Cleveland losing 7.5% of urban land in the definition most definitely contributed to the population loss. If the 7.5% loss was applied to 2010 population then (without taking into account a most likely less pop density) the loss should have been 133k. Rough numbers and Inexact but for sure there is infill development going on, lots of it.

5 hours ago, Cbusflyer said:

Surprised Columbus is the highest density. Does terrain play a part in this or is Columbus gaining with infill. 

 

 I wouldn't say it does.  For example, of the Midwest's largest metropolitan areas, Columbus is #2 behind Chicago in terms of urbanized density per these 2020 numbers.  Meaning, it's denser than even-more-flat Detroit, Indianapolis, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and St. Louis.

I suspect that Columbus' relatively high UA density is due to two things- a relatively intact urban core relative to a Cleveland, Detroit, or St. Louis style post-industrial city and they also have relatively contiguous development around the urban periphery. Columbus just doesn't have the same degree of development-farm field-development-farm field fringy pattern that Cleveland has for miles and miles at it's edges. 

Even though Columbus has an enormous amount of SFH within its limits it is occupied SFH.

Is Columbus losing population? At least amongst people with Linkedin accounts? According to the latest (Dec 2022) workforce report from LinkedIn:  

 

"Migration. The U.S. cities losing the most people are College Station-Bryan, TX; State College-DuBois, PA; and Tallahassee, FL. For every 10,000 LinkedIn members in College Station-Bryan, TX, 235 left in the past 12 months...."   5th on the list is Columbus, losing 56 people per every 10,000 LinkedIn members.

 

Columbus is still gaining people from Cleveland more than Columbus to Cleveland migration.

 

When you do a deeper dive into Cleveland (they do a report on the 20 largest US metros--so you can see Cleveland, but not Columbus or Cincinnati), it shows:

 

Columbus, NYC, and LA gained the most workers from CLE in the past 12 months. Columbus ranked #1 at Cleveland losing 2.76 Linkedin members for every 10,000 to Columbus in the last year.  NYC was 2.4 and LA was 2.1.   Regarding gains for Cleveland, ranked #1 was Toledo at 1.26 Linkedin members per 10,000, then Cincinnati at .74 per 10,000.

 

https://economicgraph.linkedin.com/resources/linkedin-workforce-report-december-2022

 

 

Perhaps LinkedIn isn't doing as well with college students since the top cities that lost users were all college towns.

24 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

Perhaps LinkedIn isn't doing as well with college students since the top cities that lost users were all college towns.

Yeah, most people I know that use LinkedIn are 30-50. It isn’t a useful tool to find a job anymore. It’s mostly managers complaining about people not wanting to work, or trying to brag about how hard they work. 

People still use LinkedIn?

7 hours ago, VintageLife said:

Yeah, most people I know that use LinkedIn are 30-50. It isn’t a useful tool to find a job anymore. It’s mostly managers complaining about people not wanting to work, or trying to brag about how hard they work. 

It is good for mid level people as recruiters use Linkedin a ton to find passive individuals to recruit. Not as good if you are actively looking for a job but good for companies to find you and actively recruit you based on your skillset. Not great for new grads as they don't really have a resume yet but still good for them to establish a presence

Couldn't find a better place to put this 

 

 

^ the time frame is really to large for it to have any predictive qualities. Between 1840-2021 The United States boomed with immigrants. Furthermore, for much of the 20th century up until the 70s most families were quite large and have 4+ kids per household in many cases.  If you look at Australia, it is much the same (most likely) and if you look to the countries that show strong population growth in the second chart. Also, over that time period, many of the countries with large population growth also had high birth rates. 

 

I do not find the second chart really indicative of any trends because its is too large of a period and encompasses many different trends and issues leading to population growth over 150+ years. 

Per this graph, Ireland's peak population was in 1841:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_population_of_Ireland

 

50% of Ireland's population left the island by 1900.   

I was sitting around with a friend drinking beer and somehow it was germaine for me to blurt out "More people live in Maryland than Ireland" It was like 2010 and there wasn't any way to get on the internet conveniently where we were. So he grabs a dictionary and looked up the population of both. He goes, "Nooo way. It's true."

14 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

I was sitting around with a friend drinking beer and somehow it was germaine for me to blurt out "More people live in Maryland than Ireland" It was like 2010 and there wasn't any way to get on the internet conveniently where we were. So he grabs a dictionary and looked up the population of both. He goes, "Nooo way. It's true."

 

This is why the Guiness Book of World Records was started - to resolve bar disputes.  

 

My great-great uncle owned a bar and the only thing left of it is a sort of watered-down factoid book with the bar's name on it.  So I guess there were salesmen who went around and sold these things to independent bars.  

 

 

58 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

I was sitting around with a friend drinking beer and somehow it was germaine for me to blurt out "More people live in Maryland than Ireland" It was like 2010 and there wasn't any way to get on the internet conveniently where we were. So he grabs a dictionary and looked up the population of both. He goes, "Nooo way. It's true."

 

 By Census Bureau estimates, Maryland has lost a small number of people in 2021 (3K) and 2022 (10K).  We try to keep that news very quiet.

 

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/MD,US

Replying to this here.

 

I've done a quick summation of the weighted densities of the 3C counties. I went down to the Census Block level. This is fairly easy for county numbers, but I'd like to do the Urban Areas if I ever get the time. Numbers are from the 2020 Census.

 

Cuyahoga County:

 

Population: 1,264,817

Land Area: 457.21sqmi

Density: 2,766ppsm

Weighted Density: 8,540ppsm

 

Franklin County:

 

Population: 1,323,807

Land Area: 532.42sqmi

Density: 2,486ppsm

Weighted Density: 11,165ppsm

 

Hamilton County:

 

Population: 830,639

Land Area: 405.45sqmi

Density: 2,048ppsm

Weighted Density: 7,392

 

I also did the two Short North neighborhoods.

 

Italian Village:

 

Population: 4,665

Land Area: 0.43sqmi

Density: 10,864ppsm

Weighted Density: 20,209ppsm

 

Victorian Village:

 

Population: 4,872

Land Area: 0.43sqmi

Density: 11,444ppsm

Weighted Density: 19,534ppsm

 

17 minutes ago, aderwent said:

Italian Village:

 

Population: 4,665

Land Area: 0.43sqmi

Density: 10,864ppsm

Weighted Density: 20,209ppsm

 

Victorian Village:

 

Population: 4,872

Land Area: 0.43sqmi

Density: 11,444ppsm

Weighted Density: 19,534ppsm

If it hasn’t already happened, I’m sure Italian village will have a higher population than Victorian village soon. Those two densities are great, and are only getting higher. 

38 minutes ago, aderwent said:

I've done a quick summation of the weighted densities of the 3C counties.

 

What's the weighted density calculation you are using? 

9 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

 

What's the weighted density calculation you are using? 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3119965

32 minutes ago, VintageLife said:

If it hasn’t already happened, I’m sure Italian village will have a higher population than Victorian village soon. Those two densities are great, and are only getting higher. 

Yes, Italian Village is almost certainly near or over 5,000 now. 

Columbus Urban Area:

 

Population: 1,567,254

Land Area: 516.16sqmi

Density: 3,036ppsm

Weighted Density: 10,253ppsm

 

The Columbus Urban Area now has parts in Union, Pickaway, Fairfield, Licking, and Delaware Counties in addition to Franklin.

On 12/29/2022 at 10:48 AM, aderwent said:

Urban Areas from the 2020 Census have been released. These are not apples-to-apples as they changed the definition, but here are the changes since 2010:

 

Cincinnati: 1,686,744 (+61,917) - 752.3 sqmi (-35.4)

Cleveland: 1,712,178 (-68,495) - 713.8 sqmi (-58.2)

Columbus: 1,567,254 (+199,219) - 516.2 sqmi (+5.7)

 

Densities:

 

Cincinnati: 2,242 ppsm (+179)

Cleveland: 2,399 ppsm (+92)

Columbus: 3,036 ppsm (+356)

 

^ i was wondering when this was going to happen ...

45 minutes ago, aderwent said:

What is weighted density? What is that figure, I couldn’t find info on how they calculate it or what it means? 

Edited March 1, 20232 yr by VintageLife

17 minutes ago, VintageLife said:

What is weighted density? What is that figure, I couldn’t find info on how they calculate it or what it means? 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3119965

 

This is the calculation I used.

 

Edit. I went all the way down to the block level, not just tract. 

Edited March 1, 20232 yr by aderwent

On 2/22/2023 at 2:28 PM, aderwent said:

The Columbus Urban Area now has parts in Union, Pickaway, Fairfield, Licking, and Delaware Counties in addition to Franklin.

 

I wonder if the Newark-Heath-Granville area and the Johnstown area will get lumped into the Columbus urban area by the next census with the buildout of Intel. This would add close to 75k to the urban population solely based on 2020 pop. figures. 

20 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

 

I wonder if the Newark-Heath-Granville area and the Johnstown area will get lumped into the Columbus urban area by the next census with the buildout of Intel. This would add close to 75k to the urban population solely based on 2020 pop. figures. 

Newark is its own Urban Area of 81,223. Johnstown has its own of 5,449. Whether they get added isn't just about proximity, but commuting patterns. It's why Middletown isn't a part of Cincinnati or Dayton's UA despite physically touching both. Same with Elyria and Akron with Cleveland.

 

I'd say with all the economic development happening in far eastern New Albany that commuting patterns will favor adding these two to Columbus as long as development occurs between them.

 

So that alone would add 86,672 plus any growth in those two. However, it would hurt the density a fair bit.

Edited March 1, 20232 yr by aderwent

24 minutes ago, aderwent said:

Newark is its own Urban Area of 81,223. Johnstown has its own of 5,449. Whether they get added isn't just about proximity, but commuting patterns. It's why Middletown isn't a part of Cincinnati or Dayton's UA despite physically touching both. Same with Elyria and Akron with Cleveland.

 

I'd say with all the economic development happening in far eastern New Albany that commuting patterns will favor adding these two to Columbus as long as development occurs between them.

 

So that alone would add 86,672 plus any growth in those two. However, it would hurt the density a fair bit.

Yea I understand it’s largely based on commuting patterns. My guess is the continued development along 161 will end up bringing the areas together similar to what happened along 23 with Columbus and Delaware. 

1 hour ago, aderwent said:

Newark is its own Urban Area of 81,223. Johnstown has its own of 5,449. Whether they get added isn't just about proximity, but commuting patterns. It's why Middletown isn't a part of Cincinnati or Dayton's UA despite physically touching both. Same with Elyria and Akron with Cleveland.

 

I'd say with all the economic development happening in far eastern New Albany that commuting patterns will favor adding these two to Columbus as long as development occurs between them.

 

So that alone would add 86,672 plus any growth in those two. However, it would hurt the density a fair bit.

I thought that commuting patterns mattered in metro definitions, but urban areas were about contiguous development meeting a certain density? 

3 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

I thought that commuting patterns mattered in metro definitions, but urban areas were about contiguous development meeting a certain density? 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/03/24/2022-06180/urban-area-criteria-for-the-2020-census-final-criteria

35 minutes ago, aderwent said:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/03/24/2022-06180/urban-area-criteria-for-the-2020-census-final-criteria

Ok so I saw commuting patterns when splitting large agglomerations.  So if Newark grows together into Cbus it would depend on commuting patterns as to whether or not it remains it's own entity. Got it. 

 

So Middletown does not have a commuting pattern that would lump it in with Cincy as noted a few posts above.  So what towns around Cbus are a part of it's urban area? Is Delaware part of it? Is there a map of it somewhere?

 

I am used to Demographia definitions...are they much different now or similar?-I should check it out. lol.

 

* 

why am I having a thunderstorm right now...this was not predicted!

Edited March 2, 20232 yr by Toddguy

13 hours ago, aderwent said:

So can some explain these numbers. As someone who lives in Columbus, I feel like it is more dense than given credit for. What strikes me most is that there is no geography to stop development from the center of downtown and outward in all directions. Cincy has the Ohio river and hilly geography that seems to start and stop development into pockets. Cleveland seems about the same as Cincy but not as hilly. I also feel like Cincy's outerbelt is much larger and further from the city than Cbus. I guess my question is how is Columbus more dense but feels less dense than the other two C's?? Is it that the density is spread out vs concentrated in pockets?? 

Edited March 2, 20232 yr by Cbusflyer

9 hours ago, Cbusflyer said:

So can some explain these numbers. As someone who lives in Columbus, I feel like it is more dense than given credit for. What strikes me most is that there is no geography to stop development from the center of downtown and outward in all directions. Cincy has the Ohio river and hilly geography that seems to start and stop development into pockets. Cleveland seems about the same as Cincy but not as hilly. I also feel like Cincy's outerbelt is much larger and further from the city than Cbus. I guess my question is how is Columbus more dense but feels less dense than the other two C's?? Is it that the density is spread out vs concentrated in pockets?? 

The densest tracks in Columbus are all in and around OSU. That drives up the density quite a bit, but (if I understand things correctly) it really drives up the weighted density. See below post for a more detailed breakdown of the density of each county. (Apologies if you've already seen it, but I think it does a great job showing the differences)

 

On 2/21/2023 at 2:15 PM, jonoh81 said:

Somewhat related to sprawl, here were the density profiles for the 3-C counties in 2020. 

 

Top 10 Tracts with the Highest Density

Cuyahoga

160604- 26613.0

160603- 17636.9

1033- 14305.9

101101- 14270.8

119502- 13644.2

1023- 12925.3

1053- 12787.6

119501- 12648.4

102101-12636.3

101501-12428.9

Franklin

1121- 34759.3

1810- 28261.4

1302- 24707.3

1301- 20588.7

17- 20171.7

12- 20081.1

1110- 17693.4

10- 16269.7

16- 12693.1

6992- 12445.4

Hamilton

25- 20656.7

10- 17620.6

26- 15726.8

2901- 15496.8

33- 14447.6

9- 14241.3

17- 13861.0

30- 11422.1

7- 11339.8

264- 11009.9

 

Columbus continued to have the highest density tracts of any of the major cities in the state. 

 

% of Tracts 10Kppsm or Higher

Cuyahoga: 6.54%

Franklin: 5.47%

Hamilton: 5.3%

% of Tracts 5K-9,999.9ppsm

Cuyahoga: 36.67%

Franklin: 33.53%

Hamilton: 26.55%

% of Tracts 2K-4,999.9ppsm

Cuyahoga: 38.56%

Franklin: 42.68%

Hamilton: 45.13%

% of Tracts Less than 2Kppsm

Cuyahoga: 18.24%

Franklin: 18.29%

Hamilton: 23.02%

 

% of tracts can be somewhat deceiving given that tract sizes in the counties differ significantly, but they do line up with the density rankings overall. 

A better measurement, though, would be how much land area of each county is represented by density levels. 

 

Total Land Area in Square Miles and % of Total County Land at 10Kppsm or Higher

Cuyahoga: 6.4/1.39%

Franklin: 5.47/1.01%

Hamilton: 2.7/0.66%

At 5K-9,999.9ppsm

Cuyahoga: 67.6/14.76%

Franklin: 66.76/12.26%

Hamilton: 29.6/7.31%

At 2K-4,999.9ppsm

Cuyahoga: 157.5/34.41%

Franklin: 179.05/32.93%

Hamilton: 127.3/31.38%

Below 2Kppsm

Cuyahoga: 226.3/49.44%

Franklin: 292.41/53.78%

Hamilton: 246/60.65%

 

Cuyahoga and Frankling are far more similar with each other than they are with Hamilton, which has the lowest density levels across the board. Attached is a more detailed breakdown of density for each county.

Note county is not equal to urban area so this is not a one to one comparison. But it does give a fantastic breakdown of what percentage of each counties tracts fall in which density levels. 

 

It also depends on the boundaries of the urban area and precisely how it is defined. If Columbus has a sharper break between urban and rural areas, I.e. it has fewer areas that just barely meet the criteria to be classified as part of the urban area it would show as higher density. That's another theory, I could see it being true, but I can't confirm as I can't find reference maps for the new urban area definitions. 

 

Edit: found it

https://www.census.gov/geographies/reference-maps/2020/geo/2020-census-urban-areas.html

1 hour ago, Ethan said:

The densest tracks in Columbus are all in and around OSU. That drives up the density quite a bit, but (if I understand things correctly) it really drives up the weighted density. See below post for a more detailed breakdown of the density of each county. (Apologies if you've already seen it, but I think it does a great job showing the differences)

 

Note county is not equal to urban area so this is not a one to one comparison. But it does give a fantastic breakdown of what percentage of each counties tracts fall in which density levels. 

 

It also depends on the boundaries of the urban area and precisely how it is defined. If Columbus has a sharper break between urban and rural areas, I.e. it has fewer areas that just barely meet the criteria to be classified as part of the urban area it would show as higher density. That's another theory, I could see it being true, but I can't confirm as I can't find reference maps for the new urban area definitions. 

 

Edit: found it

https://www.census.gov/geographies/reference-maps/2020/geo/2020-census-urban-areas.html

 

Columbus is very compact. If you look at the 3-Cs overall, Cincinnati and Cleveland spread out quite a bit more in terms of development, but much of that area has a more consistent mid-range density in part because they've both had massive depopulation over the last 70 years. Cincinnati has recoverd slightly from its low point, but not enough to make any significant difference. Columbus is far more compact- that's why people always claim you can drive 20 miles in any direction and be in farmfields. But within that compact development area, population densities can be relatively high all the way out to the edge. And it's the only city that's seeing significant repopulation in almost all urban areas. 

Edited March 2, 20232 yr by jonoh81

30 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Columbus is far more compact- that's why people always claim you can drive 20 miles in any direction and be in farmfields. But within that compact development area, population densities can be relatively high all the way out to the edge. And it's the only city that's seeing significant repopulation in almost all urban areas. 

Columbus is compact because it is a flat canvas. Up until the 70s much of the surrounding city was a flat cornfield and then it took off and the cornfields filled in. 

 

Cleveland and Cincinnati (especially Cincinnati have a lot of hills and some topography issues that make it difficult to develop in certain areas of town that force them to spread out in more neighborhood pockets.  Cleveland not so much as it is relatively flat, but If you look at Cincinnati, there are some extremely dense areas sitting next to empty space due to hillsides getting in the way. I will agree with you that part of Cleveland's issues was from depopulation that they are struggling with today but the topography also plays a key role here.

5 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Columbus is compact because it is a flat canvas. Up until the 70s much of the surrounding city was a flat cornfield and then it took off and the cornfields filled in. 

 

This means nothing.  Many "flat, cornfields" cities took off in the 70's and are far less dense than Metro Columbus aka anywhere west of Columbus and east of Denver.  I will agree that Cincinnati's weighted-density being off due to topography and Cleveland's due to depopulation.  But that still has nothing to do how Columbus organically (or maybe not) grew into the 2nd densest metropolitan area in the Midwest, behind Chicago.  It could've been Kansas City or Wichita in sprawl.

9 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Columbus is compact because it is a flat canvas. Up until the 70s much of the surrounding city was a flat cornfield and then it took off and the cornfields filled in. 

 

Cleveland and Cincinnati (especially Cincinnati have a lot of hills and some topography issues that make it difficult to develop in certain areas of town that force them to spread out in more neighborhood pockets.  Cleveland not so much as it is relatively flat, but If you look at Cincinnati, there are some extremely dense areas sitting next to empty space due to hillsides getting in the way. I will agree with you that part of Cleveland's issues was from depopulation that they are struggling with today but the topography also plays a key role here.

Weighted density all the way to the block level alleviates those geographic issues. So does using the Urban Area definition of built environment.

Edited March 2, 20232 yr by aderwent

1 minute ago, ColDayMan said:

 

This means nothing.  Many "flat, cornfields" cities took off in the 70's and are far less dense than Metro Columbus aka anywhere west of Columbus and east of Denver.  I will agree that Cincinnati's weighted-density being off due to topography and Cleveland's due to depopulation.  But that still has nothing to do how Columbus organically (or maybe not) grew into the 2nd densest metropolitan area in the Midwest, behind Chicago.  It could've been Kansas City or Wichita in sprawl.

If anything weighted density should help with topography issues. Hillsides with zero or little population don't have a significant impact when measured this way. 

I never thought about that but agreed.  I am curious @aderwent if you have the weighted-density numbers for Pittsburgh, a similarly topographically-challenged, depopulated metropolitan area.

7 minutes ago, ColDayMan said:

I never thought about that but agreed.  I am curious @aderwent if you have the weighted-density numbers for Pittsburgh, a similarly topographically-challenged, depopulated metropolitan area.

No but I can get into it later. Hopefully it's easier than Cincinnati. Columbus and Cleveland were easy to do, but Cincinnati took me awhile.

54 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Columbus is far more compact- that's why people always claim you can drive 20 miles in any direction and be in farmfields.

Thanks! That's been my experience as well. I've made that exact observation. You can see this in the urban area map as well. Columbus's boundaries are much cleaner than Cleveland / Cincinnati.  

8 minutes ago, ColDayMan said:

 

This means nothing.  Many "flat, cornfields" cities took off in the 70's and are far less dense than Metro Columbus aka anywhere west of Columbus and east of Denver.  I will agree that Cincinnati's weighted-density being off due to topography and Cleveland's due to depopulation.  But that still has nothing to do how Columbus organically (or maybe not) grew into the 2nd densest metropolitan area in the Midwest, behind Chicago.  It could've been Kansas City or Wichita in sprawl.

Indianapolis took off pretty similarly to Columbus. I did not mean to make it sound like I was knocking Columbus but certainly topography played a role in some of their density development, a lot like Indianapolis. 

 

You can also draw a distinction between Columbus and cities like Wichita or Kansas City, St. Louis, Cleveland, etc. is that Columbus (and Indy to a certain extent) are capital cities and have a large research University (IU in Indy counts). Also look at Minneapolis (capital city and large R-1). All that contributes to the growth in Columbus (being a government center helps).  

Kansas City is pretty much the same peer as Cincinnati as neither are capital cities but both are growing and developing despite not having a state government in their cities. 

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Columbus is compact because it is a flat canvas. Up until the 70s much of the surrounding city was a flat cornfield and then it took off and the cornfields filled in. 

 

Cleveland and Cincinnati (especially Cincinnati have a lot of hills and some topography issues that make it difficult to develop in certain areas of town that force them to spread out in more neighborhood pockets.  Cleveland not so much as it is relatively flat, but If you look at Cincinnati, there are some extremely dense areas sitting next to empty space due to hillsides getting in the way. I will agree with you that part of Cleveland's issues was from depopulation that they are struggling with today but the topography also plays a key role here.

 

I would argue Columbus' relative flatness would support even more sprawl outward, not compactness. If there are no topographical limitations to expansion, then it would be a lot easier to keep building further out. So if anything, its compactness goes contrary to the expectation. 

 

 

1 hour ago, aderwent said:

No but I can get into it later. Hopefully it's easier than Cincinnati. Columbus and Cleveland were easy to do, but Cincinnati took me awhile.

 

You said you went to the block level to get weighted density, but where? I know you can get population figures at the block level, but where did you get the area sizes for them? Also, how long did this take? There are literally hundreds, if not thousands of blocks for entire cities. Calculating density for all of them seems like it would've taken a while.

Edited March 2, 20232 yr by jonoh81

13 hours ago, Cbusflyer said:

So can some explain these numbers. As someone who lives in Columbus, I feel like it is more dense than given credit for. What strikes me most is that there is no geography to stop development from the center of downtown and outward in all directions. Cincy has the Ohio river and hilly geography that seems to start and stop development into pockets. Cleveland seems about the same as Cincy but not as hilly. I also feel like Cincy's outerbelt is much larger and further from the city than Cbus. I guess my question is how is Columbus more dense but feels less dense than the other two C's?? Is it that the density is spread out vs concentrated in pockets?? 

One thing I've noticed about Columbus is the amount of suburban apartment complexes out in the middle of farmland that have a ton of units, but because the way they are developed are so car centric that it does not appear to the eye as truly dense. They're literally everywhere. 

9 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

You said you went to the block level to get weighted density, but where? I know you can get population figures at the block level, but where did you get the area sizes for them? Also, how long did this take? There are literally hundreds, if not thousands of blocks for entire cities. Calculating density for all of them seems like it would've taken a while.

You can get tabulation block reports for every county in the US. It'll give you population, housing units, area of land and of water (in square meters), and geographic coordinate data. I then import these into Excel, and manually add or delete blocks to generate the Urban Areas. That's where it can get time consuming. Yes, there are thousands of blocks:

 

Cincinnati: 18,853

Cleveland: 20,281

Columbus: 21,854

Thanks for the map link upthread. Indy looks huge compared to Cbus but they are only a little higher in urban area population. 

1 hour ago, aderwent said:

You can get tabulation block reports for every county in the US. It'll give you population, housing units, area of land and of water (in square meters), and geographic coordinate data. I then import these into Excel, and manually add or delete blocks to generate the Urban Areas. That's where it can get time consuming. Yes, there are thousands of blocks:

 

Cincinnati: 18,853

Cleveland: 20,281

Columbus: 21,854

 

From the Census or where?

8 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

From the Census or where?

https://tigerweb.geo.census.gov/tigerwebmain/TIGERweb_tabblock_census2020.html

2 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I would argue Columbus' relative flatness would support even more sprawl outward, not compactness. If there are no topographical limitations to expansion, then it would be a lot easier to keep building further out. So if anything, its compactness goes contrary to the expectation. 

 

 

That would only make sense if the difficult topography was in a ring preventing outward expansion.  I've said it a thousand times, and others are saying it now I see: Columbus is statistically denser than it feels because of all the suburban-style, car-centric apartment complexes that are technically dense but not interconnected, multi-use, or walkable.

Edited March 2, 20232 yr by jam40jeff