40% of Ohio's fastest growing communities are in Central Ohio
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 12:35:53 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  40% of Ohio's fastest growing communities are in Central Ohio
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: 40% of Ohio's fastest growing communities are in Central Ohio  (Read 6425 times)
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,531
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 28, 2007, 03:04:40 PM »

According to Census Estimates released this morning, 40% of Ohio's fastest growing cities and towns from 2000-2006 are located in the Columbus area.  The Columbus metro also includes 6 of the top ten fastest growing communities.  Columbus remains one of the top 15 most populous cities in the country and is also the only major city in Ohio with any significant population growth at 3.0%.  Cincinnati grew by only 0.3% while Cleveland, Dayton, Akron, and Toledo all lost population.

Hopefully the strong population growth in Columbus combined with our new start-up airline Skybus will help boost our capital city's name recognition and notoriety in the US. 
Logged
bullmoose88
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,515


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 28, 2007, 03:46:37 PM »

So how is this growth impacting the region's politics...is it making GOP counties more GOP? Less...or Dem counties more or less Dem...
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 28, 2007, 04:01:18 PM »

The Columbus gains has shifted the area to the left, but along the edge counties, the movement is not nearly as great.  Rather, the important movement lately has occurred within Franklin County itself.

I am presuming the other fast growing counties are in the Cincinnati suburbs.  This is GOP growth that has been balanced out by the Hamilton county suburbs moving left.
Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,531
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 28, 2007, 08:20:15 PM »

So how is this growth impacting the region's politics...is it making GOP counties more GOP? Less...or Dem counties more or less Dem...

Columbus and Franklin County are definitely on a  leftward march but moderate Republicans still can be viable.  I don't think there has been a major shift in the surrounding rural/suburban counties though.  Delaware County is probably the most susceptible to political shifts as one of the fastest growing counties in the state.  I imagine the shift will be less noticeable on a partisan level though.  It's more likely that the county's priorities will be shifting from rural to suburban.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 28, 2007, 08:25:23 PM »

In other related news, Minneapolis gained population for the first time since '92. Though it was only 159 people.
Logged
CultureKing
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,249
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 28, 2007, 10:07:27 PM »

In other related news, Minneapolis gained population for the first time since '92. Though it was only 159 people.

Congrats. Its weird to think of a place not getting larger in population for me... here the population has almost always been growing (actually I cant think of a time period in the last 150 years where there has been a major stoppage in the population growth)
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 22, 2007, 10:48:58 PM »

In other related news, Minneapolis gained population for the first time since '92. Though it was only 159 people.

Congrats. Its weird to think of a place not getting larger in population for me... here the population has almost always been growing (actually I cant think of a time period in the last 150 years where there has been a major stoppage in the population growth)

The population is just getting less dense. City boundaries stay the same, so fewer people live in the city limits. Kind of misleading. Very few metros are losing population.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 22, 2007, 10:57:24 PM »

In other related news, Minneapolis gained population for the first time since '92. Though it was only 159 people.

Congrats. Its weird to think of a place not getting larger in population for me... here the population has almost always been growing (actually I cant think of a time period in the last 150 years where there has been a major stoppage in the population growth)

The population is just getting less dense. City boundaries stay the same, so fewer people live in the city limits. Kind of misleading. Very few metros are losing population.

Just Detroit, really.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 23, 2007, 10:17:10 AM »

In other related news, Minneapolis gained population for the first time since '92. Though it was only 159 people.

Congrats. Its weird to think of a place not getting larger in population for me... here the population has almost always been growing (actually I cant think of a time period in the last 150 years where there has been a major stoppage in the population growth)

The population is just getting less dense. City boundaries stay the same, so fewer people live in the city limits. Kind of misleading. Very few metros are losing population.

Just Detroit, really.

No, Detroit metro gained 5 percent during the 1990s. Metros that lost population in ascending population loss by percent were Dayton, OH; Sharon, PA; Muncie, IN; Bangor, ME; Youngstown, OH; Altoona, PA; Syracuse, NY; Pine Bluff, AR; Pittsburgh, PA; Jamestown, NY; Buffalo, NY; Decatur, IL; Scranton, PA; Lewiston, ME; Anniston, AL, Johnstown, PA; Wheeling, WV; Alexandria, LA; Elmira, NY; Pittsfield, MA; Binghamton, NY; Utica, NY; Grand Forks, ND; and Steuenville, OH.
http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t3/tab05.pdf
I expect the list for our current decade to be similar with New Orleans leading the way.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 23, 2007, 10:29:36 AM »

In other related news, Minneapolis gained population for the first time since '92. Though it was only 159 people.

Congrats. Its weird to think of a place not getting larger in population for me... here the population has almost always been growing (actually I cant think of a time period in the last 150 years where there has been a major stoppage in the population growth)

The population is just getting less dense. City boundaries stay the same, so fewer people live in the city limits. Kind of misleading. Very few metros are losing population.

Just Detroit, really.

No, Detroit metro gained 5 percent during the 1990s. Metros that lost population in ascending population loss by percent were Dayton, OH; Sharon, PA; Muncie, IN; Bangor, ME; Youngstown, OH; Altoona, PA; Syracuse, NY; Pine Bluff, AR; Pittsburgh, PA; Jamestown, NY; Buffalo, NY; Decatur, IL; Scranton, PA; Lewiston, ME; Anniston, AL, Johnstown, PA; Wheeling, WV; Alexandria, LA; Elmira, NY; Pittsfield, MA; Binghamton, NY; Utica, NY; Grand Forks, ND; and Steuenville, OH.
http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t3/tab05.pdf

I expect the list for our current decade to be similar with New Orleans leading the way.

Looky looky:

http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/CBSA-est2006-pop-chg.html

Allthough your list from 1990-2000 and my list from 2000-2006 do not include the same definition of metropolitan area in some cases, you are right. N.O. and Biloxi are leading the Metros in population loss for this decade.

(Your list uses Combined Metropolitan Statistical Areas, where my list uses only MSA's for example in New York, resulting in a population of 21 Mio. vs. 19 Mio.)

Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 23, 2007, 05:38:38 PM »

I looked at that census page, and I noticed a few things that intrigued me.  I used to think of Cleveland and St. Louis as roughly equivalent metros in size, if not in terms of vitality, but as it turns out St. Louis is much bigger.  Another surprise is that Minneapolis-St. Paul has pulled well ahead of St. Louis - I believe it used to be quite a bit smaller.

Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 24, 2007, 02:12:17 AM »

I looked at that census page, and I noticed a few things that intrigued me.  I used to think of Cleveland and St. Louis as roughly equivalent metros in size, if not in terms of vitality, but as it turns out St. Louis is much bigger.  Another surprise is that Minneapolis-St. Paul has pulled well ahead of St. Louis - I believe it used to be quite a bit smaller.


Huh? It says that St. Louis has 2.6 million and grew 4.5%, while Cleveland has 2.9 million and grew 3%. Cleveland is slightly larger, though they are very similar in size and growth rate. Both are also really great cities as well. Minneapolis is also at 2.9 million, though its growth rate is a robust 16.9%
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 24, 2007, 02:19:52 AM »
« Edited: July 24, 2007, 02:30:39 AM by Tender Branson »

I looked at that census page, and I noticed a few things that intrigued me.  I used to think of Cleveland and St. Louis as roughly equivalent metros in size, if not in terms of vitality, but as it turns out St. Louis is much bigger.  Another surprise is that Minneapolis-St. Paul has pulled well ahead of St. Louis - I believe it used to be quite a bit smaller.


Huh? It says that St. Louis has 2.6 million and grew 4.5%, while Cleveland has 2.9 million and grew 3%. Cleveland is slightly larger, though they are very similar in size and growth rate. Both are also really great cities as well. Minneapolis is also at 2.9 million, though its growth rate is a robust 16.9%

While both St. Louis and Minneapolis are MSA's (Metropolitan Statistical Areas), Cleveland is a CMSA, a Combined Metropolitan Statistical Area. Which means that the CMSA is always bigger than the MSA, because more counties in the surrounding of the MSA are added.

This results in the fact that Cleveland's MSA population is 2.1 Mio. while itīs CMSA population is close to 3 Mio. So, according to the definition Opebo used (comparing just MSA's), heīs right.

US metro areas are not really comparable though, because if you look at LA combined metro for example, which has an area of more than 88.000 Kmē (=34.000 square miles) and a population of 18 Mio. LA's CSMA is more comparable to a country, not a city.

For example if you want to compare US Metro Areas with European ones, you need to use MSA's only.

The LA MSA has 13 Mio inhabitants on an area of 13.000 kmē (=5.000 square miles), the density resulting in 2.700/square mile, rather than the 500/square mile used in the CSMA.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 27, 2007, 02:19:51 AM »

Just as long as Cleveland burns to the ground I couldn't care less.  Smiley
Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,531
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 28, 2007, 01:04:12 AM »

Just as long as Cleveland burns to the ground I couldn't care less.  Smiley

Well they've already set the freaking river on fire so it probably won't be too much longer before the whole town burns down.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 28, 2007, 02:38:23 PM »

Yeah MSAs I prefer - CMSAs are just too ridiculously large.  American MSAs are already a tad exaggerated in some cases.  Why are we so lazy that everything has to be done by county?
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 29, 2007, 04:10:03 PM »

Yeah MSAs I prefer - CMSAs are just too ridiculously large.  American MSAs are already a tad exaggerated in some cases.  Why are we so lazy that everything has to be done by county?

I've always wondered that too...at minimum, why not urban areas within the county?  We already have that designation.  Privacy concerns, laze, what?
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 29, 2007, 11:15:35 PM »

Yeah MSAs I prefer - CMSAs are just too ridiculously large.  American MSAs are already a tad exaggerated in some cases.  Why are we so lazy that everything has to be done by county?

I've always wondered that too...at minimum, why not urban areas within the county?  We already have that designation.  Privacy concerns, laze, what?

The Census makes estimates based on counties, county subdivisions and places. In order to estimate the pop in a MSA they have to assemble some combination that is stable for the decade. Places grow in area and are tougher to use for that purpose. Urban areas would make sense, but they change each year of the decade and the estimates are less accurate. They could break it down to county subdivisions and be as accurate in the estimate as with counties.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 30, 2007, 12:46:21 AM »

Yeah MSAs I prefer - CMSAs are just too ridiculously large.  American MSAs are already a tad exaggerated in some cases.  Why are we so lazy that everything has to be done by county?

I've always wondered that too...at minimum, why not urban areas within the county?  We already have that designation.  Privacy concerns, laze, what?

The Census makes estimates based on counties, county subdivisions and places. In order to estimate the pop in a MSA they have to assemble some combination that is stable for the decade. Places grow in area and are tougher to use for that purpose. Urban areas would make sense, but they change each year of the decade and the estimates are less accurate. They could break it down to county subdivisions and be as accurate in the estimate as with counties.

Thanks Smiley  I guess that was an obvious answer for the non-stupid.  Thanks for not embarrassing me too much.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.047 seconds with 12 queries.