2014 Metro Area Population Estimates

Along with county estimates, metropolitan areas were also released.

Here is where Columbus stands along with all peers in the 1.5-2.5 million range, along with the Midwest’s largest.

Metro Area Population Ranking, Census 2010, July 1, 2013 and July 1, 2014

2010                                             2013                                   2014
1. Chicago, IL: 9,461,105 ——–1. Chicago: 9,544,796———–1. Chicago, IL: 9,554,598
2. Detroit, MI: 4,296,250———-2. Detroit, MI: 4,295,394——-2. Detroit, MI: 4,296,611
3. Minneapolis, MN: 3,348,859–3. Minneapolis: 3,461,434—3. Minneapolis: 3,495,176
4. St. Louis, MO: 2,787,701——4. St. Louis: 2,801,587——-4. St. Louis, MO: 2,806,207
5. Pittsburgh, PA: 2,356,285—–5. Pittsburgh: 2,360,565—–5. Charlotte, NC: 2,380,314
6. Portland, OR: 2,226,009—–6. Charlotte, NC: 2,337,339–6. Pittsburgh, PA: 2,355,968
7. Charlotte, NC: 2,217,012—-7. Portland, OR: 2,314,747—7. Portland, OR: 2,348,247
8. Sacramento, CA: 2,149,127-8. San Antonio: 2,282,201—8. San Antonio: 2,328,652
9. San Antonio, TX: 2,142,508-9. Orlando, FL: 2,271,083—-9. Orlando, FL: 2,321,418
10. Orlando, FL: 2,134,411-10. Sacramento: 2,217,515-10. Sacramento, CA: 2,244,397
11. Cincinnati: 2,114,580—11. Cincinnati: 2,138,536——–11. Cincinnati: 2,149,449
12. Cleveland: 2,077,240—-12. Cleveland: 2,065,328—12. Kansas City, MO: 2,071,133
13. Kansas City: 2,009,342–13. Kansas City: 2,055,351–13. Las Vegas, NV: 2,069,681
14. Las Vegas: 1,951,269–14. Las Vegas, NV: 2,029,316—14. Cleveland: 2,063,598
15. Columbus: 1,901,974—-15. Columbus: 1,969,032——-15. Columbus: 1,994,536
16. Indianapolis, IN: 1,887,877–16. Indianapolis: 1,953,146–16. Indianapolis: 1,971,274
17. San Jose, CA: 1,836,911–17. San Jose, CA: 1,928,701–17. San Jose: 1,952,872
18. Austin, TX: 1,716,289—–18. Austin, TX: 1,885,803——18. Austin, TX: 1,943,299
19. Virginia Beach: 1,676,822–19. Nashville, TN: 1,758,577–19. Nashville: 1,792,649
20. Nashville: 1,670,890–20. Virginia Beach: 1,707,385–20. Virginia Beach: 1,716,624
21. Providence, RI: 1,600,852–21. Providence: 1,605,521–21. Providence: 1,609,367
22. Milwaukee, WI: 1,555,908–22. Milwaukee: 1,570,167—22. Milwaukee: 1,572,245
23. Grand Rapids: 988,938-23. Grand Rapids: 1,017,247-23. Grand Rapids: 1,027,703
24. Omaha, NE: 865,350—-24. Omaha, NE: 895,573——24. Omaha, NE: 904,421
25. Dayton: 799,232———-25. Dayton: 801,645————-25. Dayton: 800,836
26. Akron: 703,200———–26. Akron: 703,210—————26. Akron: 703,825
27. Wichita, KS: 630,919—-27. Wichita, KS: 638,259——27. Wichita, KS: 641,076
28. Toledo: 610,001———-28. Madison, WI: 627,466—–28. Madison, WI: 633,787
29. Madison, WI: 605,435–29. Toledo, OH: 608,430——29. Des Moines, IA: 611,549
30. Des Moines, IA: 569,633–30. Des Moines, IA: 600,086–30. Toledo, OH: 607,456
31. Youngstown: 565,773–31. Youngstown: 556,129—–31. Youngstown: 553,263

Total Births Census 2010 to July 1, 2014
Chicago, IL: 516,295
Detroit, MI: 212,571
Minneapolis, MN: 192,866
Charlotte, NC: 125,143
Kansas City, MO: 117,872
Portland, OR: 117,482
Cincinnati: 117,072
Sacramento, CA: 116,893
Orlando, FL: 114,387
Columbus: 113,392
Indianapolis, IN: 113,127
Las Vegas, NV: 111,857
Austin, TX: 107,591
San Jose, CA: 105,447
Pittsburgh, PA: 100,888
Cleveland: 98,504
Virginia Beach, VA: 96,734
Nashville, TN: 96,440
Milwaukee, WI: 84,990
Providence, RI: 70,850
Grand Rapids, MI: 57,551
Omaha, NE: 55,860
Dayton: 40,683
Wichita, KS: 40,276
Des Moines, IA: 36,423
Akron: 32,228
Toledo: 32,024
Madison, WI: 31,280
Youngstown: 23,686

Total Deaths Census 2010 to July 1, 2014
Chicago, IL: 289,440
Detroit, MI: 166,387
Pittsburgh, PA: 114,531
Minneapolis, MN: 90,773
Cleveland: 88,446
Cincinnati: 77,345
Charlotte, NC: 71,315
Kansas City, MO: 68,102
Sacramento, CA: 67,943
Portland, OR: 67,820
Orlando, FL: 65,979
Indianapolis, IN: 64,207
Columbus: 62,011
Providence, RI: 61,604
Las Vegas, NV: 60,256
Nashville, TN: 55,846
Virginia Beach, VA: 55,425
Milwaukee, WI: 55,123
San Jose, CA: 41,927
Austin, TX: 36,873
Dayton: 33,636
Grand Rapids, MI: 30,324
Youngstown: 29,196
Akron: 29,040
Omaha, NE: 26,829
Toledo: 24,226
Wichita, KS: 23,025
Des Moines, IA: 17,602
Madison, WI: 17,069

Total Natural Change Census 2010 to July 1, 2014
Chicago, IL: 226,855
Minneapolis, MN: 102,093
Austin, TX: 70,718
San Jose, CA: 63,520
Charlotte, NC: 53,828
Las Vegas, NV: 51,601
Columbus: 51,381
Kansas City, MO: 49,770
Portland, OR: 49,662
Sacramento, CA: 48,950
Indianapolis, IN: 48,920
Orlando, FL: 48,708
Detroit, MI: 46,184
Virginia Beach, VA: 41,309
Nashville, TN: 40,594
Cincinnati: 39,727
Milwaukee, WI: 29,867
Omaha, NE: 29,031
Grand Rapids, MI: 27,227
Des Moines, IA: 18,821
Wichita, KS: 17,251
Madison, WI: 14,211
Cleveland: 10,058
Providence, RI: 9,246
Toledo: 7,798
Dayton: 7,047
Akron: 3,188
Youngstown: -5,510
Pittsburgh, PA: -13,643

Total Domestic Migration Census 2010 to July 1, 2014
Austin, TX: 126,296
Charlotte, NC: 83,305
Orlando, FL: 72,735
Nashville, TN: 63,477
Portland, OR: 48,793
Las Vegas, NV: 35,289
Columbus: 20,083
Indianapolis, IN: 16,744
Des Moines, IA: 16,559
Sacramento, CA: 15,658
Madison, WI: 6,901
Grand Rapids, MI: 5,372
Pittsburgh, PA: 4,053
Omaha, NE: 2,869
Minneapolis, MN: -934
Kansas City, MO: -1,948
Akron: -6,490
Youngstown: -7,347
Dayton: -10,873
Wichita, KS: -11,148
Toledo: -13,337
San Jose, CA: -15,335
Cincinnati: -18,334
Providence, RI: -21,325
Milwaukee, WI: -22,597
Virginia Beach, VA: -24,374
Cleveland: -38,424
Detroit, MI: -89,649
Chicago, IL: -237,666

Total International Migration Census 2010 to July 1, 2014
Chicago, IL: 108,320
San Jose, CA: 69,894
Orlando, FL: 63,215
Minneapolis, MN: 46,328
Detroit, MI: 44,614
Las Vegas, NV: 29,440
Sacramento, CA: 29,435
Austin, TX: 25,762
Charlotte, NC: 23,114
Virginia Beach, VA: 23,092
Portland, OR: 22,042
Columbus: 21,574
Providence, RI: 21,170
Indianapolis, IN: 17,623
Nashville, TN: 16,204
Cleveland: 16,010
Kansas City, MO: 14,569
Cincinnati: 14,567
Pittsburgh, PA: 12,887
Milwaukee, WI: 9,968
Omaha, NE: 7,897
Madison, WI: 6,706
Grand Rapids, MI: 6,232
Dayton: 6,200
Des Moines, IA: 6,159
Akron: 4,599
Wichita, KS: 4,006
Toledo: 2,971
Youngstown: 1,088

Total Migration Census 2010 to July 1, 2014
Austin, TX: 152,058
Orlando, FL: 135,950
Charlotte, NC: 106,419
Nashville, TN: 79,681
Portland, OR: 70,835
Las Vegas, NV: 64,729
San Jose, CA: 54,559
Minneapolis, MN: 45,394
Sacramento, CA: 45,093
Columbus: 41,657
Indianapolis, IN: 34,367
Des Moines, IA: 22,718
Pittsburgh, PA: 16,940
Madison, WI: 13,607
Kansas City, MO: 12,621
Grand Rapids, MI: 11,604
Omaha, NE: 10,766
Providence, RI: -155
Virginia Beach, VA: -1,282
Akron: -1,891
Cincinnati: -3,767
Dayton: -4,673
Youngstown: -6,259
Wichita, KS: -7,142
Toledo: -10,366
Milwaukee, WI: -12,629
Cleveland: -22,414
Detroit, MI: -45,035
Chicago, IL: -129,346

Total Population Change Census 2010 to July 1, 2014
Austin, TX: 226,996
Orlando, FL: 187,012
Charlotte, NC: 163,066
Minneapolis, MN: 146,319
Portland, OR: 122,236
Nashville, TN: 121,749
Las Vegas, NV: 118,412
San Jose, CA: 115,931
Sacramento, CA: 95,254
Chicago, IL: 93,061
Columbus: 92,521
Indianapolis, IN: 83,192
Kansas City, MO: 61,795
Des Moines, IA: 41,916
Virginia Beach, VA: 39,807
Omaha, NE: 39,071
Grand Rapids, MI: 38,763
Cincinnati: 34,694
Madison, WI: 28,350
Milwaukee, WI: 16,291
Wichita, KS: 10,157
Providence, RI: 8,151
Dayton: 1,620
Akron: 618
Detroit, MI: 298
Pittsburgh, PA: -317
Toledo: -2,545
Youngstown: -12,541
Cleveland: -13,648

Out of the 31 peer and Midwest metros, Columbus had the 7th highest natural growth, the 10th highest migration rate and the 11th highest overall growth rate.

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.

Colorado Springs Envies Columbus

Well, at least in this article they do, from the Colorado Springs Business Journal: http://csbj.com/2013/01/03/columbus-success-defines-an-opportunity-lost-here/

Reading the article, the intro certainly catches some attention as to the impression of the city to outsiders. Columbus is still seen by some as having the Rust-Belt stereotypes that other Midwestern/Great Lakes cities do, but the author goes on to say that the opposite is true and the city is thriving with public/private investment in projects throughout the urban center. The article offers a look on how Columbus is increasingly making a name for itself nationally. It’s not the first article about the city from an outside source the last year and certainly won’t be the last. More and more people seem to be discovering that Columbus is not mired in failed industry and crippling depression, but is rather an economically vibrant, rapidly diversifying city that is increasingly rivaling these “destination” cities in the South and West which seem to grow almost exclusively on the number of sunny days rather than impressive works of urban living. Columbus has much to be proud of, not only for maintaining itself during much rougher years of previous decades, but by seemingly reaching its social and cultural peak each and every day.