Printable View
"Dan Gilbert is an irritation as far as our economic development is concerned in Oakland County, Brooks Patterson says."
https://twitter.com/kirkpinhoCDB/sta...92725700349953
People keep wondering why people in the city keep having the 'us vs suburbs' mentality... it's because of people like L Brooks.. who cannot seem to let go of this mentality HIMSELF...
what a pathetic old man
Trends are a bigger irritation for Oakland County. Metro Detroiters need to ask,“why did my kid move to Chicago”? Did they do so for Schaumberg, Bolingbrook or Hoffman Estates? No, the odds are they work in the Loop and live in Bucktown,Lincoln Park or River North. Crain’s March 29th article hints at this, and it’s the issue that Michiganders ignore while brain-drain continues; millennials want to work/live in walk-able, transit oriented, sustainable communities that do not require a car for every movement.
Fortunately for Brooks, many corporate boards still think in the present; their members, who live in far flung suburbia,want a drive-able office, while their idea of a “great work environment” is a self-contained, isolated structure surrounded by ample parking. Moreover, they look strictly at the financials today, and resist the appeal of tomorrow. This,however, is not attractive to the potential next generation of leaders. But if your “innovative” firm is ok with offering the fourth, fifth or sixth choice candidate a position, then ignore this glaring fact.
When reported the Ally was considering a suburban exodus, my first thought was “uninspiring for a firm trying to reinvent itself”. The turn of events, however, has thrown Ally in to the spotlight, and gained well-deserved notoriety. When a Saginaw based auto part supplier recently announced their movement to new digs in northern Oakland County, it received a “ho-hum” response. Ally’s commitment to Detroit nevertheless earned a write-up in the Wall-Street Journal. Though it may not have been the original intent, Ally becomes an example of where corporate America needs to be, in a City that sings their praises and continues to attract young talent. For the aforementioned, not to be named, auto part supplier, they're main just that; an afterthought, caught up in a mindset that was “innovative”twenty years ago. My hope is that other firms take note, and think beyond that short commute.
I'd consider being called an "irritation" by LBP to be quite a compliment.
It is interesting that [[again) companies are looking at the effects of their decisions on employees and recruitment [[of employees esp. millennials).Quote:
Originally Posted by tkelly1986
Koch Industries [[perhaps getting some blowback because of the politics of their namesake owners) is actively advertising on television that their company is a very good place to work.
What we are seeing is the reverse migration from CBD to 'burbs back to the CBD. This is not just true in Detroit.
LOL. Illinois has the worst population loss in the U.S., and the worst economy in the U.S. Chicago and Cook County are shrinking, not growing. Both city and state are near bankruptcy.Quote:
Originally Posted by tkelly1986
Oakland County, despite being the DYes boogeyman, is an economic shining star compared to Chicago. People are moving to Oakland County, while they're fleeing Chicago.
Young people have always gravitated towards cities, and they will always do so. But when it comes to settling down, Chicago is one of the least likely places in the U.S. for inmigration.
Expressing surprise that a big city like Chicago has a huge millennial cohort makes as much sense as expressing surprise that the 18-23 cohort is in East Lansing and Ann Arbor, or the 60+ cohort is in Naples and Boca. Big cities will always draw those starting out professionally, who obviously aren't going to buy a McMansion in the exurbs at 24.
The quote has very limited\no context. I don't get excited over cherry-picked words.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpartanDawg
A big driver in population loss in Chicago is not 24 year olds from Michigan deciding against the move, it's black and white middle class moving out. Chicago is still the young, vibrant city Detroit is aiming to become and that is what attracts people. Southfield, Troy, Bloomfield is NOT that. And yes, when folks are ready to settle down and have a family the burbs will be a draw. The problem is that Metro Detroit does not have that initial hook [[urban setting). Young people are working in Troy because they have to, not because they want to like so many that left for Chicago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
Obviously, yes. Young people will always gravitate to big cities. This was true 50 years ago, and will likely be true 50 years from now.Quote:
Originally Posted by tkelly1986
Agreed, but has nothing to do with this thread. Chicago's economy [[on a relative basis) stinks. It's a very urban city, though, obviously the class of the Midwest. Urbanity and economic health are unrelated.Quote:
Originally Posted by tkelly1986
This was always the case, though. It wasn't like Oakland County was ever attractive to 24 year olds desiring an urban center.Quote:
Originally Posted by tkelly1986
Detroit [[the city) can probably pick off some millennials currently headed to other big cities, but, on a macro level, if someone really wants an urban environment different than what's the norm locally, they aren't going to Detroit [[or even Chicago for that matter). They're probably going to the East or West Coasts, where you have very different built environments, and usually more dynamic economies.
You are never going to build a healthy city on the back of a single age cohort, though. Chicago gets huge numbers of educated 20-somethings, yet has the worst major-city economic and population trends in the U.S. It's downtown looks great, probably busier and more vibrant than ever, yet the city overall is rotting away.
I want to make an analytic point without getting into the specifics of Chicago.
Sometimes it is best to 'disaggregate the aggregate'. What does that mean:
When we look at the aggregate or totality of something, e.g., population, we can miss trends which are taking place at a strata or part of the totality. A county with a central city may grow in population while the central city loses population.
Or within a city, maybe an area like the downtown grows while many neighborhoods shrink.
The question with Chicago is [[as I read these posts): is the downtown core strong, stable or growing while the neighborhoods depopulate?
IF so, then the person who says Chicago is not growing [[population wise) is correct, while the person who says the downtown area is stable or growth can also be correct.
It is not either or. Both can be simultaneously true.
And that is certainly the hope for Detroit that a number of neighborhoods grow in population while also realizing that others will continue to de-populate.
I thought everyone was clamoring to live and work in Bloomfield Park.
Unless you want to work at Menards or WalMart, probably no.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroiterOnTheWestCoast
I think this is an example of not seeing the forest for the trees.
Of course one can completely understand how LBP would think of Gilbert as an irritant in specific cases--Ally would presumably not have consolidated in Detroit if Gilbert hadn't been available to put together a package.
On the other hand, it seems very unlikely that it is bad for Oakland County development in general to have a stronger downtown Detroit, and Gilbert certainly seems to be working on that.
A strong Detroit is a VERY good thing for southern parts of Oakland County.
Patterson has been an irritation ever since I've known him.
Patterson my be irritating but his county is doing lots of things right.
http://www.freep.com/story/news/loca...cast/26639053/
Talk about worthless statistics. Oakland County could have a 5% unemployment rate even if there were not a single job in the entire county.Quote:
Originally Posted by ndavies
I say that L.B. Patterson is an irritation to all Metro-Detroiters. He is not going to get Gilbert to invest his properties in the his "White version of Detroit". He needs to shut his mouth and move on with his life; like retire from politics!
Right. Oakland County holds the majority of the area's white collar work force.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
This thread could be re-titled: "Dan Gilbert: the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
HB
With GM in Macomb County, and Ford in Wayne, I'd like to see statistics on that. Especially if you include UM in Washtenaw now as part of the greater SE MI area.Quote:
Originally Posted by maverick1
While it would be interesting to see statistics, and I'm sure they are available if you translate "white collar" to a particular income level, I would be extremely surprised if maverick was wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by gameguy56
You may be right about population decline, but you wouldn't know it by all the shtload of high-rise luxury apartments being built all around Chicago. In fact it's downright scary for those of us who live here because we want to stay living in the City, but with rents like $1950 for a studio apartment staring at us, we won't be able to afford this city.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
They keep on building those high rises and I for one want to know where these people are coming from.
The US Census Bureau estimates that the city of Chicago has gained population every year since the 2010 census. Click "2013" on the left side.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/t...2011_PEPANNRES
Wait for the "hard count". Remember how inaccurate they were with Detroit 2000-2010? The hard count in 2010 surprised the hell out of everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Junjie
I interpreted what he is saying to mean that the majority of the Detroit area's white collar workforce lives in Oakland County. Every person living in Oakland County could work in Detroit [[or other parts of Wayne County, or Macomb County) and the county could still have 5% unemployment, hence it being a useless statistic in the context of this conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by gameguy56
Seriously, folks. Don't let BTroll1982 get away with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
Chicago, Cook County, and Illinois all grew from 2010 to 2013, based on census estimates: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/1714000.html. I would also guess that median and mean income rose as people decamped from tougher neighborhoods on the south and west sides and more young professionals and other upwardly mobile types piled into the north and near west sides.
[[That said, Chicago is a ticking municipal finance time bomb, many measures worse than Detroit pre-BK)
Chicago may technically be balance sheet insolvent [[so is Ford, in fact, as a comparison), but what matters when determining the likilihood of them defaulting on loans and going bankrupt is whether of not they have the liquidity to meet their obligations, which they do since most of Illinois' major employers are based IN Chicago and most of the city's middle class hasn't abandoned it like Detroit. As long as Chicago doesn't experience a massive flight in capital, things should be ok and the bankruptcy fears are probably overblown.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eber Brock Ward
more office buildings need to be occupied, and newly built downtown as well as other parts of the city, east and west.
Chicago has relatively cheap rents, and relatively little housing construction, at least compared to the NYC, LA, SF, Bos, DC type cities. There was lots of housing construction in the 90's and early 00's, boom but not as much lately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago48
I don't know where the hell you live where your only option is a $1950 studio. Even in the Gold Coast, the richest neighborhood in Chicago, there are studio apartments for many hundreds less, and these are even in luxury highrise doorman buildings. Heck there are one bedrooms in luxury buildings in the Gold Coast for less than $1950.
In a typical Chicago neighborhood, there is probably no one paying $1950 for a freakin studio. That would be more than even the average mortgage payment, given the median sales price of a home in Chicago is somewhere in the low 200's.
Even somewhere like NYC or London there are tons and tons of studio apartments for far less than $1950. You can live in a nice neighborhood in Brooklyn and snag a $1,300 studio in a good building, even today.
The annual estimates for the city did show very slight gains in 2011, -12 and -13, but the official estimates from the last Census showed massive population losses for Chicago, second only to Detroit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Junjie
And this year's estimates will almost certainty show losses for the city proper, as Cook County's results are out, and show population losses, and most of Cook is Chicago. In previous years estimates, the city population trends always mirrored the county population trends.
Illinois, overall, had the worst population loss in the nation last year, and Chicagoland had slower proportional growth than even Metro Detroit. The region has much to offer, but is struggling somewhat relative to the other major metros.
The biggest boomtown in the U.S. is Houston, which has horrible urban form and is sprawlier than even Detroit. The issue of urbanity is separate from the issue of regional economic vibrancy.
LOL. Chicago extreme homer alert. The B10 Chads and Trixies from Shelby Twp. are getting worked up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eber Brock Ward
You conveniently "forgot" to show the most recent Census estimates, which is exactly what I'm referring to. The latest results show worse results than even Metro Detroit, or Michigan.
If you prefer estimates over the official decennial numbers, fine. If you prefer the decennial numbers, also fine. Pick either, and Chicago is losing population, and Chicagoland [[and Illinois) are basically at the bottom of the pack nationally.
And your excuse "yeah Chicago might be losing people but it's those poor black people, while white rich kids are streaming in" doesn't seem to hold water.
If a metro area were experiencing some unusual trend where the poor were mass-vacating in favor of the rich, there would be significant increases in median earnings and gross regional product relative to other metros.
But Chicago has one of the slowest growing economies in the U.S., and in fact has fallen from 3rd to 5th largest economy in the U.S. in the last five years. Both the Bay Area and DC now have significantly larger economies than Chicago.
You claimed Chicago has the worst population trend in the country when in fact the Census Bureau thinks it was growing 2010-2013 with the data for 2014 not out yet. [[And wait, aren't we on a forum about a city that's estimated to be down 50,000 over the past four years?? :confused:) Now you're claiming that there will be substantial losses this year to make up for that growth because of available county data, and yet the only 2014 estimate for Cook County on the Census Bureau's site shows a loss of a whopping 179 people in a county of 5.25 million.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
You can follow the link in my original post to see this. Note by the way that the county population is double that of the city of Chicago, so it's probably worth waiting for the actual city data to make any judgments on 2014.
Brookings Institution says Chicago's metro GDP [[since you mentioned the Bay Area I'm assuming we're now talking metro areas) is significantly larger than either DC's or San Francisco's + San Jose's combined. $563bn for Chicago versus $442bn in DC or $491bn for SF + SJ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
http://www.brookings.edu/research/re...-metro-monitor
So, do you have any evidence for what you're saying that you can link? It's true that Chicago lost a lot of population 2000-2010 and has grown its economy only slowly [[though with a massive base), but you're making a lot of other specific claims here and anyway we're now five years on from 2010. Given that you've been wrong on some pretty basic stuff, I don't see why anyone should believe you unless you can show some actual data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junjie
In your homerist haste you didn't bother reading my post; I never wrote any of this. You don't seem to understand numbers, as you don't seem to get that an area could be growing and be "worst" or shrinking and be "best". This is a comparative ranking, so the absolute change is irrelevant; the key is the population change relative to that of other cities.
What major city has worse population trends than Chicago? Name one. The answer is none. Even using your cherrypicked years, and even ignoring the years prior and post, Chicago had the worst population trends during those years.
Even Philly, which is probably the next-worst off major U.S. city [[and note I'm talking the major urban cities with young people; so basically the dozen or so largest U.S. cities) has stronger population numbers than Chicago, and Philly is really a significant laggard compared to the other Northeast Corridor cities.
And you are seriously arguing I'm a Detroit homer? You're obviously new to DYes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junjie
Again, you don't understand the difference between absolute or relative, and no, I never claimed "substantial losses". Cook County could be growing, and Chicago could still have the worst population trends. But Cook is shrinking, and Chicago is also likely shrinking.
Not really. In every single past Census estimate year the county matches the city trends, so if the county is declining, the city is almost certainly declining. And Chicago comprises the strong majority of the county, not 50%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Junjie
Nope. Per the BEA, Chicago has the fifth largest economy in the U.S., and was surpassed by both SF and DC around five years ago, and the gap has grown in every year since.Quote:
Originally Posted by Junjie
In fact, Houston is likely closer in size to the Chicago economy than that of the Bay Area. I don't see 2014 figures listed online, but the 2013 figures are as follows-
2013 Combined Statistical Area[[CSA) Gross Product
New York-Newark $1.683 Trillion
Los Angeles-Long Beach $999.661 Billion
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland $664.687 Billion
Washington-Baltimore-Arlington $657.039 Billion
Chicago-Naperville $597.805 Billion
Houston-The Woodlands $517.367 Billion
Boston-Worcester-Providence $514.586 Billion
Dallas-Ft Worth $451.436 Billion
Philadelphia-Reading-Camden $429.838 Billion
Atlanta-Athens-Clarke County-Sandy Springs $314.759 Billion
Seattle-Tacoma $309.577 Billion
Miami-Ft Lauderdale-Port St Lucie $297.071 Billion
Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor $262.166 Billion
Minneapolis-St Paul $236.389 Billion
Denver-Aurora $209.648 Billion
Given that 1. You misread all of my previous posts 2. You have yet to contradict anything in my previous posts and 3. You don't seem to understand the difference between relative and absolute numbers, I'll take your criticisms in the proper context. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Junjie
Regarding your gross product list, there probably has not been much dramatic change in order for the top 5 over time if you extrapolate the way they are currently measured under CSAs to previous decades [[since most lists previously were using MSA numbers). Under MSAs Balt-Wash and the Bay Area are split into different MSAs so they would show up in much lower positions on previous lists. I haven't looked but I would guess if you looked at a measure of gross product by MSA Chicago would still be third.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
Bham1982 is the "smartest guy in the room" and resident "know-it-all", so anyone's efforts to dispute his knowledge about any and everything, especially demographics is all for naught.
Most of the "kids" that I know that moved away to other cities [[for jobs and a 'nightlife') are now starting a family...and have moved to the suburbs of those cities. The ones that remain in their adopted city are childless and/or from wealthy families [[able to afford a large place in the city, private school, car in the city, etc). Some have moved back to the suburbs of Metro Detroit.Quote:
Originally Posted by tkelly1986
To answer the question of why they moved, it was for better job opportunities [[both in the city and suburbs) than what the entire state of MI could provide, a vibrant city life in their 20s/early 30s, and a better opportunity to meet a wife/husband.
There is no doubt that the suburbs are prime territory for families with children, but I think this misses most of the point. When young people move away to other core cities in their 20s, and get married and have kids, they probably mostly aren't going to come back to Oakland County. Whereas if they moved to Detroit in their 20's, that would be much more likely. Also, that proportion of people who are childless, either for a long time or permanently, keeps going up. A lot of those people are likely to remain in urban cores for a pretty big chunk of their lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Towne Cluber
I think this probably isn't true. When people move to the suburbs, as most are apt to do, they are likely to consider things like family, caregiving and the like. If you're moving to some random suburb in Illinois or Ohio, you might as well do it in Michigan, because suburbs are more or less the same, but the advantage in Michigan [[provided you're from Michigan) is proximity to family and caregivers.Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
Certainly some stay in their out-of-state metros, and move to their local suburbs. My anecdotal sense is that lots of 20-somethings are single in other cities, and end up 30-something and coupled/with children back in Michigan.
Now if you hate suburbia, and desire an urban environment, no, you likely won't be moving back. But kids tend to change everything. When they're part of the equation, it doesn't really matter if you find urban areas more interesting, it's just a hell of a lot more difficult raising kids in the city, and your priorities totally change.
I think there are plenty of people acknowledging that Novi kind of sucks, yet, at the same time, Novi is a much easier place to be married with kids than some urban yuppie neighborhood.
You are saying that people who move to a different major city in their 20's/30's are about as likely to move back to a local suburb as people who move into the local core city are? I don't think there is any chance that is true. Not to say it doesn't happen, but a lot of those people are gone for good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
Quote:
I think there are plenty of people acknowledging that Novi kind of sucks, yet, at the same time, Novi is a much easier place to be married with kids than some urban yuppie neighborhood.
It is also not my experience that it is easier in general to raise kids in the suburbs than in a normal city either. Of course it depends on the suburb, but my impression is that people want to raise their kids in suburbs because the public schools tend to be better and perhaps that the environment is cleaner/safer, but there is nothing easy about providing the endless chauffeur services that kids in a non-walkable area are going to require. My daughter grew up in a suburb, and even if I thought the benefits were worth it [[which I'm not sure of), it was definitely not easier than living in town.
1. From what I've seen, 25%-33% [[or slightly more) of 20-30 somethings that I know have moved back to Michigan in the last few years.Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
2. Again, from what I've seen/heard, parents have said it is far easier to raise kids in the suburbs than in a city. Given the endless activities these days [[spread out between suburbs and city), it's endless chauffeuring no matter where a family lives.
That's a pretty poor recovery considering that there is virtually no in-migration to Michigan from non-natives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Towne Cluber
I'm in my early 30s and of my friends who left the state I think less than 10% of us have gone back. Of those who haven't already gone back I don't think many of us have a real desire to ever go back. I'm an older millennial but it will be interesting to see how this plays out among the younger millennials who left college after the economic collapse.
Maybe, but Detroit during the 2000-10s was very, very difficult to estimate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
In demography change = births - deaths + net migration [[net migration was a huge loss for Detroit). Net migration is hardest to estimate and that decade was incredible unstable with depopulation.
I thought Census used driver license registration data. Someone moves from Southfield to [[downtown) Detroit so that would be -1 for Southfield and Oakland and +1 for Detroit and Wayne.
My guess is that school enrollment data [[is it still called the 'fourth Friday' count?) also shows gains/losses in the K-12 school aged population.
My guess that population estimates for 'stable' cities like D.C., N.Y., probably Chicago are accurate. Detroit still not sure... Maybe need to see school enrollment data to see if the neighborhoods are holding up or still losing a lot of people.
Just a population note: I saw a nice article on D.C.'s population growth and it is really slowing [[still + though) in recent years which seemed to do with a negative [[if I remember right) natural increase [[births - deaths) or actually decrease [[more dying then born) in recent years. In D.C.'s case, more people are moving in than moving out, the millennial effect [[?).
I suspect this is a big demographic trend in America: births - deaths isn't a big driver of population growth, it is migration either internal to the country, state, etc. or external such as people migration to the U.S.
DC and NYC aren't "stable"; they're growing [[actually fairly fast growing if you're talking city proper only).Quote:
Originally Posted by emu steve
The methodology being used for Census population calculations is the exact same for all cities, so it's either right or wrong. You cannot logically say "it's right for City A and wrong for City B".
Not true. DC's population growth has accelerated in recent years, and it has more inmigration than outmigration. The city has massively benefited from the growth in federal employment.Quote:
Originally Posted by emu steve
Well "right" and "wrong" might not be the best words, but certainly a methodology that works acceptably in one city might not work acceptably in another. For instance, one factor that goes into Census population estimates is number of housing units, which is relatively easy to observe. But if you had two cities, one without a lot of vacant units, and one with, unless you have a good adjustment for vacancies you probably aren't going to get a very good estimate in the second city, even though your estimate for the other city might be excellent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
Don't they also use the county in which the city sits as a proxy for the estimate? That would also make the cities on the east coast easier to approximate than those in the Great Lakes, since major city boundaries on the east coast are often contiguous with county lines. Detroit and Chicago are in a similar situation since neither are contiguous with their county and the actual population decline in 2000 - 2010 of both was much more pronounced than the yearly estimates suggested.Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
I'll try to find the article, I probably even have the 'hard copy' [[WashPost article) but D.C.'s increase in population is NOW really slowing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
I believe births - deaths were negative [[i.e., more deaths then births).
Amazing statistic, but consistent with the 'millennial effect': Millennials moving to the city are childless... They occupy more and more housing units but the number of persons / housing unit is declining.
It used to be mom and dad and six kids and then mom and dad and two kids and now it is son and his girl friend [[or boy friend, whatever the case may be).
EDIT: Here is a WaPo article 3 weeks ago showing the dramatic decline in + [[in) migration for D.C. and the surrounding areas of D.C.
Amazing but Arlington, Alexandria, and Fairfax [[County) had net OUT migration.
D.C.'s net migration was cut in half in 2014 compared to 2013.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...b_graphic.html
Population growth in parts of the D.C. area are in areas where, largely foreign born [[?) families are having more children [[I live in a D.C. suburban area which has turned from empty nesters to younger families having a lot of children.)
A companion article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...f9d_story.html
For someone interested in demographic tends, it would be interesting to plot over [[1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010) the population for a central city, county, or whatever AND housing units for those same censuses.
In D.C. the number of housing units increases significantly faster than does population growth.
Net result: residents / housing unit declines over time.
In Detroit there has been significant depopulation as well as decline in the number of housing units.
And people actually voted for this jackass? Seriously, if Dan Gilbert is an irritation maybe he should ask himself why Dan chose Detroit over his fiefdom. Maybe it's because he's doing a lousy job attracting new investment and Mike Duggan is doing an awesome job at bringing in new business.
One thing about economic activity at say the state level. Population in Michigan is pretty stagnant. That means there is little real growth. Without robust growth what we have is city A trying to grow at city B's expense [[or vice versa). Kind of a zero sum game.
Just so. The region needs to work together to attract talent from elsewhere, and then jobs will follow the talent. It isn't like it was fifty years ago, when you built a factory and people flocked to your town to work there. So the question is, how do we attract talent? Couple facts to feed such a discussion:Quote:
Originally Posted by emu steve
1. It's easier to try to attract young talent than older talent, just because younger adults are more portable. A forty year old is likely to have family or other commitments and be much more anchored to a community than someone who is twenty-five.
2. It's easy to gather data about communities that are successful in attracting young talent. The difficult part lies in determining which data are relevant. I have always felt that our cultural amenities were a strong positive [[arts, sports, the river, Canada, coney dogs) but our transportation and segregation were strong negatives. But I could be entirely wrong about this. Anyhow, once you figure out what your positives and negatives are, trumpet the positives to the skies, and work on the negatives.
By the way this doesn't work if we try to improve and market Detroit as one thing [[or two, or many) and Oakland County as another thing and Macomb as yet another thing and A-squared as another. We need to improve and market the whole area to be successful. Nobody [[in leadership) seems to be on the same page with me about this, though.
Interesting article on fivethirtyeight.com on the topic of segregation.Quote:
Originally Posted by professorscott
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...st-segregated/
The most segregated city in America? Chicago.
Within the city limits? Sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankruptcyGuy
The thing is Detroit's segregation problems go beyond the city limits, with mostly white suburbs and a mosty black urban core. If we measured by metro areas instead, Detroit would easily top the list.
Where we rank on this or that list does not change the fact that [[1) it's pretty damned bad, and [[2) something that needs to be worked on. It's unhealthy, morally wrong, and unproductive, just to name three things wrong with it, off the top of my head.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
I don't see this changing anytime soon. Michigan has one of the highest concentration of baby boomers relative to population. They dictate what happens in Michigan and Metro-Detroit. I don't see us attracting younger people because it isn't baby boomer focused or benefits them in a way they understand. Their idea of progress is very 1960-1990 and anything that doesn't align with that is shut down. Suburban middle class baby boomers run things and until they die off not much will change.Quote:
Originally Posted by professorscott
Where did you friends end up settling to? Why don't these friends have a "real" desire to come back? The Midtown and Downtown are experiencing impressive and exciting investment. It's only a matter of time before core neighborhoods like the East Riverfront and New Center begin seeing considerable growth. Then neighborhoods like the North End and Milwaukee Junction will be swept up in the momentumQuote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
Already stronger neighborhoods like West Village, Mexicantown, Lafayette Park, and the city of Hamtramck are getting stronger.
Concerning public spaces, parks - Belle Isle is getting better since the state takeover, the Riverwalk just celebrated another extension on the West Riverfront, the Dequindre Cut extension is underway, Riverfront Park at the foot of West Grand Boulevard is going to see a transformation.
Concerning public transportation, its still pathetic, but the streetcar could be a decent addition.
Why not come back and be a contributing part of the revitalization instead of just living in the next hottest city? If you can find a good job back here, why not?
Some people want an urban environment. Others want cosmopolitan feel. Plenty of people want warm weather. Then there are outdoorsy types. There are plenty of reasons for people to move somewhere else.Quote:
Originally Posted by masterblaster
Detroit, whatever path it takes, will not be urban, cosmopolitan, warm or outdoorsy in any of our lifetimes, so if these are overriding factors, those people are gone. Detroit can hope to keep the folks that have other priorities.
I would love to to know an urban, cosmopolitan place that is also "outdoorsy". I think Detroit and Michigan in general is an outdoorsy person's dream. It isn't boring and too flat like Illinois, Ohio, and Indiana and our Lake Michigan and Lake Superior shorelines are the best in the Midwest. Up North is a hiker's, camper's, and cottage lover's dream.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
Despite not being Manhattan, I think Metro Detroit is cosmopolitan. We are great lovers of art, music, history, and the world. We have great institutions that promote them that are on par with any museum or institution in America. Urban, though no, we don't have the Upper West Side or Beacon Hill, but that's so minor.
I think people don't know the whole Michigan or Metro Detroit. They hear "Detroit" or "Michigan" and automatically think crime and dullness. When it's exactly the opposite. People don't even think Detroit has suburbs and when they realize we do and they're basically the same set up as other city's [[old, semi-urban inner suburbs to the exurban sprawlvilles), they stand corrected.
To add to what Bham said, some people don't desire to be pioneers. They want to live in a place where they can enjoy the things THEY desire NOW [[not several years/decades out, or for their grandchildren to have).
I think people generally went everywhere. But there was a strong bias for the bigger cosmopolitan cities [[Chicago, NYC, SF, LA, DC). I also know a few people who went to less cosmopolitan places like Texas and Atlanta. I call Atlanta less cosmopolitan because I'm viewing it from a living in NYC perspective, but my friends who have lived in both Detroit and Atlanta view Atl to be more cosmopolitan than Detroit.Quote:
Originally Posted by masterblaster
I'm not really what Detroit needs in order to revitalize. Detroit needs to be a destination for people who are not from there if it really wants to turn itself around. That's what all cities need for survival.Quote:
Originally Posted by masterblaster
Of course you can live where you want, and you may not be a useful citizen:p, but this is nonsense. Cities need people to move in, but they also need people to stay, or to leave and come back. In-migration isn't going to make up for high rates of departure.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
Whether I'm a productive citizen is debatable, lol. But I think Detroit's most pressing issue is that it does not attract new blood, and not that it does not retain long time residents. Long term residents is a priority of politicians because these are the people who tend to be most civically engaged. But the people who actually keep the cities stable are the populations that continually cycle into city.Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
This is why big cities with stable populations tend to have foreign-born populations above 20%. Each of the cities at the centers of the 5 largest metropolitan areas in the country has at least a 20% foreign-born population. Chicago, the city with the lowest percentage of the top 5, was the only one of those cities to decline in population between 2000-2010. On the other end, there is a very strong corelation between low foreign-born populations and decline. Sort the grid in the link below and its' a who's who of stagnation, decline and decay until you get to about 10%:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...orn_population
Back to the o/t, L Brooks Patterson is a kook who does not deserve to be taken seriously anymore [[and OC voters who continue to elect him risk making the county irrelevant). Metro Detroit -- this includes Oakland County -- is the only metropolitan area of the top 50 that has not increase its college educated population since 2000. And it didn't just not increase, it decreased by a whopping 10%. Metro Detroit is truly in a league of its own by this measure. So if Oakland County is Metro Detroit's economic engine as he likes to view it then he should accept that his leadership has done a stunningly poor job at what it claims to be.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/20/up...g-to-live.html
I don't think so. I think that the correct inference is that immigrants don't come to cities without good employment prospects, and declining cities tend not to have those [[which is why they are declining).Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
I'm not so sure. I think it may be the other way around. Cities with transient populations tend not to go into long term decline.Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
Same problem. By definition, cities with transient populations lose their transient populations when they start to decline. Detroit used to attract huge number of people from outside the area. It stopped doing that when there stopped being lots of jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
I don't think that's the same thing. By transient, I mean people moving both in and out. Think of transient cities as being like water in the ocean, while stagnant and/or declining cities are like polar ice caps affected by global warming. The ice caps are losing old water molecules but are also not adding new molecules, either. But the liquid ocean is replenished regularly.Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
Transient cities maintain their populations not by keeping long term residents but by continually attracting new blood. Take New York City, which has a foreign-born population around 40%. If the secret formula to New York was keeping long term residents then New York's population would be much higher than it is right now. Why? Because New York's population 50 years ago was just about 1 million fewer than it is today, but over 3 million of the residents who live in the city today weren't even born in this country. So nearly half of New Yorkers today are not even descended from American parents, let alone mid-20th century residents of New York City. When you add in American born non-native New York City residents, like me, I'm sure that pushes it to be well over half of the residents of NYC today are not native to the city.