Topic: Ohio: Census 2010 News & Discussion

[MissinOhio]

Wow, Columbus' core is not near as impressive as I thought it would be.  Barely larger than Akron.  What's the land area (if anyone knows) of Columbus' "core".

Columbus' incorporated city limits size 1910-2010.
1910: 23
1930: 38
1950: 40
1960: 91
1970: 144
1990: 196
2010: 217

In 1950, Columbus had a much smaller size than Cleveland or Cincinnati.  There's no reason to expect that the population would be significant in that small of an area.

Umm, let's see, Columbus is still declining, and according to your numbers, in 2010 barely had a population larger than Akron.  I made the observation from YOUR numbers that Columbus is still declining and didn't have an impressive core population.

[jbcmh81]

Wow, Columbus' core is not near as impressive as I thought it would be.  Barely larger than Akron.  What's the land area (if anyone knows) of Columbus' "core".

Columbus' incorporated city limits size 1910-2010.
1910: 23
1930: 38
1950: 40
1960: 91
1970: 144
1990: 196
2010: 217

In 1950, Columbus had a much smaller size than Cleveland or Cincinnati.  There's no reason to expect that the population would be significant in that small of an area.

Umm, let's see, Columbus is still declining, and according to your numbers, in 2010 barely had a population larger than Akron.  I made the observation from YOUR numbers that Columbus is still declining and didn't have an impressive core population.

None of Ohio's cities look impressive based on 1950 boundaries, so I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make is, especially when Cincinnati/Cleveland did not have their boundaries grow significantly since and Columbus' 1950 boundares are much smaller compared to where the other two were at the same time.  Columbus' core population is based on a size of about 40 square miles in 1950 when both the others were over 70.  Since we're only using the 1950 boundaries for these population numbers, the 2010 number still represents only 40 square miles and Cleveland and Cincinnati still representing over 70.  There aren't very many cities anywhere close to that size anymore.  Maybe the closest is Boston at around 48, but even then, that only represents about 618K people in a significantly larger metro than Columbus.  San Fransisco has about 46 square miles with a bit over 800K, but it's also one of the densist cities in the US.  Other than that, I can't really think of too many other cities with boundaries that small.

BTW, Akron's 2010 city boundaries are about 62 square miles with 199K, and we're talking about Columbus 1950 boundaries with 234K.  It's apples to oranges and I'm not sure why you're trying to make such a comparison.   

[jbcmh81]

The official census shows a 10.4% drop vs. your 17.4% drop. The number of people unaccounted for in your 1950 boundary estimates for 2010 is about 5.6% of the incorporated city in 2000 and 6.2% in 2010. It seems very hard to believe that the exclusion of those people could lead to a 7% difference in changes. I'm willing to go along with your counts for general purposes but when you start making specific claims about impossible data, I won't buy it.

The fact is that boundaries changed after 1950.  There is a difference between the census count and my numbers starting in 1960, so there are going to be differences each decade after if any further city boundary changes took place, which they did.  My numbers were never going to match up exactly to the census counts for that very reason, but examining the census numbers, I don't see huge discrepencies when accounting for the boundary changes over time.  The census % of -10.4% from 2000-2010 was for the entire city boundary, not just those that existed in 1950, which is all I was measuring.  In any case, even if you don't believe the numbers at face value, and I freely admit that errors were likely made just in the process of obtaining them, the census itself supports the end result to some degree.  The 10.4% loss was the 2nd largest loss since 1950 for the city as a whole, and just as my numbers show, the rate of loss has increased each decade since 1990 for Cincinnati.  So while the numbers may not be exact and there is some fudging on whether it's the worst or 2nd worst, the general trend matches.

[jbcmh81]

Population: Components of Growth 1980-2010

A LOT of talk the last several years has been about how migration factored the big Sun Belt boom of the last few decades, but really, natural increase such as births vs deaths plays a big role in most cities.  Ohio's two biggest weakness are domestic migration and the ratio of births vs deaths.  Both of these contribute to the low growth of the state, and in many cases, the decline of metro populations. 

Akron MSA
1980-1989
Average Births: 9,157
Average Deaths: 5,754
Difference: +3,403

1990-1999
Births: 9,579
Deaths: 6,246
Difference: +3,333

Domestic Migration: -447
International Migration: +317
Total Migration: -130

2000-2009
Births: 7,963
Deaths: 6,208
Difference: +1,755

Domestic Migration: -1,807
International Migration: +583
Total Migration: -1,224

Akron Trends
Births: Down
Deaths: Up
Domestic Migration: Down
International Migration: Up
Total Migration: Down

Cincinnati MSA
1980-1989
Average Births: 28,652
Average Deaths: 15,816
Difference: +12,836

1990-1999
Births: 29,351
Deaths: 17,129
Difference: +12,222

Domestic Migration: +2,885
International Migration: +1,055
Total Migration: +3,940

2000-2009
Births: 28,119
Deaths: 16,901
Difference: +11,218

Domestic Migration: -1,878
International Migration: +2,374
Total Migration: +496

Cincinnati Trends
Births: Down
Deaths: Up
Domestic Migration: Down
International Migration: Up
Total Migration: Down

Cleveland MSA
1980-1989
Births: 32,081
Deaths: 21,087
Difference: +10,994

1990-1999
Births: 30,861
Deaths: 21,109
Difference: +9,752

Domestic Migration: -11,464
International Migration: +1,909
Total Migration: -9,555

2000-2009
Births: 25,003
Deaths: 20,018
Difference: +4,985

Domestic Migration: -14,010
International Migration: +2,940
Total Migration: -11,070

Cleveland Trends
Births: Down
Deaths: Down
Domestic Migration: Down
International Migration: Up
Total Migration: Down

Columbus MSA
1980-1989
Births: 20,781
Deaths: 10,288
Difference: +10,493

1990-1999
Births: 23,337
Deaths: 11,704
Difference: +11,633

Domestic Migration: +4,889
International Migration: +1,367
Total Migration: +6,256

2000-2009
Births: 24,556
Deaths: 12,225
Difference: +12,331

Domestic Migration: +3,426
International Migration: +4,170
Total Migration: +7,596

Columbus Trends
Births: Up
Deaths: Up
Domestic Migration: Down
International Migration: Up
Total Migration: Up

Dayton MSA
1980-1989
Births: 12,574
Deaths: 6,930
Difference: +5,644

1990-1999
Births: 12,121
Deaths: 7,763
Difference: +4,358

Domestic Migration: -5,695
International Migration: +450
Total Migration: -5,245

2000-2009
Births: 10,259
Deaths: 7,590
Difference: +2,669

Domestic Migration: -4,458
International Migration: +582
Total Migration: -3,876

Dayton Trends
Births: Down
Deaths: Up
Domestic Migration: Up
International Migration: Up
Total Migration: Up

Toledo MSA
1980-1989
Births: 10,251
Deaths: 6,028
Difference: +4,223

1990-1999
Births: 9,736
Deaths: 6,232
Difference: +3,504

Domestic Migration: -4,116
International Migration: +370
Total Migration: -3,746

2000-2009
Births: 8,251
Deaths: 5,801
Difference: +2,450

Domestic Migration: -3,933
International Migration: +647
Total Migration: -3,286

Toledo Trends
Births: Down
Deaths: Down
Domestic Migration: Up
International Migration: Up
Total Migration: Up
     

[jdm00]

Aren't all of the Ohio metros gaining population (except maybe CLE)?  You mention the 'decline of metro populations.' 

[jbcmh81]

Aren't all of the Ohio metros gaining population (except maybe CLE)?  You mention the 'decline of metro populations.'

The Toledo, Cleveland, Youngstown, Akron and Dayton metros were losing people through 2010.  Dayton may be gaining now according to the latest estimate, though.

One thing that seems to have no consistent pattern is domestic migration.  International migration is going up in every metro, but domestic has no clear trend.  In some metros the rate of loss is slowing, in others accelerating (same with growth), but it doesn't matter if the overall metro is growing or not.  There seems to be no correlation at all.  Births vs deaths, however, still seems to be the deciding factor in most cases.  The oldest metros have the smallest differences, and therefore the natural rate of increase is surpassed by outmigration.  So what's easier to do: have the population have more children or attract more people from other areas? 

[8ShadesofGray]

Or a twofer ... Attract migrating populations that are disproportionately more likely to have children / multigenerational migration? It would be interesting to see if international migration patterns match up to larger household sizes. My guess, anectdotally, is that it probably differs by native culture but that in-migration of international households probably has more "bang for its buck" than does domestic in-migration, all things being equal. If the sole/main goal is population stabilization/increases, I would think this is where you put the focus of your marketing focus.

[dmerkow]

I'm not sure that the highest educated foreign in-migration will provide the kind of population stimulus that other groups of foreign migrants mights (or internal migrants from certain places).

[jbcmh81]

I've talked some about foreign-born population, and did the numbers for the 3 largest counties, but not for the 7 largest metro counties, nor did I include 2010.  So here they are.

Foreign-born population by county, 1950-2010, total and % of population.

Cuyahoga County
Total
1950: 183,833
1960: 146,720
1970: 138,633
1980: 98,608
1990: 77,701
2000: 88,700
2010: 89,609

% of Population
1950: 13.2%
1960: 8.9%
1970: 8.1%
1980: 6.6%
1990: 5.5%
2000: 6.4%
2010: 7.0%

Franklin County
Total
1950: 13,046
1960: 15,426
1970: 17,882
1980: 22,080
1990: 31,542
2000: 64,253
2010: 103,544

% of Population
1950: 2.6%
1960: 2.3%
1970: 2.1%
1980: 2.5%
1990: 3.3%
2000: 6.0%
2010: 8.9%

Hamilton County
Total
1950: 25.654
1960: 25,790
1970: 22,658
1980: 20,590
1990: 21,636
2000: 28,441
2010: 36,909

% of Population
1950: 3.5%
1960: 3.0%
1970: 2.5%
1980: 2.4%
1990: 2.5%
2000: 3.4%
2010: 4.6%

Lucas County
Total
1950: 22,604
1960: 22,652
1970: 15,103
1980: 13,153
1990: 12,312
2000: 14,442
2010: 16,347

% of Population
1950: 5.7%
1960: 5.0%
1970: 3.1%
1980: 2.8%
1990: 2.7%
2000: 3.2%
2010: 3.7%

Mahoning County
Total
1950: 29,774
1960: 24,055
1970: 16,936
1980: 11,867
1990: 7,441
2000: 6,061
2010: 7,404

% of Population
1950: 11.6%
1960: 8.0%
1970: 5.6%
1980: 4.1%
1990: 2.8%
2000: 2.4%
2010: 3.1%

Montgomery County
Total
1950: 10,558
1960: 10,795
1970: 10,714
1980: 11,148
1990: 11,094
2000: 13,795
2010: 17,660

% of Population
1950: 2.6%
1960: 2.0%
1970: 1.8%
1980: 1.9%
1990: 1.9%
2000: 2.5%
2010: 3.3%

Summit County
Total
1950: 28,606
1960: 24,269
1970: 22,379
1980: 17,180
1990: 14,860
2000: 17,709
2010: 22,755

% of Population
1950: 7.0%
1960: 4.7%
1970: 4.0%
1980: 3.3%
1990: 2.9%
2000: 3.3%
2010: 4.2%






 

[Quimbob]

Cincinnati, Columbus & Dayton add population from 7/10-7/11

Cincinnati added 5,623 residents
Columbus 17,800
Dayton 3,250

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2012/05/29/cincinnati-among-three-ohio-metros.html

[Hts121]

At this rate, Cleveland's MSA will completely disappear by the year 2295..... around the same time Columbus will reach twice the population of any other Ohio MSA..... and The USS Enterprise NCC-1701-B will be embarking on its first missions.

[CincyGuy45202]

Farewell Cleveland...

[CincyGuy45202]

On a more serious note-  I'm shocked at the fact that of Ohio's 13 metros only three are growing.  And more shocked that I found almost no other States in that bad of shape.  I obviously knew the vast majority of Cities would be declining but assumed most of the metros would be stagnant or barely growing as opposed to declining.

Scary!

[jjames0408]

This should still like all estimates be taken with a grain of salt. 

[jam40jeff]

On a more serious note-  I'm shocked at the fact that of Ohio's 13 metros only three are growing.  And more shocked that I found almost no other States in that bad of shape.  I obviously knew the vast majority of Cities would be declining but assumed most of the metros would be stagnant or barely growing as opposed to declining.

Scary!

Everyone wants to live in a desert.  Everyone eats McDonald's.  Everyone drinks Bud Light.  Everyone shops at Wal-Mart.  Everyone watches Jersey Shore.  Nothing surprises me in America anymore.

[jbcmh81]

On a more serious note-  I'm shocked at the fact that of Ohio's 13 metros only three are growing.  And more shocked that I found almost no other States in that bad of shape.  I obviously knew the vast majority of Cities would be declining but assumed most of the metros would be stagnant or barely growing as opposed to declining.

Scary!

Everyone wants to live in a dessert.  Everyone eats McDonald's.  Everyone drinks Bud Light.  Everyone shops at Wal-Mart.  Everyone watches Jersey Shore.  Nothing surprises me in America anymore.

If I could live in a dessert, it would pumpkin pie with whipped cream and a little pumpkin ice cream on the side.

[natininja]

^ I'm trying to decide which dessert I want to live in: chocolate mousse, cheesecake, or pumpkin pie.

[natininja]

Dammit, I got beat to the punch. But you have convinced me -- pumpkin pie it is!

[jam40jeff]

On a more serious note-  I'm shocked at the fact that of Ohio's 13 metros only three are growing.  And more shocked that I found almost no other States in that bad of shape.  I obviously knew the vast majority of Cities would be declining but assumed most of the metros would be stagnant or barely growing as opposed to declining.

Scary!

Everyone wants to live in a dessert.  Everyone eats McDonald's.  Everyone drinks Bud Light.  Everyone shops at Wal-Mart.  Everyone watches Jersey Shore.  Nothing surprises me in America anymore.

If I could live in a dessert, it would pumpkin pie with whipped cream and a little pumpkin ice cream on the side.

Haha, whoops.

[MyTwoSense]

On a more serious note-  I'm shocked at the fact that of Ohio's 13 metros only three are growing.  And more shocked that I found almost no other States in that bad of shape.  I obviously knew the vast majority of Cities would be declining but assumed most of the metros would be stagnant or barely growing as opposed to declining.

Scary!

Everyone wants to live in a desert.  Everyone eats McDonald's.  Everyone drinks Bud Light.  Everyone shops at Wal-Mart.  Everyone watches Jersey Shore.  Nothing surprises me in America anymore.

....NO...NO...NO.........

[jdm00]

I like McDonald's breakfast--good if you are on the run. 

[Rob Jaques]

I like McDonald's breakfast--good if you are on the want the runs. 

There... fixed that for you...

[327]

These figures should surprise no one.  Years of physical decline compounded by the foreclosure crisis have left Ohio's cities difficult to market.  And as the city goes, so goes the metro.  All of the problems we talk about here-- lack of transit, anti-density policies, rampant demolition-- remain largely unchecked, and shrinkage is the inevitable result.  I think it will take a solid decade of improvement before we see any indication of a corner being turned.

[Hts121]

Correct on your first sentence.  Correct on your second sentence.  Correct on your third sentence.  3 for 3.

However, take a look at the large gains made by numerous metros with "anti-density policies" and relative "lack of transit"...... and putting aside the fact that your conspiracy theory of "anti-density policies" is a point of contention...... I don't think there is a strong connection between anything you are constantly complaining about and the loss of population in the inner city core.

I also am not in the camp, at least for the City I know (Cleveland), that loss of population is a bad thing.  I would need some more context on exactly who we are losing, why they are moving away, and to where.  Not really relevant to the numbers above, but I happen to think positively about the long-term effects of the shift of low income families from Cleveland proper to the post-war, blue collar former middle class suburbs on the south side (which in turn may cause those areas to decline).  It may not look good from a pure population statistics view, but it is a burden lifted off the City which has too many low-income families vs. more stable households..... and, like you implied, what's good for the City is good for the metro.

[327]

Correct on your first sentence.  Correct on your second sentence.  Correct on your third sentence.  3 for 3.

How very gracious of you to point this out.

[MissinOhio]

These figures should surprise no one.  Years of physical decline compounded by the foreclosure crisis have left Ohio's cities difficult to market.  And as the city goes, so goes the metro.  All of the problems we talk about here-- lack of transit, anti-density policies, rampant demolition-- remain largely unchecked, and shrinkage is the inevitable result.  I think it will take a solid decade of improvement before we see any indication of a corner being turned.

Yep, pretty much.

[unusualfire]

Not sure how they come up with some of these numbers. The state is doing better economy wise than other faster growing states. Adding jobs yet the population is not increasing as fast as those other states. Do Ohio have more people working 2 or 3 jobs than those faster growing states or something?

[Hts121]

^Retirees and illegal immigrants could be a major factor because neither of those groups is likely to have any effect on the "official" jobs numbers..... the "boom" states have those in spades.  Us, not so much.

[jbcmh81]

These figures should surprise no one.  Years of physical decline compounded by the foreclosure crisis have left Ohio's cities difficult to market.  And as the city goes, so goes the metro.  All of the problems we talk about here-- lack of transit, anti-density policies, rampant demolition-- remain largely unchecked, and shrinkage is the inevitable result.  I think it will take a solid decade of improvement before we see any indication of a corner being turned.

Maybe all Ohio's metros just spend too much time in the pool...

[jbcmh81]

Not sure how they come up with some of these numbers. The state is doing better economy wise than other faster growing states. Adding jobs yet the population is not increasing as fast as those other states. Do Ohio have more people working 2 or 3 jobs than those faster growing states or something?

People continue to move to places with terrible economies (California, Nevada, North Carolina) too.  Conclusion: people don't bother to research where they're moving and would rather live in a state perceived as "cool" or "up and coming" rather than economically stable or where they would have far more opportunity for upward mobility.  The Sun Belt is notoriously bad with this.

[unusualfire]

2010 urbanized area maps are ready.

http://tigerweb.geo.census.gov/tigerweb/default.htm

[inlovewithCLE]

Does anyone know when the ACS estimates are released?