June’s Missed Opportunity of the Month




Columbus, as recent estimates show, is clearly becoming a real player on the national stage in terms of its rapid growth and increasing name recognition. There’s a lot to be proud of for a city located in what many people think is just the Rust Belt. But as with every city, Columbus doesn’t get it all right all the time. A while back, I wrote how Columbus could sometimes be a city of missed opportunities when it came to development, and that remains true. For every great project in the Short North, there’s an equally terrible development going up somewhere else. In what I want to be a semi-regular series, I’m going to highlight some projects that simply miss the boat in terms of good urban development. Some are merely not reaching their potential, and then some, like today’s example, is an out of left field example that seems to be trying so hard, only to fail equally so.

That project is the redevelopment of the University City strip mall off of Olentangy River Road.

Aerial view.

As you can see from the aerial, the site is your typical strip mall. Built in 1961 when such developments were seen as community shopping destinations rather than the dying suburban sprawl they have become, University City is completely nondescript and looks no different than hundreds of others dotting the landscape. Anchored by a Kroger, the strip mall held other stereotypical establishments- a salon, bars, a Chinese restaurant, etc. A handful of out lots contain a McDonald’s, gas station and a bank.

Most of the site, of course, is taken up by enormous amounts of surface parking, most of which sits empty more often than not.

Olentangy River Road is not exactly an urban street. Most of it is lined with hotels, restaurants and offices, all set well back from the road and in a generally unfavorable configuration to encourage walkability. So when it was announced back in June of last year that the strip mall would be redeveloped, hope for something substantially different seemed possible. The initial renderings showed a 6-story mixed-use building on the site instead of the strip mall.

MUCH better, right? Of course, saying it’s much better is a low bar compared to the current situation, but a 6-story, mixed-use project is truly urban, and one of the first of its kind on Olentangy River Road. So why, one might ask, is this a missed opportunity?
To answer that, we have to look at the proposed layout of the entire site.

Comparing the proposed layout to the current one is a little confusing, because they look extremely similar. It seems that the 6-story project will only replace the current strip center, but most of the parking and all of the out lots will remain intact. It’s a Frankenstein’s monster of suburban and urban elements that just looks really weird. There is no interaction with any of the nearby roads, and not even a resident pathway from the main building to the multi-use path that was built a few years ago along Olentangy. It’s all still catering to cars.
In the most recent rendering of the main building, seen below, there appears to be only 1 patio space for what is clearly a very large project. The view for customers from there, of course, is still just the parking lot, with its noise, pollution and lack of any shade. In fact that’s basically the view out of every window in the building- parking lots.

I suppose that some surface lots and outbuildings could eventually be redeveloped at some point, but as it stands now, there’s a lot to be desired. The main building is decent, but the overall layout and connections are terrible and it makes the whole project just look like a much larger version of the strip mall that’s already there. Maybe that’s a harsh assessment, but I don’t think it’s an unfair one. Casto, the developer, basically invented the strip mall, so they’re clearly playing to their strengths here. They’ve done some really good projects at times, like the renovation of the Julian building on South Front Street in Downtown, and I applaud the effort to go more urban in this location, but I think so much could’ve been done better in this case. No doubt that this development will have no trouble finding tenants to rent the apartments, just due to the lack of housing anywhere in the core, but I question just what this development offers that better ones don’t.

In the end, it is a good example of how Columbus needs more true urban developers that are comfortable and willing to push the envelope on this style of development. Trying to have it both ways, where suburbia reigns in an urban location, gets us nowhere.

In Franklin County, Young Adults Prefer Density

I’ve seen several articles across the internet lately questioning the idea that young professionals and Millennials really prefer urban areas or not. I decided to see how this played out in Franklin County overall. I first looked at the total population aged 20-34 in the year 2000 and the year 2015 by Census Tract.
Here were the maps for those years.

After looking at the numbers for both years, I came up with this map for how that age group had changed in the 2000-2015 period.

Unfortunately, some tracts, particularly in the eastern suburban areas, did not exist in 2000, and so I was not able to figure out the change for them during the period. The rest of the map, however, shows that the strongest growth in this age group was not only inside 270, but closest to Downtown and central corridors along Broad and High Streets.
These maps don’t tell us about the relationship between those changes and the population density of the census tracts. So I went further and broke the tracts into increments of density to see where the strongest growth was occurring.

With a few exceptions, there appears to be a correlation between average 20-34 aged population growth and the density of the census tracts it occurs in. This suggests that this age group, at least in Franklin County, prefers areas with moderate to high density, which typically translates to urban living.

Census Tract Population Density 2015

The US Census recently released population data for census tracts. I figured midway through the decade would be a good point to update where these stand because they give greater insight in smaller-scale population changes. I looked at all the census tracts in Franklin County and came up with the following map series.

First, the population in 2015.

Next, the population density of tracts in 2010, as reference.

And now 2015.

On the surface, it’s difficult to see the changes, but put side by side, you can tell there have been a lot of increases across the county. To make this more visible, I made the following maps.

You can see that some of the strongest density increases occurred around Downtown and the Short North, New Albany, parts of the Campus area, and Dublin.

The map above gives a straightforward look at where the density increased and decreased. As you can see, the increases FAR outweighed the decreases. Most of the latter were scattered except across the Far South Side and parts of the Whitehall area.

Here were the top 20 most dense census tracts in 2015.
1. 1810: 29,508.2 South Campus/Victorian Village
2. 1121: 25,287.9 Main Campus
3. 13: 21,961.4 Campus/Indianola Terrace
4. 1110: 18168.6 North Campus/Tuttle Park
5. 10: 17386.3 Campus/SoHud
6. 12: 16,981.9 Campus/Iuka Ravine
7. 20: 13,030.5 Short North/Victorian Village
8. 17: 12,872.3 Weinland Park
9. 6: 12,153.6 Old North Columbus
10. 21: 10,853.5 Short North/High Street
11. 8163: 10,255.3 Lincoln Village/Southwest Columbus
12: 4810: 9,557.4 South Central Hilltop
13. 47: 9,492.7 North Central Hilltop
14. 6352: 9,434.0 Northwest Columbus/Henderson Road
15. 57: 9,257.4 Brewery District/South German Village
16. 5: 9,177.9 Old North Columbus
17. 6933: 9,090.9 Forest Park East
18. 16: 8,980.5 Weinland Park
19. 4620: 8,928.6 North Central Hilltop
20. 1820: 8743.3 Victorian Village

It’s obvious that the High Street corridor is the most dense of the city, racking up most of the top 20.

Now here are the 20 tracts with the largest density increases 2010-2015.
1. 1121: 4,375.9
2. 6: 2,178.5
3. 21: 1,934.9
4. 22: 1,478.1
5. 40: 1,107.7 South Downtown
6. 1820: 1,044.1
7. 20: 921.7
8. 38: 904.3 Old Towne East
9. 5: 861.2
10. 210: 833.9 Clintonville
11. 32: 751.1 Arena District West/West Victorian Village
12. 730: 736.9
13. 7551: 656.0 Somerset/South Easton
14. 7951: 610.4 West Columbus
15. 6372: 574.6 Hayden Falls/Sawmill Road
16. 7209: 514 New Albany
17. 7395: 497.6 Blacklick/East Broad
18. 10: 492.8
19. 8230: 449.3 Westland
20. 710: 447.3 West-Central Linden

And finally, the top 20 largest declines 2010-2015.
1. 13: -2,964.3
2. 12: -1,625.1
3. 42: -1,620.8 Scioto Peninsula/East Franklinton
4. 920: -902.2 Northeast Linden
5. 17: -775.4
6. 50: -554.4 Franklinton
7. 61: -485.7 South High Street
8. 59: -441.9 Near South Side/Deshler Park
9. 4620: -380.4
10. 720: -380.2
11. 4610: -335.4
12. 820: -305.4 North Linden
13. 7721: -305.2 North Linden
14. 45: -258.1 North Hilltop
15. 60: -253.2 Vassor Village
16. 810: North Central Linden
17. 7532: -240.3 Morse Road/Easton
18. 2520: -240.1 Near East Side/King-Lincoln
19. 47: -206.6
20. 9333: -194.9 Linwood

So there you have it.

Columbus Metro Density vs. Peer and Midwest Metros

No, this is not a repost. Awhile back, I did a post on population by mile marker from “City Hall”. You can find that post here: http://allcolumbusdata.com/?p=1079
In the post, I compared Columbus with the 14 other largest Midwest metros.

Over the years, I’ve learned that Columbus has a very suburban reputation, meaning that it is perceived to have very low density throughout, especially because it aggressively annexed suburban areas into the city limits decades ago. With those claims, I wondered what the density would be if Columbus’ area size was scaled down to others to find out if it really deserves the suburban reputation. Bare with me, because there is a lot to look at.

First, I used Columbus’ 18 peer metros (population 1.5-2.5 million) as well as the 14 large Midwest metros. Since there was some overlap in the 2 groups, it made for a total group comparison of 27. So a fairly sizeable group. Next, I used the mile marker population, which in the City Hall census analysis is made up of circles going out from the center. So it’s just a matter of finding the area of each circle and dividing the population into that. What’s left is the density by area.

Density at Mile Marker 1, with an Area of 3.14 Square Miles.

2000———————————-2010
1. Chicago: 42,492.4______________________ 1. Chicago:57,870.7
2. Minneapolis: 36,801.6__________________ 2. Minneapolis: 39,339.5
3. Providence, RI: 36,476.1_______________ 3. Providence, RI: 36,693.0
4. San Jose, CA: 31,854.8_________________ 4. San Jose, CA: 33,438.9
5. Las Vegas: 27,618.8____________________ 5. Milwaukee: 27,471.7
6. Milwaukee: 26,755.1____________________ 6. Portland, OR: 25,987.6
7. Grand Rapids, MI: 25,748.1_____________ 7. Las Vegas: 25,069.1
8. Pittsburgh: 25,570.7___________________ 8. Grand Rapids, MI: 24,080.6
9. Cincinnati: 22,728.0___________________ 9. Pittsburgh: 23,464.3
10. Portland, OR: 21,256.1________________ 10. Austin, TX: 23,149.4
11. Toledo: 20,973.6______________________ 11. Cincinnati: 20,781.5
12. Austin, TX: 20,301.9__________________ 12. San Antonio, TX: 18,596.8
13. San Antonio, TX: 20,156.7_____________ 13. Omaha: 17,905.7
14. Akron: 19,946.2_______________________ 14. Toledo: 17,751.3
15. Omaha: 17,922.6_______________________ 15. Akron: 17,106.7
16. Dayton: 16,311.5______________________ 16. Columbus: 15,817.5
17. Columbus: 16,151.6____________________ 17. Nashville: 15,529.3
18. Indianapolis: 15,865.6________________ 18. Sacramento, CA: 15,512.7
19. Nashville: 15,554.4___________________ 19. Charlotte, NC: 14,873.9
20. Sacramento, CA: 15,385.7______________ 20. Indianapolis: 14,356.4

Density at Mile Marker 2, with an Area of 12.57 Square Miles.
2000————————————–2010
1. Chicago: 22,808.1______________________ 1. Chicago: 25,339.9
2. San Jose, CA: 18,854.7_________________ 2. San Jose, CA: 19,696.3
3. Minneapolis: 17,936.8__________________ 3. Minneapolis: 18,212.2
4. Milwaukee: 16,799.9____________________ 4. Milwaukee: 16,609.1
5. Providence, RI: 16,134.9_______________ 5. Providence, RI: 16,457.6
6. Las Vegas: 16,016.4____________________ 6. Las Vegas: 15,331.4
7. Pittsburgh: 13,232.7___________________ 7. Austin, TX: 12,524.4
8. San Antonio, TX: 12,427.0______________ 8. Pittsburgh: 12,123.2
9. Cincinnati: 12,250.1___________________ 9. Portland, OR: 11,881.0
10. Austin, TX: 12,152.8__________________ 10. San Antonio, TX: 11,690.5
11. Columbus: 11,203.7____________________ 11. Sacramento, CA: 11,324.8
12. Akron: 10,999.9_______________________ 12. Cincinnati: 10,997.2
13. Grand Rapids, MI: 10,884.2____________ 13. Columbus: 10,726.0
14. Sacramento, CA: 10,606.1______________ 14. Grand Rapids, MI: 10,146.0
15. Dayton: 9,756.8_______________________ 15. Akron: 9,737.1
16. Indianapolis: 9,383.0_________________ 16. Omaha: 8,993.2
17. Omaha: 8,960.7________________________ 17. Indianapolis: 8,147.3
18. Toledo: 8,816.9_______________________ 18. Dayton: 8,100.0
19. Orlando: 8,212.5______________________ 19. Charlotte: 8,086.8
20. Charlotte: 8,095.5____________________ 20. Nashville: 7,777.6

Density at Mile Marker 3, with an Area of 28.27 Square Miles
2000————————————2010
1. Chicago: 17,528.7_____________________ 1. Chicago: 18,003.2
2. San Jose, CA: 13,883.0________________ 2. San Jose, CA: 14,549.2
3. Las Vegas: 11,646.0___________________ 3. Las Vegas: 11,576.2
4. Minneapolis: 11,494.2_________________ 4. Minneapolis: 11,503.3
5. Milwaukee: 11,448.9___________________ 5. Milwaukee: 11,288.0
6. Providence: 11,173.7__________________ 6. Providence, RI: 11,240.2
7. Pittsburgh: 10,594.4__________________ 7. Pittsburgh: 9,738.7
8. San Antonio. TX: 9,234.3______________ 8. Portland, OR: 8,973.6
9. Portland, OR: 8,257.0_________________ 9. San Antonio, TX: 8,846.8
10. Cincinnati: 8,141.9__________________ 10. Columbus: 7,834.0
11. Columbus: 8,134.9____________________ 11. Sacramento, CA: 7,668.7
12. Sacramento, CA: 7,261.5______________ 12. Austin, TX: 7,534.0
13. Austin, TX: 7,232.3__________________ 13. Cincinnati: 7,273.6
14. Akron: 6,925.4_______________________ 14. Grand Rapids, MI: 6,540.0
15. Grand Rapids, MI: 6,852.0____________ 15. Akron: 6,284.9
16. Indianapolis: 6,727.9________________ 16. Orlando: 6,055.1
17. Toledo: 6,651.5______________________ 17. Omaha: 5,968.3
18. Dayton: 6,382.8______________________ 18. Toledo: 5,982.1
19. St. Louis: 6,093.7___________________ 19. Indianapolis: 5,879.9
20. Kansas City: 6,025.1_________________ 20. St. Louis: 5,663.8

Density at Mile Marker 4, with an Area of 50.27 Square Miles
2000———————————2010
1. Chicago: 15,447.2____________________ 1. Chicago: 15,205.9
2. San Jose, CA: 12,209.3_______________ 2. San Jose, CA: 12,629.6
3. Las Vegas: 9,788.0___________________ 3. Las Vegas: 10,022.2
4. Minneapolis: 8,874.4_________________ 4. Minneapolis: 8,921.8
5. Milwaukee: 8,823.8___________________ 5. Milwaukee: 8,725.5
6. Providence, RI: 8,454.3______________ 6. Providence, RI: 8,483.8
7. Pittsburgh: 8,216.0__________________ 7. Portland, OR: 7,785.5
8. Portland, OR: 7,282.9________________ 8. Pittsburgh: 7,602.6
9. San Antonio, TX: 7,208.6_____________ 9. San Antonio, TX: 6,995.5
10. Cincinnati: 6,922.8_________________ 10. Cincinnati: 6,279.4
11. Columbus: 6,449.3___________________ 11. Columbus: 6,257.4
12. Sacramento, CA: 5,744.7_____________ 12. Sacramento, CA: 6,138.5
13. Austin, TX: 5,541.5_________________ 13. Austin, TX: 5,847.2
14. St. Louis: 5,447.5__________________ 14. Omaha: 5,047.2
15. Cleveland: 5,356.2__________________ 15. St. Louis: 5,001.6
16. Indianapolis: 5,348.8_______________ 16. Grand Rapids, MI: 4,922.9
17. Detroit: 5,163.1____________________ 17. Orlando: 4,911.7
18. Omaha: 5,019.8______________________ 18. Indianapolis: 4,793.5
19. Akron: 4,900.7______________________ 19. Akron: 4,532.0
20. Dayton: 4,889.3_____________________ 20. Cleveland: 4,521.8

Density at Mile Marker 5, with an Area of 78.54 Square Miles

Note that this area size is about the current city size of Cincinnati and Cleveland.
2000————————————2010
1. Chicago: 14,213.6___________________ 1. Chicago: 13,591.0
2. San Jose, CA: 10,464.0______________ 2. San Jose, CA: 11,037.1
3. Las Vegas: 8,521.9__________________ 3. Las Vegas: 9,062.8
4. Minneapolis: 7,443.0________________ 4. Minneapolis: 7,455.9
5. Milwaukee: 7,081.2__________________ 5. Milwaukee: 7,029.1
6. Pittsburgh: 7,009.9_________________ 6. Pittsburgh: 6,492.7
7. San Antonio, TX: 6,326.6____________ 7. Portland, OR: 6,442.3
8. Providence, RI: 6,048.3_____________ 8. San Antonio, TX: 6,223.4
9. Portland, OR: 5,950.1_______________ 9. Providence, RI: 6,055.8
10. Cincinnati: 5,588.9________________ 10. Sacramento, CA: 5,664.2
11. Cleveland: 5,494.6_________________ 11. Orlando: 5,274.1
12. Columbus: 5,252.9__________________ 12. Columbus: 5,152.1
13. Sacramento, CA: 5,104.0____________ 13. Cincinnati: 5,096.2
14. Orlando: 4,993.7___________________ 14. Austin, TX: 4,993.7
15. Austin, TX: 4,786.5________________ 15. Cleveland: 4,602.4
16. Detroit: 4,748.7___________________ 16. St. Louis: 4,285.4
17. St. Louis: 4,731.5_________________ 17. Indianapolis: 4,086.1
18. Indianapolis: 4,447.7______________ 18. Omaha: 3,962.2
19. Akron: 4,025.9_____________________ 19. Grand Rapids, MI: 3,887.3
20. Grand Rapids, MI: 3,990.6__________ 20. Akron: 3,778.8

So if Columbus was the same size as Cincinnati and Cleveland, it would be the most dense city of the 3. And it’s generally in the top half of the grouping in its most urban areas.

But what about further out, past the urban core?

Density at Mile Marker 10, with an Area of 314.16 Square Miles.

This area size is much larger than the city limits of Columbus, but it gives an idea of the larger area’s density and not just within the city limits.
2000———————————–2010
1. Chicago: 9,344.3______________________ 1. Chicago: 8,795.0
2. San Jose, CA: 4,563.2_________________ 2. San Jose, CA: 4,809.8
3. Minneapolis: 4,183.2__________________ 3. Las Vegas: 4,794.2
4. Detroit: 4,117.4______________________ 4. Portland, OR: 4,230.3
5. Las Vegas: 3,877.3____________________ 5. Minneapolis: 4,178.3
6. Portland: 3,780.8_____________________ 6. San Antonio, TX: 3,454.9
7. Cleveland: 3,308.4____________________ 7. Detroit: 3,354.7
8. Pittsburgh: 3,279.8___________________ 8. Columbus: 3,163.9
9. San Antonio, TX: 3,217.8______________ 9. Pittsburgh: 3,080.4
10. Milwaukee: 3,013.7___________________ 10. Orlando: 3,055.0
11. Columbus: 2,973.3____________________ 11. Sacramento, CA: 3,016.4
12. St. Louis: 2,937.6___________________ 12. Milwaukee: 3,006.2
13. Cincinnati: 2,873.4__________________ 13. Cleveland: 2,923.7
14. Orlando: 2,783.9_____________________ 14. Indianapolis: 2,772.6
15. Sacramento, CA: 2,736.7______________ 15. St. Louis: 2,751.3
16. Indianapolis: 2,652.6________________ 16. Cincinnati: 2,746.8
17. Kansas City: 2,599.0_________________ 17. Kansas City: 2,538.3
18. Providence, RI: 2,360.0______________ 18. Austin, TX: 2,439.6
19. Austin, TX: 2,111.3__________________ 19. Providence, RI: 2,375.1
20. Dayton: 1,920.7______________________ 20. Charlotte, NC: 2,332.7

So what does all this tell us? That while Columbus is not the most dense city of its peer group, or within the Midwest group, it probably does not wholly deserve its low-density, suburban reputation. Most of the measurements are in the top half of the grouping for density, yes, but it is clearly the most weak in the urban core closest to Downtown, as that ranking is the lowest for it. The Mile 0 population, for example, is down near the very bottom, and that is a good reason why densities are not as high as they should/could be. Currently, Downtown and surrounding neighborhoods are seeing a residential development boom, so that will help, but the city needs to think a lot bigger if it wants that stereotype to truly go away. The recent abandonment of the Convention Center mixed-use project is not a good way to go about that goal… and it should be a goal.

Metro Comparison- 2nd Annual Edition

Last summer, I compared the Columbus metro with its national peers, a collection of metros ranging from 1.5 to 2.5 million in population. You can see that comparison here: http://allcolumbusdata.com/?p=661 and here: http://allcolumbusdata.com/?p=678

The recent release of updated population numbers prompted the need for an updated look. I focused on population density previously. This time, I wanted to expand that focus to include migration trends.

Metro Area Population on July 1, 2012 and July 1, 2013 By Rank
2012——————-2013
1. Pittsburgh: 2,360,989— 1. Pittsburgh: 2,360,867
2. Charlotte: 2,294,990—2. Charlotte: 2,335,358
3. Portland, OR: 2,289,038—3. Portland, OR: 2,314,554
4. San Antonio, TX: 2,234,494—4. San Antonio, TX: 2,277,550
5. Orlando: 2,223,456—5. Orlando: 2,267,846
6. Sacramento, CA: 2,193,927—6. Sacramento, CA: 2,215,770
7. Cincinnati: 2,129,309—7. Cincinnati: 2,137,406
8. Cleveland: 2,064,739—8. Cleveland: 2,064,725
9. Kansas City: 2,038,690—9. Kansas City: 2,054,473
10. Las Vegas: 1,997,659—10. Las Vegas: 2,027,868
11. Columbus: 1,944,937—11. Columbus: 1,967,066
12. Indianapolis: 1,929,207—12. Indianapolis: 1,953,961
13. San Jose, CA: 1,892,894—13. San Jose, CA: 1,919,641
14. Austin, TX: 1,835,110— 14. Austin, TX: 1,883,051
15. Nashville: 1,726,759—15. Nashville: 1,757,912
16. Virginia Beach, VA: 1,698,410—16. Virginia Beach, VA: 1,707,369
17. Providence, RI: 1,601,160—17. Providence, RI: 1,604,291
18. Milwaukee: 1,566,182—18. Milwaukee: 1,569,659

Total Metro Population Change, 2012-2013, By Rank
1. Austin: +47,941
2. Orlando: +44,390
3. San Antonio: +43,056
4. Charlotte: +40,368
5. Nashville: +31,153
6. Las Vegas: +30,209
7. San Jose: +26,747
8. Portland: +25,516
9. Indianapolis: +24,754
10. Columbus: +22,129
11. Sacramento: +21,843
12. Kansas City: +15,783
13. Virginia Beach: +8,959
14. Cincinnati: +8,097
15. Milwaukee: +3,477
16. Providence: +3,131
17. Cleveland: -14
18. Pittsburgh: -122

Average Annual Population Change from 2000-2010 vs. 2010-2013
2000-2010—————-2010-2013
1. Charlotte: +88,657— 1. Austin: +55,587
2. Las Vegas: +57,550— 2. San Antonio: +45,014
3. Orlando: +48,985— 3. Orlando: +44,478
4. Austin: +46,653— 4. Charlotte: +39,447
5. San Antonio: +43,081— 5. Portland: +29,515
6. Indianapolis: +36,277— 6. Nashville: +29,007
7. Nashville: +35,910— 7. San Jose: +27,577
8. Sacramento: +35,227— 8. Las Vegas: +25,553
9. Portland: +29,819— 9. Sacramento: +22,214
10. Columbus: +28,928— 10. Indianapolis: +22,028
11. Kansas City: +17,330— 11. Columbus: +21,697
12. Cincinnati: +10,495— 12. Kansas City: +15,134
13. San Jose: +10,109— 13. Virginia Beach: +10.182
14. Virginia Beach: +10,045— 14. Cincinnati: +7,609
15. Milwaukee: +5,517— 15. Milwaukee: +4,584
16. Providence: +1,846— 16. Pittsburgh: +1,527
17. Cleveland: -7,090— 17. Providence: +1,146
18. Pittsburgh: -7,480— 18. Cleveland: -4,172

Annual Growth Rate % Change 2000-2010 vs. 2010-2013**
1. San Jose: +172.8%
2. Pittsburgh: +120.4%
3. Cleveland: +69.9%
4. Austin: +19.1%
5. San Antonio: +4.5%
6. Virginia Beach: +1.4%
7. Portland: -1.0%
8. Orlando: -9.2%
9. Kansas City: -12.7%
10. Milwaukee: -16.9%
11. Nashville: -19.2%
12. Columbus: -25.0%
13. Cincinnati: -27.5%
14. Sacramento: -36.9%
15. Providence: -37.9%
16. Indianapolis: -39.3%
17. Charlotte: -55.5%
18. Las Vegas: -55.6%

**Some of the changes in rates are due to boundary changes.  For example, part of the growth rate for Columbus 2000-2010 was a retroactive population addition when boundaries were changed in 2013.  The actual growth rate changed very little. 

Metro Area Density 2012 vs. 2013
2012——2013
1. Cleveland: 1,033.3—Cleveland: 1,033.9
2. Providence: 978.8— 2. Providence: 980.6
3. Milwaukee: 859.6— 3. Milwaukee: 861.0
4. San Jose: 702.9— 4. San Jose: 712.3
5. Virginia Beach: 642.2— 5. Orlando: 649.6
6. Orlando: 637.0—  6. Virginia Beach: 645.0
7. Cincinnati: 484.4— 7. Cincinnati: 486.4
8. Indianapolis: 444.4— 8. Charlotte: 450.8
9. Charlotte: 443.4— 9. Indianapolis: 450.1
10. Austin: 428.6—-  10. Austin: 440.0
11. Pittsburgh: 413.7—  11. Pittsburgh: 413.8
12. Columbus: 400.8— 12. Columbus: 405.6
13. Portland: 335.9— 13. Portland: 339.5
14. Sacramento: 316.7— 14. Sacramento: 319.5
15. San Antonio: 302.4— 15. San Antonio: 308.3
16. Kansas City: 276.5— 16. Kansas City: 278.6
17. Nashville: 270.7— 17. Nashville: 275.6
18. Las Vegas: 247.3— 18. Las Vegas: 250.6

Total Births 2012 vs. 2013
2012————2013
1. San Antonio: +31,045— 1. San Antonio: +31,527
2. Kansas City: +28,087— 2. Kansas City: +27,937
3. Cincinnati: +27,803— 3. Sacramento: +27,865
4. Portland: +27,683— 4. Portland: +27,762
5. Sacramento: +27,649— 5. Cincinnati: +27,545
6. Orlando: +27,165— 6. Orlando: +27,484
7. Las Vegas: +26,385— 7. Las Vegas: +26,616
8. Columbus: +25,904— 8. Columbus: +25,740
9. Indianapolis: +25,472— 9. Austin: +25,519
10. Austin: +25,015 — 10. Indianapolis: +25,507
11. Charlotte: +24,415— 11. Charlotte: +24,437
12. San Jose: +24,240— 12. San Jose: +24,386
13. Pittsburgh: +24,006— 13. Pittsburgh: +23,938
14. Cleveland: +23,227— 14. Cleveland: +23,204
15. Virginia Beach: +22,799— 15. Virginia Beach: +22,773
16. Nashville: +21,641— 16. Nashville: +21,714
17. Milwaukee: +20,125— 17. Milwaukee: +19,963
18. Providence: +16,761— 18. Providence: +16,668

Total Deaths 2012 vs. 2013
2012————-2013
1. Austin: -8,732— 1. Austin: -8,859
2. San Jose: -9,965— 2. San Jose: -10,319
3. Nashville: -12,187— 3. Nashville: -12,327
4. Charlotte: -12,241— 4. Charlotte: -12,396
5. Virginia Beach: -12,801— 5. Milwaukee: -12,856
6. Milwaukee: -12,836— 6. Virginia Beach: -13,094
7. Indianapolis: -13,520— 7. Indianapolis: -13,414
8. Columbus: -13,938— 8. Columbus: -14,118
9. Las Vegas: -14,311— 9. Providence: -14,387
10. Providence: -14,568— 10. Las Vegas: -14,462
11. San Antonio: -15,367— 11. San Antonio: -15,593
12. Orlando: -15,419— 12. Orlando: -15,882
13. Sacramento: -15,973— 13. Sacramento: -16,133
14. Portland: -16,013— 14. Portland: -16,155
15. Kansas City: -16,255— 15. Kansas City: -16,254
16. Cincinnati: -18,477— 16. Cincinnati: -18,490
17. Cleveland: -20,708— 17. Cleveland: -20,326
18. Pittsburgh: -27,310— 18. Pittsburgh: -27,070

Net Natural Growth (Births vs. Deaths) 2012 vs. 2013
2012—————–2013
1. Austin: +16,283— 1. Austin: +16,660
2. San Antonio: +15,678— 2. San Antonio: +15,934
3. San Jose: +14,275— 3. San Jose: +14,067
4. Charlotte: +12,174—  4. Las Vegas: +11,622
5. Las Vegas: +12,074— 5. Indianapolis: +12,093
6. Columbus: +11,966— 6. Charlotte: +12,041
7. Indianapolis: +11,952— 7. Sacramento: +11,732
8. Kansas City: +11,862— 8. Kansas City: +11,683
9. Orlando: +11,746— 9. Columbus: +11,622
10. Sacramento: +11,676— 10. Portland: +11,607
11. Portland: +11,670— 11. Orlando: +11,602
12. Virginia Beach: +9,998— 12. Virginia Beach: +9,679
13. Nashville: +9,454— 13. Nashville: +9,387
14. Cincinnati: +9,326— 14. Cincinnati: +9,055
15. Milwaukee: +7,289— 15. Milwaukee: +7,107
16. Cleveland: +2,519— 16. Cleveland: +2,878
17. Providence: +2,193— 17. Providence; +2,281
18. Pittsburgh: -3,310— 18. Pittsburgh: -3,132

Domestic In-Migration 2012 vs. 2013
2012—————2013
1. Austin: +31,041— 1. Austin: +25,908
2. Orlando: +22,667— 2. San Antonio: +22,392
3. San Antonio: +21,908— 3. Charlotte: +21,382
4. Charlotte: +18,000— 4. Nashville: +17,975
5. Nashville: +14,946— 5. Orlando: +17,316
6. Las Vegas: +12,315— 6. Las Vegas: +10,524
7. Portland: +11,767— 7. Indianapolis: +8,934
8. Indianapolis: +4,146— 8. Portland: +7,901
9. Columbus: +3,275— 9. Columbus: +5,749
10. Pittsburgh: +1,963— 10. Sacramento: +3,329
11. Sacramento: +1,302— 11. Kansas City: +771
12. Kansas City: -1,061— 12. Pittsburgh: +590
13. San Jose: -2,304— 13. San Jose: -1,397
14. Milwaukee: -4,291— 14. Providence: -3,721
15. Providence: -5,210— 15. Cincinnati: -3,894
16. Virginia Beach: -5,950— 16. Cleveland: -5,581
17. Cincinnati: -6,024— 17. Milwaukee: -5,663
18. Cleveland: -9,990— 18. Virginia Beach: -5,920

International In-Migration 2012 vs. 2013
2012————–2013
1. Orlando: +14,506— 1. Orlando: +14,725
2. San Jose: +13,728— 2. San Jose: +14,124
3. Virginia Beach: +7,562— 3. Las Vegas: +6,506
4. Las Vegas: +6,606— 4. Sacramento: +6,071
5. Sacramento: +5,921— 5. Austin: +5,322
6. Austin: +5,199— 6. Portland: +5,280
7. Portland: +5,109— 7. Virginia Beach: +5,037
8. Columbus: +4,654— 8. Charlotte: +4,996
9. Providence: +4,637— 9. Columbus: +4,689
10. Charlotte: +4,573— 10. Providence: +4,563
11. San Antonio: +4,441— 11. Indianapolis: +4,064
12. Indianapolis: +3,958— 12. Cleveland: +3,698
13. Cleveland: +3,647— 13. San Antonio: +3,469
14. Nashville: +3,305— 14. Nashville: +3,463
15. Cincinnati: +3,268— 15. Cincinnati: +3,326
16. Kansas City: +3,164— 16. Kansas City: +3,119
17. Pittsburgh: +2,767— 17. Pittsburgh: +2,778
18. Milwaukee: +2,179— 18. Milwaukee: +2,233

Net In-Migration Total 2012 vs. 2013
2012—————-2013
1. Orlando: +37,173— 1. Orlando: +32,041
2. Austin: +36,240— 2. Austin: +31,230
3. San Antonio: +25,949— 3. Charlotte: +26,378
4. Charlotte: +22,573— 4. San Antonio: +25,861
5. Las Vegas: +18,921— 5. Nashville: +21,428
6. Nashville: +18,251— 6. Las Vegas: +17,030
7. Portland: +16,876— 7. Portland: +13,181
8. San Jose: +11,424— 8. Indianapolis: +12,998
9. Indianapolis: +8,104— 9. San Jose: +12,727
10. Columbus: +7,929— 10. Columbus: +10,438
11. Sacramento: +7,223— 11. Sacramento: +9,400
12. Pittsburgh: +4,730— 12. Kansas City: +3,890
13. Kansas City: +2,103— 13. Pittsburgh: +3,368
14. Virginia Beach: +1,612— 14. Providence: +842
15. Providence: -573— 15. Cincinnati: -568
16. Milwaukee: -2,112— 16. Virginia Beach: -883
17. Cincinnati: -2,756— 17. Cleveland: -1,883
18. Cleveland: -6,343— 18. Milwaukee: -3,430