7 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I wonder if there are any stats that break down where the gains are coming from, 

namely, how much of the Columbus area gain is attributed to NE Ohio’s loss?

 

how much of Cincinnati area gain is attributed to Dayton loss?

 

I know Columbus had a lot of its gain from people coming from other parts of Ohio (excluding the cincy region) but it would be interesting to see those numbers how they specifically relate to Cleve/Akron/ canton/ Youngstown. 

anecdotally
it seems like a lot of NE Ohio folks have relocated to Columbus over the years spurring Columbus growth and it seems like a lot of Dayton people have pushed south toward Cincinnati

 

Uh, what now?  Dayton Metro grew and the parts of Warren County that Metro Dayton grew...were near Dayton.  Dayton isn't heading toward Cincinnati; the two metros are just merging due to our insane sprawl.

6 hours ago, VintageLife said:

Didn’t Cincinnati also gain for the first time in 70 years? It’s good to see some growth in the rust belt! 

I don’t consider Cincinnati part of the “Rust Belt” (a term I loathe, btw).  Cincy is too far south. 

The Dayton MSA numbers were a bit disheartening since we supposedly had a slight growth back in 2012 and with all the good stuff that has been happening around the city, but based on the other cities in Montgomery County that lost population, I'd be willing to guess that the population loss came mostly from the poorest parts of the city, so from a GDP/econ development standpoint it won't be felt as acutely. Not surprised to see Trotwood losing population after the tornadoes and generally poor economic health and definitely not mad to see people leaving Skanklin, er, Franklin, Dayton's worst suburb. I am surprised that Huber posted such big growth numbers.

4 minutes ago, BigDipper 80 said:

The Dayton MSA numbers were a bit disheartening since we supposedly had a slight growth back in 2012 and with all the good stuff that has been happening around the city, but based on the other cities in Montgomery County that lost population, I'd be willing to guess that the population loss came mostly from the poorest parts of the city, so from a GDP/econ development standpoint it won't be felt as acutely. Not surprised to see Trotwood losing population after the tornadoes and generally poor economic health and definitely not mad to see people leaving Skanklin, er, Franklin, Dayton's worst suburb. I am surprised that Huber posted such big growth numbers.

I lived in HH for a bit recently (what a dump), and while the south side is struggling a bit, the north side is typically sprawling. Lots of those suburban apartment complexes going up around 201/70, plus the typical cul-de-sacs. Anecdotally, it also seems to absorb Dayton residents in areas like Old North Dayton and the like moving up the social ladder a bit. Like the Ahiska Turks seem to be migrating north a bit, for example. No data to support the last two claims. 

Dayton's MSA is closely tied with the defense industry. Times of war are boom times, or at least periods of growth.

12 hours ago, stashua123 said:

Hamilton, Ohio is now larger than Youngstown, Ohio

Can you share the number? Or tell me how I can view? Thanks!

23 minutes ago, BallHatGuy said:

Can you share the number? Or tell me how I can view? Thanks!

Census.gov > Local Data

 

 

Quick and dirty population trend from 1900 to 2020 for Ohio cities with greater than 50,000 residents as of 2020 (17 cities):

 

 

For all the hype about urbanism over the past two decades, the national map made it clear that sprawl is still king, which is really unfortunate. We're building more resilient urban cores all over the country right now (even Ohio's smaller cities and towns seem to have a lot more vibrancy these days) but pretty much everywhere the highest-growth counties were adjacent to the prime city, presumably fueled by acres of greenfield single-family housing. Will these places ever collapse under their own weight?

3 minutes ago, BigDipper 80 said:

For all the hype about urbanism over the past two decades, the national map made it clear that sprawl is still king, which is really unfortunate. We're building more resilient urban cores all over the country right now (even Ohio's smaller cities and towns seem to have a lot more vibrancy these days) but pretty much everywhere the highest-growth counties were adjacent to the prime city, presumably fueled by acres of greenfield single-family housing. Will these places ever collapse under their own weight?

In Ohio I think we are safe compared to many of the other fast growing southern metros. I know this might not be what you mean by resilient, but driving through the suburban sprawl of Phoenix for instance, which is now the 5th largest city in the US and the fastest growing major city, you can't help but think that humans really shouldn't be living there and its population is bound to collapse in the future. 

17 hours ago, LlamaLawyer said:

Detroit is apparently planning to sue claiming an undercount. I'm curious if any other cities would join.

 

Every decennial census there are always several cities that challenge the count.

8 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Every decennial census there are always several cities that challenge the count.

 

Yep, it's nothing new, and it's not just big cities that challenge.

 

https://muninet.harris.uchicago.edu/2011/04/12/cities-prepare-to-challenge-2010-census-counts/

54 minutes ago, BigDipper 80 said:

For all the hype about urbanism over the past two decades, the national map made it clear that sprawl is still king, which is really unfortunate. We're building more resilient urban cores all over the country right now (even Ohio's smaller cities and towns seem to have a lot more vibrancy these days) but pretty much everywhere the highest-growth counties were adjacent to the prime city, presumably fueled by acres of greenfield single-family housing. Will these places ever collapse under their own weight?

That's because those very people who live in these urban cores are generally younger people.  Once they get older, get married and start families, they quickly realize that having a house, land and privacy, is a vastly better lifestyles.  That will NEVER change.

Does anyone have an Ohio county map showing general increase/decrease by county?  I know there has been a lot of talk or rural counties losing population, but I believe oddly enough Mercer County grew some.  Was just curious, but having trouble locating/navigating the data.  I haven't had time to dig into it too far in the last 24 hours.  Have to stay focused on my day job before I can spoil myself with the fun of these stats this weekend haha

12 minutes ago, Gnoraa said:

Does anyone have an Ohio county map showing general increase/decrease by county?  I know there has been a lot of talk or rural counties losing population, but I believe oddly enough Mercer County grew some.  Was just curious, but having trouble locating/navigating the data.  I haven't had time to dig into it too far in the last 24 hours.  Have to stay focused on my day job before I can spoil myself with the fun of these stats this weekend haha

 

https://mtgis-portal.geo.census.gov/arcgis/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=2566121a73de463995ed2b2fd7ff6eb7

 

Would love to see county stats as well, and an updated list of metro populations to see where the 3C's now rank.  

1 hour ago, BigDipper 80 said:

For all the hype about urbanism over the past two decades, the national map made it clear that sprawl is still king, which is really unfortunate. We're building more resilient urban cores all over the country right now (even Ohio's smaller cities and towns seem to have a lot more vibrancy these days) but pretty much everywhere the highest-growth counties were adjacent to the prime city, presumably fueled by acres of greenfield single-family housing. Will these places ever collapse under their own weight?

I don't completely agree about that. The census's biggest surprise was New York City which outpaced expectations by 600,000 people (i.e. a roughly 7% underestimate by the census bureau). Chicago also defied expectations by gaining population. Philadelphia gained more than expected. If you exclude Detroit, Baltimore, and Cleveland, pretty much every old city in the U.S. beat expectations. On the other hand, major sunbelt cities were in line with or slightly below expectations, with Phoenix gaining about 100,000 fewer people than expected. Also don't forget the way regression to the mean affects percentage change in counties. Suburban counties have lower starting point populations, and so smaller additions in absolute numbers lead to bigger percentage changes. 

 

The bigger story is the death of the small town. Most counties in the U.S. lost population, despite an overall increase. So some percentage of the growth in the suburbs is actually driven by people from more rural counties moving into suburban counties.

 

EDIT: As one point of comparison, from 2010 to 2020 the New York City Metro gained hundreds of thousands more people than did the entire state of Arizona, and New York City alone gained almost as many as the entire state of Arizona.

Edited August 13, 20213 yr by LlamaLawyer

49 minutes ago, ucgrady said:

In Ohio I think we are safe compared to many of the other fast growing southern metros. I know this might not be what you mean by resilient, but driving through the suburban sprawl of Phoenix for instance, which is now the 5th largest city in the US and the fastest growing major city, you can't help but think that humans really shouldn't be living there and its population is bound to collapse in the future. 

The future for Phoenix looks grim, as well as for much of the southwest due to mounting water shortages and regular waves of temperatures well above the 120s that will threaten infrastructure and human capacity to survive.

 

I can't help but believe that Rust Belt metros are going to see substantial population growth in the coming decades due to climate crisis refugees from that part of the country heading back this way. Maybe not quite enough for cities like Cleveland and Detroit to return to their all time high population peaks in short order, but population growth throughout the broader region will be trending positive again by the 2030 Census.

 

Even without refugees, however, Buffalo and Cincy posting gains offers some reason to be hopeful that population loss throughout the broader region is slowing down as deindustrialization winds down, the reconstruction of urban centers advances, and remote working takes off. Nonetheless, the Rust Belt/Great Lakes region may be the greatest beneficiary of the climate crisis. Cities should anticipate this and start preparing now to manage a new wave of significant growth and expansion.

9 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

I don't completely agree about that. The census's biggest surprise was New York City which outpaced expectations by 600,000 people (i.e. a roughly 7% underestimate by the census bureau). Chicago also defied expectations by gaining population. Philadelphia gained more than expected. If you exclude Detroit, Baltimore, and Cleveland, pretty much every old city in the U.S. beat expectations. On the other hand, major sunbelt cities were in line with or slightly below expectations, with Phoenix gaining about 100,000 fewer people than expected. Also don't forget the way regression to the mean affects percentage change in counties. Suburban counties have lower starting point populations, and so smaller additions in absolute numbers lead to bigger percentage changes. 

Cannot speak on Detroit or Baltimore, but I'm very curious to see how Cleveland's next mayor will influence economic development and growth in the city and region. Jackson during his four terms has been notoriously insular, obstinate, and low-key, often to the detriment of both. Cleveland needs leadership more like its previous mayors (e.g. White, Voinovich, Campbell) that really champions the city and sees it as the essential driving force for Cuyahoga County and all of NE Ohio, rather than an island unto itself. There's zero reason at this point why Cleveland and NE Ohio can't be bigger magnets for businesses and people. A higher energy mayor with real passion for maximizing the value of the city and its assets would go a long way.

It's huge that the Cleveland metro added a few residents.  Your metro can grow while the core city is losing people (as Cincinnati has done from 1950 to 2010), but it feels like it's really hard for the core city to grow while the metro is losing people.  (It would be interesting to see how often it happens.)  

 

It's good to see that folks feel like Cleveland proper has turned the corner.  I wonder if the growth will happen by the next census or after that.  From my perspective down here, it was fascinating to see the city growing while OTR actually lost population (smaller household sizes being primarily to blame, and buildings that were once multi-unit becoming single family).  Downtown growth is great and has a huge psychological effect, but in Cincinnati I think the story will be the other neighborhoods that stopped the bleeding and really drove the growth.  That's the part that IMO Cleveland will have to do to really get the city headed in the right direction.  

1 hour ago, OhioFinest said:

That's because those very people who live in these urban cores are generally younger people.  Once they get older, get married and start families, they quickly realize that having a house, land and privacy, is a vastly better lifestyles.  That will NEVER change.

 

Then why do you hang out here?

Well, someone credited the streetcar for stopping the bleed already, but the real answer is that most of the neighborhoods in Cincinnati stabilized and/or gained population. No longer are places like Camp Washington and Northside declining, nor are places like East Price Hill stagnant. Over-the-Rhine, of course, has been reborn but that process began 20 years ago, but its population will never be the same as it was during its peak because of demographic shifts (i.e. smaller households) and zoning changes (i.e. no more tenement housing).

 

The core of a city is important, but if the rest of the city and/or region is declining, then it is hard to keep that population stable or growing. For the most part, the Cincinnati metro is growing however modest that may be.

 

For Cleveland, it's still declining because many of its neighborhoods are still emptying out and have not come close to bottoming out or stabilizing. Nearly every east side neighborhood is depopulating and the few highlights (i.e. Tremont, Ohio City, downtown, etc.) are not enough to offset the massive losses elsewhere. More interestingly, the inner-ring suburbs are still declining although the metro on the whole is starting to rebound.

It boils down to jobs, crime, and schools.

We are all such enormous geeks.  Census day = Christmas

 

17 hours ago, MuRrAy HiLL said:

 

Relieved to see both Cleveland MSA and CSA as growing / positive. 

Wasn't Cleveland MSA growing in 2010 and 2000 too?

14 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Wasn't Cleveland MSA growing in 2010 and 2000 too?

2000 yes, 2010 no.

2 hours ago, seicer said:

 

For Cleveland, it's still declining because many of its neighborhoods are still emptying out and have not come close to bottoming out or stabilizing. Nearly every east side neighborhood is depopulating and the few highlights (i.e. Tremont, Ohio City, downtown, etc.) are not enough to offset the massive losses elsewhere. More interestingly, the inner-ring suburbs are still declining although the metro on the whole is starting to rebound.

It boils down to jobs, crime, and schools.

 

The biggest factors are crime and schools.  If the jobs are nearby, nearly all people are willing to commute an extra few miles for the benefits of lower crime and better schools.  I know a number of people who owned homes in Euclid.  As crime increased and the quality of the schools plummeted, they ended up having houses they had extreme difficulty in selling, if not nearly impossible.  A good part of it had nothing to do with the collapse of the housing market in 2007-2008.  It was due to the overall decline in quality-of-life.  Even for those who don't have children or have become empty nesters, they look at the prospects of what their home will be worth 10, 15 or 20 years down the road and see the worth of what may be the biggest investment of their lives becomes.

4 hours ago, OhioFinest said:

That's because those very people who live in these urban cores are generally younger people.  Once they get older, get married and start families, they quickly realize that having a house, land and privacy, is a vastly better lifestyles.  That will NEVER change.

 

I couldn't disagree more.

 

Thinking like this just proves so much of American culture is engineered to crush the idea that better things could even be possible.

 

Edited August 13, 20213 yr by Clefan98

^And it ignores that urban areas still have a ton of single family homes available. I live exactly one mile from the center of downtown Dayton, but I have a SFH, a decent yard, and a garage, but my neighborhood is still very walkable. There are also a lot of families in my neighborhood. I'd argue that school quality is the bigger issue than "space" when it comes to choosing to remain in the city or not. 

"School quality" is just an output of the local social network.

42 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

"School quality" is just an output of the local social network.

Nailed it exactly.  Many of the highest cost per pupil school districts are also ranked at the bottom in the state.  New school buildings, highly paid teachers (the only way to get decent ones to go to some of these districts) and programs with "catchy" names ultimately will not make a difference in results.  If children don't open books, avoid studying and go truant, these districts will not change.  School districts that report poor performance annually will negatively impact housing values.

 

8 hours ago, BigDipper 80 said:

For all the hype about urbanism over the past two decades, the national map made it clear that sprawl is still king, which is really unfortunate. We're building more resilient urban cores all over the country right now (even Ohio's smaller cities and towns seem to have a lot more vibrancy these days) but pretty much everywhere the highest-growth counties were adjacent to the prime city, presumably fueled by acres of greenfield single-family housing. Will these places ever collapse under their own weight?

 

We need to be careful with this.  For some reason, the media loves using percentages over totals.  Smaller suburban counties can have large percentage increases but still much smaller totals than core counties.  All the media yesterday was talking about how Delaware County was Ohio's fastest-growing, but it was absolutely not.  

By percentage, it absolutely was. My raw numbers, it absolutely not. If the article or newscast is describing the growth in percentage terms, then it's not misleading. It's just a far easier way to describe a concept to readers and viewers than reading off raw numbers and having people do the math to calculate the gain/loss.

7 hours ago, OhioFinest said:

That's because those very people who live in these urban cores are generally younger people.  Once they get older, get married and start families, they quickly realize that having a house, land and privacy, is a vastly better lifestyles.  That will NEVER change.

 

I won't be one of those people, and there are plenty more like me.  I don't consider that a better lifestyle whatsoever.  

2 hours ago, BigDipper 80 said:

^And it ignores that urban areas still have a ton of single family homes available. I live exactly one mile from the center of downtown Dayton, but I have a SFH, a decent yard, and a garage, but my neighborhood is still very walkable. There are also a lot of families in my neighborhood. I'd argue that school quality is the bigger issue than "space" when it comes to choosing to remain in the city or not. 

 

It also discounts that you even need a SFH with a yard to find value in your neighborhood.  Why do I want to take care of a yard?  

9 minutes ago, seicer said:

By percentage, it absolutely was. My raw numbers, it absolutely not. If the article or newscast is describing the growth in percentage terms, then it's not misleading. It's just a far easier way to describe a concept to readers and viewers than reading off raw numbers and having people do the math to calculate the gain/loss.

 

I wouldn't think it'd be difficult to understand that 160K is more than 40K.  Even if they made sure to mention it's based on percentage, why even frame the story that way? It seems to me that it creates a false narrative in which the suburbs are far more popular than what they really are.  Perhaps this is because- just like the poster above suggested- there is this idea that the only happy people are out in the boonies with enormous houses and yards.  

Edited August 13, 20213 yr by jonoh81

5 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

I wouldn't think it'd be difficult to understand that 160K is more than 40K.  Even if they made sure to mention it's based on percentage, why even frame the story that way? It seems to me that it creates a false narrative in which the suburbs are far more popular than what they really are.  Perhaps this is because- just like the poster above suggested- there is this idea that the only happy people are out in the boonies with enormous houses and yards.  

 

I look at it this way: when the local newscast here was describing the population loss, it was in these terms: "XXX declined by 5% to 46,525 from 2010." That took a few seconds and the viewer could get a quick grasp of the decline in a percentage and the final numbers. Not much more needs to be said about that specific statement.

 

If it was more descriptive on that one statement, it would be: "XXX declined by 2,350 from 48,875 in 2010 to 46,525 in 2020." It's just not as clear or concise. I am sure that there may be some editorial decisions behind some of the terminology, but generally it's to provide information that can be quickly digested.

 

I do have more of an issue with infographs. Some that I've seen for the 2020 census are outright terrible, especially when representing declines. It one exaggerated example I saw, it made it look like West Virginia was bleeding people left and right. It only marginally declined.

43 minutes ago, seicer said:

 

I look at it this way: when the local newscast here was describing the population loss, it was in these terms: "XXX declined by 5% to 46,525 from 2010." That took a few seconds and the viewer could get a quick grasp of the decline in a percentage and the final numbers. Not much more needs to be said about that specific statement.

 

If it was more descriptive on that one statement, it would be: "XXX declined by 2,350 from 48,875 in 2010 to 46,525 in 2020." It's just not as clear or concise. I am sure that there may be some editorial decisions behind some of the terminology, but generally it's to provide information that can be quickly digested.

 

I do have more of an issue with infographs. Some that I've seen for the 2020 census are outright terrible, especially when representing declines. It one exaggerated example I saw, it made it look like West Virginia was bleeding people left and right. It only marginally declined.

 

The Dispatch census tract map (below) used oranges and yellows to show... population gains.  It makes the map look like half of the county lost population.  Meanwhile, mine looks like this: https://arcg.is/Piry90

3 hours ago, BigDipper 80 said:

^And it ignores that urban areas still have a ton of single family homes available. I live exactly one mile from the center of downtown Dayton, but I have a SFH, a decent yard, and a garage, but my neighborhood is still very walkable. There are also a lot of families in my neighborhood. I'd argue that school quality is the bigger issue than "space" when it comes to choosing to remain in the city or not. 

100%. And single family homes can be quite dense if properly planned. If you build eight homes per acre and each home has two people, that’s 10,000+ people per square mile. Cleveland and Detroit had lots of neighborhoods just like this.

Btw, for all the Phoenix talk, the city is fine. It’s one of the best examples of a wide scale water conservation program successfully implemented.  They aren’t currently in a water crunch even with the drought, they can stop the farming if absolutely necessary, and they have 100 year water reserves they can tap into if needed.  The heat can be dealt with too.  It’s definitely hot and getting hotter but humans are smart and 120 is dangerous, but no more so than -10… I don’t think so anyway.  Also, those 7 months a year where the weather is idyllic helps quite a bit :)

 

-Edit: 2 responses and a down vote, yet I haven't seen anything I said actually disputed...  Well john gave his opinion about hot being more dangerous.  But Phoenix is not in a water crunch as nobody in the city is restricted on their use.  Phoenix gets water from many sources, the Colorado being one of them, but that's been getting reduced over time.  40MM people get their water from the Colorado, so trying to put the blame on Phx seems a little narrowly focused.

 

Some other information to consider:

https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-phoenix-is-preparing-for-a-future-without-colorado-river-water

 

Quote

Supplying enough water to sustain a city this size in the desert has long been controversial, and as Phoenix and its neighbors continue their unrelenting sprawl — Arizona’s population has more than tripled in the past 50 years, from 1.8 million in 1970 to 7.2 million today — the state has often been regarded as the poster child for unsustainable development. Now that Colorado River water appears to be drying up, critics are voicing their “I told you so’s.”

 

That’s a bad rap though, at least for Phoenix, according to Sorensen. The city is prepared to carry on with business as usual even if the last of the Colorado River water evaporates into the desert sky, depriving Phoenix of 40 percent of its water supply. City officials have been busy planning for this eventuality, and much of the responsibility for that has fallen to Sorensen.

...

The Salt River is the single biggest source of water for metro Phoenix, and provides about 60 percent of its needs. It is a large desert river, some 200 miles long, that begins at the confluence of the snow-fed White and Black rivers, is joined by a series of perennial, spring-fed streams, and then meets the Verde River east of Phoenix.

...

For now, though, Phoenix appears to have positioned itself well for a new era of drought. Sorensen credits the people of Phoenix for adapting to the desert by using far less water per capita. “We’ve decoupled growth from water,” she said. “We use the same amount of water that we did 20 years ago, but have added 400,000 more people.” In 2000, Some 80 percent of Phoenix had lush green lawns; now only 14 percent does. The city has done this by charging more for water in the summer. Per capita usage has declined 30 percent over the last 20 years. “That’s a huge culture change,”

 

https://thecounter.org/could-phoenix-survive-a-water-crisis-dcp/

 

Quote

With all the pros and cons of technology, the sustainability puzzle simply acquires more pieces. Phoenix has been working to fit them together. At the end of 2017, the city was one of the first to be certified platinum LEED for Cities—a globally recognized symbol of sustainability achievement—for its “built environment.” The designation considers 14 metrics, including energy, waste, health, and even water. Arizona, one of the country’s largest and sunniest states, has become a national leader in solar power. In recent decades, most of Metro Phoenix has ditched grass lawns in favor of xeriscaping, landscaping that uses desert-adapted plants like agave and ocotillo. The city has even long banked water against future shortage.

...

One counterpoint is that, since the 1970s, water usage in greater Phoenix has declined. As Sorensen says, “it takes a lot less water to grow a subdivision than grow a crop.” Families need less water to live on than crops do to grow, given a same-sized parcel of land, and residential development has been replacing agriculture as a primary use of land. Population growth, however, may close this water gap.

....

Some 70 percent of Arizona’s water is used to support agriculture. Come shortages, more will have to go to municipal use. In reality, this may happen in greater Phoenix without water rationings, as developers are buying farmland, resulting in less acreage to irrigate. Farmers who do hold on will have to transition to more water-efficient methods and crops, meaning no more sprinklers, flood irrigation, or cotton.

....

Phoenix is far from the country’s least sustainable city, as some have claimed. So far, the city has planned well for future water shortages, including investment in water infrastructure and forest health in watersheds, promoting conservation, banking excess water, furthering wastewater recycling, and implementing water fees that become more onerous during summer.

 

12 minutes ago, ck said:

Btw, for all the Phoenix talk, the city is fine. It’s one of the best examples of a wide scale water conservation program successfully implemented.  They aren’t currently in a water crunch even with the drought, they can stop the farming if absolutely necessary, and they have 100 year water reserves they can tap into if needed.  The heat can be dealt with too.  It’s definitely hot and getting hotter but humans are smart and 120 is dangerous, but no more so than -10… I don’t think so anyway.  Also, those 7 months a year where the weather is idyllic helps quite a bit :)

 

Scientifically speaking, 120 is actually more dangerous for people than -10, but given that much of the world's population lives in temperate to cold climates, more people still die from cold.  That situation will gradually reverse with climate change.

The criticism of Phoenix, whether or not it can adapt, is that it is a completely irresponsible place for a major city.  It's a misuse of resources in an area that has precious few, and it's one of the reasons that the Colorado River doesn't reach the Gulf of California anymore, destroying entire ecosystems in the process.  Not to mention all the energy it takes to power all that air conditioning, which, you know, contributes to the whole climate change problem.

Edited August 14, 20213 yr by jonoh81

Guys, we could go on and on about what's wrong with Phoenix, but it really isn't the topic of this thread.

I wonder how this will play out in redistricting for the statehouse. The only growth in the state happened in the larger metro areas. Rural areas, particularly the SE of the state, saw some large declines. I know the Republicans will still try to gerrymander it to hell, but perhaps we will end up being slightly less strangled by rural interests, and more suburban/urban seats? 

7 minutes ago, PoshSteve said:

I wonder how this will play out in redistricting for the statehouse. The only growth in the state happened in the larger metro areas. Rural areas, particularly the SE of the state, saw some large declines. I know the Republicans will still try to gerrymander it to hell, but perhaps we will end up being slightly less strangled by rural interests, and more suburban/urban seats? 

We can only dream!  

On 8/13/2021 at 10:34 AM, OhioFinest said:

That's because those very people who live in these urban cores are generally younger people.  Once they get older, get married and start families, they quickly realize that having a house, land and privacy, is a vastly better lifestyles.  That will NEVER change.

 

I'm seeing older folks downsizing interested in moving into OTR and the likes. I think there was a wait-and-see approach and now that the neighborhood is maintaining momentum there's interest in moving into an area that allows one to live a lifestyle without getting into a car.

On 8/14/2021 at 10:45 AM, ck said:

Btw, for all the Phoenix talk, the city is fine. It’s one of the best examples of a wide scale water conservation program successfully implemented.  They aren’t currently in a water crunch even with the drought, they can stop the farming if absolutely necessary, and they have 100 year water reserves they can tap into if needed....

 

uh-huh....  BREAKING news--524pm:

 

In a First, U.S. Declares Shortage on Colorado River, Forcing Water Cuts

Arizona farmers will take the initial brunt, but wider reductions loom as climate change continues to affect flows into the river.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/16/climate/colorado-river-water-cuts.html

 

such trends should certainly benefit Ohio.

 

 

Even though they're not released on the census site, here are the new 2020 ethnicity figures by race for Ohio's major cities.

 

Akron

Non-Hispanic White: 102,825

Non-Hispanic Black: 59,286

Non-Hispanic Asian: 10,042

Non-Hispanic Other: 12,120

Hispanic: 6,196

 

Cincinnati

NHW: 145,100

NHB: 124,654

NHA: 7,767

Hispanic: 15,836

NHO: 15,960

 

Cleveland

NHW: 119,547

NHB: 176,813

NHA: 10,390

Hispanic: 48,699

NHO: 17,175

 

Columbus

NHW: 470,705

NHB: 256,509

NHA: 55,932

Hispanic: 70,179

NHO: 52,423

 

Dayton

NHW: 64,020

NHB: 55,620

NHA: 1,922

Hispanic: 7,859

NHO: 8,223

 

Toledo

NHW: 150,202

NHB: 76,401

NHA: 3,133

Hispanic: 24,136

NHO: 16,999

 

Youngstown

NHW: 24,308

NHB: 25,326

NHA: 257

Hispanic: 6,895

NHO: 3,282

 

Not sure if another thread is more appropriate but...what the hell?

For the 3 Cs

Cincinnati

NHW: 46.9%

NHB: 40.3%

NHA: 2.5%

Hispanic: 5.1%

NHO: 5.2%

 

Cleveland

NHW: 31.8%

NHB: 47.1%

NHA: 2.8%

Hispanic: 13.0%

NHO: 5.3%

 

Columbus

NHW: 52.0%

NHB: 29.3%

NHA: 6.2%

Hispanic: 7.7%

NHO: 5.8%

31 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Not sure if another thread is more appropriate but...what the hell?

Doesn't make much sense to use the city numbers instead of the county numbers since the common pleas bench is county wide, but there's long been discussion about the number of judicial seats in Cuyahoga as compared to Franklin and Hamilton counties.  

15 minutes ago, jdm00 said:

Doesn't make much sense to use the city numbers instead of the county numbers since the common pleas bench is county wide, but there's long been discussion about the number of judicial seats in Cuyahoga as compared to Franklin and Hamilton counties.  

 

Franklin county is more populous than Cuyahoga county.