City living

[ndavies]

There is a large market of people. Unfortunately all of the issues I listed are stopping them from moving in. Detroit should be full of middle class families, just like Chicago, New York, Boston ....

Until the city of Detroit can draw back middle class families it is not going anywhere.

Also you seem to envision Detroit as a Extreme high density city. Most of Detroit looked more like Royal Oak than Manhattan. Most of the inner ring suburb have the similar densities as Detroit had at it's peak. Detroit never had the Density of the east coast cities and never will have.

[iheartthed]

There is a large market of people. Unfortunately all of the issues I listed are stopping them from moving in. Detroit should be full of middle class families, just like Chicago, New York, Boston ....

That's an odd statement. I live in New York and there are not a lot of middle class families living in the city. There are pockets here and there but it's not a broad category of the population. What New York does have is a very transient population and also a very high concentration of foreign born residents. People move here to New York from all parts of the globe, and the state of the public schools is probably something that does not register much in their decision for coming. Nor does things like car insurance [[since most of the population depends on public transit), or property taxes [[since most of the population rents).

Until the city of Detroit can draw back middle class families it is not going anywhere.

Also you seem to envision Detroit as a Extreme high density city. Most of Detroit looked more like Royal Oak than Manhattan. Most of the inner ring suburb have the similar densities as Detroit had at it's peak. Detroit never had the Density of the east coast cities and never will have.

None of the inner ring suburbs have anything close to the density of Detroit at its peak. Detroit's population density today is pretty uniform with the inner ring suburbs. In the 1950s, Detroit had areas with population densities similar to areas of Manhattan.

[ndavies]

That's an odd statement. I live in New York and there are not a lot of middle class families living in the city. There are pockets here and there but it's not a broad category of the population. What New York does have is a very transient population and also a very high concentration of foreign born residents. People move here to New York from all parts of the globe, and the state of the public schools is probably something that does not register much in their decision for coming. Nor does things like car insurance [[since most of the population depends on public transit), or property taxes [[since most of the population rents).



None of the inner ring suburbs have anything close to the density of Detroit at its peak. Detroit's population density today is pretty uniform with the inner ring suburbs. In the 1950s, Detroit had areas with population densities similar to areas of Manhattan.

So you're trying to tell me, out of New York's total population of almost 8.5 million there are very few middle class families? I find that very hard to believe. Maybe they don't live in Manhattan, but they do live in the city. Without that backbone of middle class families, New York would be a very different place.

Detroit has a total population of 700,000. It continues to bleed middle class families. Detroit continues to lose that backbone of middle class families. Until the issues I posted are fixed and Detroit starts to bring families back into the city, the city will continue to decline. The families moving out of the city far outweigh the hipsters moving downtown

New York also has a very vibrant job market. Detroit's Job market is nowhere near it.

Detroit is not comparable to NY. The conditions in place in NY are very different from Detroit's.

[Bham1982]

TIn the 1950s, Detroit had areas with population densities similar to areas of Manhattan.

I would be very surprised if this were true. Detroit was never built densely, and was developed much later than other cities in the eastern half of the U.S., concurrent with the auto boom. There were never any extensive areas of large apartment buildings, so I don't get how there would be density comparable to Manhattan [[or even apartment areas in Brooklyn/Bronx/Queens for that matter).

The only way this could have happened was if there was some really horrific overcrowding, with like 5 families per house, but I doubt that was the case. Detroit was a prosperous city with the highest homeownership in the U.S. Probably the original African American areas near downtown had bad overcrowding, but I doubt they ever had Manhattan-style densities, because the built form didn't support such densities.

[iheartthed]

I would be very surprised if this were true. Detroit was never built densely, and was developed much later than other cities in the eastern half of the U.S., concurrent with the auto boom. There were never any extensive areas of large apartment buildings, so I don't get how there would be density comparable to Manhattan [[or even apartment areas in Brooklyn/Bronx/Queens for that matter).

Two things here: 1) you don't need large apartment buildings to have high density neighborhoods, and 2) there was a lot of multi-family housing in Detroit that was lost to neglect and/or urban renewal demolition.

Anyway, here is the density heat map from 1950 which has been shared on this forum before:


As you can see, there were quite a few tracts in the center of the city that are in the 30K - 80K people per square mile range [[which is Manhattan territory), and even more in the 20K - 30K people per square mile [[which is fully comparable to any other dense east coast city). I don't think it's beyond imagination to say that at least half of Detroit's nearly 2 million residents in 1950 lived in a neighborhood with a population density of at least 20K people per square mile. Also, as you can see on the map, many of what were the city's most densely populated census tracts in 1950 now have freeways running through them.

[Bham1982]

Two things here: 1) you don't need large apartment buildings to have high density neighborhoods, and 2) there was a lot of multi-family housing in Detroit that was lost to neglect and/or urban renewal demolition.

Agreed with both points, but I don't think that means Detroit had remotely comparable density to Manhattan. It's a huge stretch to say that tons of apartment buildings were demolished [[true) and there was lots of overcrowding [[also true) therefore 1950-era Detroit was the same as 1950-era Manhattan. It was more like a 1950 version of present-day LA [[fairly dense, due to overcrowding, but not really structurally dense over large geographies).

Anyway, here is the density heat map from 1950 which has been shared on this forum before:

And note that the densest areas in Detroit back in 1950 [[which are small geographically) only have density above 30k. Manhattan's current average density is above 70k. 70 years ago it was closer to 100k, with neighborhood peak densities well above 200k.

Just to illustrate, the overall density in Brooklyn and the Bronx today match the peak densities shown in the 1950 Detroit map. And we're talking over 100 square miles compared to a few square miles in Detroit. Those boroughs were denser still back in 1950. Queens peak density tracts are even denser, though overall Queens density is lower.

So Detroit, at peak density, in the peak neighborhoods, only had density roughly comparable to average densities over huge geographies in the Outer Boroughs today. Fairly high density, but not really close to Manhattan density.

At a smaller neighborhood level, though, 1950-era Detroit didn't even match the present density of neighborhoods in NYC considered somewhat suburban. Bay Ridge, Brooklyn or Forest Hills, Queens, or Jamaica, Queens [[all far outer borough neighborhoods, nowhere near Manhattan, and considered semi-suburban) all have higher peak densities today than the peak densities in 1950-era Detroit.

[iheartthed]

Agreed with both points, but I don't think that means Detroit had remotely comparable density to Manhattan. It's a huge stretch to say that tons of apartment buildings were demolished [[true) and there was lots of overcrowding [[also true) therefore 1950-era Detroit was the same as 1950-era Manhattan. It was more like a 1950 version of present-day LA [[fairly dense, due to overcrowding, but not really structurally dense over large geographies).

I did not say that all of Detroit was as dense as Manhattan. I said there were areas of mid-century Detroit which were as dense as Manhattan [[either today or in 1950, take your pick). I think I've made that point already.

And note that the densest areas in Detroit back in 1950 [[which are small geographically) only have density above 30k. Manhattan's current average density is above 70k. 70 years ago it was closer to 100k, with neighborhood peak densities well above 200k.

It gives a range of 30K - 80K. I don't have the time or the tools to map out the area of those census tracts right now. But for simplicity's sake, let's just take the area bounded by I-94/Lodge/Fisher Fwy/Chrysler Fwy. We know that's a roughly 2.5 miles by 1.5 miles area, and that the majority of the census tracts in that area are at least 30K/square mile, so let's assume that the entire density of that section is 30K/square mile. That would mean that just that tiny area of the city had at least 110,000 residents in 1950. Since I'm using the absolute base case scenario, there were likely far more people living in that area. If we assumed the high end that would mean 300,000 people lived in that tiny area of the city... The truth is somewhere in between.

[masterblaster]

Also you seem to envision Detroit as a Extreme high density city. Most of Detroit looked more like Royal Oak than Manhattan. Most of the inner ring suburb have the similar densities as Detroit had at it's peak. Detroit never had the Density of the east coast cities and never will have.

I know your post is over a week old, but...

East Coast cities peak Density vs Detroit's, let's see:

Philadelphia's peak density [[in 1950) - 2,071,000/134.7 = 15,375
Boston's peak density [[in 1950) - 801,000/48 sq mile = 16,666
New York City's peak density [[in 2010) - 8,175,000/304 sq mile = 26,804
Washington, DC's peak density [[in 1950) - 802,178/61.4 sq mile = 13,064
Baltimore's peak density [[in 1950) - 949,708/81 sq mile = 11,725
Detroit's peak density [[in 1950) - 1,849,568/139 sq mile = 13,300

So Detroit's peak density was greater than Washington, DC and Baltimore, and wasn't that much lower than Philadelphia's.

Concerning inner ring suburb's peak density compared to the city? No.

Hazel Park peak density [[in 1950) - 25,631/2.82 sq mile = 9,089
Ferndale peak density [[in 1960) - 31,347/3.88 sq mile = 8,079
Warren peak density [[in 1970) - 179,260/34.46 sq mile = 5,021
St. Clair Shores peak density [[in 1970) - 88,093/11.62 sq mile = 7,581
Oak Park peak density [[in 1970) = 36,762/5.16 sq mile = 7,124
Southfield peak density [[in 2000) = 78,322/26.27 sq mile = 2,981
Redford peak density [[in 1970) = 71,901/11.2 sq mile = 6,419
Dearborn peak density [[in 1960) = 112,007/24.5 sq mile = 4,571
River Rouge peak density [[in 1950) = 20,549/2.65 sq mile = 7,754
East Detroit/Eastpointe [[in 1970) = 45,920/5.14 sq mile = 8,934
Berkley peak density [[in 1970) = 23,275/2.62 sq mile = 8,884
Royal Oak peak density [[in 1970) = 86,238/11.79 sq mile = 7,314
Grosse Pointe Park peak density [[in 1970) = 15,641/2.17 sq mile = 7,208
Center Line peak density [[in 1970) = 10,379/1.74 sq mile = 5,965

I could go on with other suburbs, but you see the point - NONE OF THE
SUBURBS EVER APPROACHED THE DENSITY OF THE CITY at its peak!![[Now some suburban neighborhoods did like Cabbage Patch)

In fact, if you want to get a picture of the density of the pre-Depression neighborhoods of Detroit just look at the peak densities of Hamtramck and Highland Park.

Hamtramck peak density [[in 1930) = 56,268/2.09 sq mile = 26,922
Highland Park peak density [[in 1930) = 52,959/2.97 sq mile = 17,831
These are much higher than inner ring suburbs. Not all of Detroit was
built like Warrendale.

[iheartthed]

I know your post is over a week old, but...

East Coast cities peak Density vs Detroit's, let's see:

Philadelphia's peak density [[in 1950) - 2,071,000/134.7 = 15,375
Boston's peak density [[in 1950) - 801,000/48 sq mile = 16,666
New York City's peak density [[in 2010) - 8,175,000/304 sq mile = 26,804
Washington, DC's peak density [[in 1950) - 802,178/61.4 sq mile = 13,064
Baltimore's peak density [[in 1950) - 949,708/81 sq mile = 11,725
Detroit's peak density [[in 1950) - 1,849,568/139 sq mile = 13,300

So Detroit's peak density was greater than Washington, DC and Baltimore, and wasn't that much lower than Philadelphia's.

Concerning inner ring suburb's peak density compared to the city? No.

Hazel Park peak density [[in 1950) - 25,631/2.82 sq mile = 9,089
Ferndale peak density [[in 1960) - 31,347/3.88 sq mile = 8,079
Warren peak density [[in 1970) - 179,260/34.46 sq mile = 5,021
St. Clair Shores peak density [[in 1970) - 88,093/11.62 sq mile = 7,581
Oak Park peak density [[in 1970) = 36,762/5.16 sq mile = 7,124
Southfield peak density [[in 2000) = 78,322/26.27 sq mile = 2,981
Redford peak density [[in 1970) = 71,901/11.2 sq mile = 6,419
Dearborn peak density [[in 1960) = 112,007/24.5 sq mile = 4,571
River Rouge peak density [[in 1950) = 20,549/2.65 sq mile = 7,754
East Detroit/Eastpointe [[in 1970) = 45,920/5.14 sq mile = 8,934
Berkley peak density [[in 1970) = 23,275/2.62 sq mile = 8,884
Royal Oak peak density [[in 1970) = 86,238/11.79 sq mile = 7,314
Grosse Pointe Park peak density [[in 1970) = 15,641/2.17 sq mile = 7,208
Center Line peak density [[in 1970) = 10,379/1.74 sq mile = 5,965

I could go on with other suburbs, but you see the point - NONE OF THE
SUBURBS EVER APPROACHED THE DENSITY OF THE CITY at its peak!![[Now some suburban neighborhoods did like Cabbage Patch)

In fact, if you want to get a picture of the density of the pre-Depression neighborhoods of Detroit just look at the peak densities of Hamtramck and Highland Park.

Hamtramck peak density [[in 1930) = 56,268/2.09 sq mile = 26,922
Highland Park peak density [[in 1930) = 52,959/2.97 sq mile = 17,831
These are much higher than inner ring suburbs. Not all of Detroit was
built like Warrendale.

I would also guess that Detroit's effective density was closer to Hamtramck in 1930. The 1930 census was the first census with the city's current day borders, so much of the land in the city at the time was not developed.