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

[Meddle]

[QUOTE=Lowell;436386]688,701 with about 10K loss or about 1.5% loss year over year gives the appearance of slowing losses. 2013 - 2014 figures might surprise us by showing population loss as flat, fueled by an improving economy and city image.[/QUOTE]

That's an optimistic way to look at it. In my opinion, the slowdown is likely from families that remain have the most limited resources, and thus no mobility to make a move, even if they wanted to.

That's the way I see it. The ones that can afford to leave have already left. Most that remain are stuck.



Regarding the sprawl debate, I see it this way. Sprawl is about construction, not population. If one new house is built in a formerly agricultural or rural area, sprawl exists.

[believe14]

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.

When you learn nobody owes you anything or cares about you, the better you'll be. People live their own life. You want to wait around for a handout you'll die on the sidelines. You may feel warm and fuzzy about what Detroit might become, but the rest of society isn't going to hold their breath or roll the dice. You get one life to live, and the majority of people are going to put themselves in an area that is functioning and fits their needs NOW.

[Cliffy]

When you learn nobody owes you anything or cares about you, the better you'll be. People live their own life. You want to wait around for a handout you'll die on the sidelines. You may feel warm and fuzzy about what Detroit might become, but the rest of society isn't going to hold their breath. You get one life to live, and the majority of people are going to put themselves in an area that is functioning and fits their needs NOW.

Totally agree. Look after yourself because nobody gives a shit about you. This is in every society in the world.

[ghettopalmetto]

When you learn nobody owes you anything or cares about you, the better you'll be. People live their own life. You want to wait around for a handout you'll die on the sidelines. You may feel warm and fuzzy about what Detroit might become, but the rest of society isn't going to hold their breath. You get one life to live, and the majority of people are going to put themselves in an area that is functioning and fits their needs NOW.

I'll keep this in mind the next time some suburbanite wants their street paved, or wants city water and sewer, or needs new schools built, or traffic congestion gets miserable, or can't swim in the lake due to pollutant runoff.

[nain rouge]

When you learn nobody owes you anything or cares about you, the better you'll be.

But see, society used to not be like this. When you hear stories about how people helped each other out during the Great Depression, for example, you get a sense that life wasn't always like this. Sure, at the end of day, you're gonna let the next guy starve before you starve, but back then people were more willing to lend a hand to their neighbors.

We're basically sociopathic now. A lot of that has to do with the life of relative comfort we were born into, and the intense and pitiful focus on our self-esteem as children [[of course, almost every American will have some story about how their childhoods were different, but that's part of our pervasive "I'm special" mentality we all harbor). We're spoiled brats.

[believe14]

American society has always been like this. There are ghost towns around the country.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

I think that population shifts are a lagging indicator of a city's overall health. People want to live in thriving places. The most recent numbers reflect conditions of recent years, but not specifically now. The trends that are occurring in Detroit now will cause our population to rebound [[not into 7 figures, but I bet C of D has a population of 800,000 ten years from now).

[Cliffy]

But see, society used to not be like this. When you hear stories about how people helped each other out during the Great Depression, for example, you get a sense that life wasn't always like this. Sure, at the end of day, you're gonna let the next guy starve before you starve, but back then people were more willing to lend a hand to their neighbors.

We're basically sociopathic now. A lot of that has to do with the life of relative comfort we were born into, and the intense and pitiful focus on our self-esteem as children [[of course, almost every American will have some story about how their childhoods were different, but that's part of our pervasive "I'm special" mentality we all harbor). We're spoiled brats.[/COLOR]

I don't know about that. American society has always been harsh in some ways. You got parents who throw their kids out at 18 years old in this country because they are an "adult". Then you got countries in Europe and Asia that each generation lives in the same house or village and everyone is always close together.

[Danny]

HAH! Detroit will not a ghost town that fast.

What people are coming back to Detroit? Young professionals from Downtown to Midtown.

What people are leaving Detroit? middle class black people. That's right Black flight.

What people are stuck in their own ghetto hood stupidity sucking up welfare checks and food stamps while hooked on crack and smoking weed? Poor people.

[mwilbert]

I think that population shifts are a lagging indicator of a city's overall health. People want to live in thriving places. The most recent numbers reflect conditions of recent years, but not specifically now. The trends that are occurring in Detroit now will cause our population to rebound [[not into 7 figures, but I bet C of D has a population of 800,000 ten years from now).

That seems very unlikely. Whatever growth occurs in the more attractive parts of the city will probably be offset by continued population losses in the less attractive parts. The broadest possible [[in my mind) estimate of the population of the attractive portion [[what I mean here is parts of Detroit that could attract in-migration) of Detroit is maybe 100,000 people, and that seems high. To get to 800,000 that would have to double, and it is hard to see that happening in ten years. I wouldn't be surprised if it happened eventually, but not that quickly.

[emu steve]

Population growth in Detroit will continue to be natural I.e., births - minus deaths with net out migration.

Has most of the outmigration already occurred?

I assume the in migration will continue to grow steadily, though not in great numbers. Those moving in will be young professionals and most likely not starting families soon.

I assume deaths will lead toward a downward population decline; I assume Detroit is an older city.

[Danny]

Attachment 23556

http://www.freep.com/interactive/article/20130723/NEWS01/130721003/detroit-city-population

Detroit suffered population decline just like any other American cities due to race. When some American cities had slow down their population decline. Detroit population decline accelerated after July 23, 1967.

This is plain and simple just like any other American cities. Minorities came, Majority leaves. As for Detroit, Black folks came to their neighborhoods, White folks leave from their neighborhoods.

Detroit's White population went from 1.5 million in 1950 to 80,000 in 2010. Detroit's Black population went from 777,000 in 1990 to 590,000 2010.

Let's break this down.

What's left in Detroit's population in 2014? 550,000 blacks, about 78,000 whites and 49,000 Hispanics.

Over 400,000 black Detroiters are middle income, About 250,000 black Detroiters are either poor and sucking the pacifiers of welfare checks, food stamps and drugs.

White flight in Detroit is already over and done. Now they are coming back in small numbers and quickly occupying buildings from Downtown Detroit to New Center Area.

Black Detroit who are middle income and fed up of the empty promises from their leaders in City-County Building and making their flight to the suburbs or any other American city.

But until the 2050, We will see Detroit's population boom. But it won't be Coleman Young, Archer, Kilpatrick, Cockerel or Bing minorities running the show.

[believe14]

Detroit suffered population decline just like any other American cities due to race.

That's disingenuous. Whites left because of entirely justified fear of crime and socially unfit behavior of many southern migrants: http://content.time.com/time/magazin...810262,00.html

[Danny]

Population growth in Detroit will continue to be natural I.e., births - minus deaths with net out migration.

Has most of the outmigration already occurred?

I assume the in migration will continue to grow steadily, though not in great numbers. Those moving in will be young professionals and most likely not starting families soon.

I assume deaths will lead toward a downward population decline; I assume Detroit is an older city.

Yes, brothers killing brothers will contribute to Detroit's population decline.

[Danny]

That's disingenuous. Whites left because of entirely justified fear of crime and socially unfit behavior of southern migrants: http://content.time.com/time/magazin...810262,00.html

...and that's the whole ideal.

Our Great State of Michigan become 'Mich-ississippi' Where 14 percent of black people are still segregated today. It's upside down with and minorities are occupy at the lowest level.

[nain rouge]

To get to 800,000 that would have to double, and it is hard to see that happening in ten years. I wouldn't be surprised if it happened eventually, but not that quickly.

I agree that it's possible, but it's very contingent on the health of the Big 3. We can't forget how the American auto industry was knocking on heaven's door a few years ago. If we have another economic recession in [[say) 2018, coupled with a noticeable bump in gas prices, do you think all 3 of the Big 3 would survive? Do you buy the hype? I could easily see Chrysler shutting down a bunch of US operations, for example. And then it would be curtains for the city of Detroit.

[Hermod]

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.

We could force every factory owner to build worker flats right next to the factory and force the workers to live there as a condition of employment. They wouldn't even need cars if we built a government run food store and department store on the ground floor of the worker flats. Just think, no pollution from the proles cars. Of course, the nomenklatura like Ghetto Palmetto will need penthouses overlooking the river so that they can have the leisure to thoughtfully think of new ways to control the proles.

[iheartthed]

Detroit and its cousin Cleveland are the only 2 of the 50 largest cities in the country that are estimated to have declined in population since 2010. If you limit to top 40 then it's only Detroit. Cleveland will almost certainly fall out of the top 50 before 2020. Ironically, it'll probably be knocked out of that category by a suburb of Dallas... http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/...xhtml?src=bkmk

[ghettopalmetto]

We could force every factory owner to build worker flats right next to the factory and force the workers to live there as a condition of employment. They wouldn't even need cars if we built a government run food store and department store on the ground floor of the worker flats. Just think, no pollution from the proles cars. Of course, the nomenklatura like Ghetto Palmetto will need penthouses overlooking the river so that they can have the leisure to thoughtfully think of new ways to control the proles.

I'm not proposing to force anyone to do anything. I'm arguing in favor of flexibility. Current zoning regulations and transportation policy already:

FORCE one to locate the front of a building a certain minimum distance from the street.

FORCE one to provide a minimum number of parking spaces [[usually enough for the Saturday before Christmas)

FORCE one to build houses on minimum lot sizes, with minimum square footages.

FORCE one to segregate land uses from each other.

FORCE MDOT to spend at least 90% of its budget on roads.

FORCE people to drive everywhere for everything.

None of the world's great cities could be built under the zoning and transportation regulations currently enforced in Michigan...It would be completely illegal to do so.

[ghettopalmetto]

Detroit and its cousin Cleveland are the only 2 of the 50 largest cities in the country that are estimated to have declined in population since 2010. If you limit to top 40 then it's only Detroit. Cleveland will almost certainly fall out of the top 50 before 2020. Ironically, it'll probably be knocked out of that category by a suburb of Dallas... http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/...xhtml?src=bkmk

In fairness, however, both Cleveland and Detroit are also "landlocked". I suspect that many "growing" cities have done so through annexation [[Columbus, OH), which isn't really "growth" at all. One may argue that Indianapolis [[pop. 800,000+) is a Big City, but when those people are spread over an area the size of New York City, the idea doesn't hold much water.

Raw population numbers don't mean a hoot. You couldn't pay me enough to live in a Southern Sprawlplex, regardless of how sexy the media makes those places sound.

[nain rouge]

Ghettopalmetto, that's why I prefer to go by metropolitan areas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States .

Though the estimates cited on that page are slightly out of date [[from 2012), we see Detroit, Cleveland, and Buffalo as the only areas in the top 50 in the red. Not surprising.

Also, I'm curious as to what you think is superior about Metro Detroit vs. a "Southern Sprawlplex". While Metro Detroit had a better urban core historically, by today's standards I don't know how you could consider the Detroit area superior to Greater Atlanta, for example. It's about the same, except the southern cities tend to have a better economy.

[ghettopalmetto]

Ghettopalmetto, that's why I prefer to go by metropolitan areas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States .

Though the estimates cited on that page are slightly out of date [[from 2012), we see Detroit, Cleveland, and Buffalo as the only areas in the top 50 in the red. Not surprising.

Not to mention that these cities were hit particularly hard with foreclosures, as well as unscrupulous "house flippers", after 2008.

Also, I'm curious as to what you think is superior about Metro Detroit vs. a "Southern Sprawlplex". While Metro Detroit had a better urban core historically, by today's standards I don't know how you could consider the Detroit area superior to Greater Atlanta, for example. It's about the same, except the southern cities tend to have a better economy.

I'd argue the same is still true. If you go to any "city" in the South, there isn't any "there" there. Even in its downtown, Atlanta is a city of concrete bunkers, presenting blank walls to the street. Most everything historic--that is, with a sense of character and place--has been demolished. Yes, there are areas like Druid Hills and Decatur that are very nice. But most of the metropolitan area is clusters of buildings that fell from outer space, tied together with ribbons of freeway.

There's something to be said about having a decent job. But I don't know that I'd endure 3 hours of commuting each day in order to score a direct Delta flight every once in a while [[ATL airport is a primary reason why companies locate regional offices there). When you hit the evenings or weekends in Atlanta, what does one even do--pass out from exhaustion?

Sure, I'm beating up on Atlanta a bit. But you can insert the name of any Southern city--they're mostly all the same overgrown suburb with the same strip malls, chain restaurants, and tacky subdivisions. It's a superficial, disposable kind of place, in the worst possible way. And God forbid you want to walk anywhere [[I think walking is illegal in the South). Notable exceptions, of course, are Charleston, Savannah, and New Orleans, which seem to have found their niches as tourist and retirement havens.

In Detroit [[as well as Cleveland), one cannot ignore the sense of history, the sense of place--the industrial might--the living proof of what ordinary people can accomplish. That titans of industry held the arts in high esteem and believed it necessary to share them with the public [[It's no coincidence that Cleveland's University Circle is just down the street from Rockefeller's home). The people who [[still) make things. The mishmash of immigrant cultures. The cavalcade of languages heard on the street. The entrepreneurial spirit. The grittiness that has inspired many an artist in breathtaking awe. I think, in my mind, it's the intangibles that make for a wonderful place, the things that can't be measured in a Forbes "Top 10" fluff piece.

There's just something very honest and endearing about the Rust Belt. The idea that you're going to put your best foot forward every day, take care of your family, friends and neighbors, and enjoy the good things in life instead of trying to keep up with the ever-superficial Joneses. So, sure, let the media talk. Let everyone else downplay the old, industrial cities. Because we ever-so-modestly know what they don't--that our homes are pretty kickass, comfortable, and inviting places to live. And frankly, as soon as we become "cool", then the trustafarians and d'bags are just going to show up and ruin it for everyone. ;-)

[masterblaster]

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.[/COLOR]

Actually, the Wyoming/Fenkell neighborhood does not really have much, but if you go north a 1/2 mile to Wyoming and Puritan, you will find charming, tree-lined streets filled with 1920's brick and stucco "tudors" and bungalows.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/16...db355f!6m1!1e1

Also, Wyoming between Fenkell and McNichols is lined with charming mid-century commercial buildings that I could see being turned into art studios - [[in the alternative universe where people actually care about the neighborhoods of Detroit)

https://www.google.com/maps/place/16...b1505d24adf8ea

https://www.google.com/maps/place/16...095976!6m1!1e1

[nain rouge]

Mr. Palmetto, you make some good points, but I'm still not entirely convinced. Have you ever walked around MODERN downtown Detroit? It's a typical lifeless modernist development, and not even that walkable. After all, what good is the grid when you have to walk past one monolithic superblock after another? Sure, if the boosters work hard at it a few high quality restaurants and retailers might move in, but then it'll just be a glorified mall.

It's not just a Detroit or Atlanta thing. Any big city's "modern downtown" is generally a boring district. Even Brooklyn and Manhattan's central business districts die out after business hours. Everyone always goes to hang out in the nearby historic neighborhood that the developers didn't get around to demolishing.

But you can insert the name of any Southern city--they're mostly all the same overgrown suburb with the same strip malls, chain restaurants, and tacky subdivisions. It's a superficial, disposable kind of place, in the worst possible way. And God forbid you want to walk anywhere [[I think walking is illegal in the South).

Are you really saying Metro Detroit isn't like that? You've just described over 90% of the metro area.

Also, as far as commutes go, the mean travel time in Atlanta is 25.4 minutes according to Bloomberg. Detroit clocks in at 25.1 minutes. Again, it's not that different.

I'm increasingly convinced that one of Metro Detroit's biggest problems is that its people believe way too much in their own mythology. OK, so we were top 5 a long, long, time ago. Have we ever looked in the mirror since then? We haven't aged gracefully.

Detroit's "grittiness", its "sense of place", is that it has the most decay in America. That might get us attention, but not all attention is positive.

[Detroitnerd]

Mr. Palmetto, you make some good points, but I'm still not entirely convinced. Have you ever walked around MODERN downtown Detroit? It's a typical lifeless modernist development, and not even that walkable. After all, what good is the grid when you have to walk past one monolithic superblock after another?

How can I have worked in downtown Detroit for 10 years and describe a completely different city from what you just have?