Posted March 10, 200718 yr Years 2000-2005... includes both domestic and international... Cuyahoga County 2000 Population: 1,393,978 2005 Population Est.: 1,335,317 In: 145,639 Out: 211,337 Net: -65,698 Net Migration Rate: -4.7% Franklin County 2000 Population: 1,068,978 2005 Population Est.: 1,090,771 In: 221,626 Out: 256,457 Net: -34,831 Net Migration Rate: -3.3% Hamilton County 2000 Population: 845,303 2005 Population Est.: 806,652 In: 123,437 Out: 174,571 Net: -51,134 Net Migration Rate: -6.0% Montgomery County 2000 Population: 559,062 2005 Population Est.: 547,435 In: 98,005 Out: 116,216 Net: -18,211 Net Migration Rate: -3.3% Summit County 2000 Population: 542,899 2005 Population Est.: 546,604 In: 91,041 Out: 97,548 Net: -6,507 Net Migration Rate: -1.2% Lucas County 2000 Population: 455,054 2005 Population Est.: 448,229 In: 63,131 Out: 78,400 Net: -15,269 Net Migration Rate: -3.4%
March 10, 200718 yr The raw population figures are from the Census Bureau. The migration numbers are from analysis of IRS data by the Charlotte Observer (IRS filings are the best way to track yearly migration trends) I computed the "Net Migration Rate" by dividing the Net Migration by the 2000 Population. http://enterprise.star-telegram.com/ARCIms/Maps/clt/2007/irsmig.asp?state=OH
March 10, 200718 yr Franklin County 2000 Population: 1,068,978 2005 Population Est.: 1,090,771 In: 221,626 Out: 256,457 Net: -34,831 Net Migration Rate: -3.3% Well how in the heck is this possible...population shows about a 22,000 person gain for the county, while the net migration is about a 35,000 person loss. Was this a typo or did birthrates massively increase within the county over a 5 year span??
March 10, 200718 yr Franklin County 2000 Population: 1,068,978 2005 Population Est.: 1,090,771 In: 221,626 Out: 256,457 Net: -34,831 Net Migration Rate: -3.3% Well how in the heck is this possible...population shows about a 22,000 person gain for the county, while the net migration is about a 35,000 person loss. Was this a typo or did birthrates massively increase within the county over a 5 year span?? Not a typo. It's not uncommon for a major core county to experience net migration loss. A net migration rate of -3.3% is actually pretty good for a county in Franklin's tier. I imagine Franklin has a relatively young age demographic with many people in the child-bearing age compared to elderly people who are more likely to die.
March 10, 200718 yr I’m sure most have seen the Plain Dealer’s special report on the census: http://www.cleveland.com/census/ All though most of the data is from 1995-2000, the more recent IRS data from the Charlotte Observer (2000-2005) seems to reflect the same trend. I assume that the estimated population is taken from the census and not from the IRS numbers which would explain the discrepancy above. Either way, it would not make a whole lot of difference to the bottom line of the total net migration.
March 10, 200718 yr probably not... the recount occured in 2006, right? I speculate the adjusted numbers probably wouldn't have affected the migration rate significantly as those 33k have probably been undercounted for quite some time... aka... Cincy most likely did not "gain population"... but has been a declining city with a population that was slightly larger than was counted for a period of time I'm not certain of this... but it's my speculation based on historic trends... it would be very unlikely that Cincy, a city with a high rate of population decline in recent decades, would suddenly reverse that trend. These are just made up numbers and years... but if say... Cincy was the following: 1980: 500k 1990: 400k 2000: 300k I speculate that Cincy in reality looked something like this: 1980: 530k 1990: 430k 2000: 330k
March 10, 200718 yr ^^Cincinnati's population decline has actually been slowing down over recent years. Yes the county continues to lose, but the city is beginning to figure out how to stem the loss...bear in mind that Cincy proper only accounts for 300,000 or so of the 800,000+ in the county. The inner-ring suburbs are certainly doing there part as well.
March 10, 200718 yr probably not... the recount occured in 2006, right? I speculate the adjusted numbers probably wouldn't have affected the migration rate significantly as those 33k have probably been undercounted for quite some time... aka... Cincy most likely did not "gain population"... but has been a declining city with a population that was slightly larger than was counted for a period of time I'm not certain of this... but it's my speculation based on historic trends... it would be very unlikely that Cincy, a city with a high rate of population decline in recent decades, would suddenly reverse that trend. These are just made up numbers and years... but if say... Cincy was the following: 1980: 500k 1990: 400k 2000: 300k I speculate that Cincy in reality looked something like this: 1980: 530k 1990: 430k 2000: 330k Then again Cincy never challenged the Census before.
March 10, 200718 yr ^^Cincinnati's population decline has actually been slowing down over recent years. Yes the county continues to lose, but the city is beginning to figure out how to stem the loss...bear in mind that Cincy proper only accounts for 300,000 or so of the 800,000+ in the county. The inner-ring suburbs are certainly doing there part as well. the inner ring suburbs are hemoraging population
March 10, 200718 yr ^^Cincinnati's population decline has actually been slowing down over recent years. Yes the county continues to lose, but the city is beginning to figure out how to stem the loss...bear in mind that Cincy proper only accounts for 300,000 or so of the 800,000+ in the county. The inner-ring suburbs are certainly doing there part as well. the inner ring suburbs are hemoraging population Thats exactly what I was saying...most attribute the population loss of Hamilton to Cincinnati alone. When that is far from the case!
March 10, 200718 yr i believe with this being migration trends, it would not include births and deaths. Counties like Franklin most likely still gained in net population.
March 10, 200718 yr cities and villages in hamilton county peak population years and current status. Name Peak Census Status Addyston Village 1930 Decline Amberley Village 1970 Slight rebound Arlington Heights 1970 Decline Blue Ash City None Growth Cheviot City 1970 Decline Cincinnati Cit 1950 Stable Cleves Village None Growth Deer Park Cit 1960 Decline Elmwood Plac 1930 Decline Evendale Villa 1990 Decline Fairfax Village 1970 Decline Forest Park C None Growth Glendale Villa 1960 Decline Golf Manor Vil 1970 Decline Greenhills Villa 1970 Decline Harrison City 1990 Stable Lincoln Height 1960 Decline Lockland Villa 1950 Decline Madeira City 1980 Decline Mariemont Vill 1970 Decline Montgomery 1980 Stable Mount Health 1990 Decline Newtown Villa None Growth North Bend Vi 1950 Slight Recovery North College Hill City 1970 Decline Norwood City 1950 Sharp Decline Reading City 1970 Decline St. Bernard C 1930 Decline Silverton City 1970 Decline Springdale Cit 1990 Stable Terrace Park None Stable Indian Hill None Stable Woodlawn Vill 1970 Decline Wyoming City 1970 Decline County 1970 Decline
March 10, 200718 yr note: none under peak census indicates the 2000 census is the highest population census on record.
March 10, 200718 yr and cincy did not have 500k in 1980. i prefaced those numbers by stating they were made up numbers... read before commenting lol
March 10, 200718 yr Then again Cincy never challenged the Census before. Remember that the '05 estimates are not from the census but from probably a more reliable source, the IRS.
March 10, 200718 yr btw, now that i looked up the numbers... so you aren't confused, unusualfire... I speculate Cincy in reality probably looked something like this over the years... urban areas are notoriously undercounted 1980: 415k 1990: 395k 2000: 360k 2005: 330k This is not scientific... so please refrain from nitpicking over numbers... I'm just stating that I speculate Cincy most likely did not see a period of growth in the past couple decades... and that population has been undercounted for awhile... this may, however, have impacts on rate of net migration and other factors
March 10, 200718 yr for my figures if the most recent number was higher than the second most recent number I put stable
March 10, 200718 yr It seems like the urban core is strong in the cincinnati real estate market, which will drive growth for the rest of the city. Strong core strong city. a lot of the declines for all of the jursidictions and the city are due to smaller family sizes now than there werre in the past.
March 10, 200718 yr ok... but I wouldn't characterize losing almost 200,000 people over a 50 year period as "stable"... seems a bit misleading... in addition... the 2005 figure is an estimate while the rest of the figures are from decennial census... also ... I know nobody in the Cincinnati Boosters Association will agree with me... but the revised population estimate is most likely not a reflection of population growth in Cincinnati... but a result from undercounting over an extended period of time... the decline trends are probably similar... just with slightly larger population numbers I'm happy that Cincy challenged the numbers and "gained" population... and I wish other cities would follow suit... but it is highly unlikely Cincy has been able to reverse the powerful inertia of population decline over the past 50 years so suddenly... a rate of population decline that accelerated from 90-00 compared to 80-90
March 10, 200718 yr It seems like the urban core is strong in the cincinnati real estate market, which will drive growth for the rest of the city. Strong core strong city. a lot of the declines for all of the jursidictions and the city are due to smaller family sizes now than there werre in the past. I agree... most of our neglected urban areas have been seeing a resurgence in the real estate market... amongst residential, commercial, industrial, retail and investment properties. While this good for a city, it doesn't necessarily correlate to population gains.
March 10, 200718 yr It seems like the urban core is strong in the cincinnati real estate market, which will drive growth for the rest of the city. Strong core strong city. a lot of the declines for all of the jursidictions and the city are due to smaller family sizes now than there werre in the past. I agree... most of our neglected urban areas have been seeing a resurgence in the real estate market... amongst residential, commercial, industrial, retail and investment properties. While this good for a city, it doesn't necessarily correlate to population gains. as gas prices increase, I think we will see a re densification of the urban cores around the country. It is tough to justify that 35 mile each way commute at 3, 4, 5, dollars a gallon. as to the stability issue, I had to pick a formula that was easy enough to quickly calculate for all of the jurisdictions. Perhaps the population has stabilized is a better phrase. but looking around the city, there is all sorts of new construciton in the east end, mt. lookout, columbia tusclum, otr, the cbd, walnut hills, corryville. Then again every neighborhood i just named is on the east side, the west side might counteract this trend. the way i see it it looks like cincinnati has turned a corner, with the exception of homicides crime is down, average sale prices for houses are up, a fifty year population slide may have been averted, downtown's population has nearly doubled in five years, numerous developments are taking place, the streetcar system is in the planning stages and could be operational in 3-5 years.
March 10, 200718 yr I agree with you on many points... especially about what may become a new urban renaissance... though a number of continuing trends need to be reversed... such as the overwhelming percentage of job creation that takes place on the "edge"... and the disparity between the city school district and suburban districts... ... however, I would be reluctant to claim that Cincinnati's population has "stabilized" due to the likely possibility of the historic scenario I outlined previously. We'll get a better idea of how Cincinnati's population is really faring when we get the 2010 Census results. Until then, it's speculation about that undercounted 15kor whatever it was. Was it a historically undercounted population... or did Cincy suddenly reverse decades of heavy population loss... a trend not only prevelent in Cincy but it's peer core cities in the Midwest and Northeast? I'll put my money on the former.
March 10, 200718 yr and if it was the former, it just bought us another decade to turn it all around. as long as suburban communities continue to ignore Brown v. Board of Education through the legalized segregation of automobile centric zoning, this whole county is going to have a problem.
March 11, 200718 yr I would say it's all relative - it's impossible to say when the undercounting began or how and if it fluctuated over time. I cannot think of any large cities that have not enhanced their boundaries since 1950 that have gained population since their peak. Only a few have recently begun to gain population from their low, with Atlanta being one - and that is in a booming metro. The fact is that people want bigger houses, bigger yards, and many are having smaller families, which all contribute to the lower population. I think in many ways, the change in number of households would be a better measuring stick for measuring stability in those cities. I think it would also take a comparison to those cities in similar situations (Atlanta, Detroit, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Boston etc.) Trying to compare them to cities that have doubled and tripled in area is not meaningfull because they are simply including more suburbs. Here is Pittsburgh, for example, and as a percentage loss Cincinnati seems to doing alright when you look at these cities. The 2010 Census will tell us if we have truly stabilized, but I can only imagine today's media reaction if we had the losses of the 70's and 80's. 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Pittsburgh 677,000 604,000 520,000 424,000 370,000 335,000 ok... but I wouldn't characterize losing almost 200,000 people over a 50 year period as "stable"... seems a bit misleading... in addition... the 2005 figure is an estimate while the rest of the figures are from decennial census... also ... I know nobody in the Cincinnati Boosters Association will agree with me... but the revised population estimate is most likely not a reflection of population growth in Cincinnati... but a result from undercounting over an extended period of time... the decline trends are probably similar... just with slightly larger population numbers I'm happy that Cincy challenged the numbers and "gained" population... and I wish other cities would follow suit... but it is highly unlikely Cincy has been able to reverse the powerful inertia of population decline over the past 50 years so suddenly... a rate of population decline that accelerated from 90-00 compared to 80-90
March 11, 200718 yr I'm happy that Cincy challenged the numbers and "gained" population... and I wish other cities would follow suit... but it is highly unlikely Cincy has been able to reverse the powerful inertia of population decline over the past 50 years so suddenly... a rate of population decline that accelerated from 90-00 compared to 80-90 lorain and avon lake both successfully challenged the census last year and both populations were adjusted upward slightly. i think i read at the time that st. louis had done so successfully too. i dk why but it seems rare to challenge.
March 12, 200718 yr Franklin County 2000 Population: 1,068,978 2005 Population Est.: 1,090,771 -growth : 21,793 City of Columbus: 2000 Population: 711,470 2005 Population estimate: 730,657 -growth : 19,187 (Us Census figures city of Columbus..http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:UuK5zoqBccIJ:www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/census/popestimate/popest_2005_subcount/SUB-EST2005-01.xls+columbus+ohio+population+us+census+2005&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us) so the rest of Franklin County, including Dublin, New Albany, Hilliard, etc etc. with over 350,000 people had an increase of only 2,606? With these suburbs growing like they are? :? :? :? Something is not right here *and I know there are parts of Columbus in Delaware and Licking counties , but the actual population in those areas is relatively very small*
March 12, 200718 yr Excuse me while I buy a McMansion 30 minutes from work, surround my kids with all white people, eat like shit, drink and drive, and make fun of those losers left behind in the city...poor bastards paying 1% higher taxes. Oh well, I'm making more money than them, my wife's a former whore, and my kids are lonely, self-centered assholes, so it's ALL good... Well if thats not prejudice I dont know what is.
March 12, 200718 yr so the rest of Franklin County, including Dublin, New Albany, Hilliard, etc etc. with over 350,000 people had an increase of only 2,606? With these suburbs growing like they are? :? :? :? Something is not right here Yeah, it's called sprawl... :wink:
March 12, 200718 yr Indeed... that "growth" you're seeing... is not really population growth... but an increase in developed land
November 23, 201113 yr There were any number of threads this could be placed, but this seems to clearly be the best (especially if a mod would like to remove the years 2000-2005) from the thread title. Forbes put out a neat interactive map of US-based migration patterns. Click a county to see the net migration to and from the other counties in the US. http://www.forbes.com/special-report/2011/migration.html I wish they'd have made the map zoomable.
Create an account or sign in to comment