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

[nain rouge]

You must have low standards, Detroitnerd. It's easy to walk around downtown, but what are you walking to?

[Detroitnerd]

You must have low standards, Detroitnerd. It's easy to walk around downtown, but what are you walking to?

Well, that's a vile response. Good day ...

[nain rouge]

I'm just saying the truth. Detroit thinks the world should be bowled over when a couple of restaurants open. What you can do in downtown Detroit is comparative to a small city like Fort Wayne. Do you want me to grab my lyre for Buffalo Wild Wings?

[nain rouge]

There's a reason why when Anthony Bourdain visited Detroit for CNN, he ended up focusing on the rampant decay. Because that's the real story of Detroit. I lived in Midtown and I just couldn't process the poverty and despair as easily as some people. I'd walk to downtown - yes through lovely, walkable Detroit - and I'd see all the homeless and drug addicted people on all the dilapidated streets of lower Cass Corridor constantly. And then I'm supposed gleefully guzzle alcohol at some tacky downtown bar after walking past one closed office building after another and declare how great it all is?

No, I usually ended up walking back home, despondent. You have to have blinders on to accept this stuff.

[mwilbert]

I'm just saying the truth. Detroit thinks the world should be bowled over when a couple of restaurants open. What you can do in downtown Detroit is comparative to a small city like Fort Wayne. Do you want me to grab my lyre for Buffalo Wild Wings?

Half-truth. It is one thing to say that there isn't a lot of stuff to walk to downtown, which is less true than it was ten or fifteen years ago but I would say still correct, and a different thing to say that downtown Detroit is a just a bunch of superblocks, which is really not the case.

[iheartthed]

There's a reason why when Anthony Bourdain visited Detroit for CNN, he ended up focusing on the rampant decay. Because that's the real story of Detroit. I lived in Midtown and I just couldn't process the poverty and despair as easily as some people. I'd walk to downtown - yes through lovely, walkable Detroit - and I'd see all the homeless and drug addicted people on all the dilapidated streets of lower Cass Corridor constantly. And then I'm supposed gleefully guzzle alcohol at some tacky downtown bar after walking past one closed office building after another and declare how great it all is?

No, I usually ended up walking back home, despondent. You have to have blinders on to accept this stuff.

I hear what you're saying but I also don't think these are issues that are preventing Detroit from providing a better urban environment. All of the poster-child urban cities have pretty visible homeless populations. It's nothing that Anthony Bourdain hasn't seen in NYC or San Francisco, I can assure you.

The difference in Detroit is how abandoned the city has become. In terms of big cities -- or formerly big cities -- there is no equal. It's the only American city to ever have more than 1 million residents and decline back below that mark. Since many measure "big cities" by the 1 million resident threshold, you could say that it's the only American city to have reverted from being a "big city."

[Cincinnati_Kid]

I hear what you're saying but I also don't think these are issues that are preventing Detroit from providing a better urban environment. All of the poster-child urban cities have pretty visible homeless populations. It's nothing that Anthony Bourdain hasn't seen in NYC or San Francisco, I can assure you.

The difference in Detroit is how abandoned the city has become. In terms of big cities -- or formerly big cities -- there is no equal. It's the only American city to ever have more than 1 million residents and decline back below that mark. Since many measure "big cities" by the 1 million resident threshold, you could say that it's the only American city to have reverted from being a "big city."

You are so correct. Detroit is the poster child for big city decline. A city that just 35 years ago, was the 5th largest in the US, and now it's tied with El Paso Tx for 18th largest. Quite a drop.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

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.

I agree with this. NYC, incidentally, has added the population of Detroit in the last 15 years. Washington, DC is also growing, but not a lot. It was mostly built out ages ago, and there was never the large amount of abandoned property that we have here. It's growth capacity is very limited. I think Census estimates [[remember, Census info is all educated guesses until 2020, when they do the nationwide survery they call a count).

[emu steve]

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.

I agree with this. NYC, incidentally, has added the population of Detroit in the last 15 years. Washington, DC is also growing, but not a lot. It was mostly built out ages ago, and there was never the large amount of abandoned property that we have here. It's growth capacity is very limited. I think Census estimates [[remember, Census info is all educated guesses until 2020, when they do the nationwide survery they call a count).

I think folks underrate D.C's resident population [[as compared to those who arrive in morning via subway or car and leave that evening via subway or car).

It is true that D.C. has a very, very extensive housing stock much of it built when D.C. was a young, growing city [[D.C. is an 'old' eastern city).

That said, D.C. as has been discussed under the Nationals Park threads, still has significant areas of undeveloped lands which has been developed since 2000 and 2010.

The two areas we've discussed are "NoMa" [[North of Mass Ave.) moving eastward toward N. Capitol and the area around Nationals Park.

Why D.C. could hit 725K by 2020.

D.C. is now building high density housing [[i.e., apartments and condos). Not much single family with 2 - 4 occupants.

Or a half block which might have housed 25 people in 10 houses can have 250 folks in an apartment building.

Also, as has been discussed, development in D.C. isn't one house here and one there [[as where I live, we build say 6 - 8 new houses on 4 or 5 acres of land) of in fill as a tract of land becomes available.

In D.C. development seems to happen like the 'path of a tornado' - one building then another building adjacent and then another adjacent to the adjacent building.

[emu steve]

One thing folks need to keep in mind as far as population is concerned:

The difference [[OBVIOUS) between population and housing units.

The number of housing units continue to grow significantly in a lot of areas BUT the residents per housing unit has declined greatly over the last 50 years.

The days of mom and dad and four children have been replaced by mom and dad and one or two children OR mom and one or two children.

So the fastest growing cities are those, sunbelt [[?), where they can put up thousands of new houses where space is readily available.

The natural trend for older cities would be to lose population as 150K houses which used to house 600K residents say 50 years ago now might house 300 - 400K today.

To maintain population those cities would need to build a lot of multi-family buildings.

I haven't looked at a city I know, Dearborn, but I assume Dearborn has lost significant population over the last 50 years based on number of inhabitants / single family house.

Here is an example of what is happening near Nationals Park [[got the e-mail this a.m.):

http://www.jdland.com/dc/880nj.cfm

http://www.jdland.com/dc/index.cfm/3...s-Topping-Out/

[Hermod]

GP: You might add Richmond, VA to your list of "good" southern cities.
While there has been sprawl to the west and some to the east, the downtown is still there.
Broad Street retail has become mostly wig shops and non-chain clothing stores, but the state capitol area, the Shockoe Slip nightlife, the old row houses south of Broad Street, the Fan District, the Virginia's Communist University area, the near west end, the magnificent homes on Monument Ave are still functional and vibrant.

[wolverine]

One thing folks need to keep in mind as far as population is concerned:

The difference [[OBVIOUS) between population and housing units.

The number of housing units continue to grow significantly in a lot of areas BUT the residents per housing unit has declined greatly over the last 50 years.

The days of mom and dad and four children have been replaced by mom and dad and one or two children OR mom and one or two children.

Also noticed here in Chicago the highest wealth neighborhoods have lost population due to the aristocratization of gentrified neighborhoods. A 3-flat with 5 residents may get torn down for a multi-million dollar brownstone with 2-residents. A lot of renters are getting displaced in some chicago neighborhoods because families are moving in and housing densities are decreasing.

[emu steve]

Hate to keep referring to D.C. [[although it is a great example for demographers, urban theorists, etc.).

One thing good about D.C.'s new housing development is that presumably the folks moving into those apartments, condos, etc. are young folks who work in D.C.

That is a good thing.

Bad thing, e.g., folks at the Pentagon who may live in D.C. or Maryland and need to commute across the Potomac bridges. Ditto for those who live in Va and work in the District.

The idea of folks living near where they work is part of the campaign to get folks who work in Midtown to live in Midtown, maybe with a subsidy.

[Pickford-Bentler]

I think folks underrate D.C's resident population [[as compared to those who arrive in morning via subway or car and leave that evening via subway or car).

It is true that D.C. has a very, very extensive housing stock much of it built when D.C. was a young, growing city [[D.C. is an 'old' eastern city).

That said, D.C. as has been discussed under the Nationals Park threads, still has significant areas of undeveloped lands which has been developed since 2000 and 2010.

The two areas we've discussed are "NoMa" [[North of Mass Ave.) moving eastward toward N. Capitol and the area around Nationals Park.

Why D.C. could hit 725K by 2020.

D.C. is now building high density housing [[i.e., apartments and condos). Not much single family with 2 - 4 occupants.

Or a half block which might have housed 25 people in 10 houses can have 250 folks in an apartment building.

Also, as has been discussed, development in D.C. isn't one house here and one there [[as where I live, we build say 6 - 8 new houses on 4 or 5 acres of land) of in fill as a tract of land becomes available.

In D.C. development seems to happen like the 'path of a tornado' - one building then another building adjacent and then another adjacent to the adjacent building.

There also a significant number of dual income no kids couples who never intend to have any kids who live in DC. I know two that own condos in Adams Morgan. A young lady of one of these couples ride a bicycle to work in VA. Her office is in Crystal City.

There seems to be a trend to build mixed use walkable communities proximate subway stops in DC, VA and MD.

When I bought two condo near the Pentagon, in 1987, the Pentagon City Metro stop fed a field that had elephant dump due to the circus storing their beasts.

Today, there is a mall, apartments, a hotel, a skating rink, and other things.

I sold out in 2003 and bought a home near Olney MD.

So suburbanite I be

Personally, I see merit in both community types.

We are not ending the four person family. It is just that a four person family will not be as large a chunk of the pie.

[Bham1982]

The number of housing units continue to grow significantly in a lot of areas BUT the residents per housing unit has declined greatly over the last 50 years.

In the past, yes, but more recently, no.

Number of persons per household has been growing again in recent years. This is also true in successful urban areas, due to gentrification [[families staying in the city instead of moving to the burbs) and immigration. Also, the recession delayed family formation so you have the "boomerang kids" phenomenon.

So, speaking generally, if an urban area has population decline, it is highly unlikely to be explained by gentrification. Gentrification now means bigger households.

[Bham1982]

Also noticed here in Chicago the highest wealth neighborhoods have lost population due to the aristocratization of gentrified neighborhoods. A 3-flat with 5 residents may get torn down for a multi-million dollar brownstone with 2-residents. A lot of renters are getting displaced in some chicago neighborhoods because families are moving in and housing densities are decreasing.

Maybe in a few Census tracts, but this would be an almost meaningless phenomenon on the city level. There aren't enough rich people for "aristocratization", even in a small, prosperous city like SF, and in a big, less prosperous city like Chicago even less likely.

[Danny]

At least some good news. Downtown Detroit's white population has grown to 40%. You all can thank Dan Gilbert. He's running the show and the town.

[believe14]

At least some good news. Downtown Detroit's white population has grown to 40%. You all can thank Dan Gilbert. He's running the show and the town.

You have a source?

[mwilbert]

You have a source?

It is unlikely to be true, unless you pick the geography very carefully. Using 2010 figures, greater downtown [[what Data Driven Detroit calls the 7.2 sq miles) was a little over 20% white. I'm willing to believe that has increased, but probably only by a few percentage points. But with rents rising, and rents driving some new development it could easily be 40% by the end of the decade. Or not--lots of stuff could happen between now and then.

Keep in mind that the total population of the area isn't that large. There were only about 36,000 people living there in 2010. You don't need a big influx to get up to 40%, but that is also why even a very healthy greater downtown is probably not going to be able to offset population losses elsewhere in the city anytime soon; it just isn't a big enough proportion of the city.

[wolverine]

Maybe in a few Census tracts, but this would be an almost meaningless phenomenon on the city level. There aren't enough rich people for "aristocratization", even in a small, prosperous city like SF, and in a big, less prosperous city like Chicago even less likely.

Mostly Lincoln Park, North Center and Lakeview. Never before have I witnessed such intense demolition of Chicago neighborhoods for mansions. There's actually an interesting map documenting the replacement of buildings by year.

On a city level it is meaningless as most losses are people actually leaving vs housing density change.

[emu steve]

Detroit lost another 10,000 year over year. Brighton, Milford/Lyon, Clarkston, Oakland Twp, Shelby, and Northville are the few region's cities that actually saw population growth. Those towns have one thing in common: they are about as far as you can realistically go if you work in/near the city.

Other inner cities:
Grand Rapids +2,000
Flint -1,000
Pontiac +300

http://www.freep.com/article/20140522/NEWS06/305220121/

BTW, I looked [[via Wikipedia) at some 'older' western suburban cities [[e.g., Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, etc.). They lost population say 20 - 25% during say the 60s - 80s [[roughly) as the number of residents her housing unit really declined as families became much smaller.

It would be interesting to look at government stats on housing construction for these close in communities.

My guess what was there 10, 20 or 30 years ago is pretty much the housing stock of today.

Population growth to close in suburbs won't happen again [[if again) until family sizes start to grow again.

I believe demographers expect small growth in family sizes now that economic conditions have stabilized, but I don't think we should start expecting to see many 4 or 5 or 6 children households.

[Mackinaw]

The slide is almost over. City will bottom out at 650k and be back just above 700k by 2020 census.

There will always being "growing" exurbs. You can't do anything but grow when you are full of greenfields and there is a known population that always wants new housing and is always willing to drive long distances. Sprawl will ease but always continue. The mid and inner burbs will neither grow nor shrink notably....some will lose people due to smaller families, aging population....but this is not a new development. A few will become slums, though, especially southern Macomb.

The City's neighborhoods will be a patchwork comparable in demographic variety to Washington DC or Philly. Hopefully less segregated...but I am not as bullish about that. The economic/investor outlook combined with Duggan's policies will lead to increased inflow and at least some decline in outflow. A net gain eventually. The wildcard is whether we see a market for new mid- and high- rise residential buildings along the M1 corridor.