2013 Census Tract Estimates

The Census released updated tract estimates for 2013, and they showed some interesting things. There are 285 census tracts that make up Franklin County.

First, let’s take a look at the Franklin County trends 2000-2013.

In regards to the above map, it’s a mix of both the 2013 official estimates and some that I did. For example, the official estimates had the Downtown tracts 30 and 40 losing population, as well as most of the Short North. That’s rather absurd considering the level of residential construction in these areas, as well as population estimates the city has done in the last few years for Downtown. In fact, the 2013 official estimates have Downtown tract population BELOW 2010. That’s just not the reality. So I looked over the tracts and adjusted them according to their long-term growth/decline trends. Most of them I left alone, but some adjustments had to be made. However, I was very conservative with any changes, and several tracts that the official estimates showed gains, I actually had losses.

Here are all the tracts that grew by at least 300 people between 2010 and 2013 in Franklin County, as well as their locations.

Blacklick #7395: +1,609
Dublin #6230: +1,214
Columbus-West Side #7951: +1,002
Columbus-Northwest #6372: +966
Columbus Northeast #6931: +963
Hilliard #7921: +955
Columbus-East Side #9361: +952
Columbus-West Side #8350: +951
Columbus-Northwest: #6384: +949
Dublin #6220: +933
Columbus-West Side #8141: +921
Columbus-Easton #7551: +793
Columbus-Southeast #9373: +749
Hilliard #7933: +688
Minerva Park #7112: +675
Columbus-South Side #8340: +652
Hilliard #7954: +643
Columbus North Side #7044: +636
Columbus Northeast #7132: +615
Columbus Northwest #6396: +557
Dublin #6386: +549
Columbus North Side #6921: +540
Columbus Northwest #6393: +492
Columbus-West Side: +489
Gahanna #7492: +473
New Albany #7209: +472
Columbus-Hilltop #8321: +466
Columbus-Southeast #9374: +455
Grove City #9740: +441
Columbus Northeast #6945: +438
Hillard #7931: +432
Columbus-West Side #7812: +427
Columbus-South Side #9590: +411
Columbus-South Side #8710: +407
Hilliard #10602: +407
Columbus-South Side #8822: +403
Whitehall #9230: +398
Columbus-West Side #8163: +397
Columbus-East Side #9362: +389
Columbus-Downtown #30: +387
Hilliard #7953: +382
Columbus-West Side #6330: +371
Columbus-Northwest #6387: +361
Columbus-East Side #9322: +352
Columbus-South Side #8825: +349
Columbus-Southwest #8161: +346
West Side-Marble Cliff #43: +345
Columbus-Southwest #8370: +340
Grandview #85: +332
Columbus-Downtown #40: +321
Hilliard #7922: +320
Dublin #6371: +312
Grove City #9751: +304
Columbus-Campus Area #13: +303

As far as the core of the city, the 1950 boundaries, here are the results.

There are 78 tracts that make up the original 1950 city boundary. Using the official estimates, 38 of the 78 tracts grew between 2010-2013, yet had a total loss of 3,229. However, again, it had all the Downtown and adjacent tracts inexplicably losing population, yet the opposite is occurring in these areas. For Downtown, the combined loss was about 370, and for the Short North, it had the loss at more than 700.

Using my adjusted estimates, 35 tracts are growing, adding 1,166 people 2010-2013. Most of the gains were made in the Downtown and adjacent tracts, and some of the losses were simply not as steep. For example, the official estimates had tract #10, in the Campus area, losing nearly 1,300 people since 2010, which is a ridiculous loss, especially considering it grew by almost 8% 2000-2010. In fact, most of the largest losses from the official estimates were around Campus and the Short North. Nonsense.

Another New Page!

So I’ve been out of commission due to technical problems the last week, but I’m finally back. In the meantime, I’ve been working on a new tract map page that will eventually be filled with demographic, population, crime and other various maps based on the census tract level. These seem to be somewhat hard to find, so hopefully it will be a popular new page. Look for this new Census Tract Maps page under the Pages section.

2011 Tract Estimates

While I wouldn’t normally post census tract estimates because I really don’t know what their reliability is, I thought it might be an interesting exercise.

I only looked at those tracts that made up the original 1950 boundaries as well as some of the adjacent areas. I won’t go into too much detail, but…

In 2010, only 20 of the 78 tracts I looked at were growing. Well, specifically, only 20 grew during the 2000-2010 period, not just in 2010 alone. So several more could’ve been starting to recover in 2010, but since it measured the whole decade, it might still show up as a loss. In any case, the 2011 estimates are interesting just because they show a much different picture.

If I use the exact estimate used, 34 of the 78 tracts were growing in 2011, a significant improvement. However, some of the estimates were hard to understand where they came from. For example, they had Downtown tracts, which have had rapid growth the last decade, as declining in population for 2011, even while more and more residential units are built and more people move into the area. Also, they showed some tracts gaining population when the long-term trend is for significant loss and no reason to see that reversing.

So using the margin of error as a guide, I went back over them and did my own estimates. Of the 78 tracts, I only did my own for 14, as they were the only ones I felt didn’t match the reality on the ground or the long-term trends. With those changes, 38 of the 78 were growing, a slight increase of the official 34.

If we use the official estimates, the total population for the 78 tracts was 232,297, a loss of 2,285 since 2010. If we use my estimates, the population would be 237,806, or an increase of 3,224. So what’s the real story? Well, new 2012 tract estimates will be coming out soon. When they do, I will compare and see what, if any, updates should be made. The only real way to know, however, is to wait until 2020 with the next census. Still, until that time, it’s fun to look at the numbers and see if the urban core is recovering in the same way that cities and towns are in and around Franklin County.

Tract Demographic Changes by Map

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

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

White Demographic

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

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

2010

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

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

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

Black Demographic

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

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

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

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

Asian Demographic

2000

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

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

2010

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

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

Hispanic Demographic

2000

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

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

2010

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

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

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