So city population estimates have been out a few weeks.  I thought that, in general, they were positive for Ohio. 

 

First, here are the top 50 largest cities with the population change from 2010 to July 1, 2011.

 

1. Columbus: 797,434 +10,401

2. Cleveland: 393,806 -3,009

3. Cincinnati: 296,223 -720

4. Toledo: 286,038 -1,170

5. Akron: 198,402: -708

6. Dayton: 142,148 +621

7. Parma: 80,968 -633

8. Canton: 72,919 -88

9. Youngstown: 66,571 -411

10. Lorain: 64,152 +55

11. Hamilton: 62,795 +318

12. Springfield: 60,333 -275

13. Kettering: 56,427 +264

14. Elyria: 54,581 +48

15. Lakewood: 51,724 -407

16. Cuyahoga Falls: 49,473 -179

17. Middletown: 48,962 +268

18. Euclid: 48,541 -379

19. Newark: 47,790 +217

20. Mansfield: 47,483 -338

21. Mentor: 47,126 -33

22. Cleveland Heights: 45,764 -357

23. Beavercreek: 45,566 +373

24. Strongsville: 44,400 -350

25. Fairfield: 42,730 +220

26. Dublin: 42,346 +595

27. Warren: 41,358 -199

28. Findlay: 41,351 +149

29. Lancaster: 39,026 +246

30. Lima: 38,693 -78

31. Huber Heights: 38,278 +177

32. Marion: 36,689 -148

33. Westerville: 36,665 +545

34. Reynoldsburg: 36,293 +400

35. Grove City: 36,052 +477

36. Delaware: 35,541 +788

37. Stow: 34,711 -126

38. Brunswick: 34,441 +186

39. Upper Arlington: 34,223 +452

40. Gahanna: 33,694 +446

41. Fairborn: 32,620 +268

42. Westlake: 32,479 -250

43. North Olmsted: 32,463 -255

44. Massillon: 32,106 -43

45. Mason: 31,039 +327

46. Bowling Green: 30,221 +193

47. North Royalton: 30,206 -238

48. North Ridgeville: 29,492 +27

49. Kent: 28,935 +31

50. Hilliard: 28,816 +381

Interesting. Obviously these aren't perfect, but overall they show some pretty good things happening. If one were to extrapolate these numbers for the entire decade (obviously that doesn't take MANY factors into account that will for sure come into play over the next 8 years of the decade) the numbers for the big 3 are all pretty great. Columbus's growth is faster than the average for the past decade and the rate of decrease in Cleveland and Cincinnati have both slowed. Although I would have liked to seen a smaller decrease in Cleveland, that number represents a rate of decrease less than half the average of the last decade. That's pretty dramatic.

 

Cincinnati is what I find the most interesting though (well, that and Dayton's population increasing). A loss of 720 people represents only a .24 percent decrease. That's only a quarter of the average for the last decade. And with the rest of The Banks, Mercer Commons, countless other project in OTR and downtown, etc. coming online before the decade is over, it's not hard to foresee a population gain for this decade. Or at the very least a stabilization. It would be amazing for the perception of Ohio's cities if the three C's began to all show signs of population gains at the end of the decade.

Here are the top 50 largest cities in 2020 using a simple extrapolation from growth rates 2010-2011, as well as their overall change in the size ranking if rates continued.

Change in ranking in ().

 

1. Columbus: 891,043 (0)

2. Cleveland: 366,725 (0)

3. Cincinnati: 289,743 (0)

4. Toledo: 275,508 (0)

5. Akron: 192,030 (0)

6. Dayton: 147,737 (0)

7. Parma: 75,271 (0)

8. Canton: 72,127 (0)

9. Hamilton: 65,657 (+2)

10. Lorain: 64,647 (0)

11 Youngstown: 62,872 (-2)

12. Kettering: 58,803 (+1)

13. Springfield: 57,858 (-1)

14. Elyria: 55,013 (0)

15. Middletown: 51,374 (+2)

16. Newark: 49,743 (+3)

17. Beavercreek: 48,923 (+6)

18. Lakewood: 48,061 (-3)

19. Cuyahoga Falls: 47,862 (-3)

20. Dublin: 47,701 (+6)

21. Mentor: 46,829 (0)

22. Euclid: 45,130 (-4)

23. Fairfield: 44,710 (+2)

24. Mansfield: 44,441 (-4)

25. Findlay: 42,692 (+3)

26. Delaware: 42,633 (+10)

27. Cleveland Heights: 42,551 (-5)

28. Westerville: 41,570 (+5)

29. Strongsville: 41,250 (-5)

30. Lancaster: 41,240 (-1)

31. Grove City: 40,345 (+4)

32. Reynoldsburg: 39,893 (+2)

33. Huber Heights: 39,871 (-2)

34. Warren: 39,567 (-7)

35. Upper Arlington: 38,291 (+4)

36. Lima: 37,991 (-6)

37. Gahanna: 37,708 (+3)

38. Brunswick: 36,115 (0)

39. Marion: 35,357 (-7)

40. Fairborn: 35,032 (+1)

41. Mason: 33,982 (+4)

42. Stow: 33,577 (-5)

43. Hilliard: 32,245 (+7)

44. Bowling Green: 31,958 (+2)

45. Massillon: 31,719 (-1)

46. Westlake: 30,229 (-4)

47. North Olmsted: 30,168 (-4)

48. North Ridgeville: 29,735 (0)

49. Kent: 29,214 (0)

50. Medina: 28,118 (entered top 50, replaces North Royalton)

 

 

For sake of comparison, here are estimates for each of the top ten cities in 2020 when extrapolating based on the 2000-2010 census numbers.

 

1. Columbus: 870,458

2. Cleveland: 328,959

3. Cincinnati: 266,062

4. Toledo: 263,082

5. Akron: 182,584

6. Dayton: 120,581

7. Parma: 77,765

8. Canton: 65,925

9. Youngstown: 54,724

10. Lorain: 59,866

 

With the exception of Parma, all of the top ten are currently averaging better than the past decade. Hopefully whatever has changed for these cities isn't just temporary and the trends towards slowing depopulation and even repopulation of our big cities continues.

For sake of comparison, here are estimates for each of the top ten cities in 2020 when extrapolating based on the 2000-2010 census numbers.

 

1. Columbus: 870,458

2. Cleveland: 328,959

3. Cincinnati: 266,062

4. Toledo: 263,082

5. Akron: 182,584

6. Dayton: 120,581

7. Parma: 77,765

8. Canton: 65,925

9. Youngstown: 54,724

10. Lorain: 59,866

 

With the exception of Parma, all of the top ten are currently averaging better than the past decade. Hopefully whatever has changed for these cities isn't just temporary and the trends towards slowing depopulation and even repopulation of our big cities continues.

 

Likely what has changed is the whole urban movement going on.  A lot of people believe it began during and after the recession, but it didn't.  I've seen links on this site that suburban growth began to drop back in the early 2000s while city growth steadied or began to rise a bit.  The recession just accelerated these trends and younger generations (as well as retirees) want more amenities.  Cities benefit from this. 

 

I didn't closely look at other cities, but for Columbus, I couldn't find a single place within Franklin County that was not growing.  Every place that lost population the last decade grew the past year.

It really is an amazing time for cities, even those that have struggled since the post WWII housing boom and construction of the Interstate Highway System. Although a decidedly small segment of the overall demographic, I don't know a single person within my architecture class that does not want to live in a city. Myself and my friends are getting to the age where we are finally leaving academia and heading into the real world and most are picking an urban setting to live in. And it seems that younger kids, especially those from suburban locations, are wanting an urban lifestyle.

 

I'm from Broadview Heights outside Cleveland and went to North Royalton High School. Quite a few of my classmates have moved into Cleveland or Columbus in favor of the walkability offered in those cities opposed to the bland, car-necessary neighborhoods in Royalton. My younger brother just graduated high school and he is one of about a dozen of his friends coming to UC next year with one of the biggest reasons being its location in the city. I've talked to many of them and they all say the same thing. They want to be in a city, not in the middle of nowhere like in North Royalton or Broadview Heights. I don't blame them. Once the millennials start making their way into the real world I think we are going to see some serious rates of urbanization all across the country. I'm looking forward to it.

Eh, we had estimated populations from the last decade that were pretty much not on target for most metros and cities.

 

Cincinnati will most likely continue to bleed population, even as Over-the-Rhine and downtown add residents. It's not enough to offset the major losses in Price Hill, Bond Hill, Avondale and other inner-ring suburban areas. Unless those areas are stabilized, more of the middle-class that once lived in those neighborhoods will continue to move either further out, or in smaller quantities, further in.

I am happy to see Dayton CITY growing again, which I presume is due to notable eastside immigration.

I can't speak for the other Ohio cities (except the general US trend for a 'return to the cities'), but I expect CLE's 2020 numbers to exceed its 2010 population, even if it is still declining as of 2012. The Cleveland economy is picking up and a lot things will be in place in a few years, which will ultimately draw more people from outside the region.

 

BLS Data for employment for Metro-CLE (excluding Akron) (so, CLE-Elyria-Mentor), in thousands, not seasonally adjusted:

 

Dec 2011    999.2 (higher than Jan perhaps for Christmas hirings?)

Jan 2012    983.7

Feb 2012    989.2

Mar 2102  1,009.1

Apr 2012  1,011.9

May 2012  1,011.0 (preliminary)

For comparison's sake, have the MSA estimates come out?

In estimating for 2020, I would anticipate some growth in Youngstown and Canton due to the shale boom.  Employment is increasing so fast that tent cities are being erected as we speak.  Not all of this employment will be permanent, but some of it will, and all of it will have spillover.

If you add up Cleveland downtown residential from 2010 to now that are finished or in planning, if all goes well, we will have another 2000 residents downtown (low estimate). University Circle will add another 500. Battery Park continues to sell as well as new townhomes at Waverly Station.  The bleed will continue on the east side, but I can see it starting to level out.  East Cleveland is adding 140-200 with the two new developments there (which I would venture to guess is the first major addition besides birth in many years. Columbus is continuing to urbanize and Cincinnati is as well.  I think we are going to start to see changes in the 2014/2016 estimates as trends start happening.

I just think thats theres going to be quite a bit more bleeding to come on the west side as the "creep" continues to move west" as it has and continues to do in the east suburbs. 

 

As was mentioned in another thread will make some of the projects mentioned seem like a drop in the bucket...   

The "creep"?  Eh, nevermind...

 

What's disappointing looking at those numbers is seeing how disjointed NEO communities are.  6 of the top 10..... 13 of the top 24..... and 22 of the 50 overall are all NEO communities.  Hell.... 12 of the top 50 municipalities listed are Cleveland suburbs!  And I bet there are a whole flurry of them falling in line between 50-75.  We need to CONSOLIDATE!

 

 

2010 Census makes me believe we will continue to see big losses and that these estimates will be found to be not true. Wasn't Cincinnati expecting gains in the 2010 census? Well we know that didn't happen. And Cleveland was worse off than the estimates.

 

 

The "creep"?

 

I do data analysis all day (for work) on these kinds of things and we often use the term "creep" to indicate the movement of factors that ulitmately causes a neighborhood to decline and ultimately empty out.  It can actually be seen as a line of movement from year to year. 

Although the term wouldnt automatically have to be used to indicate decline, there are just not enough, or substantial enough examples in North East Ohio to use the term in a positive sense.  I hope that someday that will not be the case.

 

Doing this and seeing this over the years is why Im such a stickler for maintaining a high standard of living (and certainly a safe environment) in the few remaining stable areas of the city (and inner suburbs), but that hasnt been working out very well, therefore the movement continues and at a rather rapid pace on the west side.         

For comparison's sake, have the MSA estimates come out?

 

The MSA estimates came out earlier this year.  I thought I made a post here about them, will have to find it again.

2010 Census makes me believe we will continue to see big losses and that these estimates will be found to be not true. Wasn't Cincinnati expecting gains in the 2010 census? Well we know that didn't happen. And Cleveland was worse off than the estimates.

 

 

 

I think the diehard Cleveland boosters were believing there was growth going on, but the census estimates never really showed that.  Also, it seems most of the losses occurred earlier in the decade, at least from numbers I've seen.  Keep in mind also that the urban movement is recent, starting several years ago, but not really picking up until the last couple years.  Long-term trends take time to develop.  I do think that Cincy and Cleveland will still have lost population by 2020, but by how much is the question.  I think it's a safe bet it will be significantly less than the 2000-2010 period, and if the development momentum keeps up, maybe I'll be wrong and this monkey can finally get off the backs of Ohio's cities.

^Why are you on the backs of Ohio's cities? It's not like anyone of us here can do anything about it. People point positive evidence your way and you totally ignore them, yet choose to believe in estimates that was wrong in an entire decade.

Regionalization could have a big effect on Cleveland's numbers by 2020.

^Why are you on the backs of Ohio's cities? It's not like anyone of us here can do anything about it. People point positive evidence your way and you totally ignore them, yet choose to believe in estimates that was wrong an an entire decade.

 

? I think you completely took that wrong.  I said that, in all likelihood, Cincy and Cleveland will lose population again come 2020.  While the redevelopment going on in those downtowns is significant, it's still going to take time for that growth to spread further out.  Cincy and Cleveland registered big population gains in their downtowns the last decade, but still lost population overall because of urban/suburban areas further out continue to empty.  I think this will still be the case come 2020, but with losses much smaller than the previous decade.  At this point, I would say that whatever losses do occur will be 50%+ less than 2000-2010.    It's also possible that the cities are growing again by 2020 but still register a loss from earlier years.  Who knows, but the trends ARE positive, and that's very good news to me even if it takes more time for the declines to ultimately stop come census time.  If Dayton can manage to start growing again, the cities of Cleveland and Cincinnati have a very good chance to do so too, but as much larger cities, it's just going to take longer.  I don't think this is being negative, just realistic.  And in my very first post in the thread, I said that the numbers were generally positive, and they are.  The yearly losses for many cities, including Cincy and Cleveland, were MUCH slower than the average the previous decade.   

Regionalization could have a big effect on Cleveland's numbers by 2020.

 

In what way?

If I were to guess, I'd say that both Cleveland and Cincinnati will continue to lose population. In fact, if you ignore all of the urban/suburban movement, I think that the entire states of Ohio is going to start showing a loss of population come 2030.

 

The result of population loss, of course, is that we end up with a lot of empty houses, and they are unsightly. But is population loss really that bad?

 

Maybe a better attitude would be to look at quality of life instead of numbers of people. I'd rather have 1000 happy, healthy people than 2000 rude, sick poor people sharing the city with me.

^Maybe in the Perfect World, but in reality that will never happen. There's going to always be poor, sick, rude etc. And you're assuming that all those poor, or rude people will leave and only the wealthier, healthier or more pleaant people will stay behing.

 

In a World/society designed for growth and not designed for population stagnation and loss, a shinking population is a bad thing.

 

Look at Japan and Western Europe. The populations there are shrinking because the post industrial society has fewer children and strict immigration laws, which limit the amount of population growth that can occur. The only reason the US as a whole hasn't stopped growing is because of the huge amounts of immigrants, primarily Mexican, that have come here, though that is slowing.

 

If the population begins to shrink there will be no new to build or redevelop anything for more people because there will be none. Businesses that need skilled workers will leave, tax bases will go down. I don't think that's a scenario anyone would want. Responsible growth should be the goal.

Regionalization could have a big effect on Cleveland's numbers by 2020.

 

In what way?

 

There has been a push to consolidate our plethora of political subdivisions.  Nothing has happened yet, but it will be interesting to see what does happen as local government funds continue to dwindle and expenses rise.  Consolidation of services will come first, but complete consolidation between Cleveland and some or many of its inner-ring suburbs is certainly not out of the question.  Louisville and Indianapolis have provided some models.  I doubt we will ever see a total annexation of Cuyahoga County (1.2 million pop), but who knows what might happen if the dominos start to fall.  There are several cities in economic peril - East Cleveland, Garfield Heights, Maple Heights, Warrensville, etc.  There are other cities which will likely run into the same problems over the next decade such as Parma, Euclid, South Euclid, Brook Park, etc.

If I were to guess, I'd say that both Cleveland and Cincinnati will continue to lose population. In fact, if you ignore all of the urban/suburban movement, I think that the entire states of Ohio is going to start showing a loss of population come 2030.

 

The result of population loss, of course, is that we end up with a lot of empty houses, and they are unsightly. But is population loss really that bad?

 

Maybe a better attitude would be to look at quality of life instead of numbers of people. I'd rather have 1000 happy, healthy people than 2000 rude, sick poor people sharing the city with me.

 

Completely disagree.  Ohio's economy is recovering very well and every major metro has unemployment well below the national average.  Cost of living is low and manufacting, etc will continue to help the state (even if it doesn't grow every month nationally).  Combined with development going on in major cities and the urban trends, it's very hard to imagine that Ohio will lose people in any upcoming decade.  Growth may not be fast, but the state is not like Michigan, where it was losing people largely because it has one significant city in the state, and that city has one of the worst reputations, if not the worst, in the country.  I do believe that the worst is over for Ohio.

Regionalization could have a big effect on Cleveland's numbers by 2020.

 

In what way?

 

There has been a push to consolidate our plethora of political subdivisions.  Nothing has happened yet, but it will be interesting to see what does happen as local government funds continue to dwindle and expenses rise.  Consolidation of services will come first, but complete consolidation between Cleveland and some or many of its inner-ring suburbs is certainly not out of the question.  Louisville and Indianapolis have provided some models.  I doubt we will ever see a total annexation of Cuyahoga County (1.2 million pop), but who knows what might happen if the dominos start to fall.  There are several cities in economic peril - East Cleveland, Garfield Heights, Maple Heights, Warrensville, etc.  There are other cities which will likely run into the same problems over the next decade such as Parma, Euclid, South Euclid, Brook Park, etc.

 

That would seem to help Cleveland's suburbs more than Cleveland itself, though.  If the city added a bunch of financially troubled and poorly run suburbs, I'm not sure what the benefits would be besides some additional population.  It would only seem to shift the burden of problems to Cleveland. 

Not really.  Strength in numbers, my man.  Plus, the residential tax bases of those communities are still stronger than Cleveland as a whole.  And think about the money they would save by not having to pay their own mayor, council members, police chief, fire chief, building commissioner, service department, law department, etc, etc, etc.  The list could go on and on.

 

We have a thread on this topic if you want to learn more.

Please don't rely on the 2011 municipality estimates as they are seriously flawed:

 

http://www.urbanophile.com/2012/06/30/misreferencing-misoverestimated-population-by-chris-briem/

 

Lots of chatter in various demographic circles on this.

^ Agreed! I believe I posted about that, but maybe not in this (the most appropriate) thread.

Please don't rely on the 2011 municipality estimates as they are seriously flawed:

 

http://www.urbanophile.com/2012/06/30/misreferencing-misoverestimated-population-by-chris-briem/

 

Lots of chatter in various demographic circles on this.

 

Again, they don't have to be 100% accurate to show trends.  While estimates can be off on exact numbers, they are useful to show where cities/metros are headed.  Atlanta was used because the city population was so different from the estimate, but there were fewer of these large discrepencies than the article implies.  Also, even in Atlanta with the large difference, the city still grew even if the estimated growth was too high.  When it comes to Ohio cities, all the trends the estimates showed matched what the decennial census came up with for the majority.  Here is what they showed for Ohio's 7 largest metros and the actual census result.

 

Akron

2000 Census: 694,960

2000-2009 Estimated Change: +4,975

2010 Census: 703,200

Actual Change: +8,240

 

Cincinnati

2000 Census: 2,009,632

2000-2009 Estimated Change: +162,264

2010 Census: 2,130,151

Actual Change: +120,519

 

Cleveland

2000 Census: 2,148,143

2000-2009 Estimated Change: -56,857

2010 Census: 2,077,240

Actual Change: -70,903

 

Columbus

2000 Census: 1,612,694

2000-2009 Estimated Change: +189,154

2010 Census: 1,836,536

Actual Change: +223,842

 

Dayton

2000 Census: 848,153

2000-2009 Estimated Change: -13,090

2010 Census: 841,502

Actual Change:  -6,651

 

Toledo

2000 Census: 659,188

2000-2009 Estimated Change: +13,032

2010 Census: 651,409

Actual Change: -7,779

 

Youngstown

2000 Census: 602,964

2000-2009 Estimated Change: -40,001

2010 Census: 565,773

Actual Change: -37,191

 

So the metro estimates were largely accurate, at least in showing trends.  Only Toledo didn't match.  Estimates can be wrong and there are going to be exceptions, but for the majority of places, they are closer than the article writer seems to want to believe.

 

Here are how the city propers did.

 

Akron

2000 Census: 217,074

2000-2009 Estimated Change: -9,865

2010 Census: 199,110

Actual Change: -17,964

 

Cincinnati

2000 Census: 331,285

2000-2009 Estimated Change: +1,727

2010 Census: 296,943

Actual Change: -34,342

 

Cleveland

2000 Census: 478,403

2000-2009 Estimated Change: -47,034 

2010 Census: 396,815

Actual Change: -81,588

 

Columbus

2000 Census: 711,470

2000-2009 Estimated Change: +57,862

2010 Census: 787,033

Actual Change: +75,563

 

Dayton

2000 Census: 166,179

2000-2009 Estimate Change: -12,336

2010 Census: 141,527

Actual Change: -24,652

 

Toledo

2000 Census: 313,619

2000-2009 Estimated Change: +2,560

2010 Census: 287,208

Actual Change: -26,411

 

Youngstown

2000 Census: 82,026

2000-2009 Estimated Change: -9,601

2010 Census: 66,982

Actual Change: -15,044

 

City estimates, again, generally followed real trends.  Estimated losses translated to real losses and growth estimates translated to real growth.  However,  2 of the 7 had the opposite result of the estimate, and I wonder if some of the larger discrepencies here are due to cities challenging census results.  I know that Cincinnati challeged theirs, and that may have held the estimates artificially high even as the city really lost populatin.  Not sure if other cities did the same, but that could explain part of that. 

 

 

I don't find any of those numbers in the same ball park. We are talking about millions of dollars lost in federal funds in most cases.

I don't find any of those numbers in the same ball park. We are talking about millions of dollars lost in federal funds in most cases.

 

Really? Again, my argument is not that estimates should be taken literally, only that they generally are accurate in what direction a city/metro are heading in terms of population.  The federal funds are why cities choose to challenge decennial census counts, and probably at least part of the reason some cities come up very different than estimates.   

only that they generally are accurate in what direction a city/metro are heading in terms of population.

 

Ya, like Cincinnati's estimates being revised upwards and then being way off base in 2010. The numbers are very subjective and any "trends" based on them are speculative and highly subjective, IMO.

Since the internet is 20 years old. We are getting more updates. Estimates were hardly used back in 1990's. Since 2000 most everything were put online for free public access. Now we are able to discuss them. All mythology's are flawed one way or another. The Census can be too if houses were  foreclosed during the Census, but people were living in them just be for it.

only that they generally are accurate in what direction a city/metro are heading in terms of population.

 

Ya, like Cincinnati's estimates being revised upwards and then being way off base in 2010. The numbers are very subjective and any "trends" based on them are speculative and highly subjective, IMO.

 

Cincinnati's numbers were adjusted upward because the city contested the census results and the census basically accepted what numbers the city gave them.  Estimates in subsequent years were based on those faulty numbers and then the next census came around and brought back reality.  This has occurred in cities all across the US, because as another poster mentioned, there is money involved that cities don't want to lose. 

 

No set of population numbers is going to be 100% accurate.  There is just no conceivable way that every single person is going to be counted, whether in an estimate or during the decennial census.  They are the best we have, however, and I think they're better used as trend indicators than literal figures on population.   

Ya, ya, I know the history and understand margin of error.  :shoot:

 

My opinion is still the same.

You know one thing I think is interesting in regards to the Cleveland MSA and something I don't think has been talked about much here is how Ashtabula County, a county of 102,000 was taken out of the MSA sometime after 2000. Definitely still in the CSA, but stands as a micropolitan area instead of the eastern most county in the Cleveland MSA.