Maybe i didn't express it clearly lol.  My issue isn't with Newark being apart of the Columbus MSA, I just feel that if that's how its being classified, then Newark deserves its recognition in the description of that classification. As i mentioned above, i firmly believe the Columbus MSA should be rebranded as Columbus/Newark/Delaware.  To me, it paints a much clearer and more accurate description of the Columbus MSA.  We can't have half of the population of Columbus acting as if Newark is in a different state and then turn around and say we cant be our own MSA?  It has to be one or the other in my opinion.  Either start acting like Newark is part of the Columbus metro, or give Newark its own and deserving MSA.  I don't care which one it is, but that needs to happen.  Just my two cents lol.  Good conversation.

And just for reference, the term Great Newark Area is becoming more and more common with the people around the Newark/Heath/Granville/Hanover area.  So as these cities continue to grow, this is going to become more and more of problem for the proud Columbus MSA growth people. lol

Edited March 12, 20214 yr by OhioFinest

Newark is never going be it's own MSA. Do about 5 minutes of research on MSAs and you'll realize it's just not going to happen. I love the Newark pride around here, but let's come back down to earth. It's just way too connected to Columbus from an economic standpoint, and that connection gets stronger every year.  

Lets come back down to Earth? lol Come on...AGAIN....for the 3rd time, i don't really care either way, i just want Newark to get its proper recognition in the Columbus MSA classification.  But if you want to be exact, i did do my research on MSA's and Newark meets the Census Bureau's qualifications. Not trying to be a d*ck, but IF Newark is "to close" to Columbus to be its own MSA, then why does Akron and Canton/Massilon have their own MSA's?  Shouldn't they be included in Cleveland's MSA???  Why isn't Springfield included in Dayton's MSA?  The simple fact is now that Newark has crossed the 50,000 person threshold and is the central city of more than 1 population center...Newark by all means can be its own MSA.  When the new Census comes out, whenever that may be lol, all i'm saying is that i wouldn't be shocked at all if Newark gains an MSA status...that's all.  But i'm open to facts and proof that say Newark can't and wont ever be it's own MSA. 

 

https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/GARM/Ch13GARM.pdf

 

 

Quote

Metropolitan districts again were defined for the 1930 and 1940 censuses, but the criteria were modified for these censuses so that metropolitan districts for cities with minimum populations of 50,000 would be recognized

 

 

Quote

Qualification and Designation of New MSAs: An area can qualify for intercensal designation as an MSA in three ways:(1) a city reaches the 50,000 population threshold according to a CensusBureau special census count or estimate

 

Edited March 12, 20214 yr by OhioFinest

Asking honestly...if Newark is too close to Columbus to be it's own MSA, then why is Springfield it's own MSA?  Springfield is closer to Dayton than Newark is to Columbus.  Again, the threshold to be considered for an MSA by the Census Bureau is 50,000 residents.  Just asking an honest question.  And on this topic, will Mansfield and Lima both lose their MSA status when the newest Census comes out? 

 

Edited March 12, 20214 yr by OhioFinest

At the risk of veering way off topic, what cities/villages would be included in a hypothetical Newark MSA to get it to the minimum of 100,000 residents? Newark, Heath, Granville, and Hanover don't quite get all the way to 70,000.

 

"Qualification of an MSA requires the presence of a city of 50,000 or more inhabitants,  and a total population of at least 100,000"

 

 

In addition, do 15 percent of Licking County commute to Franklin county for work? I'm imagining this counts Pataskala and northern Reynoldsburg. 

 

"Additional outlying counties are included in the MSA if they meet specified requirements of commuting to the central counties as well as other requirements of metropolitan character. The minimum level of commuting to central counties required to make a county eligible for consideration as an outlying county is 15 percent"

 

Thirdly, since the Columbus MSA extends into southwestern Licking County, the following passage applies too:

 

"Counties containing the principal concentration of population—the largest city and surrounding densely settled area—are components of the MSA."

On 3/12/2021 at 12:22 PM, Imwalle said:

At the risk of veering way off topic, what cities/villages would be included in a hypothetical Newark MSA to get it to the minimum of 100,000 residents? Newark, Heath, Granville, and Hanover don't quite get all the way to 70,000.

 

"Qualification of an MSA requires the presence of a city of 50,000 or more inhabitants,  and a total population of at least 100,000"

 

 

In addition, do 15 percent of Licking County commute to Franklin county for work? I'm imagining this counts Pataskala and northern Reynoldsburg. 

 

"Additional outlying counties are included in the MSA if they meet specified requirements of commuting to the central counties as well as other requirements of metropolitan character. The minimum level of commuting to central counties required to make a county eligible for consideration as an outlying county is 15 percent"

 

Thirdly, since the Columbus MSA extends into southwestern Licking County, the following passage applies too:

 

"Counties containing the principal concentration of population—the largest city and surrounding densely settled area—are components of the MSA."

 

 

You totally misquoted what the Census bureau classification says.  Totally false! It does NOT say 50,000 AND have a total population of 100,000.  It says OR...very big difference.  This is exactly what it says:

 

"Metropolitan Statistical Areas An MSA consists of one or more counties that contain a city of 50,000 or more inhabitants, OR contain a Census Bureau-defined urbanized area (UA) and have a total population of at least 100,000 (75,000 in New England). Counties containing the principal concentration of population—the largest city and surrounding densely settled area—are components of the MSA. Additional counties qualify to be included by meeting a specified level of commuting to the counties containing the population concentration and by meeting certain other requirements of metropolitan character, such as a specified minimum population density or percentage of the population that is urban. MSAs in New England are defined in terms of cities and towns, following rules concerning commuting and population density"

 

^^^^^

So, again, going by what the Census Bureau lays out, Newark clearly meets the Census Bureau's classification to be an MSA.  Newark would defined as a Level D MSA by the Census Bureau (area less than 100,000).

 

Level A Areas of 1 million or more

Level B Areas of 250,000 to 999,999

Level C Areas of 100,000 to 249,999

Level D Areas of less than 100,000

 

https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/GARM/Ch13GARM.pdf

 

Newark = population of 51,000

Heath = population of 11,102

Granville/Township = population of 10,395

Hanover/Township = 2,315

 

Greater Newark Metro (Level D MSA) = 74,812

Edited March 16, 20214 yr by OhioFinest

24 minutes ago, OhioFinest said:

"Metropolitan Statistical Areas An MSA consists of one or more counties that contain a city of 50,000 or more inhabitants, OR contain a Census Bureau-defined urbanized area (UA) and have a total population of at least 100,000 (75,000 in New England). Counties containing the principal concentration of population—the largest city and surrounding densely settled area—are components of the MSA. Additional counties qualify to be included by meeting a specified level of commuting to the counties containing the population concentration and by meeting certain other requirements of metropolitan character, such as a specified minimum population density or percentage of the population that is urban. MSAs in New England are defined in terms of cities and towns, following rules concerning commuting and population density"

 

The sentence in bold is the reason why Newark will continue to be part of the Columbus MSA rather than becoming it's own MSA. The level of commuting from Licking County (and Newark itself) to Franklin County is way too high.

1 hour ago, cbussoccer said:

 

The sentence in bold is the reason why Newark will continue to be part of the Columbus MSA rather than becoming it's own MSA. The level of commuting from Licking County (and Newark itself) to Franklin County is way too high.

Wouldn't Newark(if it did break free from being a part of the Columbus MSA)have to be a Micropolitan area instead of a new Metropolitan area given the upcoming changes mandating the central city of an MSA must have a population of 100,000 now instead of 50,000?

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/bye-bismarck-144-cities-lose-status-metro-areas-76295168

 

And yes as you stated the designations are based on things like commuting patterns which is why Newark is part of the Columbus MSA anyway so there should be no changes. 

Apparently in Ohio 3 cities may lose their Metro status if the changes are made:

 

Springfield, urban area pop. 85,256

Mansfield urban area pop. 75, 250

Lima urban area pop. 72. 852

 

https://www.thenews-messenger.com/story/news/2021/03/08/bye-bismarck-144-cities-3-ohio-could-lose-metro-area-status/4627250001/

 

Best for Newark to stay with Cbus. Newark would also need to have a good case for displacing Zanesville or Marion in the designation also. I am not sure what the conditions are that enable a city to be part of the designation given that only three cities can be listed?

First off, that isn't official, those are just proposals, but its interesting that I didn't see any information on the Census website about them changing the population minimum of 50k to 100k?  Newark is bigger than both Lima and Mansfield. Im fact. reading that article, there are a LOT of negatives that come with doing away with MSA status that i don't think those cities intend on just giving up. I would bet that doesn't change and it stays 50K, which brings us back to square one.  Second, those articles actually prove that i was right...right?  50k is the current threshold and Newark would be eligible?  Again, i don't really care if Newark gets one or not, it still doesn't change the fact that people are calling it "Greater Newark" more and more, which i think is pretty cool.  As i stated above in the conversation, if Newark doesn't meet the new requirements that are proposed, then the Columbus MSA description needs to be changed at a minimum.  It should be read as Columbus/Newark/Delaware or Columbus/Newark/Lancaster.  I think it would really be in the regions best interests, if people in Columbus start acknowledging the positive population growth and the investments being made in Newark.  Its a good time to be in Licking County.

Edited March 16, 20214 yr by OhioFinest

11 minutes ago, OhioFinest said:

First off, that isn't official, those are just proposals, but its interesting that I didn't see any information on the Census website about them changing the population minimum of 50k to 100k?  Newark is bigger than both Lima and Mansfield. Im fact. reading that article, there are a LOT of negatives that come with doing away with MSA status that i don't think those cities intend on just giving up. I would bet that doesn't change and it stays 50K, which brings us back to square one.  Second, those articles actually prove that i was right...right?  50k is the current threshold and Newark would be eligible?  Again, i don't really care if Newark gets one or not, it still doesn't change the fact that people are calling it "Greater Newark" more and more, which i think is pretty cool.  As i stated above in the conversation, if Newark doesn't meet the new requirements that are proposed, then the Columbus MSA description needs to be changed at a minimum.  It should be read as Columbus/Newark/Delaware or Columbus/Newark/Lancaster.  I think it would really be in the regions best interests, if people in Columbus start acknowledging the positive population growth and the investments being made in Newark.  Its a good time to be in Licking County.

 

Alright, this conversation is getting ridiculous and redundant. Newark is NEVER going to be it's own MSA. The name of the Columbus MSA is not going to get changed to include Newark, no matter how excited we all are that it's being revitalized. People around ere can "acknowledge the positive population growth" (whatever that means), without making unqualified changes to MSA designations or names. Newark is growing. That's awesome. So is practically every other part of Central Ohio. It's all exciting. Now let's put this conversation to bed.

Quote

Asking honestly...if Newark is too close to Columbus to be it's own MSA, then why is Springfield it's own MSA?

 

Newark is in an adjacent county.

This certainly doesn't help the state's numbers, though with the 2020 Census taken so late in the year (even though its based on April 1), who knows how this impact will be reflected.  

 

"With the last of the death reports from 2020 still trickling in, the Ohio Department of Health is now reporting that at least 143,558 Ohioans died last year from all causes amid coronavirus - an increase of nearly 20,000 from the year before.  The increase amounts to 16%."

 

https://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/2021/03/ohio-deaths-in-2020-increased-by-nearly-20000-latest-data-shows.html

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/26/politics/us-census-2020-results/index.html

50 minutes ago, bwheats said:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/26/politics/us-census-2020-results/index.html

 

Nice.  I guess we'll find out how good the predictions were.

On 3/7/2021 at 8:50 AM, jonoh81 said:

The 2019 Ohio estimate was, as you mentioned, 11,689,100, but the 2020 estimate showed a loss with the state down to 11,693,217 from 2019. Estimates tend to be more pessimistic to low growth states like Ohio than what the decennial census tends to find.  Provided the Trump administration didn't botch it really badly (a non-zero possibility), there's historic precedent that Ohio won't be as bad as indicated in the estimates.

 

So all that said, I would guess that Ohio's count ends up somewhere between 11,685,000 (low end about +150,000) and 11,800,000 (high end about +250,000).  I know that range is pretty large, so if I had to guess a very specific number, it would be 11,755,698- on the higher end of the range, but still less than 2% growth during the decade.

 

This was my prediction in early March.

Early data seems that the US grew at the second slowest rate in history the last 10 years.  Population growth through 2020 was actually below the 2020 estimates.  That affects apportionment, as the South didn't gain as many seats and the North didn't lose as many seats as expected.  Ohio lost one seat, but it was in danger of losing more.  Florida only gained one, but was expected to gain at least 2.  It appears only 3 states lost population the last decade, however.  I know WV was one of them, but not sure who else yet.  I only managed to catch one state's actual population- California at 39,538,223.  

Watching census news conference and not many seats being moved. 7 states will lose one seat (New York, Michigan, California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia). The states gaining are the following: ( Texas+2, and Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon all gaining one seat). 

 

The only real raw numbers they have shown so far are California and Wyoming.

3 minutes ago, MissinOhio said:

The only real raw numbers they have shown so far are California and Wyoming.

 

Yes, and keep referring people to census.gov to see the rest of the data, but it's clearly not available there.

 

Edit: They just said the tables will be posted after the conference.

Edited April 26, 20214 yr by jonoh81

1 minute ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Yes, and keep referring people to census.gov to see the rest of the data, but it's clearly not available there.

 

Someone asked a question about specific state numbers and they give them a number to call.  I keep checking their tables, but they only have the 2010-2019 numbers.

Pennsylvania saw a 2.4% increase over the decade.  That might be somewhat similar to what Ohio sees.  

Someone from Columbus just asked about the state.  

 

Ohio +2.3% 

This is faster than the 1.6% 2000-2010, so Ohio actually improved.  

 

Edited April 26, 20214 yr by jonoh81

Ohio: 2.3%

9 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Someone from Columbus just asked about the state.  

 

Ohio +2.3% 

 

 

For reference, that's about 1% higher than was projected, which indicates more than 100,000 additional people. Will be very interesting to see where that fell regionally.

 

Edited April 26, 20214 yr by jonoh81

4 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

For reference, that's about 1% higher than was projected, which indicates more than 100,000 additional people. Will be very interesting to see where that fell regionally.

I bet Cleveland was flat to small growth, Other parts of NE OH lost but it was much slower than prior decade. cincinnati grew and Columbus grew fastest as many of the people moving from other areas of the state (less Cincinnati) relocated to Columbus.

https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2020/data/apportionment/apportionment-2020-map03.pdf

Here's a map with percentage change by state.

The New York estimate was off by more than 3%.

2 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

This was my prediction in early March.

Your high end estimate was less than 600 people off. The state nearly exceeded your high end projection which is very good news for the state.

So it appears Ohio is 45 out of 50? That does not appear to be great news.

  

15 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2020/data/apportionment/apportionment-2020-map03.pdf

Here's a map with percentage change by state.

The New York estimate was off by more than 3%.

 

Despite that, they still lost a House seat... by 89 people. Had 89 more people lived in NY at the time of the census, they'd have kept 27 seats.

10 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

  

 

Despite that, they still lost a House seat... by 89 people. Had 89 more people lived in NY at the time of the census, they'd have kept 27 seats.

Someone on twitter pointed out that over 400 people had died from covid in New York by April 1, compared to a much smaller number for MN (which was the state that NY would have taken the seat from if it got it). So it's morbid, but covid directly caused New York to lose one seat.

5 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

So it appears Ohio is 45 out of 50? That does not appear to be great news.

That is still a higher level than Ohio was in growth for 2010, so it is better than ten years ago.

2 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

That is still a higher level than Ohio was in growth for 2010, so it is better than ten years ago.

True. But Ohio still performed poorly and is at the very bottom.

1 minute ago, 646empire said:

True. But Ohio still performed poorly and is at the very bottom.

Performed poorly compared to what? We did better than we were projected to have. We improved from the 1.6 percent growth from 2000-2010. Look at jonoh81'a projection earlier this year. His high end was 11,800,000-which is almost exactly where we are at. I guess I am trying to look at it in the positive "glass half full" kind of way(instead of my usual "the glass is half damn empty!" )lol.

Ohio is a large state that has been tending down for a long time. That kind of demographic trajectory can't change at the drop of the hat. It's going to take time. That we appear to have started turning the tide is huge.

4 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

Performed poorly compared to what?

Relative to other states in terms of percentage growth.  Personally, I never understand why that metric is so important.  You have a state like North Dakota that grew by 15%.  But, they also have a population under 1 million.  So, a small raw increase in people leads to a larger percentage increase for them even though we gained twice the amount of people.

Does anyone have a side by side chart of the estimated vs. the actual in terms of state population? It would be interesting to see the difference!

11 minutes ago, PoshSteve said:

Ohio is a large state that has been tending down for a long time. That kind of demographic trajectory can't change at the drop of the hat. It's going to take time. That we appear to have started turning the tide is huge.

What bodes well in particular is that the regional trend was underestimating growth in the northeast and midwest, especially New York, PA, and Wisconsin, but really all of the midwest. The south, on the other hand, was overestimated overall. Obviously it's still the fastest growing region, but NC, TX, and AZ all significantly missed the mark of where they were expected to be.

1 minute ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

Relative to other states in terms of percentage growth.  Personally, I never understand why that metric is so important.  You have a state like North Dakota that grew by 15%.  But, they also have a population under 1 million.  So, a small raw increase in people leads to a larger percentage increase for them even though we gained twice the amount of people.

I am just pleased we did better than we were expected to do. We are at least moving in the right direction. Now the big question is where did the growth happen? Were most areas relatively stable or were there some big losers and big winners within the state?

2 minutes ago, cle_guy90 said:

Does anyone have a side by side chart of the estimated vs. the actual in terms of state population? It would be interesting to see the difference!

Well the 2019 estimate was 11,689,100, and for 2020 we are at 11,799,448 so the estimates were running under by over 100,000.

Pennsylvania officially passed Illinois and cracked the 13 million mark for the first time.

9 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

I am just pleased we did better than we were expected to do. We are at least moving in the right direction. Now the big question is where did the growth happen? Were most areas relatively stable or were there some big losers and big winners within the state?

Agreed, and this is going to be interesting to see throughout the whole midwest and New York. Did Wisconsin's gain come from a slowed decline (or growth?) in Milwaukee or from newer growing cities like Madison? Was New York's additional population mostly in NYC or are Buffalo, Syracuse, and Rochester all doing better than expected? Was the additional population in Ohio in Columbus or Cleveland/Toledo/Cincinnati? My guess is we will find across the whole region that either:

a. The rust belt population has essentially stabilized and that is why the growth estimates were too low; or

b. The rust belt is losing population as badly as was projected, but the cities that were already projected to grow like Columbus, Grand Rapids, and Madison did even better than expected.

 

It's possible the trend could be something else or a combination of the two, but I expect when we look broadly at the great lakes region we will be able to create a narrative of either a. or b.

28 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

Well the 2019 estimate was 11,689,100, and for 2020 we are at 11,799,448 so the estimates were running under by over 100,000.

Sorry I meant for all the states. It’d be interesting to see all the comparisons side by side.

On 3/7/2021 at 1:50 AM, Pugu said:

For fun, shall we start taking bets on the 2020 Ohio number? Let's see who can get the closest!  For reference, here are the historical numbers:

 

1970   10,652,017   9.7% growth from previous Census

1980   10,797,630   1.4%

1990   10,847,115    0.5%

2000   11,353,140   4.7%

2010   11,536,504   1.6%

2019 (est.)   11,689,100    1.3% (2010 to 2019 est growth)  (Official estimate)

 

It would be great to break the 12 million mark, but that would mean a growth rate of 4.018% from 2010.

 

I'm going to be a little optimistic and put as at 2.78% growth (meaning the 2019 estimate is too low), so:

 

2020    11,857,219

 

 

I was close---Above is what I said on March 7th!

Why did Illinois lose people? It's strange for any state to lose people, but I can kindof see WV and MS, but would not have expected IL to lose people.

Chicagoland is barely maintaining a stable population and something crazy like 85% of Illinois counties are estimated to have lost population in the last decade. So not a huge shock that they are down overall.

 

I'm really interested to see what the Ohio county breakdowns are for increasing vs. decreasing population. Particularly Cleveland/Akron and the entire Ohio River Valley.