Jump to content
Toddguy

Columbus: Population Trends

Recommended Posts

Here were the top 15 largest cities in Central Ohio since 1840, using the boundary of the current metro designation.

 

1840

1. Columbus: 6048

2. Lancaster: 3272

3. Newark: 2705

4. Circleville: 2329

5. Somerset: 947

6. Delaware: 898

7. Granville: 727

8. Baltimore: 500

9. Logan: 489

10. Hebron: 473

11. Worthington: 440

12. Marysville: 360

13. Utica: 355

14. London: 297

15. Johnstown: 203

 

1850

1. Columbus: 17882

2. Newark: 3654

3. Lancaster: 3483

4. Circleville: 3411

5. Delaware: 2074

6. Somerset: 1240

7. Logan: 826

8. Granville: 771

9. Hebron: 649

10. Mount Gilead: 646

11. Marysville: 605

12. London: 513

13. Baltimore: 492

14. Worthington: 484

15. Groveport: 483

 

1860

1. Columbus: 18554

2. Newark: 4675

3. Circleville: 4383

4. Lancaster: 4308

5. Delaware: 3889

6. Chesterville: 1563

7. Logan: 1489

8. Somerset: 1231

9. London: 1152

10. Marysville: 849

11. Cardington: 846

12. New Lexington: 812

13. Granville: 801

14. Mount Gilead: 789

15. Westerville: 668

 

1870

1. Columbus: 31274

2. Newark: 6698

3. Delaware: 5641

4. Circleville: 5407

5. Lancaster: 4725

6. London: 2066

7. Logan: 1827 

8. Marysville: 1441

9. Somerset: 1153

10. Granville: 1109

11. Mount Gilead: 1087

12. New Lexington: 953

13. Cardington: 918

14. Westerville: 741

15. Canal Winchester: 633

 

1880

1. Columbus: 51647

2. Newark: 9600

3. Delaware: 6894

4. Lancaster: 6803

5. Circleville: 6046

6. London: 3067

7. New Straitsville: 2782

8. Shawnee: 2770

9. Logan: 2666

10. Marysville: 2061

11. Cardington: 1365

12. Richwood: 1317

13. Mount Gilead: 1216

14. Somerset: 1207

15. Westerville: 1148

 

1890

1. Columbus: 88150

2. Newark: 14270

3. Delaware: 8224

4. Lancaster: 7555

5. Circleville: 6556

6. London: 3313

7. Shawnee: 3266

8. Logan: 3119

9. Marysville: 2810

10. New Straitsville: 2782

11. Corning: 1551

12. New Lexington: 1470

13. Cardington: 1428

14. Richwood: 1415

15. Granville: 1366

 

1900

1. Columbus: 125560

2. Newark: 18157

3. Lancaster: 8991

4. Delaware: 7940

5. Circleville: 6991

6. London: 3511

7. Logan: 3480

8. Marysville: 3048

9. Shawnee: 2966

10. New Straitsville: 2302

11. New Lexington: 1701

12. Richwood: 1640

13. Mount Gilead: 1528

14. Westerville: 1462

15. Plain City: 1432

 

1910

1. Columbus: 181511

2. Newark: 25404

3. Lancaster: 13093

4. Delaware: 9076

5. Circleville: 6744

6. Logan: 4850

7. Marysville: 3576

8. London: 3530

9. Crooksville: 3028

10. New Lexington: 2559

11. Shawnee: 2280

12. New Straitsville: 2242

13. Roseville: 2113

14. Westerville: 1903

15. Utica: 1729

 

1920

1. Columbus: 237031

2. Newark: 26718

3. Lancaster: 14706

4. Delaware: 8756

5. Circleville: 7049

6. Logan: 5493

7. London: 4080

8. Crooksville: 3311

9. New Lexington: 3157

10. Marysville: 3035

11. Westerville: 2480

12. New Straitsville: 2208

13. Shawnee: 1918

14. Mount Gilead: 1837

15. Utica: 1658

 

1930

1. Columbu: 290564

2. Newark: 30596

3. Lancaster: 18716

4. Delaware: 8675

5. Bexley: 7396

6. Circleville: 7369

7. Grandview Heights: 6358

8. Logan: 6080

9. London: 4141

10. New Lexington: 3901

11. Marysville: 3639

12. Crooksville: 3251

13. Upper Arlington: 3059

14. Westerville: 2879

15. Mount Gilead: 1871

 

1940

1. Columbus: 306087

2. Newark: 31487

3. Lancaster: 21940

4. Delaware: 8944

5. Bexley: 8705

6. Circleville: 7989

7. Grandview Heights: 6960

8. Logan: 6177

9. Upper Arlington: 5370

10. London: 4697

11. New Lexington: 4049

12. Marysville: 4037

13. Westerville: 3146

14. Crooksville: 2890

15. Mount Gilead: 2008

 

1950

1. Columbus: 375901

2. Newark: 34275

3. Lancaster: 24180

4. Bexley: 12378

5. Delaware: 11804

6. Upper Arlington: 9024

7. Circleville: 8723

8. Grandview Heights: 7659

9. Logan: 5972

10. London: 5222

11. Whitehall: 4377

12. Marysville: 4256

13. New Lexington: 4233

14. Westerville: 4112

15. Crooksville: 2960

 

1960

1. Columbus: 471316

2. Newark: 41790

3. Lancaster: 29916

4. Upper Arlington: 28486

5. Whitehall: 20818

6. Bexley: 14319

7. Delaware: 13282

8. Circleville: 11059

9. Worthington: 9239

10. Grandview Heights: 8270

11. Grove City: 8107

12. Reynoldsburg: 7793

13. Westerville: 7011

14. Logan: 6417

15. London: 6379

 

1970

1. Columbus: 539677

2. Newark: 41836

3. Upper Arlington: 38727

4. Lancaster: 32911

5. Whitehall: 25283

6. Worthington: 15326

7. Delaware: 15008

8. Bexley: 14888

9. Reynoldsburg: 13921

10. Grove City: 13911

11. Westerville: 12530

12. Gahanna: 12400

13. Circleville: 11687

14. Grandview Heights: 8460

15. Hilliard: 8369

 

1980

1. Columbus: 564871

2. Newark: 41162

3. Upper Arlington: 35648

4. Lancaster: 34925

5. Westerville: 22960

6. Whitehall: 21295

7. Reynoldsburg: 19519

8. Delaware: 18780

9. Grove City: 16668

10. Gahanna: 16398

11. Worthington: 14956

12. Bexley: 13396

13. Circleville: 11682

14. Hilliard: 7996

15. Grandview Heights: 7420

 

1990

1. Columbus: 632910

2. Newark: 44389

3. Lancaster: 34507

4. Upper Arlington: 34128

5. Westerville: 30269

6. Gahanna: 27791

7. Reynoldsburg: 25748

8. Whitehall: 20572

9. Delaware: 20030

10. Grove City: 19661

11. Dublin: 16366

12. Worthington: 14869

13. Bexley: 13088

14. Hilliard: 11796

15. Circleville: 11666

 

2000

1. Columbus: 711470

2. Newark: 46279

3. Lancaster: 35335

4. Westerville: 35318

5. Upper Arlington: 33686

6. Gahanna: 32636

7. Reynoldsburg: 32069

8. Dublin: 31392

9. Grove City: 27075

10. Delaware: 25243

11. Hilliard: 24230

12. Whitehall: 19201

13. Marysville: 15942

14. Worthington: 14125

15. Circleville: 13485

 

2010

1. Columbus: 787033

2. Newark: 47573

3. Dublin: 41751

4. Lancaster: 38780

5. Westerville: 36120

6. Reynoldsburg: 35893

7. Grove City: 35575

8. Delaware: 34753

9. Upper Arlington: 33771

10. Gahanna: 33248

11. Hilliard: 28234

12. Marysville: 22094

13. Pickerington: 18291

14. Whitehall: 18062

15. Pataskala: 14962

 

2018

1. Columbus: 892533

2. Newark: 50029

3. Dublin: 48647

4. Grove City: 41625

5. Lancaster: 40414

6. Westerville: 40387

7. Delaware: 39930

8. Reynoldsburg: 38278

9. Hilliard: 36414

10. Gahanna: 35551

11. Upper Arlington: 35522

12. Marysville: 24267

13. Pickerington: 21201

14. Whitehall: 19011

15. Pataskala: 15780

 

You can really see how the construction of the highway system, particularly 70/71/270 really changed the dynamic after 1950.  Before that, the rankings were dominated by urban suburbs and larger places in other counties, but afterwards, cities along 270 skyrocketed upward.

Edited by jonoh81
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's also interesting is that Columbus has never lost population, even during the Great Depression.

 

BTW what's up with all the carriage returns after your post's text?


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^Dublin's rise is amazing.  Nowhere, then 11th in 1990, 8th in 2000, 3rd in 2010, and now knocking on the door for 2nd place (largest suburb).

 

And to your point, there basically isn't a "land locked" inside-270 city until #11 (Upper Arlington) for the 2018 rankings.  And UA maxed out on their population (as well as density, I'm guessing) in the '70s.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 10:20 AM, DarkandStormy said:

^^Dublin's rise is amazing.  Nowhere, then 11th in 1990, 8th in 2000, 3rd in 2010, and now knocking on the door for 2nd place (largest suburb).

 

And to your point, there basically isn't a "land locked" inside-270 city until #11 (Upper Arlington) for the 2018 rankings.  And UA maxed out on their population (as well as density, I'm guessing) in the '70s.

 

Going back further for Dublin, it's even more drastic.  It was #81 of all places in the metro area in 1950, then #61 in 1960, #59 in 1970 and finally #23 in 1980. 

 

Most of Columbus major suburbs are on the verge of passing 40,000, a few on the verge of passing 50,000, and many of them are about to or have already entered the top 25 largest Ohio cities.  Upper Arlington is not too much smaller than it's peak, and it's been growing since the 2000s, so there's a chance that it could eventually reach and surpass its previous peak.  It just needs to find ways to densify the land it has.  That might be a challenge, though, because of NIMBYism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/31/2019 at 9:48 AM, jonoh81 said:

 

Going back further for Dublin, it's even more drastic.  It was #81 of all places in the metro area in 1950, then #61 in 1960, #59 in 1970 and finally #23 in 1980. 

 

Most of Columbus major suburbs are on the verge of passing 40,000, a few on the verge of passing 50,000, and many of them are about to or have already entered the top 25 largest Ohio cities.  Upper Arlington is not too much smaller than it's peak, and it's been growing since the 2000s, so there's a chance that it could eventually reach and surpass its previous peak.  It just needs to find ways to densify the land it has.  That might be a challenge, though, because of NIMBYism. 

I think now after 40 years of NIMBYs and zero population growth Upper Arlington is finally getting over their fear of density. I mean they approved a massive eleven story mixed-use building in a burgeoning Lane Ave corridor. They're building a new high school that won't pay for itself and I think they're finally getting it that they've probably met the ceiling of tax raises, and must now bring new residents and employers.

 

Grove City and Hilliard will one day probably be up around 50,000 with Dublin, but the others are hemmed in. Olentangy could be another 40,000 suburb if incorporated, and Westerville would already be at ~70,000 if merged with Genoa Township.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Muslim population growth shows in Columbus’ crowded mosques

 

Thousands of Muslims were settling in at the Ohio Expo Center earlier this month for prayer and celebration to mark the end of the holy month of Ramadan.  The event, hosted by the Noor Islamic Cultural Center, was precipitated by the growing Muslim population locally — a population that can no longer fit within the walls of the Hilliard mosque, said Imran Malik, who handles community relations for Noor.  “The community overall is growing rapidly,” said Malik, whose mosque is planning to double its footprint to accommodate the growing community.

 

Malik isn’t the only local Muslim leader who has noticed the growing population, and NICC isn’t the only mosque that has seen growth, said Romin Iqbal, executive and legal director at the Council on American-Islamic Relations Columbus. ... It’s hard to confirm the population growth because the U.S. Census Bureau doesn’t ask about religion.

 

In addition to seeing the attendance grow at area mosques, Iqbal said he’s also seen more mosques being started or opened.  As for the cause of the growth, both Malik and Iqbal said at least part of it is from people moving from other parts of the country or state to Columbus and Central Ohio. ... Central Ohio also has the second-highest population of Somalis in the nation, after Minneapolis-St. Paul, with about 45,000 settling locally within the past decade, according to the Ohio secretary of state’s office.  Almost 100% of people from Somalia practice Islam.

 

MORE:  https://www.dispatch.com/news/20190617/muslim-population-growth-shows-in-columbus-crowded-mosques

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Columbo said:

Muslim population growth shows in Columbus’ crowded mosques

 

Thousands of Muslims were settling in at the Ohio Expo Center earlier this month for prayer and celebration to mark the end of the holy month of Ramadan.  The event, hosted by the Noor Islamic Cultural Center, was precipitated by the growing Muslim population locally — a population that can no longer fit within the walls of the Hilliard mosque, said Imran Malik, who handles community relations for Noor.  “The community overall is growing rapidly,” said Malik, whose mosque is planning to double its footprint to accommodate the growing community.

 

Malik isn’t the only local Muslim leader who has noticed the growing population, and NICC isn’t the only mosque that has seen growth, said Romin Iqbal, executive and legal director at the Council on American-Islamic Relations Columbus. ... It’s hard to confirm the population growth because the U.S. Census Bureau doesn’t ask about religion.

 

In addition to seeing the attendance grow at area mosques, Iqbal said he’s also seen more mosques being started or opened.  As for the cause of the growth, both Malik and Iqbal said at least part of it is from people moving from other parts of the country or state to Columbus and Central Ohio. ... Central Ohio also has the second-highest population of Somalis in the nation, after Minneapolis-St. Paul, with about 45,000 settling locally within the past decade, according to the Ohio secretary of state’s office.  Almost 100% of people from Somalia practice Islam.

 

MORE:  https://www.dispatch.com/news/20190617/muslim-population-growth-shows-in-columbus-crowded-mosques

 

In NE Columbus near the Morse corridor west of Easton, some of the census tracts have 40%-60% of the population being foreign born, and many of them are from African and ME nations. 

 

Share this post


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

 

In NE Columbus near the Morse corridor west of Easton, some of the census tracts have 40%-60% of the population being foreign born, and many of them are from African and ME nations. 

 

 

Do you know who the 2nd (and 3rd) largest Muslim populations are in Metro Columbus behind Somalis?


"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

So Aaron Renn hates me. 

I've been critical of him at times because he loves to use IRS data to say Columbus only attracts from Ohio and nowhere else, which isn't supported by other data sets, including the Census.  He wrote another article mentioning this not too long ago, and I had a lovely exchange:

 

My post:

Any reason why you continue to use IRS data, which has some large inherent flaws, such as its inability to accurately capture student populations? Census data doesn’t match these numbers at all. From their data, a city like Columbus is gaining net migration from 28 states and DC and has net overall population gain outside of Ohio, yet the IRS data shows the opposite.
The fact of the matter is that cities can’t reach double-digit growth rates per decade only pulling from their own states, especially when the losses in other areas of the state, such as in Ohio, don’t really match up to the growth in other places like Columbus, Cincinnati and the counties that are also seeing growth from the losses of urban Cleveland or Toledo. The math just doesn’t work out without out-of-state migration.
You also don’t bother talking about international migration, as if that somehow doesn’t matter to overall growth, when of course it does. Why is domestic migration seen as better than international, anyway?

 

His reponse:

You seem to be a perfect example of what I’ve labelled the “Columbus booster bro.” Unsatisfied for others merely to recognize that Columbus is performing well but has some weak points in the same way every other city has weak points, you have to insist on a much rosier picture than actually exists.

As it happens, I have a few years worth of ACS data in my system. The surveys I have (up through the 2007-2011 ACS) show the same pattern as the IRS data. Columbus is gaining people from Ohio but on net losing it to the rest of the country. When you say Columbus I assume you mean the Columbus MSA. Even if it is drawing from 28 states that says nothing about the totals. Columbus gained a net of 4 people from Rhode Island in the 2005-2009 ACS survey, but that’s meaningless. Also, the ACS has its own weaknesses. The migration data has a significant margin of error and you are not supposed to do time series analysis with overlapping surveys, which limits the amount of trend analysis you can do.

Even if Columbus has turned positive from the rest of the country in recent years, it’s likely extremely marginal since migration patters are very stable. But go ahead. Cheerlead about your city to the 10 people outside of Ohio who are listening using the same ineffective sales pitch that you’ve been using for the last decade.

 

I guess I struck a nerve.  He kind of illuminates the problem I have with him, beyond being unable to have people question him, and that's that he hasn't even bothered to look at anything else or he would know that the Census data goes to 2016.  Both sources have their flaws, but he's unwilling to step outside of the narrative he has set up.  It's unfortunate, as a lot of people read his columns.

Edited by jonoh81
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I WISH Columbus had (more) "booster bros."  Then this forum would get Cleveland-level post frequencies! 😄

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

"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

jonoh81--what are the drawbacks from using IRS data?  I've looked at both IRS and ACS--and ACS is always older, lagging by a few years and has huge margins of error at times, sometimes larger than the value itself (e.g., 560 people moved from x to x, MOE= +/- 581).  ACS is only an estimate and a sample, while IRS is real data, so I'm interested to learn why its less accurate than ACS.  (I'm not familiar with the Aaron Renn at all--my question is about the data sources in general.) 

Share this post


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

jonoh81--what are the drawbacks from using IRS data?  I've looked at both IRS and ACS--and ACS is always older, lagging by a few years and has huge margins of error at times, sometimes larger than the value itself (e.g., 560 people moved from x to x, MOE= +/- 581).  ACS is only an estimate and a sample, while IRS is real data, so I'm interested to learn why its less accurate than ACS.  (I'm not familiar with the Aaron Renn at all--my question is about the data sources in general.) 

 

The IRS data relies heavily on change of address, but mailing address is not necessarily the same thing as residence.  Students, for example, often leave their mailing address as their main home address and not, say, a dorm address.  Columbus has 100K+ students, with at least some portion of them having a different mailing address than where they live, affecting the accuracy of the data.  Furthermore, people who don't file taxes at all don't show up either, meaning that people without jobs or reported income, young people, undocumented immigrants, felons, some retirees, and other demographics don't show up in the data, leaving an estimated undercount of up to 30% a year from just that alone.  There are also issues related to timing, as discussed here: https://medium.com/migration-issues/a-simple-reference-guide-to-irs-data-quirks-47b2fb6feb3c

 

The basic point is that there is no dataset that is perfect.  They're all flawed in one way or another, which makes relying on only one thing without any stated caveats somewhat disingenuous and prone to the bias of those using any one specific source.  Renn likes the IRS data, and that's fine, but he has never once discussed any of its inherent flaws, or attempted to augment it with data from other sources. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ColDayMan said:

I WISH Columbus had (more) "booster bros."  Then this forum would get Cleveland-level post frequencies! 😄

 

It's the nature of the cities, probably because I would guess a much bigger percentage of metro Cleveland's population grew up here (or in metro Akron).

 

Besides, greater Cleveland is sort of the Texas of Ohio.   Must brag, must do things bigger and IOO better.  🙂

Edited by E Rocc

Share this post


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

Besides, greater Cleveland is sort of the Texas of Ohio.   Must brag, must do things bigger and IOO better.  🙂

 

lol the delusion is REAL

Share this post


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

So Aaron Renn hates me. 

I've been critical of him at times because he loves to use IRS data to say Columbus only attracts from Ohio and nowhere else, which isn't supported by other data sets, including the Census.  He wrote another article mentioning this not too long ago, and I had a lovely exchange:

...

 

In addition to Renn not enjoying being questioned (I've been the on the receiving end of his rants in the past as well), he is obsessed with Indianapolis and uses it as his control for all his arguments and topics. It's rather strange, while he may be a heavy research and data driven urban writer, he often falls back on his emotions and preconceived ideas of cities that he has spent very little time in and understanding. I applaud you for pushing him, he tends to run under the notion that his title and stature make him unquestionable but everyone should be challenged from time to time. 

Edited by DevolsDance
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who get all gooey about Indianapolis sometimes don't realize that's it's the cultural center of the entire state instead of having to share it with other close-by towns like most other mid-size cities do.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is he from Columbus? I've never heard of him before. Just found his website and noticed 8 out of 10 of the stories on the first page are about Midwestern cities. That's not very balanced covered of American urban life.  https://www.aaronrenn.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a big fan of Renn, but I do appreciate that his blog was one of the few that promoted midwest urbanism. I think he is a bit full of himself, and he seems like he tries really hard to present himself as an authority figure rather than a dialogue starter. 

 

On this issue, he absolutely should have acknowledged your point, @jonoh81, about the mathematical impossibility of the declines in other portions of the state explaining the growth in Columbus. That's a glaring hole in his argument, and I would have thought he'd welcome a chance to explain his methodology. I also think he owed you an explanation for why he didn't discuss international immigration as a cause of population growth in Columbus. As we have seen in many places across the country, when international immigration slows, population growth also slows. The fact that Columbus is still attracting a healthy number of immigrants should be noteworthy, too.

 

I'm a bit torn as to whether IRS or census estimates and ACS data is the better method for analyzing population trends. I'm not sure if students should be counted as 'residents' in the city where they attend school. Most of those students only live in Columbus part of the year, and I think one could make a strong argument for why they shouldn't be included in population data. I also agree with Renn's point about gaining residents from 28 states says nothing about the totals. Columbus could be gaining a few residents from every state but New York, but if it's sending more people to NY than the other 49, then who really cares?

 

I think every city has its boosters, and Columbus is no different. I think because Cbus wasn't really on anyone's radar until recently, the boosters there seem to be a little more defensive than other places. Tell a Cincinnatian that his city sucks and it's something he's heard a million times. He might tell you to f off and Cincinnati doesn't like you either (lol), but he won't be shocked to hear critique. All we heard for decades was critiques! Tell a Columbusite his city sucks, and it might honestly be the first time he's heard a critique of the place, especially if s/he is under say, 30. When the media and demographic narrative is incessantly positive, people tend to react more to the negative coverage. This might be what Renn is picking up on when he talks about the Cbus booster bros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll tell you who can rip Columbus: People from the southern counties that usually find themselves in the Uncool Crescent when they do come to the city -- usually for work purposes. They can be almost as nasty as a fire-breathing Cincinnati suburbanite.

Share this post


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

I'll tell you who can rip Columbus: People from the southern counties that usually find themselves in the Uncool Crescent when they do come to the city -- usually for work purposes. They can be almost as nasty as a fire-breathing Cincinnati suburbanite.

 

That reminds me of when I tell my mom she needs to quit smoking she tells me only my younger brother can tell her that because he smokes too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, edale said:

I'm not a big fan of Renn, but I do appreciate that his blog was one of the few that promoted midwest urbanism. I think he is a bit full of himself, and he seems like he tries really hard to present himself as an authority figure rather than a dialogue starter. 

 

On this issue, he absolutely should have acknowledged your point, @jonoh81, about the mathematical impossibility of the declines in other portions of the state explaining the growth in Columbus. That's a glaring hole in his argument, and I would have thought he'd welcome a chance to explain his methodology. I also think he owed you an explanation for why he didn't discuss international immigration as a cause of population growth in Columbus. As we have seen in many places across the country, when international immigration slows, population growth also slows. The fact that Columbus is still attracting a healthy number of immigrants should be noteworthy, too.

 

I'm a bit torn as to whether IRS or census estimates and ACS data is the better method for analyzing population trends. I'm not sure if students should be counted as 'residents' in the city where they attend school. Most of those students only live in Columbus part of the year, and I think one could make a strong argument for why they shouldn't be included in population data. I also agree with Renn's point about gaining residents from 28 states says nothing about the totals. Columbus could be gaining a few residents from every state but New York, but if it's sending more people to NY than the other 49, then who really cares?

 

I think every city has its boosters, and Columbus is no different. I think because Cbus wasn't really on anyone's radar until recently, the boosters there seem to be a little more defensive than other places. Tell a Cincinnatian that his city sucks and it's something he's heard a million times. He might tell you to f off and Cincinnati doesn't like you either (lol), but he won't be shocked to hear critique. All we heard for decades was critiques! Tell a Columbusite his city sucks, and it might honestly be the first time he's heard a critique of the place, especially if s/he is under say, 30. When the media and demographic narrative is incessantly positive, people tend to react more to the negative coverage. This might be what Renn is picking up on when he talks about the Cbus booster bros.

 

I used to have this information on my site until it was hacked all to hell and I lost it, but for the record, here were the states and the totals that the ACS had as net migration contributors to Columbus in the most recent period, 2012-2016.  These numbers represent the average estimated net migration per year, not for the whole period.

New Jersey: +1,048

Michigan: +989

New York: +767

West Virginia: +767

Virginia: +593

Washington (state): +530

Indiana: +475

Pennsylvania: +394

New Hampshire: +391

Alabama: +336

Alaska: +282

Massachusetts: +281

Puerto Rico: +264

Illinois: +257

Connecticut: +234

Rhode Island: +222

Minnesota: +191

Nevada: +184

Washington DC: +142

Colorado: +141

North Carolina: +135

Maryland: +125

Delaware: +117

Arkansas: +92

Iowa: +92

Maine: +71

Wyoming: +23

Vermont: +17

Oklahoma: +14

 

If remotely accurate, I think this represents a healthy mix.  There are 5 other Midwestern states, 6 Southern, 12 Northeastern and 5 Western.  Of all 50 states, PR and DC, the net was +2,139 per year during the 2012-2016 from other states.  In 2006-2010, that net total was -1,298 per year.  Interestingly enough, Ohio's contribution also almost doubled between those periods, and international migration rose between 30-35%.  Only in the last few years has domestic migration exceed international.  In any case, the picture here is pretty clear, at least based on the ACS.

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Is he from Columbus? I've never heard of him before. Just found his website and noticed 8 out of 10 of the stories on the first page are about Midwestern cities. That's not very balanced covered of American urban life.  https://www.aaronrenn.com/

 

I believe that he lives in Chicago, but had lived in Indy for some time. He mostly writes about the Midwest, but not exclusively.

 

His comments section can get lively at times.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ohpenn said:

 

I believe that he lives in Chicago, but had lived in Indy for some time. He mostly writes about the Midwest, but not exclusively.

 

His comments section can get lively at times.

He used to frequent the usenet group Misc.Transport.Road back at the turn of the millennium (pre-urbanohio).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As it happens, I live in NYC.  Here are the components of Columbus' population growth since 7/1/2010:

 

Natural Increase: 95,340 (3rd in Midwest, even exceeding much larger metro Detroit and St. Louis)

Domestic Migration 49,558 (1st in the Midwest)

International Migration: 55,652 (4th in Midwest)

 

Natural Increase is more births than deaths. That's the largest share of growth, which is pretty common. Columbus' young median age helps with this, obviously.

 

International migration is very strong, but it's typical for international migration to exceed domestic in weak domestic attractor cities in the Midwest.

 

Domestic migration is where Columbus is both strong but has been heavily concentrated in drawing from Ohio. There are many states from which Columbus has a positive migration balance, so to say that Columbus has been losing people to the rest of the country outside Ohio doesn't mean it's losing population to everywhere, only that the total of all other 49 states + DC is negative. For Midwest cities, retirement destinations are often the biggest outflow sites.

 

I can also say that the domestic migration situation for Columbus has improved a lot. As you can see here, Columbus trends have been positive of late, in contrast to Indy/Minneapolis:

 

spacer.png

 

 

 

This one is older but may be of interest: https://www.aaronrenn.com/2014/02/09/in-state-vs-out-of-state-migration/

 

I actually hope to do a study that would incorporate not just the latest IRS but also ACS migration data.  I find it interesting that these Midwest cities actually had better national pulls in the 90s than the 2000s. These cities are indisputably vastly better today than they were back then.

 

I am bullish on Columbus and if I were investing money in a major Midwest city, Columbus would be it. If I thought the community conditions for a serious rebranding and aggressive push to become a national talent magnet were there, I might very well want to be a part of it myself. But in my experience, if I say ten positive things about Columbus and one negative thing, very few people appreciate the good things I said but I'm usually attacked on the one negative item. And I've witnessed other writers get the same treatment.

 

 

Edited by arenn

Share this post


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

As it happens, I live in NYC.  Here are the components of Columbus' population growth since 7/1/2010:

 

Natural Increase: 95,340 (3rd in Midwest, even exceeding much larger metro Detroit and St. Louis)

Domestic Migration 49,558 (1st in the Midwest)

International Migration: 55,652 (4th in Midwest)

 

Natural Increase is more births than deaths. That's the largest share of growth, which is pretty common. Columbus' young median age helps with this, obviously.

 

International migration is very strong, but it's typical for international migration to exceed domestic in weak domestic attractor cities in the Midwest.

 

Domestic migration is where Columbus is both strong but has been heavily concentrated in drawing from Ohio. There are many states from which Columbus has a positive migration balance, so to say that Columbus has been losing people to the rest of the country outside Ohio doesn't mean it's losing population to everywhere, only that the total of all other 49 states + DC is negative. For Midwest cities, retirement destinations are often the biggest outflow sites.

 

I can also say that the domestic migration situation for Columbus has improved a lot. As you can see here, Columbus trends have been positive of late, in contrast to Indy/Minneapolis:

 

spacer.png

 

 

 

This one is older but may be of interest: https://www.aaronrenn.com/2014/02/09/in-state-vs-out-of-state-migration/

 

I actually hope to do a study that would incorporate not just the latest IRS but also ACS migration data.  I find it interesting that these Midwest cities actually had better national pulls in the 90s than the 2000s. These cities are indisputably vastly better today than they were back then.

 

I am bullish on Columbus and if I were investing money in a major Midwest city, Columbus would be it. If I thought the community conditions for a serious rebranding and aggressive push to become a national talent magnet were there, I might very well want to be a part of it myself. But in my experience, if I say ten positive things about Columbus and one negative thing, very few people appreciate the good things I said but I'm usually attacked on the one negative item. And I've witnessed other writers get the same treatment.

 

 

 

You weren't being attacked, though.  My response to you in that thread was not  unreasonable, nor were the questions contained within it.  It's fine if you want to only rely on IRS data, but people should also be aware that it shouldn't be taken as gospel because it has large flaws too.  When using flawed data that paints a certain picture that isn't necessarily supported by other data, even if that other data also has flaws, there should be some caution in how it's being presented.  You weren't being personally attacked, and it has nothing to do with myself or anyone else being afraid of criticism of Columbus.  The information presented should just be as up-to-date and as accurate as possible.  Most of the time when people are being taken to task for something they've written about Columbus, it's typically because the information they're using is either outdated, incomplete or not thoroughly researched.  A common example is that many people have said that Columbus only grows through annexation, yet annexation has slowed to a crawl the last decade at the same time the city is seeing record growth.  At some point, it just gets annoying when writers aren't doing their homework.  Columbus has plenty of areas it deserves criticism for, not least of which are its transportation issues or having very bad zoning throughout the city that keeps allowing low-density development even in prime urban locations.  I've written about some of these issues myself, so when you write me off as just a "booster bro", I think that's unfair.  I always try to back up what I'm saying as best I can.

Share this post


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

A common example is that many people have said that Columbus only grows through annexation, yet annexation has slowed to a crawl the last decade at the same time the city is seeing record growth.  

 

This is disingenuous. Columbus mostly annexed undeveloped land on the fringes of its city boundaries rather than absorbing existing communities. So even though annexation has slowed to a crawl, land that was acquired through previous annexations is still being built out and developed. As someone who seems very familiar with the data, I feel like this is a point you have to already know. Perhaps this type of stuff is why you've been given the 'booster bro' label.

 

Also, @arenn thanks for posting here and clarifying your argument. I really do appreciate The Urbanophile and your contributions to promoting, or at least exploring, midwest cities over the years. Glad to see you're still popping in here on UO from time to time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I don't even know any of these "booster bros". They just seem like dudes that are really excited to not live in Stryker any more.

 

Same.  Most Ohio-based forums actually tend to lack Columbus posters more than anything else.  Cincinnati and especially Cleveland have far more people talking about them most places.  And most Columbus based articles I've read tend to have just as many negative comments as positive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, edale said:

This is disingenuous. Columbus mostly annexed undeveloped land on the fringes of its city boundaries rather than absorbing existing communities. So even though annexation has slowed to a crawl, land that was acquired through previous annexations is still being built out and developed. As someone who seems very familiar with the data, I feel like this is a point you have to already know. Perhaps this type of stuff is why you've been given the 'booster bro' label.

 

This argument can be made against any city that has annexed any land, ever.  Lol.

Edited by DarkandStormy
  • Like 1

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, edale said:

 

This is disingenuous. Columbus mostly annexed undeveloped land on the fringes of its city boundaries rather than absorbing existing communities. So even though annexation has slowed to a crawl, land that was acquired through previous annexations is still being built out and developed. As someone who seems very familiar with the data, I feel like this is a point you have to already know. Perhaps this type of stuff is why you've been given the 'booster bro' label.

 

 

Accept that's not true, either.  The last time I ran the numbers, areas with higher densities and more urban locations within 270 accounted for about 60% of the city's growth.  The next largest chunk was around 270 itself, with the smallest % on the far fringes.  It's been a few years since I ran the numbers, so it may be time to do it again and see just where it is.  The last neighborhood-level data came out in December of 2018 for 2017 data.  I can certainly crunch the numbers and repost them here when I'm done.

And I don't get your point about the annexed land.  Growth doesn't count if it happens on land added after a certain date?  Land added in 1960 doesn't count, but land added in 1900 does?  How does that make sense?  Before what date did the land have to be added to count? 

I would say this is exactly the stuff I'm talking about where people have arguably arbitrary rules for some places based on questionable information.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by jonoh81
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

This argument can be made against any city that has annexed any land, ever.  Lol.

 

Uh, no it can't? If Cincinnati annexed Norwood, a community entirely surrounded by Cincinnati city limits and built out for decades, it would receive a one time population bump at the time of annexation. If it annexed a chunk of land out in the undeveloped western portion of Hamilton County, it would receive a tiny bump at the time of annexation, but as that land got developed in coming years, it would continue to show as growth for the city. Huge difference. The latter is what happened in Columbus. I saw it first hand while doing some work around Lincoln Village several years ago. When that land out there was annexed it was farm land, and it remained as such for years. It was actively being built out as single family homes in 2014 or so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, edale said:

 

Uh, no it can't? If Cincinnati annexed Norwood, a community entirely surrounded by Cincinnati city limits and built out for decades, it would receive a one time population bump at the time of annexation. If it annexed a chunk of land out in the undeveloped western portion of Hamilton County, it would receive a tiny bump at the time of annexation, but as that land got developed in coming years, it would continue to show as growth for the city. Huge difference. The latter is what happened in Columbus. I saw it first hand while doing some work around Lincoln Village several years ago. When that land out there was annexed it was farm land, and it remained as such for years. It was actively being built out as single family homes in 2014 or so. 

 

Your argument requires us to believe population growth should only happen on land that is already developed. That's laughable.

  • Like 1

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Your argument requires us to believe population growth should only happen on land that is already developed. That's laughable.

 

I don't think that's what is being said at all. They are saying if growth happens in Mason or North Ridgeville those numbers don't count toward Cincy or Cleveland populations. But all the growth happening along 161 between 270 and New Albany counts toward Cbus's growth. 

Share this post


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

I don't think that's what is being said at all. They are saying if growth happens in Mason or North Ridgeville those numbers don't count toward Cincy or Cleveland populations. But all the growth happening along 161 between 270 and New Albany counts toward Cbus's growth. 

 

Sorry, what I meant to convey is that the argument requires us to believe that population growth via annexation only "counts" (whatever that means) if the land was already developed.  Let's say Lincoln Village was built up, then got annexed once the population there grew.  Then it's "ok?"

 

I'm not sure how annexing mostly empty land, then working to get it developed which leads to population increases is *worse* than annexing areas that already have neighborhoods and population.  Sure, it's a "one time" population increase but the work has already been done to get people to live there.  

 

And to jonoh's point - where is the cut off?  What about farmland that was annexed in 1850?  or 1890?

 

The argument of "the population increase in Columbus is boosted because the city annexed mostly empty land 60-70 years ago and that's now being developed today" is different than "Columbus has gotten its population increases largely because of annexation."

  • Like 1

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the argument is that population growth from development on annexed land is still, at least in part, "due to annexation." I think this is supported by the simple fact of it being cheaper and easier to develop on a green field than doing in-fill. It would further be supported if developer interest in the land in question was part of the impetus behind annexation (which would clearly be the case if, e.g., annexation is tied to utility expansion; demand for utilities would come from people wanting to develop the land).

Share this post


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

This whole argument is confusing to me.

 

I think the point here is that Columbus is never allowed to get any credit for anything because it's not Cincinnati or Cleveland, which are the true and noble cities. 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
  • Poison 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Sorry, what I meant to convey is that the argument requires us to believe that population growth via annexation only "counts" (whatever that means) if the land was already developed.  Let's say Lincoln Village was built up, then got annexed once the population there grew.  Then it's "ok?"

 

I'm not sure how annexing mostly empty land, then working to get it developed which leads to population increases is *worse* than annexing areas that already have neighborhoods and population.  Sure, it's a "one time" population increase but the work has already been done to get people to live there.  

 

And to jonoh's point - where is the cut off?  What about farmland that was annexed in 1850?  or 1890?

 

The argument of "the population increase in Columbus is boosted because the city annexed mostly empty land 60-70 years ago and that's now being developed today" is different than "Columbus has gotten its population increases largely because of annexation."

 

Woah, I never made a judgement about what is bad, good, or ok. I was just responding to Jonoh's claim that population boomed even while annexation stopped, so annexation can't be the credited with the growing population. That is obviously not true when the land that is annexed is undeveloped. I'm not sure where you're getting the rest of this stuff from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Robuu said:

I think the argument is that population growth from development on annexed land is still, at least in part, "due to annexation." I think this is supported by the simple fact of it being cheaper and easier to develop on a green field than doing in-fill. It would further be supported if developer interest in the land in question was part of the impetus behind annexation (which would clearly be the case if, e.g., annexation is tied to utility expansion; demand for utilities would come from people wanting to develop the land).

 

Perhaps, but as you know in Dayton, we also have parts of the city that were annexed greenfields that could be new growth for the city that haven't "grown" like annexed Columbus.  

 

I think the simple answer is if you have strong/above-average economic growth, you're likely going to have a growing city.  Whether it's "landlocked" like Minneapolis, Seattle, or Boston or still has room to grow with Columbus, Indianapolis, or San Antonio, it's the economy.  If the economy in, say, Cleveland were on par with, say, Austin or Raleigh, then no one in Cleveland would complain about Columbus' previous annexation.  Just like how this Daytonian isn't complaining about having empty greenfields waiting for the latest Ryan homes to be built for my city's future growth.

  • Like 1

"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
24 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

 

I think the point here is that Columbus is never allowed to get any credit for anything because it's not Cincinnati or Cleveland, which are the true and noble cities. 

 

This gets annoying. Columbus is the fastest growing city and metro area in the state. It is the most diverse. It has the largest state university and is the seat of government. It has many booming and wonderful neighborhoods. It's got everything going for it. So why do Cbus people get so defensive about every little thing?

 

It is 100% true that a lot of Cbus's growth in the city proper today is because they annexed a ton of undeveloped land over time. No one made a value judgement about that. I wish Cincinnati had annexed more land. It's dumb that the densely populated neighborhoods up the I-75 and I-71 corridors aren't part of the city.

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...