Antonio, TX: 60,802
4. Columbus: 49,044
5. Charlotte, NC: 48,999
6. Portland, OR: 37,534
7. San Jose, CA: 32,264
8. Indianapolis, IN: 28,796
9. Pittsburgh, PA: 23,771
10. Orlando, FL: 23,101
11. Milwaukee, WI: 19,389
12. Sacramento, CA: 17,386
13. Minneapolis, MN: 15,814
14. Omaha, NE: 15,807
15. St. Paul, MN: 15,630
16. Virginia Beach, VA: 14,616
17. St. Louis, MO: 13,642
18. Kansas City, MO: 13,472
19. Madison, WI: 9,933
20. Cincinnati: 9,809
21. Cleveland: 8,215
22. Fort Wayne, IN: 5,634
23. Wichita, KS: 5,443
24. Lincoln, NE: 4,989
25. Grand Rapids, MI: 4,542
26. Dayton: 4,339
27. Des Moines, IA: 2,321
28. Providence, RI: 1,323
29. Las Vegas, NV: 338
30. Toledo: -246
31. Akron: -650
32. Youngstown: -884
33. Detroit, MI: -9,513
34. Nashville: N/A

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

Total Growth Rank of 25-34 Population 2010-2016

1. Austin: 52,440
2. San Antonio: 41,138
3. Columbus: 33,101
4. San Jose: 22,857
5. Chicago: 22,307
6. Charlotte: 21,485
7. Nashville: 19,711
8. Detroit: 16,223
9. Orlando: 15,845
10. Sacramento: 14,356
11. Portland: 14,347
12. Pittsburgh: 11,406
13. Indianapolis: 10,240
14. Omaha: 9,659
15. Grand Rapids: 8,866
16. Minneapolis: 8,490
17. Virginia Beach: 7,751
18. Kansas City: 7,660
19. Cincinnati: 5,687
20. St. Paul: 5,199
21. Des Moines: 4,585
22. Cleveland: 4,345
23. St. Louis: 4,152
24. Madison: 4,097
25. Milwaukee: 4,090
26. Las Vegas: 3,544
27. Dayton: 2,652
28. Akron: 2,340
29. Fort Wayne: 2,179
30. Lincoln: 1,848
31. Toledo: 1,308
32. Wichita: 1,132
33. Providence: -414
34. Youngstown: -863

So Columbus is also doing well since 2010 and attracts significantly more people in the 25-34 age group than cities often cited for this very metric.

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 2016

1. Orlando: 23.1%
2. Austin: 22.6%
3. Minneapolis: 21.8%
4. Columbus: 20.9%
5. Pittsburgh: 20.6%
6. Grand Rapids: 20.3%
7. Portland: 19.9%
8. Nashville: 19.8%
9. St. Louis: 19.8%
10. Chicago: 19.7%
11. Madison: 19.3%
12. Sacramento: 18.8%
13. Cincinnati: 18.3%
14. St. Paul: 18.3%
15. Charlotte: 17.7%
16. Providence: 17.1%
17. Milwaukee: 17.0%
18. Kansas City: 16.9%
19. Indianapolis: 16.8%
20. Virginia Beach: 16.7%
21. Des Moines: 16.2%
22. San Antonio: 16.2%
23. Omaha: 16.1%
24. San Jose: 16.1%
25. Lincoln: 15.7%
26. Toledo: 15.4%
27. Cleveland: 15.2%
28. Akron: 15.1%
29. Detroit: 15.0%
30. Wichita: 14.8%
31. Fort Wayne: 14.3%
32. Las Vegas: 13.4%
33. Youngstown: 11.9%
34. Dayton: 8.2%

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.

For more information on demographics, go to: Columbus Demographics
And for Franklin County racial and economic maps, go to: Census Tract and Zip Code Maps

Report on Domestic Migration by State

Over the last few decades, much attention has been given to the fact that domestic migration has heavily favored the “Sun Belt”, states made up of the Southeast west to the West Coast. While Northern states weren’t all losing people, the region as a whole sent far more people to the Sun Belt than they retained. This helped fuel the respective Southern boom, and media story after media story over the years have made sweeping predictions of this growing powerhouse region, often centered around the idea that the boom had no foreseeable end. The irony with these predictions is that they ignored history. For more than 2 centuries, the North was where people moved. Its states and cities saw massive influxes of population. As recently as the decade of the 1950s, Ohio grew by nearly 2 million alone. Economic conditions in decline, job losses, particularly in the manufacturing industry, increases in the cost of living and other factors ended the boom and helped to bring about the rise of the South, so to speak. Since at least the 1960s, the story has been about the Sun Belt/West.

The US Census does state migration estimates every year, and there are some interesting things going on in the data that may indicate that the boom in the South is faltering while the North’s fortunes are not looking as grim as they once did.

First, what are the regions?
South: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.
North: Connecticut, Delaware, Washington D.C., Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont and Wisconsin.
West: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

Let’s next look at the states by rank of domestic migration in 2005, the earliest available year for the state data, and compared it to 2012, the most recent year available. This period covers the period just before and just after the Great Recession.

Domestic Migration Rank, 2005 vs. 2012, by Total
2005___________________________________2012
1. Florida: +188,035__________________________1. Florida: +108,823
2. Arizona: +131,501_________________________2. Texas: +105,565
3. Texas: +124,522__________________________3. Colorado: +43,530
4. Georgia: +88,250__________________________4. Washington: +37,187
5. North Carolina: +51,575_____________________5. North Carolina: +34,846
6. Tennessee: +43,901________________________6. South Carolina: +34,149
7. Oregon: +43,360___________________________7. Nevada: +25,835
8. Washington: +38,093________________________8. Arizona: +25,615
9. South Carolina: +32,312______________________9. Georgia: +25,204
10. Arkansas: +30,765_________________________10. Missouri: +20,176
11. Nevada: +26,839__________________________11. North Dakota: +14,254
12. Idaho: +20,308____________________________12. Tennessee: +13,255
13. Colorado: +16,963_________________________13. Virginia: +12,110
14. Oklahoma: +16,372_________________________14. Arkansas: +11,981
15. Alabama: +14,501__________________________15. Oregon: +10,742
16. New Mexico: +13,714_______________________16. New Hampshire: +10,711
17. Delaware: +12,561_________________________17. Delaware: +10,610
18. Virginia: +11,121___________________________18. Kentucky: +8,899
19. Kentucky: +7,451___________________________19. Mississippi: +6,569
20. Missouri: +6,338____________________________20. Oklahoma: +6,402
21. Iowa: +5,406_______________________________21. Utah: +5,717
22. Montana: +4,185____________________________22. Vermont: +4,375
23. Pennsylvania: +2,868________________________23. South Dakota: +3,578
24. Maine: +2,447______________________________24. Montana: +3,410
25. Hawaii: +2,388______________________________25. Idaho: +3,400
26. West Virginia: +998__________________________26. Wisconsin: +1,468
27. New Hampshire: +497________________________27. Iowa: +275
28. South Dakota: +360__________________________28. Ohio: -105
29. Wyoming: -366______________________________29. West Virginia: -300
30. Minnesota: -1,154____________________________30. Wyoming: -639
31. Kansas: -2,244______________________________31. Maryland: -2,821
32. North Dakota: -2,553__________________________32. Rhode Island: -2,948
33. Wisconsin: -2,756____________________________33. Louisiana: -4,741
34. Vermont: -3,580_____________________________34. Kansas: -4,850
35. Nebraska: -5,128____________________________35. Nebraska: -5,174
36. Utah: -5,639________________________________36. Hawaii: -6,364
37. Connecticut: -6,536__________________________37. Connecticut: -6,712
38. Mississippi: -7,120___________________________38. Washington D.C.: -7,470
39. Indiana: -9,222______________________________39. New Mexico: -9,228
40. Maryland: -9,718____________________________40. Alabama: -9,431
41. Washington D.C.: -12,872_____________________41. Indiana: -10,460
42. Rhode Island: -15,037________________________42. Maine: -11,025
43. New Jersey: -22,051_________________________43. Minnesota: -14,904
44. Alaska: -23,567_____________________________44. Massachusetts: -15,579
45. Ohio: -40,841______________________________45. Pennsylvania: -21,656
46. Massachusetts: -52,726______________________46. Michigan: -41,761
47. Michigan: -53,852___________________________47. Alaska: -49,250
48. Illinois: -55,932_____________________________48. Illinois: -68,356
49. Louisiana: -99,684__________________________49. California: -73,345
50. New York: -239,848_________________________50. New Jersey: -89,666
51. California: -266,243_________________________51. New York: -135,149

So in 2005, the breakdown was as follows:
12 of 14 Southern states had positive domestic migration. The only 2 that did not, Louisiana and Mississippi, were heavily influenced in 2005 by Hurricane Katrina, which caused large numbers of displaced residents to leave the states entirely.
7 of 24 Northern states has positive domestic migration. The 7 states were mixed between the Midwest and the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic. Just one Great Lakes State had positive domestic migration in 2005.
9 of 13 Western states had positive domestic migration. Only California and a few Mountain West states had negative numbers.

The 2005 numbers show the overall domestic migration picture as it had been for at least the last few decades, if not much longer. The South and West were the dominant net gainers of domestic migration, while most of the North sent people to those regions.

In 2012, the breakdown was as follows:
11 of 14 Southern states had positive domestic migration. Even with Katrina-hit state Mississippi having net gains in 2012, the overall number of states with positive gains declined.
8 of 24 Northern states had positive domestic migration, a slight improvement over 2005.
8 of 13 Western states had positive domestic migration, a slight decline over 2005.

But the breakdowns don’t tell us the whole story. When trying to compare the two years, trends are very important, and the trends are far more revealing.

Total Change 2005-2012 By Rank
1. California: +192,898
2. New York: +104,699
3. Louisiana: +94,943
4. Ohio: +40,736
5. Massachusetts: +37,147
6. Colorado: +26,567
7. North Dakota: +16,807
8. Missouri: +13,838
9. Mississippi: +13,689
10. Michigan: +12,091
11. Rhode Island: +12,089
12. Utah: +11,356
13. New Hampshire: +10,214
14. Vermont: +7,955
15. Maryland: +6,897
16.Washington, D.C.: +5,402
17. Wisconsin: +4,224
18. South Dakota: +3,218
19. South Carolina: +1,837
20. Kentucky: +1,448
21. Virginia: +989
22. Nebraska: -46
23. Connecticut: -176
24. Wyoming: -273
25. Montana: -775
26. Washington: -906
27. Nevada: -1,004
28. Indiana: -1,238
29. West Virginia: -1,298
30. Delaware: -1,951
31. Kansas: -2,606
32. Iowa: -5,131
33. Hawaii: -8,752
34. Oklahoma: -9,970
35. Illinois: -12,424
36. Maine: -13,472
37. Minnesota: -13,750
38. North Carolina: -16,729
39. Idaho: -16,908
40. Arkansas: -18,784
41. Texas: -18,957
42. New Mexico: -22,942
43. Alabama: -23,932
44. Pennsylvania: -24,524
45. Alaska: -25,683
46. Tennessee: -30,646
47. Oregon: -32,618
48. Georgia: -63,046
49. New Jersey: -67,615
50. Florida: -79,212
51. Arizona: -105,886

5 of 14 Southern states improved their domestic migration rates 2005-2012.
13 of 24 Northern states improved their domestic migration rates 2005-2012.
3 of 13 Western states improved their domestic migration rates 2005-2012.

Ohio had the 4th best improvement over the period, a huge change. But some might ask, is it really a change when the rates may still be positive or negative like they were before? Well, yes and no. 7 years is not that long, and we’re talking about decades-long patterns here. Those won’t change like flipping a switch. It will take time. The point is more that for many states that have faced negative numbers for a long time, there is positive momentum now that they did not have before. Another question some may ask, however, is if the recession during the period reduced mobility. In some cases, I’m sure that it did, but if so, that reduction seems to have been centered on the South. A reduction in mobility would only indicate that migration rates would reduce to levels around 0, neither particularly positive nor negative. That reduction would NOT necessarily support switches from positive to negative or increases in negative or positive rates that already exist. Meaning that reduced mobility would mean that positive would become less positive as fewer people moved in, and negative would become less negative as fewer people left. On a state and regional basis, there is a wide range of results that do not support that geographic mobility alone is the culprit, or even a primary factor.

In Part 2, we’ll look more closely at how regions and individual states are performing relative to each other.

The Diversification of the Columbus Metro vs. Peers

In a related post to the recent metro population comparison of Columbus to its peer 1.5-2.5 million group, I wanted to see where the metros stood as far as their current racial makeup as well as where they are trending.

First, let’s take a look at the breakdown of race by metro in 2012, the last year that data is availabe.

Online Graphing
Graphing

Columbus had the 5th highest % of its metro population as White, non-Hispanic.

Online Graphing
graph

Columbus came in at #8 for the % of its metro population being Black, non Hispanic.

Online Graphing
Graph maker

Columbus ranks 9th for its % of metro population that is Asian, non-Hispanic.

Online Graphing
Make a graph

Columbus ranked poorly in this group, coming in at 15th of 18.

Online Graphing
graph and chart

Finally, Columbus ranked 7th in the population of Other, non-Hispanic as a % of the total metro population.

So currently, what is the overall diversity ranking of the 18 metros? To find out, I used a simple formula: Each metro would be assigned points (1-18) based on the ranking position in each racial group. Here are the final rankings.

Online Graphing
Create a chart

Overall, Columbus comes in as the 8th most-diverse metro in its 18-peer group. So a bit better than average and perhaps a bit surprising to some.

But what about where this diversity is trending? To find out, I looked at 2005 and 2012 and calculated how each racial group had changed over the period.

Online Graphing
graph

Columbus did relatively well with Whites, growing at the 5th best pace.

Online Graphing
graph and chart

The Columbus metro came in the top 10, at #7, for non-Hispanic Black population growth.

Online Graphing
chart

The metro didn’t fare as well on growth in the Asian population, coming in at 10th.

Online Graphing
graph and charts

Columbus came in at #6.

Online Graphing
chart

So using the same point system from above, what are the fastest diversifying metros as of 2012?

Online Graphing
graph and chart

The Columbus metro was the 5th fastest diversifying metro in its peer group in 2012.

Overall, Columbus ranks higher than and much higher than average in both current racial diversity and the rate of racial diversity growth, respectively.