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.

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————————————-2015

1. Chicago, IL: 819,215————1. Chicago: 853,910—————1. Chicago: 879,318
2. Indianapolis, IN: 491,044——2. Indianapolis: 482,195———–2. Columbus: 491,602
3. Columbus: 442,958————-3. Columbus: 470,971————-3. Indianapolis: 479,376
4. Portland, OR: 382,033———-4. Portland: 417,876—————4. Portland: 449,552
5. San Antonio, TX: 356,420—–5. Austin: 384,065——————5. Austin: 444,638
6. Austin, TX: 347,013————-6. San Antonio: 351,420———-6. Nashville: 365,542
7. Nashville, TN: 314,518——–7. Nashville: 339,030————–7. San Antonio: 364,707
8. Charlotte, NC: 302,789——-8. Charlotte: 331,357—————8. Charlotte: 356,507
9. Virginia Beach, VA: 290,891–9. Virginia Beach: 282,812——9. Omaha: 293,631
10. San Jose, CA: 281,822—–10. Las Vegas: 280,604——-10. Virginia Beach: 281,686
11. Las Vegas, NV: 281,679—-11. Omaha: 277,606————–11. Las Vegas: 278,444
12. Omaha, NE: 267,685——–12. San Jose: 265,311————12. San Jose: 268,948
13. Kansas City, MO: 249,123—13. Kansas City: 247,473——13. Kansas City: 261,360
14. Milwaukee, WI: 219,891——14. Minneapolis: 242,848——14. Minneapolis: 243,709
15. Minneapolis, MN: 216,975—-15. Milwaukee: 221,514——-15. Milwaukee: 216,755
16. Toledo: 183,746—————–16. Pittsburgh: 203,622——–16. Pittsburgh: 192,187
17. Pittsburgh, PA: 180,725——-17. Toledo: 177,341————17. Toledo: 164,305
18. Sacramento, CA: 160,599—-18. Sacramento: 165,610—–18. Sacramento: 155,784
19. Cleveland: 147,359————19. Cincinnati: 143,120——–19. Cincinnati: 147,360
20. St. Louis, MO: 143,590——–20. Cleveland: 137,977——–20. St. Louis: 138,178
21. Cincinnati: 138,486————-21. St. Louis: 134,146———-21. Cleveland: 133,998
22. Akron: 128,976——————22. Akron: 120,800————22. Grand Rapids: 119,128
23. Grand Rapids, MI: 113,791—23. Grand Rapids: 104,636—-23. Akron: 117,587
24. Orlando, FL: 92,326————24. Orlando: 96,867————24. Orlando: 102,822
25. Detroit, MI: 77,163————–25. Dayton: 72,663————-25. Dayton: 75,539
26. Dayton: 67,581——————26. Providence: 64,284——-26. Detroit: 64,511
27. Providence, RI: 64,223——–27. Detroit: 55,298————-27. Providence: 61,492

Columbus moved from 3rd to 2nd over the 10-year period for total White, non-Hispanic population.

Rank by City of Total Black, non-Hispanic Population by Year
2005—————————————–2010———————————2015

1. Chicago: 938,097—————–1. Chicago: 895,294———–1. Chicago: 834,048
2. Detroit: 683,999——————–2. Detroit: 587,707————-2. Detroit: 536,527
3. Milwaukee: 222,040————–3. Charlotte: 251,274———-3. Charlotte: 282,456
4. Cleveland: 221,797—————4. Milwaukee: 230,473——–4. Indianapolis: 234,338
5. Charlotte: 205,216—————-5. Indianapolis: 226,314——-5. Columbus: 233,320
6. Indianapolis: 193,948————6. Columbus: 216,486———6. Milwaukee: 231,304
7. Columbus: 179,197—————7. Cleveland: 208,528———7. Cleveland: 194,350
8. St. Louis: 168,768—————-8. Nashville: 171,104———–8. Nashville: 178,293
9. Nashville: 148,051—————-9. St. Louis: 157,382———–9. St. Louis: 146,925
10. Kansas City: 131,694———-10. Kansas City: 138,461—–10. Kansas City: 140,515
11. Cincinnati: 131,010————-11. Cincinnati: 131,909——–11. Cincinnati: 125,621
12. Pittsburgh: 81,758————–12. Virginia Beach: 79,583—-12. San Antonio: 98,876
13. Virginia Beach: 80,004——–13. San Antonio: 79,307——13. Virginia Beach: 85,867
14. Orlando: 73,736—————–14. Toledo: 75,033————-14. Minneapolis: 78,861
15. Toledo: 72,190——————-15. Pittsburgh: 71,539——–15. Toledo: 76,173
16. Sacramento: 71,452————16. Orlando: 70,988————16. Pittsburgh: 73,012
17. San Antonio: 70,723————17. Minneapolis: 63,749——17. Las Vegas: 68,777
18. Dayton: 60,196——————-18. Sacramento: 61,976——18. Austin: 68,061
19. Akron: 59,810——————–19. Austin: 61,833————–19. Sacramento: 63,477
20. Las Vegas: 59,780————–20. Dayton: 61,402————-20. Orlando: 61,955
21. Austin: 59,583——————-21. Akron: 60,653—————-21. Akron: 58,716
22. Minneapolis: 57,499————22. Las Vegas: 60,187———22.  Omaha: 57,546
23. Omaha: 50,333——————23. Omaha: 55,086————-23. Dayton: 51,896
24. Grand Rapids: 40,408———24. Grand Rapids: 41,848—–24. Portland: 35,362
25. Portland: 30,828—————25. Portland: 37,355————-25. Grand Rapids: 32,423
26. San Jose: 27,446————–26. San Jose: 29,831———–26. San Jose: 30,068
27. Providence: 18,794————27. Providence: 19,265——–27. Providence: 21,484

Columbus moved up from 7th to 5th in total Black, non-Hispanic during the period.

Rank by City of Total Asian, non-Hispanic Population by Year
2005————————————-2010——————————————2015

1. San Jose: 269,186————–1. San Jose: 303,227—————–1. San Jose: 355,777
2. Chicago: 127,686—————-2. Chicago: 148,280——————2. Chicago: 166,771
3. Sacramento: 80,307————3. Sacramento: 84,556————-3. Sacramento: 88,422
4. Portland: 36,278—————–4. Austin: 46,575———————-4. Austin: 69,696
5. Austin: 35,239——————–5. Portland: 43,185——————-5. Charlotte: 50,142
6. Columbus: 27,125—————6. Las Vegas: 37,406—————-6. Portland: 49,811
7. Las Vegas: 25,077————–7. Charlotte: 37,181——————7. Columbus: 42,933
8. Charlotte: 23,356—————-8. Columbus: 35,468—————-8. San Antonio: 41,988
9. Virginia Beach: 22,501———9. San Antonio: 29,200————-9. Las Vegas: 41,782
10. San Antonio: 20,492———10. Virginia Beach: 27,303—–10. Virginia Beach: 28,358
11. Minneapolis: 20,189———-11. Milwaukee: 22,670————11. Minneapolis: 26,958
12. Milwaukee: 19,596————12. Minneapolis: 21,426———–12. Indianapolis: 25,264
13. Nashville: 16,943—————13. Indianapolis: 17,137———-13. Milwaukee: 22,497
14. Indianapolis: 12,312———–14. Nashville: 17,045————–14. Nashville: 20,577
15. Providence: 10,751————15. Pittsburgh: 12,036————-15. Pittsburgh: 18,067
16. Pittsburgh: 10,727————–16. Providence: 11,497———–16. Omaha: 15,243
17. Kansas City: 10,674———-17. Kansas City: 10,263———–17. Kansas City: 13,552
18. Detroit: 9,577——————-18. St. Louis: 8,717—————–18. Providence: 10,842
19. St. Louis: 7,046—————–19. Omaha: 8,397——————19. St. Louis: 8,920
20. Omaha: 6,971——————20. Orlando: 7,870——————20. Detroit: 8,790
21. Cincinnati: 6,874—————21. Detroit: 6,549——————–21. Akron: 8,006
22. Cleveland: 6,289————–22. Cincinnati: 5,938—————–22. Orlando: 7,949
23. Orlando: 5,528—————–23. Cleveland: 5,392—————–23. Cleveland: 7,874
24. Toledo: 4,150——————-24. Akron: 4,567———————-24. Cincinnati: 6,259
25. Akron: 3,497——————–25. Grand Rapids: 3,695———–25. Toledo: 5,008
26. Grand Rapids: 2,847———26. Toledo: 3,125——————-26. Grand Rapids: 4,451
27. Dayton: 1,827——————27. Dayton: 1,231——————-27. Dayton: 1,548

Columbus fell from 6th to 7th in Asian, non-Hispanic population.

Rank by City of Total Hispanic Population by Year

2005——————————————–2010————————————2015

1. Chicago: 778,234—————1. San Antonio: 853,654———-1. San Antonio: 937,607
2. San Antonio: 735,458———–2. Chicago: 763,968—————2. Chicago: 787,725
3. San Jose: 279,420————–3. San Jose: 318,389————–3. San Jose: 331,232
4. Austin: 223,361——————4. Austin: 288,130——————4. Austin: 327,680
5. Las Vegas: 153,813————5. Las Vegas: 181,923————-5. Las Vegas: 204,913
6. Sacramento: 111,559———6. Sacramento: 124,461———–6. Sacramento: 150,153
7. Milwaukee: 80,945————-7. Milwaukee: 104,619————-7. Charlotte: 113,731
8. Providence: 60,008————-8. Charlotte: 96,246—————-8. Milwaukee: 110,335
9. Charlotte: 58,466—————9. Indianapolis: 78,467————-9. Orlando: 89,306
10. Indianapolis: 47,764———10. Providence: 76,645————10. Indianapolis: 83,426
11. Detroit: 46,993—————–11. Nashville: 61,212————–11. Providence: 77,968
12. Orlando: 43,978—————12. Portland: 58,986—————12. Nashville: 67,526
13. Portland: 43,324—————13. Orlando: 56,061—————13. Omaha: 63,516
14. Omaha: 39,674—————–14. Omaha: 53,661—————14. Portland: 61,064
15. Nashville: 37,463—————15. Kansas City: 49,800———15. Detroit: 53,980
16. Minneapolis: 37,017———–16. Detroit: 45,580—————-16. Columbus: 46,855
17. Kansas City: 35,995———–17. Columbus: 43,276————17. Kansas City: 46,037
18. Grand Rapids: 32,368———18. Cleveland: 36,067———-18. Cleveland: 40,603
19. Cleveland: 32,085————–19. Minneapolis: 34,504——-19. Minneapolis: 39,981
20. Columbus: 24,607———–20. Grand Rapids: 30,659——20. Virginia Beach: 36,309
21. Virginia Beach: 20,803——–21. Virginia Beach: 29,206—-21. Grand Rapids: 31,282
22. Toledo: 18,404——————22. Toledo: 21,346————–22. Toledo: 23,614
23. St. Louis: 8,268—————–23. St. Louis: 11,207————-23. St. Louis: 12,261
24. Pittsburgh: 5,018—————24. Cincinnati: 8,710————-24. Pittsburgh: 9,266
25. Cincinnati: 3,855—————25. Pittsburgh: 7,282————-25. Cincinnati: 9,121
26. Akron: 3,485——————–26. Akron: 3,990——————-26. Dayton: 4,945
27. Dayton: 1,693——————-27. Dayton: 3,180—————–27. Akron: 3,684

Columbus moved up from 20th to 16th in the total Hispanic population.

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

2005——————————————-2010———————————————–2015

1. Chicago: 38,694—————1. Chicago: 37,379————————–1. Chicago: 54,694
2. San Jose: 29,456————2. San Jose: 32,439————————2. San Jose: 40,894
3. Sacramento: 21,370———-3. Sacramento: 30,900——————-3. Portland: 36,398
4. Portland: 21,164————–4. Portland: 28,027————————4. Columbus: 34,357
5. Indianapolis: 20,242———-5. Las Vegas: 24,521—————–5. Sacramento: 32,909
6. Columbus: 20,096————-6. Columbus: 23,738——————6. Las Vegas: 29,853
7. San Antonio: 19,130———-7. San Antonio: 20,778—————7. San Antonio: 26,646
8. Minneapolis: 18,580———-8. Minneapolis: 20,753—————-8. Indianapolis: 26,019
9. Detroit: 18,324—————–9. Virginia Beach: 20,268————-9. Charlotte: 24,285
10. Las Vegas: 18,304———-10. Indianapolis: 20,086————–10. Nashville: 22,658
11. Virginia  Beach: 16,685—-11. Charlotte: 18,360——————11. Austin: 21,765
12. Milwaukee: 14,476———-12. Detroit: 16,776——————–12. Minneapolis: 21,426
13. Kansas City: 13,399——–13. Milwaukee: 16,311———–13. Virginia Beach: 20,525
14. Austin: 13,261—————-14. Omaha: 15,519—————-14. Milwaukee: 19,263
15. Charlotte: 11,771————-15. Austin: 14,915—————–15. Omaha: 13,951
16. Omaha: 8,552—————–16. Kansas City: 14,668———-16. Kansas City: 13,897
17. Toledo: 7,447——————17. Nashville: 14,227————-17. Detroit: 13,316
18. Cincinnati: 7,315————–18. Pittsburgh: 12,080————18. Pittsburgh: 11,853
19. Cleveland: 7,004————–19. Toledo: 10,134—————-19. Cleveland: 11,234
20. Providence: 6,488————-20. Akron: 9,020——————20. Toledo: 10,678
21. Pittsburgh: 6,138————–21. Cleveland: 8,276—————21. Cincinnati: 10,176
22. St. Louis: 6,058—————-22. St. Louis: 7,704—————22. Akron: 9,560
23. Orlando: 5,731—————–23. Grand Rapids: 7,376——-23. St. Louis: 9,401
24. Nashville: 5,687—————24. Orlando: 7,251————–24. Orlando: 8,885
25. Akron: 4,431——————–25. Cincinnati: 7,230———–25. Grand Rapids: 7,815
26. Grand Rapids: 4,154———26. Providence: 6,471———-26. Providence: 7,418
27. Dayton: 1,382——————27. Dayton: 3,025—————27. Dayton: 6,669

Finally, Columbus moved up from 6th to 4th 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 had the 8th highest White, non-Hispanic % of total population of the city in 2015.

Columbus had the 12th highest Black, non-Hispanic % of total population.

Columbus also had the 12th highest Asian, non-Hispanic % of total population.

Columbus ranks poorly with Hispanics in the group, having only the 22nd highest % of population.

Finally, Columbus ranks 8th again in Other, non-Hispanic % of population.

So what’s the final ranking for where Columbus is with diversity compared to its peers? To find out, I assigned points based on ranked position in each 5 racial categories. The final total determined where the cities ranked overall.

So based on this, Columbus is the 6th most racially diverse city of the 27 cities measured. This is no doubt surprising, but not so much when you get to the numbers.

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

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%