One thing to note--for Lorain, Lake, Cuyahoga and other counties on water (maybe Hamilton as well, plus Cook County Chicago, etc.), I've seen some county "areas" that include water. For example, I've seen "area" designations for Cuyahoga county that go from the Medina County Line all the way up to the US-Canada border as that is the official northern boundary of Ohio and all parts of Ohio must be in some designated county.  (so the density of Cuyahoga would be a lot lower than actual.)

 

6 minutes ago, Pugu said:

One thing to note--for Lorain, Lake, Cuyahoga and other counties on water (maybe Hamilton as well, plus Cook County Chicago, etc.), I've seen some county "areas" that include water. For example, I've seen "area" designations for Cuyahoga county that go from the Medina County Line all the way up to the US-Canada border as that is the official northern boundary of Ohio and all parts of Ohio must be in some designated county.  (so the density of Cuyahoga would be a lot lower than actual.)

 

 

The density numbers in the charts are based on land area for the counties, as opposed to total area. Cuyahoga's density is accurate and is not skewed by the large amount of Lake Erie included in it's total area number.

^Ok, thanks. I didn't see any specific charts---so was just speaking in general regarding how "area" is calculated.

1 minute ago, Pugu said:

^Ok, thanks. I didn't see any specific charts---so was just speaking in general regarding how "area" is calculated.

 

I was talking about DEPACincy's charts on the previous page where he calculated the densities. He used land area for his calculations as opposed to total area, so the amount of uninhabitable water does not skew the density.

I did density comparisons for every city with a population of at least 10,000.  Here were the top 50 most densely populated in both 2010 and 2018.  These first charts include total area, not just land.   Land only is my next post.

2010------------------------------------------------------2018
1. Lakewood: 7792.4------------------------1. Lakewood: 7488.8
2. University Heights: 7439.0-------------2. University Heights: 7108.8
3. Norwood: 6079.5------------------------3. Norwood: 6296.5
4. East Cleveland: 5755.8-----------------4. Bexley: 5654.7
5. Cleveland Heights: 5687.3-------------5. Willowick: 5569.3
6. Willowick: 5579.1------------------------6.  East Cleveland: 5519.0
7. Bexley: 5329.4---------------------------7. Parma Heights: 4762.5
8. Parma Heights: 4944.6-----------------8. Cleveland: 4653.7
9. Cleveland: 4811.6------------------------9. South Euclid: 4617.8
10. South Euclid: 4794.6------------------11. Mayfield Heights: 4451.2
11. Mayfield Heights: 4582.5-------------10. Shaker Heights: 4319.9
12. Shaker Heights: 4501.3---------------12. Maple Heights: 4309.1
13. Maple Heights: 4475.4----------------13. Euclid: 4089.4
14. Euclid: 4261.3---------------------------14. Columbus: 4000.4
15. Parma: 4065.8-------------------------15. Parma: 3923.8
16. Garfield Heights: 3957.3--------------16. Cincinnati: 3804.4
17. Cincinnati: 3733.3----------------------17. Garfield Heights: 3797.9
18. Rocky River: 3603.0-------------------18. Upper Arlington: 3599.0
19. Fairview Park: 3595.3-----------------19. Whitehall: 3593.8
20. Reading: 3593.4------------------------20. Rocky River: 3589.1
21. Columbus: 3527.6----------------------21. Reading: 3551.6
22. Upper Arlington: 3421.6---------------22. Fairview Park: 3479.5
23. Whitehall: 3414.4----------------------23. Oxford: 3425.9
24. Toledo: 3414.3-------------------------24. Reynoldsburg: 3405.5
25. Berea: 3275.0--------------------------25. Toledo: 3268.8
26. Warrensville Heights: 3271.0--------26. Westerville: 3202.8
27. Oxford: 3199.3-------------------------27. Berea: 3199.8
28. Reynoldsburg: 3193.3----------------28. Kent: 3196.3
29. Akron: 3192.4--------------------------29. Warrensville Heights: 3192.3
30. Lyndhurst: 3153.4---------------------30. Akron: 3174.7
31. Marion: 3116.5--------------------------31. Marion: 3053.0
32. Kent: 3114.7-----------------------------32. Lyndhurst: 3036.9
33. Kettering: 3000.2---------------------33. Kettering: 2943.5
34. Sylvania: 2905.2-----------------------34. Sylvania: 2914.2
35. Forest Park: 2888.9-------------------35. Forest Park: 2882.4
36. Barberton: 2867.2---------------------36. Trenton: 2853.5
37. Canton: 2865.3------------------------37. Painesville: 2832.1
38. Struthers: 2864.4---------------------38. Gahanna: 2821.5
39. Westerville: 2864.4-------------------39. Hamilton: 2815.9
40. Eastlake: 2844.9----------------------40. Barberton: 2815.6
41. Hamilton: 2828.2----------------------41. Eastlake: 2776.6
42. Lima: 2809.5--------------------------42. Canton: 2765.2
43. North Olmsted: 2803.6--------------43. Wickliffe: 2737.8
44. Painesville: 2786.8-------------------44. Hilliard: 2729.7
45. Wickliffe: 2736.1----------------------45. Struthers: 2729.1
46. North Canton: 2732.5----------------46. North Olmsted: 2707.0
47. Lorain: 2655.2-------------------------47. Powell: 2699.6
48. Brunswick: 2643.1--------------------48. North Canton: 2699.5
49. Gahanna: 2638.7----------------------49. Brunswick: 2692.7
50. Elyria: 2616.7---------------------------50. Lima: 2671.2

 

Here are the top 25 fastest densifying Ohio cities 2010-2018

1. Hilliard: +613.2

2. Columbus: +472.9

3. Grove City: +369.8

4. Powell: +366.9

5. Harrison: +345.0

6. Westerville: +338.4

7. Bexley: +325.3

8. Dublin: +278.1

9. Delaware: +271.5

10. Pickerington: +262.2

11. Trenton: +250.7

12. Oxford: +226.6

13. Reynoldsburg: +212.2

14. Wadsworth: 208.5

15. Loveland: +205.2

16. Worthington: +204.3

17. Norwood: +199.0

18. North Ridgeville: +187.6

19. Gahanna: +182.8

20. Whitehall: +179.4

21. Upper Arlington: +177.4

22. Avon Lake: +162.6

23. Mason: +153.9

24. Springboro: +131.9

25. Marysville: +131.2

 

And the 25 Ohio Cities that Lost Density the Fastest 2010-2018

1. University Heights: -330.2

2. Lakewood: -303.6

3. East Cleveland: -236.8

4. Cleveland Heights: -229.4

5. Warren: -196.5

6. Parma Heights: -182.1

7. Shaker Heights: -181.3

8. South Euclid: -176.8

9. Euclid: -172.0

10. Maple Heights: -166.3

11. Garfield Heights: -159.4

12. Cleveland: -157.9

13. Toledo: -145.4

14. Parma: -142.0

15. Lima: -138.3

16. Struthers: -135.3

17. Ashtabula: -132.1

18. Mayfield Heights: -131.3

19. Lyndhurst: -116.4

20. Fairview Park: -115.8

21. Ironton: -110.8

22. Niles: -109.0

23. East Liverpool: -101.3

24. Brooklyn: -100.7

25. Canton: -100.0

 

Going up are dominated by Central Ohio communities, while going down are dominated by NEO communities, even as many NEO remain on the top density list.

 

10 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

4. Bexley: 5654.7

 

Interesting. Isn't Bexley some wealthy, spacious suburb? Those usually don't have high density, unless I was misinformed about what what Bexley was. I've never been there myself.

3 minutes ago, Pugu said:

 

Interesting. Isn't Bexley some wealthy, spacious suburb? Those usually don't have high density, unless I was misinformed about what what Bexley was. I've never been there myself.

 

You might be thinking of New Albany. Bexley is definitely wealthy, but it’s close to downtown and one of the older parts of the city. It’s very dense. 

Bexley is old enough that the monster lots hadn't yet become en vogue. It's not quite German Village, but it sure isn't Indian Hill.

19 minutes ago, Pugu said:

 

Interesting. Isn't Bexley some wealthy, spacious suburb? Those usually don't have high density, unless I was misinformed about what what Bexley was. I've never been there myself.

 

Bexley is similar to the southern half of Cleveland Heights.

And here are the rankings for land only, not including any water area.  Again, they are based on all communities with populations of at least 10,000.  Aside from a few cities, not including water does not actually change that much.

 

Top 50 most densely-populated cities in Ohio, 2010 and 2018

2010---------------------------------------------2018

1. Lakewood: 9426.9------------------------1. Lakewood: 9059.7

2. University Heights: 7439.0-----------2. University Heights: 7108.8

3. Norwood: 6097.5-------------------------3. Norwood: 6296.5

4. East Cleveland: 5774.4----------------4. Bexley: 5701.2

5. Cleveland Heights: 5701.4-----------5. Willowick: 5569.3

6. Willowick: 5579.1------------------------6. East Cleveland: 5536.9

7. Bexley: 5373.3-----------------------------7. Cleveland Heights: 5471.4

8. Cleveland: 5107.0-----------------------8. Cleveland: 4939.4

9. Parma Heights: 4944.6---------------9. Parma Heights: 4762.5

10. South Euclid: 4794.6----------------10. South Euclid: 4617.8

11. Euclid: 4602.1----------------------------11. Mayfield Heights: 4461.9

12. Mayfield Height: 4593.5-------------12. Euclid: 4416.4

13. Shaker Heights: 4529.9-------------13. Maple Heights: 4309.1

14. Maple Heights: 4475.4--------------14. Shaker Heights: 4347.5

15. Rocky River: 4264.3-------------------15. Rocky River: 4247.9

16. Parma: 4076.0---------------------------16. Columbus: 4109.8

17. Garfield Heights: 3990.2-----------17. Parma: 3933.6

18. Cincinnati: 3809.9---------------------18. Cincinnati: 3882.5

19. Columbus: 3624.0---------------------19. Garfield Heights: 3829.5

20. Fairview Park: 3595.3----------------20. Whitehall: 3614.3

21. Reading: 3593.4------------------------21. Upper Arlington: 3610.0

22. Toledo: 3559.4-------------------------22. Reading 3551.6

23. Whitehall: 3433.8----------------------23. Fairview Park: 3479.5

24. Upper Arlington: 3432.0-----------24. Reynoldsburg: 3429.9

25. Bay Village: 3424.7------------------25. Oxford: 3425.9

26. Berea: 3337.9---------------------------26. Toledo: 3407.8

27. Warrensville Heights: 3278.9----27. Bay Village: 3346.8

28. Reynoldsburg: 3216.2---------------28. Berea: 3261.4

29. Akron: 3209.9---------------------------29. Westerville: 3238.7

30. Oxford: 3199.3-------------------------30. Kent: 3234.7

31. Lyndhurst: 3160.5-------------------31. Warrensville Heights: 3200.0

32. Kent: 3152.0----------------------------32. Akron: 3192.1

33. Marion: 3137.7------------------------33. Painesville: 3160.7

34. Painesville: 3110.2-----------------34. Marion: 3073.9

35. Kettering: 3006.6-------------------35. Lyndhurst: 3043.8

36. Struthers: 2943.1-------------------36. Kettering: 2949.8

37. Barberton: 2936.9------------------37. Sylvania: 2936.7

38. Sylvania: 2927.6---------------------38. Barberton: 2884.1

39. Eastlake: 2902.7--------------------39. Hamilton: 2878.4

40. Westerville: 2896.6----------------40. Gahanna: 2860.1

41. Hamilton: 2891.1-------------------41. Trenton: 2853.5

42. Forest Park: 2888.9--------------42. Eastlake: 2833.0

43. Canton: 2867.5---------------------43. Struthers: 2804.1

44. Lima: 2857.1------------------------44. Canton: 2767.4

45. North Olmsted: 2803.6---------45. Hilliard: 2764.9

46. Wickliffe: 2747.8------------------46. Wickliffe: 2749.6

47. North Canton: 2732.5-----------47. Lima: 2716.4

48. Lorain: 2707.9----------------------48. North Olmsted: 2707.0

49. Gahanna: 2674.8------------------49. Lorain: 2705.0

50. Tiffin: 2657.2------------------------50. Brunswick: 2701.0

 

 

20 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

Bexley is old enough that the monster lots hadn't yet become en vogue. It's not quite German Village, but it sure isn't Indian Hill.

 

Yeah, I was a little surprised by its ranking, but it developed early- 1900-1940- and had very little urban renewal demolitions and has no highways rammed through it, so most of it has remained intact. 

Edited August 23, 20195 yr by jonoh81

I wonder if that one big apartment complex filling back up in the southern part then a bit of densification on Main were all it took.

One thing to consider is that because the city of Columbus gobbled up so much area, it prevented very dense areas of the city from being their cities/suburbs like you have in Cleveland. For example, Clintonville and the Hilltop “neighborhoods” could each be their own city and would be pretty high up this list. The densities in those areas are both around 4K I believe. 

 

The Cleveland area is certainly more dense in general, but because of how much area Columbus takes up, it makes it seem there are far less dense areas than reality. 

I wish there was some easy way of comparing "average density" and "median density" like you do with home values or income, but it's harder to define individual units. You'd have to do it by census tracts or something. 

Yes, not ZIPs like city-data folk are obsessed with.

1 hour ago, cbussoccer said:

One thing to consider is that because the city of Columbus gobbled up so much area, it prevented very dense areas of the city from being their cities/suburbs like you have in Cleveland. For example, Clintonville and the Hilltop “neighborhoods” could each be their own city and would be pretty high up this list. The densities in those areas are both around 4K I believe. 

 

The Cleveland area is certainly more dense in general, but because of how much area Columbus takes up, it makes it seem there are far less dense areas than reality. 

 

A lot of the independent cities in Cuyahoga County are really small area-wise.  University Heights for example, which is 2nd on the list, has less than 2 square miles. Most of the others are between 3-6.  Columbus and Cincy have relatively few urban, independent places that small, but if you looked at individual neighborhoods within any of the big cities- including Cleveland itself-, you could easily find equivalent areas that would have higher densities than even Lakewood, which is only 5.53 square miles. 

It would be great if we had weighted density for all these, but that would take a huge amount of time to figure out.

Edited August 23, 20195 yr by jonoh81

1 hour ago, BigDipper 80 said:

I wish there was some easy way of comparing "average density" and "median density" like you do with home values or income, but it's harder to define individual units. You'd have to do it by census tracts or something. 

 

Even smaller, I think.  You'd have to go to census blocks.

^Yeah. The fact of the matter is, a single municipal density number really doesn’t mean anything. You need a full gambit of descriptive statistics at various scales to get a feel for a metro area, but no one wants to sit down and calculate that. But instead of using stats to try and prove a point, people should just get out and experience all these different cities! Bickering over density doesn’t do much to quantify your enjoyment of a place.

2 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Even smaller, I think.  You'd have to go to census blocks.

 

I know we had this discussion before, but I can't remember what thread and when.  I believe that census block groups are too small to be meaningful, let alone census blocks (for which the census doesn't even publish data.). Census tracts seem to be the sweet spot, but even those can be a challenge due to the variation in size between tracts.

Edited August 23, 20195 yr by jam40jeff

14 hours ago, jam40jeff said:

 

I know we had this discussion before, but I can't remember what thread and when.  I believe that census block groups are too small to be meaningful, let alone census blocks (for which the census doesn't even publish data.). Census tracts seem to be the sweet spot, but even those can be a challenge due to the variation in size between tracts.

 

Weighted density, the measure that shows what density the population within an area will typically encounter on a daily basis, is measured by finding the mean of all the densities within the subgroups of a particular larger area.  In that context, blocks would probably work best, there are also block groups, larger than blocks but smaller than tracts.  However, it's easy enough to run the numbers on census tracts for a given area. 

For example, in Columbus the given density for the city is just over 4000.  However, the weighted density is as follows, using census tracts.

City Limits

2010: 5363.5

2017: 5691.8

Franklin County

2010: 4513.0

2017: 4760.3

 

If this seems like a large difference, that is typical with weighted density.  For example, the density of the whole US is like 100 ppsm, but the weighted density exceeds 5000, because there are far more urban tracts than rural ones, which tend to be very large in relative size with low populations.  Most people live in urban rather than rural areas, so they're much more likely to encounter higher densities. 

Nice article in the FT today:  "Biggest Cities Start to Shrink as Inner Areas Empty Out"

 

It cites London, Paris, New York, and a couple of Chinese cities as examples; the numbers aren't small either.  During 2011-16, Paris lost 12,000 a year.  New York lost 39,000 in 2018 and 37,700 in 2017.  This is just in the inner areas, however, not necessarily the whole city or region. It's the usual story: smaller families, poor folks squeezed out, etc.

 

This is probably in the wrong thread, but I couldn't find a "World Cities" topic.  Interesting divergence: The print version uses 'Biggest' in the headline; the website says 'Global.' Maybe only I find this interesting. ?

 

Pay site:

https://www.ft.com/content/c88b4c54-b925-11e9-96bd-8e884d3ea203

 

11 minutes ago, Dougal said:

 

This is probably in the wrong thread, but I couldn't find a "World Cities" topic.  Interesting divergence: The print version uses 'Biggest' in the headline; the website says 'Global.' Maybe only I find this interesting.

 

They probably started with "Biggest" but on the digital side,could edit it to "Global", but, of course, couldn't on paper.... People get used to always being able to edit/update!

1 hour ago, Dougal said:

Nice article in the FT today:  "Biggest Cities Start to Shrink as Inner Areas Empty Out"

 

It cites London, Paris, New York, and a couple of Chinese cities as examples; the numbers aren't small either.  During 2011-16, Paris lost 12,000 a year.  New York lost 39,000 in 2018 and 37,700 in 2017.  This is just in the inner areas, however, not necessarily the whole city or region. It's the usual story: smaller families, poor folks squeezed out, etc.

 

This is probably in the wrong thread, but I couldn't find a "World Cities" topic.  Interesting divergence: The print version uses 'Biggest' in the headline; the website says 'Global.' Maybe only I find this interesting. ?

 

Pay site:

https://www.ft.com/content/c88b4c54-b925-11e9-96bd-8e884d3ea203

 

 

Anti-urbanists would use such data to say that urban areas are becoming less popular and that there isn't any urban trend at all, but there is definitely a direct correlation between urban areas becoming nicer and more expensive with these types of population drops. These trends tend to be specific to the largest, and often most expensive, cities, however.  Our major cities in Ohio are all seeing urban population growth, not decline, as prices haven't become so high as to drive out larger numbers of people.  The other obvious issue is that you can only build so much housing in urban areas that are already mostly or completely built out.  Cities like Paris and New York can only go up with greater density- though in Paris' case, that would be even more difficult.  Such density is significantly more expensive to build, and is typically marketed toward and populated by single professionals with higher incomes, not families.  None of this would support cities in actual decline, though.   

 

BTW, here are the weighted densities within the Cleveland and Cincinnati city boundaries.

 

Cincinnati

2010: 5512.6

2017: 5470.0

 

Cleveland

2010: 6524.5

2017: 6297.8

 

Not sure how Cincinnati's declined when the overall city went up, but that's what the numbers say.

2 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

BTW, here are the weighted densities within the Cleveland and Cincinnati city boundaries.

 

Cincinnati

2010: 5512.6

2017: 5470.0

 

Cleveland

2010: 6524.5

2017: 6297.8

 

Not sure how Cincinnati's declined when the overall city went up, but that's what the numbers say.

 

Columbus is slightly higher than Cincinnati? That's a bit surprising. 

 

What about Cuyahoga and Hamilton counties?

Cincinnati lost upwards of 1,000 people thanks to the various road projects at either end of MLK.  

23 hours ago, cbussoccer said:

 

Columbus is slightly higher than Cincinnati? That's a bit surprising. 

 

What about Cuyahoga and Hamilton counties?

 

It makes sense if you look at the census tracts.  Columbus has more highs and more lows, but a lot more mid-range density between 5-7K.  Cincinnati's are respectable at the top, but there are fewer of those really high ones and the densities drop off far more quickly than in Columbus. 

I might do the rest of the counties later today, but it'll depend on my job.

I am sure similar to Columbus in some areas but in Cincinnati a huge chunk of the city starting in Northern Parts of OTR to the West End, going up to areas of Avondale and Walnut Hills around the MLK interchange, really huge swaths of the city are pretty bombed out from deindustriliazation and white flight. I always kind of wondered if all the buildings were occupied (not even counting demolished buildings), what would the population of the city be and how that would affect the densities.

 

I think I read sometime that Walnut Hills used to have like 25,000 people in the neighborhood and now it is more like 7,000 people.

 

The good news is these areas are slowly but surely bouncing back, excited to see what the 2020 census shows in these neighborhoods in regards to how they are bouncing back population wise.

Couldn't find a better thread for this... 

 

 

So the demographic estimates for 2018 came out today.  I'll do a few general stats.  Not all stats were available for all places.

 

Population By Race- City Only

Total White, Non-Hispanic and % of Total Population

2010

Cincinnati: 143,120 48.2%

Cleveland: 137,977 34.8%

Columbus: 466,615 59.3%

Toledo: 177,341 61.8%

2018

Cincinnati: 150,693 49.8%

Cleveland: 131,010 34.1%

Columbus: 486,431 54.5%

Toledo: 157,967 57.4%

Change 2010-2018

Columbus: +19,816

Cincinnati: +7,573

Cleveland: -6,967

Toledo: -19,374

 

Total Black, Non-Hispanic and % of Total Population

2010

Cincinnati: 131,909 44.4%

Cleveland: 208,528 52.6%

Columbus: 217,694 27.7%

Toledo: 75,033 26.1%

2018

Cincinnati: 122,261 40.4%

Cleveland: 178,909 46.6%

Columbus: 259,803 29.0%

Toledo: 74,630 27.1%

Change 2010-2018

Columbus: +42,109

Toledo: -403

Cincinnati: -9,648

Cleveland: -29,619

 

Total Asian, Non-Hispanic and % of Total Population

2010

Cincinnati: 5,938 2.0%

Cleveland: 5,392 1.4%

Columbus: 31,734 5.6%

Toledo: 3,125 1.1%

2018

Cincinnati: 6,999 2.3%

Cleveland: 10,595 2.8%

Columbus: 54,902 6.1%

Toledo: 2,802 1.0%

Change 2010-2018

Columbus: +23,168

Cleveland: +5,203

Cincinnati: +1,061

Toledo: -323

 

Total Hispanic and % of Total Population

2010

Cincinnati: 8,710 2.9%

Cleveland: 36,067 9.1%

Columbus: 44,359 5.6%

Toledo: 21,346 7.4%

2018

Cincinnati: 10,843 3.6%

Cleveland: 47,144 12.3%

Columbus: 53,935 6.0%

Toledo: 12,617 4.6%

Change 2010-2018

Cleveland: +11,077

Columbus: +9,576

Cincinnati: +2,133

Toledo: -8,729

 

Total Other, Non-Hispanic and % of Total Population

2010

Cincinnati: 7,230 2.4%

Cleveland: 8,276 2.1%

Columbus: 26,631 3.4%

Toledo: 10,134 3.5%

2018

Cincinnati: 11,889 3.9%

Cleveland: 16,123 4.2%

Columbus: 40,806 4.6%

Toledo: 14,949 5.4%

Change 2010-2018

Columbus: +14,175

Cleveland: +7,847

Toledo: +4,815

Cincinnati: +4,659

 

 

 

 

Total Foreign-Born Population and % of Total Population

2010

Akron: 8,524  4.3%

Canton: 1,343  1.8%

Cincinnati: 16,531  5.6%

Cleveland: 17,739  4.5%

Columbus: 86,663  11.0%

Dayton: 5,102  3.6%

Toledo: 11,559  4.0%

Youngstown: 3,695  5.5%

2018

Akron: 13,649 6.9%

Canton: 3,241 4.6%

Cincinnati: 20,592  6.8%

Cleveland: 21,838  5.7%

Columbus: 125,339  14.0%

Dayton: 7,311  5.2%

Toledo: 9,038  3.3%

Youngstown: 976  1.5%

Change 2010-2018

Columbus: +38,676

Akron: +5,125

Cleveland: +4,099

Cincinnati: +4,061

Dayton: +2,209

Toledo: -2,521

Youngstown: -2,719

^At last--a positive population change for Cleveland!  Thanks jonoh81 for compiling.  Could you do the same cities above, but using their counties instead of municipal boundaries? Also, 125k Columbus is big. How many of those are students at OSU?

4 minutes ago, Pugu said:

^At last--a positive population change for Cleveland!  Thanks jonoh81 for compiling.  Could you do the same cities above, but using their counties instead of municipal boundaries? Also, 125k Columbus is big. How many of those are students at OSU?

 

Probably not as many as you think. Most OSU students are still native-born. 

I'll take a look at counties.

Yeah, per OSU's website, there's about 6,000 international students.  For comparison-sake, Case Western has around 2,200.

Here are the main counties for foreign-born for total and % of total population.

2010

Cuyahoga: 93,232  7.3%

Franklin: 111,686  9.6%

Hamilton: 43,363  5.4%

Lucas: 18,401  4.2%

Mahoning: 7,174  3.0%

Montgomery: 19,429  3.6%

Summit: 23,365  4.3%

2018

Cuyahoga: 92,504  7.4%

Franklin: 155,586  11.9%

Hamilton: 51,957  6.4%

Lucas: 15,502  3.6%

Mahoning: 4,151  1.8%

Montgomery:  25,903  4.9%

Summit: 28,429  5.2%

Change 2010-2018

Franklin: +43,900

Hamilton: +8,594

Montgomery: +6,474

Summit: +5,064

Cuyahoga: -728

Lucas: -2,899

Mahoning: -3,023

 

Immigration is a huge part of modern growth, so some of these numbers should be concerning.

One thing to keep in mind re the foreign born students at OSU is that a decent number of them end up sticking around after graduation. So, while OSU certainly inflates that number, they aren't all necessarily lost after graduating. 

2 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Immigration is a huge part of modern growth, so some of these numbers should be concerning.

 

Why should it be concerning? 

Any other data that would be interesting to see?

Just now, cbussoccer said:

 

Why should it be concerning? 

 

Because if you have bad domestic migration or bad natural growth rates, immigration can be a stop-gap for overall decline  If immigration is also negative, it becomes even harder to see growth.

6 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Any other data that would be interesting to see?

 

For selfish reasons, but I would like to see you add for the Population By Race- City Only charts Dayton, Akron, and Youngtown to round out Ohio's metros over 500,000.

2 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Because if you have bad domestic migration or bad natural growth rates, immigration can be a stop-gap for overall decline  If immigration is also negative, it becomes even harder to see growth.

 

That's assuming a drastic reduction in international migration does not come along with any changes in domestic migration or natural growth. So, for example, if OSU reduced their international student population to zero, it would open up a lot of room for American students to fill in which would bring in more Americans from outside Columbus or Ohio. If there was no international migration into Columbus taking up housing units, it would open units to people outside of Columbus and Ohio to come in. 

 

I understand your point statistically, but I'm not certain it would happen in reality.

 

I would be interested to see how a city like Austin compares to Columbus in terms of international migration. I know their international growth is big, but I'm not sure how lines up with Columbus.

17 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

 

That's assuming a drastic reduction in international migration does not come along with any changes in domestic migration or natural growth. So, for example, if OSU reduced their international student population to zero, it would open up a lot of room for American students to fill in which would bring in more Americans from outside Columbus or Ohio. If there was no international migration into Columbus taking up housing units, it would open units to people outside of Columbus and Ohio to come in. 

 

I understand your point statistically, but I'm not certain it would happen in reality.

 

I would be interested to see how a city like Austin compares to Columbus in terms of international migration. I know their international growth is big, but I'm not sure how lines up with Columbus.

 

In terms of growth, that's just not usually how it works.  When domestic migration or natural growth are bad, international migration tends to be the only source of growth for many cities.  If there is no international, there usually isn't domestic, either.  International migration tends to be a lot more tolerant to cities that are in or have declined.  That goes for individual neighborhoods too.  Linden, the Morse corridor, etc. would be much worse off without international residents repopulating them and opening up new businesses.

 

I don't think OSU is preventing US students from applying or being accepted based on the relatively small number of international students. 

Many students live in dorms, and are required to live on Campus through their Sophomore year now, so those students aren't taking up any off-campus housing whatsoever. The rest wouldn't even be enough to cover a partial year's population growth.  Columbus is severely underbuilt, but a few thousand student rooms wouldn't solve anything. 

 

Not certain what would happen in reality? 

 

The city of Austin gained 32,113 foreign-born residents between 2010-2018, growing from 148,431 to 180,544.

 

 

 

Edited September 26, 20195 yr by jonoh81

25 minutes ago, ColDayMan said:

 

For selfish reasons, but I would like to see you add for the Population By Race- City Only charts Dayton, Akron, and Youngtown to round out Ohio's metros over 500,000.

 

For some reason, the race data that I posted isn't available for them.  There is overall white, black, etc. but not separated out from Hispanic.  Hispanic can be of any race, so it's not quite the same.

About 10 years ago, I noticed that in many smaller Ohio towns there were more old people and poor people than young, middle-class families. But I'm surprised to see Lake County in this category....

 

The full map...

That's a sign of the economy in those areas. No real indication of it turning around either.

 

Edited October 1, 20195 yr by Mendo

And it's probably happening in the smaller (<65,000 population) counties as well but there's no data for the smaller counties. 

 

Meanwhile, the state's population has increased by about 160,000 since 2010. Rural/small-town Ohio is dying. Urban Ohio is growing, but probably not growing as much as it should be in a state led by rural politicians in state government.

Lake County surprised me at first too, but then I thought about it for a bit. Mentor has largely been built out now, and last I heard the schools have been seeing massive declines in enrollment as the kids age out and the parents stay in the same house. Not many new young families able to move in. The western suburbs have been built out for awhile now, with many residents aging in place. To me, other than maybe Willoughby, they seem more stagnant than most Cuyahoga County suburbs now. Eastern Lake County saw its boom before the recession, and it hasn't started back up again. I grew up in Madison, and just about everyone I knew from school has moved away (many to Cuyahoga County). Just like Mentor, without new homes being built, there are no new kids coming in to replace those who are leaving. Painsville has always been different, but with the present immigration climate, I'm sure the number of kids is shrinking there too.

I was a little surprised by Lake County too, but at least as of two years ago when this Cleveland.com article was posted, Painesville was 11th youngest city in the state (next to Cincinnati; with the first four being dominated by large state universities). Also it's showing more growth than other Lake County towns (see other thread link). I guess the largely Mexican immigration has slowed somewhat, and that it's maturing (lots of good taco places now more than ever--lol). That said, Lake is the 15th oldest in Ohio, and the chart shows Geauga as #8, yet it's not highlighted on the map. Possibly you can have more people 65+ and still have groups that offset that to skew younger overall??

 

https://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/2017/12/ranking_every_ohio_city_county_6.html

 

 

Edited October 2, 20195 yr by eastvillagedon

Going into the foreign-born population a bit further, here were the origins of immigrants by city, this time for 2000 and 2018.

 

Foreign-born Population from Europe and % of Total Foreign-born Population

2000

Cleveland: 8,796  41.2%

Columbus: 7,017  14.7%

Cincinnati: 3,851  30.9%

Akron: 2,687  38.9%

Toledo: 2,020  21.3%

Dayton: 901  27.8%

Youngstown: 870  54.2%

Canton: 590  43.6%

2018

Columbus: 8141 6.5%

Cleveland: 4844  22.2%

Cincinnati: 2738  13.3%

Akron: 1580  11.6%

Toledo: 496  5.5%

Canton: 347  10.7%

Dayton: 347  4.7%

Youngstown: 337  34.5%

Change 2000-2018

Columbus: +1124

Canton: -243

Dayton: -554

Akron: -1107

Cincinnati: -1113

Toledo: -1524

Cleveland: -3952

 

Foreign-born Population from Asia and % of Total Foreign-born Population

2000

Columbus: 22354  46.9%

Cleveland: 6213  29.1%

Cincinnati: 4326  34.7%

Toledo: 3847  40.6%

Akron: 3099  44.8%

Dayton: 903  27.8%

Youngstown: 338  21.1%

Canton: 296  21.9%

2018

Columbus: 49185  39.2%

Cleveland: 10351  47.4%

Akron: 8391  61.5%

Cincinnati: 5599  27.2%

Toledo: 3597  39.8%

Dayton: 2575  35.2%

Canton: 542  16.7%

Youngstown: 196  20.1%

Change 2000-2018

Columbus: +26831

Akron: +5292

Cleveland: +4138

Dayton: +1672

Cincinnati: +1273

Canton: +246

Youngstown: -142

Toledo: -250

 

Foreign-born Population from Africa and % of Total Foreign-born Population

2000

Columbus: 9530  20.0%

Cincinnati: 1781  14.3%

Cleveland: 1075  5.0%

Toledo: 638  6.7%

Dayton: 522  16.1%

Akron: 197 2.9%

Canton: 89 6.6%

Youngstown: 50  3.1%

2018

Columbus: 45092  36.0%

Cincinnati: 7113  34.5%

Dayton: 1573  21.5%

Akron: 1312  9.6%

Cleveland: 622  2.8%

Toledo: 416  4.6%

Youngstown: 277  28.4%

Canton: 95  2.9%

Change 2000-2018

Columbus: +35562

Cincinnati: +5332

Akron: +1116

Dayton: +1051

Youngstown: +227

Canton: +6

Toledo: -222

Cleveland: -453

 

Foreign-born Population from Oceania and % of Total Foreign-born Population

2000

Columbus: 216  0.5%

Cleveland: 96  0.4%

Cincinnati: 71  0.6%

Akron: 37  0.5%

Toledo: 28  0.3%

Youngstown: 14  0.9%

Canton: 0  0.0%

Dayton: 0  0.0%

2018

Columbus: 452  0.4%

Cincinnati: 241  1.2%

Cleveland: 211 1.0%

Toledo: 41  0.5%

Akron: 0  0.0%

Canton: 0  0.0%

Dayton: 0  0.0%

Youngstown: 0  0.0%

Change 2000-2018

Columbus: +236

Cincinnati: +170

Cleveland: +115

Toledo: +13

Canton: +0

Youngstown: -14

Akron: -37

 

Foreign-born Population from Latin America and % of Total Foreign-born Population

2000

Columbus: 7373  15.5%

Cleveland: 4796  22.4%

Toledo: 2257  23.8%

Cincinnati: 2031  16.3%

Dayton: 817  25.2%

Akron: 576  8.3%

Canton: 347  25.7%

Youngstown: 293  18.3%

2018

Columbus: 21331  17.0%

Cleveland: 5520  25.3%

Cincinnati: 4434  21.5%

Toledo: 3988  44.1%

Dayton: 2816  38.5%

Akron: 2219  16.3%

Canton: 2184  67.4%

Youngstown: 166  17.0%

Change 2000-2018

Columbus: +13958

Cincinnati: +2403

Dayton: +1999

Canton: +1837

Toledo: +1731

Akron: +1643

Cleveland: +724

Youngstown: -127

 

Foreign-born Population from North America and % of Total Foreign-born Population

2000

Columbus: 1223  2.6%

Toledo: 685  7.2%

Cincinnati: 401  3.2%

Cleveland: 396  1.9%

Akron: 315 4.6%

Dayton: 102  3.1%

Youngstown: 40  2.5%

Canton: 30  2.2%

2018

Columbus: 1138  0.9%

Cincinnati: 467  2.3%

Toledo: 359  4.0%

Cleveland: 290  1.3%

Akron: 147  1.1%

Canton: 73  2.3%

Dayton: 0  0.0%

Youngstown: 0  0.0%

Change 2000-2018

Cincinnati: +66

Canton: +43

Youngstown: -40

Columbus: -85

Dayton: -102

Cleveland: -106

Akron: -168

Toledo: -326

 

 

 

Canton, to me, is the (good) surprise of that list.