The region's 2013 population shifts are incredibly fascinating...

[motz]

Would be fun to see how many people have moved to Detroit but kept suburban addresses for various reasons. Probably would be a few hundred people at least.

[313WX]

Would be fun to see how many people have moved to Detroit but kept suburban addresses for various reasons. Probably would be a few hundred people at least.

I personally know a lot of renters and home owners in the neighborhoods who are 100% Detroit, but are instead using their friend or family's suburban address to either avoid taxes, to send their kids to a suburban school or for cheaper insurance.

[jt1]

Would be fun to see how many people have moved to Detroit but kept suburban addresses for various reasons. Probably would be a few hundred people at least.

At least 50% of midtown, downtown and woodbridge

[Bham1982]

At least 50% of midtown, downtown and woodbridge

Right, Detroit is really growing; the growth you see in the exurbs is really Detroiters living in Woodbridge but covertly buying $500k McMansions in Oakland Township to escape $500 in higher car insurance...

[nain rouge]

Since you seem to be a fan of sprawl, shouldn't you move about 20 miles north?

Better yet, he should move to Houston, which is apparently his idea of paradise [[though he'll deny it, only to tout Houston's growth the next post).

What Bham1804 refuses to acknowledge is that while you can economically get away with sprawl when your economy and population is growing at a quick rate, to sprawl while stagnant or declining is infrastructural suicide. When you do the latter, you'll inevitably lack the funds to maintain many of your neighborhoods, and the result is an ugly, declining atmosphere that citizens and visitors find very unappealing, and higher taxes to boot.

Of course, the idea that such conditions could hurt your region is completely alien to Bham. He simply doesn't see it as possible. After all, explain Houston!, he'll say.

[believe14]

Right, Detroit is really growing; the growth you see in the exurbs is really Detroiters living in Woodbridge but covertly buying $500k McMansions in Oakland Township to escape $500 in higher car insurance...

Detroit is growing, you just can't tell because everyone is committing insurance fraud! People are so outrageous.

[Bham1982]

What Bham1804 refuses to acknowledge is that while you can economically get away with sprawl when your economy and population is growing, to sprawl while stagnant or declining is infrastructural suicide.

Tell it to Pittsburgh or Cleveland. Those metros are shrinking.

Metro Detroit has been growing for the last few years, and faster than most metros in this part of the Midwest.

Sprawl isn't "good" or "bad". It's just an illustration of preferred living patterns. In Metro Detroit people are voting with their feet, and are happy to pay 500k way out in sprawl as opposed to dealing with poor schools, safety, and declining public services.

And if you think sprawl is "inefficient", it's curious that your solution is to stop the sprawl. Why not help people move out to desirable communities, and stop investing in commuties that are hopeless sinkholes? Wouldn't it be more efficient to enable people to live in Oakland Twp as opposed to forcing people to live in Highland Park?

[believe14]

Yay! Stagnant regional population and more infrastructure. How can this go wrong in the long term. Better spend billions to widen roads and expand schools in the far flung townships.

It just makes great economic sense. Continue to expand the infrastructure while the total population is the same it was 40 years ago. And there are people out there that actually call this growth and progress. Something in the water in this area must really turn people into economic retards

Live in crime free and boring Clarkston for 15 years. Decent publics, but Notre Dame Prep is close. Country club membership. Wholesome families. Kids graduate high school. Sell house. Retire to Florida or Traverse City.

Why would anyone care about the "future"? This isn't Japan.

[Scottathew]

I never said that every single older suburb is showing absolute decline, just not like every single newer sprawlburb is showing crazy growth.

I said that the sprawly outer fringe is generally growing, and the urban/inner suburban ring is generally declining, which is true.

But it's not... Every single inner-ring suburb in Oakland and Macomb saw growth. Virtually fully built-out areas are adding people, not declining. Royal Oak Township [[the little township, not the big city) was the only northern inner-ring suburb that saw decline.

I think you'll see high growth in Troy and Rochester Hills soon. I see nothing but new subs going up when I drive around through.

[iheartthed]

The data show the opposite. Suburban areas show more growth than urban areas.

There are only a few traditional urban areas showing robust growth. NYC, SF, DC, maybe Boston. These are special cases, for obvious reasons. The rest are basically stagnant or declining.

The data does not show that. The data shows, as every single article written about this subject today has said, that the census numbers released today show central cities growing faster than the nation as a whole. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that unless you're trying to push some agenda.

[nain rouge]

Metro Detroit has been growing for the last few years, and faster than most metros in this part of the Midwest.

Sprawl isn't "good" or "bad". It's just an illustration of preferred living patterns. In Metro Detroit people are voting with their feet, and are happy to pay 500k way out in sprawl as opposed to dealing with poor schools, safety, and declining public services.

Show... much... willful... ignorance. How can you not see the connection between the relentless cost of sprawl and the older areas with declining schools and public services? It's almost humorous, but then I remember how many people think like you do.

Metro Detroit has been growing for the last few years, and faster than most metros in this part of the Midwest.

OH GOD, this tired canard. Metro Detroit's population is still down from the 2010 census. Your assertion that Metro Detroit is growing is based on the last two yearly census estimates, which are proven as being quite unreliable. Even still, assuming the estimates are accurate, Metro Detroit still has a ways to go before it hits its 1970 population level [[given current "growth" rates), and a long way to go before it hits 1980 levels.

In the meantime, there's been a crap ton of sprawl.

But please, just drop an anvil on my head already. I might as well being talking to a wall.

[ghettopalmetto]

Tell it to Pittsburgh or Cleveland. Those metros are shrinking.

Metro Detroit has been growing for the last few years, and faster than most metros in this part of the Midwest.

While it's true that Metropolitan Detroit has been *expanding* physically outward, to say that it has been "growing" is a stretch by any measure. Cleveland is in the same boat, although it doesn't sprawl nearly as bad as the Detroit area. A major difference is that Cleveland's primary employment centers aren't located in the next county over. The two largest [[far and away) are within the city limits. On the other hand, if cranky old folks want to leave and retire to Florida to be replaced by young, ambitious people, I'm totally okay with that. Political leadership is starting to recognize that a cooperative regional approach to development and transportation will be necessary in order to thrive. There are already institutions in place that set a precedent for regional collaboration--an area where Detroit falls well short.

Sprawl isn't "good" or "bad". It's just an illustration of preferred living patterns. In Metro Detroit people are voting with their feet, and are happy to pay 500k way out in sprawl as opposed to dealing with poor schools, safety, and declining public services.

This is ironic. Sprawl is most definitely bad if you like travelling by foot...or bicycle, or transit, or anything that doesn't involve a car. Because of the policies endorsed by the State of Michigan [[e.g. build massive highways through farms and orchards, but not a nickel for transit in Detroit; money for new school construction in the exurbs, but no money to repair school buildings in existing communities), sprawl continues unabated in Michigan.

And if you think sprawl is "inefficient", it's curious that your solution is to stop the sprawl. Why not help people move out to desirable communities, and stop investing in commuties that are hopeless sinkholes?

They are. They're moving to Chicago, DC, New York....

Many solutions to sprawl have been proposed in numerous places. Among them are: growth boundaries, revised zoning regulations, inclusive transportation policies, increases in allowable density and floor area ratios, reductions in building setbacks, decreases in parking requirements, reductions in minimum lot sizes, provision of effective transit service.

[jt1]

Right, Detroit is really growing; the growth you see in the exurbs is really Detroiters living in Woodbridge but covertly buying $500k McMansions in Oakland Township to escape $500 in higher car insurance...

Interesting that my comment was completely unrelated to the conversation at large however you felt the need to jump in. So let's look at my post:

1. I never said Detroit was growing. I stated that a number of people in 3 specific neighborhoods maintain a suburban address. This based upon the fact that I know a lot of people in all three that do this
2. There was no implication that people are maintaining two different homes. The majority of the people in these neighborhoods stay on their parents address to keep insurance reasonable. Your inference that I implied people were paying for two homes is 100% asinine.
3. You should read a statement for the intent [[which was clear in this case) and not infer something more sinister than exactly what is stated.

Is that clear enough? In your attempt to be condescending you just look like a fool.

[jt1]

Live in crime free and boring Clarkston for 15 years. Decent publics, but Notre Dame Prep is close. Country club membership. Wholesome families. Kids graduate high school. Sell house. Retire to Florida or Traverse City.

Why would anyone care about the "future"? This isn't Japan.

So, in summation your statement is, "F' you, I got mine" A sad but true commentary on modern America. Why worry about future generations when I can just focus solely on myself. I assume, with that attitude you are a baby boomer.

[nain rouge]

Jt1, don't get despondent. We may doing better, momentarily, than Cleveland, that city everyone all over the country is so jealous of and wants to move to.

[emu steve]

Estimating pop. by using new housing permits and demolitions seems totally useless in Detroit. None of the rehabs of abandoned houses would count and if more houses, already abandoned for yrs., are demolished, that counts against the city.

I don't think that is the Census Bureau's methodology.

Their major components of change [[believe that is the demographic term) are births - deaths + net migration.

Births and deaths are available through vital records [[state health department).

Net migration might be drivers' licenses [[but I could be wrong on this).

Births and deaths are pretty reliable data - all births and deaths have to be registered with the state.

Drivers licenses less so as that isn't 100% accurate. A significant [[?) number of Detroiters may not have drivers licenses.

[jt1]

Jt1, don't get despondent. We may doing better, momentarily, than Cleveland, that city everyone all over the country is so jealous of and wants to move to.

I have heard that Cleveland rocks, so that must eb a good sign.

[emu steve]

I tried to read as much of the posts as I could. I have several points:

1). USA Today did a big article on urban population based on the Census Bureau's 7/1/2013 pop. estimates. Lot of big cities are growing and obviously a lot of sun belt cities.

2). Much more important, each city has its own growth curve, complete with decline, and usually regrowth. Some cities, OBVIOUSLY Washington, D.C. bottomed out years ago and are growing again. I believe NYC, Philly, etc. are others. Some cities are still losing population, e.g., Detroit, Baltimore, etc.

3). My guess is that Detroit and some other cities have hit bottom and are coming back. I think we'll see more population growth in downtown, midtown, and in other areas as folks grab housing that is being made available, usually at bargain prices.

[nain rouge]

3). My guess is that Detroit and some other cities have hit bottom and are coming back. I think we'll see more population growth in downtown, midtown, and in other areas as folks grab housing that is being made available, usually at bargain prices.

Downtown and Midtown will continue to rebound, but why would anyone ever move to Wyoming and Fenkell or a neighborhood like that, aside from sheer economic desperation? Metro Detroit is so overbuilt that anyone sensible would move to an inner ring suburb before settling at Wyoming and Fenkell. Downtown and Midtown always retained certain draws, but there has been such disinvestment in many outer neighborhoods that it's questionable if those areas will survive.

[Eber Brock Ward]

The data show the opposite. Suburban areas show more growth than urban areas.

There are only a few traditional urban areas showing robust growth. NYC, SF, DC, maybe Boston. These are special cases, for obvious reasons. The rest are basically stagnant or declining.

Not sure if ACS has data by census tract, but I'd expect it to bear out that the "7.2 square mile" core of the city outpaced most, if not all, outlying areas, city or suburb.

I don't think anyone reasonably considers Brightmoor or Warrendale to be the "core city."

Not directed at you specifically, but relevant to the broader discussion.

[mwilbert]

At the levels of change indicated, with the known errors in ACS estimates, which aren't designed to measure population in the first place, there just isn't much information here. Check back in 2021.

[Hermod]

That's a nicely skewed axis... 1990, 2000, 2010, 2012

It is a bar chart, so there is no skewing.

[DetroitPlanner]

I never said that every single older suburb is showing absolute decline, just not like every single newer sprawlburb is showing crazy growth.

I said that the sprawly outer fringe is generally growing, and the urban/inner suburban ring is generally declining, which is true. Whether a few inner suburbs show small growth doesn't really change the narrative, as places like Southfield are losing out to places like Novi.

Its all a numbers game. When you start off with 5,000 and you add 100 it is much different than if you start out with 100,000 and lose 100.

The region as a whole is not showing much increase. It is simply moving pieces around on a checkerboard. When Detroit has 10,000 leave, it can be seen as 12,000 leaving the neighborhoods and 2,000 being added to the CBD and Midtown. You can't objectively compare that to 40 extra people in Happyville when Happyville only has 2,000 to start with.

[motz]

Detroit is growing, you just can't tell because everyone is committing insurance fraud! People are so outrageous.

Seriously, I know a lot of people who live in the city [[as noted, Downtown/Midtown/Woodbridge/Riverfront/Corktown/Southwest) who keep their addresses outside of the city. I don't think the number would come anywhere close to erasing 10k people moving out, but I am genuinely curious either way.

[Cliffy]

I don't know why anyone wants to force people to live in Detroit. Someone of those people that live up in Northern Oakland or Macomb need to be up there. Also, a lot of those people who are way the hell up there have septic tanks, well water, and gravel roads. They have no infrastructure.