April 17, 201213 yr Whatever Columbus boosterism exists on this forum pales in comparison to the Cleveland and Cincinnati boosterism.
April 17, 201213 yr I stand with Colday and jbcmh. What will make Columbus' story a bit interesting to watch going forward is that so many of the poor quality postwar and beyond developments are actually within the city boundaries - especially on the east and southeast sides. In areas that are mixed further from the core, the lower quality development is nearly always Columbus rather than say Westerville, Worthington or Dublin (not as familiar with the Southeast and Far East side patterns). This is mostly different than the other two C's (though Cincy's west side had a fair bit of postwar poor quality development).
May 2, 201213 yr I find the actual numbers fascinating and positive for the 2010 census (only looking at the more urban neighborhoods). In the main cities of the metro areas, the downtown areas had high growth. Even in areas that most people look at and see hugh decline, I see positive things. The growth isn't factoring in all of the new developments in each downtown area, so growth will continue to be high in these particular neighborhoods over the next decade. These are the numbers that excited me the most: Cincinnati: Lower Central Business District- +29.7% to 2,159 (which is going to increase drastically with all of the new projects already built and planned) Upper CBD- +32.6% to 3,498 West End (Tracts 2, 264, 269) around -17.6% to 5,820 (mostly related to losing a large loss of black population). -The promising numbers here are a huge increase in Hispanic population and decent increase in white. Looks to just be shifting demographics. Western Over-the Rhine- -15% to 3,139. With all of the development in the OTR area around Washington Park, this looks to be redevelopment and shifting demographics again as there is a large increase in Asian and white populations. Eastern OTR- +7.75% to 2,925. Most of the development in OTR has occurred within the last few years, so the increase is just now really being seen. Dayton: Downtown- +17.2% to 3,866 Edgemont and Five Points (Tracts 35 and 1651) large decreases due to black population leaving, but a 60.5% increase in the white population. Columbus- German Village/Brewery District (Tract 57) +15.4% to 3,629 South CBD- +34% to 2,941 North CBD (tract includes Arena District) +42.5% to 3,105 Near East (tracts 36, 38, and 53) -12.7% to 6,392 due to large decrease in black population but showing large increases in white and hispanic pop. Harrison West- +17.7% to 2,147 Goodale Park area (tract 21) - +21.6% to 1,808 Italian Village area (tract 22) - +31.8% to 1,851 Victorian Village- +3.7% to 3,252 Toledo: Downtown (Tracts 27, 28, and 34)- +39.4% to 3,441 Warehouse District (tract 37)- -11.3% to 1,409. Decrease due to losing 27% of black pop, but white pop +196% and asian pop +80%. Cleveland: Flats West- +87.2% to 2,222 Warehouse District/North Coast- +43.5% to 4,193 Gateway District- +57.4% to 1,944 Eastern CBD- +54.7% to 3,334 Asiatown- +1.6% to 1,354 Prospect Ave Historic District- +30.5% to 4,393 St Vincent/Cuyahoga Comm College (Tract 109301) +13.4% to 1,873 University Circle- +76.8% to 3,679 All in all, I see positive urban growth in a largely suburban state.
May 2, 201213 yr Agreed. This is great news for everybody. "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
May 2, 201213 yr ^^Is Little Italy on a separate tract from UC? If yes, then what were the numbers there? If not, the UC numbers would seem low, no?
May 2, 201213 yr ^The UC tract he's reporting data from covers only the area north of Euclid, East of 105th and south of Wade Park (with a little bump north of Wade Park north of the East Cleveland Cemetery). Little Italy is in a different tract that also includes the Triangle, the case dorms south of Cornell, and also parts of the first two blocks of East Cleveland south of Euclid; that tract lost population from 2000-2010. The NYTimes has a great 2010 census page that shows the tract boundaries and makes it super easy to see the pop change by tract: http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map It's addicting.
May 3, 201213 yr With OTR numbers you have to factor in the craziness of the decade. Starting with riots, then huge depopulation, followed by tons of development.
May 3, 201213 yr It is separate...it was a decrease tho, so not listed. One interesting (but probably not surprising) note here ... The Asian population in Little Italy grew pretty steadily, with a 14.1% increase in that demographic, now making up 25% of that census tract, or approximately 750 residents of Asian background. For comparison, the Asiatown tracts (108201, 1084 and 108301) have a collective Asian population of around 1,250. Another fascinating tract for me is 112301 in Cleveland (Western Hough / Midtown). The tract grew 1.8%, with a pretty uptick in white population (211% increase to 6% of total resident population). I'm trying to wrap my head around what's driving that. I can't think of any major development projects in that tract in the 2000s. I think the vast majority of the Hough McMansions and the more recent low-income housing / senior housing developments are well to the east of here. Is this larger household sizes? Or single parcel rehabs? Personally, when I think about positive prospects for the East Side, I tend to draw a bright line down E. 55th street all the way to University Circle ... the on-the-ground experience, coupled with Midtown's almost exclusive focus on institutional in-fill rather than residential, has driven me there. But this census tract's proximity to the previously mentioned Asiatown and Prospect tracts, together with positive growth in several nearby Central/North Broadway tracts (4.3% in 109801, 11.0% in 113801 and 5.8% in 1143), seems like the situation is not as hopeless on the Near East Side as it is a little bit further to the east.
May 3, 201213 yr Ill post these again. But Little Italy's census tract includes several areas outside the borders. Here are Little Italy's true numbers. Total Population = 2004 White = 1566 Black = 43 Asian = 395 Therefore... White = 78% Black = 2% Asian = 20%
May 3, 201213 yr Also my counts give you University Circle - 4,204 Little Italy - 2,004 Cleveland Heights(West of Coventry) - 8,196 Total = 14,404
May 3, 201213 yr How neatly do the census tracts in OTR track the actual borders of the Over-the-Rhine neighborhood? I know that in 2000 the Census placed OTR's population at 7,638. In 2007, a study commissioned by the City put it at 4,970 (see: http://www.uc.edu/cdc/urban_database/citywide_regional/cinti_drilldown_report.pdf). Can we figure out the actual population of OTR from these tracts, or is it an imperfect match? If not, does anyone have any idea what OTR's population numbers look like currently? I'm only interested because between, say, 1900 and 2000 it was 100 years of uniform decline, every single census period. It would be interesting if there was actually a rebound from 2007 to 2010.
May 3, 201213 yr ^ I'm not actually sure where OTR stops and Pendleton starts, but adding tracts 1, 9, 16, and 17 gives you the best census tract approximation of the extension of OTR. It extends above McMicken a little to the north, so the numbers are a little inflated. And if Pendleton starts at Main instead of Sycamore, you get a few extra blocks on the east as well. If you want to include Pendleton as part of OTR, add another 900 to this total. 1,437 + 1,652 + 1,487 + 1,488 = 6,064. http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map (StrapHanger just linked this.)
May 3, 201213 yr Also my counts give you University Circle - 4,204 Little Italy - 2,004 Cleveland Heights(West of Coventry) - 8,196 Total = 14,404 West of Coventry? How big is that area roughly? That's a lot more people than I thought would live in the area. But I am thinking in a small area between Coventry and Little Italy.
May 4, 201213 yr I find the actual numbers fascinating and positive for the 2010 census (only looking at the more urban neighborhoods). In the main cities of the metro areas, the downtown areas had high growth. Even in areas that most people look at and see hugh decline, I see positive things. The growth isn't factoring in all of the new developments in each downtown area, so growth will continue to be high in these particular neighborhoods over the next decade. These are the numbers that excited me the most: Cincinnati: Lower Central Business District- +29.7% to 2,159 (which is going to increase drastically with all of the new projects already built and planned) Upper CBD- +32.6% to 3,498 West End (Tracts 2, 264, 269) around -17.6% to 5,820 (mostly related to losing a large loss of black population). The promising numbers here are a huge increase in Hispanic population and decent increase in white. Looks to just be shifting demographics. Western Over-the Rhine- -15% to 3,139. With all of the development in the OTR area around Washington Park, this looks to be redevelopment and shifting demographics again as there is a large increase in Asian and white populations. Eastern OTR- +7.75% to 2,925. Most of the development in OTR has occurred within the last few years, so the increase is just now really being seen. Dayton: Downtown- +17.2% to 3,866 Edgemont and Five Points (Tracts 35 and 1651) large decreases due to black population leaving, but a 60.5% increase in the white population. Columbus- German Village/Brewery District (Tract 57) +15.4% to 3,629 South CBD- +34% to 2,941 North CBD (tract includes Arena District) +42.5% to 3,105 Near East (tracts 36, 38, and 53) -12.7% to 6,392 due to large decrease in black population but showing large increases in white and hispanic pop. Harrison West- +17.7% to 2,147 Goodale Park area (tract 21) - +21.6% to 1,808 Italian Village area (tract 22) - +31.8% to 1,851 Victorian Village- +3.7% to 3,252 Toledo: Downtown (Tracts 27, 28, and 34)- +39.4% to 3,441 Warehouse District (tract 37)- -11.3% to 1,409. Decrease due to losing 27% of black pop, but white pop +196% and asian pop +80%. Cleveland: Flats West- +87.2% to 2,222 Warehouse District/North Coast- +43.5% to 4,193 Gateway District- +57.4% to 1,944 Eastern CBD- +54.7% to 3,334 Asiatown- +1.6% to 1,354 Prospect Ave Historic District- +30.5% to 4,393 St Vincent/Cuyahoga Comm College (Tract 109301) +13.4% to 1,873 University Circle- +76.8% to 3,679 All in all, I see positive urban growth in a largely suburban state. Very impressive analysis.
May 4, 201213 yr Census Tract population changes 1950 to 2010 based on 1950 city core areas. Cincinnati City Core Population 1950: 503,998 1960: 498,607 1970: 448,652 1980: 381,268 1990: 365,853 2000: 337,234 2010: 278,509 City core population change 1940-1950: +48,397 or 10.6% 1950-1960: -5,391 or -1.1% 1960-1970: -49,995 or -10.0% 1970-1980: -67,384 or -15.0% 1980-1990: -15,415 or -4.0% 1990-2000: -28,619 or -7.8% 2000-2010: -58,725 or -17.4% # of census tracts growing (out of 110) 1950: 81 1960: 54 1970: 41 1980: 14 1990: 26 2000: 19 2010: 11 Cleveland City Core Population 1950: 914,798 1960: 877,814 1970: 750,191 1980: 573,667 1990: 495,530 2000: 468,451 2010: 378,447 City core population change 1940-1950: +36,462 or 4.2% 1950-1960: -36,984 or -4.0% 1960-1970: -127,623 or -14.5% 1970-1980: -176,524 or -23.5% 1980-1990: -78,137 or -13.6% 1990-2000: -27,079 or -5.5% 2000-2010: -90,004 or -19.2% # of census tracts growing (out of 206). 1950: 101 1960: 52 1970: 42 1980: 8 1990: 11 2000: 53 2010: 28 Columbus City Core Population 1950: 375,710 1960: 389,222 1970: 348,808 1980: 287,089 1990: 268,265 2000: 246,713 2010: 234,582 City core population change. 1940-1950: +69,624 or 22.7% 1950-1960: +13,512 or 3.6% 1960-1970: -40,414 or -10.4% 1970-1980: -61,719 or -17.7% 1980-1990: -18,824 or -6.6% 1990-2000: -21,552 or -8.0% 2000-2010: -12,131 or -4.9% # of census tracts growing (Out of 61) 1950: 50 1960: 25 1970: 13 1980: 5 1990: 11 2000: 11 2010: 16
May 5, 201213 yr What on earth is the definition of city core here? There isn't one. By my standards, parts of northern kentucky would be considered 'core' to the Cincinnati metro Without such definitions these numbers are meaningless.
May 5, 201213 yr Well based on the Cincinnati numbers it would be the incorporated city, but that doesn't seem to be the case for Columbus.
May 5, 201213 yr "City core" in this case refers to the city proper boundaries in 1950. That seems to be what most people discuss when they talk about urban cores.
May 5, 201213 yr What on earth is the definition of city core here? There isn't one. By my standards, parts of northern kentucky would be considered 'core' to the Cincinnati metro Without such definitions these numbers are meaningless. Why did everyone seem to miss that i put at the top of the post that the numbers represented the tracts within the 1950 boundaries? Frankly, your response is meaningless if you can't be bothered to read the post.
May 5, 201213 yr That's a fascinating analysis. Thanks. The 70's were not a good time for urban Columbus. "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
May 5, 201213 yr You're asking why data showcasing the urban cores of Ohio's three largest cities through a 60 year period is fascinating? Are you on the correct website? "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
May 5, 201213 yr It is separate...it was a decrease tho, so not listed. One interesting (but probably not surprising) note here ... The Asian population in Little Italy grew pretty steadily, with a 14.1% increase in that demographic, now making up 25% of that census tract, or approximately 750 residents of Asian background. For comparison, the Asiatown tracts (108201, 1084 and 108301) have a collective Asian population of around 1,250. Another fascinating tract for me is 112301 in Cleveland (Western Hough / Midtown). The tract grew 1.8%, with a pretty uptick in white population (211% increase to 6% of total resident population). I'm trying to wrap my head around what's driving that. I can't think of any major development projects in that tract in the 2000s. I think the vast majority of the Hough McMansions and the more recent low-income housing / senior housing developments are well to the east of here. Is this larger household sizes? Or single parcel rehabs? Personally, when I think about positive prospects for the East Side, I tend to draw a bright line down E. 55th street all the way to University Circle ... the on-the-ground experience, coupled with Midtown's almost exclusive focus on institutional in-fill rather than residential, has driven me there. But this census tract's proximity to the previously mentioned Asiatown and Prospect tracts, together with positive growth in several nearby Central/North Broadway tracts (4.3% in 109801, 11.0% in 113801 and 5.8% in 1143), seems like the situation is not as hopeless on the Near East Side as it is a little bit further to the east. That's around League Park? I would say that would be all of the suburban style housing that went in all throughout the area. I'm not terribly familiar aside from driving through the neighborhood a few times. I really think we are going to start to see the turnarounds in some of these neighborhoods within 2 decades (as depressing as that is)
May 5, 201213 yr Did Cleveland's borders change since 1950? Why is the 2010 population number listed above smaller than the overall number?
May 5, 201213 yr Did Cleveland's borders change since 1950? Why is the 2010 population number listed above smaller than the overall number? How I got the numbers is that I looked up Census links to tract data by decade. The reports had every tract listed, but as the decades went on, some of the original ones split up. Luckily, the links gave descriptions on how the tracts changed and to what numbers, so I was able to still list population for tracts as if they were still the originals. That gave a good idea of how the original tracts changed over time. I'm sure there were some overall changes to borders after 1950, though, because none of the final 2010 numbers exactly match the total 2010 city populations. The tract totals used (110 for Cincy, for example) are how many existed within the city in 1950. There are more now as many split up, but I wanted to keep everything listed as if things existed exactly like they did in 1950.
May 5, 201213 yr Because of the changes over time to these types of data, this type of analysis is more an art than a science. By keeping those things constant (1950 # of census tracts & borders), you've managed to create an analysis that actually compares apples to apples. It would be an interesting analysis to see other fine grained statistics using similar methods (racial composition, income, density, housing tenure, etc). The population numbers only tell one small story. Its a lot of work, but well done.
May 5, 201213 yr Did Cleveland's borders change since 1950? Why is the 2010 population number listed above smaller than the overall number? How I got the numbers is that I looked up Census links to tract data by decade. The reports had every tract listed, but as the decades went on, some of the original ones split up. Luckily, the links gave descriptions on how the tracts changed and to what numbers, so I was able to still list population for tracts as if they were still the originals. That gave a good idea of how the original tracts changed over time. I'm sure there were some overall changes to borders after 1950, though, because none of the final 2010 numbers exactly match the total 2010 city populations. The tract totals used (110 for Cincy, for example) are how many existed within the city in 1950. There are more now as many split up, but I wanted to keep everything listed as if things existed exactly like they did in 1950. Wow, I am sorry. I didn't realize you put that much effort into it (I really should read each post) Thanks for doing this.
May 6, 201213 yr You're asking why data showcasing the urban cores of Ohio's three largest cities through a 60 year period is fascinating? Are you on the correct website? I'm asking what possible use undefined categories applied to unreferenced numbers could possibly be. Relevance isn't enough. Posters should at least try to demonstrate what the numbers they present are supposed to show. Without carefully considered definitions of the areas being considered, we can't make head or tails of these numbers.
May 6, 201213 yr Wow, Columbus' core is not near as impressive as I thought it would be. Barely larger than Akron. What's the land area (if anyone knows) of Columbus' "core".
May 6, 201213 yr I'm making heads AND tails of these numbers quite easily! What's the beef with these numbers, and/or methodology here? I think this is good stuff!
May 6, 201213 yr I would appreciate if you would explain something you see in these numbers. What is a conclusion you can make based on these numbers?
May 6, 201213 yr Wow, Columbus' core is not near as impressive as I thought it would be. Barely larger than Akron. What's the land area (if anyone knows) of Columbus' "core". Columbus' incorporated city limits size 1910-2010. 1910: 23 1930: 38 1950: 40 1960: 91 1970: 144 1990: 196 2010: 217 In 1950, Columbus had a much smaller size than Cleveland or Cincinnati. There's no reason to expect that the population would be significant in that small of an area.
May 6, 201213 yr I would appreciate if you would explain something you see in these numbers. What is a conclusion you can make based on these numbers? That Columbus's core followed a similar trajectory as the other 3C cities? It's interesting because if you look at population numbers alone and don't control for annexing, you don't see the same pattern at all.
May 6, 201213 yr I would appreciate if you would explain something you see in these numbers. What is a conclusion you can make based on these numbers? That Columbus's core followed a similar trajectory as the other 3C cities? It's interesting because if you look at population numbers alone and don't control for annexing, you don't see the same pattern at all. I would think that the core population losses extend well beyond Ohio. Even to the Sun Belt in some cases. What I found most interesting is that the rate of losses increased the last decade in two of the three cities to their worst or 2nd worst ever, despite going through 2 recessions that made moving more difficult for many people, not to mention that economies faired somewhat better than other parts of the country during the period. Columbus, on the other hand, while still losing people, had it's best rate of retention since the 1960s and has a gradually improving number of growing tracts. What are the differences that explain these differing trends? Clearly Columbus suffered the same steep population drops through the 1970s that the other places had, so what has been the catalyst to be improving this trend there but not necessarily elsewhere, especially when economic factors have been gradually improving from Rustbelt status?
May 6, 201213 yr question: whats with the 53 growing census tracts in cle in 2000? it looks like quite an unusual abberation. thx if you know or can guess.
May 6, 201213 yr question: whats with the 53 growing census tracts in cle in 2000? it looks like quite an unusual abberation. thx if you know or can guess. Good question, and I'm honestly not sure. The 1990s were generally a very good economic decade, especially in later years (though it was somewhat of a bubble). I know from reading many census reports that the 1990s had generally strong growth everywhere in the US, from states to metros to cities. Ohio and it's metros generally saw stronger growth that decade than this past one. I guess the bright spot for Cleveland is that it still had more tracts growing in the 2000s than the 1980s or 1970s, at least in those from the original 1950 tracts. The back to the city movement, however, is really only just beginning, so hopefully we'll see more growth in the core in the coming years. Cincinnati in particular did not do very well in the 2000s for its core based on 1950 boundaries, with it's highest loss there ever, and the fewest number of tracts growing.
May 6, 201213 yr Cincinnati in particular did not do very well in the 2000s for its core based on 1950 boundaries, with it's highest loss there ever, and the fewest number of tracts growing. I wouldn't read too much into that since your numbers have some sort of error around this time period. Your 1950 boundary populations for Cincinnati in 1990 and 2000 are larger than the census's official numbers for the incorporated city.
May 6, 201213 yr Cincinnati in particular did not do very well in the 2000s for its core based on 1950 boundaries, with it's highest loss there ever, and the fewest number of tracts growing. I wouldn't read too much into that since your numbers have some sort of error around this time period. Your 1950 boundary populations for Cincinnati in 1990 and 2000 are larger than the census's official numbers for the incorporated city. Well, I'm sure I made some errors just given that trying to follow all the changes to individual tracts was fairly difficult. For example, at some points, some counts for certain tracts all but disappeared as they merged or split. That said, it's probably the closest approximation I could get and the differences of those numbers vs the census count are about 1,500 for 1990 and 6,000 for 2000. Even accounting for that error, the % loss would still be the largest since 1950 in Cincinnati.
May 6, 201213 yr The official census shows a 10.4% drop vs. your 17.4% drop. The number of people unaccounted for in your 1950 boundary estimates for 2010 is about 5.6% of the incorporated city in 2000 and 6.2% in 2010. It seems very hard to believe that the exclusion of those people could lead to a 7% difference in changes. I'm willing to go along with your counts for general purposes but when you start making specific claims about impossible data, I won't buy it.
May 6, 201213 yr Wow, Columbus' core is not near as impressive as I thought it would be. Barely larger than Akron. What's the land area (if anyone knows) of Columbus' "core". Columbus' incorporated city limits size 1910-2010. 1910: 23 1930: 38 1950: 40 1960: 91 1970: 144 1990: 196 2010: 217 In 1950, Columbus had a much smaller size than Cleveland or Cincinnati. There's no reason to expect that the population would be significant in that small of an area. Umm, let's see, Columbus is still declining, and according to your numbers, in 2010 barely had a population larger than Akron. I made the observation from YOUR numbers that Columbus is still declining and didn't have an impressive core population.
May 8, 201213 yr Wow, Columbus' core is not near as impressive as I thought it would be. Barely larger than Akron. What's the land area (if anyone knows) of Columbus' "core". Columbus' incorporated city limits size 1910-2010. 1910: 23 1930: 38 1950: 40 1960: 91 1970: 144 1990: 196 2010: 217 In 1950, Columbus had a much smaller size than Cleveland or Cincinnati. There's no reason to expect that the population would be significant in that small of an area. Umm, let's see, Columbus is still declining, and according to your numbers, in 2010 barely had a population larger than Akron. I made the observation from YOUR numbers that Columbus is still declining and didn't have an impressive core population. None of Ohio's cities look impressive based on 1950 boundaries, so I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make is, especially when Cincinnati/Cleveland did not have their boundaries grow significantly since and Columbus' 1950 boundares are much smaller compared to where the other two were at the same time. Columbus' core population is based on a size of about 40 square miles in 1950 when both the others were over 70. Since we're only using the 1950 boundaries for these population numbers, the 2010 number still represents only 40 square miles and Cleveland and Cincinnati still representing over 70. There aren't very many cities anywhere close to that size anymore. Maybe the closest is Boston at around 48, but even then, that only represents about 618K people in a significantly larger metro than Columbus. San Fransisco has about 46 square miles with a bit over 800K, but it's also one of the densist cities in the US. Other than that, I can't really think of too many other cities with boundaries that small. BTW, Akron's 2010 city boundaries are about 62 square miles with 199K, and we're talking about Columbus 1950 boundaries with 234K. It's apples to oranges and I'm not sure why you're trying to make such a comparison.
May 8, 201213 yr The official census shows a 10.4% drop vs. your 17.4% drop. The number of people unaccounted for in your 1950 boundary estimates for 2010 is about 5.6% of the incorporated city in 2000 and 6.2% in 2010. It seems very hard to believe that the exclusion of those people could lead to a 7% difference in changes. I'm willing to go along with your counts for general purposes but when you start making specific claims about impossible data, I won't buy it. The fact is that boundaries changed after 1950. There is a difference between the census count and my numbers starting in 1960, so there are going to be differences each decade after if any further city boundary changes took place, which they did. My numbers were never going to match up exactly to the census counts for that very reason, but examining the census numbers, I don't see huge discrepencies when accounting for the boundary changes over time. The census % of -10.4% from 2000-2010 was for the entire city boundary, not just those that existed in 1950, which is all I was measuring. In any case, even if you don't believe the numbers at face value, and I freely admit that errors were likely made just in the process of obtaining them, the census itself supports the end result to some degree. The 10.4% loss was the 2nd largest loss since 1950 for the city as a whole, and just as my numbers show, the rate of loss has increased each decade since 1990 for Cincinnati. So while the numbers may not be exact and there is some fudging on whether it's the worst or 2nd worst, the general trend matches.
May 14, 201213 yr Population: Components of Growth 1980-2010 A LOT of talk the last several years has been about how migration factored the big Sun Belt boom of the last few decades, but really, natural increase such as births vs deaths plays a big role in most cities. Ohio's two biggest weakness are domestic migration and the ratio of births vs deaths. Both of these contribute to the low growth of the state, and in many cases, the decline of metro populations. Akron MSA 1980-1989 Average Births: 9,157 Average Deaths: 5,754 Difference: +3,403 1990-1999 Births: 9,579 Deaths: 6,246 Difference: +3,333 Domestic Migration: -447 International Migration: +317 Total Migration: -130 2000-2009 Births: 7,963 Deaths: 6,208 Difference: +1,755 Domestic Migration: -1,807 International Migration: +583 Total Migration: -1,224 Akron Trends Births: Down Deaths: Up Domestic Migration: Down International Migration: Up Total Migration: Down Cincinnati MSA 1980-1989 Average Births: 28,652 Average Deaths: 15,816 Difference: +12,836 1990-1999 Births: 29,351 Deaths: 17,129 Difference: +12,222 Domestic Migration: +2,885 International Migration: +1,055 Total Migration: +3,940 2000-2009 Births: 28,119 Deaths: 16,901 Difference: +11,218 Domestic Migration: -1,878 International Migration: +2,374 Total Migration: +496 Cincinnati Trends Births: Down Deaths: Up Domestic Migration: Down International Migration: Up Total Migration: Down Cleveland MSA 1980-1989 Births: 32,081 Deaths: 21,087 Difference: +10,994 1990-1999 Births: 30,861 Deaths: 21,109 Difference: +9,752 Domestic Migration: -11,464 International Migration: +1,909 Total Migration: -9,555 2000-2009 Births: 25,003 Deaths: 20,018 Difference: +4,985 Domestic Migration: -14,010 International Migration: +2,940 Total Migration: -11,070 Cleveland Trends Births: Down Deaths: Down Domestic Migration: Down International Migration: Up Total Migration: Down Columbus MSA 1980-1989 Births: 20,781 Deaths: 10,288 Difference: +10,493 1990-1999 Births: 23,337 Deaths: 11,704 Difference: +11,633 Domestic Migration: +4,889 International Migration: +1,367 Total Migration: +6,256 2000-2009 Births: 24,556 Deaths: 12,225 Difference: +12,331 Domestic Migration: +3,426 International Migration: +4,170 Total Migration: +7,596 Columbus Trends Births: Up Deaths: Up Domestic Migration: Down International Migration: Up Total Migration: Up Dayton MSA 1980-1989 Births: 12,574 Deaths: 6,930 Difference: +5,644 1990-1999 Births: 12,121 Deaths: 7,763 Difference: +4,358 Domestic Migration: -5,695 International Migration: +450 Total Migration: -5,245 2000-2009 Births: 10,259 Deaths: 7,590 Difference: +2,669 Domestic Migration: -4,458 International Migration: +582 Total Migration: -3,876 Dayton Trends Births: Down Deaths: Up Domestic Migration: Up International Migration: Up Total Migration: Up Toledo MSA 1980-1989 Births: 10,251 Deaths: 6,028 Difference: +4,223 1990-1999 Births: 9,736 Deaths: 6,232 Difference: +3,504 Domestic Migration: -4,116 International Migration: +370 Total Migration: -3,746 2000-2009 Births: 8,251 Deaths: 5,801 Difference: +2,450 Domestic Migration: -3,933 International Migration: +647 Total Migration: -3,286 Toledo Trends Births: Down Deaths: Down Domestic Migration: Up International Migration: Up Total Migration: Up
May 15, 201213 yr Aren't all of the Ohio metros gaining population (except maybe CLE)? You mention the 'decline of metro populations.'
May 15, 201213 yr Aren't all of the Ohio metros gaining population (except maybe CLE)? You mention the 'decline of metro populations.' The Toledo, Cleveland, Youngstown, Akron and Dayton metros were losing people through 2010. Dayton may be gaining now according to the latest estimate, though. One thing that seems to have no consistent pattern is domestic migration. International migration is going up in every metro, but domestic has no clear trend. In some metros the rate of loss is slowing, in others accelerating (same with growth), but it doesn't matter if the overall metro is growing or not. There seems to be no correlation at all. Births vs deaths, however, still seems to be the deciding factor in most cases. The oldest metros have the smallest differences, and therefore the natural rate of increase is surpassed by outmigration. So what's easier to do: have the population have more children or attract more people from other areas?
Create an account or sign in to comment