More data coming out at 10 am:

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-43.html

 

This map is pretty interesting. Population loss is endemic nationwide outside of metro areas. Particularly striking are upstate NY, downstate IL:

https://t.co/Jg8llbPMRt

Medina & Cuyahoga counties:

http://medinagazette.northcoastnow.com/2016/03/23/census-data-cuyahoga-countys-loss-is-medina-countys-gain/

 

Toledo metro:

http://medinagazette.northcoastnow.com/2016/03/23/census-data-cuyahoga-countys-loss-is-medina-countys-gain/

Pretty interesting data released this morning. I don't think there is a specific Columbus population thread, so I'll just summarize here.

 

The Columbus metro was estimated to have added +24,324 people between 7/1/14 and 7/1/15, and Franklin County to have added +17,596.

More data coming out at 10 am:

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-43.html

 

This map is pretty interesting. Population loss is endemic nationwide outside of metro areas. Particularly striking are upstate NY, downstate IL:

https://t.co/Jg8llbPMRt

 

That map really is interesting, KJP.  I always think of the "booming South" and people moving in droves.  Definitely the population in the south is increasing, but what's really happening is that Nashville, Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh, and basically all of Florida are growing.  People aren't moving in droves to Mississippi or Alabama, and there are even non-metropolitan places in the Carolinas and Virginia that are suffering. 

Latest city information is out.  Haven't looked at the statistics directly, but according to this story in the Cincinnati Business Courier, Columbus added 12,000 people last year.  That's half (maybe just a smidge less) of the 24,000+ metro growth that was discussed upthread.

 

More exciting as a Cincinnatian is the city adding people again.  Small numbers, to be sure--about 500--but after decades of population loss, to have four straight years of population growth, no matter how small, is exciting. 

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2016/05/19/cincinnati-s-population-inches-up-again.html?ana=e_cinci_rdup&s=newsletter&ed=2016-05-19&u=mdqxSjVwpbwLHTa%2Bxb7xwQ0dc4b18a&t=1463665111&j=73334722

 

Would be interesting to see a neighborhood-by-neighborhood breakdown. I would suspect that there are significant increases in the CBD, OTR, and Uptown balancing out losses in farther-out neighborhoods on the north and west sides. Also of note is that the Cincinnati region continued to add population faster than the City of Cincinnati. So in total, we still are adding more people to the suburbs faster than we're adding people to the city.

It's important to note that Columbus requires annexation if they want the City of Columbus water (population surging from 787,033 to 850,106). Cincinnati does not. Other cities, like Louisville (that's gaining a lot of people), have city-county governments.

 

Further north, Cleveland went from 396,815 to 388,072, a significant loss. Not surprisingly, many of the inner-ring suburbs are losing population - just not at a fast rate. It's a slow bleed-out. Even Lakewood is losing population, going from 52,131 to 50,656, although it has the best chance for regaining residents.

 

Looks like Dayton is starting to bottom out. It's 2010 population is 141,527 and it's 2015 estimate is 140,599. Is downtown and the Oregon-near east side adding stabilizing it? Springfield is dipping under 60,000, heading to 59,680.

I don't consider the Cleveland loss significant at all. The city has been losing tens of thousands of people per decade. To "only" be at just over 8,000 people lost at the halfway point is actually quite encouraging. To add to that, thousands are expected to fill apartments and condos under development now. It's quite possible by 2020 for the drops to slow or even stop. Cincinnati is very encouraging as well.

It's important to note that Columbus requires annexation if they want the City of Columbus water (population surging from 787,033 to 850,106). Cincinnati does not. Other cities, like Louisville (that's gaining a lot of people), have city-county governments.

 

Further north, Cleveland went from 396,815 to 388,072, a significant loss. Not surprisingly, many of the inner-ring suburbs are losing population - just not at a fast rate. It's a slow bleed-out. Even Lakewood is losing population, going from 52,131 to 50,656, although it has the best chance for regaining residents.

 

Looks like Dayton is starting to bottom out. It's 2010 population is 141,527 and it's 2015 estimate is 140,599. Is downtown and the Oregon-near east side adding stabilizing it? Springfield is dipping under 60,000, heading to 59,680.

 

Actually Cleveland only lost around 1,000 people between estimates for the year, I thought it would be closer to 2k considering the MSA had accelerated losses. Overall loss is definitely slowing compared to the region as a whole.

It's important to note that Columbus requires annexation if they want the City of Columbus water (population surging from 787,033 to 850,106). Cincinnati does not. Other cities, like Louisville (that's gaining a lot of people), have city-county governments.

 

 

 

Columbus has annexed less than 20 square miles in the last 16 years. About 210 square miles and 711,000  in 2000 to about  225 square miles and 850,000 in 2015 -adding 15 or so square miles(much of it in the extreme south of the city and not developable land)while adding nearly 140,000 people. The rapid annexation talk was played out about 20 years ago. And Cbus is about to pass Indy(and may have by now)-only 3,000 people behind in the latest estimates-while Cbus has 225 square miles and Indy has 365 square miles.

 

That population surge from 787,000 to 850,000 happened with virtually no new annexation since 2010

I would be curious if someone is capable of making a comparison where Cincinnati and Cleveland's annexation patterns followed Columbus's and see what their city populations would be. Would be an interesting comparison.

It's important to note that Columbus requires annexation if they want the City of Columbus water (population surging from 787,033 to 850,106). Cincinnati does not. Other cities, like Louisville (that's gaining a lot of people), have city-county governments.

 

 

 

Columbus has annexed less than 20 square miles in the last 16 years. About 210 square miles and 711,000  in 2000 to about  225 square miles and 850,000 in 2015 -adding 15 or so square miles(much of it in the extreme south of the city and not developable land)while adding nearly 140,000 people. The rapid annexation talk was played out about 20 years ago. And Cbus is about to pass Indy(and may have by now)-only 3,000 people behind in the latest estimates-while Cbus has 225 square miles and Indy has 365 square miles.

 

That population surge from 787,000 to 850,000 happened with virtually no new annexation since 2010

 

Doesn't that just mean they annexed a bunch of greenfields in the past that have more recently been built out?  Indianapolis still has quite a lot of farmland in its city limits on the southeast and southwest sides so they don't have to annex anything to still see sprawl population growth, assuming other areas don't lose. 

Just because Columbus is annexing less does not mean that suburban development stopped or is slowing. While the city is seeing significant new developments within the beltway, there are a lot of farms being developed over in the southern portion that was long neglected (partially because of the landfill and former incinerator). The city is becoming denser but it's also sprawling further out - well past Columbus' boundaries.

I would be curious if someone is capable of making a comparison where Cincinnati and Cleveland's annexation patterns followed Columbus's and see what their city populations would be. Would be an interesting comparison.

 

Only if we get to have NKY's river cities

It's important to note that Columbus requires annexation if they want the City of Columbus water (population surging from 787,033 to 850,106). Cincinnati does not. Other cities, like Louisville (that's gaining a lot of people), have city-county governments.

 

 

 

Columbus has annexed less than 20 square miles in the last 16 years. About 210 square miles and 711,000  in 2000 to about  217-18 square miles and 850,000 in 2015 -adding 15 or so square miles(much of it in the extreme south of the city and not developable land)while adding nearly 140,000 people. The rapid annexation talk was played out about 20 years ago. And Cbus is about to pass Indy(and may have by now)-only 3,000 people behind in the latest estimates-while Cbus has 225 square miles and Indy has 365 square miles.

 

That population surge from 787,000 to 850,000 happened with virtually no new annexation since 2010

It is played out, but it doesn't change the fact that they did. They have made great strides in urbanization in the last few years, but having 225 square miles in your city limits, quite a bit of which is suburban style, makes it way easier to hide population loss at the neighborhood level. If you bring it down to the less than 80 square miles that both Cleveland and Cinci have, you'll see a much closer population. It will still have grown fast in the last five plus years with urbanization, but it would not be nearing 900,000 people.

Didn't someone create a "same census tracts as 1950" comparison from the 2010 census data for the 3C's? Or maybe it was "same census tracts as 1930" or something like that. Point being that it gave a really good look at what was happening at the same scale in each city since a lot of important information gets lost when boundaries are constantly changing.

Didn't someone create a "same census tracts as 1950" comparison from the 2010 census data for the 3C's? Or maybe it was "same census tracts as 1930" or something like that. Point being that it gave a really good look at what was happening at the same scale in each city since a lot of important information gets lost when boundaries are constantly changing.

The guy with the population data website...I forget the username. It was interesting, but still difficult to compare apples to apples with Cleveland and Cinci only being able to go three ways vs four.

I just remember seeing a ton of cities in the South looking really bad when you stopped their annexation. So many inner ring neighborhoods in the south are still bombed out but it's completely hidden when you expand your borders to encompass 50 new suburban developments in a decade.

I would be curious if someone is capable of making a comparison where Cincinnati and Cleveland's annexation patterns followed Columbus's and see what their city populations would be. Would be an interesting comparison.

 

I did some rough calculations a year or so ago and came up with the following for Cleveland:

 

If the City were regionalized to include the following Cuyahoga County municipalities - Parma, Lakewood, Euclid, Cleveland Hts, Garfield Heights, Shaker Hts, Maple Hts, S. Euclid, Parma Hts, Rocky River, Mayfield Hts, Brook Park, East Cleveland, Fairview Park, Lyndhurst, Warrensville Hts, Beachwood, Seven Hills, Brooklyn, and Richmond Hts - the total population would be (approx.) 902,000 over a land mass of 207 sq. miles.  A little more compact and denser than Columbus, but not by all that wide of a margin.  In pockets, those disparities grow.  I'm not all that familiar with Columbus, but I always thought it was more evenly dispersed.  Cleveland has large swaths of areas where virtually nobody lives (e.g. the industrial valley, the metroparks, midtown :()

I would be curious if someone is capable of making a comparison where Cincinnati and Cleveland's annexation patterns followed Columbus's and see what their city populations would be. Would be an interesting comparison.

 

I did some rough calculations a year or so ago and came up with the following for Cleveland:

 

If the City were regionalized to include the following Cuyahoga County municipalities - Parma, Lakewood, Euclid, Cleveland Hts, Garfield Heights, Shaker Hts, Maple Hts, S. Euclid, Parma Hts, Rocky River, Mayfield Hts, Brook Park, East Cleveland, Fairview Park, Lyndhurst, Warrensville Hts, Beachwood, Seven Hills, Brooklyn, and Richmond Hts - the total population would be (approx.) 902,000 over a land mass of 207 sq. miles.  A little more compact and denser than Columbus, but not by all that wide of a margin.  In pockets, those disparities grow.  I'm not all that familiar with Columbus, but I always thought it was more evenly dispersed.  Cleveland has large swaths of areas where virtually nobody lives (e.g. the industrial valley, the metroparks, midtown :()

But very few of those cities are growing, and most, if not all mentioned are losing people.  Columbus, in that similar square mileage is growing.  For comparison sake of square mileage, it works, but for growth and demographic, patterns it's hard to compare in that fashion. 

I wasn't commenting at all on growth patterns.  Just the numbers.  Cleveland MSA's growth areas are certainly in the outlying counties.  It's a consequence of past choices made during the City's boom time, which Columbus would be wise to consider presently.

It's important to note that Columbus requires annexation if they want the City of Columbus water (population surging from 787,033 to 850,106). Cincinnati does not. Other cities, like Louisville (that's gaining a lot of people), have city-county governments.

 

Further north, Cleveland went from 396,815 to 388,072, a significant loss. Not surprisingly, many of the inner-ring suburbs are losing population - just not at a fast rate. It's a slow bleed-out. Even Lakewood is losing population, going from 52,131 to 50,656, although it has the best chance for regaining residents.

 

Looks like Dayton is starting to bottom out. It's 2010 population is 141,527 and it's 2015 estimate is 140,599. Is downtown and the Oregon-near east side adding stabilizing it? Springfield is dipping under 60,000, heading to 59,680.

 

 

 

I admit it is not fair to compare Cbus to many other Ohio cities, especially Cleveland and Cincinnati, which in 1950 had urban area populations 3 and 2 times larger than Cbus, respectively.

 

But speaking of cities you can compare Cbus to, it is doing ok. (btw..Louisville with all of it's 385 square miles(again more than 50% larger than Cbus) only gained about 2500 people...in 385 square miles. That is not 'gaining alot of people to me.)

 

Also Nashville at over 500 square miles gained less than Columbus, adding less than 10,000 people in over twice the area.

Oklahoma City at over 600 square miles added less than Columbus, adding just a little over 10,000 people in nearly 3 times the area

Indianapolis at over 350 square miles added only 4,000 people, and at more than 50% of the area of Columbus, is probably behind Cbus now in 2016 in population.

Columbus added almost as many people as Jacksonville, which is nearly 4 times the area of Columbus.

Memphis lost population and is 100 square miles larger than Columbus.

Even the thriving Fort Worth, Charlotte, and Austin added less than 20,000 each and are all much larger than Cbus, from 265 square miles to nearly 350 square miles.

 

The city is doing ok compared to it's peers- the real deal is that in many ways Cincinnati and Cleveland are not really peers to Cbus-they are legacy cities and should really be compared to other legacy cities. We all know that they both seem larger than Columbus, and we all know why too.

 

*Also while there is growth taking place around the Columbus region, about two thirds of the growth happening in Franklin County is within Columbus city limits, and about half of all of the growth in the metro area is taking place, again, within Columbus city limits.

I think one of the most important things to keep in mind with population numbers (and I think folks on this forum are trying to put the whole picture together here) is that an absolute number based on a city's borders isn't completely meaningful on its own. It's like how a median and an average tell you two completely different things but you really need both of them to get a good understanding of whatever data you're looking at. When I think about population changes, I try to picture things on the micro (neighborhood), the municipality, and the regional (CSA, etc) level. All three can tell you completely different stories, but they provide a better perspective than simply trying to compare cities of comparable areas or of comparable populations.

 

As for Lousiville, the city pre-consolidation was losing population at a steady pace since 1970, and it would be interesting to see if the recent gains in population have come from new development in the outlying parts of the city-county or from redevelopment in some of the hotter neighborhoods in "old Louisville" (not the neighborhood, but the pre-consolidation borders), or some combination of both. Will the sprawl in the city-county eventually slow to the point where it can't keep up with the loss of population in the pre-consolidation region? At that point you have the same regional stagnant-and-shrinking effect that you see across Greater Cleveland, and it'll be interesting to see how cities like Louisville and Indy manage that type of change.

Is there any data to show where the bulk of the gains in C-bus are coming from?  Is it primarily folks abandoning smaller Ohio cities and moving to the center of the state? Being the center of government, and carrying the "Ohio State" banner must create a certain amount of identity for some who are looking to leave smaller towns or rural areas????

I think one of the most important things to keep in mind with population numbers (and I think folks on this forum are trying to put the whole picture together here) is that an absolute number based on a city's borders isn't completely meaningful on its own. It's like how a median and an average tell you two completely different things but you really need both of them to get a good understanding of whatever data you're looking at. When I think about population changes, I try to picture things on the micro (neighborhood), the municipality, and the regional (CSA, etc) level. All three can tell you completely different stories, but they provide a better perspective than simply trying to compare cities of comparable areas or of comparable populations.

 

As for Lousiville, the city pre-consolidation was losing population at a steady pace since 1970, and it would be interesting to see if the recent gains in population have come from new development in the outlying parts of the city-county or from redevelopment in some of the hotter neighborhoods in "old Louisville" (not the neighborhood, but the pre-consolidation borders), or some combination of both. Will the sprawl in the city-county eventually slow to the point where it can't keep up with the loss of population in the pre-consolidation region? At that point you have the same regional stagnant-and-shrinking effect that you see across Greater Cleveland, and it'll be interesting to see how cities like Louisville and Indy manage that type of change.

 

Indy had 744,000 people after consolidation in the 197o census after it had ballooned to 365 square miles. Indy then lost population within this 365 miles area, and did not rise above that 1970 number until the 2000 census. Even now, Indianapolis has added less than 120,000 people to it's population since the merger with Marion County. It almost seems like the merger really created the boomburgs of Fisher, Carmel, etc. Also much of the new builds are single family housing in sprawl on the outskirts while two thirds of Columbus housing recently has been multifamily. If you look at Indy, there are not great huge swaths of land available for development anymore, and the ones that kind exist in the southwest and southeast are not 'prime areas' and the development going on there is generally single family sprawl. Indy already is in a little bit of trouble IMO.

 

Indy benefits because basically Fort Wayne is not and has never been a Cleveland, and Evansville is not and has never been a Cincinnati. They are the only 'large' city in the state, and by default are going to get more things(like Pro Sports Teams) that represent the whole state. While Columbus and Indy are similar in that they benefit from being State Capitals, Indy benefits more from the lack of instate competition.

It's important to note that Columbus requires annexation if they want the City of Columbus water (population surging from 787,033 to 850,106). Cincinnati does not. Other cities, like Louisville (that's gaining a lot of people), have city-county governments.

 

Further north, Cleveland went from 396,815 to 388,072, a significant loss. Not surprisingly, many of the inner-ring suburbs are losing population - just not at a fast rate. It's a slow bleed-out. Even Lakewood is losing population, going from 52,131 to 50,656, although it has the best chance for regaining residents.

 

Looks like Dayton is starting to bottom out. It's 2010 population is 141,527 and it's 2015 estimate is 140,599. Is downtown and the Oregon-near east side adding stabilizing it? Springfield is dipping under 60,000, heading to 59,680.

 

Sorry, but Columbus does not grow its population through annexation.  Since 2010, it has grown by less than half of 1 square mile, and most of that was low-population township land.  Its annexation rate has been steadily shrinking for decades.  In the past 35 years combined, it has added fewer square miles than just the 1970s alone, yet its population growth rate has accelerated and is even exceeding those years in which annexation was at its very peak.  It's high time that the "Columbus grows through annexation" talking point dies already.

Just because Columbus is annexing less does not mean that suburban development stopped or is slowing. While the city is seeing significant new developments within the beltway, there are a lot of farms being developed over in the southern portion that was long neglected (partially because of the landfill and former incinerator). The city is becoming denser but it's also sprawling further out - well past Columbus' boundaries.

 

First, if it is happening outside of Columbus' boundaries, then it isn't Columbus sprawl.  It can't control the building patterns of surrounding suburbs and cities which have entirely different leadership and development standards.  Second, actual sprawl within the metro area has been decreasing.  Only 14 square miles of development has occurred in greenfield space in the past 5 years in the entire 10-county region, which is significantly slower than what it was even 10 or 15 years ago.  Slightly less than that has been infill development in existing urbanized areas, which is also an increase from what it once was. 

 

It's important to note that Columbus requires annexation if they want the City of Columbus water (population surging from 787,033 to 850,106). Cincinnati does not. Other cities, like Louisville (that's gaining a lot of people), have city-county governments.

 

 

 

Columbus has annexed less than 20 square miles in the last 16 years. About 210 square miles and 711,000  in 2000 to about  225 square miles and 850,000 in 2015 -adding 15 or so square miles(much of it in the extreme south of the city and not developable land)while adding nearly 140,000 people. The rapid annexation talk was played out about 20 years ago. And Cbus is about to pass Indy(and may have by now)-only 3,000 people behind in the latest estimates-while Cbus has 225 square miles and Indy has 365 square miles.

 

That population surge from 787,000 to 850,000 happened with virtually no new annexation since 2010

It is played out, but it doesn't change the fact that they did. They have made great strides in urbanization in the last few years, but having 225 square miles in your city limits, quite a bit of which is suburban style, makes it way easier to hide population loss at the neighborhood level. If you bring it down to the less than 80 square miles that both Cleveland and Cinci have, you'll see a much closer population. It will still have grown fast in the last five plus years with urbanization, but it would not be nearing 900,000 people.

 

225 square miles isn't even correct.  Even throwing any water, it's no more than around 220.  Without it, it remains at around 217-218.  Either way, this is actually close to the average size of the 50 largest US cities.  It is hardly a standout. 

It's hard to argue that much of Columbus is low-density suburbia when you consider its actual population density.  It now has greater density at 218 square miles than Cincinnati does at 79, and is perhaps a decade from passing Cleveland in density as well.  Since I don't see people arguing that either of those cities are made up of suburbia, it's hard to figure where Columbus gets this title. 

And actually, the Census does comparative population by area size.  Columbus would still easily be the largest city at 80 square miles.

Is there any data to show where the bulk of the gains in C-bus are coming from?  Is it primarily folks abandoning smaller Ohio cities and moving to the center of the state? Being the center of government, and carrying the "Ohio State" banner must create a certain amount of identity for some who are looking to leave smaller towns or rural areas????

 

The census doesn't break down origins of population growth like it does for counties and metros.  However, one can extrapolate somewhat by those numbers.  The metro area and Franklin County gain about 25% from foreign immigration, another 25% domestically, and about 50% from births vs. deaths.  The city is likely not much different than that, with perhaps a bit higher % of foreign migration than the metro as a whole.  Some evidence for that is that the population that speaks a foreign language at home within the city is rising fast.

Is there any data to show where the bulk of the gains in C-bus are coming from?  Is it primarily folks abandoning smaller Ohio cities and moving to the center of the state? Being the center of government, and carrying the "Ohio State" banner must create a certain amount of identity for some who are looking to leave smaller towns or rural areas????

 

The census doesn't break down origins of population growth like it does for counties and metros.  However, one can extrapolate somewhat by those numbers.  The metro area and Franklin County gain about 25% from foreign immigration, another 25% domestically, and about 50% from births vs. deaths.  The city is likely not much different than that, with perhaps a bit higher % of foreign migration than the metro as a whole.  Some evidence for that is that the population that speaks a foreign language at home within the city is rising fast.

 

Every year we go through this same shit. Let's stop the pissing match before it starts please.

 

And actually, the Census does comparative population by area size.  Columbus would still easily be the largest city at 80 square miles.

 

 

 

how can that be true? cols has just over twice the population (850cols/388cle=2.2) and almost 3x the area of cle & cin (210/75=2.8 ). so if the cle population holds, and yeah thats a big if *sigh*, but if so, and if cols stops annexing, cols would have to go just a parma or so over a million in population to top that density. cinci is similar no doubt.

All I'll say is that the growth numbers of Columbus are no doubt impressive, no matter how you slice it.

 

Cincinnati's "problem" with density is that it is so hilly here that neighborhoods are in pockets in a lot of the land area, there is large land area covering the corridor of the Mill Creek Valley (Though I am certain Columbus has areas like this), and the West Side in the City Limits is quite hilly especially close to the Mill Creek Valley.  Another problem with the city density is that indeed the city has lost over 200k of population in it's neighborhoods since 1950.  It's core city population was never even close to Cleveland or St. Louis, etc. when they were all at peak.  Though I assume Cincinnati was probably just as "crowded" as those other cities because of the topography, that would be interesting to find out!

 

I know Indianapolis quite well so I am not certain if I can compare Indy to C-Bus since I don't know C-Bus at all, but it seems people like to compare the two.  Indy's Center Township, which I believe was the city's boundaries before annexation started, had at it's peak 337k people in 43 sq. Miles in 1950.  It lost population all the way up through 2010 when it hit 142k, so about a 58% loss.  It has gained 4-5k people since then so it's on the upswing.  The peak density in 1950 8k people per square mile, which is quite impressive.  It is still at 3.4k people per square mile.

 

Not certain if the same is true for C-Bus but judging off what I see here, it doesn't look like C-Bus lost as many people in their center core area as did Indy.  Plus judging off here and also on google streeview, C-Bus has much better intact historic neighborhoods in their old core than does Indy, which I believe razed a ton of their old city. 

 

Not certain if C-Bus has this also but in Indy, there are huge swaths of the city which are suburban in nature that are really bombed out that go on and on.  In Cincy this would be areas I assume far up north for the city like almost up to Wyoming or Kenwood area.  So, I agree with people, it's really  hard to compare more so "legacy" cities like Cincy and Cleveland vs. Higher growth capital cities like C-Bus and Indy.  No matter how you cut it, the numbers for C-Bus are impressive and dont' look like they are slowing down soon.

In the late 1800s Cincinnati was more densely populated in its residential areas, especially the basin, than almost any other city in the world.  It's pretty obvious when looking at historic aerial photographs that Cincinnati was more densely-built than bigger cities like Baltimore and Philadelphia, and that only downtown Boston and sections of Manhattan were decisively denser.

 

All I'll say is that the growth numbers of Columbus are no doubt impressive, no matter how you slice it.

 

Cincinnati's "problem" with density is that it is so hilly here that neighborhoods are in pockets in a lot of the land area, there is large land area covering the corridor of the Mill Creek Valley (Though I am certain Columbus has areas like this), and the West Side in the City Limits is quite hilly especially close to the Mill Creek Valley.  Another problem with the city density is that indeed the city has lost over 200k of population in it's neighborhoods since 1950.  It's core city population was never even close to Cleveland or St. Louis, etc. when they were all at peak.  Though I assume Cincinnati was probably just as "crowded" as those other cities because of the topography, that would be interesting to find out!

 

I know Indianapolis quite well so I am not certain if I can compare Indy to C-Bus since I don't know C-Bus at all, but it seems people like to compare the two.  Indy's Center Township, which I believe was the city's boundaries before annexation started, had at it's peak 337k people in 43 sq. Miles in 1950.  It lost population all the way up through 2010 when it hit 142k, so about a 58% loss.  It has gained 4-5k people since then so it's on the upswing.  The peak density in 1950 8k people per square mile, which is quite impressive.  It is still at 3.4k people per square mile.

 

Not certain if the same is true for C-Bus but judging off what I see here, it doesn't look like C-Bus lost as many people in their center core area as did Indy.  Plus judging off here and also on google streeview, C-Bus has much better intact historic neighborhoods in their old core than does Indy, which I believe razed a ton of their old city. 

 

Not certain if C-Bus has this also but in Indy, there are huge swaths of the city which are suburban in nature that are really bombed out that go on and on.  In Cincy this would be areas I assume far up north for the city like almost up to Wyoming or Kenwood area.  So, I agree with people, it's really  hard to compare more so "legacy" cities like Cincy and Cleveland vs. Higher growth capital cities like C-Bus and Indy.  No matter how you cut it, the numbers for C-Bus are impressive and dont' look like they are slowing down soon.

At least from 2000-2010, you can see population changes visually here at the link below. It will be interesting to see the center city areas after the major re-urbanization movement of this decade.

 

http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map

^I'm really excited to see the 2020 census version of those maps. They have so much awesome information in them and show the start of the urban movement that has dominated the 2010s. I feel like there will be a lot of dark blue tracts in basically every city center in 2020.

Blows my mind that south-eastern Ohio was uniformly gaining population for that decade. seriously, what?

Fracking. There are areas that are declining - but not by much.

 

Interestingly enough, I was looking at a Ohio River bridge study for the Wellsburg region, and the paper (now about 5 years old) was noting the population of the counties surrounding the bridge site were expected to go into severe population decline over the next 50 years - losing as much as 30% to 50% of the population. That was before the fracking boom.

 

And actually, the Census does comparative population by area size.  Columbus would still easily be the largest city at 80 square miles.

 

 

 

how can that be true? cols has just over twice the population (850cols/388cle=2.2) and almost 3x the area of cle & cin (210/75=2.8 ). so if the cle population holds, and yeah thats a big if *sigh*, but if so, and if cols stops annexing, cols would have to go just a parma or so over a million in population to top that density. cinci is similar no doubt.

 

You are probably making the common mistake of assuming that much of Columbus' population is out near and along its boundaries, but the reality is the opposite.  Most of its population is closer to the core, just like in Cincinnati and Cleveland.  As the guy with the data mentioned earlier, I have personally gone over the numbers in numerous ways, from measuring different square mile areas to going down to the census block level.  In all the ways I have looked at in regards to city limits, I have found that just 1 way does Columbus not come out on top- in the CBD.  Columbus easily has the lowest Downtown population of the 3- or did so as of 2010.  Go just outside of that area, though, and the story is much different.  And if anyone feels like I have unfairly manipulated numbers, they are free to go do them themselves.  The Census offers all kinds of ways to do it if one is willing to put in the effort. 

 

At the current rate of growth, Columbus will hit 1 million before 2030- probably between 2026-2028.  The fact that Cleveland's population continues to fall, unfortunately, means that the density gap is closing all that much faster.  As far as Cincinnati, Columbus passed it sometime in 2014 or 2015. 

 

It's important to note that Columbus requires annexation if they want the City of Columbus water (population surging from 787,033 to 850,106). Cincinnati does not. Other cities, like Louisville (that's gaining a lot of people), have city-county governments.

 

Further north, Cleveland went from 396,815 to 388,072, a significant loss. Not surprisingly, many of the inner-ring suburbs are losing population - just not at a fast rate. It's a slow bleed-out. Even Lakewood is losing population, going from 52,131 to 50,656, although it has the best chance for regaining residents.

 

Looks like Dayton is starting to bottom out. It's 2010 population is 141,527 and it's 2015 estimate is 140,599. Is downtown and the Oregon-near east side adding stabilizing it? Springfield is dipping under 60,000, heading to 59,680.

 

 

 

I admit it is not fair to compare Cbus to many other Ohio cities, especially Cleveland and Cincinnati, which in 1950 had urban area populations 3 and 2 times larger than Cbus, respectively.

 

But speaking of cities you can compare Cbus to, it is doing ok. (btw..Louisville with all of it's 385 square miles(again more than 50% larger than Cbus) only gained about 2500 people...in 385 square miles. That is not 'gaining alot of people to me.)

 

Also Nashville at over 500 square miles gained less than Columbus, adding less than 10,000 people in over twice the area.

Oklahoma City at over 600 square miles added less than Columbus, adding just a little over 10,000 people in nearly 3 times the area

Indianapolis at over 350 square miles added only 4,000 people, and at more than 50% of the area of Columbus, is probably behind Cbus now in 2016 in population.

Columbus added almost as many people as Jacksonville, which is nearly 4 times the area of Columbus.

Memphis lost population and is 100 square miles larger than Columbus.

Even the thriving Fort Worth, Charlotte, and Austin added less than 20,000 each and are all much larger than Cbus, from 265 square miles to nearly 350 square miles.

 

The city is doing ok compared to it's peers- the real deal is that in many ways Cincinnati and Cleveland are not really peers to Cbus-they are legacy cities and should really be compared to other legacy cities. We all know that they both seem larger than Columbus, and we all know why too.

 

*Also while there is growth taking place around the Columbus region, about two thirds of the growth happening in Franklin County is within Columbus city limits, and about half of all of the growth in the metro area is taking place, again, within Columbus city limits.

 

As to your last point, I want to offer up some maps I saw on another site that were pretty interesting.  The maps look at the CSAs from 1940-2010 and measure where land was developed over each decade.  For Columbus, the VAST majority of development took place in the northern half of Franklin County.  There is surprisingly little major development anywhere else, even in Delaware County.  The Columbus MSA and CSA population is incredibly compact in terms of where population and development actually are.  Meanwhile, you don't necessarily see that same pattern for the Cleveland and Cincinnati CSA maps.  It's clear that as the core cities lost population, the suburban areas boomed instead, and overall development was much more widespread. 

 

Here are the links to each gif.

Cincinnati CSA: https://s3.amazonaws.com/research.buildzoom/Projects/2016/Slowdown/Maps/Cincinnati_Wilmington_Maysville__loop.gif

 

Cleveland CSA: https://s3.amazonaws.com/research.buildzoom/Projects/2016/Slowdown/Maps/Cleveland_Akron_Canton__OH_CSA_loop.gif

 

Columbus CSA: https://s3.amazonaws.com/research.buildzoom/Projects/2016/Slowdown/Maps/Columbus_Marion_Zanesville__OH_C_loop.gif

It's hard to argue that much of Columbus is low-density suburbia when you consider its actual population density.  It now has greater density at 218 square miles than Cincinnati does at 79, and is perhaps a decade from passing Cleveland in density as well.  Since I don't see people arguing that either of those cities are made up of suburbia, it's hard to figure where Columbus gets this title. 

 

Low density and "suburbia" aren't quite the same thing.  Much of Columbus is car-dependent by design, with land uses separated into big uniform chunks.  That qualifies as suburbia regardless of population density.  Adding people doesn't make the grocery more walkable, nor does it put rail on High Street.  Columbus even held a special vote so it could have a suburban casino.  That still blows my mind.

^^Different stages of the cities life cycles / boom times.  If you did the same map for Cleveland for the first half of the 20th Century, or Cincy probably going well back into the 1800's, the density would blow away any City being built up in modern times.  I'm not sure where Cincy is, as it seems that city preserved more of its bones than Cleveland, but Cleveland is basically restarting the cycle now.  Most development in the City is occurring in downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods, with a few outlying area (such as University Circle and Gordon Square).  The growth pattern will be different this time, as it truly will be infill as opposed to build out.  It will never reach the same density level it once was, but it also has the advantage (at least IMO) of not having a bunch of steady, suburban style neighborhoods standing in the way of its urban planning for the next century.

Low density and "suburbia" aren't quite the same thing.  Much of Columbus is car-dependent by design, with land uses separated into big uniform chunks.  That qualifies as suburbia regardless of population density.  Adding people doesn't make the grocery more walkable, nor does it put rail on High Street.  Columbus even held a special vote so it could have a suburban casino.  That still blows my mind.

 

I wasn't aware that designing infrastructure around cars qualified an area as suburban.

I think it's the key determining factor.  Even when you live on the 50th floor of a high rise, having to drive everywhere is still a suburban lifestyle.  And ultimately the way people live is what we're talking about.  Density is just a statistic.

It's the reason the tower-in-the-park style public housing complexes throughout NYC are nowhere near as interesting or urban as significantly less dense, but built-to-the-sidewalk-with-ground-floor-retail neighborhoods.

^ Also exactly why I'm not terribly excited about random high rises like the Skyhouse or whatever on East Pete Rose way. vast majority of people living there will Uber to Fountain square, let alone Senate or Washington Park.

It's hard to argue that much of Columbus is low-density suburbia when you consider its actual population density.  It now has greater density at 218 square miles than Cincinnati does at 79, and is perhaps a decade from passing Cleveland in density as well.  Since I don't see people arguing that either of those cities are made up of suburbia, it's hard to figure where Columbus gets this title. 

 

Low density and "suburbia" aren't quite the same thing.  Much of Columbus is car-dependent by design, with land uses separated into big uniform chunks.  That qualifies as suburbia regardless of population density.  Adding people doesn't make the grocery more walkable, nor does it put rail on High Street.  Columbus even held a special vote so it could have a suburban casino.  That still blows my mind.

 

I think you are also conflating "urban" with "walkable", and they are also not the same thing.  There are plenty of urban areas that have little walkability, and there are also suburban areas that are very walkable.  The claim was that Columbus was very suburban, and suburbia's definition has nothing to do with walkability, but about low-density development patterns. 

 

Columbus didn't have a special vote, the state of Ohio voted to move the casino when it was placed on the ballot.  The reasoning Columbus wanted it on the ballot at all was that they didn't want a suburban-style casino (massive parking lots and all) in a very urban neighborhood like the Arena District, and Hollywood specifically stated they were going to build that very thing.  The idea was also that the West Side could both use the development and jobs.  Ironically, despite not being Downtown and getting a lot of criticism by some for being in a more out of the way location, it now tends to be #1 or #2 in the state in terms of revenues.  And the land that was going to be the casino site is planned for a pretty massive mixed-use development.  So overall, hardly a failure.

*sigh* the definition of suburban isn't ONLY low-density or ONLY automobile-oriented, there's aspects of both.  Some even define suburban has having a hierarchical (disconnected, funneling, tree-branch-like) street network, regardless of the density.  Many areas considered suburban in other cultures would be "OMG teh inner-city ghetto!" to Americans, but they're mostly bedroom communities removed from the commercial city center. 

 

 

Columbus didn't have a special vote, the state of Ohio voted to move the casino when it was placed on the ballot.  The reasoning Columbus wanted it on the ballot at all was that they didn't want a suburban-style casino (massive parking lots and all) in a very urban neighborhood like the Arena District, and Hollywood specifically stated they were going to build that very thing.  The idea was also that the West Side could both use the development and jobs.  Ironically, despite not being Downtown and getting a lot of criticism by some for being in a more out of the way location, it now tends to be #1 or #2 in the state in terms of revenues.  And the land that was going to be the casino site is planned for a pretty massive mixed-use development.  So overall, hardly a failure.

 

And as most pundits (i.e. realists) predicted, the casino didn't lead to much actual economic development outside its doors. The tiny (as in number of people) Columbus power structure knew this as well and wanted it away from Downtown so that they could create or enable real economic development DT and in the AD. I thank our overlords for their insight.

 

 

Columbus didn't have a special vote, the state of Ohio voted to move the casino when it was placed on the ballot.  The reasoning Columbus wanted it on the ballot at all was that they didn't want a suburban-style casino (massive parking lots and all) in a very urban neighborhood like the Arena District, and Hollywood specifically stated they were going to build that very thing.  The idea was also that the West Side could both use the development and jobs.  Ironically, despite not being Downtown and getting a lot of criticism by some for being in a more out of the way location, it now tends to be #1 or #2 in the state in terms of revenues.  And the land that was going to be the casino site is planned for a pretty massive mixed-use development.  So overall, hardly a failure.

 

And as most pundits (i.e. realists) predicted, the casino didn't lead to much actual economic development outside its doors. The tiny (as in number of people) Columbus power structure knew this as well and wanted it away from Downtown so that they could create or enable real economic development DT and in the AD. I thank our overlords for their insight.

 

There has been some, though, and I don't think you can argue that this area is worse off than before the casino was built.  I don't think anyone thought it would be some panacea.  It got the ball rolling, that's all.  As for what will go into the AD, it is FAR better. 

Cleveland population loss slows; find latest census estimates for every U.S. city, county and state

By Rich Exner, cleveland.com

on May 19, 2016 at 12:01 AM, updated May 19, 2016 at 7:38 PM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio - Cleveland's population decline has slowed considerably over the last few years, according to new estimates released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau.

 

The latest estimates, which are for July 2015, place Cleveland's population at 388,072, down 2.2 percent from 396,815 when the census was taken in 2010.

 

If the estimates are accurate at the midway point before the next official count in 2020, Cleveland is on pace for its smallest loss since its population peaked at 914,808 in 1950.

 

Cleveland lost an estimated 8,843 people in the five years since the last census, in comparison to an official loss of 81,462 from 2000 to 2010.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2016/05/cleveland_population_slows_fin.html