Franklin County Gentrification Trends 1990-2015



style="display:inline-block;width:728px;height:90px"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-4864697986057597"
data-ad-slot="7110507461">

**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.

2016 County and Metro Area Population Estimates

The numbers for July 1, 2016 population estimates came out this morning. Nationally, it seems that overall growth rates slowed down from where they were the year prior, and there were some surprising results in a few cases.

First, let’s take a look at the core counties for Columbus and its peer/Midwest counterparts nationally. The core city is in parenthesis.

2010—————————————————2015———————————2016
1. Cook (Chicago): 5,194,675————-1. Cook: 5,224,823————-1. Cook: 5,203,499
2. Clark (Las Vegas): 1,951,269———-2. Clark: 2,109,289————-2. Clark: 2,155,664
3. Wayne (Detroit): 1,820,584————-3. Santa Clara: 1,910,105—-3. Bexar: 1,928,680
4. Santa Clara (San Jose): 1,781,642—4. Bexar: 1,895,482—4. Santa Clara: 1,919,402
5. Bexar (San Antonio): 1,714,773——-5. Wayne: 1,757,062———5. Wayne: 1,749,366
6. Sacramento (Sac.): 1,418,788–6. Sacramento: 1,496,664–6. Sacramento: 1,414,460
7. Cuyahoga (Cleveland): 1,280,122—7. Orange: 1,284,864——–7. Orange: 1,314,367
8. Allegheny (Pittsburgh): 1,223,348—8. Cuyahoga: 1,255,025—-8. Franklin: 1,264,518
9. Franklin (Columbus): 1,163,414—–9. Franklin: 1,250,269—–9. Cuyahoga: 1,249,352
10. Hennepin (Minn.): 1,152,425—10. Allegheny: 1,229,298—-10. Hennepin: 1,232,483
11. Orange (Orlando): 1,145,951—11. Hennepin: 1,220,459—-11. Allegheny: 1,225,365
12. Travis (Austin): 1,024,266——12. Travis: 1,174,818——12. Travis: 1,199,323
13. Milwaukee (Mil): 947,735–13. Mecklenburg: 1,033,466–13. Mecklenburg: 1,054,835
14. Mecklenburg (Charl.): 919,628–14. Milwaukee: 956,314—14. Milwaukee: 951,448
15. Marion (Indianapolis): 903,393—15. Marion: 938,058———–15. Marion: 941,229
16. Hamilton (Cincinnati): 802,374—16. Hamilton: 807,748——–16. Hamilton: 809,099
17. Multnomah (Portland): 735,334–17. Multnomah: 789,125—17. Multnomah: 799,766
18. Jackson (Kansas City): 674,158–18. Jackson: 686,373——-18. Jackson: 691,801
19. Davidson (Nashville): 626,667—19. Davidson: 678,323——-19. Davidson: 684,410
20. Providence (Providence): 626,671–20. Kent: 636,095———20. Kent: 642,173
21. Kent (Grand Rapids): 602,622–21. Providence: 632,488—-21. Providence: 633,673
22. Summit (Akron): 541,781———22. Douglas: 549,168——–22. Douglas: 554,995
23. Montgomery (Dayton): 535,153–23. Summit: 541,316——–23. Summit: 540,300
24. Douglas (Omaha): 517,110–24. Montgomery: 531,567——24. Dane: 531,273
25. Sedgwick (Wichita): 498,365–25. Dane: 522,878———–25. Montgomery: 531,239
26. Dane (Madison): 488,073——-26. Sedgwick: 510,360——26. Sedgwick: 511,995
27. Lucas (Toledo): 441,815——–27. Polk: 466,688————–27. Polk: 474,045
28. Virginia Beach (VB): 437,994–28. Virginia Beach: 451,854–28. Vir. Beach: 452,602
29. Polk (Des Moines): 430,640—-29. Lucas: 433,496————-29. Lucas: 432,488
30. Allen (Fort Wayne): 355,359—30. Allen: 368,040————-30. Allen: 370,404
31. St. Louis (St. Louis): 319,294–31. St. Louis: 314,875———31. St. Louis: 311,404
32. Lancaster (Lincoln): 285,407—32. Lancaster: 305,705——-32. Lancaster: 309,637
33. Mahoning (Youngstown): 238,823–33. Mahoning: 231,767–33. Mahoning: 230,008

Franklin County moved up one spot to 8th most populated core county of the group.

Total Core County Growth of the 33 Cities Census July 1, 2015 to July 1, 2016
1. Clark-Las Vegas: +46,375
2. Bexar-San Antonio: +33,198
3. Orange-Orlando: +29,503
4. Travis-Austin: +24,505
5. Mecklenburg-Charlotte: +21,369
6. Sacramento-Sacramento: +17,816
7. Franklin-Columbus: +14,249
8. Hennepin-Minneapolis: +12,024
9. Multnomah-Portland: +10,641
10. Santa Clara-San Jose: +9,297
11. Dane-Madison: +8,395
12. Polk-Des Moines: +7,357
13. Davidson-Nashville: +6,087
14. Kent-Grand Rapids: +6,078
15. Douglas-Omaha: +5,827
16. Jackson-Kansas City: +5,428
17. Lancaster-Lincoln: +3,932
18. Marion-Indianapolis: +3,171
19. Allen-Fort Wayne: +2,364
20. Sedgwick-Wichita: +1,635
21. Hamilton-Cincinnati: +1,351
22. Providence-Providence: +1,185
23. Virginia Beach-Virginia Beach: +748
24. Montgomery-Dayton: -328
25. Lucas-Toledo: -1,008
26. Summit-Akron: -1,016
27. Mahoning-Youngstown: -1,759
28. St. Louis-St. Louis: -3,471
29. Allegheny-Pittsburgh: -3,933
30. Milwaukee-Milwaukee: -4,866
31. Cuyahoga-Cleveland: -5,673
32. Wayne-Detroit: -7,696
33. Cook-Chicago: -21,324

And Total Core County Population Change Census 2010 to July 1, 2016 for the 33
1. Bexar: +213,907
2. Clark: +204,395
3. Travis: +175,057
4. Orange: +168,416
5. Santa Clara: +137,760
6. Mecklenburg: +135,207
7. Franklin: +101,104
8. Sacramento: +95,672
9. Hennepin: +80,058
10. Multnomah: +64,432
11. Davidson: +57,729
12. Polk: +43,405
13. Dane: +43,200
14. Kent: +39,551
15. Douglas: +37,885
16. Marion: +37,836
17. Lancaster: +24,230
18. Jackson: +17,643
19. Allen: +15,075
20. Virginia Beach: +14,608
21. Sedgwick: +13,630
22. Cook: +8,824
23. Providence: +7,006
24. Hamilton: +6,725
25. Milwaukee: +3,713
26. Allegheny: +2,017
27. Summit: -1,481
28. Montgomery: 3,914
29. St. Louis: -7,890
30. Mahoning: -8,815
31. Lucas: -9,327
32. Cuyahoga: -30,770
33. Wayne: -71,218

Here are the metro populations for the above 33 cities.

2010—————————————————————————–2016
1. Chicago: 9,461,105———————————————–1. Chicago: 9,512,999
2. Detroit: 4,296,250————————————————-2. Detroit: 4,297,617
3. Minneapolis: 3,348,859——————————————3. Minneapolis: 3,551,036
4. St. Louis: 2,787,701———————————————-4. St. Louis: 2,807,002
5. Pittsburgh: 2,356,285——————————————–5. Charlotte: 2,474,314
6. Portland: 2,226,009———————————————–6. Orlando: 2,441,257
7. Charlotte: 2,217,012———————————————-7. San Antonio: 2,429,609
8. Sacramento: 2,149,127——————————————8. Portland: 2,424,955
9. San Antonio: 2,142,508——————————————9. Pittsburgh: 2,342,299
10. Orlando: 2,134,411———————————————-10. Sacramento: 2,296,418
11. Cincinnati: 2,114,580——————————————–11. Cincinnati: 2,165,139
12. Cleveland: 2,077,240——————————————–12. Las Vegas: 2,155,664
13. Kansas City: 2,009,342——————————————13. Kansas City: 2,104,509
14. Las Vegas: 1,951,269——————————————-14. Austin: 2,056,405
15. Columbus: 1,901,974——————————————–15. Cleveland: 2,055,612
16. Indianapolis: 1,887,877——————————————16. Columbus: 2,041,520
17. San Jose: 1,836,911———————————————-17. Indianapolis: 2,004,230
18. Austin: 1,716,289————————————————–18. San Jose: 1,978,816
19. Virginia Beach: 1,676,822—————————————19. Nashville: 1,865,298
20. Nashville: 1,670,890———————————————20. Virginia Beach: 1,726,907
21. Providence: 1,600,852——————————————21. Providence: 1,614,750
22. Milwaukee: 1,555,908——————————————-22. Milwaukee: 1,572,482
23. Grand Rapids: 988,938—————————————–23. Grand Rapids: 1,047,099
24. Omaha: 865,350————————————————-24. Omaha: 924,129
25. Dayton: 799,232————————————————-25. Dayton: 800,683
26. Akron: 703,200—————————————————26. Akron: 702,221
27. Wichita: 630,919————————————————-27. Madison: 648,929
28. Toledo: 610,001————————————————–28. Wichita: 644,672
29. Madison: 605,435————————————————29. Des Moines: 634,725
30. Des Moines: 569,633——————————————-30. Toledo: 605,221
31. Youngstown: 565,773——————————————31. Youngstown: 544,746
32. Fort Wayne: 416,257——————————————-32. Fort Wayne: 431,802
33. Lincoln: 302,157————————————————-33. Lincoln: 326,921

The Columbus metro fell one spot in this list, but should recover it next year.

Total Metro Area Population Change July 1,2015 to July 1, 2016 for the 33
1. Orlando: +59,125
2. Austin: +58,301
3. Charlotte: +49,671
4. San Antonio: +47,906
5. Las Vegas: +46,375
6. Portland: +40,148
7. Nashville: +36,337
8. Minneapolis: +32,784
9. Sacramento: +28,830
10. Columbus: +21,376
11. Kansas City: +20,045
12. Indianapolis: +17,688
13. Des Moines: +12,145
14. San Jose: +10,238
15. Omaha: +9,861
16. Cincinnati: +9,747
17. Grand Rapids: +8,762
18. Madison: +8,315
19. Lincoln: +4,094
20. Virginia Beach: +3,439
21. Fort Wayne: +2,430
22. Providence: +2,176
23. Wichita: +1,656
24. Dayton: +883
25. Detroit: +79
26. Toledo: -358
27. Akron: -1,137
28. St. Louis: -1,328
29. Milwaukee: -1,867
32. Cleveland: -4,317
31. Youngstown: -4,644
32. Pittsburgh: -8,972
33. Chicago: -19,570

And the Total Metro Area Population Change Census 2010 to July 1, 2016
1. Austin: +340,085
2. Orlando: +306,858
3. San Antonio: +287,093
4. Charlotte: +257,340
5. Las Vegas: +204,395
6. Minneapolis: +202,177
7. Portland: +198,943
8. Nashville: +194,415
9. Sacramento: +147,274
10. San Jose: +141,875
11. Columbus: +139,517
12. Indianapolis: +116,148
13. Kansas City: +95,171
14. Des Moines: +65,092
15. Omaha: +58,773
16. Grand Rapids: +58,159
17. Chicago: +51,449
18. Cincinnati: +50,388
19. Virginia Beach: +50,090
20. Madison: +43,492
21. Lincoln: +24,764
22. St. Louis: +19,243
23. Milwaukee: +16,528
24. Fort Wayne: +15,548
25. Wichita: +13,753
26. Providence: +13,550
27. Dayton: +1,464
28. Detroit: +1,304
29. Akron: -982
30. Toledo: -4,780
31. Pittsburgh: -13,992
32. Youngstown: -21,053
33. Cleveland: -21,646

Now let’s take a closer look at Ohio only.

Top 20 Most-Populated Ohio Counties

2010————————————————-2016
1. Cuyahoga: 1,280,122—————-1. Franklin: 1,264,518
2. Franklin: 1,163,414——————-2. Cuyahoga: 1,249,352
3. Hamilton: 802,374——————–3. Hamilton: 809,099
4. Summit: 541,781———————-4. Summit: 540,300
5. Montgomery: 535,153—————5. Montgomery: 531,239
6. Lucas: 441,815————————6. Lucas:  432,488
7. Stark: 375,586————————-7. Butler: 377,537
8. Butler: 368,130————————8. Stark: 373,612
9. Lorain: 301,356———————–9. Lorain: 306,365
10. Mahoning: 238,823—————-10. Mahoning: 230,008
11. Lake: 230,041———————–11. Lake: 228,614
12. Warren: 212,693——————–12. Warren: 227,063
13. Trumbull: 210,312——————13. Clermont: 203,022
14. Clermont: 197,363——————14. Trumbull: 201,825
15. Delaware: 174,214—————–15. Delaware: 196,463
16. Medina: 172,332——————–16. Medina: 177,221
17. Licking: 166,492———————17. Licking: 172,198
18. Greene: 161,573———————18. Greene: 164,765
19. Portage: 161,419——————–19. Portage: 161,921
20. Fairfield: 146,156——————–20. Fairfield: 152,597

Top 10 Fastest-Growing Counties July 1, 2015 to July 1, 2016
1. Franklin: +14,249
2. Delaware: +3,579
3. Warren: +2,624
4. Butler: +2,078
5. Licking: +1,439
6. Hamilton: +1,351
7. Fairfield: +1,271
8. Clermont: +1,231
9. Lorain: +1,152
10. Union: +1,142

Top 10 Fastest-Declining Counties July 1, 2015 to July 1, 2016
1. Cuyahoga: -5,673
2. Trumbull: -1,806
3. Mahoning: -1,759
4. Stark: -1,253
5. Clark: -1,029
6. Summit: -1,016
7. Lucas: -1,008
8. Columbiana: -998
9. Madison: -684
10. Scioto: -664

Top 10 Fastest-Growing Counties Census 2010 to July 1, 2016
1. Franklin: +100,989
2. Delaware: +22,274
3. Warren: +14,195
4. Butler: +9,402
5. Hamilton: +6,731
6. Fairfield: +6,420
7. Licking: +5,706
8. Clermont: +5,659
9. Lorain: +5,009
10. Medina: +4,888

Top 10 Fastest-Declining Counties Census 2010 to July 1, 2016
1. Cuyahoga: -30,757
2. Lucas: -9,327
3. Mahoning: -8,799
4. Trumbull: -8,493
5. Columbiana: -4,156
6. Montgomery: -3,897
7. Clark: -3,547
8. Scioto: -3,411
9. Richland: -3,368
10. Ashtabula: -3,257

The Origins of the Columbus Metro’s Domestic Migration

Top 30 Largest Net Domestic In-Migration Origins (Ohio Counties and States)

2006-2010————————2009-2013—————————-2010-2014
1. Cuyahoga: 1602———-1. Cuyahoga: 1905————–1. Cuyahoga: 1702
2. Montgomery: 1020——-2. Michigan: 1425—————-2. Michigan: 1473
3. Michigan: 893————-3. Montgomery: 1123————3. Montgomery: 1098
4. Maryland: 745————-4. Summit: 744——————–4. Washington (state): 740
5. Lorain: 740—————–5. Lorain: 715———————-5. Summit: 689
6. Virginia: 636—————6. Indiana: 694———————6. Lucas: 635
7. Mahoning: 603————7. Lucas: 569———————–7. Stark: 632
8. Stark: 584——————8. Maryland: 512——————-8. New Jersey: 579
9. Lucas: 554—————–9. Hamilton: 504——————–9. Indiana: 536
10. Summit: 531————-10. Clermont: 466—————–10. Medina: 465
11. Highland: 499———–11. Stark: 466———————–11. Richland: 465
12. New Jersey: 497——-12. Arizona: 463——————–12. Fayette: 436
13. Hamilton: 483———–13. Alabama: 431——————-13. Trumbull: 404
14. New York: 419———-14. Trumbull: 401——————-14. Wayne: 383
15. Allen: 384—————-15. Mahoning: 387——————15. Erie: 368
16. Tennessee: 375——–16. Fayette: 354———————16. Clermont: 355
17. Logan: 328—————17. Washington (state): 353—–17. Illinois: 355
18. Trumbull: 325————18. Coshocton: 346—————-18. Massachusetts: 325
19. Coshocton: 310———19. Medina: 322——————–19. Allen: 320
20. Jefferson: 290———–20. Allen: 302————————20. Maryland: 294
21. Scioto: 259—————21. Erie: 290————————-21. Butler: 275
22. Belmont: 254————22. Highland: 270——————-22. Puerto Rico: 268
23. Huron: 245—————23. Puerto Rico: 265—————23. Lake: 267
24. Darke: 217—————24. Adams: 260———————24. West Virginia: 257
25. Lake: 212—————-25. Warren: 260———————25. Highland: 256
26. Tuscarawas: 202——-26. Massachusetts: 259———-26. Lorain: 249
27. Iowa: 200—————–27. Wayne: 259———————27. Mahoning: 244
28. Shelby: 199————–28. Morgan: 255——————–28. Adams: 226
29. Medina: 196————-29. Tuscarawas: 253————–29. Columbiana: 225
30. Massachusetts: 192—30. Ashtabula: 244—————–30. Arizona: 221

Top 30 Largest Net Domestic Out-Migration Destinations (Ohio counties and States)

2006-2010——————————-2009-2013—————————-2010-2014
1. Texas: -1371———————-1. Georgia: -1024—————-1. Florida: -1243
2. Knox: -942————————-2. Florida: -1013——————2. Georgia: -984
3. North Carolina: -782————3. Greene: -524——————-3. Knox: -608
4. Georgia: -718———————4. Missouri: -516——————4. Colorado: -456
5. Athens: -679———————-5. Colorado: -448—————–5. Minnesota: -405
6. Kentucky: -516——————-6. California: -436—————–6. California: -396
7. South Carolina: -499———–7. South Carolina: -431———-7. Greene: -382
8. California: -364——————-8. Knox: -418———————-8. Athens: -375
9. Florida: -360———————-9. North Carolina: -417———-9. Missouri: -348
10. Wood: -351———————10. Wisconsin: -395————–10. Utah: -325
11. Richland: -344——————11. Athens: -336——————11. Tennessee: -264
12. Greene: -239——————–12. Minnesota: -308————-12. Logan: -242
13. West Virginia: -236————13. Utah: -290———————13. Mississippi: -214
14. Missouri: -219——————-14. Richland: -266—————14. Wisconsin: -197
15. Crawford: -209——————15. Portage: -265—————–15. Oregon: -161
16. Hardin: -179———————16. Kentucky: -257—————16. Texas: -156
17. Noble: -177———————-17. Logan: -242——————-17. South Carolina: -144
18. Muskingum: -175—————18. Pennsylvania: -242———18. Seneca: -141
19. Butler: -173———————-19. Tennessee: -200————19. Louisiana: -140
20. Holmes: -163——————–20. Oregon: -187—————-20. Sandusky: -134
21. Marion: -138———————21. Wood: -166——————21. Wood: -134
22. Portage: -134——————-22. Sandusky: -157————–22. Darke: -109
23. Ottawa: -131——————–23. Mississippi: -151————-23. Jefferson: -103
24. Sandusky: -124—————-24. Jefferson: -127—————24. Noble: -98
25. Oregon: -120——————-25. Kansas: -98——————-25. Hardin: -96
26. Indiana: -116——————-26. Delaware (state): -88——-26. Idaho: -89
27. Idaho: -115———————27. Idaho: -74———————-27. Kansas: -81
28. Utah: -103———————- 28. Crawford: -73—————–28. Marion: -78
29. Fayette: -93———————29. Hardin: -68——————–29. Meigs: -70
30. Kansas: -90———————30. Seneca: -66——————-30. Ottawa: -67

Top 25 Largest Positive Swings Between 2006-2010 and 2010-2014
1. Texas: +1215
2. North Carolina: +808
3. Washington: +807
4. Kentucky: +675
5. Indiana: +652
6. Michigan: +580
7. West Virginia: +493
8. Athens: +369
9. Knox: +358
10. South Carolina: +355
11. Arizona: +288
12. Alaska: +283
13. Puerto Rico: +268
14. Illinois: +236
15. Hardin: +198
16. Marion: +187
17. Maine: +160
18. Alabama: +153
19. Logan: +149
20. Darke: +139
21. Massachusetts: +133
22. Rhode Island: +131
23. Wyoming: +127
24. Greene: +104
25. Champaign: +101

Top 25 Largest Negative Swings Between 2006-2010 and 2010-2014
1. Florida: -883
2. Tennessee: -639
3. Colorado: -619
4. Virginia: -595
5. Minnesota: -529
6. Maryland: -451
7. Lucas: -392
8. Montgomery: -384
9. New York: -308
10. Cuyahoga: -288
11. Muskingum: -276
12. Georgia: -266
13. Stark: -246
14. Utah: -222
15. Wisconsin: -215
16. Hamilton: -193
17. Scioto: -170
18. Miami: -154
19. Mississippi: -150
20. Clermont: -142
21. New Mexico: -140
22. Louisiana: -137
23. Mahoning: -131
24. Missouri: -129
25. Pennsylvania: -116

Total Counts By Period
Positive Ohio Counties
2006-2010: 53
2009-2013: 57
2010-2014: 53

Positive States, including DC and Puerto Rico
2006-2010: 21
2009-2013: 24
2010-2014: 29

Total Net In-Migration
Ohio
2006-2010: +8,008
2009-2013: +11,366
2010-2014: +10,101

Outside Ohio
2006-2010: -1,158
2009-2013: -466
2010-2014: +1,007

Ohio and Outside Ohio
2006-2010: +6,850
2009-2013: +10,900
2010-2014: +11,108

All these figures show that the Columbus metro has net positive domestic migration. While the majority of that comes from within the state, Columbus’ previously negative net total from outside the state has more recently become positive as well. Combined, the net total has been climbing. For a long time, Columbus’ relative success was not well-known outside of the state, but perhaps word is finally getting out.

The Recovery of Ohio’s 3-C Downtowns: Revisit

A little more than 4 years ago, I posted numbers on how Columbus, Cincinnati and Cleveland were recovering in their urban cores. See that post here: http://allcolumbusdata.com/?p=289 and here: http://allcolumbusdata.com/?p=312 That post has proven to be one of the site’s most popular. I figured it was time to take a look at their continuing changes.

You can see by the chart for the 1950 Boundary population, the urban core of each city, that all 3-Cs suffered population losses post-1950. However, the rate of losses gradually declined, and 2 of the cities, Columbus and Cincinnati, appear to be growing in this boundary since at least 2010. Cleveland continues to lose.

This is shown further by the chart below.

As far as the actual Downtowns of each, here are the population trends.

For the most part, population declines in the 3-Cs peaked around 1980, give or take a decade. Since then, all of them have seen increases, with Cleveland seeing the most rapid increase and Cincinnati the least. Columbus has seen steady, but increasingly rapid growth with each subsequent decade since 1980.

Here is the chart for Downtown growth by decade.

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.