Ohio 2010 Census population change by county map (Cleveland: neighborhoods, university)

[abr7rmj]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Some good news and bad news with this. The good news is that I have a hard time seeing it continue to drop at this rate. With all the existing infrastructure and housing, it's hard to imagine seeing this happen for decades to come. And Cleveland is doing things to revitalize the central core, which I think is an extremely important step. The bad news is that this continues to hurt the overall image of the city. Cleveland lost over 81,000 people, which is nearly 3x the rate it lost from 1990-2000 and is the 3rd worst decade since the decline began in 1950. The city is going to have to take some drastic steps to turn this all around even if this really is bottom, which I really hope it is.

Cincy's loss has been slower and started a bit later, but still significant. It's approaching a 50% population loss. I was really thinking, with what was going on there, that it would've stayed steady or seen a slight increase.

Even Columbus has reason to worry a bit. The 10.4% growth rate was the 4th slowest since 1830-40. It's only ahead of 1930-40 with 5.3%, 1970-80 with 4.7% and 1850-60 with 3.8%.

Overall, a really sh*tty census for Ohio.

You have to wonder, since this reflects a 10-year population pattern, if the majority of people moved out from 2000-2005 rather than the latter half of the decade. It's possible that in the last 2-3 years, the arrow has been slowly starting to point back up, but not nearly enough to offset what happened earlier in the decade.

Also, you can't discount the population gains in Butler, Clermont and especially Warren counties in Ohio and likely some in Kentucky too. The area is clearly attracting people, though they're moving straight to the suburbs. Clearly, families want to live where there are good schools, and in the Tri-state, those are located in places like Mason, West Chester, Lebanon, Clermont County, and parts of Kentucky and Indiana.

[JoeP]

out migration is down everywhere because people can't sell their homes. If they even find a job somewhere else that is.

On the flip side, Columbus' in migration would be down too because people could not sell their home to move there and in the down turn, job creation was down.

[PhillytoCincy]

Originally Posted by JoeP

out migration is down everywhere because people can't sell their homes. If they even find a job somewhere else that is.

On the flip side, Columbus' in migration would be down too because people could not sell their home to move there and in the down turn, job creation was down.

Very true, and a lot of people tend to forget about that. Immigration has been the big booster for most areas around the country.

[jbcmh81]

The Dispatch ran a story today showing a map of the city districts and which ones lost and gained population. To me it was an interesting mix. The suburbs, following national trends, seemed to gain the most. Then there was a ring of suburbs inside 270 that generally had seemed to lose population. And then the immediate downtown neighborhoods gained again. The central core's population was actually up around 40% since 2000. I wonder if other cities in the state are seeing something similar, where the far suburbs and the very inner-city cores gained, while older central suburbs lost. That would indicate to me that cities are having successes at rebuilding urban cores, but that that revitalization has not fully spread out to inner suburbs. The 2010 census may very well be showing the beginning of a new trend.

[JR_C]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

The Dispatch ran a story today showing a map of the city districts and which ones lost and gained population. To me it was an interesting mix. The suburbs, following national trends, seemed to gain the most. Then there was a ring of suburbs inside 270 that generally had seemed to lose population. And then the immediate downtown neighborhoods gained again. The central core's population was actually up around 40% since 2000. I wonder if other cities in the state are seeing something similar, where the far suburbs and the very inner-city cores gained, while older central suburbs lost. That would indicate to me that cities are having successes at rebuilding urban cores, but that that revitalization has not fully spread out to inner suburbs. The 2010 census may very well be showing the beginning of a new trend.

I believe I've seen a map showing this same trend in Cleveland, too.

Here it is:
http://media.cleveland.com/metro/pho...b5b0b769a5.jpg

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by JR_C

I believe I've seen a map showing this same trend in Cleveland, too.

Here it is:
http://media.cleveland.com/metro/pho...b5b0b769a5.jpg

The disparity of loss/gains for Cleveland looks more dramatic, but yeah, it does look similar. I also noticed the same thing with Chicago. I'm not sure if this is a trend specific to the last decade, or if it began before that. I haven't seen any maps like this from the 2000 census. I know in Columbus' case, downtown redevelopment was barely just beginning in 2000, so I imagine most of the growth has occurred within the last 10 years.

That's why I hate the media sometimes. They talk about overall losses or gains for a city, but fail to mention highlights like that. The Columbus story's headline was totally negative in that it only really mentioned losses. It creates more negativity than reality supports.

[PhillytoCincy]

I have been suprised by the huge asian gains Ohio has recieved. We are talking about over 50% growth rates in a lot of areas in Ohio.

I live in Blue Ash and the asian population is already pretty high and is skyrocketing.

[BelieveInCleve]

Originally Posted by chet_kinkaid

columbus has nothing to worry about..the 8 county msa grew by almost 13% to 1,836,000..columbus outpacing indianapolis and minneapolis st paul ..and the columbus msa is the same as it was in 2000 while cincy and indy added counties..annex that cleveland...

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

The Dispatch ran a story today showing a map of the city districts and which ones lost and gained population. To me it was an interesting mix. The suburbs, following national trends, seemed to gain the most. Then there was a ring of suburbs inside 270 that generally had seemed to lose population. And then the immediate downtown neighborhoods gained again. The central core's population was actually up around 40% since 2000. I wonder if other cities in the state are seeing something similar, where the far suburbs and the very inner-city cores gained, while older central suburbs lost. That would indicate to me that cities are having successes at rebuilding urban cores, but that that revitalization has not fully spread out to inner suburbs. The 2010 census may very well be showing the beginning of a new trend.

This is only somewhat true for Cleveland, the only areas of the metro that are seeing gains are the outer suburban and exurban areas in bordering counties. Only real exception is the Downtown area, which has seen large gains over the last 10 years. Nearly every other area of Cuyahoga County is seeing population loss, this is not just inner ring suburbs but even 3rd and 4th ring suburbs are seeing losses in.

This is the (2009 estimate map, not 2010 Census, but is not far off)

Originally Posted by JR_C

I believe I've seen a map showing this same trend in Cleveland, too.

Here it is:
http://media.cleveland.com/metro/pho...b5b0b769a5.jpg

Thanks nice find, about the same as I described but this is just for Cleveland City.

Originally Posted by Beavercreek33

I have been suprised by the huge asian gains Ohio has recieved. We are talking about over 50% growth rates in a lot of areas in Ohio.

I live in Blue Ash and the asian population is already pretty high and is skyrocketing.

Hispanic/Latino population as well, even though not as much of a gain as other areas of the country, some fairly large cities/areas of Ohio have nearly doubled in population. I know that Cincinnati and Columbus have seen huge gains, Cleveland still has a lot more but Cincy and Columbus are catching up.

[db108108]

If you consider the states that are "booming" (or have boomed within the past 20 years), every single one of them have vibrant, growing core cities. Cities have been proven to be the idea centers that drive the economy, not the suburbs. Unfortunately, Ohio's cities have been declining for 40-odd years. Ohio need to put focus back into the core cities, especially Cleveland and Cincinnati.

[usaf_1832]

Here's a more accurate picture of Cleveland population change. It is terrible to see the continuous population loss, HOWEVER this is the first time we see something interesting: Growth in the most urban and central areas of the city. It is very interesting to note that Cleveland is expanding where it once started...right at it's core. And these areas have all mostly increased in average income as wealth is returning.

The neighborhoods of Downtown (E.4th, Warehouse District, Cleveland State. Gateway), Tremont, Asiatown, Central, and of course the booming University Circle all showed major growth. To me this now points to seeds being planted for the turnaround of the city. The city is literally beginning to grow from within:

Also interesting to note is that the areas seeing the biggest losses, the eastside, are all predominately black neighborhoods. These shifts now show more blacks are moving to the suburbs and other cities.