22 minutes ago, David said:

Austin and Nashville are both in states that don't have personal income tax. Until that happens, I don't think you can call them "Kissing Cousins."

 

 

"People who do move are nearly as likely to move from low-tax states to high-tax states as in the other direction — in some cases, more likely.  In the past two decades, more households moved from no-income-tax Florida to Georgia, North Carolina, and nine other states with income taxes than moved to Florida from these states."

"Primarily low- and moderate-income households, not high-income households, are migrating to states without income taxes.  For example, of the people moving from New York to Florida between 2008 and 2012, more than three times as many had incomes below $50,000 as above $100,000, and these distributions are similar to the overall state population.  If income taxes were a major reason that more people move from California to Texas than vice versa, one would expect much greater representation of high incomes among the former than the latter; but, the reverse is true."

"The vast majority of academic research using sophisticated statistical techniques concludes that differences in state tax systems and levels do not have a significant impact on interstate migration."

 

https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/state-taxes-have-a-negligible-impact-on-americans-interstate-moves

24 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

 

"People who do move are nearly as likely to move from low-tax states to high-tax states as in the other direction — in some cases, more likely.  In the past two decades, more households moved from no-income-tax Florida to Georgia, North Carolina, and nine other states with income taxes than moved to Florida from these states."

"Primarily low- and moderate-income households, not high-income households, are migrating to states without income taxes.  For example, of the people moving from New York to Florida between 2008 and 2012, more than three times as many had incomes below $50,000 as above $100,000, and these distributions are similar to the overall state population.  If income taxes were a major reason that more people move from California to Texas than vice versa, one would expect much greater representation of high incomes among the former than the latter; but, the reverse is true."

"The vast majority of academic research using sophisticated statistical techniques concludes that differences in state tax systems and levels do not have a significant impact on interstate migration."

 

https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/state-taxes-have-a-negligible-impact-on-americans-interstate-moves

That wouldn't be surprising, considering there's FAR more states that tax to move to than states that don't. 

I'm guessing you felt the need to bring up those stats and argue about this because you're a Democrat and feel like I'm attacking state taxes right now... I'm not. I just pointed to an obvious difference in their economic climate. I'm not anti-taxes but regarding all the hype surrounding places like Austin and Nashville right now, the hype lately stems from highly influential media juggernauts like Ben Shapiro, Joe Rogan and Elon Musk who are moving to those places and desperately want everyone else to as well because they want to evade CA's ridiculous state tax (not to mention high local taxes) but want to enjoy all of the amenities of the Los Angeles that they left behind. Culturally, I think they are cool and livable cities for their size, but I didn't just sign a $100M Spotify deal wherein a move would save me $13M this year in taxes so I don't really have a reason to leave for one of those cities.

FYI, Ohio's state income tops off at a little over 4%. I think it's totally reasonable. Doesn't seem to be on the extremely high or low side. 

No doubt Columbus would be a lot more like Austin if state taxes were zero. Columbus would be the go-to city for those rich transplants, out of all the cities in Ohio.

Edited August 9, 20213 yr by David

12 minutes ago, David said:

That wouldn't be surprising, considering there's FAR more states that tax to move to than states that don't. 

I'm guessing you felt the need to bring up those stats and argue about this because you're a Democrat and feel like I'm attacking state taxes right now... I'm not. I just pointed to an obvious difference in their economic climate. I'm not anti-taxes but regarding all the hype surrounding places like Austin and Nashville right now, the hype lately stems from highly influential media juggernauts like Ben Shapiro, Joe Rogan and Elon Musk who are moving to those places and desperately want everyone else to as well because they want to evade CA's ridiculous state tax (not to mention high local taxes) but want to enjoy all of the amenities of the Los Angeles that they left behind. Culturally, I think they are cool and livable cities for their size, but I didn't just sign a $100M Spotify deal wherein a move would save me $13M this year in taxes so I don't really have a reason to leave for one of those cities.

FYI, Ohio's state income tops off at a little over 4%. I think it's totally reasonable. Doesn't seem to be on the extremely high or low side. 

No doubt Columbus would be a lot more like Austin if state taxes were zero. Columbus would be the go-to city for those rich transplants, out of all the cities in Ohio.

 

I don't get what your point is in the first sentence, we're talking about normalized data here. It doesn't matter if there are more states with an income tax. 

 

My post had nothing to do with the fact that I'm a Democrat and I didn't feel attacked. Just giving you some information because it is a common misconception that taxes affect migration trends. The evidence doesn't support that conclusion. 

 

I had no idea that Shapiro, Rogan, and Musk are moving to Nashville or Austin, but I highly doubt their popularity has anything to do with that. They were popular places to move due to climate and low housing costs before any of those people appeared in our cultural consciousness. 

 

As for the final point, I don't think having zero state taxes would change anything about Columbus. As the article I posted points out, more rich people move from Texas to California than the other way around. The states that attract the most wealthy people (California, New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Hawaii, Virginia) are not low tax ones. Alternatively, if low taxes were such a draw everyone would be moving to Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

1 hour ago, David said:

Austin and Nashville are both in states that don't have personal income tax. Until that happens, I don't think you can call them "Kissing Cousins."

 

apparantly the taxes thing is a myth.

 

anyway, i cant think of anyplace more like columbus than austin, except indy. both were relatively sleepy/hippy capitols with the big state colleges and they really started to boom together in the 1990s.

34 minutes ago, mrnyc said:

 

apparantly the taxes thing is a myth.

 

anyway, i cant think of anyplace more like columbus than austin, except indy. both were relatively sleepy/hippy capitols with the big state colleges and they really started to boom together in the 1990s.

 

Yea, the entire premise behind "why can't Cbus be more like Nashville and Austin" ignores the fact that it is A LOT like those places, especially Austin. Cbus is booming. It's the fastest growing large metro in the MIdwest. Austin is the fastest growing large metro in the country. The biggest difference between the two is that Austin gets A LOT more immigration. Want Cbus to be more like Austin? Start taking in more immigrants.

53 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

I don't get what your point is in the first sentence, we're talking about normalized data here. It doesn't matter if there are more states with an income tax. 

 

My post had nothing to do with the fact that I'm a Democrat and I didn't feel attacked. Just giving you some information because it is a common misconception that taxes affect migration trends. The evidence doesn't support that conclusion. 

 

I had no idea that Shapiro, Rogan, and Musk are moving to Nashville or Austin, but I highly doubt their popularity has anything to do with that. They were popular places to move due to climate and low housing costs before any of those people appeared in our cultural consciousness. 

 

As for the final point, I don't think having zero state taxes would change anything about Columbus. As the article I posted points out, more rich people move from Texas to California than the other way around. The states that attract the most wealthy people (California, New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Hawaii, Virginia) are not low tax ones. Alternatively, if low taxes were such a draw everyone would be moving to Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

If the vast majority of people are in taxable states, and the vast majority of states in America are taxable, it's easy to see why people are more likely overall to move to a place that is taxable vs a place that isn't. By far, the majority of America is taxable. I don't know why everything I say has to be politicized and argued over. I'm not necessarily against taxes.

Those guys have a lot to do with the recent hooplah over those places. Sure, it's been trending like that for a while, I'm talking about the buzz and media attention to it post Covid. Las Vegas experienced a massive boom right before the Great Recession. Probably during it's recovery as well. Again, no state taxes there. Of course you're still going to get people moving to places like LA and NYC. I don't think Ohio has high taxes at all but you're silly if you think zero state income tax wouldn't make Columbus a much bigger destination for transplants.

23 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Yea, the entire premise behind "why can't Cbus be more like Nashville and Austin" ignores the fact that it is A LOT like those places, especially Austin. Cbus is booming. It's the fastest growing large metro in the MIdwest. Austin is the fastest growing large metro in the country. The biggest difference between the two is that Austin gets A LOT more immigration. Want Cbus to be more like Austin? Start taking in more immigrants.

No, the difference is Austin gets transplants from much further away than Columbus does. Using taxpayer money to fly Somali refugees into the city and having people move here from Cleveland, doesn't make it comparable to Austin. Columbus hasn't grown in terms of percentage nearly as fast as Austin. Also, Austin has like 1 million more people in it's metro area or CSA.

Oh...yeah, we're also not nearly as close to Mexico.

Edited August 9, 20213 yr by David

28 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Yea, the entire premise behind "why can't Cbus be more like Nashville and Austin" ignores the fact that it is A LOT like those places, especially Austin. Cbus is booming. It's the fastest growing large metro in the MIdwest. Austin is the fastest growing large metro in the country. The biggest difference between the two is that Austin gets A LOT more immigration. Want Cbus to be more like Austin? Start taking in more immigrants.

 

I don't really think Columbus is much like Nashville in terms of growth patterns.  They're kind of the opposite, actually.  The last time I ran the numbers a couple years ago, Nashville- which is combined with its county- received just under 28% of the entire metro's growth.  A similar merger between Columbus and Franklin County would include about 73% of the total metro growth, and that number has actually climbed closer to 76% through 2019.  Columbus by itself pulls in about 53% of the metro growth, almost 2x what Nashville does despite all that extra area being included.  Columbus' growth is much more central core/urban focused and Nashville's is overwhelmingly suburban/exurban/rural.  Austin in somewhere in the middle, with the city being about 40% and Travis County being about 57% of the metro growth overall.  So from an urban growth perspective, Columbus does much better than its Sun Belt peers.

 

As for immigration, the one thing holding Columbus back from getting a lot more- including international- is just name recognition.  It's definitely changing, but many people still don't even think of it when considering a relocation.  I don't think its location in the colder North really matters that much.  Just like with the tax myth, climate plays a very small role in relocations.  

Edited August 9, 20213 yr by jonoh81

14 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I don't really think Columbus is much like Nashville in terms of growth patterns.  They're kind of the opposite, actually.  The last time I ran the numbers a couple years ago, Nashville- which is combined with its county- received just under 28% of the entire metro's growth.  A similar merger between Columbus and Franklin County would include about 73% of the total metro growth, and that number has actually climbed closer to 76% through 2019.  Columbus by itself pulls in about 53% of the metro growth, almost 2x what Nashville does despite all that extra area being included.  Columbus' growth is much more central core/urban focused and Nashville's is overwhelmingly suburban/exurban/rural.  Austin in somewhere in the middle, with the city being about 40% and Travis County being about 57% of the metro growth overall.  So from an urban growth perspective, Columbus does much better than its Sun Belt peers.

 

As for immigration, the one thing holding Columbus back from getting a lot more- including international- is just name recognition.  It's definitely changing, but many people still don't even think of it when considering a relocation.  I don't think its location in the colder North really matters that much.  Just like with the tax myth, climate plays a very small role in relocations.  

 

I agree with this assessment. I didn't mean to imply the settlement patterns are the same. Just that all three were relatively small state capitals that have seen a massive boom.

33 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

As for immigration, the one thing holding Columbus back from getting a lot more- including international- is just name recognition.  It's definitely changing, but many people still don't even think of it when considering a relocation.  I don't think its location in the colder North really matters that much.  Just like with the tax myth, climate plays a very small role in relocations.  

Their branding for sure, sucks. I just don't get it. Experience Columbus seems totally lost. I've suggested changing the generic name, "Columbus." The name change of a major city alone would give it a lot of publicity and buzz, and considering how horrible of a person Christopher Columbus was, it's kind of a no-brainer.

Columbus is a low-key Mecca for sports and fitness enthusiasts. I think they should do a lot more to capitalize on that. You have the Arnold Fitness Expo which draws in an INSANE amount of people from all over the globe, every year, including huge celebrities and athletes. Rogue Fitness is headquartered here. Westside Barbell is located here. Never heard of it? It's where all of the most elite powerlifters in the world, train. There's world class martial arts gyms here, including Relson Gracie and Calson Gracie's Jiu-Jitsu Academies. Hell, many of the martial arts schools here are headed by Olympians and there's tons of them.

I'm partial to martial arts so that's my take and my idea but there's so many different angles Columbus could take. The fashion industry is also big here. Where's our fashion show?!

Edited August 9, 20213 yr by David

31 minutes ago, David said:

 Also, Austin has like 1 million more people in it's metro area or CSA.
 

 

Austin metro has 2.3 million. Cbus metro has 2.14 million. Austin isn't in a CSA. Columbus CSA is 2.54 million.

40 minutes ago, David said:

No, the difference is Austin gets transplants from much further away than Columbus does. Using taxpayer money to fly Somali refugees into the city and having people move here from Cleveland, doesn't make it comparable to Austin. Columbus hasn't grown in terms of percentage nearly as fast as Austin. Also, Austin has like 1 million more people in it's metro area or CSA.

Oh...yeah, we're also not nearly as close to Mexico.

Where to you get your information from?

 

Columbus metro est. 2020: 2,138,946

 

Austin metro est. 2020: 2,295,303

 

 

Columbus CSA est. 2020: 2,541,313

 

Austin CSA est. 2020: I don't even see that there is one?

 

 

Please have your facts straight.

Edited August 9, 20213 yr by Toddguy
did not want to be nasty and all...I did not mean it to come across that way.

39 minutes ago, David said:

If the vast majority of people are in taxable states, and the vast majority of states in America are taxable, it's easy to see why people are more likely overall to move to a place that is taxable vs a place that isn't. By far, the majority of America is taxable. I don't know why everything I say has to be politicized and argued over. I'm not necessarily against taxes.
 

 

Yea, that's not how the referenced studies worked. Go back and read the article again. I'm not politicizing what you said. I'm just telling you that it's wrong, according to actual experts. I don't understand why you're doubling and tripling down instead of saying "oh wow, I learned something today. Thanks for the info."

1 minute ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Austin metro has 2.3 million. Cbus metro has 2.14 million. Austin isn't in a CSA. Columbus CSA is 2.54 million.

Thanks we posted the same stuff at the same time.

5 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Austin metro has 2.3 million. Cbus metro has 2.14 million. Austin isn't in a CSA. Columbus CSA is 2.54 million.

I think it WAS part of a CSA... back when the whole Austin/Columbus comparison got brought up a long time ago (by me lol) I remember looking at population numbers and google told me 2.6M CSA population for Austin. Just a little bit ago, when I tried verifying all of the things I said above, I noticed the same thing isn't coming up anymore on Google. Not sure what's going on, but yeah, from what I see they are pretty comparable in size.

Edited August 9, 20213 yr by David

2 hours ago, David said:

Their branding for sure, sucks. I just don't get it. Experience Columbus seems totally lost. I've suggested changing the generic name, "Columbus." The name change of a major city alone would give it a lot of publicity and buzz, and considering how horrible of a person Christopher Columbus was, it's kind of a no-brainer.

Columbus is a low-key Mecca for sports and fitness enthusiasts. I think they should do a lot more to capitalize on that. You have the Arnold Fitness Expo which draws in an INSANE amount of people from all over the globe, every year, including huge celebrities and athletes. Rogue Fitness is headquartered here. Westside Barbell is located here. Never heard of it? It's where all of the most elite powerlifters in the world, train. There's world class martial arts gyms here, including Relson Gracie and Calson Gracie's Jiu-Jitsu Academies. Hell, many of the martial arts schools here are headed by Olympians and there's tons of them.

I'm partial to martial arts so that's my take and my idea but there's so many different angles Columbus could take. The fashion industry is also big here. Where's our fashion show?!

 

For the record, I think a city "brand" is vastly overblown in attracting people.  Changing the name would be little more than a gimmick, IMO, and would continue to do a poor job of showing all the positives that Columbus has to offer.  Branding the city as this or that also seems limiting.  Outside of being the "country music capital", what is Nashville really known for?  Given that we know people move for things like jobs, education, upward mobility and family reasons, a specific cultural or social characteristic wouldn't move the needle much on relocations.  Nashville gets far more hype in the media just on the fact that it's growing quickly than it does its branding.  Columbus needs to do a better job of getting the word out on why it's an attractive city, which I agree with you it doesn't do a great job at. 

That said, it has made some efforts like advertising the city around the Northeast, which has seemed to work as domestic migration from there has been on the increase in the last decade.  

 

Columbus had FMMF... which is a great example of just trying to copy what other cities are doing and failing miserably at it.  

Edited August 9, 20213 yr by jonoh81

4 hours ago, David said:

No, the difference is Austin gets transplants from much further away than Columbus does. Using taxpayer money to fly Somali refugees into the city and having people move here from Cleveland, doesn't make it comparable to Austin. Columbus hasn't grown in terms of percentage nearly as fast as Austin. Also, Austin has like 1 million more people in it's metro area or CSA.

Oh...yeah, we're also not nearly as close to Mexico.

 

There's a lot of misinformation in this post. 

 

Through 2019, if we are comparing cities, Columbus was estimated to have added more international immigrants than Austin has since 2010, +33,546 to +30,254.  Given that Austin has an additional 200 square miles within its city borders that Columbus doesn't have, that is even more impressive.  Austin does get more in the greater metro overall, though.  

 

Somalia is not actually the main nation of origin for Columbus immigrants, and it's nowhere near the fastest growing.  

Total 25 Foreign-Born Migration Nations of Origin to Columbus in 2019

1. India: 12,472

2. Mexico: 10,165

3. Somalia: 9,044

4. China: 7,159

5. Ghana: 5,656

6. Ethiopia: 3,559

7. El Salvador: 2,309

8. Nepal: 2,258

9. Korea: 2,233

10. Vietnam: 2,142

11. Kenya: 2,032

12. Dominican Republic: 1,994

13. Philippines: 1,566

14. Japan: 1,465

15. Morocco: 1,464

16. Sierra Leone: 1,428

17. Iraq: 1,340

18. Nigeria: 1,295

19. Liberia: 1,283

20. Cameroon: 1,069

21. Russia: 1,067

22. Cambodia: 1,041

23. Guatemala: 984

24. Laos: 957

25. Honduras: 948

 

Top 25 Fastest-Growing Nations of Origin 2010-2019

1. India: +4,482

2. Ghana: +3,275

3. China: +2,843

4. Nepal: +2,110

5. Ethiopia: +2,102

6. Somalia: +1,498

7. Morocco: +1,203

8. Dominican Republic: +1,190

9. Iraq: +1,041

10. Cameroon: +870

11. El Salvador: +767

12. Eritrea: +647

13. Vietnam: +646

14. Kenya: +641

15. Nigeria: +594

16. Laos: +530

17. Philippines: +512

18. Honduras: +477

19. Sudan: +440

20. Liberia: +431

21. Macedonia: +363

22. Iran: +308

23. Russia: +267

24. Burma: +240

25. Venezuela: +229

Somalia is the 6th fastest-growing and 3rd largest.  China and Ghana are both poised to pass Somalia in the coming years, making it 5th largest.  

And for the record, refugees aren't just shipped places.  In most cases, they have a choice on where they would like to go, especially if they already have family connections somewhere.  

 

As others have already pointed out, you're way off in terms of the population difference between the metros.  

 

Austin lost nearly 12,000 Mexican foreign-born residents 2010-2019, so proximity didn't matter.  Mexicans still made up about 40% of Austin's foreign-born population in 2019.  It's not that diverse in this regard.  Columbus' largest group- Indians- make up just 11% of its foreign-born population.

Edited August 9, 20213 yr by jonoh81

8 hours ago, David said:

No, the difference is Austin gets transplants from much further away than Columbus does. Using taxpayer money to fly Somali refugees into the city and having people move here from Cleveland, doesn't make it comparable to Austin. Columbus hasn't grown in terms of percentage nearly as fast as Austin. Also, Austin has like 1 million more people in it's metro area or CSA.

Oh...yeah, we're also not nearly as close to Mexico.

 

 

actually ... cols is much closer to an international border.

 

austin is 240mi from nuevo laredo.

 

columbus is 135mi from peelee island.

I wonder when the info will come out tomorrow? Hopefully also some answers to "where are all the extra people in Ohio" as well as the Cbus stats.

 

Quote

actually ... cols is much closer to an international border.

 

austin is 240mi from nuevo laredo.

 

columbus is 135mi from peelee island.

I wish we could get some of Canada's international migration to continue on to Cbus, but really, why would they want to leave Canada for here-especially Ohio with it's gerrymandering red conservative government?  I would stay my ass in Canada if I were them I must admit. Same for any Canadians really. 

 

I really wish this city would reach out to other refugee migrant groups-I wish this city could become a haven for LGBT+ refugees from nations where they not only face extreme discrimination, but actually physical harm and murder. 

8 hours ago, Toddguy said:

I wonder when the info will come out tomorrow?

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/news-conference-2020-census-redistricting-data.html

 

According to that, it will be at 1pm.

1 hour ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/news-conference-2020-census-redistricting-data.html

 

According to that, it will be at 1pm.

Thanks! I have not see that info on any other site(similar to this one...you know what I mean.)  

The conference has started, so we should be getting numbers within the hour.

They are showing maps now.  The county growth map for Ohio looks like mainly Central and SW Ohio counties grew.  Most of the state's counties declined.  Franklin grew in the category 10%-19.9%, but we don't know exactly what it is yet.

Metro-wise, Columbus grew between 10%-19.9%, Cincinnati 0.0%-9.9% and Cleveland also 0.0%-9.9%.  Again, nothing specific yet.

Interesting that Chicago grew by about 50,000.  New York blew everyone away by adding like 600,000.

Edited August 12, 20213 yr by jonoh81

Columbus one of 14 cities that added more than 100,000.  

1 minute ago, jonoh81 said:

Columbus one of 14 cities that added more than 100,000.  

The only in the Midwest and only one of 2 outside of the South/West along with New York.

Edited August 12, 20213 yr by TH3BUDDHA

So far, the big story is a complete domination of growth in urban areas and cities and the decline of virtually everywhere else.  

Edited August 12, 20213 yr by jonoh81

Too bad they did not list the top 20 cities and changes. Wow for NYC!

1 minute ago, Toddguy said:

Too bad they did not list the top 20 cities and changes. Wow for NYC!

 

The 2019 NYC estimate was 8,336,817.  The census found almost 500,000 more people than the estimate.  That's insane.

1 minute ago, jonoh81 said:

 

The 2019 NYC estimate was 8,336,817.  The census found almost 500,000 more people than the estimate.  That's insane.

It really is. When can we get Cbus numbers? I just knew that damn video would start late too...lol...it is the government and all

18 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Columbus grew between 10%-19.9%

The 2010 census was 787,033 so the possible range is 865,736 - 943,652.  But, they already said Columbus was one of the cities to grow by more than 100,000.  So, the possible range is 887,033 - 943,652.

 

Edit: The 10% - 19.9% was for metros, not cities.

Edited August 12, 20213 yr by TH3BUDDHA

4 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

The 2010 census was 787,033 so the possible range is 865,736 - 943,652.  But, we know we grew at least by 100,000.  So, the possible range is 887,033 - 943,652.

 

The 10%-19.9% was for the metro overall, they didn't show any maps for cities.  So the metro would be 2,092,171 to 2,280,467.  2010's total was 1,901,974.

Edited August 12, 20213 yr by jonoh81

3 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

The 10%-19.9% was for the metro overall, they didn't show any maps for cities.  So the metro would be 2,092,171 to 2,280,467.

Ah.  Damn, my mind skipped over the "metro-wise."

Edited August 12, 20213 yr by TH3BUDDHA

I think the only thing we know for sure is that Columbus grew at least 100,00 people, putting the minimum at 887,000

7 minutes ago, Imwalle said:

I think the only thing we know for sure is that Columbus grew at least 100,00 people, putting the minimum at 887,000

Apparently no we don't -as posted above that minimum number of ten percent was for the metro area population growth-the only thing listed for individual cities was the top ten.

 

*none of these new questions being asked are going to be related to numbers for biggest cities. 

Edited August 12, 20213 yr by Toddguy

Okay, here are the top counties.

Franklin: 1,323,807 +160,393

Cuyahoga: 1,264,817 -15,305

Hamilton: 830,639 +28,265

Summit: 540,428 -1,353

Montgomery: 537,309 +2,156

Lucas: 431,279 -10,536

Butler: 390,357 +22,227

Stark: 374,853 -733

Lorain: 312,964 +11,608

Warren: 242,337 +29,644

Lake: 232,603 +2,562

Mahoning: 228,614 -10,209

Delaware: 214,124 +39,910

Trumbull: 201,977 -8,335

Medina: 182,470 +10,138

Licking: 178,519 +12,027

Greene: 167,966 +6,393

Portage: 161,791 +372

Fairfield: 158,921 +12,765

 

 

Edited August 12, 20213 yr by jonoh81

2 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

Apparently no we don't -as posted above that minimum number of ten percent was for the metro area population growth-the only thing listed for individual cities was the top ten.

 

*none of these new questions being asked are going to be related to numbers for biggest cities. 

 

4 minutes ago, Imwalle said:

 

They are showing us at 880,000-see the other population thread. 

So EVERYONE was wrong-we were way lower than anything listed. Damn. 

Metros 

Akron: 702,219 -981

Canton: 401,574 -2,848

Cincinnati: 2,256,884 +119,217

Cleveland: 2,088,251 +11,011

Columbus: 2,138,926 +236,952

Dayton: 814,049 +14,817

Toledo: 646,604 -4,825

Youngstown: 541,243 -24,530

Just now, Toddguy said:

So EVERYONE was wrong-we were way lower than anything listed. Damn. 

 

??

1 minute ago, Toddguy said:

They are showing us at 880,000-see the other population thread. 

 

Census.gov is giving me bad data then.

 

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/newsroom/press-kits/2021/redistricting/20210812-presentation-redistricting-perry.pdf

1 minute ago, jonoh81 said:

 

??

He's referencing the post in the Ohio Population thread where somebody listed the cities and has Columbus at 880,000, which contradicts what was said in the presentation.

 

8 minutes ago, Imwalle said:

 

Most of these make sense but how is Nashville not on there? 

2 minutes ago, ucgrady said:

 

Most of these make sense but how is Nashville not on there? 

Much of Nashville's growth has been in outer suburbs rather than in the central city.

5 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

Much of Nashville's growth has been in outer suburbs rather than in the central city.

Despite the large size of the city/county, the local geography and sprawl trajectories do not favor them. As I am sure you know, given the comment and all. But yeah just agreeing basically.

 

And if you don't like it, you will also deserve an assbeating! lol.  j/k

Edited August 12, 20213 yr by Toddguy

5 minutes ago, Imwalle said:

 

 

It's interesting to look at the land area of these cities.

 

Jacksonville - 747.48 sq mi

Houston - 640.47 sq mi

OKC - 606.47 sq mi

Phoenix - 517.86 sq mi

San Antonio - 498.85 sq mi

LA - 468.97 sq mi

Ft Worth - 347.27 sq mi

Dallas - 339.58 sq mi

Austin - 319.94 sq mi

Charlotte - 307.26 sq mi

NYC - 300.37 sq mi

Columbus - 219.22 sq mi

Denver - 153.28 sq mi

Seattle - 83.99 sq mi

 

Columbus is actually the third smallest city, in terms of land area, to make this list. 

1 minute ago, cbussoccer said:

 

It's interesting to look at the land area of these cities.

 

Jacksonville - 747.48 sq mi

Houston - 640.47 sq mi

OKC - 606.47 sq mi

Phoenix - 517.86 sq mi

San Antonio - 498.85 sq mi

LA - 468.97 sq mi

Ft Worth - 347.27 sq mi

Dallas - 339.58 sq mi

Austin - 319.94 sq mi

Charlotte - 307.26 sq mi

NYC - 300.37 sq mi

Columbus - 219.22 sq mi

Denver - 153.28 sq mi

Seattle - 83.99 sq mi

 

Columbus is actually the third smallest city, in terms of land area, to make this list. 

 

That is mindboggling, given Columbus' enormous size in the context of what we are used to in Ohio.

Unfortunately, looks like the 902,500-910,000 crowd was correct in the survey.  Thought we'd be higher.