Category Archives: Columbus Population and Demographics

The Midwest vs. South in Regional Domestic Migration in 2016

Posted on by
Reply




regional domestic migration in 2016

For years, if not decades, we’ve been hearing a familiar tale- that anyone and everyone is moving from the Midwest and Northeast to the South and West. This trend began during and after the collapse of Northern manufacturing, and as higher cost of living began to make the lower-cost South more attractive in particular. However, a lot of the South’s growth over the years- indeed a majority- never had anything to do with region-to-region migration. Instead, it was due largely to natural growth (births vs. deaths) and international migration, particularly from Central America. What received all the attention, though, was the belief that people were packing up and moving to the South from places like Ohio and other struggling Northern states. While that may have been true for a while, that is increasingly looking like it is no longer the case.

The Midwest, especially, has been derided as the region no one wants to live in. Despite its growing population approaching 66 million people, the common refrain was that its colder winters, flailing economies and questionable demographic future meant that it was simply a region being left behind by the booming Southern states.

Recently, the US Census released estimates for 2015-2016 geographic mobility, and they tell a very different story altogether. Regional domestic migration in 2016 may have actually bucked the trends.

First, let’s look at the total domestic migration moving to the Midwest from other regions.
South to Midwest: +309,000
West to Midwest: +72,000
Northeast to Midwest: +61,000
Total to Midwest: +442,000

And then compare that to the total that the Midwest sends to other regions.
Midwest to South: -254,000
Midwest to West: -224,000
Midwest to Northeast: -34,000
Total from Midwest: -512,000

Net difference by region.
Midwest vs. South: +55,000
Midwest vs. West: -152,000
Midwest vs. Northeast: +27,000
Total Net: -70,000

So while the Midwest is seeing an overall net domestic migration loss, it is entirely to the Western states.

This could just be an off year, as almost all recent years showed losses to the South, but then again, maybe not. The South has been in a boom for several decades now, and in that time, the region still lags the other 3 in almost every quality of life metric used. All booms end eventually, and the South’s 2 biggest perceived advantages, low cost of living and business-friendly climate, have been gradually eroding over time. As Census surveys show, people don’t actually move for a change in weather, so it’s the economic factors that are going to make the biggest impacts long-term. The Midwest now has many cities and several states that are doing well economically, including Columbus, and perhaps they are becoming more attractive than they have in many years. Time will tell, but last year, the narrative of an unattractive Midwest vs. South was at least temporarily shelved.

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.

Franklin County gentrification trends
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 Population Estimates for Counties and Metros

Posted on by
Reply




The 2016 population estimates came out this morning from the Census. 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.
2016 population estimates

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 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.

recovery of Ohio downtowns
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%