Detroit's Population [[now and the future)

[poobert]

They might, but they probably won't. Interstate movement is at historically low levels. If you can attract them to your region when they are young and mobile, most likely you've got them for a long time. Also, city schools in most places leave a lot to be desired, so it isn't as if the urban alternatives on the education front are so attractive. And moving for schools is fraught with difficulty anyway, as many people find that despite living in a good or even an excellent school district the schools are still unsuitable for some or all of their particular children.

I'm curious where you think you are going to go that is urban but has schools worthy of your potential offspring? It is easy to find a place that has better schools than Detroit [[anywhere) but it sounds as if you are looking for something a bit more elevated than that.

I get what you're saying but remember that Michigan was the only state to lose population in the last census. There is little stopping people from leaving the overall shittiness that is Michigan. That is, once their 97-year old Polish grandmother dies, they wonder, what the hell am I doing here?

However in other cities you have options you don't have in Metro Detroit:
1) Urban living with good private school options
2) Urban satellite cities connected by mass transit [[Boston and DC are great examples of this)
3) Viable neighborhoods within the city to raise a family. Detroit has like 6, and then good luck finding a school.

You're from Mass. Frankly, Warren isn't Somerville. I rest my case.

[JenniferL]

And that is a completely normal pattern in the US. That would be fine. And, as I never tire of saying, it is an ever-diminishing portion of US households that have children. Not that schools aren't important, but they aren't important to most households.

True, Detroit may become a haven for 40-year-old DINKs [[Double Income No Kids). But city boosters can't completely write off people with kids-- they would be automatically excluding hundreds of thousands of potential residents, along with current Detroit residents who are planning to move out because the schools are so bad. It also doesn't help the children of Detroit's poor, who desperately need a quality education and aren't getting it. A city with a 47 percent illiteracy rate isn't going to make it, no matter how many yuppies move downtown.

[belleislerunner]

Detoit needs a housing developer to clear off a few blocks in each section of town and start buiding new moderately priced homes. The types of developments you'd see in Chesterfield or Woodhaven.

I went to Trulia last week and searched for all single family homes in Detroit that were over $100K [[i.e. a somewhat turn/key ready home without massive rehab costs). Out of a city with 700K people, there were only 67 "resale" homes [[i.e. not in foreclosure). You simply can't grow/increase population when there isn't any available housing stock. The long term problem with demolishing 50K abandonded homes - is it will take decades to bring them back.

Condos/lofts/apartments are great for singles/DINK's - but at some point - you need options for the family of 4 or 6. Right now, you're limited to less than 70 homes in a land area second to Jackonsville, FL. That's just absurd!

[iheartthed]

They might, but they probably won't. Interstate movement is at historically low levels. If you can attract them to your region when they are young and mobile, most likely you've got them for a long time. Also, city schools in most places leave a lot to be desired, so it isn't as if the urban alternatives on the education front are so attractive. And moving for schools is fraught with difficulty anyway, as many people find that despite living in a good or even an excellent school district the schools are still unsuitable for some or all of their particular children.

I'm curious where you think you are going to go that is urban but has schools worthy of your potential offspring? It is easy to find a place that has better schools than Detroit [[anywhere) but it sounds as if you are looking for something a bit more elevated than that.

This is anecdotal, but I think educated millennials are very highly mobile. Probably far more mobile than their parents were at the same point in their lives. I'd say the majority of my friends have lived in a city that is not the place where they were born. Many of them have lived in more than one place other than their place of birth in their adult lives.

ETA: There is a map floating around the internet that visualizes how educated people are concentrating in certain cities over the past two decades, in contrast to being evenly spread among big cities across the country mid century.

[Honky Tonk]

Until Detroit's crime issue is seriously addressed, we're spinning our wheels hoping for any kind of repopulation, especially when children are involved.

[Hermod]

This is anecdotal, but I think educated millennials are very highly mobile. Probably far more mobile than their parents were at the same point in their lives.

Well, I have been sufficiently mobile [[twenty-six mailing addresses since 1957), but I always moved for my job [[except when I retired). You can only move to another area if there is a job available to support yourself and any anhangers [[family). If you don't have job prospects beyond what you currently have, you make the best of whatever housing is available [[and living in house trailers often may be a part of it).

[mwilbert]

You're from Mass. Frankly, Warren isn't Somerville. I rest my case.

I'm not exactly from Mass, but I can tell you although I like Somerville quite a bit [[unlike Warren) that no one moves to Somerville for the schools. It is true that there are good private schools around [[not in Somerville that I know of), but they cost $30K/year and most of them aren't in the city either. Parochials are cheaper, but they are very similar to what is available in Detroit. If you were moving to Boston for good schools, you would end up living a suburb [[if your kid was high-school age, you could try getting them into Boston Latin. It might work.) But if you were moving to greater Boston for very good schools, you would end up living in one of a select group of exurbs, or a very expensive outer suburb.

But your underlying argument is wrong. The same things keep people in Michigan as they do anywhere. People stay where they are because moving is annoying, and it gets more annoying as you get older. You get networked into where you are. Partly it is friends, but there are a whole bunch of things that you would need to deal with--just the thought of trying to replace my mechanic or dentist is painful. People move long distances mostly for jobs, because there aren't a lot of other things that are worth moving for. Michigan lost a lot of people because it was losing a vast number of jobs, not because of its "overall shittiness."