2010 numbers are reliable for what reality was in 2010, but not for 2018. Columbus was very different in 2010 than it is in 2018. All you have to do is spend an hour driving around the city to see the growth. 

 

Now, I would agree that 2010 census figures paint a more accurate picture of what reality was in 2010 than 2018 estimates do for 2018.

 

Yeah, it's more of a conundrum for regions with big changes like Columbus. Estimates are notoriously prone to major corrections, so it's just problematic overall that there isn't any good data for 2018.

 

My hypothesis is that we will see that the estimates this decade are much closer to reality than past estimates were proven to be. The Census has continued to refine and improve their methodology and the process has gotten a lot better. There will be misses but I'm comfortable with the 2018 data as a decent snapshot of reality.

I think topography and land use certainly play a part in the differences in population density, but I don't think that's the whole story.

 

Take a look at the total square miles that are considered to be part of these urban areas. Cleveland has a total population of 1,760,000 over 772 square miles for a population density of 2,300. Cincinnati has a total population of 1,675,000 over 788 square miles for a population density of 2,100. Columbus has a total population of 1,540,000 over 510 miles for a population density of 2,700.

 

With that in mind, I think another factor is that Cleveland and Cincinnati have low-density suburbs extending further from the urban core than what Columbus has which are still considered part of the urban area. This is likely due to the time in which the three cities saw population growth and also their proximity to other mid-sized cities. The Cleveland suburbs had the Akron suburbs to connect to, and the Cincinnati suburbs had the Dayton suburbs to connect to. Columbus didn't have another citiy's suburbs to connect to, so it grew fairly evenly in each direction until recently. We are now seeing the northern suburbs in Delaware County growing like crazy because it has Delaware to connect to, and we are also seeing the New Albany area grow eastward toward Granville/Newark.

 

I won't dispute this, but topography and land use are the primary reasons why this is the case. Cincinnati and Cleveland's suburbs extend further out because there is a lack of flat/appropriate land close in. When you have flat open land in any direction you can just develop it.

 

You cannot claim that topography and land use are the primary reason unless you have empirical data to prove it. It's virtually impossible to know the true reason for differences in density numbers, so it's not productive to claim one factor is the main reason for variances.

 

I think another "non-permanent" factor that influences population density today is vacancy rates. I don't have the numbers in front me right now, but I would imagine both Cleveland and Cincinnati have higher vacancy rates than Columbus does, especially closer to the urban core.

 

I think topography and land use certainly play a part in the differences in population density, but I don't think that's the whole story.

 

Take a look at the total square miles that are considered to be part of these urban areas. Cleveland has a total population of 1,760,000 over 772 square miles for a population density of 2,300. Cincinnati has a total population of 1,675,000 over 788 square miles for a population density of 2,100. Columbus has a total population of 1,540,000 over 510 miles for a population density of 2,700.

 

With that in mind, I think another factor is that Cleveland and Cincinnati have low-density suburbs extending further from the urban core than what Columbus has which are still considered part of the urban area. This is likely due to the time in which the three cities saw population growth and also their proximity to other mid-sized cities. The Cleveland suburbs had the Akron suburbs to connect to, and the Cincinnati suburbs had the Dayton suburbs to connect to. Columbus didn't have another citiy's suburbs to connect to, so it grew fairly evenly in each direction until recently. We are now seeing the northern suburbs in Delaware County growing like crazy because it has Delaware to connect to, and we are also seeing the New Albany area grow eastward toward Granville/Newark.

 

I won't dispute this, but topography and land use are the primary reasons why this is the case. Cincinnati and Cleveland's suburbs extend further out because there is a lack of flat/appropriate land close in. When you have flat open land in any direction you can just develop it.

 

You cannot claim that topography and land use are the primary reason unless you have empirical data to prove it. It's virtually impossible to know the true reason for differences in density numbers, so it's not productive to claim one factor is the main reason for variances.

 

I think another "non-permanent" factor that influences population density today is vacancy rates. I don't have the numbers in front me right now, but I would imagine both Cleveland and Cincinnati have higher vacancy rates than Columbus does, especially closer to the urban core.

 

Cincinnati and Cleveland are older cities, so absent topography and land use issues there is no credible reason to believe that they would not be denser than Columbus. All of the urban planning literature backs up that idea. It's not a value judgement, it's just the way cities in the US developed at different time periods. My guess is that, if things continue the way they are, in 20 years or so Columbus will be denser than Cincinnati and Cleveland in both actual density and perceived density for the vast majority of residents. This is not a contest for me, and I would like to see all three Ohio cities densify and grow substantially.

 

These are just my observations as a professional in the field of urban planning who has studied the issue extensively.

 

Also, without looking at the numbers, I doubt vacancy effects the top line number that much--though vacant land that once housed people probably have a noticeable effect.

Cincinnati has plenty of borderline-exurban tracts within the city limits. Most of the west side is no more dense than any Columbus neighborhood, and huge swaths of Hyde Park, Mount Lookout, and Clifton are effectively suburban subdivisions with huge lots. Even Walnut Hills is mostly large single-family homes.

I think topography and land use certainly play a part in the differences in population density, but I don't think that's the whole story.

 

Take a look at the total square miles that are considered to be part of these urban areas. Cleveland has a total population of 1,760,000 over 772 square miles for a population density of 2,300. Cincinnati has a total population of 1,675,000 over 788 square miles for a population density of 2,100. Columbus has a total population of 1,540,000 over 510 miles for a population density of 2,700.

 

With that in mind, I think another factor is that Cleveland and Cincinnati have low-density suburbs extending further from the urban core than what Columbus has which are still considered part of the urban area. This is likely due to the time in which the three cities saw population growth and also their proximity to other mid-sized cities. The Cleveland suburbs had the Akron suburbs to connect to, and the Cincinnati suburbs had the Dayton suburbs to connect to. Columbus didn't have another citiy's suburbs to connect to, so it grew fairly evenly in each direction until recently. We are now seeing the northern suburbs in Delaware County growing like crazy because it has Delaware to connect to, and we are also seeing the New Albany area grow eastward toward Granville/Newark.

 

I won't dispute this, but topography and land use are the primary reasons why this is the case. Cincinnati and Cleveland's suburbs extend further out because there is a lack of flat/appropriate land close in. When you have flat open land in any direction you can just develop it.

 

You cannot claim that topography and land use are the primary reason unless you have empirical data to prove it. It's virtually impossible to know the true reason for differences in density numbers, so it's not productive to claim one factor is the main reason for variances.

 

I think another "non-permanent" factor that influences population density today is vacancy rates. I don't have the numbers in front me right now, but I would imagine both Cleveland and Cincinnati have higher vacancy rates than Columbus does, especially closer to the urban core.

 

Cincinnati and Cleveland are older cities, so absent topography and land use issues there is no credible reason to believe that they would not be denser than Columbus. All of the urban planning literature backs up that idea. It's not a value judgement, it's just the way cities in the US developed at different time periods. My guess is that, if things continue the way they are, in 20 years or so Columbus will be denser than Cincinnati and Cleveland in both actual density and perceived density for the vast majority of residents. This is not a contest for me, and I would like to see all three Ohio cities densify and grow substantially.

 

These are just my observations as a professional in the field of urban planning who has studied the issue extensively.

 

Also, without looking at the numbers, I doubt vacancy effects the top line number that much--though vacant land that once housed people probably have a noticeable effect.

 

There are many credible reasons to believe that, absent the topography and land issues, they would not be denser than Columbus. Both cities benefited greatly from their geographic location on bodies of water which were hugely important for trade at the time the cities were established and growing. These were huge benefits for both cities compared to Columbus in the early days. Land use piggy-backed on the geographic location and was also a huge reason for the large populations of these cities compared to Columbus many years ago.

 

Making arguments about what Cleveland and Cincinnati would be like without their topography/geographical location is about as useless as making argument about what Columbus would be like if it wasn't the state capitol and if Ohio State didn't exist. Without these things, these cities would not be what they are today.

 

Finally, this is not a contest me either. I'm not trying to make positive or negative comments toward any one city with regard to their density. My initial comment was simply that I found it interesting that Columbus has a higher population density using that population statistic and that caused me to theorize the many different factors that could influence the density. For me, none of this demographics conversation is a contest. There is no reason for it to be.

From 2017 ACS, percent vacant housing units by Urbanized Area:

 

Cincy - 8.41%

Cleve - 10.44%

Cbus - 7.86%

 

By municipality:

 

Cincy - 14.57%

Cleve - 19.28%

Cbus - 9.27%

Is there a formula for perceived density?  The numbers we have show Cbus with the greatest density - It doesn't really matter if it's because there's a big hill or a body of water.  Overall, that is the average density for the city's boundaries.

 

Perceived density seems like it may be aiming at the most common density level an average person in a city experiences/lives in.  E.g. The median density a person in x city lives in.

 

I may be way off, but if not, it seems like this would be a fairly straightforward number to calculate - albeit, I have no idea where these stats are.  Perceived density, I suppose, may also take into consideration things like temporary populations (students, workers in central business districts, tourists), and that would certainly be harder to calculate but is probably important.  I know my neighborhood has cruise lines dock a couple blocks away every weekend - that significantly adds to the number of people walking around but likely wouldn't be calculated in traditional numbers.

Built density and then how many people are living in a typical unit are the two big variables.  A poorer area will tend to have more people living in a house or apartment unit, but then also tend to have more vacant lots and vacant buildings. 

 

The only way Columbus could be decisively denser than either Cincinnati or Cleveland is if they have an unusually high number of people living in apartment buildings, which is doubtful. 

 

 

There are many credible reasons to believe that, absent the topography and land issues, they would not be denser than Columbus. Both cities benefited greatly from their geographic location on bodies of water which were hugely important for trade at the time the cities were established and growing. These were huge benefits for both cities compared to Columbus in the early days. Land use piggy-backed on the geographic location and was also a huge reason for the large populations of these cities compared to Columbus many years ago.

 

The fact that both cities benefited from their geographic location doesn't refute my point at all. It goes hand in hand. They were large, 19th Century cities that developed before the automobile was a factor. That's why their perceived density is higher. Without the hills or the weird shapes of the Cuyahoga and Ohio River valleys they would probably look a lot more like Philadelphia, with downtown street grids that extend uninterrupted in every direction. But yes, their location were huge benefits, that's the point.

 

 

Making arguments about what Cleveland and Cincinnati would be like without their topography/geographical location is about as useless as making argument about what Columbus would be like if it wasn't the state capitol and if Ohio State didn't exist. Without these things, these cities would not be what they are today.

 

Agreed. That's why I'm not making that argument. I'm simply observing a fact about how they actually did develop.

 

 

Finally, this is not a contest me either. I'm not trying to make positive or negative comments toward any one city with regard to their density. My initial comment was simply that I found it interesting that Columbus has a higher population density using that population statistic and that caused me to theorize the many different factors that could influence the density. For me, none of this demographics conversation is a contest. There is no reason for it to be.

 

I didn't think that you were. I just wanted to clarify my position, since I have "cincy" in my user name and you have "cbus" in yours. I didn't want you to think that I was trying to say one was better than the other. These conversations tend to revert to that here.

Is there a formula for perceived density?  The numbers we have show Cbus with the greatest density - It doesn't really matter if it's because there's a big hill or a body of water.  Overall, that is the average density for the city's boundaries.

 

Perceived density seems like it may be aiming at the most common density level an average person in a city experiences/lives in.  E.g. The median density a person in x city lives in.

 

I may be way off, but if not, it seems like this would be a fairly straightforward number to calculate - albeit, I have no idea where these stats are.  Perceived density, I suppose, may also take into consideration things like temporary populations (students, workers in central business districts, tourists), and that would certainly be harder to calculate but is probably important.  I know my neighborhood has cruise lines dock a couple blocks away every weekend - that significantly adds to the number of people walking around but likely wouldn't be calculated in traditional numbers.

 

There is and you basically hit the nail on the head. It's the average density of Census tracts in which people live. So it removes water, undevelopable land, and places where zero people live. The Census Bureau did a report on it a few years ago I believe, but they only published the numbers for the top and bottom metros. I don't think anyone has done an analysis just looking at the urbanized areas. I also have never seen the Census Bureau's raw data from the report, which I'm sure includes all large metros.

 

Daytime population is also a thing, which takes into account people who commute in minus those who commute out.

Built density and then how many people are living in a typical unit are the two big variables.  A poorer area will tend to have more people living in a house or apartment unit, but then also tend to have more vacant lots and vacant buildings. 

 

The only way Columbus could be decisively denser than either Cincinnati or Cleveland is if they have an unusually high number of people living in apartment buildings, which is doubtful. 

 

 

Currently in Columbus we have huge numbers of immigrants/refugees from Africa. When these people come to Columbus, they often end up cramming together in apartments in either the Northland area or the Blacklick/East Broad area, as well as various other pockets of the city. We also have the largest population of Bhutanese-Nepali people outside of Bhutan at nearly 30,000 and growing. These people also cram large families into apartment units, largely in the Blacklick/East Broad area as well.  If trends continue, I wouldn't be surprised if this starts to have a measurable impact on density numbers in Columbus.

 

Going off of this thought, I would have to say that the campus area gives Columbus a huge bump in density. UC certainly helps out Cincinnati, but not to the same extent OSU helps out Columbus. The areas surrounding OSU are the most densely populated areas in the state. In these areas, you can have house after house after house with 20 people living in each house. It's essentially the effect that a poor area gets when a large number of people live in a unit, without the increase in a vacancy that a poor area experiences.

The Bhutanese population growth is taking place throughout the state. The Cincinnati community numbers over 12,000 and Akron has a large concentration as well. I don't know about Cleveland, but I would assume the story is the same. The state should be doing everything they can to attract more immigrants like this. We should let these folks know that, despite the national political scene, they are welcome in Ohio.

The Bhutanese population growth is taking place throughout the state. The Cincinnati community numbers over 12,000 and Akron has a large concentration as well. I don't know about Cleveland, but I would assume the story is the same. The state should be doing everything they can to attract more immigrants like this. We should let these folks know that, despite the national political scene, they are welcome in Ohio.

 

Yes, I understand it's happening in other places, it's just happening to a much larger extent in Columbus.

 

I think we should encourage immigrants to come to our state assuming they will add value to our state. I'm not saying discriminate based on nationality or ethnicity, but rather target people who will be more likely to add value to our society and economy and encourage them to chose Ohio over other competing states. Sure, everyone is welcome here, but we should seek out the best rather than simply trying to add as many people as possible.

The Bhutanese population growth is taking place throughout the state. The Cincinnati community numbers over 12,000 and Akron has a large concentration as well. I don't know about Cleveland, but I would assume the story is the same. The state should be doing everything they can to attract more immigrants like this. We should let these folks know that, despite the national political scene, they are welcome in Ohio.

 

Yes, I understand it's happening in other places, it's just happening to a much larger extent in Columbus.

 

I think we should encourage immigrants to come to our state assuming they will add value to our state. I'm not saying discriminate based on nationality or ethnicity, but rather target people who will be more likely to add value to our society and economy and encourage them to chose Ohio over other competing states. Sure, everyone is welcome here, but we should seek out the best rather than simply trying to add as many people as possible.

 

Well Ohio has the largest share of college graduates among immigrants of any state, so I'd say we're already seeking out the best. But we are also in the bottom tier for total number of immigrants, so we need to up our numbers overall or we'll be facing large population declines very soon.

The Bhutanese population growth is taking place throughout the state. The Cincinnati community numbers over 12,000 and Akron has a large concentration as well. I don't know about Cleveland, but I would assume the story is the same. The state should be doing everything they can to attract more immigrants like this. We should let these folks know that, despite the national political scene, they are welcome in Ohio.

 

Cleveland isn't very welcoming to immigrants but some of its suburbs are, like my city of Lakewood. Just the number of Bhutanese and Nepalese are quite evident in Lakewood's east-end neighborhoods and have been for several years. We had a Nepalese grocery store down the street but they closed and are looking for a new location. My wife's friend from Ukraine lived in a building near the West 117th station that was like the United Nations. It seemed like the only language rarely spoken there was English.

The Bhutanese population growth is taking place throughout the state. The Cincinnati community numbers over 12,000 and Akron has a large concentration as well. I don't know about Cleveland, but I would assume the story is the same. The state should be doing everything they can to attract more immigrants like this. We should let these folks know that, despite the national political scene, they are welcome in Ohio.

 

Cleveland isn't very welcoming to immigrants but some of its suburbs are, like my city of Lakewood. Just the number of Bhutanese and Nepalese are quite evident in Lakewood's east-end neighborhoods and have been for several years. We had a Nepalese grocery store down the street but they closed and are looking for a new location. My wife's friend from Ukraine lived in a building near the West 117th station that was like the United Nations. It seemed like the only language rarely spoken there was English.

 

This sounds like the Walmart at Easton in Columbus. I'm pretty sure I've been the only English speaking native born American in the store on multiple occasions.

 

 

^Speaking of refugees,

 

Bhutanese Refugee settlements --first 9months of 2018

Akron 63

Cincinnati 23

Cleveland 21

Cleveland Hts 12

Columbus 88

Cuyahoga Falls 6

Stow 1

 

and for KJP:

 

Ukraine 128

Cleveland 1

Cleveland Heights 54

Columbus 40

Parma 27

Parma Heights 4

Strongsville 2

 

 

the biggest group was from DRC:

 

Dem. Rep. Congo 325

Akron 54

Cincinnati 17

Cleveland 102

Cleveland Heights 18

Columbus 54

Dayton 61

Kettering 8

Lakewood 6

Toledo 5

^Speaking of refugees,

 

Bhutanese Refugee settlements --first 9months of 2018

Akron 63

Cincinnati 23

Cleveland 21

Cleveland Hts 12

Columbus 88

Cuyahoga Falls 6

Stow 1

 

and for KJP:

 

Ukraine 128

Cleveland 1

Cleveland Heights 54

Columbus 40

Parma 27

Parma Heights 4

Strongsville 2

 

 

the biggest group was from DRC:

 

Dem. Rep. Congo 325

Akron 54

Cincinnati 17

Cleveland 102

Cleveland Heights 18

Columbus 54

Dayton 61

Kettering 8

Lakewood 6

Toledo 5

 

This is interesting, where's this data available?

To my point about immigration:

 

"Immigration was once a key part of that proud history: Back in 1910, nearly 13 percent of Ohio residents were foreign born. Today, the national average for foreign-born residents remains about the same, at 13.6 percent, but Ohio’s share has collapsed to 4.4 percent, fifth lowest in the U.S. And Ohio cities aren’t picking up the slack. Here’s how we rank in foreign-born population among America’s 40 largest metros: 31st (Columbus), 36th (Cleveland), and 38th (Cincinnati)."

 

https://www.cincinnatimagazine.com/citywiseblog/make-ohio-great-again/

There is something weird about how Ohio's part of the country has largely been passed over by Hispanic immigration. Yes, there are Hispanic communities in each of Ohio's big cities, and yes those numbers have grown dramatically. But, as DEPACincy[/member] notes, our share of immigrants is a fraction of other states. Pittsburgh has the lowest levels of Hispanic immigration of any major city in the country, I think, and Cincinnati can't be too far behind. I know a lot of immigration just follows job availability and proximity to the border, but I don't know if that tells the whole story.

There is something weird about how Ohio's part of the country has largely been passed over by Hispanic immigration. Yes, there are Hispanic communities in each of Ohio's big cities, and yes those numbers have grown dramatically. But, as DEPACincy[/member] notes, our share of immigrants is a fraction of other states. Pittsburgh has the lowest levels of Hispanic immigration of any major city in the country, I think, and Cincinnati can't be too far behind. I know a lot of immigration just follows job availability and proximity to the border, but I don't know if that tells the whole story.

 

Not really weird IMO. We aren't on the southern border and are not a gateway city like NYC.

^ True, but places like Virginia and North Carolina have experienced huge waves of Hispanic immigration. Even Midwestern cities like Milwaukee and Indianapolis have much larger Hispanic populations than any of the 3 Cs. The Hispanic population (gross numbers and percentages) in the Ohio cities + Pittsburgh + Louisville are all some of the lowest in the country for big cities. I think that's weird.

^There's a difference between Mexican and Puerto Rican, DR, etc.  Cleveland has a good-sized Puerto Rican population, enough to warrant, until Hurricane Maria, a direct, weekly flight for the past 15-20 or so years.

^There's a difference between Mexican and Puerto Rican, DR, etc.  Cleveland has a good-sized Puerto Rican population, enough to warrant, until Hurricane Maria, a direct, weekly flight for the past 15-20 or so years.

 

I keep hoping JetBlue or somebody will restore the flight, even if it's only once a week.

^There's a difference between Mexican and Puerto Rican, DR, etc.  Cleveland has a good-sized Puerto Rican population, enough to warrant, until Hurricane Maria, a direct, weekly flight for the past 15-20 or so years.

 

Puerto Ricans aren't immigrants.

^Yes, that is true.  I thought we were talking about Hispanic population in general. I was responding to this:

 

Even Midwestern cities like Milwaukee and Indianapolis have much larger Hispanic populations than any of the 3 Cs. The Hispanic population (gross numbers and percentages) in the Ohio cities + Pittsburgh + Louisville are all some of the lowest in the country for big cities. I think that's weird.

^ Ok, fair enough. I was still thinking in terms of immigration, since that's where we started.

 

Cleveland definitely gets a boost in diversity from the PR population. Could be a good launching pad for attracting Latin-American immigration, having a reasonably large Spanish-speaking population. Other large/mid-size OH cities certainly don't have that.

^and speaking of Hurricane Maria, the Cleveland PR community did get a boost. Not sure of exact number, but at least a couple thousand people have moved from PR to CLE, and apparently people are still moving.

^and speaking of Hurricane Maria, the Cleveland PR community did get a boost. Not sure of exact number, but at least a couple thousand people have moved from PR to CLE, and apparently people are still moving.

 

From the Cleveland population thread, roughly 1800 newcomers from Puerto Rico to Cleveland this past year:

 

Sounds like they need some help:

 

Puerto Ricans Resettled In Cleveland Still Struggling One Year After Maria

AUTHOR

Lecia Bushak

PUBLISHED September 20, 2018

 

In Cleveland’s Ohio City neighborhood at the Spanish American Committee, the last year has seen a flow of people resettling from Puerto Rico — and it’s not stopping anytime soon, says Executive Director Ramonita Vargas.

 

"This organization has seen over 780 families, and over 1800 individuals in the last year and still coming every day," Vargas said.

 

Vargas says many of those 1800 people have applied for housing through Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority, but most are still displaced, living out of friends’ basements or shelters, one year later.

 

"10 percent of the people that have come here and put in the application for CMHA have found apartments," Vargas said. "10 percent. And 15 percent have found jobs. But the rest are still just looking, waiting."

 

http://www.ideastream.org/news/puerto-ricans-resettled-in-cleveland-still-struggling-one-year-after-maria

 

^That 1800 figure refers to the number of people who were seen/helped by the Spanish American Committee. Its probable that not every single person who moved from PR to CLE also stopped in at the Spanish American Committee. So the number is at least 1800, but likely higher. No idea--3k? 4k?

^There's a difference between Mexican and Puerto Rican, DR, etc.  Cleveland has a good-sized Puerto Rican population, enough to warrant, until Hurricane Maria, a direct, weekly flight for the past 15-20 or so years.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this post. Yes, of course Mexico and Puerto Rico are different places....? Maybe I am misunderstanding the point you're trying to make.

 

I know that Cleveland's Latino community skews much more toward the Caribbean than Mexico, and that makes it a bit of an outlier in the Midwest. Cleveland does have a sizable Puerto Rican community, but the total population of Latinos is pretty small. Let's look at some numbers (2010 census data):

 

Cleveland:

10% Latino

2010 population: 396,000

# of Latinos: 39,600

 

Columbus:

5.6% Hispanic (primary country of origin is Mexico)

2010 population: 787,000

# of Hispanics: 44,072

 

Cincinnati:

3% Hispanic (Mexico and Central American countries represent the most common countries of origin)

2010 population: 296,000

# of Hispanics: 8,800 (!)

 

Milwaukee

17% Hispanic

2010 population: 594,000

# of Hispanics: 100,980

 

Indianapolis

10% Hispanic

2010 population: 820,000

# of Hispanics: 82,000

 

Now, I know that these numbers are almost a decade out of date, and I know enough about demographic trends to realize that many recent immigrants are bypassing urban cores, and living in suburban areas. In Cincinnati's case, the heart of the Hispanic community is in the northern suburbs, and the total community at the metro level is about 60,000 people strong, which isn't insignificant. I don't know if there are any lessons that can be learned from other cities about how to best attract immigrants, but there's no doubt that our cities could use the shot in the arm that immigrants can provide. I'm a bit of a demographics nerd, so I find this stuff endlessly interesting.

 

^There's a difference between Mexican and Puerto Rican, DR, etc.  Cleveland has a good-sized Puerto Rican population, enough to warrant, until Hurricane Maria, a direct, weekly flight for the past 15-20 or so years.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this post. Yes, of course Mexico and Puerto Rico are different places....? Maybe I am misunderstanding the point you're trying to make.

 

I know that Cleveland's Latino community skews much more toward the Caribbean than Mexico, and that makes it a bit of an outlier in the Midwest. Cleveland does have a sizable Puerto Rican community, but the total population of Latinos is pretty small. Let's look at some numbers (2010 census data):

 

Cleveland:

10% Latino

2010 population: 396,000

# of Latinos: 39,600

 

Columbus:

5.6% Hispanic (primary country of origin is Mexico)

2010 population: 787,000

# of Hispanics: 44,072

 

Cincinnati:

3% Hispanic (Mexico and Central American countries represent the most common countries of origin)

2010 population: 296,000

# of Hispanics: 8,800 (!)

 

Milwaukee

17% Hispanic

2010 population: 594,000

# of Hispanics: 100,980

 

Indianapolis

10% Hispanic

2010 population: 820,000

# of Hispanics: 82,000

 

Now, I know that these numbers are almost a decade out of date, and I know enough about demographic trends to realize that many recent immigrants are bypassing urban cores, and living in suburban areas. In Cincinnati's case, the heart of the Hispanic community is in the northern suburbs, and the total community at the metro level is about 60,000 people strong, which isn't insignificant. I don't know if there are any lessons that can be learned from other cities about how to best attract immigrants, but there's no doubt that our cities could use the shot in the arm that immigrants can provide. I'm a bit of a demographics nerd, so I find this stuff endlessly interesting.

 

 

What about the Greater Cleveland/Columbus/Cincinnati etc Latino community? There are a significant number of Latinos in Cleveland's inner-ring suburbs as well as in Painesville, Lorain and other cities within the metro area. I don't know much about Latino populations in non-mother cities in the other metro areas we're comparing, but perhaps that makes a difference in the data.

^There's a difference between Mexican and Puerto Rican, DR, etc.  Cleveland has a good-sized Puerto Rican population, enough to warrant, until Hurricane Maria, a direct, weekly flight for the past 15-20 or so years.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this post. Yes, of course Mexico and Puerto Rico are different places....? Maybe I am misunderstanding the point you're trying to make.

 

edale--thanks for the data. I like demographic data as well. my point was that it is overly simplistic to say "Hispanic/Latino" without drilling deeper. Cleveland has an unusually low percentage (and number) of Mexicans (and Guatemalans, Hondurans, etc.), but this is not the case with Puerto Ricans. So to understand the numbers we need to look at individual ethnicities to look for patterns/trends/events/existing communities/political relationship with the US, etc.

^There's a difference between Mexican and Puerto Rican, DR, etc.  Cleveland has a good-sized Puerto Rican population, enough to warrant, until Hurricane Maria, a direct, weekly flight for the past 15-20 or so years.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this post. Yes, of course Mexico and Puerto Rico are different places....? Maybe I am misunderstanding the point you're trying to make.

 

I know that Cleveland's Latino community skews much more toward the Caribbean than Mexico, and that makes it a bit of an outlier in the Midwest. Cleveland does have a sizable Puerto Rican community, but the total population of Latinos is pretty small. Let's look at some numbers (2010 census data):

 

Cleveland:

10% Latino

2010 population: 396,000

# of Latinos: 39,600

 

Columbus:

5.6% Hispanic (primary country of origin is Mexico)

2010 population: 787,000

# of Hispanics: 44,072

 

Cincinnati:

3% Hispanic (Mexico and Central American countries represent the most common countries of origin)

2010 population: 296,000

# of Hispanics: 8,800 (!)

 

Milwaukee

17% Hispanic

2010 population: 594,000

# of Hispanics: 100,980

 

Indianapolis

10% Hispanic

2010 population: 820,000

# of Hispanics: 82,000

 

Now, I know that these numbers are almost a decade out of date, and I know enough about demographic trends to realize that many recent immigrants are bypassing urban cores, and living in suburban areas. In Cincinnati's case, the heart of the Hispanic community is in the northern suburbs, and the total community at the metro level is about 60,000 people strong, which isn't insignificant. I don't know if there are any lessons that can be learned from other cities about how to best attract immigrants, but there's no doubt that our cities could use the shot in the arm that immigrants can provide. I'm a bit of a demographics nerd, so I find this stuff endlessly interesting.

 

Cleveland's MSA Hispanic population (without Akron) is almost 100k. Also, Cleveland 'burbs like Lorain and Painesville have plenty of non-PR families. It's not coincidence those cities' populations have stabilized and started growing again.

 

That being said Cleveland and Cincy MSA's Hispanic percentage is below the national average.

 

Ohio's larger cities, to me, are not very immigrant friendly with Columbus being the outlier.

 

Even some denizens of these threads talk about having the "right" immigrants or getting buy-in from existing minorities before letting "outsiders" in. Meh.

I know that Fairfield, north of Cincinnati, has a fairly sizeable Hispanic population. I don't know the extent of greater Columbus' Hispanic spread, but if I had to guess there may be a few more out in the western suburbs.

Ohio's larger cities, to me, are not very immigrant friendly with Columbus being the sole outlier.

 

Even some denizens of these threads talk about having the "right" immigrants or getting buy-in from existing minorities communities before letting "outsiders" in. Meh.

 

Agreed. Welcome buy-in for all, and watch people actually buy in/move in!

Dayton's doing its part to attract immigrants, for what it's worth:

 

http://www.welcomedayton.org/

 

At least we're trying!

 

Dayton Daily News takes a look at Dayton resident’s opinions on having immigrant neighbors.

 

“The results of a citywide survey released this summer found that most Dayton residents (56 percent) said they agree or strongly agree with the statement, ‘I would be supportive if an immigrant family moved in next door to me.’

 

Significant numbers of immigrants have purchased and moved into homes in a variety of neighborhoods, including Old North Dayton and parts of East Dayton.”

 

Dayton's doing its part to attract immigrants, for what it's worth:

 

http://www.welcomedayton.org/

 

At least we're trying!

 

Dayton Daily News takes a look at Dayton resident’s opinions on having immigrant neighbors.

 

“The results of a citywide survey released this summer found that most Dayton residents (56 percent) said they agree or strongly agree with the statement, ‘I would be supportive if an immigrant family moved in next door to me.’

 

Significant numbers of immigrants have purchased and moved into homes in a variety of neighborhoods, including Old North Dayton and parts of East Dayton.”

 

 

I'm trying to debate with myself if 56 percent is a good or bad percentage. It means 44 percent are not supportive of immigrants. Was this number worse in the past? Or is there a neutral category that would make the non-supportive amount smaller?

 

Why would I move to a community where 4 out of 10 neighbors didn't really want me there?

About 33% of the respondants responded "neutral/it depends". There was about 11% who said they wouldn't support immigrant neighbors, but they were mostly concentrated in the white working-class corners of the city.

The Midwest Tells Us an Interesting Growth Story

In the Northeast, the biggest cities have been sucking up what little population growth there is. In the Midwest, there’s lots more going on.

By 

Justin Fox

October 9, 2018, 11:00 AM PDT

 

 

The Midwest and the Northeast are the slow-growing regions of the U.S., with estimated population increases of 1.9 percent and 2.1 percent, respectively, from 2010 through 2017, according to the Census Bureau (compared with 7.9 percent for the South and 7.6 percent for the West). 1

 

More...

On 9/18/2018 at 4:31 PM, edale said:

I saw some interesting MSA/CSA news over on SSP that I thought might spark some discussion here. The Feds changed and updated the MSA and CSA boundaries, and that has led to two changes for Ohio's big cities:

 

1) Cincinnati MSA adds Franklin County, Indiana (22,000 people)

 

2) Cleveland CSA adds the Wooster Micropolitan Area (116,000 people)

 

It's notable that Cincinnati and Dayton have not been combined into a single CSA, and Cleveland and Akron have not been combined into a single MSA, either. Columbus experienced no changes at either the CSA or MSA level.

After just now reading through this thread, and looking at the new data, it appears that the changes to the Toledo area have flown under the radar.  There was a considerable shuffle in the northwest part of the state.

Toledo's MSA (Lucas County, Wood County, and Fulton County) gained 1 county (Ottawa County).  Using the 2010 census numbers, the Toledo MSA went from 610,001 residents to 651,429 residents.  

Toledo's CSA gained 3 counties (Hancock County, Seneca County, and Sandusky County).  (Ottawa County went from being a CSA county to an MSA County).  This increases Toledo's CSA population from 651,429 residents to 843,900 (an increase of nearly 200,000).  This bumps it ahead of the Youngstown-Warren CSA.

The use of MSAs and CSAs as a method of population measurement certainly comes with many doubts, but it's interesting nonetheless.

^ Good catch! The addition of 200,000 people to the CSA is pretty major. I'm not sure if any federal funding is determined by CSA, but if so, the greater Toledo area might be looking at more federal dollars coming its way as a result of this. Also, I had no idea that Toledo's CSA was smaller than Youngstown's!

What do we expect in today's new 5-year (2013-2017) ACS data release?

State population estimates are out for 2018.

 

Ohio hit 11,689,442, which is a gain of 25,313 over 2017.  This would also be the 2nd highest growth year this decade.  It also would be the 19th fastest-growing state in terms of totals.  That's quite a move up from the beginning of the decade, when it was in the 40s.  It's % growth is still low, though, considering it is already a very populated state.

Edited December 19, 20186 yr by jonoh81

46 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

State population estimates are out for 2018.

 

Ohio hit 11,689,442, which is a gain of 25,313 over 2017.  This would also be the 2nd highest growth year this decade.  It also would be the 19th fastest-growing state in terms of totals.  That's quite a move up from the beginning of the decade, when it was in the 40s.  It's % growth is still low, though, considering it is already a very populated state.

All previous years in Ohio were revised upwards as well.  For instance, 2017 was revised from 11,658,609 to 11,664,129.  Not an amazing increase YOY but solid nonetheless.  At least we're not New York or Illinois.

Other than New York City, the rest of the state hasn't grown in more than 30 years. In 1990, for example, NY state had 18M people and NYC had 7.3M. In 2018, NY state had 19.5M and NYC 8.6M. Take away NYC and New York state has gained only 200,000 people since 1990.

 

https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2018/comm/population-change-2017-2018.html?cid=pop-est-state-2017-2018

 

29 minutes ago, KJP said:

Other than New York City, the rest of the state hasn't grown in more than 30 years. In 1990, for example, NY state had 18M people and NYC had 7.3M. In 2018, NY state had 19.5M and NYC 8.6M. Take away NYC and New York state has gained only 200,000 people since 1990.

 

https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2018/comm/population-change-2017-2018.html?cid=pop-est-state-2017-2018

 

 

I think 1/2 of them are living in Lakewood, from all the god-awful NYS plates I'm seeing! 

2 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

State population estimates are out for 2018.

 

Ohio hit 11,689,442, which is a gain of 25,313 over 2017.  This would also be the 2nd highest growth year this decade.  It also would be the 19th fastest-growing state in terms of totals.  That's quite a move up from the beginning of the decade, when it was in the 40s.  It's % growth is still low, though, considering it is already a very populated state.

Isn't about 25,000 the same number as the growth being seen in the Columbus MSA? *Booster Bro post* lol

Well it took 4 posts until we had to hear about Columbus carrying the state.  That might be a record.  Glad to see Ohio is doing better than its competitors: Illinois, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

1 hour ago, Toddguy said:

Isn't about 25,000 the same number as the growth being seen in the Columbus MSA? *Booster Bro post* lol

 

The Columbus metro grew about 27,000 2015-2016 and about 31,000 2016-2017.  However, as I recently posted, only about 2200 per year (through 2016) was from out of state domestic, with about 6,000 international.  So about 8,800, roughly, was from outside of Ohio as recently as 2016.  Even if we assumed the same rate last year, Columbus alone cannot account for most of the growth.  I haven't run the numbers for other metros, but I imagine at least Cincinnati can claim some of that total as well, along with some of the other positive-growth counties. 

Edited December 19, 20186 yr by jonoh81