jonoh81

Why is density a problem for Columbus, but not Cincinnati, a city that Columbus currently has a higher density than? Also, with the proliferation of autonomous vehicles, a lot of building patterns may change- certainly car-oriented infrastructure. I'm not sure any city is really ready for those consequences.

I don't think you can make this claim without justification. It could be that immigration from Ohio lit a fire that caused the rest. Yes, I can. Most Ohio cities have positive international migration, so it's safe to assume Columbus would. Its natural growth rate has been very positive for decades, and there's no reason to think it would be all the different without Ohio's migration added considering that Ohio in general has an older population than many other states. So why wouldn't Columbus continue to have the strongest total growth even without Ohio? For the record, Columbus is receiving less from Ohio than Ohio sends out of state, so most people who choose to move leave the state altogether.

The Census does mobility surveys on region-to-region moves. Change of climate is often less than 1% of the responses as to why people moved. People just don't move for weather.

Cincy is keeping up with Columbus too. Cincy is a bit slower growth but it is a bigger market too still. There is less in-migration there because of the lack of state government and Ohio State, but otherwise, it is very comparable to Columbus. Cleveland and Toledo and Dayton have struggled as well as Youngstown. There economies were all a lot less diverse than Cincy and Columbus (albeit Cleveland has a lot of diversity) which hurt those smaller Markets. Cleveland was hurt by the manufacturing changes that occurred in the last 30 years but has finally straightened things out and growing again, albeit slowly. Point being, no city in Ohio can really toot its own horn because unlike the Sun Belt, growth is essentially flat. Heck New York is growing too yet they have the largest outmigration of anywhere in the country. It is just there are a flood of immigrants that enter through there to take the place of those who leave. The Sun Belt is growing because of favorable tax policies in Florida and Texas take the snow birds from the North, and there is a lot of migration from Latin America, etc, larger families in the Bible Belt, manufacturing jobs relocating to Sun Belt for numerous reasons (namely that is where a lot of people desire to live) I still don't get this idea that international growth is somehow not as good as domestic. Why? Growth is growth, however it happens, and immigrants have value. Florida and other Sun Belt states get the vast majority of their domestic migration from other parts of the Sun Belt, NOT the North, just as Ohio gets the vast majority of its domestic migration from its own region rather than others. In fact, the Sun Belt LOST population domestically to the Midwest 2012-2016 based on that period's migration tables. When it comes to this issue, there are always all sorts of beliefs thrown about that aren't actually true. Also, cost of living is now basically equal between the Midwest and South, and it's actually becoming more expensive in the South, regardless of tax policy. On top of all that, the South is the worst region in almost every quality of life metric used, from education to upward mobility, obesity, poverty, etc. Let's stop making the South as some kind of Utopia.

Yes, in the past, Columbus' domestic migration net was dependent on the rest of Ohio, but not anymore. And even if Columbus didn't receive a single person from the rest of the state, it would still be the fastest-growing city in the state by totals just due to natural and international growth. As for those that say nothing can be learned from all this, I disagree. In terms of domestic migration from Ohio, what makes Columbus virtually the only magnet? Why do people move there?

Columbus's domestic migration is only positive due to intra-Ohio migration. Without it, it would be slightly negative. I think this helps explain your observation that what's happening in the rest of the state is not happening in Columbus; a significant portion of Columbus's growth comes from out-migration in the rest of the state. https://www.urbanohio.com/forum/index.php/topic,10856.msg824352.html#msg824352 I'm not sure why this matters. Most cities get the bulk of their domestic migration from within their home states, contrary to what some might otherwise believe, even high-growth cities like Austin and Charlotte. That said, Columbus' out-of-state domestic migration is growing. The last time it was negative was the 2009-2013 period that is referenced in your link. The very next period- 2010-2014, it had an out-of-state net domestic of +1,007, and has subsequently increased further since then. Meanwhile, domestic growth from the rest of Ohio has actually decreased, from greater than 11,000 2009-2013 to under 9,000 2012-2016.

Columbus' metro growth is made up of a little more than 50% natural growth. Average annual net natural growth by decade: 1990-2000: +10470 2000-2010: +12331 2010-2016: +12668 The other roughly 50% is made up of a combination of domestic and international migration. Average Annual Domestic Migration 1990-2000: +4400 2000-2010: +3426 2010-2016: +4861 Average Annual International Migration 1990-2000: +1230 2000-2010: +4170 2010-2016: +5935 Total Migration 1990-2000: +5630 2000-2010: +7596 2010-2016: +10796 Columbus is one of the only Ohio cities to both have increasing natural growth rates as well as domestic and international migration. Whatever the case may be in the rest of the state, it's not happening in Columbus.