jonoh81

Yes, I agreed its growth was significant relative to its size. I'm not discounting that. I just place no real value on percentage growth over actual numbers of people. I'm one of those who sees New York's 600,000 new people and modest 7.7% increase as more significant than say, Houston's 200,000 new people and 10% increase or Phoenix's 150,000 new people and 11% increase or Charlotte's 143,000 new people and 20% increase. Feet on the ground matter more than a relative increase from a lower starting point. Percentages don't pay taxes, don't require housing, don't demand amenities or transit, don't add congestion to infrastructure, don't open restaurants and businesses, don't add culture, don't commit crime, etc.

I'm not arguing that the numbers are wrong, or even exactly the claim- if we only use percentages. The point about Commercial Point is that percentages are sketchy. 1 to 2 is 100% growth, and if there was a place in the metro that had that scenario, it would be called the fastest-growing place with no other context. I feel like the claims about Delaware County are often missing that necessary context about its true position. It's a county with less than a quarter of the growth starting from a position that is more than 6x smaller. Yes, no doubt the population growth there has been significant relative to what it is, but it is not significant whatsoever in comparison to Franklin County.

While the percentages are accurate, I still question the fastest-growing narrative. Franklin County added 16x the number of people that Union County did and more than 4x that of Delaware, yet they're the fastest-growing? I love statistics, but this is just one of those times where their use and narrative are lacking. If we just use percentages, the fastest-growing place in the entire Columbus metro is... Commercial Point. Does anyone truly believe its growth is more significant than any other place in the metro?

Why? Area size?

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2021/08/columbus-population-up-151-a-bright-spot-in-census-data-showing-cleveland-some-other-cities-shrinking.html Is it just me, or does the article attempt to explain away Columbus' growth a *little* too hard. They bring up every single trope and excuse that's ever been made, from annexation (which was not a factor) to area size to OSU. It also lists the incorrect population growth for the city.

Scientifically speaking, 120 is actually more dangerous for people than -10, but given that much of the world's population lives in temperate to cold climates, more people still die from cold. That situation will gradually reverse with climate change. The criticism of Phoenix, whether or not it can adapt, is that it is a completely irresponsible place for a major city. It's a misuse of resources in an area that has precious few, and it's one of the reasons that the Colorado River doesn't reach the Gulf of California anymore, destroying entire ecosystems in the process. Not to mention all the energy it takes to power all that air conditioning, which, you know, contributes to the whole climate change problem.

Speaking of housing units, Franklin County added 53,716 during the 2010s. This is the lowest total since the 1940s and the 3rd consecutive decade the number declined. This is surprising given all the push to build more.

The Dispatch census tract map (below) used oranges and yellows to show... population gains. It makes the map look like half of the county lost population. Meanwhile, mine looks like this: https://arcg.is/Piry90

I wouldn't think it'd be difficult to understand that 160K is more than 40K. Even if they made sure to mention it's based on percentage, why even frame the story that way? It seems to me that it creates a false narrative in which the suburbs are far more popular than what they really are. Perhaps this is because- just like the poster above suggested- there is this idea that the only happy people are out in the boonies with enormous houses and yards.

It also discounts that you even need a SFH with a yard to find value in your neighborhood. Why do I want to take care of a yard?

I won't be one of those people, and there are plenty more like me. I don't consider that a better lifestyle whatsoever.

We need to be careful with this. For some reason, the media loves using percentages over totals. Smaller suburban counties can have large percentage increases but still much smaller totals than core counties. All the media yesterday was talking about how Delaware County was Ohio's fastest-growing, but it was absolutely not.

Going to go ahead and post this here rather than the newer thread. This is a link to the updated population map for Franklin County census tracts. New maps for pop change and demographics, among others, will be added to my main site page. https://arcg.is/1fz4aD https://allcolumbusdata.com/ohio-census-tract-maps/ Just 33 tracts in all of Franklin County lost population out of nearly 300.

Columbus gained far more than all the other big city losses combined. Recent history says that 25% of the growth is natural, 25% is international and 50% domestic. Pretty much all of that used to come from Ohio, but not so much anymore. Increasingly, it's also from out of state.

Some interesting neighborhood results so far looking at Columbus tracts. So far that I've found, pretty much all of Linden's tracts grew, some by 500 or more. It's pretty clear that cheaper housing demands played a huge role there. I will likely find the same story in other parts of the city.

Not yet, I haven't really looked too much at anywhere but Ohio.

You have no idea. I have been working on a whole new map for Franklin County census tracts in preparation for today. City data is great and all, but neighborhood level is what I find most interesting.

Yes. Rural counties basically all declined, and not just in Ohio.

I said before that one possibility was that the estimates were just showing larger losses than what were occurring and that most of the higher Ohio total would've gone to cover that. Seems that might be the case. The 3-Cs did pretty well, I'd say. Cleveland lost, but it's loss was significantly lower than previous decades, Cincinnati grew nicely and Columbus had its best decade ever. There is not that much to be disappointed about.

I am not disappointed. The more than 118K growth was the highest of any decade on record, beating the height of annexation years by almost 30K. And it's blowing away every city in the Midwest or NE outside of New York.

??

Metros Akron: 702,219 -981 Canton: 401,574 -2,848 Cincinnati: 2,256,884 +119,217 Cleveland: 2,088,251 +11,011 Columbus: 2,138,926 +236,952 Dayton: 814,049 +14,817 Toledo: 646,604 -4,825 Youngstown: 541,243 -24,530

Okay, here are the top counties. Franklin: 1,323,807 +160,393 Cuyahoga: 1,264,817 -15,305 Hamilton: 830,639 +28,265 Summit: 540,428 -1,353 Montgomery: 537,309 +2,156 Lucas: 431,279 -10,536 Butler: 390,357 +22,227 Stark: 374,853 -733 Lorain: 312,964 +11,608 Warren: 242,337 +29,644 Lake: 232,603 +2,562 Mahoning: 228,614 -10,209 Delaware: 214,124 +39,910 Trumbull: 201,977 -8,335 Medina: 182,470 +10,138 Licking: 178,519 +12,027 Greene: 167,966 +6,393 Portage: 161,791 +372 Fairfield: 158,921 +12,765

The 10%-19.9% was for the metro overall, they didn't show any maps for cities. So the metro would be 2,092,171 to 2,280,467. 2010's total was 1,901,974.

The 2019 NYC estimate was 8,336,817. The census found almost 500,000 more people than the estimate. That's insane.