Tag Archives: Trends

Top Housing Markets of 2015

Posted on by
Reply

The 2015 housing market was one of the strongest since before the recession, and 2016 looks to do even better. An ongoing problem, especially within the more urban markets, is a historically low inventory of available homes for sale. This has been a problem for several years now, as construction has failed to match demand. Here is the data for the top housing markets of 2015.

That lack of inventory really shows up in the yearly % change chart. Few urban markets have increased year over year, as they have a much more limited supply of housing, even as demand for urban housing has increased.

Let’s see how this impacted prices.

While urban markets were not necessarily the most expensive compared to suburban, more of them were generally towards the top half of price increases last year.



Non-English Languages Spoken in Columbus

Posted on by
Reply




Just a quick little post about the non-English languages spoken in the city of Columbus and how they have changed between 2009 and 2014, by total number of speakers.

For the record, in 2014, 14.3% of the Columbus population spoke a language other than English at home, up from about 12% in 2009.

Franklin County Gentrification Trends 1990-2014

Posted on by
Reply




I saw this post 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, so here are Franklin County’s gentrification trends 1990-2014.

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%, while a secondary demographic has risen at least 5%.
-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 is that the Steady White population dominates at least 50% of the map, while there are very few areas with Steady Black population. One would be tempted to suggest that gentrification is forcing the Black population out of neighborhoods, but this doesn’t seem to be true. In terms of significant changes, there are FAR more areas with Black population growth and White population decline than vice-versa, suggesting that “White Flight” may continue to be an issue. Also, a surprising number of areas have reached full integration, or have at least been maintaining it over the period of question. 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.

Here are the most integrated tracts by year, based the above criteria.
1990
1. #8720- South Side
2. #7820- Riverview-NW Side
3. #1122- West Campus
4. #1121- Campus
5. #29- King-Lincoln
Only 5 tracts counted as being integrated in 1990.



Columbus’ Shrinking Annexation Rate

Posted on by
Reply

Ever wonder how Columbus got so big in area? Its city limits stretch into parts of other counties and include about a third of Franklin County. Today, it has a reputation for annexing its way to growth, but how true is this?

Well, 50 years ago, it was more or less true. Today, not so much. Aggressive annexation began in Columbus in 1953, when Mayor Maynard “Jack” Sensenbrenner began his policy of requiring annexation into the city if communities wanted city water service. Between 1953 and 1960, the area size of the city more than doubled, and that rate continued through the 1960s and 1970s, even after Sensenbrenner was no longer mayor. After 1980, annexation rates gradually began to decline.

As the chart above shows, you can see the rapid rate of growth during the 1950s-1970s and the decline in more recent decades. Through the first 5 years of the 2010s, Columbus is on pace to add fewer than 3 square miles by 2020. Despite that fact, the city’s annual population growth since 2010 is exceeding the average annual growth of any decade during the mass annexation years. This strongly supports that the dynamic, and indeed, the story of Columbus’ growth is no longer about “fake” growth through the addition of existing land and population, but rather though the influx of new residents from outside of the city limits altogether. This is helping to gradually raise the city’s population density, which exceeded Cincinnati’s last year, as the chart below shows, along with a few other Columbus peers.



Young Professionals and the City: A Comparison

Posted on by
Reply




young professionals

Millennials- those born roughly between 1981 and 2001- are big news these days. They are the largest generation ever in terms of total numbers (exceeding 76 million), and their choices are already having big impacts on everything from housing to the economy. I wanted to look at Columbus and its peers to see where it ranks in terms of attracting these young professionals.

For the comparison, I looked at metro areas of 1.5-2.5 million as well as major Midwest metros and then used their core cities to get the numbers. I used the age group of 25-34 specifically, as that is usually the number most often cited in the news.

Rank of Total Population Aged 25-34
2005_______________________2010___________________2014
1. Chicago: 463,236_______1. Chicago: 510,042_______1. Chicago: 525,381
2. San Antonio: 180,981_____2. San Antonio: 200,645____2. San Antonio: 226,711
3. Austin: 137,523_________3. Austin: 162,247_________3. Austin: 199,838
4. San Jose, CA: 133,144___4. Columbus: 147,584______4. Columbus: 170,759
5. Columbus: 131,641______5. San Jose, CA: 142,551___5. San Jose, CA: 153,690
6. Indianapolis: 114,532_____6. Indianapolis: 133,088____6. Charlotte, NC: 141,869
7. Detroit: 110,759_________7. Charlotte, NC: 127,539___7. Indianapolis: 140,491
8. Charlotte, NC: 100,025____8. Portland, OR: 113,210___8. Portland, OR: 116,109
9. Portland, OR: 90,023_____9. Milwaukee: 97,359______9. Milwaukee: 100,205
10. Las Vegas: 84,418______10. Detroit: 85,023________10. Minneapolis: 90,662
11. Milwaukee: 82,060______11. Minneapolis: 81,532____11. Las Vegas: 90,441
12. Sacramento, CA: 75,497___12. Las Vegas: 81,212____12. Detroit: 89,843
13. Minneapolis: 74,208___13. Sacramento, CA: 78,527__13. Sacramento, CA: 84,013
14. Kansas City, MO: 68,060__14. Kansas City: 73,872__14. Kansas City, MO: 79,262
15. Virginia Beach: 60,749__15. Virginia Beach: 67,614__15. Virginia Beach: 75,543
16. Omaha, NE: 56,248____16. Omaha, NE: 62,396_____16. Omaha, NE: 71,040
17. Wichita, KS: 52,426____17. St. Louis: 57,627_______17. Pittsburgh: 62,473
18. Cleveland: 50,558_____18. Wichita, KS: 56,737_____18. St. Louis: 61,718
19. St. Louis: 48,137______19. Cleveland: 54,428______19. Wichita, KS: 58,334
20. Cincinnati: 44,945_____20. Pittsburgh: 51,109______20. Cleveland: 56,134
21. Toledo: 43,134_______21. St. Paul, MN: 50,107_____21. St. Paul, MN: 54,464
22. Orlando: 40,846______22. Cincinnati: 49,067_______22. Orlando: 54,395
23. St. Paul, MN: 39,676__23. Orlando: 48,102________23. Cincinnati: 54,247
24. Lincoln, NE: 38,893___24. Madison, WI: 44,662_____24. Madison, WI: 44,835
25. Madison, WI: 38,826___25. Lincoln, NE: 42,034_____25. Toledo: 43,661
26. Pittsburgh: 38,744____26. Toledo: 41,580_________26. Lincoln, NE: 40,071
27. Grand Rapids: 35,287__27. Fort Wayne, IN: 35,193__27: Grand Rapids: 38,922
28. Des Moines: 32,640__28. Providence, RI: 31,044__28. Fort Wayne, IN: 37,741
29. Fort Wayne, IN: 31,738__29. Grand Rapids: 30,963__29. Des Moines: 33,857
30. Akron: 30,436_______30. Des Moines: 30,376_____30. Providence, RI: 31,902
31. Providence, RI: 29,307__31. Akron: 27,446________31. Akron: 28,207
32. Dayton: 18,591_______32. Dayton: 20,278________32. Dayton: 21,096
33. Youngstown: 8,505____33. Youngstown: 8,484_____33. Youngstown: 8,468

So Columbus ranks highly among total population in the 25-34 age group. But what about growth?

Total Growth Rank in 25-34 Population 2005-2014
1. Austin, TX: 62,315
2. Chicago: 62,145
3. San Antonio, TX: 45,730
4. Charlotte, NC: 41,844
5. Columbus: 39,118
6. Portland, OR: 26,086
7. Indianapolis: 25,959
8. Pittsburgh: 23,729
9. San Jose, CA: 20,546
10. Milwaukee, WI: 18,145
11. Minneapolis, MN: 16,454
12. Virginia Beach, VA: 14,794
13. St. Paul, MN: 14,788
14. Omaha, NE: 14,612
15. St. Louis, MO: 13,581
16. Orlando, FL: 13,549
17. Kansas City, MO: 11,202
18. Cincinnati: 9,302
19. Sacramento, CA: 8,516
20. Las Vegas, NV: 6,023
21. Madison, WI: 6,009
22. Fort Wayne, IN: 6,003
23. Wichita, KS: 5,908
24. Cleveland: 5,576
25. Grand Rapids, MI: 3,635
26. Providence, RI: 2,595
27. Dayton: 2,505
28. Des Moines, IA: 1,217
29. Lincoln, NE: 1,178
30. Toledo: 527
31. Youngstown: -37
32. Akron: -2,229
33. Detroit: -20,736

Again, Columbus ranks near the top during this period. What about more recently, since 2010?

Total Growth Rank of 25-34 Population 2010-2014
1. Austin: 37,591
2. San Antonio: 26,066
3. Columbus: 23,175
4. Chicago: 15,339
5. Charlotte: 14,330
6. Pittsburgh: 11,364
7. San Jose: 11,139
8. Las Vegas: 9,229
9. Minneapolis: 9,130
10. Omaha: 8,644
11. Grand Rapids: 7,959
12. Virginia Beach: 7,929
13. Indianapolis: 7,403
14. Orlando: 6,293
15. Sacramento: 5,486
16. Kansas City: 5,390
17. Cincinnati: 5,180
18. Detroit: 4,820
19. St. Paul: 4,357
20. St. Louis: 4,091
21. Des Moines: 3,481
22. Portland: 2,899
23. Milwaukee: 2,846
24. Fort Wayne: 2,548
25. Toledo: 2,081
26. Cleveland: 1,706
27. Wichita: 1,597
28. Providence: 858
29. Dayton: 818
30. Akron: 761
31. Madison: 173
32. Youngstown: -16
33. Lincoln: -1,963

So Columbus is doing even better since 2010 than it did in the earlier period and attracts significantly more Millennials in the 25-34 age group than cities often cited for this very metric.

Next, let’s look at percentage growth, as city size can affect this.

Total Percent Growth 2005-2014 in 25-34 Population
1. Pittsburgh: +61.25%
2. Austin: +45.31%
3. Charlotte: +41.83%
4. St. Paul: +37.27%
5. Orlando: +33.17%
6. Columbus: +29.72%
7. Portland: +28.98%
8. St. Louis: +28.21%
9. Omaha: +25.89%
10. San Antonio: +25.27%
11. Virginia Beach: +24.35%
12. Indianapolis: +22.67%
13. Minneapolis: +22.17%
14. Milwaukee: +22.11%
15. Cincinnati: +20.70%
16. Fort Wayne: +18.91%
17. Kansas City: +16.46%
18. Madison: +15.48%
19. San Jose: +15.43%
20. Dayton: +13.47%
21. Chicago: +13.42%
22. Sacramento: +11.28%
23. Wichita: +11.27%
24. Cleveland: +11.03%
25. Grand Rapids: +10.30%
26. Providence: +8.85%
27. Las Vegas: +7.13%
28. Des Moines: +3.73%
29. Lincoln: +3.03%
30. Toledo: +1.22%
31. Youngstown: -0.44%
32. Akron: -7.32%
33. Detroit: -18.75%

So Columbus again performs well in percentage growth, despite having one of the largest populations in the age group. It performs even better in the period since 2010, coming in at 3rd place.

Finally, now that we know the totals and the growth, what is the % of total city population that the 25-34 age group makes up?

25-34 % of Total City Population 2014
1. Minneapolis: 22.27%
2. Austin: 21.89%
3. Orlando: 20.73%
4. Pittsburgh: 20.45%
5. Columbus: 20.42%
6. Grand Rapids: 20.08%
7. St. Louis: 19.44%
8. Chicago: 19.30%
9. Portland: 18.74%
10. St. Paul: 18.30%
11. Madison: 18.25%
12. Cincinnati: 18.19%
13. Providence: 17.81%
14. Charlotte: 17.52%
15. Sacramento: 17.32%
16. Kansas City: 16.84%
17. Virginia Beach: 16.75%
18. Milwaukee: 16.71%
19. Indianapolis: 16.50%
20. Des Moines: 16.19%
21. Omaha: 15.91%
22. San Antonio: 15.78%
23. Toledo: 15.54%
24. San Jose: 15.13%
25. Wichita: 15.02%
26. Dayton: 14.96%
27. Fort Wayne: 14.74%
28. Las Vegas: 14.74%
29. Lincoln: 14.68%
30. Cleveland: 14.41%
31. Akron: 14.26%
32. Detroit: 13.21%
33. Youngstown: 13.02%

And here’s a simple % of population projection for just 4 years from now, 2018, provided the 25-34 population grows the same between 2014-2018 as it did 2010-2014.
1. Pittsburgh: 24.18%
2. Grand Rapids: 23.71%
3. Austin: 23.38%
4. Minneapolis: 23.27%
5. Columbus: 22.16%
6. Orlando: 21.34%
7. St. Louis: 20.82%
8. Cincinnati: 19.85%
9. Chicago: 19.70%
10. St. Paul: 19.05%
11. Providence: 18.20%
12. Portland: 18.14%
13. Virginia Beach: 18.1%
14. Sacramento: 17.84%
15. Charlotte: 17.67%
16. Kansas City: 17.64%
17. Des Moines: 17.50%
18. Madison: 17.40%
19. Milwaukee: 17.07%
20. Indianapolis: 16.85%
21. Omaha: 16.61%
22. Toledo: 16.59%
23. San Antonio: 16.52%
24. Fort Wayne: 15.61%
25. Las Vegas: 15.59%
26. Dayton: 15.27%
27. San Jose: 15.24%
28. Wichita: 15.23%
29. Cleveland: 15.08%
30. Akron: 14.73%
31. Detroit: 14.48%
32. Youngstown: 13.35%
33. Lincoln: 13.13%

Columbus has an existing large population of the 25-34 age demographic, and looks to be one of the strongest performers into the near future.
Some would ask why that would be considering that Columbus transit is woefully lacking and has a reputation (very undeservedly, in my opinion) of being suburban- characteristics that Millennials supposedly almost universally reject. Perhaps the bottom line is that economics trump all other desires. Cost of living and employment tend to be higher up the list than rail lines, and Columbus has both a strong economy and relatively low COL. Whatever the case may be, Columbus seems to be doing something right. Continue this look at this population in Part 2.