Category Archives: Columbus Resources

2017 Ohio City Population Estimates

Posted on by
Reply




city population estimates

So once again, 2017 Ohio city population estimates came out today from the Census. As has been the case for a long time now, Columbus is rocketing upward at record pace. The 2016 comparison numbers have been adjusted by the Census for the 2017 update.

First, let’s take a look at the top 25 largest cities in Ohio on July 1, 2017.
Census 2010—————————-July 1, 2016——————-July 1, 2017
1. Columbus: 787,033——–1. Columbus: 863,741———–1. Columbus: 879,170
2. Cleveland: 396,815———2. Cleveland: 387,451———-2. Cleveland: 385,525
3. Cincinnati: 296,943———3. Cincinnati: 299,127———-3. Cincinnati: 301,301
4. Toledo: 287,208————-4. Toledo: 278,06—————4. Toledo: 276,491
5. Akron: 199,110————–5. Akron: 197,711—————5. Akron: 197,846
6. Dayton: 141,527————6. Dayton: 140,743————–6. Dayton: 140,371
7. Parma: 81,601————–7. Parma: 79,591—————–7. Parma: 79,167
8. Canton: 73,007————-8. Canton: 71,294—————-8. Canton: 70,909
9. Youngstown: 66,982——9. Youngstown: 64,360———9. Youngstown: 64,604
10. Lorain: 64,097————10. Lorain: 63,700—————-10. Lorain: 63,841
11. Hamilton: 62,477———11. Hamilton: 62,157————11. Hamilton: 62,092
12. Springfield: 60,608——-12. Springfield: 58,902———12. Springfield: 59,208
13. Kettering: 56,163———13. Kettering: 55,218————13. Kettering: 55,175
14. Elyria: 54,533————-14. Elyria: 53,880—————–14. Elyria: 53,883
15. Lakewood: 52,131——-15. Lakewood: 50,500———-15. Lakewood: 50,249
16. Cuyahoga Falls: 49,652–16. Cuyahoga Falls: 49,197–16. Newark: 49,423
17. Euclid: 48,920————-17. Newark: 48,899———-17. Cuyahoga Falls: 49,247
18. Middletown: 48,694——18. Middletown: 48,819——–18. Middletown: 48,823
19. Mansfield: 47,821——–19. Euclid: 47,464—————19. Dublin: 47,619
20. Newark: 47,573———–20. Mentor: 46,823————-20. Euclid: 47,201
21. Mentor: 47,159————21. Mansfield: 46,671———-21. Mentor: 47,121
22. Cleveland Heights: 46,121–22. Beavercreek: 46,393–22. Beavercreek: 46,948
23. Beavercreek: 45,193—–23. Dublin: 45,673————-23. Mansfield: 46,160
24. Strongsville: 44.750—–24. Cleveland Heights: 44,805–24. Strongsville: 44,744
25. Fairfield: 42,510———25. Strongsville: 44,713———25. Cleveland Heights: 44,562

So Columbus easily maintained #1, and Dublin and Newark are rapidly climbing the list.

Here are all of the Columbus Metro’s cities, towns and villages on July 1, 2017, and the total change from July 1, 2016.
1. Columbus: 879,170 +15,429
2. Newark: 49,423 +534
3. Dublin: 47,619 +1,937
4. Grove City: 41,022 +1,128
5. Lancaster: 40,280 +431
6. Westerville: 39,737 +671
7. Delaware: 39,267 +506
8. Reynoldsburg: 37,847 +345
9. Hilliard: 35,939 +938
10. Upper Arlington: 35,337 +217
11. Gahanna: 35,297 +241
12. Marysville: 23,912 +462
13. Pickerington: 20,402 +350
14. Whitehall: 18,913 +89
15. Pataskala: 15,566 +147
16. Worthington: 14,646 +71
17. Circleville: 13,930 +80
18. Bexley: 13,786 +48
19. Powell: 13,204 +400
20. New Albany: 10,718 +301
21. Heath: 10,713 +100
22. London: 10,138 +143
23. Canal Winchester: 8,294 +349
24. Grandview Heights: 7,778 +116
25. Logan: 7,069 +25
26. Granville: 5,773 +11
27. Groveport: 5,621 +26
28. Sunbury: 5,293 +57
29. Johnstown: 5,002 +43
30. Obetz: 4,967 +99
31. New Lexington: 4,704 -12
32. Plain City: 4,379 +32
33. West Jefferson: 4,355 +59
34. Ashville: 4,147 +29
35. Mount Gilead: 3,655 +1
36. Baltimore: 2,989 +15
37. Buckeye Lake: 2,816 +18
38. Crooksville: 2,491 -6
39. Hebron: 2,435 +23
40. Richwood: 2,372 +56
41. Utica: 2,211 +17
42. Cardington: 2,048 +2
43. South Bloomfield: 1,972 +19
44. Roseville: 1,839 -4
45. Mount Sterling: 1,767 +10
46. Commercial Point: 1,629 +13
47. Lithopolis: 1,573 +128
48. Ashley: 1,537 +26
49. Somerset: 1,462 -1
50. Bremen: 1,441 +6
51. Minerva Park: 1,321 +6
52. Hanover: 1,178 +15
53. Williamsport: 1,065 +6
54. Millersport: 1,055 +7
55. Urbancrest: 1,001 +6
56. Thornville: 999 +5
57. Pleasantville: 964 +3
58. Milford Center: 860 +20
59. New Holland: 840 +5
60. Junction City: 808 -2
61. Shawnee Hills: 787 +14
62. Amanda: 747 +4
63. Ostrander: 713 +13
64. New Straitsville: 711 -1
65. Marble Cliff: 683 +10
66. Galena: 682 +1
67. Shawnee: 643 -1
68. Valleyview: 638 +1
69. Thurston: 609 +4
70. Corning: 571 -1
71. Butchel: 568 +5
72. Stoutsville: 567 +3
73. Riverlea: 566 +2
74. Carroll: 560 +33
75. Kirkersville: 542 +3
76. Alexandria: 534 +3
77. Laurelville: 511 +2
78. Murray City: 441 +1
79. Edison: 438 +0
80. Sugar Grove: 426 +0
81. Hartford: 404 +2
82. St. Louisville: 380 +4
83. South Solon: 357 -1
84. Marengo: 338 -1
85. Harrisburg: 335 +4
86. Midway: 326 +1
87. Rushville: 310 +2
88. Magnetic Springs: 285 +8
89. Tarlton: 282 +1
90. Orient: 278 +1
91. Fulton: 258 +0
92. Lockbourne: 246 +0
93. Darbyville: 234 +1
94. Unionville Center: 232 -1
95. Chesterville: 227 +0
96. Gratiot: 222 +1
97. Glenford: 172 +0
98. Sparta: 158 -3
99. Hemlock: 152 +0
100. West Rushville: 135 +1
101. Brice: 119 +1
102. Rendville: 36 +0

Some milestones include Grove City and Lancaster passing 40,000 for the first time and Johnstown passing the 5,000 mark. 11 places lost population, 8 stayed the same and 83 gained population. The growing portions of the Columbus metro continue to encompass the vast majority of incorporated places.

Nationally, here were the top 20 fastest-growing cities by numerical change between July 1, 2016 and July 1, 2017
1. San Antonio, Texas: +24,208
2. Phoenix, Arizona: 24,036
3. Dallas, Texas: +18,935
4. Fort Worth, Texas: +18,664
5. Los Angeles: 18,643
6. Seattle, Washington: +17,490
7. Charlotte, North Carolina: +15,551
8. Columbus: +15,429
9. Frisco, Texas: +13,470
10. Atlanta, Georgia: +13,323
11. San Diego, California: +12,834
12. Austin, Texas: +12,515
13. Jacksonville, Florida: +11,169
14. Irvine, California: +11,068
15. Henderson, Nevada: +10,534
16. Las Vegas, Nevada: 9,966
17. Denver, Colorado: 9,844
18. Washington, DC: 9,636
19. Tampa, Florida: 9,383
20. Mesa, Arizona: 9,025

Columbus may in fact be an official boomtown now.



Columbus Domestic Migration Origins

Posted on by
Reply



Columbus domestic migration origins

Most people seem to recognize that the Columbus domestic migration origins are often based in Ohio. Many rural counties and downtrodden cities are seeing residents move to Columbus and the greater metro for better economic and other opportunities. But how much of that domestic migration is actually from Ohio?


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

Numbers are based on estimates. Updated 1/24/2018 with 2011-2015 data.

2006-2010————————2009-2013—————————-2011-2015
1. Cuyahoga: 1602———-1. Cuyahoga: 1905————–1. Cuyahoga: 1842
2. Montgomery: 1020——-2. Michigan: 1425—————-2. Michigan: 1239
3. Michigan: 893————-3. Montgomery: 1123————3. Montgomery: 1088
4. Maryland: 745————-4. Summit: 744——————–4. Summit: 764
5. Lorain: 740—————–5. Lorain: 715———————-5. Lucas: 626
6. Virginia: 636—————6. Indiana: 694———————6. New Jersey: 608
7. Mahoning: 603————7. Lucas: 569———————–7. New York: 575
8. Stark: 584——————8. Maryland: 512——————-8. Medina: 572
9. Lucas: 554—————–9. Hamilton: 504——————–9. Stark: 484
10. Summit: 531————-10. Clermont: 466—————–10. Trumbull: 465
11. Highland: 499———–11. Stark: 466———————–11. Maryland: 464
12. New Jersey: 497——-12. Arizona: 463——————–12. Allen: 406
13. Hamilton: 483———–13. Alabama: 431——————-13. Washington (state): 399
14. New York: 419———-14. Trumbull: 401——————-14. Erie: 386
15. Allen: 384—————-15. Mahoning: 387——————15. Indiana: 386
16. Tennessee: 375——–16. Fayette: 354———————16. Massachusetts: 384
17. Logan: 328—————17. Washington (state): 353—–17. Pennsylvania: 371
18. Trumbull: 325————18. Coshocton: 346—————-18. Kentucky: 368
19. Coshocton: 310———19. Medina: 322——————–19. W. Virginia: 339
20. Jefferson: 290———–20. Allen: 302————————20. Lake: 316
21. Scioto: 259—————21. Erie: 290————————-21. Belmont: 314
22. Belmont: 254————22. Highland: 270——————-22. Wayne: 298
23. Huron: 245—————23. Puerto Rico: 265—————23. Fayette: 290
24. Darke: 217—————24. Adams: 260———————24. Mahoning: 289
25. Lake: 212—————-25. Warren: 260———————25. New Hampshire: 288
26. Tuscarawas: 202——-26. Massachusetts: 259———-26. Alaska: 282
27. Iowa: 200—————–27. Wayne: 259———————27. Alabama: 280
28. Shelby: 199————–28. Morgan: 255——————–28. Lorain: 277
29. Medina: 196————-29. Tuscarawas: 253————–29. Tuscarawas: 277
30. Massachusetts: 192—30. Ashtabula: 244—————–30. Geauga: 261

Top 30 Largest Net Domestic Out-Migration Destinations (Ohio counties and States)
2006-2010——————————-2009-2013—————————-2011-2015
1. Texas: -1371———————-1. Georgia: -1024—————-1. Florida: -1333
2. Knox: -942————————-2. Florida: -1013——————2. Missouri: -703
3. North Carolina: -782————3. Greene: -524——————-3. Georgia: -680
4. Georgia: -718———————4. Missouri: -516——————4. Athens: -607
5. Athens: -679———————-5. Colorado: -448—————–5. Knox: -506
6. Kentucky: -516——————-6. California: -436—————–6. Tennessee: -442
7. South Carolina: -499———–7. South Carolina: -431———-7. Colorado: -435
8. California: -364——————-8. Knox: -418———————-8. California: -391
9. Florida: -360———————-9. North Carolina: -417———-9. Greene: -388
10. Wood: -351———————10. Wisconsin: -395————–10. South Carolina: -362
11. Richland: -344——————11. Athens: -336——————11. Marion: -329
12. Greene: -239——————–12. Minnesota: -308————-12. Hamilton: -312
13. West Virginia: -236————13. Utah: -290———————13. Logan: -306
14. Missouri: -219——————-14. Richland: -266—————14. Utah: -300
15. Crawford: -209——————15. Portage: -265—————–15. Wood: -282
16. Hardin: -179———————16. Kentucky: -257—————16. Scioto: -249
17. Noble: -177———————-17. Logan: -242——————-17. Seneca: -183
18. Muskingum: -175—————18. Pennsylvania: -242———18. Champaign: -174
19. Butler: -173———————-19. Tennessee: -200————19. Oregon: -158
20. Holmes: -163——————–20. Oregon: -187—————-20. New Mexico: -157
21. Marion: -138———————21. Wood: -166——————21. Meigs: -150
22. Portage: -134——————-22. Sandusky: -157————–22. Mississippi: -146
23. Ottawa: -131——————–23. Mississippi: -151————-23. Portage: -142
24. Sandusky: -124—————-24. Jefferson: -127—————24. Idaho: -137
25. Oregon: -120——————-25. Kansas: -98——————-25. Minnesota: -125
26. Indiana: -116——————-26. Delaware (state): -88——-26. North Dakota: -112
27. Idaho: -115———————27. Idaho: -74———————-27. Wisconsin: -111
28. Utah: -103———————- 28. Crawford: -73—————–28. Darke: -103
29. Fayette: -93———————29. Hardin: -68——————–29. Texas: -95
30. Kansas: -90———————30. Seneca: -66——————-30. Hardin: -87

Top 25 Largest Positive Swings Between 2006-2010 and 2011-2015
1. Texas: +1276
2. North Carolina: +982
3. Kentucky: +884
4. West Virginia: +575
5. Indiana: +502
6. Washington (state): +466
7. Knox: +436
8. Richland: +406
9. Butler: +395
10. Fayette: +383
11. Medina: +376
12. Alaska: +364
13. Michigan: +346
14. Alabama: +298
15. Clinton: +282
16. Erie: +263
17. New Hampshire: +261
18. Lawrence: +241
19. Cuyahoga: +240
20. Summit: +233
21. Wayne: +226
22. Crawford: +221
23. Muskingum: +211
24. Clermont: +198
25. Nevada: +197

Top 25 Largest Negative Swings Between 2006-2010 and 2011-2015
1. Florida: -973
2. Tennessee: -817
3. Hamilton: -795
4. Logan: -634
5. Colorado: -598
6. Scioto: -508
7. Highland: -491
8. Missouri: -484
9. Lorain: -463
10. Virginia: -437
11. Darke: -320
12. Mahoning: -314
13. Champaign: -310
14. Jefferson: -301
15. Maryland: -281
16. New Mexico: -261
17. Minnesota: -249
19. Coshocton: -233
20. Washington (county): -208
21. Ashland: -202
22. Utah: -197
23. Marion: -191
24. Seneca: -181
25. Iowa: -158

Total Counts By Period
Positive Ohio Counties
2006-2010: 53
2009-2013: 57
2011-2015: 50

Positive States, including DC and Puerto Rico
2006-2010: 21
2009-2013: 24
2011-2015: 28

Total Net In-Migration
Ohio
2006-2010: +8,008
2009-2013: +11,366
2011-2015: +7,895

Outside Ohio
2006-2010: -1,158
2009-2013: -466
2011-2015: +1,598

Ohio and Outside Ohio
2006-2010: +6,850
2009-2013: +10,900
2011-2015: +9,493

All these figures show that the Columbus metrohas 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. For a long time, Columbus’ relative success was not well-known outside of the state, but perhaps word is finally getting out.

Where Racial Groups are Growing Fastest in Franklin County

Posted on by
Reply



The US Census recently released updated estimates for 2016 for smaller-area designations like tracts and blocks. Looking at them, I wanted to see where racial groups were growing the fastest at that level.
The first map is based on the % change from 2010 to 2016.
where racial groups are growing
What’s interesting about this map is that it is such a hodgepodge. No single part of the county is dominated by growth in any specific racial group. However, a few things can be generally determined. For example, almost all of the tracts where the White population is growing the fastest are within I-270, and the majority of those within the eastern half of the Columbus in what have long been dominated by Black majority populations. These areas include parts of Linden, the Near South and Near East sides. That said, the White population was growing the fastest in just 30 census tracts by % change. This compared to 53 for the Black population, 83 for the Asian population and 107 for the Hispanic population.

The next map takes a slightly different approach, measuring the TOTAL change in population, rather than by %.

Again, a hodgepodge, but much less so than before. Instead of being the fastest-growing in just 30 tracts, the White population rockets up to 108 tracts. This shows that, while Asian and Hispanic populations have respectable % growth, this is largely based on comparatively small population bases. Still, non-White populations are clearly making inroads throughout Franklin County.

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.
young adults prefer density

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.

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.