Tract Demographic Changes Mapped



One of the most interesting things about the last census- at least to me- was the data on what demographic groups were moving where in Columbus. The following series of maps show the central core of Columbus and how the 4 major racial/ethnic groups have been changing in the area, 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.

To see census tract data for Columbus going back to 1930, visit here: Census Tract Maps


Metro Density Comparison Part 2



Metro density comparison part 2

In Part 1 of this comparison, I looked at overall metro area densities.

For tracts, I looked over the maps of all cities within metros that had populations between 1.5 and 2.5 million (based on 2010 census). I then found every tract that had a population density of 5,000 people per square mile or higher, but I tried to stay within the core city and its immediate surroundings. In most cases, this was just within the central metro county, but some cities are split between county borders and even state borders, so I tried to use an equal approximation.

First, the total number of tracts with 5,000+ densities by city and rank.
1. Las Vegas: 290
2. San Jose: 285
3. Cleveland: 211
4. Milwaukee: 198
5. Portland: 174
6. Sacramento: 168
7. Pittsburgh: 147
8. San Antonio: 118
9. Columbus: 98
10. Virginia Beach: 92
11. Cincinnati: 84
12. Providence: 84
13. Austin: 61
14. Orlando: 47
15. Indianapolis: 46
16. Kansas City: 44
17. Nashville: 21
18. Charlotte: 16

Average Density for all Tracts that have 5,000+ Densities by Rank
1. Milwaukee: 10,394.2
2. Providence: 10,163.5
3. San Jose: 10,114.8
4. Pittsburgh: 8,753.8
5. Las Vegas: 8,604.4
6. Austin: 7,981.4
7. Cleveland: 7,882.1
8. Columbus: 7,821.8
9. Portland: 7,679.8
10. Cincinnati: 7,586.7
11. Sacramento: 7,397.3
12. Virginia Beach: 7,304.1
13. San Antonio: 6,736.5
14. Kansas City: 6,703.7
15. Orlando: 6,689.5
16. Charlotte: 6,678.2
17. Nashville: 6,558.7
18. Indianapolis: 6,170.7

Average Density of Top 15 Most Dense Tracts by Rank
Milwaukee: 23,786.4
San Jose: 22,225.5
Pittsburgh: 18,581.4
Las Vegas: 18,227.8
Providence: 16,701.2
Portland: 15,401.5
Columbus: 14,733.6
Austin: 13,660.0
Cleveland: 13,458.6
Cincinnati: 12,443.9
Virginia Beach: 12,396.5
Sacramento: 12,261.4
San Antonio: 9,497.6
Orlando: 8,955.3
Kansas City: 8,476.5
Indianapolis: 7,294.0
Nashville: 7,113.9
Charlotte: 6,787.5

Columbus doesn’t do too badly with these numbers and certainly better than I was really expecting. In general, it’s more dense in parts than it gets credit for being. Las Vegas stands out as the most surprising to me, but I guess the built environment there is pretty dense when you think about it, at least in the urban core that these numbers measured. Charlotte, Indianapolis and Nashville have incredibly low densities for being major, moderate-fast growing metros/cities. Columbus and Indianapolis are often called twin cities and compared regularly, but this is one area where there’s a pretty stark difference. I plan to do a formal comparison of the two metros at some point in the future.

In regards to the 5,000+ density tracts, here’s a further breakdown.

All Tracts with a Density of 25,000 or More and % of Total 5,000+ Tracts by Rank
1. Austin: 2 3.3%
2. Milwaukee: 4 2.0%
3. San Jose: 4 1.4%
4. Virginia Beach: 1 1.1%
5. Columbus: 1 1.0%
6. Pittsburgh: 1 0.7%
7. Portland: 1 0.6%
8. Charlotte: 0 0.0%
9. Cincinnati: 0 0.0%
10. Cleveland: 0 0.0%
11. Indianapolis: 0 0.0%
12. Kansas City: 0 0.0%
13. Las Vegas: 0 0.0%
14. Nashville: 0 0.0%
15. Orlando: 0 0.0%
16. Providence: 0 0.0%
17. Sacramento: 0 0.0%
18. San Antonio: 0 0.0%

All Tracts with a Density of 20,000 or More and % of Total 5,000+ Tracts by Rank
1. Milwaukee: 13 6.6%
2. Austin: 3 4.9%
3. Columbus: 3 3.1%
4. Pittsburgh: 4 2.7%
5. San Jose: 6 2.1%
6. Las Vegas: 4 1.4%
7. Providence: 1 1.2%
8. Portland: 2 1.1%
9. Virginia Beach: 1.1%
10. Cleveland: 1 0.5%
11. Charlotte: 0 0.0%
12. Cincinnati: 0 0.0%
13. Indianapolis: 0 0.0%
14. Kansas City: 0 0.0%
15. Nashville: 0 0.0%
16. Orlando: 0 0.0%
17. Sacramento: 0 0.0%
18. San Antonio: 0 0.0%

All Tracts with a Density of 15,000 or More and % of Total 5,000+ Tracts by Rank
1. Milwaukee: 32 16.2%
2. Providence: 12 14.3%
3. San Jose: 31 10.9%
4. Austin: 5 8.2%
5. Pittsburgh: 12 8.2%
6. Columbus: 6 6.1%
7. Las Vegas: 13 4.5%
8. Portland: 6 3.4%
9. Sacramento: 3 1.8%
10. Cincinnati: 1 1.2%
11. Virginia Beach: 1 1.1%
12. Cleveland: 2 0.9%
13. Charlotte: 0 0.0%
14. Indianapolis: 0 0.0%
15. Kansas City: 0 0.0%
16. Nashville: 0 0.0%
17. Orlando: 0 0.0%
18. San Antonio: 0 0.0%

All Tracts with a Density of 10,000 or More and % of Total 5,000+ Tracts by Rank
1. Providence: 37 44.0%
2. San Jose: 112 39.3%
3. Milwaukee: 52 26.3%
4. Pittsburgh: 36 24.5%
5. Las Vegas: 67 23.1%
6. Cleveland: 37 17.5%
7. Cincinnati: 14 16.7%
8. Austin: 9 14.8%
9. Nashville: 3 14.3%
10. Portland: 21 12.1%
11. Virginia Beach: 8 8.7%
12. Orlando: 4 8.5%
13. Columbus: 8 8.2%
14. Sacramento: 13 7.7%
15. Charlotte: 1 6.3%
16. San Antonio: 3 2.5%
17. Kansas City: 1 2.3%
18. Indianapolis: 0 0.0%

All Tracts with a Density of 9,000 or More and % of Total 5,000+ Tracts by Rank
1. Providence: 47 56.0%
2. San Jose: 132 46.3%
3. Las Vegas: 101 34.8%
4. Milwaukee: 65 32.8%
5. Pittsburgh: 47 32.0%
6. Cleveland: 52 24.6%
7. Cincinnati: 19 22.6%
8. Austin: 13 21.3%
9. Portland: 29 16.7%
10. Columbus: 16 16.3%
11. Nashville: 3 14.3%
12. Sacramento: 24 14.3%
13. Kansas City: 6 13.6%
14. Charlotte: 2 12.5%
15. Virginia Beach: 10 10.7%
16. Orlando: 5 10.6%
17. San Antonio: 9 7.6%
18. Indianapolis: 0 0.0%

All Tracts with a Density of 8,000 or More and % of Total 5,000+ Tracts by Rank
1. San Jose: 183 64.2%
2. Providence: 52 61.9%
3. Las Vegas: 136 46.9%
4. Pittsburgh: 63 42.9%
5. Milwaukee: 82 41.4%
6. Cleveland: 87 41.2%
7. Sacramento: 49 29.2%
8. Austin: 17 27.9%
9. Cincinnati: 23 27.4%
10. Columbus: 26 26.5%
11. Portland: 41 23.6%
12. Kansas City: 10 22.7%
13. Orlando: 10 21.3%
14. Virginia Beach: 19 20.7%
15. San Antonio: 17 14.4%
16. Nashville: 3 14.3%
17. Charlotte: 2 12.5%
18. Indianapolis: 2 4.3%

All Tracts with a Density of 7,000 or More and % of Total 5,000+ Tracts by Rank
1. San Jose: 222 77.9%
2. Providence: 58 69.0%
3. Las Vegas: 185 63.8%
4. Cleveland: 119 56.4%
5. Milwaukee: 111 56.1%
6. Pittsburgh: 80 54.4%
7. Sacramento: 83 49.4%
8. Cincinnati: 38 45.2%
9. Columbus: 42 42.9%
10. Virginia Beach: 39 42.4%
11. Portland: 71 40.8%
12. Austin: 23 37.7%
13. Charlotte: 5 31.3%
14. Kansas City: 13 29.5%
15. San Antonio: 32 27.1%
16. Orlando: 12 25.5%
17. Nashville: 4 19.0%
18. Indianapolis: 8 17.4%

All Tracts with a Density of 6,000 or More and % of Total 5,000+ Tracts by Rank
1. San Jose: 260 91.2%
2. Las Vegas: 235 81.0%
3. Providence: 68 81.0%
4. Pittsburgh: 113 76.9%
5. Sacramento: 122 72.6%
6. Cleveland: 153 72.5%
7. Milwaukee: 142 71.7%
8. Columbus: 66 67.3%
9. Portland: 113 64.9%
10. Cincinnati: 54 64.3%
11. Orlando: 29 61.7%
12. San Antonio: 71 60.2%
13. Virginia Beach: 55 59.8%
14. Austin: 35 57.4%
15. Kansas City: 25 56.8%
16. Nashville: 10 47.6%
17. Charlotte: 7 43.8%
18. Indianapolis: 20 43.5%

Top 20 Most Dense Tracts from all 18 Metros
1. 48,971.9: Virginia Beach #38
2. 48,602.1: San Jose #500902
3. 32,306.4: Pittsburgh #404
4. 31,919.9: Milwaukee #11
5. 31,627.6: Milwaukee #147
6. 29,072: Columbus #181
7. 28,922.9: San Jose #509107
8. 27,544.8: Milwaukee #164
9. 26,825.8: Portland #56
10. 25,543.1: Austin #603
11. 25,271.2: Milwaukee #146
12. 25,229.7: Austin #604
13. 25,195.3: San Jose #509403
14. 25,053.2: San Jose #503118
15. 24,925.7: Columbus #13
16. 24,882.3: Las Vegas #2996
17. 24,666.9: Pittsburgh #9822
18. 24,481.1: Pittsburgh #406
19. 24,043.4: Portland #48
20. 24,025.6: Las Vegas #2207

Follow the below links for more information:
Metro Area Demographics/
Census Tract Maps