jonoh81

https://data.census.gov/cedsci/advanced Use this link. Just use the filters on the left to choose the type of information you want and for what geographic locations. This link will generally have data back to 2000. To find data before that, you have to do specific census site searches. I believe there is a link where you can download tract files for past decades, but keep in mind that census tract boundaries change every decade and you may not be able to see the population for a specific tract over time, as it may have not existed yet or may have been under a different name.

I have begun adding new interactive census tract maps for Franklin County to my site, replacing the old ones. Here's an example: https://arcg.is/arL5y You can see the others here: https://allcolumbusdata.com/census-tracts/ The old maps will be replaced over time.

Top 10 Fastest Growing Tracts by County 2010-2019 Hamilton 1. 5301: 44.76% 2. 33: 38.83% 3. 30: 37.84% 4. 19: 34.60% 5. 20501: 30.48% 6. 80: 25.48% 7. 265: 25.15% 8. 110: 23.78% 9. 4604: 23.51% 10. 8502: 22.55% Franklin 1. 7207: 93.29% 2. 7205: 61.91% 3. 9331: 60.40% 4. 7209: 54.61% 5. 7203: 48.50% 6. 7922: 47.43% 7. 6230: 43.85% 8. 32: 41.55% 9. 7721: 41.40% 10. 1121: 40.18% Cuyahoga 1. 1147: 137.08% 2. 107701: 70.83% 3. 187105: 40.35% 4. 1043: 31.88% 5. 101101: 25.80% 6. 109801: 23.25% 7. 1241: 23.00% 8. 1031: 22.77% 9. 1055: 22.11% 10. 1516: 20.34% Top 10 Fastest Shrinking Tracts by County 2010-2019 Hamilton 1. 16: -46.07% 2. 7: -45.60% 3. 17: -33.33% 4. 104: -26.86% 5. 29: -26.56% 6. 37: -24.54% 7. 103: -22.01% 8. 4702: -21.49% 9. 8501: -20.12% 10. 96 -19.23 Franklin 1. 42: -68.76% 2. 1110: -23.32% 3. 9336: -21.88% 4. 8330: -21.33% 5. 28: -18.90% 6. 7820: -15.51% 7. 103: -14.49% 8. 7520: -14.33% 9. 8241: -14.25% 10. 8242: -13.32% Cuyahoga 1. 114501: -48.28% 2. 109301: -43.35% 3. 1162: -38.66% 4. 1196: -37.89% 5. 1410: -34.52% 6. 1184: -32.11% 7. 113101: -31.38% 8. 1939: -29.65% 9. 1135: -29.07% 10. 110801: -27.82%

Top 10 tracts with the highest population and the highest density in the 3 C counties in 2010 and 2019. Hamilton Top 10 Most Populated 2010 1. 24902: 7,858 2. 26101: 7,840 3. 24322: 7,679 4. 244: 7,524 5. 24321: 7,510 6. 25102: 7,469 7. 25002: 7,333 8. 20602: 7,121 9. 24303: 7,024 10. 20701: 6,881 2019 1. 26101: 8,584 2. 24321: 8,396 3. 24322: 8,107 4. 24902: 7,929 5. 25102: 7,562 6. 20602: 7,495 7. 24303: 7,316 8. 25002: 7,233 9. 241: 7,114 10. 244: 7,107 Hamilton Top 10 Highest Density 2010 1. 17: 16975.5 2. 26: 15800.0 3. 10: 15000.6 4. 9: 14172.5 5. 29: 13317.5 6. 25: 13101.7 7. 7: 11543.1 8. 16: 11232.9 9. 264: 11058.3 10. 94: 9655.0 2019 1. 9: 16145.7 2. 10: 15908.8 3. 26: 15456.8 4. 25: 14313.3 5. 264: 12010.9 6. 33: 11604.1 7. 17: 11317.0 8. 29: 9780.9 9. 30: 9456.9 10. 95: 9234.8 Franklin Top 10 Most Populated 2010 1. 102: 15,920 2. 9740: 13,583 3. 6230: 13,127 4. 7395: 11,281 5. 7396: 9,839 6. 8162: 9,125 7. 9450: 8,864 8. 6383: 8,813 9. 7393: 8,742 10. 7951: 8,386 2019 1. 6230: 18,883 2. 102: 17,489 3. 9740: 16,789 4. 7395: 14,699 5. 7396: 12,252 6. 7551: 10,714 7. 7921: 10,569 8. 9450: 10,565 9. 1121: 10,233 10. 7210: 10,046 Franklin Top 10 Highest Density 2010 1. 1810: 29075.4 2. 13: 24926.2 3. 1121: 20910.9 4. 12: 18610.6 5. 1110: 17868.2 6. 10: 16893.7 7. 17: 13649.7 8. 20: 12107.2 9. 6: 9976.2 10. 8163: 9870.9 2019 1. 1121: 29312.5 2. 1810: 27009.4 3. 13: 22139.3 4. 10: 17652.9 5. 17: 16365.5 6. 12: 16217.7 7. 1110: 13701.6 8. 20: 12658.2 9. 6933: 12136.6 10. 21: 11914.2 Cuyahoga Top 10 Most Populated 2010 1. 190504: 10,439 2. 184108: 7,433 3. 136102: 7,407 4. 1811: 6,814 5. 189111: 6,812 6. 175103: 6,705 7. 175201: 6,562 8. 186107: 6,148 9. 136101: 6,130 10. 175104: 6,034 2019 1. 190504: 10,684 2. 184108: 7,446 3. 136102: 7,320 4. 175103: 7,227 5. 189111: 6,988 6. 1811: 6,607 7. 175201: 6,543 8. 186107: 6,288 9. 1241: 6,069 10. 136101: 6,013 Cuyahoga Top 10 Highest Density 2010 1. 101101: 15096.1 2. 1053: 13791.9 3. 1617: 13695.3 4. 119502: 13292.0 5. 119501: 13277.6 6. 1023: 13004.9 7. 102402: 12922.7 8. 1068: 12720.7 9. 1610: 12620.5 10. 1602: 12193.3 2019 1. 101101: 18990.8 2. 102402: 15539.1 3. 119502: 14424.7 4. 1241: 13628.2 5. 1617: 13505.6 6. 1055: 13408.9 7. 1068: 13161.7 8. 1053: 13125.2 9. 1023: 12441.0 10. 102101: 12230.8

Just for clarification, the estimates are rarely "way off". Most cities are typically in the ballpark of their estimates. A lot of science and math goes into creating them- much more than people think. Furthermore, estimates get better over time through trial and error. For the record, you seem to forget that 2009 vs 2010 represents a year of changes and shouldn't be considered as 2009 somehow being "off" from 2010. They also do a 2010 estimate before the release of the 2010 census, which is a far better comparison. Here are the 2000s estimates and the 2010 census. Cleveland 2010 Census: 396815 2010 Estimate: 396229 2009: 401770 2008: 408261 2007: 415865 2006: 423832 2005: 433919 2004: 443502 2003: 452228 2002: 460375 2001: 468329 2009 Est. vs 2010 Census: 4955 2010 Est vs 2010 Census: -586 Cincinnati 2010 Census: 296945 2010 Estimate: 296899 2009: 298239 2008: 299145 2007: 301824 2006: 304713 2005: 308398 2004: 312648 2003: 317432 2002: 321852 2001: 326634 2009 Est. vs 2010 Census: 1294 2010 Est. vs 2010 Census: -46 Columbus 2010 Census: 787033 2010 Estimate: 770,122 2009: 764407 2008: 754479 2007: 744695 2006: 736751 2005: 729266 2004: 724877 2003: 721464 2002: 716485 2001: 712106 2009 vs 2010: -22626 2010 Est. vs 2010 Census: -16911 Columbus was the only one of the 3 that seems to be significantly off, but none were as off as you suggested. Now, it could be a case where the estimates were adjusted after the fact, but I don't have access to old 2009 estimates if that's the case. For the record, these numbers came from here: https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/popest/intercensal-2000-2010-cities-and-towns.html

Yep. Cleveland is highly likely to be past the worst of its losses and will never again see anything like those it saw after the 1960s, but at the same time, it's still probably years away from full stabilization enough to actually gain again. Perhaps one advantage that Cincinnati has that allowed it to stabilize and even grow again faster despite having so many similar issues is its much more intact core. Aside from mass demolitions from the highway system, it didn't see nearly the level of urban renewal demolitions that Cleveland has seen, and as such, fewer of its neighborhoods are hollowed out from a development- not just people- perspective. Similarly, in Columbus, it's pretty clear that the neighborhoods that have seen the most demolitions over the decades are also those that have struggled the most to come back even as housing demand is high. The Near East Side has been seeing renovations for decades, but its population had consistently dropped until recently. Same with Franklinton and the Near South outside of German Village. It's a lot easier to renovate an existing neighborhood than to rebuild one, and neighborhoods with a lot of missing potential housing, commercial and office stock are going to have the hardest time. Cleveland, unfortunately, just has more of that, so it's going to take longer.

Here are the 1950 boundary populations for the 3-Cs 2010 vs 2019 Cincinnati: 2010: 278,509 2019: 283,552 Change: +5,043 Cleveland 2010: 380,891 2019: 369,970 Change: -10,921 Columbus 2010: 234,582 2019: 245,672 Change: +11,090

Been looking through it... it's really my favorite annual release as it's neighborhood level stuff- census tracts and blocks. I'll be putting together some data for Franklin County over the next few days, but the estimates show 228 of 284 Franklin County tracts have had growth since 2010. That's just over 80%. In the 1950 core, 52 of 80 tracts saw growth compared to just 21 of 78 between 2000-2010.

Cleveland.com had that data early last year. For the record, though, GDP is not the same thing as state tax contributions.

One of the things I've found curious is that Nashville's growth is relatively slow compared to its level of construction. It's regularly beaten by other cities in its peer group, despite incorporating essentially all of its home county. The vast majority of the growth is in the outer metro areas.

So... tear down the Nicholas and start over?

I'm a big proponent of ending single-family zoning, but at the same time, I'm also a big fan of historic preservation. There is a time and place for adding density to an existing neighborhood, but not at the expense of the existing neighborhood, if that makes sense. An example would be the hotel project in German Village or the Giant Eagle site redevelopment in Schumacher Place. There are no historic teardowns involved, they're mostly replacing parking lots, and especially with the hotel, respecting the surrounding architecture with their designs, regardless of what the NIMBYs think. You have to find a balance between infill, density, design and historic preservation, and I think Nashville fails on every point.

So much of the architecture looks like something you might see near the beach in San Diego, but weirdly mixed with something out of Colorado with random Southern influences. Putting aside that it really looks out of place in Tennessee, it's all made worse because there is just something not quite right about the designs themselves. The mix of styles is bad enough, but then they are just poor versions of an already bad mix. Then you combine it all with terrible infrastructure planning and it's just all hideously ugly.

Yeah, there seems to be little to no investment in neighborhood infrastructure even when basically all the homes have been replaced with new construction.

They'll get over it, or they can sell their houses at a premium due to extremely high urban housing demand and move to the actual suburbs they seem to think they already live in.

To continue making the tax argument, you would have to prove that taxes from those other cities go towards supporting Columbus institutions specifically, as well as pretend that Columbus residents also don't pay a state taxes or that Columbus taxes fail to cover those expenses. You can prove neither and no one has ever been able to support that with data. This debate has been around literally years, and every single time the argument is basically that everyone should simply assume it's true because it's so obvious rather than providing any supporting evidence. I've provided data- ironically from Cleveland.com- on county income and sales tax data contributions to the state. Just 16 counties are net contributors to the state, so there are a lot of moochers. Here were the net contributions by metro. Cincinnati: $465,044,791 Columbus: $464,783,998 Cleveland: $309,373,270 Toledo: -$33,635,840 Dayton: -$61,920,172 Akron: -$68,397,068 Youngstown: -$115,623,531 Cincinnati and Columbus- NOT NEO- are the state's biggest contributors and it's not even close. But again, we don't know exactly where all that money is going, but clearly parts of northern Ohio are getting subsidized rather than the other way around. Toledo can't even pay for itself, let alone Columbus. Here were core counties. Cuyahoga: $264,902,455 Franklin: $372,392,938 Hamilton: $410,468,394 Lucas: -$24,840,728 Mahoning: -$38,440,684 Montgomery: -$55,265,243 Summit: -$34,032,935 All this is for 2018. This information should be qualified that is it not specifically total tax dollars, but as the information says that the numbers show estimates by county of how much individuals and businesses contribute to the state in income and sales taxes, over or under what would be the case if each county's share equaled its share of the state's population. This even more suggests that Columbus is more than paying its fair share.

Looking at regional migration is also interesting. Here's for Cuyahoga. South: -1840 (with PR, -32) West: -1227 Northeast: +922 Midwest: -445 (with Ohio minus other metro counties, -8205) It's pretty clear that Cleveland loses the vast majority to the rest of the state. I guess that's better than Ohio losing those people altogether. Franklin County/Columbus has long had positive Ohio migration, but now so does Hamilton/Cincinnati. Both counties get the majority of their positive domestic migration from the state. None of this is really surprising, as counties nationally tend to lose or gain the most from their home states.

I would've thought that migration and moves would've slowed down this year due to Covid, but the housing market has stayed hot anyway, so I really don't know. I think you're correct, though, that it happened already this year or will next year at the latest, even assuming a slowdown of growth.

It would be amazing if one day the entire Big Darby from Logan down through Pickaway County at least was a continuous extension of Battelle Darby Metro Park.

Perhaps with the impending- supposedly- city zoning changes and the- supposedly- high-capacity transit route coming, they could mandate higher density and mixed-use on the site for any and all future redevelopment. That wouldn't get rid of this very suburban development right away, but it might ensure that whenever the site does get updated, it has to be done in specific ways and adhere to a standard that should've been in place to begin with. But I'm probably being really optimistic about the zoning changes, of which I have serious doubts that they will go far enough or be as forward-thinking as they've suggested.

Wasn't there talk some years ago about redoing this entire complex into a more mixed-use and urban development?

https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/tech_docs/accuracy/MultiyearACSAccuracyofData2018.pdf There's a lot that goes into creating the estimates. This link provides the entire process in how these numbers come about, and goes into detail about the MOE, sampling errors, etc. They're not exact, but there's a high degree of confidence.

The MOE are always like that when talking about population estimates, even when talking about cities/metros, etc. They're not gospel, but they show trends. I will say, though, that the 5-year ACS estimates are generally considered fairly accurate, which is what these are based on.

Inbound from PA was +1,899 annually. Outbound was -1,878 for a net of +21 annually. Not nearly large enough to make the top 10.