Category Archives: Columbus Neighborhoods

Young Adults Prefer Density in Franklin County

Posted on by
Reply



I’ve seen several articles across the internet lately questioning the idea that Millennials and young adults prefer density and urban areas. I decided to see how this played out in Franklin County overall. I first looked at the total population aged 20-34 in the year 2000 and the year 2015 by Census Tract.
Here were the maps for those years.

After looking at the numbers for both years, I came up with this map for how that age group had changed in the 2000-2015 period.

Unfortunately, some tracts, particularly in the eastern suburban areas, did not exist in 2000, and so I was not able to figure out the change for them during the period. The rest of the map, however, shows that the strongest growth in this age group was not only inside 270, but closest to Downtown and central corridors along Broad and High Streets.
These maps don’t tell us about the relationship between those changes and the population density of the census tracts. So I went further and broke the tracts into increments of density to see where the strongest growth was occurring.

With a few exceptions, there appears to be a correlation between average 20-34 aged population growth and the density of the census tracts it occurs in. This suggests that this age group, at least in Franklin County, prefers areas with moderate to high density, which typically translates to urban living.

Franklin County Gentrification Trends 1990-2015

Posted on by
Reply




I saw this postthe 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 that showed Franklin County gentrification trends. 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 Recovery of Ohio Downtowns Revisited

Posted on by
Reply



A little more than 4 years ago, I posted numbers on the recovery of Ohio downtowns, and what that might mean for the future. 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.



Housing Market Update January 2017

Posted on by
Reply




housing market update January 2017 Columbus, Ohio

The recent housing market update January 2017 edition information comes from Columbus Realtors.

Note: LSD= Local School District, CSD= City School District. In both cases, school district boundaries differ from city boundaries.

Top 15 Most Expensive Locations By Median Sales Price in January 2017
1. New Albany: $535,000
2. New Albany Plain LSD: $397,450
3. German Village: $376,000
4. Powell: $354,950
5. Dublin: $343,600
6. Granville CSD: $330,000
7. Bexley: $325,000
8. Upper Arlington CSD: $319,500
9. Olentangy LSD: $315,000
10. Big Walnut LSD: $306,250
11. Dublin CSD: $271,500
12. Worthington: $270,000
13. Buckeye Valley LSD: $259,000
14. Sunbury: $253,000
15. Downtown: $243,750

Top 15 Least Expensive Locations by Median Sales Price in January 2017
1. Obetz: $80,100
2. Hamilton LSD: $80,100
3. Whitehall: $85,950
4. Newark CSD: $86,900
5. Lancaster CSD: $103,000
6. Jefferson LSD: $123,000
7. London CSD: $124,000
8. Groveport Madison LSD: $125,900
9. Reynoldsburg CSD: $125,950
10. Columbus CSD: $129,900
11. South-Western CSD: $131,000
12. Columbus: $140,026
13. Jonathan Alder LSD: $150,000
14. Minerva Park: $159,500
15. Grove City: $160,950

Overall Market Median Sales Price in January 2017: $160,368
Median Sales Price Change January 2016-January 2016: +$3,172

Top 15 Locations with the Highest Median Sales Price % Growth Between January 2016 and January 2017
1. Whitehall: +69.5%
2. Circleville CSD: +64.9%
3. Sunbury: +63.0%
4. Jefferson LSD: +53.5%
5. Big Walnut LSD: +44.1%
6. Canal Winchester CSD: +40.9%
7. Westerville: +29.8%
8. Westerville CSD: +27.3%
9. Powell: +25.4%
10. Pataskala: +24.0%
11. Olentangy LSD: +23.5%
12. Gahanna Jefferson CSD: +21.8%
13. Grandview Heights: +21.2%
14. Granville CSD: +20.0%
15. Pickerington: +17.7%

Top 15 Locations with the Lowest Median Sales Price % Growth Between January 2016 and January 2017
1. London CSD: -53.5%
2. Obetz: -38.3%
3. Hamilton LSD: -27.1%
4. Jonathan Alder LSD: -25.2%
5. Buckeye Valley LSD: -23.0%
6. Reynoldsburg CSD: -18.7%
7. Hilliard: -17.7%
8. Lancaster CSD: -17.6%
9. Grove City: -15.3%
10. Dublin CSD: -12.8%
11. Johnstown-Monroe LSD: -10.8%
12. Upper Arlington CSD: -8.5%
13. Newark CSD: -8.1%
14. Dublin: -7.1%
15. South-Western CSD: -6.4%

Overall Market Median Sales Price % Change January 2016-January 2017: +2.0%

Top 10 Locations with the Most New Listings in January 2017
1. Columbus: 829
2. Columbus CSD: 544
3. South-Western CSD: 136
4. Olentangy LSD: 122
5. Westerville CSD: 100
6. Hilliard CSD: 94
7. Dublin CSD: 89
8. Worthington CSD: 66
9. Dublin: 64
10. Pickerington LSD: 60

Top 10 Locations with the Fewest New Listings in January 2017
1. Valleyview: 0
2. Lithopolis: 1
3. Minerva Park: 2
4. Sunbury: 2
5. Obetz: 3
6. Johnstown Monroe LSD: 5
7. Jefferson LSD: 8
8. Jonathan Alder LSD: 8
9. German Village: 8
10. Hamilton LSD: 8
11. Northridge LSD: 9

Total New Listings in the Columbus Metro in January 2017: 2,002
Overall Metro New Listings % Change January 2016-January 2017: -1.9%

Top 10 Fastest-Selling Locations by # of Days Homes Remain on the Market Before Sale in January 2017
1. Obetz: 18
2. Sunbury: 21
3. Pataskala: 22
4. Jefferson LSD: 26
5. Gahanna: 28
6. Minerva Park: 28
7. Delaware CSD: 29
8. Bexley: 31
9. Hilliard CSD: 31
10. Pickerington: 31
11. Worthington CSD: 31

Top 10 Slowest-Selling Locations by # of Days Homes Remain on the Market Before Sale in January 2017
1. Dublin: 96
2. New Albany: 93
3. Dublin CSD: 82
4. Powell: 80
5. Granville CSD: 79
6. Olentangy LSD: 78
7. Downtown: 77
8. Grandview Heights: 76
9. New Albany Plain LSD: 68
10. Canal Winchester CSD: 67
11. New Albany CSD: 65
12. Upper Arlington CSD: 62
13. Circleville CSD: 61
14. Johnstown Monroe LSD: 61
15. Hamilton LSD: 60

# of Days For-Sale Homes Remain on the Market Before Sale Across the Metro Overall: 51.6
Change in # of Days Before Sale January 2016-January 2017: -22.0



Top 10 Locations with the Greatest % Decline of # of Days on the Market Before Sale January 2016-January2017
1. Obetz: -89.2%
2. Pataskala: -64.5%
3. Whitehall: -64.3%
4. Circleville CSD: -56.1%
5. Gahanna: -53.3%
6. Grove City: -49.2%
7. Delaware CSD: -44.2%
8. Bexley: -40.4%
9. Pickerington LSD: -39.7%
10. Worthington CSD: -38.0%

Top 10 Locations with the Lowest % Decline of # of Days on the Market Before Sale January 2016-January 2017
1. German Village: +161.1%
2. Worthington: +123.8%
3. Powell: +77.8%
4. Grandview Heights: +46.2%
5. Big Walnut LSD: +41.5%
6. Minerva Park: +40.0%
7. Jonathan Alder LSD: +37.8%
8. Canal Winchester CSD: +31.4%
9. Marysville CSD: +28.3%
10. Johnstown Monroe LSD: +27.1%

% Change for the # of Days Homes Remain on the Market Before Sale Across the Metro Overall: -29.9%



2015 Census Tract Population Density

Posted on by
Reply




2015 census tract population density

The US Census recently released 2015 census tract population density data, including census tract population density. 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. The Census Tract Maps page gives demographic and population data for census tracts going back to 1930.