Here’s the big seven metro areas of Ohio in context…the 2000-2009 census projections for population, natural increase, and migration. 

 

The context are the cities surrounding Dayton/Cincinnati, which are Indianapolis and Fort Wayne the two largest metros in Indiana (not counting the Calumet Region),  Louisville & Lexington, the two largest in Kentucky, Hutington-Ashland,  Grand Rapids as a comparable for Dayton and Pittsburgh as a comparable for Cleveland (rust belt) and Cincinnati (Ohio River city).

 

The rankings for growth or decline, based on percentage, 2000 -2009:

 

1. Lexington:  15.3%

2. Indianapolis:  14.3%

3. Columbus: 11.7%

4. Louisville: 8.3%

5. Cincinnati: 8.1%

6. Fort Wayne: 6.2%

7. Grand Rapids: 5.1%

8. Toledo: 2.0%

9. Akron: .7%

…now we start with the declines

10.  Huntington/Ashland: -1%

11. .  Dayton: -1.5%

12.    Cleveland: -2.6%

13.    Pittsburgh:  -3.1%

14.    Youngstown:  -6.6%

 

So two Ohio cities in the top five and one with growth over 10%. 

 

Where did the growth come from?  Only two metros had negative natural increase, where deaths exceeded births, and these were Pittsburgh and Youngstown. 

 

To measure the signifigance of natural increase, here is a percentage.  The natural increase number expressed the % of the 2009 estimated metro population, for metros that had a net natural increase:

 

1. Grand Rapids:  7.23%

2. Indianapolis:    6.75%

3. Columbus:  6.67%

4. Fort Wayne:  6.55%

5. Lexington:  5.51%

6. Cincinnati:  5.04%

7. Louisville: 3.87

8. Toledo:  3.56%

9. Dayton: 3.12%

10.  Akron: 2.46%

11.  Cleveland: 2.34%

12.  Huntington/Ashland: .042%

 

These are somewhat interesting, showing places with declining populations also had a low rate of natural increase.

 

For migration the numbers are dramatically different.  Every metro area saw a net international in-migration.  Yet only five had a total net in-migration.  And only four and a net domestic in-migration. 

 

For the cities that had net in-migration, here is the migration as a percentage of the 2000-20009 estimated increase, metros ranked:

 

1. Louisville:  53.46% of the 2000-2009 increase came from in-migration

2. Lexington:  47.86%

3. Indianapolis: 46.27%

4. Columbus: 39.73%

5. Cincinnati:  3.39%

 

….and after that there was no metros that had a net total in-migration.  Louisville really did rely pretty heavy on in-migration given the relatively low rate of natural increase as this metro area’s growth was due more to in-migrants than net increase, the only metro were this was the case)

 

Cincinnati had negative domestic in-migration.  For the cities that saw a net increase in both domestic and international in-migration, here is the split, ranked by the most domestic in-migration

 

1.  Indianapolis:  71.71% domestic/28.29% international

2. Louisville:  66.86% domestic/31.23% international

3. Lexington:  57.34%/42.66%

4. Columbus:  45.54%/54.46%

 

What’s interesting is that Columbus and Lexington saw the highest % of international in-migration, and in fact international in-migration was more than domestic for Columbus.  An indication of having large “flagship” state universities attracting foreign students who stay?  Or perhaps specialized factors, like the Somalis coming to Cols and the rise in Latino labor in the Bluegrass region?

 

International in-migration is interesting as an indication of globalization, but is still pretty minimal.  Expressed as percentage of the 2009 metro population estimates, not one of these 2000-2009 international migration increases exceeded the single digits.  Here are the rankings over 1%:

 

1. Lexington:  2.71%

2. Columbus:  2.27%

3. Grand Rapids: 2.12%

4. Fort Wayne: 1.82%

5. Indianapolis: 1.64%

6. Cleveland: 1.38%

7. Louisville: 1.35%

8. Cincinnati:  1.06%

 

 

It really does look like Lexington and Columbus are fairly attractive to international in-migrants, but it is unexpected to see Grand Rapids and Fort Wayne here.  And Cleveland apparently is still attractive to foreigners even as it saw a net overall decrease in metro population from 2000-2009.

 

I guess when the census comes out we will see the 100% count (more or less) vs the estimate for these numbers. 

 

 

 

 

I would say that international migration to Columbus goes beyond the Somalis and is remarkably working class, though I'd guess there is a sizable educated minority. Cbus certainly has more of the small foreign business (East Asian, African, and Latin American) than Cincinnati for instance. I saw somewhere that Cincinnati actually had some of the highest educated foreign migrants as a percentage of the overall international immigration (heavily Indian and East Asian).

Very interesting summary.  Thanks!

 

  Interesting that Pittsburgh has such a good reputation and yet shows such a decline.

 

  As a general trend, it looks like the farther south and west you go, the greater the population increase. Dayton is the odd one.

By the economic numbers, Gross Metropolitan Product, Pittsburgh is doing good.  Yet not good enough to stem population out-migration and a negative birthrate (if thats the right term).

 

Grand Rapids is..well..I guess the polite way to say it is the locals apparently believe that biblical dictum to be fruitful and multiply. 

 

...and I'm scratching my head as to why Lexington and especially Louisville is getting this (relatively) big in-migration.  I see this at city-data (I am pretty active at city-data) as there are always inquiries about moving to Louisville.

 

  Domestic migration is hard to track. Say a young couple has kids in a small town, and the kids grow up, go to college, and find jobs in a larger city. The birth is counted in the small town, but the kids end up in the suburb of a metropolitan area.

 

    Maybe Lexington and Louisville are getting domestic migration from more rural parts of Kentucky? And Cincinnati and Columbus are getting them from southeast Ohio?

yes, in Louisville's case that would be the modern extension of a trend that started during and just after WWII, rural in-migration from Kentucky counties to the south and west.

 

For Lexington I am thinking the Toyota plant and suppliers might have something to do with it, as well as a  long term trend in "branch plant" industrial siting in the towns around Lexington, where, by now there might be agglomeration effects due to backward and forward lnkages (suppliers of suppliers) happening, drawing in people.  I'm wondering if the Bluegrass region is a little version of what's been going on in the Carolinas.  Because that growth rate is pretty impressive, almost what you'd expect in the Sunbelt.

 

 

 

 

I'd also bet Columbus is pulling in a good number of people from Southwest Ohio.

 

Where is arenn to talk up Pittsburgh?

A -2.6% decrease for Cleveland's regional populaiton is actually not so bad, considering the amount of jobs lost during the 2001 recession and now.  With the regional manufacturing employment now around 11 percent, I think our economicnumbers will actually fare better during the next decade.

Interesting analysis!  Thanks for taking the time to formulate this!

Where is arenn to talk up Pittsburgh?

 

arenn usually discusses Indianapolis as he is based there.  And Indy is perhaps one of the better performers in both population growth and economic growth in the entire Midwest, outside of Chicago.   

Where is arenn to talk up Pittsburgh?

 

arenn usually discusses Indianapolis as he is based there.  And Indy is perhaps one of the better performers in both population growth and economic growth in the entire Midwest, outside of Chicago.   

He was hyping up Pittsburgh in a recent census analysis on his blog:

The big news is that for the first time in forever, Pittsburgh, the incredible shrinking city, actually had positive net domestic in-migration. Here’s a chart:

 

 

The region still lost population, but that’s because of an odd case of natural decrease – more deaths than births. It looks like Pittsburgh might be really hitting its inflection point and starting to regenerate positive demographic growth.

Great analysis, Jeff.

 

Ft. Wayne has an active Burmese refugee settlement movement.

 

Lexington is doing pretty well.  Looking Madisonish.

 

I'm not a big fan of international immigration figures for interior cities outside of Chicago. My hypothesis is that most foreigners who move to the Midwest first entered the country elsewhere, thus don't show up in the international migration figures.

 

Louisville is doing really well on domestic migration.  Of the 12 metros I regularly track, it was #2 in total net in-migrants, 2000-2009.

 

Pittsburgh hit a migration inflection point. They also have natural decrease, which is pretty rare. I'm not ready to pronounce Pittsburgh "cured", but if there is any really hard whacked Rust Belt city that is looking like it is turning the corner, it's Pittsburgh.

 

Columbus increased its population growth in a year where that was rare. I expect them to take over the top spot in population growth from Indy in large Midwest metros soonish.

 

Cincinnati is remarkable I think.

 

Dayton: The least loserish of the losers

Can someone explain what domestic in-migration means? How can Cincinnati have negative domestic in-migration, only 1% international in-migration, a natural net-increase of 5%, and yet have grown by 8%?