Jump to content
Toddguy

Columbus: Population Trends

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

I just read it and kind of agree. He just ignores what does not fit the narrative he has established in his mind. The whole idea of "booster bros" is ridiculous especially since the city IMO still grapples a bit with an inferiority complex, and  much of what may seem to be boosterism is just the response to those who mindlessly attack the city over every. single. thing.(people like that Minneapolisite guy on CD forums-and he is not alone). If you look at sites like CD forums, or hell even this site, Columbus has a distinct lack of supporters compared to cities of it's size. It has a distinct lack of discussion or topics compared to it's peer cities IMO.

 

And we all know the weaknesses of the city: the city schools, lack of public transit options, the city having one of the greatest divides between the haves and havenots, The Hilltop, Linden, The aging post-war corridors(Hamilton road, Brice road, Far west side/Broad, etc), the lack of a "brand", etc. etc.

 

He simply cannot speak of the city without taking a swipe at it, and when he can't come up with anything, he just makes something up. He did not even define how this supposed "booster bros" group will make things tougher besides 'not being able to take criticism'. Much of that group only exists as a counter to those who have an agenda and who continue perpetrating a false narrative of the city-including Renn himself, as you so well pointed out in your own criticism of his methodology in domestic migration. Of course in his mind, correcting a false narrative is being a "booster bro" lol.

 

He also does not seem to get that the city has a relatively young population(younger than that of Ohio as a whole as well as the nation as a whole) and that the majority of population growth is natural increase of births over deaths-demographics that are just the opposite of say a city/region like PIttsburgh(not knocking that city).

 

Renn is just Renn-he is often spot on, but he has his own blind spots and limitations just like anyone else.

 

For most of its life, no one cared about Columbus.  In the Midwest and Ohio, it was a 3rd or 4th-tier city at best.  Only when so many other cities declined or when Columbus began to really rise did we start seeing all the naysayers.  Notice that you don't really see a lot of the "it grew through annexation!" or "its success is all based on it being a capital!" from people outside of the Midwest/Great Lakes.  The only thing people from outside the region seem to say about Columbus is that they're surprised a city from the Midwest is growing so fast or something, because they dismiss the region completely most of the time.  For locals, though, I think the criticism comes from a more personal place.  Columbus has really started to challenge the rankings of regional cities, and when some have comfortably been so far ahead for so long, it seems like a threat in some way.  So they find reasons to tear it down.  They don't always think about the reality that the Midwest/Great Lakes needs cities like Columbus and Madison and Des Moines and Omaha, because each one represents a contradiction to the narrative about how everyone's abandoning a declining region to head to Florida (one of the worst states ever) or the West Coast.  You're absolutely correct that even in Columbus, many natives and non-natives alike still have an inferiority complex.  If anything, people don't give it enough credit rather than giving it too much.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Columbus Region to Grow to 3 Million Residents by 2050

 

Quote

When the Insight2050 study was first unveiled way back in 2014 by the Mid Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC), local planners projected that the Columbus region was on track to add another 500,000 people to its population by the year 2050. An update today confirms that the original projections were a little too conservative — we’re actually poised to add another 1,000,000 residents by the same destination year of 2050...

 

 

Edited by DevolsDance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's interesting, at least to me, is that I'm seeing more and more of my own work in these stories.  Back when the 2014 MORPC report came out, I was one saying that the numbers were far too low given that metro growth had been accelerating for the previous 3 decades.  I'm also the person who calculated that % of metro growth that Franklin County receives, as well as how much Columbus gets. I did the same calculation for all of the largest US cities here: http://allcolumbusdata.com/?p=9393  I'm glad years of crunching numbers is getting some attention, but sometimes a shoutout would be nice! 

Edited by jonoh81
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I checked out your link.  Your conclusion is completely invalid.

 

Quote

 


So what’s all this mean? Columbus performs particularly well here. Franklin County attracts a high percentage of the total metro population, and Columbus itself is one of only 5 cities with more than 50% of the metro growth entering the city limits. Even accounting for area size, Columbus does fairly well. This suggests that urban growth there is stronger than in most cities.
 

 

 

I know we've discussed this ad nauseum, but you can't equate "core city" with "urban".  Columbus has many decidedly suburban areas within the core city.  Many cities do not.

 

I'm not saying there aren't good things going on in Columbus or that maybe it is growing in its urban areas, but you need to dig a little deeper to prove that (like maybe compare 1950s city limits for each city).

Edited by jam40jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jam40jeff said:

I checked out your link.  Your conclusion is completely invalid.

 

 

I know we've discussed this ad nauseum, but you can't equate "core city" with "urban".  Columbus has many decidedly suburban areas within the core city.  Many cities do not.

 

I'm not saying there aren't good things going on in Columbus or that maybe it is growing in its urban areas, but you need to dig a little deeper to prove that (like maybe compare 1950s city limits for each city).

What you’re asking for is virtually impossible.  First you would need an accepted definition of “urban”.  Then you would need to somehow measure only those urban areas within city limits and then find population figures only for those.   I actually did the 3C 1950 boundaries, but it took ages just to put those together. It would take many years to do it for all the largest US cities.  Even then, 1950 boundaries don’t necessarily include all urban areas in a city, anyway.  

I get that all cities and their boundaries are different, but there’s only so much you can reasonably do to standardize them.  I fully stand by my work.  

BTW, Columbus ‘ 1950 boundary is also seeing lots of population growth, so that is consistent.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

What you’re asking for is virtually impossible.  First you would need an accepted definition of “urban”.  Then you would need to somehow measure only those urban areas within city limits and then find population figures only for those.   I actually did the 3C 1950 boundaries, but it took ages just to put those together. It would take many years to do it for all the largest US cities.  Even then, 1950 boundaries don’t necessarily include all urban areas in a city, anyway.  

I get that all cities and their boundaries are different, but there’s only so much you can reasonably do to standardize them.  I fully stand by my work.  

BTW, Columbus ‘ 1950 boundary is also seeing lots of population growth, so that is consistent.  

 

I get that's it's difficult (but surely not impossible), but my point is that you shouldn't be so confident in drawing your "definitive conclusions" based on flawed methodology.

 

No metric is going to be 100% accurate, but 1950s boundaries for each city would IMO be much more accurate.  The vast majority of urban, walkable neighborhoods were built pre-WW2 in this country.  Most of the newer urban development, even in a city like Columbus, is a rebuilding of these neighborhoods.  This could change in the future, and there are certainly some limited exceptions to this rule, but it would IMO be a much more accurate metric than simply using the core city's boundaries.

 

Again, I said that Columbus very well might be growing within the 1950s city boundaries, and that would be wonderful.  I am interested if you have any statistics showing the scale of this growth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jam40jeff said:

 

I get that's it's difficult (but surely not impossible), but my point is that you shouldn't be so confident in drawing your "definitive conclusions" based on flawed methodology.

 

No metric is going to be 100% accurate, but 1950s boundaries for each city would IMO be much more accurate.  The vast majority of urban, walkable neighborhoods were built pre-WW2 in this country.  Most of the newer urban development, even in a city like Columbus, is a rebuilding of these neighborhoods.  This could change in the future, and there are certainly some limited exceptions to this rule, but it would IMO be a much more accurate metric than simply using the core city's boundaries.

 

Again, I said that Columbus very well might be growing within the 1950s city boundaries, and that would be wonderful.  I am interested if you have any statistics showing the scale of this growth.

 

It's not flawed, though.  It measured what I wanted it to measure- if population was going into a city's limits or not and what % of that total metro growth did so.  Cities arguably contain most of a region's urbanity, so I don't think it's that controversial as far as that goes.  The numbers are accurate in terms of what I wanted to show for them.  That city limits differ cannot be helped in that case.  1950 limits are also different for each city in terms of their built area and area sizes, so that wouldn't exactly change the problem as much as you think it does.  What you're asking for is different than what I measured, IMO.  It seems you want something a lot more detailed, down to the neighborhood level. As I said, 1950 boundaries are difficult to measure.  To find them for the 3-Cs, I had to find 1950 boundary maps for each, get the census tracts that made them up, and then go through them decade by decade to see how they changed over time.  Census tracts have split multiple times since 1950, and current ones don't always exactly match how they were in 1950, so you need to find the equivalent or as close to it to get the population changes.  It would be MUCH easier to simply ignore boundaries altogether and use a standard "urban" definition- something based on density, perhaps?- to find out how those areas are growing versus areas that do not match the definition.  Even then, it would take a significant amount of time.  I do this stuff for free, on my own time.  If I had all the time in the world and didn't have more than one other job, sure, I could wade through that data minefield. 

 

However, because I have already done all this for the 3-C 1950 boundaries, I can at least provide that data.  I'll post it soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so based on the 1950 boundary, here were the results.

Cleveland 1950 Boundary 2010-2017 Change: -6,000

Cleveland Metro Change 2010-2017: -18,396

1950 Boundary % of Metro Population Change 2010-2017: 32.6%

2017 Cleveland City Boundary 2010-2017 Change: -11,290

2017 City Boundary % of Metro Population Change 2010-2017: 61.4%

Cuyahoga County 2010-2017 Change: -31,608

Cuyahoga County % of Metro Population Change 2010-2017: 171.8%

 

Cincinnati 1950 Boundary 2010-2017 Change: +2,392

Cincinnati Metro Change 2010-2017: +64,502

1950 Boundary % of Metro Population Change 2010-2017: 3.7%

2017 Cincinnati City Boundary 2010-2017 Change: +4,356

2017 City Boundary % of Metro Population Change: 6.8%

Hamilton County 2010-2017 Change: +11,448

Hamilton County % of Metro Population Change 2010-2017: 17.7%

 

Columbus 1950 Boundary 2010-2017 Change: +6,566

Columbus Metro Change 2010-2017: +176,751

1950 Boundary % of Metro Population Change 2010-2017: 3.7%

2017 Columbus City Boundary 2010-2017 Change: +92,137

2017 City Boundary % of Metro Population Change: 52.1%

Franklin County 2010-2017 Change: +128,567

Franklin County % of Metro Population Change 2010-2017: 72.3%

 

For Cleveland and Cincinnati, the 1950 and 2017 boundaries are very similar, as both cities were unable to grow much area-wise after that time.  Columbus is obviously much different.  So to your point about what is urban and not, let's assume that "urban" means either a population density at or above 5000 ppsm and/or within an obviously urbanized location (such as Downtown, which is urban, but with a population density below 5000).  Let me pull those figures and post them.

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jmecklenborg said:

The urbanist opinions out there on Twitter, etc., are a big homogenous blob.  Aaron Renn doesn't pay any attention to those people doesn't care if they like him or not. 

 

 

Well bless his heart*said in best southern style*.  How are things in incestuous Cincinnati? lol. I can't believe Renn backed down on banning that guy. And he still just goes on and on about "The Place That Shall Not Be Named" like no policy was ever put in place.  

Edited by Toddguy
the Aral Sea, Heath Bars, you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

He used to be signed up over at the Columbus Underground  forum and would engage with people from time to time.

 I often agree with him. I think he was spot on about Nashville and it's light rail plans for instance. I guess maybe there are some "Booster Bros" in Columbus if one of the recent comments over there is true re: the Minneapolis job applicant. If six people actually said "What does Minneapolis have that Columbus does not have?" then that is a problem. There is no denying that among other things we do not have the legacy institutions that cities that were larger earlier(the twin cities had about 830,000 people within their city limits alone in 1950)have. Add into the fact that the urban area is about twice the size now as that of Columbus, and it really makes me wonder how many people are that ignorant about other cities/states?

 

I think the major thing that has held Minneapolis back just a bit is the climate, or maybe even the perception of the climate being worse than what it really is. Kind of like the perception that Cleveland is absolutely buried in snow during the winter, when most of the Lake Effect stuff is east and inland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our Minneapolis friend used to post here very often years ago and pick the dumbest fights with people and even jab at Columbus in random PMs to users. Same deal with CU. Also whined about Columbus on the now-defunct James Howard Kunstler forum.

 

One thing MSP does have that Columbus doesn't is, of course, rail transit but that's true of just about everywhere now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of rail, allow me to suggest something completely unfeasible politically...it is remarkable that Columbus continues to barely sprawl outward from East to West south of Broad St.   Put your compass needle on the statehouse and draw a semicircle at about the 9 mile radius.  You're in farmland all the way from 3 o'clock to 9 o'clock. 

 

Seems to me that there is a real opportunity to build a rail system *now*, before it gets prohibitively expensive.  Zone it so that medium-density has to be near the stations...now.  Before anything is there.  So a line from West Jefferson, one from Mt. Sterling, one from Circleville, and one from Lancaster, all converging downtown and then proceeding northward in a subway under High St. to OSU, where it all comes to an end at Lane Ave. 

 

Sorry, Dublin.  Sorry,  Powell.  Sorry, Polaris.  Sorry, Gahana.  You don't get trains! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

It's not flawed, though.  It measured what I wanted it to measure- if population was going into a city's limits or not and what % of that total metro growth did so.

 

Well, that's fine if that's what you wanted to measure, but I was referring simply to your conclusion.  Specifically,

 

Quote

 


Even accounting for area size, Columbus does fairly well. This suggests that urban growth there is stronger than in most cities.
 

 

 

I was simply saying that the data provided didn't in fact show that.

 

Thanks for posting the 1950s boundary numbers.  That is interesting and I think it does make a much stronger argument for your case.

Edited by jam40jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

Our Minneapolis friend used to post here very often years ago and pick the dumbest fights with people and even jab at Columbus in random PMs to users. Same deal with CU. Also whined about Columbus on the now-defunct James Howard Kunstler forum.

 

One thing MSP does have that Columbus doesn't is, of course, rail transit but that's true of just about everywhere now.

I remember that guy from here(when I almost exclusively lurked) and I see him on CD(where I am not a member and only lurk-I will not be a part of that site). He is beyond anything I have seen and has destroyed the development thread over there. Matt is no where close to that. He has problems with a certain mindset he sees there, and takes that into non-Cincinnati discussions, but it is NOTHING like that nut in Minneapolis. Anything and everything about Columbus is attacked and compared unfavorably to any other possible place with no exceptions and it is done with an obvious bitterness that comes through very clearly. It is kind of disturbing to me-someone being that caught up on hating some city that you don't even live in anymore.

So glad that guy is not here anymore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2018 at 10:00 PM, jmecklenborg said:

Speaking of rail, allow me to suggest something completely unfeasible politically...it is remarkable that Columbus continues to barely sprawl outward from East to West south of Broad St.   Put your compass needle on the statehouse and draw a semicircle at about the 9 mile radius.  You're in farmland all the way from 3 o'clock to 9 o'clock. 

 

Seems to me that there is a real opportunity to build a rail system *now*, before it gets prohibitively expensive.  Zone it so that medium-density has to be near the stations...now.  Before anything is there.  So a line from West Jefferson, one from Mt. Sterling, one from Circleville, and one from Lancaster, all converging downtown and then proceeding northward in a subway under High St. to OSU, where it all comes to an end at Lane Ave. 

 

Sorry, Dublin.  Sorry,  Powell.  Sorry, Polaris.  Sorry, Gahana.  You don't get trains! 

 

 

That would basically load the Uncool Crescent with first-round draft picks in an effort to create some parity. Also, 100 years ago, the Scioto Valley Traction line did that exact thing leading to TOD. Pickaway County had a few tiny TODs that are completely erased such as Bell's Station and the one at Cromley Road and Lockbourne-Eastern.

Edited by GCrites80s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole dilemma is that when the city fathers of London, Circleville, Lancaster, etc., figure out that they can be the next DT Westerville, they're going to zone out apartments and will demand 100x200ft. lots for any new single-family home construction.  These various towns and small cities with sort-of intact downtowns and identities will compete with one another to be the most yuppie.  So yet again, the people who would actually benefit from access to transit won't be able to afford to live near it.  

 

That's the one thing that I don't think a lot of reporters get nationwide about gentrification -- when the yuppies move in to a former poor area close to a downtown, transit ridership inevitably goes down.  The problem is pretty similar for commuter rail, I'd imagine, although we of course have no examples of this in Ohio.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2018 at 6:16 PM, jonoh81 said:

Okay, so based on the 1950 boundary, here were the results.

Cleveland 1950 Boundary 2010-2017 Change: -6,000

Cleveland Metro Change 2010-2017: -18,396

1950 Boundary % of Metro Population Change 2010-2017: 32.6%

2017 Cleveland City Boundary 2010-2017 Change: -11,290

2017 City Boundary % of Metro Population Change 2010-2017: 61.4%

Cuyahoga County 2010-2017 Change: -31,608

Cuyahoga County % of Metro Population Change 2010-2017: 171.8%

 

Cincinnati 1950 Boundary 2010-2017 Change: +2,392

Cincinnati Metro Change 2010-2017: +64,502

1950 Boundary % of Metro Population Change 2010-2017: 3.7%

2017 Cincinnati City Boundary 2010-2017 Change: +4,356

2017 City Boundary % of Metro Population Change: 6.8%

Hamilton County 2010-2017 Change: +11,448

Hamilton County % of Metro Population Change 2010-2017: 17.7%

 

Columbus 1950 Boundary 2010-2017 Change: +6,566

Columbus Metro Change 2010-2017: +176,751

1950 Boundary % of Metro Population Change 2010-2017: 3.7%

2017 Columbus City Boundary 2010-2017 Change: +92,137

2017 City Boundary % of Metro Population Change: 52.1%

Franklin County 2010-2017 Change: +128,567

Franklin County % of Metro Population Change 2010-2017: 72.3%

 

For Cleveland and Cincinnati, the 1950 and 2017 boundaries are very similar, as both cities were unable to grow much area-wise after that time.  Columbus is obviously much different.  So to your point about what is urban and not, let's assume that "urban" means either a population density at or above 5000 ppsm and/or within an obviously urbanized location (such as Downtown, which is urban, but with a population density below 5000).  Let me pull those figures and post them.

 

Thank you for pulling this together!

 

The population losses between the 1950 and 2017 City of Cleveland boundaries seem too significant. Cleveland's boundaries have grown very little since the 1930s, except for a few annexations from Brook Park for airport expansions. 

 

 

http://northcoastgeo.com/blog/2016/9/29/map-of-city-of-cleveland-land-annexations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, ink said:

 

Thank you for pulling this together!

 

The population losses between the 1950 and 2017 City of Cleveland boundaries seem too significant. Cleveland's boundaries have grown very little since the 1930s, except for a few annexations from Brook Park for airport expansions. 

 

 

http://northcoastgeo.com/blog/2016/9/29/map-of-city-of-cleveland-land-annexations

 

Yes, Cleveland's 1950 boundary is very similar to its 2017 boundary, meaning that pretty much all of the losses in the city have occurred within the 1950 boundary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Yes, Cleveland's 1950 boundary is very similar to its 2017 boundary, meaning that pretty much all of the losses in the city have occurred within the 1950 boundary. 

I think he may be referring to this:

 

Cleveland 1950 Boundary 2010-2017 Change: -6,000

2017 Cleveland City Boundary 2010-2017 Change: -11,290

 

If they are the basically the same, then why the discrepancy between these two numbers? Where did the extra 5,290 people come from?

 

Unless I am just misconstruing this and all which is possible...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Toddguy said:

I think he may be referring to this:

 

Cleveland 1950 Boundary 2010-2017 Change: -6,000

2017 Cleveland City Boundary 2010-2017 Change: -11,290

 

If they are the basically the same, then why the discrepancy between these two numbers? Where did the extra 5,290 people come from?

 

Unless I am just misconstruing this and all which is possible...

 

They're similar, but not exactly the same.  A large amount of Cleveland's losses seem to be happening on the fringes away from the very core, where neighborhoods like Downtown and UC are doing relatively well.  Keep in mind also that the 1950 figures are based on extrapolation.  When I said before that using 1950 boundaries was difficult, I meant it.  I took every 1950 census tract in Cleveland and had to find all the changes they went through to the present day.  A lot of them split up over time.  The census provides files on how they changed, but even so, the 2017 1950 figures likely represent a slightly different area size than they did in 1950 itself.  While they shouldn't be taken as exact, the numbers are as close as we're ever going to get to find modern-day population numbers for the city that existed in 1950.

Edited by jonoh81
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2018/12/26/columbus-surges-as-ohio-wanes-what-to-know-about.html

 

MORPC is estimating that Columbus grew by 22,000 people through this year, surpassing 900,000 (902,674 to be exact).  The 2017 Census estimate was just over 879,000.  I haven't followed their previous estimates before, so I'm not sure how accurate they are.  22,000 people in 1 year would be a huge jump from last year's 15K+ increase, though, and pretty much the largest single-year increase in the city's history.  It would also likely be a top 5 fastest-growing city again.  That alone makes me question its validity.  They also estimate Franklin County increased by 30,000 in the last year, also a near record.  The little over 70% of the county's growth captured within the city is typical of recent years, so at least that would be consistent.  In any case, if the 22,000 is even close to real, that would mean Columbus could hit 1 million residents within 5 years.

 

Edit: I checked MORPC's previous estimates through the 2000s... one thing that they've consistently done is undercount versus the Census.  In 2017, they estimated the city at just over 861,000 versus the census being at just over 879,000. 

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Year-End 2018 MORPC Columbus-area population estimates and change since 2010.

Cities, Towns and Villages in Franklin County

Bexley: 13,386 +329

Canal Winchester: 8,828 +1,727

Columbus: 902,674 +115,641

Dublin: 49,905 +8,154

Gahanna: 36,075 +2,827

Grandview Heights: 8,483 +1,947

Grove City: 42,400 +6,825

Groveport: 5,687 +504

Hilliard: 38,106 +9,671

Marble Cliff: 587 +14

Minerva Park: 1,557 +285

New Albany: 10,897 +3,173

Obetz: 5,226 +694

Pickerington: 22,443 +4,152

Reynoldsburg: 37,571 +1,678

Riverlea: 569 +24

Upper Arlington: 35,555 +1,784

Urbancrest: 991 +31

Valleyview: 635 +15

Westerville: 39,955 +3,835

Whitehall: 18,531 +469

Worthington: 14,440 +865

 

Cities, Towns and Villages in Other Counties

Delaware: 39,937 +5,184

Lancaster: 40,888 +2,108

Lithopolis: 1,545 +439

Marysville: 24,224 +2,130

Pataskala: 17,565 +2,603

Plain City: 4,460 +235

Powell: 14,464 +2,964

Sunbury: 5,457 +1,068

 

Counties

Delaware: 208,0687 +33,853

Fairfield: 157,799 +12,875

Franklin: 1,318,164 +154,750

Hocking: 28,586 -794

Licking: 175,755 +9,842

Madison: 44,609 +1,174

Morrow: 34,969 +157

Perry: 36,172 +114

Pickaway: 58,339 +2,641

Union: 58,285 +5,985

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Dang. Where are they putting all of these people? There just does not seem to have been enough new construction to handle over 150,000 more people in Franklin County since 2010. 

 

Is there a link to those numbers you posted? I can't find anything for those 2018 MORPC numbers and was curious about a few other places not on your list.

 

Impressive numbers for Grandview Heights, which may reach 10,000 when all the infill is completed I think. And Obetz! is now a city at over 5,000.

Edited by Toddguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

Year-End 2018 MORPC Columbus-area population estimates and change since 2010.

Cities, Towns and Villages in Franklin County

Bexley: 13,386 +329 13,786 -400

Canal Winchester: 8,828 +1,727 8,294 +534

Columbus: 902,674 +115,641 879,170 +23,504

Dublin: 49,905 +8,154 47,619 +1,386

Gahanna: 36,075 +2,827 35,297 +778

Grandview Heights: 8,483 +1,947 7,778 +705

Grove City: 42,400 +6,825 41,022 +1,378

Groveport: 5,687 +504 5,621 +66

Hilliard: 38,106 +9,671 35,935 +2,171

Marble Cliff: 587 +14 683 -96

Minerva Park: 1,557 +285 1,321 +231

New Albany: 10,897 +3,173 10,781 +116

Obetz: 5,226 +694  4,967 +259

Pickerington: 22,443 +4,152 20,402 +2,041

Reynoldsburg: 37,571 +1,678 37,847 -276

Riverlea: 569 +24 566 +3

Upper Arlington: 35,555 +1,784 35,337 +218

Urbancrest: 991 +31 1,001 -10

Valleyview: 635 +15 638 -3

Westerville: 39,955 +3,835 39,737 +218

Whitehall: 18,531 +469 18,913 -382

Worthington: 14,440 +865 14,646 -206

 

Cities, Towns and Villages in Other Counties

Delaware: 39,937 +5,184 39,267 +670

Lancaster: 40,888 +2,108 40,280 +600

Lithopolis: 1,545 +439 1,573 -28

Marysville: 24,224 +2,130 23,912 +312

Pataskala: 17,565 +2,603 15,566 +1,999

Plain City: 4,460 +235 4,379 +81

Powell: 14,464 +2,964 13,204 +1,260

Sunbury: 5,457 +1,068 5,293 +164

 

Counties

Delaware: 208,0687 +33,853 200,464 +7,604

Fairfield: 157,799 +12,875 154,733 +3,066

Franklin: 1,318,164 +154,750 1,291,981 +26,183

Hocking: 28,586 -794 28,474 +112

Licking: 175,755 +9,842 173,448 +2,307

Madison: 44,609 +1,174 44,036 +573

Morrow: 34,969 +157 34,994 -25

Perry: 36,172 +114 36,024 +148

Pickaway: 58,339 +2,641 57,830 +509

Union: 58,285 +5,985 56,741 +1,544

 

I decided to go through and look at the population change over the last year for each of the listed areas. I added the 2017 population and the 2017-2018 change in bold red font above. I understand these comparisons might not be spot on because I'm assuming the MORPC and the Census Bureau have slightly different methodologies. Regardless, it gives us a pretty good picture of which areas have experienced a great deal of growth in just the last year. Pickerington's growth really stood out to me. They added ~4k people between 2010 and 2018, with ~2k of that growth coming in the last year.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ I am glad that some of you like you and jonoh81 go through the trouble of calculating these things and posting them for us. 

 

*I admit I am tempted to keep the *booster bro* thing going and post a thread like "COLUMBUS HITS 900,000 FOR THE FIRST TIME!!!!" just to troll other cities...but I will restrain myself out of respect for Mr. Renn and the board here and instead go over once again all of the shortcomings and things that need improved in Columbus  lol.

 

NO LIGHT RAIL! what a disgrace!!!! ....

Edited by Toddguy
No light rail, bad airport, no identity, generic, suburban, cows, giant concrete ears of corn, overgrown college town, too many hillfolk, etc. etc.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Toddguy said:

^^ Dang. Where are they putting all of these people? There just does not seem to have been enough new construction to handle over 150,000 more people in Franklin County since 2010. 

 

 

 

There was so much overbuilding in subdivision areas during the 2000s that it took until 2015-2016 to catch up. Almost all of the housing that went up from 2009 until very recently was apartment buildings or single-family houses that people bought before they were built. Also, people moved into units from all eras that were at say 70% occupancy in the '90s.

 

Take a look at Lancaster. It has added 10,000 people in the past 15 years but only one subdivision was added. Instead, people moved into existing structures that hadn't seen love in a while. Want a house that still is totally '70s inside? Get thee to Lancaster!

Edited by GCrites80s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cbussoccer said:

 

I decided to go through and look at the population change over the last year for each of the listed areas. I added the 2017 population and the 2017-2018 change in bold red font above. I understand these comparisons might not be spot on because I'm assuming the MORPC and the Census Bureau have slightly different methodologies. Regardless, it gives us a pretty good picture of which areas have experienced a great deal of growth in just the last year. Pickerington's growth really stood out to me. They added ~4k people between 2010 and 2018, with ~2k of that growth coming in the last year.  

 

I think you have to use the MORPC numbers given the different methodologies and to be consistent.  Here they were for 2017-2018

Bexley: +124

Canal Winchester: +157

Columbus: +21,847

Dublin: +1,405

Gahanna: +367

Grandview Heights: +632

Grove City: +905

Groveport: +74

Hilliard: +1,043

Marble Cliff: +5

Minerva Park: +200

New Albany: +193

Obetz: +164

Pickerington: +1,223

Reynoldsburg: +436

Riverlea: +5

Upper Arlington: +392

Valleyview: +6

Westerville: +1,367

Whitehall: +166

Worthington: +155

 

Delaware: +723

Lancaster: +497

Lithopolis: +53

Marysville: +665

Pataskala: +390

Plain City: +294

Powell: +226

Sunbury: +238

 

Counties

Delaware: +4,076

Fairfield: +2,877

Franklin: +29,818

Hocking: +263

Licking: +1,864

Madison: +1,433

Morrow: +11

Perry: -10

Pickaway: +144

Union: +1,563

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

 

There was so much overbuilding in subdivision areas during the 2000s that it took until 2015-2016 to catch up. Almost all of the housing that went up from 2009 until very recently was apartment buildings or single-family houses that people bought before they were built. Also, people moved into units from all eras that were at say 70% occupancy in the '90s.

 

Take a look at Lancaster. It has added 10,000 people in the past 15 years but only one subdivision was added. Instead, people moved into existing structures that hadn't seen love in a while. Want a house that still is totally '70s inside? Get thee to Lancaster!

 

Yes, in Columbus many areas that previously had high vacancy rates are filling up quickly.  South Linden, for example, saw one of the top 10 influxes of young adults of any neighborhood in the city since 2010.  There are few areas in the city that have not seen growth.  However, that situation can only last so long.  Developers have to like quadruple the construction just to keep up, according to recent studies.  Either prices are going to skyrocket over the next several years, or the pace of building will have to.  The current market of high growth, low construction is a big problem going forward.

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Yes, in Columbus many areas that previously had high vacancy rates are filling up quickly.  South Linden, for example, saw one of the top 10 influxes of young adults of any neighborhood in the city since 2010.  There are few areas in the city that have not seen growth.  However, that situation can only last so long.  Developers have to like quadruple the construction just to keep up, according to recent studies.  Either prices are going to skyrocket over the next several years, or the pace of building will have to.  The current market of high growth, low construction is a big problem going forward.

Although I agree we need to build more, we're building more now and in the last 5 years sans 2015 than we did in the peak of 2007:

 

mm%20201811%20columbus%2009.jpg?la=en

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, aderwent said:

Although I agree we need to build more, we're building more now and in the last 5 years sans 2015 than we did in the peak of 2007:

 

mm%20201811%20columbus%2009.jpg?la=en

 

Yes, but the city is also growing significantly faster than in the 2000s.  The average growth rate this decade is at least 2x what it was in the 2000s, and the last year's is 3x faster.  I don't have the link, but there was just a study released that Columbus has a serious housing crisis on its hands because construction is well below population growth.  The level of infill is historically high, but even so, it's not nearly enough.  That's why reductions in size drive me nuts.  Local developers are making the problem worse by underbuilding in prime locations.  Worse, NIMBYers like with the recent fiasco in Victorian Village with the Kaufmann project are getting in the way.  The city needs to overall its entire zoning plan, IMO, to allow for greater densities across the board.  Columbus is not at all prepared for a significant, sustained boom, and it's clearly entering one.

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

It's tough to build enough quickly enough with the current size of the skilled labor pool.

 

Yes, but I've also heard that local banks have consistently been stingy with financing, and developers themselves have also taken a rather doubtful view of the local market, in that neither think that it can support more than they're already doing.  It seems that they don't really believe the growth or demand.  We have seen a ramp up in the last few years of project sizes, from 4-5 stories consistently to more and more larger projects being proposed.  So that might be changing finally, but it's still an issue.  That project on the Swan Cleaners site in Downtown that was recently reduced in size by the developer is a good example.  There is absolutely no reason for that.  The demand is there, so it's either the developer doesn't have the financing or they don't believe in the market.  This is why Columbus desperately needs some more out-of-town developers.  There aren't many locals willing or able to go big.  The housing issue clearly has multiple origins.  One thing the city can do is change zoning rules to allow for greater density, if not demand it. 

Edited by jonoh81
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Yes, but I've also heard that local banks have consistently been stingy with financing, and developers themselves have also taken a rather doubtful view of the local market, in that neither think that it can support more than they're already doing.  It seems that they don't really believe the growth or demand.  We have seen a ramp up in the last few years of project sizes, from 4-5 stories consistently to more and more larger projects being proposed.  So that might be changing finally, but it's still an issue.  That project on the Swan Cleaners site in Downtown that was recently reduced in size by the developer is a good example.  There is absolutely no reason for that.  The demand is there, so it's either the developer doesn't have the financing or they don't believe in the market.  This is why Columbus desperately needs some more out-of-town developers.  There aren't many locals willing or able to go big.  The housing issue clearly has multiple origins.  One thing the city can do is change zoning rules to allow for greater density, if not demand it. 

 

Lately, even with projects we have been working on, scale backs and material changes are more profit driven than demand driven. 

The situation I've noticed is that developers absolutely can go bigger, but when a developer decided to go bigger they tend to want to VE with materials. When devs VE materials, they run into issues with commissions, with commission issues comes delay and delays incur costs because every day a lot sits without a tenant is lost profit. The cycle is one that developers well understand which means they're going smaller, because in the end, smaller developments cost less, get built quicker, and profits sooner. Most of their thumping relates them wanting to pass through approvals easier. 

 

Personally, it often seems that the developers answer to supply and demand is 'Build just enough units to keep the market strong,  but never enough to cause a drop in profits/rent'. Until smaller developments are seen as lost profit, this is where we will sit. It's slowly changing but not as quick as it should/could be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, tlb919 said:

 

Lately, even with projects we have been working on, scale backs and material changes are more profit driven than demand driven. 

The situation I've noticed is that developers absolutely can go bigger, but when a developer decided to go bigger they tend to want to VE with materials. When devs VE materials, they run into issues with commissions, with commission issues comes delay and delays incur costs because every day a lot sits without a tenant is lost profit. The cycle is one that developers well understand which means they're going smaller, because in the end, smaller developments cost less, get built quicker, and profits sooner. Most of their thumping relates them wanting to pass through approvals easier. 

 

Personally, it often seems that the developers answer to supply and demand is 'Build just enough units to keep the market strong,  but never enough to cause a drop in profits/rent'. Until smaller developments are seen as lost profit, this is where we will sit. It's slowly changing but not as quick as it should/could be. 

 

I think part of that is because a lot of the local development companies tend to be on the small side.  Maximizing profit is always going to be something a business wants, but I think squeezing every dollar out of every project is going to be much more important for the local, small-scale developer than a national or regional one that might focus more on big returns from bigger projects.  I've also heard a lot of complaining about the approvals process, which I think is both a mix of NIMBYism and unrealistically strict zoning codes that require variances for any type of urban characteristic (like height or reduced parking).  Those zoning codes need to be updated, especially along commercial corridors.  But there need to also be minimum height restrictions in some places like Downtown.  There should be no reason we are still seeing 5-6 stories on main corridors like High or Broad.  The city has codes that merely "encourage" higher densities, but that's just not enough. 

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is "Booster Bro" the new "Fake News?"


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...