Columbus Foreign-Born Population and Comparison to Peers





Given that the 2017 demographic information was released yesterday, it’s time to revisit this comparison and update it with the new data.

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 2017
2000—————————————-2010———————————-2017
1. Chicago, IL: 628,903———–1. Chicago: 557,674—————1. Chicago: 563,688
2. San Jose, CA: 329,750——–2. San Jose: 366,194————-2. San Jose: 417,148
3. San Antonio, TX: 133,675—-3. San Antonio: 192,741———-3. San Antonio: 212,109
4. Austin, TX: 109,006————4. Austin: 148,431——————4. Austin: 177,844
5. Las Vegas, NV: 90,656——-5. Las Vegas: 130,503————-5. Charlotte: 147,074
6. Sacramento, CA: 82,616—–6. Chalotte: 106,047—————6. Las Vegas: 139,790
7. Portland, OR: 68,976———7. Sacramento: 96,105————-7. Sacramento: 111,904
8. Charlotte, NC: 59,849——–8. Columbus: 86,663—————-8. Columbus: 105,826
9. Minneapolis, MN: 55,475—–9. Portland: 83,026—————–9. Indianapolis: 89,465
10. Columbus: 47,713———–10. Indianapolis: 74,407———–10. Portland: 89,050
11. Milwaukee, WI: 46,122—–11. Nashville: 73,327—————11. Nashville: 86,271
12. Detroit, MI: 45,541———–12. Minneapolis: 57,846———–12. Minneapolis: 69,567
13. Providence, RI: 43,947—–13. Milwaukee: 57,222————-13. Orlando: 68,811
14. St. Paul, MN: 41,138——-14. Providence: 52,920————14. St. Paul: 64,056
15. Nashville, TN: 38,936——-15. St. Paul: 50,366—————-15. Milwaukee: 59,443
16. Indianapolis, IN: 36,067—-16. Orlando: 43,747—————-16. Providence: 54,520
17. Virginia Beach, VA: 28,276–17. Virginia Beach: 40,756—–17. Omaha: 51,041
18. Wichita, KS: 27,938———18. Omaha: 39,288—————18. Virginia Beach: 42,319
19. Orlando, FL: 26,741——–19. Wichita: 39,128—————–19. Detroit: 41,374
20. Omaha, NE: 25,687———-20. Kansas City: 35,532———20. Wichita: 40,427
21. Kansas City, MO: 25,632—21. Detroit: 34,307—————-21. Kansas City: 37,833
22. Cleveland: 21,372————22. Madison: 24,929————–22. Madison: 32,066
23. Grand Rapids, MI: 20,814—23. St. Louis: 23,011————23. Des Moines: 29,876
24. St Louis, MO: 19,542——–24. Lincoln: 22,214—————24. Pittsburgh:26,504
25. Pittsburgh, PA: 18,874——-25. Des Moines: 20,798——–25. Grand Rapids: 26,014
26. Madison, WI: 18,792———26. Pittsburgh: 18,698———–26. Lincoln: 25,689
27. Des Moines, IA: 15,713—–27. Cleveland: 17,739————27. St. Louis: 23,659
28. Lincoln, NE: 13,246———-28. Grand Rapids: 16,615——-28. Fort Wayne: 22,186
29. Cincinnati: 12,461————29. Cincinnati: 16,531————29. Cleveland: 21,992
30. Fort Wayne, IN: 10,187—–30. Fort Wayne: 15,286———30. Cincinnati: 19,085
31. Toledo: 9,475——————31. Toledo: 11,159—————31. Akron: 13,423
32. Akron: 6,911——————-32. Akron: 8,524——————-32. Toledo: 11,260
33. Dayton: 3,245—————–33. Dayton: 5,102——————33. Dayton: 6,743
34. Youngstown: 1,605———-34. Youngstown: 3,695———–34. Youngstown: 1,401

Here’s the 2000-2017 total change.

And the 2000-2017 change by %.

So Columbus has had above average total and % growth compared to its peers nationally since 2000. What about more recently?

Total change 2010-2017.

And the 2010-2017 change by %.

So now that we know how many foreign-born immigrants are arriving, let’s take a look at where they are coming from.

Total Foreign-Born Residents From Europe in 2000 and 2017
2000———————————————–2017
1. Chicago: 145,462———————1. Chicago: 96,656
2. San Jose: 21,904———————2. San Jose: 25,147
3. Portland: 17,572———————-3. Portland: 16,548
4. Las Vegas: 9,070———————4. Austin: 13,337
5. Cleveland: 8,796———————-5. Charlotte: 9,775
6. St. Louis: 8,543———————–6. Las Vegas: 8,536
7. San Antonio: 8,323——————7. San Antonio: 7,852
8. Sacramento: 8,204——————8. Virginia Beach: 7,368
9. Milwaukee: 7,841——————–9. Columbus: 6,860
10. Charlotte: 7,487——————–10. Indianapolis: 6,344
11. Austin: 7,474————————11. Sacramento: 6,008
12. Pittsburgh: 7,413——————-12. Nashville: 5,778
13. Columbus: 7,017——————-13. Orlando: 5,516
14. Indianapolis: 6,543—————-14. Minneapolis: 5,477
15. Virginia Beach: 6,333————-15. Milwaukee: 4,388
16. Detroit: 5,600————————16. Pittsburgh: 4,265
17. Minneapolis: 5,409—————–17. Providence: 4,022
18. Providence: 5,126——————18. Lincoln: 3,908
19. Nashville: 4,859——————–19. St. Louis: 3,680
20. Cincinnati: 3,851——————-20. Cincinnati: 3,556
21. Grand Rapids: 3,396————–21. Omaha: 3,483
22. Omaha: 3,320———————–22. Cleveland: 3,399
23. St. Paul: 3,255———————-23. Kansas City: 3,362
24. Des Moines: 3,216—————-24. Madison: 2,867
25. Kansas City: 2,985—————-25. St. Paul: 2,394
26. Madison: 2,871——————–26. Detroit: 2,393
27. Lincoln: 2,701———————-27. Fort Wayne: 2,388
28. Akron: 2,687———————–28. Des Moines: 2,156
29. Orlando: 2,509——————–29. Wichita: 1,660
30. Fort Wayne: 2,076—————30. Grand Rapids: 1,517
31. Toledo: 2,020———————31. Akron: 1,286
32. Wichita: 2,004———————32. Toledo: 1,242
33. Dayton: 901———————–33. Dayton: 877
34. Youngstown: 870—————-34. Youngstown: 173

Columbus had a high number of Europeans versus most peers, but almost all cities saw drops in this demographic between 2000 and 2017, some quite drastic. Columbus’ drop was relatively minor.

Total Foreign-born Population from Asia 2000 and 2017
2000————————————————–2017
1. San Jose: 182,712—————————1. San Jose: 262,208
2. Chicago: 112,932—————————-2. Chicago: 140,434
3. Sacramento: 40,253————————-3. Austin: 57,584
4. Portland: 26,271——————————4. Sacramento: 53,731
5. Austin: 25,036——————————–5. Charlotte: 46,698
6. St. Paul: 23,245——————————6. Columbus: 43,706
7. Columbus: 22,354—————————7. San Antonio: 40,642
8. Minneapolis: 17,376————————8. Portland: 38,224
9. Las Vegas: 17,062————————–9. Las Vegas: 35,087
10. San Antonio: 15,840———————-10. St. Paul: 34,678
11. Charlotte: 15,734————————–11. Nashville: 26,155
12. Virginia Beach: 15,176——————-12. Indianapolis: 23,934
13. Detroit: 15,114——————————13. Virginia Beach: 23,625
14. Nashville: 12,573—————————14. Madison: 18,795
15. Milwaukee: 12,114————————-15. Detroit: 18,681
16. Wichita: 10,826—————————–16. Milwaukee: 17,838
17. Madison: 9,736—————————–17. Minneapolis: 15,967
18. Indianapolis: 9,190————————-18. Pittsburgh: 15,873
19. Pittsburgh: 7,938—————————-19. Wichita: 15,466
20. Providence: 7,871————————–20. Omaha: 14,504
21. Kansas City: 7,312————————-21. Lincoln: 13,804
22. Lincoln: 6,691——————————-22. Kansas City: 12,043
23. St. Louis: 6,425—————————–23. Fort Wayne: 10,972
24. Omaha: 6,302——————————-24. Des Moines: 10,691
25. Cleveland: 6,213—————————25. St. Louis: 9,632
26. Des Moines: 5,239————————26. Orlando: 8,122
27. Orlando: 4,530—————————–27. Akron: 7,862
28. Cincinnati: 4,326————————–28. Cleveland: 7,450
29. Toledo: 3,847——————————29. Providence: 6,668
30. Grand Rapids: 3,206———————30. Grand Rapids: 6,585
31. Akron: 3,099——————————-31. Toledo: 6,196
32. Fort Wayne: 2,792————————32. Cincinnati: 6,002
33. Dayton: 903———————————33. Dayton: 1,614
34. Youngstown: 338————————–34. Youngstown: 448

Columbus ranks even higher with its foreign-born Asian population.

Total Foreign-born Population from Africa 2000 and 2017
2000—————————————————2017
1. Minneapolis: 12,765——————–1. Columbus: 33,607
2. Chicago: 12,613————————-2. Chicago: 26,995
3. Columbus: 9,530————————3. Minneapolis: 25,286
4. San Jose: 5,189————————-4. Nashville: 18,387
5. Charlotte: 4,722————————–5. Charlotte: 18,234
6. St. Paul: 4,697—————————-6. Indianapolis: 17,452
7. Nashville: 4,183————————–7. St. Paul: 15,926
8. Detroit: 3,249—————————–8. Omaha: 7,496
9. Providence: 3,138———————–9. San Jose: 7,400
10. Indianapolis: 2,650——————–10. Portland: 7,059
11. Portland: 2,430————————-11. Austin: 6,469
12. Austin: 2,263—————————-12. Des Moines: 6,124
13. Kansas City: 2,192——————–13. San Antonio: 5,718
14. Cincinnati: 1,781———————–14. Kansas City: 5,051
15. St. Louis: 1,500————————-15. St. Louis: 4,977
16. Omaha: 1,497—————————16. Providence: 4,697
17. San Antonio: 1,358——————–17. Milwaukee: 4,423
18. Milwaukee: 1,332———————-18. Cincinnati: 4,207
19. Cleveland: 1,075———————–19. Grand Rapids: 3,754
20. Sacramento: 1,051——————–20. Sacramento: 2,955
21. Des Moines: 1,038——————–21. Pittsburgh: 2,731
22. Madison: 991—————————22. Cleveland: 2,728
23. Orlando: 983—————————23. Orlando: 2,552
24. Wichita: 946—————————-24. Akron: 2,311
25. Las Vegas: 916———————–25. Madison: 2,180
26. Pittsburgh: 905————————26. Wichita: 2,142
27. Virginia Beach: 840——————27. Las Vegas: 1,846
28. Grand Rapids: 718——————-28. Lincoln: 1,680
29. Toledo: 638—————————-29. Dayton: 1,397
30. Lincoln: 637—————————30. Detroit: 1,082
31. Dayton: 522—————————-31. Virginia Beach: 847
32. Fort Wayne: 384———————-32. Fort Wayne: 628
33. Akron: 197—————————–33. Toledo: 615
34. Youngstown: 50———————-34. Youngstown: 0

Columbus has claimed the number 1 spot in its foreign-born African population, passing previous top city Minneapolis.

And finally, the total foreign-born population from the Americas in 2000 and 2017
2000—————————————————-2017
1. Chicago: 357,235————————–1. Chicago: 297,926
2. San Jose: 117,989————————2. San Antonio: 157,629
3. San Antonio: 107,906——————–3. San Jose: 120,657
4. Austin: 73,935——————————4. Austin: 99,482
5. Las Vegas: 63,277————————5. Las Vegas: 93,693
6. Charlotte: 31,625————————–6. Charlotte: 72,211
7. Sacramento: 28,927———————-7. Orlando: 52,421
8. Providence: 27,649———————–8. Sacramento: 42,632
9. Milwaukee: 24,781————————9. Indianapolis: 41,554
10. Detroit: 21,527—————————10. Providence: 39,093
11. Portland: 20,939————————-11. Nashville: 35,719
12. Minneapolis: 19,648——————–12. Milwaukee: 32,630
13. Orlando: 18,639————————-13. Portland: 25,417
14. Indianapolis: 17,530——————–14. Omaha: 25,385
15. Nashville: 17,125————————15. Minneapolis: 22,688
16. Omaha: 14,467————————–16. Columbus: 21,578
17. Wichita: 13,988—————————17. Wichita: 20,983
18. Grand Rapids: 13,477——————18. Detroit: 19,143
19. Kansas City: 12,948———————19. Kansas City: 17,377
20. St. Paul: 9,804—————————-20. Grand Rapids: 14,158
21. Columbus: 8,596————————21. St. Paul: 10,878
22. Des Moines: 6,201———————-22. Des Moines: 10,627
23. Virginia Beach: 5,754——————23. Virginia Beach: 10,415
24. Cleveland: 5,192————————24. Cleveland: 8,386
25. Madison: 5,080————————–25. Fort Wayne: 8,198
26. Fort Wayne: 4,930———————-26. Madison: 8,031
27. Lincoln: 3,106—————————-27. Lincoln: 6,190
28. St. Louis: 2,961————————–28. Cincinnati: 5,320
29. Toledo: 2,942—————————-29. St. Louis: 5,008
30. Pittsburgh: 2,463————————30. Pittsburgh: 3,443
31. Cincinnati: 2,432————————31. Toledo: 3,207
32. Dayton: 919——————————32. Dayton: 2,855
33. Akron: 891——————————-33. Akron: 1,699
34. Youngstown: 333———————–34. Youngstown: 780

Columbus does the worst with this group, but even here it moved up 5 spots in the rankings.

The rest of the foreign-born population is made up of small groups of people from Oceania- or basically island nations.



2017 City Demographic Estimates Continue to Show a Changing City

The 2017 Census estimates came out today for cities and counties. The estimates can be found here.

Highlights for the City of Columbus
-The non-Hispanic Asian population continues to skyrocket, up over 67% since 2010.
-Beyond that, all other racial groups saw population growth within the city since 2010.
-The foreign-born population has climbed above 105,000, and now represents 12% of the total population, the highest % level since 1890.
-Every age group has increased since 2010, but the older working-age population increased the most, as seen below:
19 and Under: +17,962
20-34: +22,627
35-64: +32,045
65+: +22,234

Check out all of the City, County and Metro Area demographic and population data on the Columbus Demographics page.

Where Racial Groups are Growing Fastest in Franklin County




The US Census recently released updated estimates for 2016 for smaller-area designations like tracts and blocks. Looking at them, I wanted to see where individual racial groups were growing the fastest at that level.
The first map is based on the % change from 2010 to 2016.

What’s interesting about this map is that it is such a hodgepodge. No single part of the county is dominated by growth in any specific racial group. However, a few things can be generally determined. For example, almost all of the tracts where the White population is growing the fastest are within I-270, and the majority of those within the eastern half of the Columbus in what have long been dominated by Black majority populations. These areas include parts of Linden, the Near South and Near East sides. That said, the White population was growing the fastest in just 30 census tracts by % change. This compared to 53 for the Black population, 83 for the Asian population and 107 for the Hispanic population.

The next map takes a slightly different approach, measuring the TOTAL change in population, rather than by %.

Again, a hodgepodge, but much less so than before. Instead of being the fastest-growing in just 30 tracts, the White population rockets up to 108 tracts. This shows that, while Asian and Hispanic populations have respectable % growth, this is largely based on comparatively small population bases. Still, non-White populations are clearly making inroads throughout Franklin County.

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




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

Franklin County Gentrification Trends 1990-2015




**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.