September 28, 201212 yr Youngstown Distance in Miles, 2010 Population, Change since 2000. 0. 3,080 -847 1. 17,606 -5,887 2. 34,956 -7,194 3. 47,467 -3,893 4. 41,196 -3,647 5, 36,760 -2,191 6. 45,214 +2,070 7. 27,255 -932 8. 11,649 -686 9. 3,997 -50 10. 39,405 -1,441 11. 32,527 -2,343 12. 17,683 -2,924 13. 31,501 -2,242 14. 22,706 -2,157 15. 13,837 -732 16. 18,145 -731 17. 20,024 -507 18. 2,863 -121 19. 0 +0 20. 3,717 -93 Total Aggregate Population in 2010 and Change since 2000. 0. 3,080 -847 1. 20,686 -6,734 2. 55,642 -13,928 3. 103,109 -17,821 4. 144,305 -21,468 5. 181,065 -23,659 10. 308,585 -24,698 15. 426,839 -35,096 20. 471,588 -36,548 Total Metro Population Beyond 20 Miles in 2010: 94,185 Total Population Change in the Metro Area Beyond 20 Miles, 2000-2010: -723 Mile Marker with the Largest Population in 2000: 3 Mile Marker with the Largest Population in 2010: 3 Mile Marker with the Lowest Population in 2000: 18 Mile Marker with the Lowest Population in 2010: 18 Mile Marker with the Largest Growth 2000-2010: 6 +2,070 Mile Marker with the Biggest Loss 2000-2010: 2 -7,194 Total # of Miles that Metro Population Extends: 32
September 28, 201212 yr Metro Comparisons 2010 Aggregate Population By Mile Marker in Order from Highest to Lowest Mile 0 Cincinnati: 17,681 Akron: 12,479 Cleveland: 9,471 Dayton: 9,182 Toledo: 8,304 Canton: 7,488 Columbus: 7,416 Youngstown: 3,080 Mile 1 Cincinnati: 65,254 Toledo: 55,739 Akron: 53,715 Columbus: 49,667 Canton: 45,165 Dayton: 41,053 Cleveland: 32,193 Youngstown: 20,686 Mile 2 Cincinnati: 138,235 Columbus: 134,826 Akron: 122,395 Dayton: 101,817 Toledo: 94,058 Canton: 67,791 Cleveland: 64,721 Youngstown: 55,642 Mile 3 Columbus: 221,466 Cincinnati: 205,624 Akron: 177,674 Toledo: 166,569 Dayton: 152,789 Cleveland: 139,945 Canton: 107,182 Youngstown: 103,109 Mile 4 Cincinnati: 315,665 Columbus: 314,557 Akron: 227,825 Cleveland: 227,309 Dayton: 214,614 Toledo: 213,539 Youngstown: 144,305 Canton: 136,084 Mile 5 Columbus: 404,642 Cincinnati: 400,254 Cleveland: 361,475 Akron: 296,787 Toledo: 271,187 Dayton: 262,069 Youngstown: 181,065 Canton: 170,995 Mile 10 Columbus: 993,957 Cleveland: 918,511 Cincinnati: 862,932 Dayton: 586,178 Akron: 502,710 Toledo: 454,859 Youngstown: 308,585 Canton: 302,212 Mile 15 Columbus: 1,334,289 Cleveland: 1,298,074 Cincinnati: 1,227,419 Dayton: 700,402 Akron: 607,428 Toledo: 498,058 Youngstown: 426,839 Canton: 370,746 Mile 20 Cincinnati: 1,592,905 Cleveland: 1,549,799 Columbus: 1,432,067 Dayton: 727,623 Akron: 675,654 Toledo: 553,219 Youngstown: 471,588 Canton: 388,804
September 28, 201212 yr Aggregate Population Change by Metro and Mile Marker, 2000-2010, best to worst. Mile 0 Cleveland: +3,158 Columbus: +1,598 Toledo: +170 Cincinnati: -285 Dayton: -633 Youngstown: -847 Akron: -1,109 Canton: -1,861 Mile 1 Cleveland: +3,174 Columbus: -1,049 Cincinnati: -6,112 Youngstown: -6,734 Canton: -7,350 Akron: -8,916 Toledo: -10,118 Dayton: -10,165 Mile 2 Cleveland: -3,388 Columbus: -6,004 Canton: -8,255 Youngstown: -13,928 Cincinnati: -15,749 Akron: -15,874 Toledo: -16,771 Dayton: -20,826 Mile 3 Columbus: -8,509 Canton: -10,180 Youngstown: -17,821 Akron: -18,107 Toledo: -21,469 Cleveland: -23,287 Cincinnati: -24,548 Dayton: -27,652 Mile 4 Canton: -9,323 Columbus: -9,650 Akron: -18,533 Youngstown: -21,468 Toledo: -22,039 Dayton: -31,173 Cincinnati: -32,342 Cleveland: -41,948 Mile 5 Columbus: -7,924 Canton: -8,830 Akron: -19,405 Youngstown: -23,659 Toledo: -26,094 Dayton: -33,066 Cincinnati: -38,698 Cleveland: -70,067 Mile 10 Columbus: +59,873 Canton: -2,402 Akron: -6,207 Dayton: -17,223 Toledo: -21,636 Youngstown: -24,698 Cincinnati: -39,767 Cleveland: -120,862 Mile 15 Columbus: +150,907 Akron: +3,334 Cincinnati: +967 Canton: -1,906 Dayton: -9,702 Toledo: -14,738 Youngstown: -35,096 Cleveland: -113,959 Mile 20 Columbus: +183,014 Cincinnati: +46,813 Akron: +8,625 Canton: -2,841 Dayton: -7,484 Toledo: -14,112 Youngstown: -36,548 Cleveland: -88,522
September 28, 201212 yr Total Population By Metro Beyond 20 Miles in 2010, highest to lowest. Cincinnati: 537,246 Cleveland: 527,441 Columbus: 404,469 Youngstown: 94,185 Toledo: 93,210 Dayton: 83,879 Akron: 29,546 Canton: 15,618 % of Metro Population that is Beyond 20 Miles from "City Hall" in 2010, highest to lowest. Cleveland: 25.4% Cincinnati: 25.2% Columbus: 22.0% Youngstown: 16.6% Toledo: 14.4% Dayton: 10.0% Akron: 4.2% Canton: 3.9%
September 28, 201212 yr This is fascinating stuff. Thanks. "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
September 28, 201212 yr This is fascinating stuff. Thanks. Yeah, it's definitely interesting. I like this data specifically because you can easily see growth patterns at a given distance from the urban center, and every metro is different. Examples... Akron-Saw losses at every mile until 6, and then steady gains all the way out to the metro edge, implying that the majority of the population growth is suburban or exurban. Canton-Had rings of loss and growth... loss until mile 4, gain until mile 8, then back and forth out to the metro edge, forming two distinct growth donuts. The far suburban areas suffered consistent loss, though not as great as the urban center. Cincinnati-Had only a small loss at mile 0, but consistent, large losses through mile 7, followed by strong gains all the way out to the metro edge. Cincinnati did have, by far, the largest population at mile 0. There were also distinct peaks and valleys of total population. Population would peak, fall and the peak again in a wave pattern. This happened throughout the entire distance. Cincinnati also had the 2nd highest population beyond the 20-mile mark, indicating a lot of suburban sprawl, but not the most of the metros measured. Cleveland- The only metro to have population growth at both mile 0 and mile 1 and the highest growth at mile 0. Unfortunately, there were huge losses all the way from mile 2 out to mile 11, the furthest that the losses extended of all the metros measured. Also, the strongest growth was not until mile 19, the furthest out for this of any metro measured. Cleveland also had the largest population beyond mile 20. All this supports the idea that, while Cleveland is rebuilding its Downtown successfully, it also has the largest area of population losses as well as the most population sprawl the furthest from its core. A few other good points, though, is that it had the most consistent high population closer to the core that only gradually went down the further you went out, and it had the 2nd highest mile marker population of any metro with a population of 134,166 at mile 5. Columbus-Doing the best of the metros measured overall. Had the 2nd highest growth at mile 0, followed by losses from mile 1 to mile 4 that, combined, were the lowest losses within the first 5 miles of any metro measured. From mile 5 all the way out to the metro edge was strong population growth. It also had the highest mile growth of any metro with +30,586 at mile 10, as well as the highest population mile marker, mile 8, with 158,988. Population peaked between mile 8 and mile 11 and then fairly rapidly dropped off. The problem is that so much of the growth was further out. It was good to see the Downtown areas growing, but otherwise the strong growth remained at the 5 mile marker and beyond. However, the Columbus metro had the 3rd highest population beyond mile 20, behind both other 2-Cs. This seems to support that, while most of the growth happening is just inside I-270 and beyond, the overall metro population and sprawl is somewhat more compact than in Cleveland and Cincinnati. This is also supported by the fact that population ramps up very fast vs the other metros, and leads or is close to the lead from mile 3 out to mile 15. Dayton- One of the more strange growth patters. Beyond the strong losses through mile 5 and strong gains from 8 through 13, there were patterns of growth and loss seemingly at random all the way out to the metro edge. Toledo- Another strange growth pattern. Was only one of 3 metros to have growth at mile 0. Losses from mile 1-5, growth from 6-11, and then random loss and growth to the metro edge. Youngstown-Performing the worst of all the metros. Had only one mile marker in the first 20 to see growth. All the other 19 were losses. Even though the losses weren't the highest of all the metros, they were the most consistent and and even occurred in the far suburbs.
September 28, 201212 yr Facinating study, however not a very effective way to study Cleveland with the lake to the north and taking a majority of the radius away. This radius consists of 730 square miles of land, and 526 square miles of water. In addition, this radius excludes most of Brunswick, all of Medina, Chardon, Mentor, Lorain, Elyria, Bainbridge, and most of North Ridgeville. Most of these are the only areas showing growth in the Cleveland Metro. Now, when you draw that radisu around Columbus, you get all of Frankilin County in there, Choctaw lake to the west, Kirkersville to the East, North end of Cicleville to the south and Deleware to the North. Just a tough way to view Cleveland. Similar case could be said for Detroit and Chicago. And as an FYI, I don't tend to deny the accuracy of population counts. Just don't really like this study as a way to guage all metros. Works for Cincy and Cbus though.
September 28, 201212 yr Very interesting stuff. The Cincy numbers in the comparison are pretty fascinating. As you said, a wave, with still pretty high numbers in close, then it bottoms out, then goes back up.
September 28, 201212 yr ^Each city's numbers are somewhat dicatated by the geography. That is probably why C-bus is the most consistent throughout because it has the least geographic obstacles. Cincy has topography and flood plains to deal with which breaks up its population clusters. Cleveland has the Lake to the north and the industrial valley / national park to the south which pretty much restricts its growth to only two directions.
September 28, 201212 yr It's also worth noting that, even with a similar amount of sprawl, we would expect Columbus's metro to have less population on the outer rings because it is less populous.
September 29, 201212 yr Facinating study, however not a very effective way to study Cleveland with the lake to the north and taking a majority of the radius away. This radius consists of 730 square miles of land, and 526 square miles of water. In addition, this radius excludes most of Brunswick, all of Medina, Chardon, Mentor, Lorain, Elyria, Bainbridge, and most of North Ridgeville. Most of these are the only areas showing growth in the Cleveland Metro. Now, when you draw that radisu around Columbus, you get all of Frankilin County in there, Choctaw lake to the west, Kirkersville to the East, North end of Cicleville to the south and Deleware to the North. Just a tough way to view Cleveland. Similar case could be said for Detroit and Chicago. And as an FYI, I don't tend to deny the accuracy of population counts. Just don't really like this study as a way to guage all metros. Works for Cincy and Cbus though. I added up the total for the populations of every mile for the metros and they matched the 2010 total metro populations, so I don't think the numbers actually missed any population within the metro. Not sure how they worked around features like the Lake in Cleveland, but maybe they just used distance by land only.
September 29, 201212 yr ^Each city's numbers are somewhat dicatated by the geography. That is probably why C-bus is the most consistent throughout because it has the least geographic obstacles. Cincy has topography and flood plains to deal with which breaks up its population clusters. Cleveland has the Lake to the north and the industrial valley / national park to the south which pretty much restricts its growth to only two directions. I would actually argue that Cleveland's are the most consistent. They reach a plateau fairly quickly, stay there for several miles, and then only gradually decline. Columbus' may be a close second, though.
September 29, 201212 yr It's also worth noting that, even with a similar amount of sprawl, we would expect Columbus's metro to have less population on the outer rings because it is less populous. Less populous when you include the entire metro, yes, but it's interesting that Columbus generally has the highest population of any metro from mile 3-15. It's definitely much more compact than people give it credit for.
September 29, 201212 yr I found this group of information particularly interesting: Mile 15 Columbus: 1,334,289 Cleveland: 1,298,074 Cincinnati: 1,227,419 Dayton: 700,402 Akron: 607,428 Toledo: 498,058 Youngstown: 426,839 Canton: 370,746 Mile 20 Cincinnati: 1,592,905 Cleveland: 1,549,799 Columbus: 1,432,067 Dayton: 727,623 Akron: 675,654 Toledo: 553,219 Youngstown: 471,588 Canton: 388,804 Columbus only has about 100,000 people between miles 15 and 20. Cincinnati has over 350,000 people and Cleveland has ~250,000 between mile 15 and 20. Population beyond 20 miles doesn't always just account for sprawl/growth out from the central city, which I think is the point of this data. Cincinnati has Middletown and Hamilton that are counted in the Metro beyond 20 miles, which are sizable, urban communities on their own. Population between miles 15-20 show the truer size of the urbanized population. It appears Columbus begins to become exurban/lower density suburban sooner than either Cleveland or Columbus. This kind of confirms my suspicions about this, as Columbus seems to have much less development when driving in on 71 (which I have been doing about twice a week for the past month) than Cincinnati. Although I do realize that Columbus sprawls more to the North than the South, which is the direction I approach from.
September 29, 201212 yr I found this group of information particularly interesting: Mile 15 Columbus: 1,334,289 Cleveland: 1,298,074 Cincinnati: 1,227,419 Dayton: 700,402 Akron: 607,428 Toledo: 498,058 Youngstown: 426,839 Canton: 370,746 Mile 20 Cincinnati: 1,592,905 Cleveland: 1,549,799 Columbus: 1,432,067 Dayton: 727,623 Akron: 675,654 Toledo: 553,219 Youngstown: 471,588 Canton: 388,804 Columbus only has about 100,000 people between miles 15 and 20. Cincinnati has over 350,000 people and Cleveland has ~250,000 between mile 15 and 20. Population beyond 20 miles doesn't always just account for sprawl/growth out from the central city, which I think is the point of this data. Cincinnati has Middletown and Hamilton that are counted in the Metro beyond 20 miles, which are sizable, urban communities on their own. Population between miles 15-20 show the truer size of the urbanized population. It appears Columbus begins to become exurban/lower density suburban sooner than either Cleveland or Columbus. This kind of confirms my suspicions about this, as Columbus seems to have much less development when driving in on 71 (which I have been doing about twice a week for the past month) than Cincinnati. Although I do realize that Columbus sprawls more to the North than the South, which is the direction I approach from. The problem with that theory is that all 3-Cs have sizeable communities beyond 20 miles in their metros. Looking over Columbus and Cincinnati, I found 6 communities with populations near or over 10,000 beyond 20 miles in Columbus with 5 for Cincinnati. Most of Cincinnati's largest communities are either within Hamilton County or near the border. These communities represented 163,414 people for Columbus and 183,287 for Cincinnati, so there's not a huge difference there. That would mean that, of all the population living beyond 20 miles in the 2 metros, Cincinnati would still be 100K ahead in population there that doesn't reside in any city. You may be right that Columbus has more low-density development, but these numbers don't support that. All they really show is that more population lives closer to the core city than they do in Cincinnati.
September 29, 201212 yr I am curious about your methodology. How did you assign census tracts which are intersected by mile rings? I assume your basic unit is census tracts, since I don't know what else you would use.
September 29, 201212 yr I am curious about your methodology. How did you assign census tracts which are intersected by mile rings? I assume your basic unit is census tracts, since I don't know what else you would use. I didn't come up with the numbers at all. The Census released these a couple days ago. They listed the metro population at each mile distance from what they called "City Hall". All I did was put them on a spreadsheet and added them up.
September 29, 201212 yr Ok, I just saw an article about the release. Maybe I will take a look at their methodology. I guess they actually have the raw data, without the need to use tracts, which the general public couldn't do. Thanks for the compilation, btw.
September 29, 201212 yr Toledo- Another strange growth pattern. Was only one of 3 metros to have growth at mile 0. Losses from mile 1-5, growth from 6-11, and then random loss and growth to the metro edge. This is true. Toledo's downtown core is growing (not at Cleveland's pace, but a major change since 2000). The fastest-growing neighborhoods in Toledo are the CBD and Uptown. The Warehouse District is also still adding a lot of people, but it's hard to get good numbers for it since its census tract includes the former Brand-Whitlock apartment projects. They're being destroyed and replaced with new ones (actually looks like a really good infill project as far as subsidized housing goes). Despite its huge economic struggles, Toledo's downtown is coming back, and probably getting near critical mass. Apartment vacancies are the lowest in the metro area, and among the lowest in the entire state of Ohio. That's why the Fiberglas Tower renovation is now viable. Also, something strange is happening in Vistula. While the neighborhood is still largely abandoned and extremely impoverished (something like 80%+ of the neighborhood lives in extreme concentrated poverty), its housing values have more than doubled in six years. It looks like it hit rock bottom and is now being viewed as an investment opportunity. I remember looking at some Italianate rowhouses there back in the depths of Toledo's depression, and couldn't believe the prices. I found a nice one on North Huron selling for $10,000, and it was in decent shape (hadn't been stripped yet). Of course, I also would have had to deal with frequent shootings and the constant threat of arson. The side of the neighborhood closer to the river is much safer. Gangs were pushed northwest. Look at this change in home values in Vistula, up 159% since 2005: http://www.clevelandfed.org/Community_Development/publications/CSI/201201/lucas4.png There is a lot of pent-up urban demand in Toledo. Just talking to people, you get the sense that a lot of locals are thinking of moving towards the core, but aren't optimistic about the economy. If Toledo's economy ever actually recovers and a middle class gets footing, I think there could be a population explosion in core neighborhoods. The 1-mile to 2-mile ring was brutalized by foreclosures and population exodus over the last decade, but has a good chance of recovering if young people start getting good jobs in Toledo. There is a lot of recent abandonment in neighborhoods like Vistula, Northriver, Lagrange, Old West End, Old South End, and East Toledo. If arsonists can be kept at bay, there is excellent historic housing available at the best prices in America. Old South End might be nearing the point of no return (Libbey High School and Jones Junior High demolitions seem to represent that), but there are still some intact blocks that have managed to keep the gangs and arsonists out. I think Five Points has a chance at recovery too if recently abandoned Sylvania Avenue buildings can be saved and the auto industry stabilizes for at least five years. The parts of Toledo that seem completely screwed are neighborhoods like Roosevelt and ONYX along Dorr and Nebraska (basically West Toledo outside I-75 excluding the UT area). Those neighborhoods have completely gone to hell and many whole blocks were lost to arson. It's too gap-toothed to retain much historic character. I think Toledo's 3-mile to 4-mile area is up Swan Creek without a paddle. These secondary pre-WW2 urban areas are the toughest sell. They've lost a ton of population, arsons are rampant, and they lack the housing quality of Toledo's core residential neighborhoods, which are heavy with Victorians along with apartment buildings/rowhouses/triplexes made out of stone and brick. The inner ring neighborhoods also have more surviving commercial buildings of high architectural quality. Toledo's second ring is mostly 1920's duplexes and single family wood homes, not exactly the stuff people are looking for these days (though it's dirt cheap). Plus whole stretches of commercial streets in these areas like Monroe, Dorr, Detroit, and Nebraska have been leveled. The 5-mile ring is where you get the nice streetcar suburbs that were annexed like Old Orchard and Beverly. They have really high quality housing, just at much lower density than Toledo's inner ring neighborhoods. The second ring neighborhoods of Toledo could be lost, along with suburban ghetto annex areas like Southwyck and Northtowne (Franklin Park and Westgate are obviously fine since they're near UT money and bring in a lot of Sylvania people). Five Points is the only second ring neighborhood I see with a chance since its vacancy is so recent. Mile 1 Cincinnati: 65,254 Toledo: 55,739 Akron: 53,715 Columbus: 49,667 Canton: 45,165 Dayton: 41,053 Cleveland: 32,193 Youngstown: 20,686 *It's amazing Toledo still has this many people at the core. The last decade was just brutal, but it looks like Toledo maintained more than its economy would lead you to believe. Overall though, these are extremely depressing stats across the state. All the central city areas in Ohio lost an incredible number of people. Even Columbus looked terrible, despite the much stronger economy. I think the last decade might have been the worst in state history (not just in population loss, but also increases in concentrated poverty). Only really the 70's compared to this in most core urban areas (that was the last time Toledo's urban hoods lost that many people).
September 30, 201212 yr Mile 1 Cincinnati: 65,254 Toledo: 55,739 Akron: 53,715 Columbus: 49,667 Canton: 45,165 Dayton: 41,053 Cleveland: 32,193 Youngstown: 20,686 It's amazing Toledo still has this many people at the core. The last decade was just brutal, but it looks like Toledo maintained more than its economy would lead you to believe. Overall though, these are extremely depressing stats. All the central city areas in Ohio lost an incredible number of people. Even Columbus looked terrible, despite the much stronger economy. I think the last decade might have been the worst in state history (not just in population loss, but also increases in concentrated poverty). Only really the 70's compared to this in most core urban areas (that was the last time Toledo's urban hoods lost that many people). I actually think the 2000's were the bottom for most places and I would expect that we see gradual improvement over the next several years to decade. May not a reversal of all losses, but a start.
September 30, 201212 yr ^Let's hope so. I think for sure Columbus and Cincinnati are near bottom since the economies are so good.
September 30, 201212 yr ^Let's hope so. I think for sure Columbus and Cincinnati are near bottom since the economies are so good. Yeah, and perhaps Dayton as well considering the population estimates showed growth the last few years.
September 30, 201212 yr The aftermath of the riots had some effect on Cincinnati's numbers for at least the innermost ring. Between 2000 and 2010, there was definitely a low point and bounce which isn't reflected here.
September 30, 201212 yr A lot of crappy postwar neighborhoods in Toledo had terrible flooding issues. If Toledo could go back to the city it was in 1929, it a pretty awesome place. It sounds like the economic collapse of the last decade is making that happen. Now they just need enough economic momentum get the next generation to stay in the region and commit to the core. On Columbus - the northern half of Franklin is full in a way almost no park of Greater Cincinnati is (topography). Columbus has the makings of Greenbelt with the big parks around the reservoirs and the Big Darby Creek agreements. The real sprawl in Columbus is really south and east. There is a lot of development in Delaware County but while it is very suburban, it isn't all that sprawlly (most developments are relatively dense).
September 30, 201212 yr A lot of crappy postwar neighborhoods in Toledo had terrible flooding issues. This is true. Toledo has a lot of environmental issues since it was mostly built on swamps. It's not just postwar annex neighborhoods. Some of the second ring pre-WW2 neighborhoods also have flooding issues. It seems to be mostly concentrated in the ruthless ghettos of West-Central Toledo and the South End beyond the Old South End. That's just more evidence of how much those areas are screwed. The most historic neighborhoods don't flood as much. That's a big reason they have a better chance at recovery. Toledo's pre-1920 core is so damn cheap, even compared to everywhere else in Ohio, that the bang for buck equation makes recovery pretty plausible if the crime issues are dealt with. You can buy a house for $10,000 in the North End or East Toledo, or you can spend $100,000 on a crappier place in Maumee. Or $150,000 on a crappier place in Sylvania, Monclova, or Springfield. Rossford is the only suburb that now might be able to hang with Toledo on bang for buck. Toledo's slums and Rossford are where all the real deals are at. A lot of people are buying up old houses and converting them to rentals, which is what Generation Y wants. This rental conversion is a long time coming in Toledo. Even with its rock bottom prices, Toledo's atrocious economy and lack of opportunity makes buying a questionable idea. No young person wants to do it, even for a price less than a mid-sized sedan. *I'm leaving Perrysburg out of this since there is an obvious Perrysburg fetish in Northwest Ohio. People pay way more money to live there just to avoid the rest of the metro area. These are the areas of Toledo I think have potential to recover: Downtown Core CBD (already growing) Warehouse District (already growing) Uptown (already growing, though it was almost completely decimated in previous decades) Inner Ring Neighborhoods Vistula (sky high poverty, still a lot of crime issues, but fingers crossed since this is Toledo's neighborhood with the most potential) Northriver (lots of population loss, but some great stretches with potential) Lagrange (record population exodus in last decade, dirt cheap prices as a result of it) Old West End (lost considerable population in last decade and is dealing with some new crime issues, but still a lot of amazing housing left) East Toledo (lots of great commercial buildings still standing and some dense recently abandoned hoods mixed in with extreme ghetto) Old South End (tons of population loss in last decade, tons of homes lost to arson, but a lot of the best buildings are still standing....except Libbey and Jones) *Warren Sherman is an inner ring neighborhood that probably will come not back since it is just too ghetto and hardly anything is left but surface lots and urban prairies. That's a "no man's land" between Lagrange, Uptown, and Old West End. It's going to stay that way for quite some time. I also think Toledo has a lot of competition with Bowling Green and Monroe. I know a lot of people who choose to rent in those areas since they're just as cheap as Toledo, and have good downtowns. Monroe's historic core is awesome and it has better Lake Erie access than Toledo. Although it seems nuts to live 20 miles away from downtown Toledo, people are doing it. Bowling Green still has better nightlife than Toledo and it's cheaper than the neighborhoods around UT.
September 30, 201212 yr It's also worth noting that, even with a similar amount of sprawl, we would expect Columbus's metro to have less population on the outer rings because it is less populous. Less populous when you include the entire metro, yes, but it's interesting that Columbus generally has the highest population of any metro from mile 3-15. It's definitely much more compact than people give it credit for. Sorry, but it's not. Columbus only has about 8% more people within 10 miles of downtown than Cleveland, despite having nearly twice as much land area in that radius.
September 30, 201212 yr The aftermath of the riots had some effect on Cincinnati's numbers for at least the innermost ring. Between 2000 and 2010, there was definitely a low point and bounce which isn't reflected here. I would love it if the annual estimate broke down population by mile and census tract. We'd be able to better track overall trends within a city/metro. Unforunately, that's only for the decennial census.
September 30, 201212 yr A lot of crappy postwar neighborhoods in Toledo had terrible flooding issues. If Toledo could go back to the city it was in 1929, it a pretty awesome place. It sounds like the economic collapse of the last decade is making that happen. Now they just need enough economic momentum get the next generation to stay in the region and commit to the core. On Columbus - the northern half of Franklin is full in a way almost no park of Greater Cincinnati is (topography). Columbus has the makings of Greenbelt with the big parks around the reservoirs and the Big Darby Creek agreements. The real sprawl in Columbus is really south and east. There is a lot of development in Delaware County but while it is very suburban, it isn't all that sprawlly (most developments are relatively dense). The only natural barrier in the Columbus area would be the Scioto-Darby Creek. It's heavily protected and development can only push out so far westward, something places like Westerville and Dublin are dealing with already. At least Dublin can expand northward, but they seem to be focusing now on density and infill, something few other suburbs are bothering with yet. Delaware County still has a ton of undeveloped land.
September 30, 201212 yr It's also worth noting that, even with a similar amount of sprawl, we would expect Columbus's metro to have less population on the outer rings because it is less populous. Less populous when you include the entire metro, yes, but it's interesting that Columbus generally has the highest population of any metro from mile 3-15. It's definitely much more compact than people give it credit for. Sorry, but it's not. Columbus only has about 8% more people within 10 miles of downtown than Cleveland, despite having nearly twice as much land area in that radius. I'm not talking about just population total, but where they live. You would expect that a metro that everyone says is sprawl to have most of the population much more spread out than it really does. The population in Columbus is much closer to the center than it should be given its reputation. You could argue that more of those people live in low-density sprawl closer to the center, I guess, but my point about it being more compact is that the population is not 50 miles out, but 10.
October 1, 201212 yr It's also worth noting that, even with a similar amount of sprawl, we would expect Columbus's metro to have less population on the outer rings because it is less populous. Less populous when you include the entire metro, yes, but it's interesting that Columbus generally has the highest population of any metro from mile 3-15. It's definitely much more compact than people give it credit for. Sorry, but it's not. Columbus only has about 8% more people within 10 miles of downtown than Cleveland, despite having nearly twice as much land area in that radius. I'm not talking about just population total, but where they live. You would expect that a metro that everyone says is sprawl to have most of the population much more spread out than it really does. The population in Columbus is much closer to the center than it should be given its reputation. You could argue that more of those people live in low-density sprawl closer to the center, I guess, but my point about it being more compact is that the population is not 50 miles out, but 10. I see your point, but I think that's exactly what most people think about Columbus. There's an incredible amount of sprawly development close to the center. There are a lot of things I like about Columbus, but I definitely think that the fact that it boomed late shows in the development patterns in the 5-10 mile areas.
October 3, 201212 yr I see your point, but I think that's exactly what most people think about Columbus. There's an incredible amount of sprawly development close to the center. There are a lot of things I like about Columbus, but I definitely think that the fact that it boomed late shows in the development patterns in the 5-10 mile areas. 1950 Columbus had approximately 42 sq. miles. http://assets.columbus.gov/Development/planning/columbusgrowthmapseries.pdf shows a nice set of maps of that area, and anything after that has pretty much just been sprawly.
October 4, 201212 yr I see your point, but I think that's exactly what most people think about Columbus. There's an incredible amount of sprawly development close to the center. There are a lot of things I like about Columbus, but I definitely think that the fact that it boomed late shows in the development patterns in the 5-10 mile areas. 1950 Columbus had approximately 42 sq. miles. http://assets.columbus.gov/Development/planning/columbusgrowthmapseries.pdf shows a nice set of maps of that area, and anything after that has pretty much just been sprawly. I wonder where they got the square miles from. This shows 220 square miles in 2000, but the Census has 217.17 for 2010, and less than 200 for 2000. In any case, that's why it's interesting to see where the population lives. Sprawl or not, the population lives pretty close to the center in contrast to the assumed view.
December 8, 201212 yr Not sure where else to post this, but now that the official raw vote counts are in, it's kind of an interesting proxy to population trends between each census. Franklin County in 2008 had 564,971 ballots cast, in 2012 574,610 ballots were cast. That's an increase of 1.7% in terms of raw votes. Cuyahoga County in 2008 had 672,750 ballots cast and 650,387 ballots cast in 2012. That's a decrease of 3.3% in terms of raw votes. Obviously there are plenty of other factors to put into play such as voter enthusiasm, but just thought this was an interesting proxy to the obvious; Franklin County continues to grow and Cuyahoga County is still losing population. Overall the state of Ohio had a decrease of 2.2% votes cast between 2008 and 2012. It's probably a safe bet that the state as a whole hasn't gained much (if any) population the past 4 years. Conversely Colorado saw a 7% increase in raw vote between 2008 and 2012. Similarly North Carolina and Nevada also saw increases of about 4.5% and 4.9% respectively. It's a safe bet these states are still growing.
December 9, 201212 yr Where did you get these numbers? Now that the results are official, I just went to the board of elections website for each county (and the state certifications) and looked up the official info for this year and 2008: http://vote.franklincountyohio.gov/ http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/ http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/elections/Research/electResultsMain.aspx
December 10, 201212 yr Thanks. HamCo went from 429,267 in 2008 to 421,997 in 2012. A decrease of 1.7%. Source: http://boe.hamilton-co.org/elections/election-results.aspx From 2000-2010, HamCo's population decreased 5.1%, or 0.51% per year. Assuming that same rate from 2008-2012, there would be a population decrease of 2.04%, which is a 20% greater decrease than the 1.7% decrease in voter turnout. That would lead to the conclusion that: 1) 2012 drew a greater percentage of the population than 2008 (i.e. greater voter turnout), 2) more young people left than people of voting age, 3) more non-voters left than voters, or 4) population decrease was slower in the period of 2008-2012 than 2000-2010. Yes, it's probably reading too much into the data, and I'm sure there are better proxies (registered voters might be one of those). Still, since voter turnout decreased by 6.5% across the state of Ohio between those years (and 6.8% in the country overall), the numbers are encouraging.
January 21, 201312 yr This census dotmap is interesting: See http://bmander.com/dotmap/index.html#lat=43.138189&lon=-96.839555&z=4&o=f
Create an account or sign in to comment