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%

Tract Profile #1- Tract 1, 110 and 120

I didn’t get a chance to post this last week, but here is the first in the tract profile series. It’s just about everything anyone wanted to know about an area based on its tracts.

Tract #1 was the furthest north tract in the city boundaries at the time that tracts came about in the 1930 census. It included the areas of Clintonville, Whetstone and Beechwold, communities largely built between 1920 and 1950.

The population grew rapidly between 1930 and 1950, rising by almost 7x. By 1960, the US Census split the growing tract into two parts, #110 and #120, and they have remained through the present day.

Population of Tract #1, #110 and #120 Combined
1930: 1,252
1940: 2,618
1950: 6,944
1960: 9,456
1970: 8,850
1980: 7,374
1990: 6,902
2000: 6,645
2010: 6,506

2010 Columbus City Tract Population Ranking out of 156
110: 59th
120: 68th

Total and % Change by Decade
1940: +1,366 +109.11%
1950: +4,326 +165.24%
1960: +2,512 +36.18%
1970: -606 -6.41%
1980: -1,476 -16.68%
1990: -470 -6.37%
2000: -259 -3,75%
2010: -139 -2.09%

Population Density
2010: 3,654.0
2000: 3,733.4
1990: 3,877.7
1980: 4,142.9
1970: 4,972.2
1960: 5,312.7

2010 Columbus City Tract Rank for Density out of 156
110:
120:

So the population of this area peaked around 1960 and has declined every decade since. However, the good news is that the rate of decline has been slowing since the 1970s. Of the two tracts that currently make up the original Tract #1 boundary, one grew in population during the 2000s, so the area is seeing a gradual turnaround.

Housing 2010
Occupied Units: 95.66%
Vacant Units: 4.34%
Average Year Built: 1949
Housing Units built before 1959: 82.73%
Housing Units built 1960 and Later: 17.27%
Median Rent: $853.00
Median Home Price: $202,750.00

So definitely this area is mostly from the mid-20th century, with above average home prices and low vacancy rates.

Demographics for Area

White
2010: 6,233 95.8%
2000: 6,428 96.7%
1990: 6,823 98.9%
Black
2010: 84 1.3%
2000: 54 0.8%
1990: 26 0.4%
Asian
2010: 78 1.2%
2000: 72 1.1%
1990: 40 0.6%
Hispanic
2010: 103 1.6%
2000: 63 0.9%
1990: 27 0.4%
Other
2010: 111 1.7%
2000: 91 1.4%
1990: 13 0.2%

White Population Tract Ranking
110: 1st
120: 2nd
Black Population Tract Ranking
110: 155th
120: 154th
Asian Population Tract Ranking
110: 102nd
120: 86th
Hispanic Population Tract Ranking
110: 138th
120: 154th

The area is clearly majority White and doesn’t seem to be changing very quickly. The area contains the Whitest tracts within the city of Columbus.

Breakdown of First Reported Ancestry
German: 39.92%
Irish: 19.99%
English: 14.33%
Italian: 7.33%
French: 6.20%
Polish: 5.96%
American: 2.82%
Scottish: 2.73%
Dutch: 2.30%
Welsh: 2.22%
Hungarian: 2.10%
Swedish: 1.80%
Swiss: 1.46%
Scotch-Irish: 1.40%

Ancestry of Asian Population
Chinese: 27.19%
Indian: 26.59%
Other: 14.48%
Japanese: 12.90%
Korean: 11.31%
Filipino: 7.54%

Native Born: 96.98%
Foreign Born: 3.02%
English Spoken at Home: 96.4%
Spanish Spoken at Home: 0.96%
Other Languages Spoken at Home: 2.64%

Gender and Age
Male Population: 46.75%
Female Population: 53.25%

Age
Under 5: 5.1%
5 to 9: 4.45%
10 to 14: 4.01%
15 to 19: 3.19%
20 to 24: 2.92%
25 to 34: 15.47%
35 to 44: 16.11%
45 to 54: 15.71%
55 to 64: 16.38%
65 to 74: 8.21%
75 and Over: 8.48%

Median Male Age: 42.5
Median Female Age: 46.0
Median Age: 44.2

Tract Median Age Rank in Columbus out of 156
110: 41.6 138th
120: 46.8 153rd

The area skews much older than Columbus’s average of around 31 years old, and females make up more of the population. European ancestry dominates.

Income and Poverty
Per-Capita Income: $39,261
Median Individual Income: $43,964
Median Household Income: $71,240

Population in Poverty: 10.0%
Families in Poverty: 2.99%

Educational Attainment
Less than High School: 1.49%
High School Graduate: 14.44%
Some College: 22.09%
Bachelor’s Degree: 35.27%
Masters, Doctorate or Other Professional Degree: 19.15%

School Enrollment Preference
Public Schools: 47.38%
Private Schools: 52.62%

Overall, the Clintonville/Beechwold/Whetstone areas are mid-20th century neighborhoods that are well educated, earn more than the national average, have an older population than the Columbus average, and skew female and European. The population also values private and public education fairly equally, but private schools are the winner.

Tract Demographic Changes by Map

One of the most interesting things, at least to me, about the last census was the data on what demographic group was moving where in Columbus. The following series of maps show the central core of Columbus and how the 4 major racial/ethnic groups are changing there, both in 2000 and 2010.

While I can’t directly post images, the best way to look at the following map series is to open the 2000 and 2010 versions and do a side by side comparison.

White Demographic

2000
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/census/2010/?custommap=1,0,1,0,40.00535,-83.0034,11

In the 2000 map above, you could almost count the number of urban tracts with a growing White population on one hand. Even as far out as the I-270 corridor, there was a distinct lack of tracts where this group was growing. The vast majority of the growth in this demographic was in the far suburbs.

2010

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/census/2010/?custommap=1,0,2,0,40.00535,-83.0034,11

By 2010, there had been some interesting changes. First, the ring of strong suburban growth seems to have lessened some, or at the very least, spread out more. Meanwhile, the tracts that were losing the White demographic pushed further out as well into some of these suburban areas. In the city’s urban core, the White population has clearly also been on the rise. While there were just a few positive tracts in 2000, just about every tract between Merion Village and Clintonville was growing in White population by 2010, as well as strong growth in the Near East Side, the Easton area and Downtown. Even a few tracts in the southern portions of Linden saw increases.

The question is, how will the map look in 2020? If the trends continue, the urban core should continue to expand its growth in this demographic. Sort of a reverse donut hole growth pattern.

Black Demographic

2000
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/census/2010/?custommap=1,1,1,0,40.00535,-83.0034,11

In 2000, much of the urban core of Columbus was losing the Black demographic. While not nearly as stark as the 2000 map for Whites, the suburbs were once again the easy winner for this demographic’s best growth.

2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/census/2010/?custommap=1,1,2,0,40.00535,-83.0034,11

The 2010 map does show improvement, with more urban tracts gaining. The area of losses are almost exclusively concentrated on the Near East Side and Southeast Side. These same areas have historically been largely African American neighborhoods, so it may just be a case of majority population shift.

Asian Demographic

2000

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/census/2010/?custommap=1,3,1,0,40.00535,-83.0034,11

In 2000, Asian growth was fairly widespread, even in the urban core. There were weak spots, but not nearly as bad as the ones above.

2010

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/census/2010/?custommap=1,3,2,0,40.00535,-83.0034,11

By 2010, though, there were some big changes. Out of the 4 demographic groups looked at, Asians were the only group which looks to have left the urban core more in the 2000s than they did in the 1990s. While other groups are increasing their presence in the city, Asians are doing just the opposite. There are still strong pockets of growth, and it’s still not as bad as Whites, but clearly there is a different dynamic to their moving patterns than with the other 3.

Hispanic Demographic

2000

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/census/2010/?custommap=1,2,1,0,40.00535,-83.0034,11

Hispanics had the best overall growth map in 2000, with widespread, strong growth across most areas of the city. The inner West Side did the worst and the suburbs did the best, but overall it’s not bad.

2010

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/census/2010/?custommap=1,2,2,0,40.00535,-83.0034,11

2010 showed an even stronger growth by Hispanics across the city. There were only about 15 tracts total between Downtown and the suburbs that did not see growth in this demographic, out of more than 200.

It seems clear from these maps that the urban areas of Columbus are starting to become more attractive, or at least were the previous decade. Recent years have only seemed to strengthen this trend.

February Updates Planned

I have a lot of new additions planned for February. I will continue the ongoing updates on the new Census Tract Data page. This project is probably going to take a few months, as there are literally hundreds of census tracts and I plan to present data for each one. I wanted to do this specifically because it’s so difficult to find one site with this information. The US Census has it, but unfortunately it’s separated into invidual census years. Demographics for them are even harder to find. So I hope that those out there, like myself, who love this kind of stuff will find it useful and interesting.

Also, I plan to add a few more catergories to the Demographics Page.

Other than the tract and demographic page updates, I also plan to highlight at least a few individual projects from the past, present and future in regards to development. I will also update the ongoing yearly development list page, as there have been several new projects announced or that I’ve found that need to be added.

I will also be posting February’s weather records as well as a late report on the Blizzard of 1978.

Finally, I will be posting December’s unemployment and jobs report when it is finalized.

And as always, any major news stories about the city or metro will be posted as they show up.

So yeah, definitely a busy month planned with a ton to get done. I may be setting the bar a bit too high!

Is Columbus Getting Younger?

This article: http://www.newgeography.com/content/003351-america-s-baby-boom-and-baby-bust-cities
from New Geography suggests… maybe. It was one of only two Midwestern cities (the other being Indianapolis) that saw its population of people aged 15 and younger grow from 2000-2010, and actually scored at #18 for the best growth in this catergory in the 51 largest metros. The 15 and younger population grew by almost 32,000, or 9.2%. Columbus has long been a young city, especially within Ohio, where the median age is almost 37, higher than the national average. In 2010, Columbus’ median age was just 31.4. Should its young population continue to rise, that median age may actually drop over time. It’s long been established that younger cities tend to do better economically and with growth, while aging cities tend to see sustained decline, so this is good news for Columbus’ future.

Age Demographics for the City of Columbus 2000-2010
Under 5
2000: 52,638 7.4%
2010: 61,122 7.7%
5 to 14
2000: 95,251 13.4%
2010: 99,143 12.6%
15 to 24
2000: 122,768 17.3%
2010: 133,796 16.9%
25 to 34
2000: 139,327 19.6%
2010: 147,584 18.7%
35 to 44
2000: 112,361 15.8%
2010: 110,342 14.0%
45 to 54
2000: 80,668 11.3%
2010: 97,782 12.4%
55 to 64
2000: 45,949 6.5%
2010: 74,265 9.4%
65 to 74
2000: 33,718 4.7%
2010: 35,816 4.5%
75 and Over
2000: 28,964 4.1%
2010: 30,089 3.8%

Age Demographics for the Metropolitan Area 2000-2010
Under 5
2000: 115,002 7.1%
2010: 127,350 6.9%
5 to 14
2000: 233,018 14.4%
2010: 253,211 13.8%
15 to 24
2000: 233,784 14.5%
2010: 264,784 14.4%
25 to 34
2000: 256,992 15.9%
2010: 270,931 14.7%
35 to 44
2000: 270,406 16.8%
2010: 260,069 14.1%
45 to 54
2000: 213,906 13.3%
2010: 265,770 14.4%
55 to 64
2000: 127,707 7.9%
2010: 202,911 11.0%
65 to 74
2000: 89,876 5.6%
2010: 109,390 5.9%
75 and Over
2000: 72,003 4.5%
2010: 86,215 4.7%