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.

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.

Columbus Foreign-Born Population and Comparison to Peers

The Census just came out with 2015 demographic numbers for all places with at least 65,000 people. Given that half the decade is over, it’s a good point to look at where Columbus stands relative to its national/Midwest peers. A few days ago, I gave numbers for GDP. In the next few posts, I will look at the people that make up the populations of these places.

First up, let’s take a look at foreign-born populations. I have looked at this topic some in the past, but I have never done a full-scale comparison for this topic.

Total Foreign-Born Population Rank by City 2000, 2010 and 2015
2000—————————————-2010———————————-2015
1. Chicago, IL: 628,903———–1. Chicago: 557,674—————1. Chicago: 573,463
2. San Jose, CA: 329,750——–2. San Jose: 366,194————-2. San Jose: 401,493
3. San Antonio, TX: 133,675—-3. San Antonio: 192,741———-3. San Antonio: 208,046
4. Austin, TX: 109,006————4. Austin: 148,431——————4. Austin: 181,686
5. Las Vegas, NV: 90,656——-5. Las Vegas: 130,503————-5. Charlotte: 128,897
6. Sacramento, CA: 82,616—–6. Chalotte: 106,047—————6. Las Vegas: 127,609
7. Portland, OR: 68,976———7. Sacramento: 96,105————-7. Sacramento: 112,579
8. Charlotte, NC: 59,849——–8. Columbus: 86,663—————-8. Columbus: 101,129
9. Minneapolis, MN: 55,475—–9. Portland: 83,026—————–9. Nashville: 88,193
10. Columbus: 47,713———–10. Indianapolis: 74,407———–10. Portland: 86,041
11. Milwaukee, WI: 46,122—–11. Nashville: 73,327—————11. Indianapolis: 72,456
12. Detroit, MI: 45,541———–12. Minneapolis: 57,846———–12. Minneapolis: 70,769
13. Providence, RI: 43,947—–13. Milwaukee: 57,222————-13. Milwaukee: 58,321
14. Nashville, TN: 38,936——-14. Providence: 52,926————14. Providence: 53,532
15. Indianapolis, IN: 36,067—-15. Orlando: 43,747—————-15. Orlando: 50,558
16. Virginia Beach, VA: 28,276–16. Virginia Beach: 40,756—–16. Omaha: 48,263
17. Orlando, FL: 26,741———17. Omaha: 39,288—————–17. Detroit: 39,861
18. Omaha, NE: 25,687———18. Kansas City: 35,532———18. Virginia Beach: 38,360
19. Kansas City, MO: 25,632—19. Detroit: 34,307—————-19. Kansas City: 37,787
20. Cleveland: 21,372————20. St. Louis: 23,011————–20. Pittsburgh: 28,187
21. Grand Rapids, MI: 20,814–21. Pittsburgh: 18,698————21. St. Louis: 21,802
22. St Louis, MO: 19,542——-22. Cleveland: 17,739————-22. Grand Rapids: 19,176
23. Pittsburgh, PA: 18,874—–23. Grand Rapids: 16,615——–23. Cleveland: 18,830
24. Cincinnati: 12,461———–24. Cincinnati: 16,531————-24. Cincinnati: 16,896
25. Toledo: 9,475—————–25. Toledo: 11,559—————–25. Akron: 10,024
26. Akron: 6,911——————26. Akron: 8,524——————–26. Toledo: 9,257
27. Dayton: 3,245—————-27. Dayton: 5,102——————-27. Dayton: 7,381
28. Youngstown: 1,605———28. Youngstown: 3,695————28. Youngstown: 1,058

Here’s the 2000-2015 total change.

And the 2000-2015 change by %.

So Columbus has an above average total and growth compared to its peers nationally.

Cool Link of the Day: Demographics by Distance

http://statchatva.org/changing-shape-of-american-cities/

This link, entitled The Changing Shape of American Cities, gives comparison maps for multi-demographic data points between 1990 and 2012 for dozens of cities, including Columbus. It gives this demographic information by breaking it down by the status at the mile distance from “City Hall”, or from the center of each city’s downtown area.

Using these graphs, here are some examples of the information we can see for Columbus’s immediate downtown.

% of Population with a Bachelor’s Degree at Mile 0
1990: 26%
2012: 51%

% of Population Aged 22-34 at Mile 0
1990: 32%
2012: 38%

% of Population Living Below the Poverty Line at Mile 0
1990: 30%
2012: 27%

Check out these and lots more.



style="display:inline-block;width:468px;height:60px"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-4864697986057597"
data-ad-slot="7622734662">