Ohio Cities: Stabilize the Population Outflux by Attracting & Retaining the Millennial Generation

By Raquel Jones, Intern, and Marianne Eppig, Manager of Research & Communications

Between the years 1970 and 2013, the city of Cleveland lost almost half of its population. In fact, most cities in the region have also witnessed a decline in population. However, this recent trend seems to have less to do with the location and more to do with the layout of these cities. The most evident reason for this rapid decline may point to the fact that young, educated Millennials favor core cities, as opposed to sprawling communities.

According to research conducted by the Pew Institute and Urban Land Institute, Millennials are driving less than previous generations. However, the Millennials are not alone in this recent trend, as the Baby Boomers are also eager to take advantage of urban amenities and walkable communities. A key component to attracting Millennials to cities is the availability and quality of transportation options. According to a recent survey, “55% of Millennials have a preference to live close to transit” (Yung). With more than half of those polled in favor of such an option, it is obvious that the demand for a multimodal city is real.

One of the most compelling arguments supporting this growing rejection of a car-dependent society points heavily at the financial strain induced by the costly upkeep of a car. With gas prices rising and car loans becoming harder to obtain, and as Millennials find themselves buried in a heap of college debt, owning a car no longer seems to be practical. For this reason, many are shifting to urban areas, where there are multiple transportation options and where almost everything that could be wanted or needed is only a short distance away.

For the graphs above, Millennials were defined as being born between 1981 and 2000.

In Ohio, we need to do more to take advantage of these trends and to continue attracting and retaining populations that are interested in urban living in order to strengthen the economies of these cities and their surrounding regions. Some of Ohio's cities are seeing more positive trends--attracting a greater percentage of Millennials--but in the context of ongoing population shrinkage in all of our major cities except Columbus, it is clear that Ohio's work is not done. The state’s ability to leverage market demand for inner city living and further incentivize—and remove legislative barriers to—infill development within its cities will help determine Ohio’s future prosperity.

For more information about these national demographic trends, take a look at these articles:

• "Demographic Preferences Shifting in Favor of Walkable, Urban Communities" by John Yung (Note: these trends were the focus of the American Planning Association's 2014 National Planning Conference)
• "What Millennials Want: A Multi-Modal City" by James Brasuell

Urban Attraction in Ohio

The recent upsurge in demand for rental properties in Columbus’ downtown neighborhoods has gained increasing exposure in news sources. The Columbus Dispatch article “Urban Renewal” notes that, “The urban-living renaissance is real” and that

“more and more people, especially young singles, have come to demand the benefits that only city life can bestow: restaurants, entertainment, parks and workplaces within walking distance; a lively atmosphere; and plenty of other young professionals as neighbors.”

These trends are also apparent in U.S. Census data: between 2000 and 2010, the City of Columbus grew in population by 10.6%.

National trends, cited by the likes of LOCUS President Chris Leinberger and the Urban Land Institute, have suggested that both Baby Boomers and Generation Y are moving back to inner cities to take advantage of the many available amenities and walkable communities. At Greater Ohio Policy Center, we were interested in finding whether these trends held true for Ohio’s eight largest cities.

An upcoming GOPC report will explain the trends for Baby Boomers and Generation Y living in and around Ohio’s major cities. The graphs below present a preview of some of our findings:

Figure 1. The above chart compares the percentage of Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1965 for this study) and Generation Y (born between 1981 and 2000 for this study) in the City of Columbus and the surrounding metropolitan area between 1970 and 2010. There was a 6.04% growth of Generation Y in City of Columbus from 2000 to 2010. Source: U.S. Census.

Figure 2. The above graph shows the general decline in the percentage of Baby Boomers in Ohio’s eight largest cities from 1970 to 2010. Source: U.S. Census.

Figure 3. The above graph shows the change in percentage of Generation Y in Ohio’s eight largest cities between 2000 and 2010. Source: U.S. Census.

What do these trends mean for Ohio’s major metropolises?

Columbus Dispatch article “Rush to rent, and build apartments,” Columbus Underground post “Neighborhood Launch to Break Ground on New Apartments and Condos in 2012,” and NPR piece “Rust Belt Reboot Has Downtown Cleveland Rocking” call attention to the developers who are struggling to keep up with the demand for rental residences in walkable urban communities in Columbus and Cleveland, respectively. This demand for walkable neighborhoods with nearby amenities may increase as Baby Boomers age and desire more convenient lifestyles as well as proximity to their children and grandchildren.  As for retaining these populations, especially Generation Y, in urban areas—thereby helping to decrease our collective fossil fuel consumption, urban vacancy and blight, health issues related to inactivity, and greenfield consumption—our cities will have to compete to provide employment, quality schools, and world-class amenities.

GOPC’s upcoming report will further explain what these and other trends mean for Ohio’s major cities, and what policy drivers and incentives can be offered to attract and retain our country’s two largest demographic groups: the Baby Boomers and their children.