What is the future of your city? (Columbus, Toledo: low income, apartments)

[304eer]

Originally Posted by dustin183

Let's face it, the rust belt overall has been losing population the past few decades as jobs have left. But it does seem that in recent years the % decline in population has slowed or bottomed.

Do you see population decline ramping back up or do you think it has bottomed and the worst is behind us? Do you think population over the next couple decades will be flat or will it increase? This will vary city by city of course, so I'm wondering how you see it play out in the various parts of Ohio.

Here are some guesses by me:

Columbus - will moderately increase
Cleveland - will be flat or slight increase
Cincinnati - flat or slight increase

Toledo - unsure - will decline continue?
Dayton - flat or slight increase
Akron - flat or slight increase

Canton - flat
Springfield - flat
Youngstown - flat or slight increase (it's fallen so far, and with new industry can increase)

I'm also curious about some of the primary cities in the lesser populated counties -

for ex,

Chillicothe
Mansfield
Zanesville
Coshocton
Athens
Lima
etc

Columbus is projected to be at 3 million in the metro area by 2050. Columbus currently is the 11th fastest growing city in the country. I'd list it a little higher than "moderate increase"

[Cleveland_Collector]

Originally Posted by 304eer

Columbus is projected to be at 3 million in the metro area by 2050. Columbus currently is the 11th fastest growing city in the country. I'd list it a little higher than "moderate increase"

30 year is a long time and there is no such thing as infinite growth. Once you get to a certain point, things begin to level off.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by Cleveland_Collector

30 year is a long time and there is no such thing as infinite growth. Once you get to a certain point, things begin to level off.

Cleveland had insane growth rates in the early 20th century, much much higher than Columbus is seeing now. Cleveland had 40%+ growth for decades. Until not. You really cannot project these things so far into the future.

[dustin183]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

To be fair, this is based on UHaul data, who knows what some of it might mean. But that being said, it IS a data point and it's fairly consistent what people use UHauls for.

As a former resident of Massachusetts, the exodus of normal folks began long before anyone had ever heard the word "Covid." Blue collar folks are out, families leave, without immigration there would be huge losses in Mass. Anecdotally, I now know 3 people other than myself that have moved from Mass to Ohio in the last 2 years.

I can't blame you/them. Why not go to Ohio where you can spread out more and still have decent amenities. I don't think MA or NY are places to live unless you have lots of money.

[Cleveland_Collector]

Yep. 5-10 years is even difficult to accurately predict on a macro scale. Much of what has really fueled the growth of outlying cities like Columbus over the last 30 years have already normalized and, in some cases, begun to diminish (e.g., state government is as big as it is going to get in CBus). Also, linear 5% YOY growth will require some fairly massive infrastructure upgrades. Part of what makes Columbus desirable to many who live there is the lack of density (single family homes instead of apartment buildings and cluster homes, etc). Unless people want to live in Coshocton County, they're going to have to largely give that up.



Then, there's always the joke of how big the MSA footprint is. Is 3 million people in a 13 county area really that impressive? Cleveland's CSA already has 3.5 million plus in a slightly smaller amount of land area.

[nadnerb]

Originally Posted by Cleveland_Collector

Then, there's always the joke of how big the MSA footprint is. Is 3 million people in a 13 county area really that impressive? Cleveland's CSA already has 3.5 million plus in a slightly smaller amount of land area.

Nah that's not impressive, though the urban density of Columbus isn't too shabby. In 2010, it fit about 1.37 million in 510 sq. mi which is pretty solid for a Midwest city and surprisingly denser than the urban areas of Cincy, Cleveland, St. Louis, Kansas City, and Milwaukee. That number has likely increased to around 1.5 million since the city proper is estimated to have gained >100K residents since 2010. I definitely get the idea of wanting to live in a more spread out city but, at the same time, it is exciting to see Columbus rapidly densify.

[Cleveland_Collector]

Mmmm, that's not accurate. Columbus is not as population dense as Cleveland, not even close really. Cleveland proper has 800 (20%) more people per square mile. Cuyahoga County's density is also 10-15% higher than Franklin County. Also, Franklin County is 532 square miles and just reached 1.3 million. If current trends hold, it will take about 10 more years for the county densities to become equal. The city densities would take another 15-20 years. Again, that's if the current trends hold.

[nadnerb]

Originally Posted by Cleveland_Collector

Mmmm, that's not accurate. Columbus is not as population dense as Cleveland, not even close really. Cleveland proper has 800 (20%) more people per square mile. Cuyahoga County's density is also 10-15% higher than Franklin County.

I'm just going based off the urban area defined by the Census Bureau

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...es_urban_areas

[304eer]

Originally Posted by nadnerb

I'm just going based off the urban area defined by the Census Bureau

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...es_urban_areas

That's based on urban area. Metro area though Cleveland is at 1,024 per sq mi., Cincinnati is 488 per sq mi., and Columbus is 443 per sq mi.

Cleveland has more in the metro area because metro Cleveland is the collection of A LOT of mid-sized towns that surround it. Columbus is surrounded by small towns and it's because of these small towns that Columbus has a larger reach area wise, which reduces its MSA density. Same concept applies to Cincinnati which has an even larger MSA than Columbus (4,808 sq mi vs. 3,169 sq. mi)

[ohio_peasant]

Originally Posted by Natural510

...Not surprising that people are leaving dense cities during a pandemic, but it seems everyone is moving to the hot states in the South & Southwest because no one wants to wear a jacket in winter anymore.

Having gone back and forth recently between Ohio and California, my personal impression is that the winter cold and doldrums make a staggering difference, especially if your lifestyle and accouterments aren't equipped for the cold. For example, my daily-driver is a 2-seat convertible. Much easier to drive that in January in Los Angeles than in Ohio.

Originally Posted by dustin183

This seems to be the general trend in most midwest cities (Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Detroit, Chicago). Though there are a few exceptions where midwest cities have thrived (Columbus, Madison, WI, Minneapolis/St. Paul).

You say the midwest does not get migrants, but that's not entirely true - Columbus for ex gets a lot of immigrants from Somalia.

A likely trend is that the principal cities in the Midwest will sustain themselves, if not exactly flourish, for three reasons: (1) local migrants leaving the villages and small-towns, for better jobs; (2) foreign emigrants who seek to settle in lower-COL places, than the likes of NYC and SF; and (3) the work-from-home trend, where residents of the costliest cities decamp to second-tier cities, where costs are much lower but the lifestyle isn't enormously different.

This means that Chicago, St. Louis, Minneapolis and the like, will continue to do well. But smaller cities, like Dayton or Toledo, likely not.

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

As a former resident of Massachusetts, the exodus of normal folks began long before anyone had ever heard the word "Covid." Blue collar folks are out, families leave, without immigration there would be huge losses in Mass.

I'm in the process of moving from Ohio to CA. But I'm not "blue collar" and don't have any family connections. The reason for the move is primarily work-related, but there are cultural and emotional reasons too.

Ironically, the pandemic contributed. How? Because with the lockdowns and social-distancing and so forth, my network of Ohio friends converted to Zoom, more or less shutting themselves in, to their respective bubbles. If there are no more dinner-parties or drinking sessions on the couch, and everything has converted to internet-based communication, does it matter if one lives 3 miles away, or 3000?

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

Maybe 3500 sq feet isn't necessary, but it is hard to live somewhere very long at sub 700 sq ft. At least in my opinion. Most average people on the east coast in or around the major cities will be paying $2k/month for that pleasure. I think there is a massive improvement in life going from a tiny apartment to even a modest 1500-2000 sq foot place.

My emerging opinion is precisely the reverse. It felt silly to heat a full house, when I only really resided in a fraction of it. So, I didn't really heat it... and was shivering and miserable. With a smaller abode one can live more efficiently, more economically, and thus more enjoyably.