Columbus City Diversity and Comparison to Peers




In the 2nd post related to the recently-released Census demographic data, I’ll look at city diversity and how it’s been changing since 2005.

Rank by City of Total White, non-Hispanic Population by Year
2005————————————–2010————————————-2017

1. Chicago, IL: 819,215————1. Chicago: 853,910—————1. Chicago: 879,334
2. Indianapolis, IN: 491,044——2. Indianapolis: 482,195———–2. Columbus: 490,149
3. Columbus: 442,958————-3. Columbus: 470,971————-3. Indianapolis: 468,665
4. Portland, OR: 382,033———-4. Portland: 417,876—————4. Austin: 453,801
5. San Antonio, TX: 356,420—–5. Austin: 384,065——————5. Portland: 452,132
6. Austin, TX: 347,013————-6. San Antonio: 351,420———6. San Antonio: 375,463
7. Nashville, TN: 314,518——–7. Nashville: 339,030————–7. Nashville: 368,195
8. Charlotte, NC: 302,789——-8. Charlotte: 331,357—————8. Charlotte: 360,270
9. Virginia Beach, VA: 290,891–9. Virginia Beach: 282,812——9. Omaha: 311,349
10. San Jose, CA: 281,822—–10. Las Vegas: 280,604———–10. Las Vegas: 280,201
11. Las Vegas, NV: 281,679—-11. Omaha: 277,606———–11. Virginia Beach: 277,338
12. Omaha, NE: 267,685——–12. San Jose: 265,311————12. Kansas City: 272,548
13. Kansas City, MO: 249,123—13. Kansas City: 247,473——13. San Jose: 267,315
14. Wichita, KS: 245,527———-14. Wichita: 245,146————14. Minneapolis: 252,304
15. Milwaukee, WI: 219,891——15. Minneapolis: 242,848——15. Wichita: 243,143
16. Minneapolis, MN: 216,975—16. Milwaukee: 221,514——–16. Lincoln: 226,297
17. Lincoln, NE: 197,287———-17. Lincoln: 216,076————-17. Milwaukee: 207,043
18. Toledo: 183,746—————-18. Pittsburgh: 203,622———18. Pittsburgh: 196,687
19. Pittsburgh, PA: 180,725——19. Fort Wayne: 179,646——-19. Madison: 187,566
20. Madison, WI: 161,631——–20. Madison: 178,307————20. Fort Wayne: 166,912
21. St. Paul, MN: 161,329——–21. Toledo: 177,341————–21. Toledo: 164,104
22. Sacramento, CA: 160,599—22. Sacramento: 165,610——22. Sacramento: 159,291
23. Fort Wayne, IN: 157,672—–23. St. Paul: 159,704———–23. St. Paul: 152,558
24. Des Moines, IA: 149,786—–24. Des Moines: 145,937——24. Cincinnati: 143,028
25. Cleveland: 147,359———–25. Cincinnati: 143,120———25. Des Moines: 137,235
26. St. Louis, MO: 143,590——26. Cleveland: 137,977———26. St. Louis: 134,471
27. Cincinnati: 138,486———–27. St. Louis: 134,146———–27. Cleveland: 126,714
28. Akron: 128,976—————-28. Akron: 120,800————–28. Grand Rapids: 114,349
29. Grand Rapids, MI: 113,791—29. Grand Rapids: 104,636—29. Akron: 113,951
30. Orlando, FL: 92,326———–30. Orlando: 96,867————-30. Orlando: 95,876
31. Detroit, MI: 77,163————-31. Dayton: 72,663————–31. Dayton: 71,094
32. Dayton: 67,581—————–32. Providence: 64,284——–32. Detroit: 70,931
33. Providence, RI: 64,223——-33. Detroit: 55,298————–33. Providence: 59,321

Columbus moved from 3rd to 2nd over the period.

Rank by City of Total Black, non-Hispanic Population by Year
2005—————————————–2010———————————2017

1. Chicago: 938,097—————–1. Chicago: 895,294———–1. Chicago: 797,253
2. Detroit: 683,999——————–2. Detroit: 587,707————-2. Detroit: 529,593
3. Milwaukee: 222,040————–3. Charlotte: 251,274———-3. Charlotte: 292,104
4. Cleveland: 221,797—————4. Milwaukee: 230,473——–4. Columbus: 248,476
5. Charlotte: 205,216—————-5. Indianapolis: 226,314——-5. Indianapolis: 236,606
6. Indianapolis: 193,948————6. Columbus: 216,486———6. Milwaukee: 228,720
7. Columbus: 179,197—————7. Cleveland: 208,528———7. Cleveland: 186,073
8. St. Louis: 168,768—————-8. Nashville: 171,104———–8. Nashville: 180,830
9. Nashville: 148,051—————-9. St. Louis: 157,382———–9. St. Louis: 143,761
10. Kansas City: 131,694———-10. Kansas City: 138,461—–10. Kansas City: 138,346
11. Cincinnati: 131,010————-11. Cincinnati: 131,909——–11. Cincinnati: 127,589
12. Pittsburgh: 81,758————–12. Virginia Beach: 79,583—-12. San Antonio: 97,925
13. Virginia Beach: 80,004——–13. San Antonio: 79,307——13. Virginia Beach: 82,181
14. Orlando: 73,736—————–14. Toledo: 75,033————-14. Minneapolis: 75,006
15. Toledo: 72,190——————-15. Pittsburgh: 71,539——–15. Toledo: 74,906
16. Sacramento: 71,452————16. Orlando: 70,988————16. Orlando: 72,796
17. San Antonio: 70,723————17. Minneapolis: 63,749——17. Austin: 69,860
18. Dayton: 60,196——————-18. Sacramento: 61,976——18. Sacramento: 67,305
19. Akron: 59,810——————–19. Austin: 61,833————–19. Las Vegas: 65,663
20. Las Vegas: 59,780————–20. Dayton: 61,402————-20. Pittsburgh: 65,268
21. Austin: 59,583——————-21. Akron: 60,653—————-21. Akron: 61,461
22. Minneapolis: 57,499————22. Las Vegas: 60,187———22. Dayton: 57,043
23. Omaha: 50,333——————23. Omaha: 55,086————-23. Omaha: 56,098
24. Grand Rapids: 40,408———24. Wichita: 42,662————-24. St. Paul: 51,737
25. Wichita: 39,165—————–25. Grand Rapids: 41,848—–25. Wichita: 40,756
26. Fort Wayne: 35,221———–26. St. Paul: 41,923————-26. Grand Rapids: 38,130
27. St. Paul: 34,903—————-27. Fort Wayne: 39,016——–27. Fort Wayne: 37,941
28. Portland: 30,828—————28. Portland: 37,355————28. Portland: 34,624
29. San Jose: 27,446————–29. San Jose: 29,831———-29. San Jose: 28,126
30. Providence: 18,794———–30. Des Moines: 19,962——-30. Providence: 27,274
31. Des Moines: 16,709———-31. Providence: 19,265——–31. Des Moines: 22,170
32. Madison: 12,660————–32. Madison: 17,560————32. Madison: 14,185
33. Lincoln: 7,082——————33. Lincoln: 9,023—————33. Lincoln: 11,487

Columbus moved up from 7th to 4th in total Black, non-Hispanic during the period. Surprisingly, quite a few cities have actually been losing this demographic since 2010 at least.

Rank by City of Total Asian, non-Hispanic Population by Year
2005————————————-2010——————————————2017

1. San Jose: 269,186————–1. San Jose: 303,227—————–1. San Jose: 366,134
2. Chicago: 127,686—————-2. Chicago: 148,280——————2. Chicago: 179,176
3. Sacramento: 80,307————3. Sacramento: 84,556————-3. Sacramento: 93,476
4. Portland: 36,278—————–4. Austin: 46,575———————-4. Austin: 71,539
5. Austin: 35,239——————–5. Portland: 43,185——————-5. St. Paul: 61,082
6. St. Paul: 35,184——————6. St. Paul: 41,989——————-6. Charlotte: 55,142
7. Columbus: 27,125—————7. Las Vegas: 37,406—————7. Columbus: 53,027
8. Las Vegas: 25,077————–8. Charlotte: 37,181—————–8. Portland: 52,219
9. Charlotte: 23,356—————-9. Columbus: 35,468—————-9. Las Vegas: 44,735
10. Virginia Beach: 22,501——10. San Antonio: 29,200———–10. San Antonio: 38,119
11. San Antonio: 20,492———11. Virginia Beach: 27,303—–11. Virginia Beach: 29,735
12. Minneapolis: 20,189———12. Milwaukee: 22,670————–12. Minneapolis: 26,833
13. Milwaukee: 19,596———–13. Minneapolis: 21,426————13. Indianapolis: 26,548
14. Nashville: 16,943————-14. Wichita: 19,420——————14. Milwaukee: 25,624
15. Wichita: 15,417—————15. Indianapolis: 17,137————15. Madison: 24,455
16. Madison: 12,708————–16. Nashville: 17,045—————16. Nashville: 24,034
17. Indianapolis: 12,312———17. Madison: 16,671—————-17. Wichita: 19,548
18. Providence: 10,751———-18. Pittsburgh: 12,036————–18. Pittsburgh: 19,357
19. Pittsburgh: 10,727————19. Providence: 11,497————19. Omaha: 17,412
20. Kansas City: 10,674———20. Lincoln: 10,452——————20. Des Moines: 17,143
21. Detroit: 9,577——————21. Kansas City: 10,263———–21. Kansas City: 15,213
22. Des Moines: 8,796———–22. Des Moines: 8,867————-22. Fort Wayne: 14,039
23. Lincoln: 7,513—————–23. St. Louis: 8,717—————–23. Lincoln: 13,992
24. St. Louis: 7,046—————24. Omaha: 8,397——————-24. Orlando: 11,852
25. Omaha: 6,971—————–25. Orlando: 7,870——————25. Detroit: 11,790
26. Cincinnati: 6,874————-26. Fort Wayne: 6,945————–26. St. Louis: 10,404
27. Cleveland: 6,289————27. Detroit: 6,549———————27. Providence: 9,361
28. Orlando: 5,528—————28. Cincinnati: 5,938—————-28. Cleveland: 9,217
29. Fort Wayne: 4,241———-29. Cleveland: 5,392—————-29. Akron: 8,007
30. Toledo: 4,150—————-30. Akron: 4,567———————30. Cincinnati: 7,906
31. Akron: 3,497—————–31. Grand Rapids: 3,695———–31. Grand Rapids: 7,056
32. Grand Rapids: 2,847——32. Toledo: 3,125——————–32. Toledo: 3,679
33. Dayton: 1,827—————33. Dayton: 1,231——————–33. Dayton: 848

Columbus maintained its rank since 2005.

Rank by City of Total Hispanic Population by Year

2005——————————————–2010————————————2017

1. Chicago: 778,234—————1. San Antonio: 853,654———-1. San Antonio: 969,065
2. San Antonio: 735,458———–2. Chicago: 763,968—————2. Chicago: 787,978
3. San Jose: 279,420————–3. San Jose: 318,389————–3. San Jose: 332,603
4. Austin: 223,361——————4. Austin: 288,130——————4. Austin: 324,973
5. Las Vegas: 153,813————5. Las Vegas: 181,923————-5. Las Vegas: 219,220
6. Sacramento: 111,559———6. Sacramento: 124,461———–6. Sacramento: 141,752
7. Milwaukee: 80,945————-7. Milwaukee: 104,619————-7. Milwaukee: 133,812
8. Providence: 60,008————-8. Charlotte: 96,246—————-8. Charlotte: 122,904
9. Charlotte: 58,466—————9. Indianapolis: 78,467————-9. Indianapolis: 93,042
10. Wichita: 49,928—————10. Providence: 76,645————10. Orlando: 86,305
11. Indianapolis: 47,764———11. Nashville: 61,212—————11. Providence: 77,893
12. Detroit: 46,993—————-12. Wichita: 59,823——————12. Nashville: 69,574
13. Orlando: 43,978————–13. Portland: 58,986—————–13. Wichita: 68,389
14. Portland: 43,324————–14. Orlando: 56,061—————–14. Portland: 67,551
15. Omaha: 39,674—————15. Omaha: 53,661——————15. Omaha: 66,056
16. Nashville: 37,463————-16. Kansas City: 49,800————16. Columbus: 55,782
17. Minneapolis: 37,017———17. Detroit: 45,580——————-17. Detroit: 48,328
18. Kansas City: 35,995———18. Columbus: 43,276————–18. Cleveland: 47,962
19. Grand Rapids: 32,368——19. Cleveland: 36,067————–19. Minneapolis: 46,375
20. Cleveland: 32,085———–20. Minneapolis: 34,504———–20. Kansas City: 45,975
21. Columbus: 24,607———–21. Grand Rapids: 30,659——21. Virginia Beach: 36,723
22. St. Paul: 22,402————–22. Virginia Beach: 29,206—–22. Grand Rapids: 32,016
23. Virginia Beach: 20,803—–23. St. Paul: 28,725————–23. Des Moines: 31,333
24. Des Moines: 18,952——–24. Des Moines: 23,832———-24. St. Paul: 30,007
25. Toledo: 18,404————–25. Toledo: 21,346——————25. Fort Wayne: 24,724
26. Fort Wayne: 16,438——-26. Fort Wayne: 19,576————26. Toledo: 22,796
27. Madison: 11,997———–27. Lincoln: 16,007——————27. Lincoln: 21,921
28. Lincoln: 9,672—————28. Madison: 14,062—————28. Madison: 20,741
29. St. Louis: 8,268————-29. St. Louis: 11,207————–29. St. Louis: 12,447
30. Pittsburgh: 5,018———-30. Cincinnati: 8,710—————30. Cincinnati: 11,787
31. Cincinnati: 3,855———–31. Pittsburgh: 7,282————–31. Pittsburgh: 9,212
32. Akron: 3,485—————-32. Akron: 3,990——————–32. Dayton: 5,765
33. Dayton: 1,693————–33. Dayton: 3,180——————-33. Akron: 5,536

Columbus moved up from 21st to 16th in the total Hispanic population.

Rank by City of Total Other, non-Hispanic Population by Year

2005——————————————-2010—————————————–2017

1. Chicago: 38,694—————1. Chicago: 37,379——————–1. Chicago: 58,721
2. San Jose: 29,456————2. San Jose: 32,439——————–2. Portland: 41,595
3. Sacramento: 21,370———-3. Sacramento: 30,900—————3. San Jose: 41,175
4. Portland: 21,164————–4. Portland: 28,027———————4. Sacramento: 40,066
5. Indianapolis: 20,242———-5. Las Vegas: 24,521—————–5. Columbus: 34,467
6. Columbus: 20,096————-6. Columbus: 23,738—————–6. Indianapolis: 32,525
7. San Antonio: 19,130———-7. San Antonio: 20,778————–7. Las Vegas: 31,889
8. Minneapolis: 18,580———-8. Minneapolis: 20,753————–8. San Antonio: 31,341
9. Detroit: 18,324—————–9. Virginia Beach: 20,268———-9. Austin: 30,541
10. Las Vegas: 18,304———-10. Indianapolis: 20,086———-10. Charlotte: 28,632
11. Virginia Beach: 16,685—-11. Charlotte: 18,360————–11. Virginia Beach: 24,458
12. Milwaukee: 14,476———-12. Detroit: 16,776—————–12. Nashville: 23,334
13. Kansas City: 13,399——–13. Milwaukee: 16,311———–13. Minneapolis: 21,808
14. Austin: 13,261—————-14. Wichita: 16,091—————14. Milwaukee: 20,166
15. Charlotte: 11,771————-15. Omaha: 15,519————–15. Wichita: 18,763
16. Wichita: 11,545—————16. Austin: 14,915—————-16. Kansas City: 16,743
17. Omaha: 8,552—————–17. Kansas City: 14,668——–17. Omaha: 15,988
18. St. Paul: 7,741—————-18. Nashville: 14,227————18. Cleveland: 15,586
19. Toledo: 7,447—————–19. St. Paul: 13,098————–19. Orlando: 13,429
20. Cincinnati: 7,315————-20. Pittsburgh: 11,280———–20. Detroit: 12,461
21. Cleveland: 7,004————-21. Toledo: 10,134—————21. Pittsburgh: 11,890
22. Providence: 6,488———–22. Akron: 9,020——————22. St. Paul: 11,220
23. Pittsburgh: 6,138————23. Fort Wayne: 8,513———–23. Fort Wayne: 11,180
24. St. Louis: 6,058————–24. Cleveland: 8,276————-24. Lincoln: 11,037
25. Fort Wayne: 5,774———-25. St. Louis: 7,704————–25. Toledo: 11,009
26. Orlando: 5,731—————26. Lincoln: 7,483—————-26. Cincinnati: 10,995
27. Nashville: 5,687————-27. Grand Rapids: 7,376——–27. Des Moines: 9,627
28. Madison: 4,708————–28. Orlando: 7,251—————28. Akron: 8,894
29. Lincoln: 4,508—————-29. Cincinnati: 7,230————29. Madison: 8,292
30. Akron: 4,431—————–30. Madison: 7,177————–30. St. Louis: 7,543
31. Grand Rapids: 4,154——31. Providence: 6,471———–31. Grand Rapids: 7,260
32. Des Moines: 2,674———32. Des Moines: 5,598———-32. Providence: 6,539
33. Dayton: 1,382—————33. Dayton: 3,025—————-33. Dayton: 5,629

Finally, Columbus moved up from 6th to 5th in the total of Other, non-Hispanic population. Overall, Columbus ranks fairly well in totals vs. its peers, as one might expect given that it is one of the largest cities in the grouping. However, to truly find out how it compares with these other cities, you have to look at percentages, which tells how much of the city’s population is made up of each group.


Columbus ranks in the middle of the pack for its % of Non-Hispanic White population. Like in most cities, even while this demographic is growing in total numbers in Columbus, the % of total population continues to fall.


Columbus ranked in the top 3rd of peer cities for its % of Non-Hispanic Black population.


Columbus also ranked in the top 3rd for its Non-Hispanic Asian population.


Columbus ranks poorly with Hispanics in the group, ranking near the bottom.


Finally, Columbus ranks in the middle for its Non-Hispanic Other population.

So what’s the final ranking for where Columbus is with diversity compared to its peers in 2017? To find out, I assigned points based on ranked position in each 5 racial categories and took the average of the positions in each 5. The result is that the higher the average number, the lower the overall diversity.

So based on this, Columbus ranks in the top half of national and Midwest peers for diversity.

*Note: Normally, Youngstown would be included, but the data was not available.




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




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.

The Diversification of the Columbus Metro vs. Peers

In a related post to the recent metro population comparison of Columbus to its peer 1.5-2.5 million group, I wanted to see where the metros stood as far as their current racial makeup as well as where they are trending.

First, let’s take a look at the breakdown of race by metro in 2012, the last year that data is availabe.

Online Graphing
Graphing

Columbus had the 5th highest % of its metro population as White, non-Hispanic.

Online Graphing
graph

Columbus came in at #8 for the % of its metro population being Black, non Hispanic.

Online Graphing
Graph maker

Columbus ranks 9th for its % of metro population that is Asian, non-Hispanic.

Online Graphing
Make a graph

Columbus ranked poorly in this group, coming in at 15th of 18.

Online Graphing
graph and chart

Finally, Columbus ranked 7th in the population of Other, non-Hispanic as a % of the total metro population.

So currently, what is the overall diversity ranking of the 18 metros? To find out, I used a simple formula: Each metro would be assigned points (1-18) based on the ranking position in each racial group. Here are the final rankings.

Online Graphing
Create a chart

Overall, Columbus comes in as the 8th most-diverse metro in its 18-peer group. So a bit better than average and perhaps a bit surprising to some.

But what about where this diversity is trending? To find out, I looked at 2005 and 2012 and calculated how each racial group had changed over the period.

Online Graphing
graph

Columbus did relatively well with Whites, growing at the 5th best pace.

Online Graphing
graph and chart

The Columbus metro came in the top 10, at #7, for non-Hispanic Black population growth.

Online Graphing
chart

The metro didn’t fare as well on growth in the Asian population, coming in at 10th.

Online Graphing
graph and charts

Columbus came in at #6.

Online Graphing
chart

So using the same point system from above, what are the fastest diversifying metros as of 2012?

Online Graphing
graph and chart

The Columbus metro was the 5th fastest diversifying metro in its peer group in 2012.

Overall, Columbus ranks higher than and much higher than average in both current racial diversity and the rate of racial diversity growth, respectively.

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%