Has Detroit Bottomed out Yet?

[Gpwrangler]

I currently spend a lot of time in both downtowns and I'll ha your ha and simply disagree for a few reasons. When one is looking for a downtown experience, what does it matter if you're in corn fields 15 mins away or some suburb? For my money, having access to a pretty country drive that close to downtown rather than being stuck in some suburban traffic is a great thing. As far as downtowns go, GR stands right with Detroit for activity and may surpass it. Also you forgot to mention that when you are 1 minute outside of the areas you noted in Detroit you are in abandoned neighborhoods....quite a different story in GR as the neighborhoods are still intact. One last thing, one town is growing and the other has taken a massive population hit so if you see those people who have been saying GR will surpass Detroit in population you can tip your hat to their prediction because it's getting closer and closer to becoming reality.

I don't know where you guys are driving but if I leave Detroit and drive 20 minutes I can be in Grosse Pointe or in the middle of a cornfield in Romulus. And Grand Rapids traffic sucks as much as here.

[TTime]

I don't know where you guys are driving but if I leave Detroit and drive 20 minutes I can be in Grosse Pointe or in the middle of a cornfield in Romulus. And Grand Rapids traffic sucks as much as here.

Aahhhh yes those beautiful cornfields of Romulus...yeah I guess I haven't experienced traffic in GR that compares to Metro Detroit yet but I'll take your word for it. I wouldn't call Grosse Pointe a country drive but Lakeshore is obviously a pretty relaxing escape to be sure.

[313WX]

Ha. I remember people saying this 20 years ago. Despite perceptions, Grand Rapids proper population has remained pretty much the same - around 190k for the past 25 years. I grew up over there and still spend plenty of time there. You can still drive 10-15 minutes and you're in corn fields. No, there is not more activity in downtown GR than in Detroit, especially not anymore. If you believe that then you don't spend much time in downtown/Midtown/Corktown/etc. Detroit lately. I'm a city kid and even though GR is a beautiful, somewhat thriving city, it's not hard to get bored there. And good luck meeting a women unless you're young 20s and looking to get married lol. I'll take Detroit - which will remain the largest city in Michigan for the balance of our lifetimes and probably much longer - every time.

Agreed.

For all intents and purposes, Grand Rapids is still a small/irrelevant town to most folks outside of Michigan. It lacks the big city/urban infrastructure Detroit has, it has no theater district [[aside from a ballet company), no major international airport and no major league sports teams. In fact, the only things people only somewhat associate with Grand Rapids are Amway [[a company known for marketing scams) and Meijer.

It's more of an equivalent to Peoria, IL.

As someone stated before, with the American-based Auto Companies' market share now less than 50% and those same American Auto Companies now re-investing the vast majority of their capital outside of Michigan / America, and also with the lack of a healthy & functional major city, Michigan's best days are behind it as a progressive, vibrant, cosmopolitan place to live.

[313WX]

I don't know where you guys are driving but if I leave Detroit and drive 20 minutes I can be in Grosse Pointe or in the middle of a cornfield in Romulus. And Grand Rapids traffic sucks as much as here.

When I think of the country, I think of a place that isn't filled with McMansions / Ranch Homes, Strip Malls nor places that are always clogged with traffic during 9-5 business hours.

Romulus certainly doesn't fit the above bill.

[Gistok]

I currently spend a lot of time in both downtowns and I'll ha your ha and simply disagree for a few reasons. When one is looking for a downtown experience, what does it matter if you're in corn fields 15 mins away or some suburb? For my money, having access to a pretty country drive that close to downtown rather than being stuck in some suburban traffic is a great thing. As far as downtowns go, GR stands right with Detroit for activity and may surpass it. Also you forgot to mention that when you are 1 minute outside of the areas you noted in Detroit you are in abandoned neighborhoods....quite a different story in GR as the neighborhoods are still intact. One last thing, one town is growing and the other has taken a massive population hit so if you see those people who have been saying GR will surpass Detroit in population you can tip your hat to their prediction because it's getting closer and closer to becoming reality.

Your anecdotes are kind of meaningless... when in just 2013 Grand Rapids grew by 1,333 residents. So unless there's a sudden influx, it will take many many decades for Grand Rapids to surpass Detroit.

Maybe real statistics will give you a better picture as to the true growth rate of Grand Rapids....
http://www.biggestuscities.com/city/...apids-michigan

[TTime]

Your anecdotes are kind of meaningless... when in just 2013 Grand Rapids grew by 1,333 residents. So unless there's a sudden influx, it will take many many decades for Grand Rapids to surpass Detroit.

Maybe real statistics will give you a better picture as to the true growth rate of Grand Rapids....
http://www.biggestuscities.com/city/...apids-michigan

First of all my experiences aren't meaningless just because they are different than yours and check my previous comments because I said if it happens it will be a few decades away. Since you are into numbers why don't you lay historical population charts for both towns on top of each other and get back to me with your thoughts.

[iheartthed]

If it hasn't bottomed out by now then I don't know if it matters what the bottom looks like. From here to bottom can't be that much worse than what we've already seen.

[Dan Wesson]

If it hasn't bottomed out by now then I don't know if it matters what the bottom looks like. From here to bottom can't be that much worse than what we've already seen.

Oh yeah. Just stop or reduce the amount of government handouts by any means political or technical fubar and then watch what happens.

[ParisianLesion]

I currently spend a lot of time in both downtowns and I'll ha your ha and simply disagree for a few reasons. When one is looking for a downtown experience, what does it matter if you're in corn fields 15 mins away or some suburb? For my money, having access to a pretty country drive that close to downtown rather than being stuck in some suburban traffic is a great thing. As far as downtowns go, GR stands right with Detroit for activity and may surpass it. Also you forgot to mention that when you are 1 minute outside of the areas you noted in Detroit you are in abandoned neighborhoods....quite a different story in GR as the neighborhoods are still intact. One last thing, one town is growing and the other has taken a massive population hit so if you see those people who have been saying GR will surpass Detroit in population you can tip your hat to their prediction because it's getting closer and closer to becoming reality.

I'm not going to argue over what amenities might be available in Detroit vs. GR [[and certainly I recognize that I may have "started it" lol). Obviously this is pointless as it is a matter of opinion. Both areas have wonderful offerings, as well as shortcomings. To each his own.

However, my original intent was to refute the exaggerated claim that GR would surpass Detroit in population potentially as soon as "2025." This isn't a hard idea to disclaim. Using the 2010 census as a source:

City: 2000 | 2010 | % Change
Detroit: 951,270 | 713,777 | -25.0
Grand Rapids: 197,800 | 188,040 | -4.9

Now, Detroit bled population in the last several decades. We all know this. That's one metric for determining [[some would say THE metric) whether the city has "bottomed out." However, GR has not exactly been a boom town. In 2010, the population was 188k. In 1990? 190k. Point being it has hovered around that number with minor hills and valleys for several decades now. Even if Detroit were to continue to decline 25% each decade, which of course is astronomically unlikely, it would take almost another 5 decades for Detroit's population to dip below GR.

For the most current trends - and most relevant to the OP topic at hand - Detroit's population decline from 2010 - 2013 has been trending at -9% [[latest US Census Bureau statistics). There has been a lot of conversation lately about the population decline slowing and this being a sign of us "nearing the bottom" where we can start to stabilize and perhaps even increase the population again. If the 2010-2013 rate were to continue, it would put Detroit's population in 2020 around 643k. At that rate, Detroit's population would fall below that of the next largest city in about 120 years.

As to the merits of each, to 313WX's point, this is comparing apples to oranges. Out-state Michigan cities do not have the sprawling metro areas that Detroit does. They sort of "stand alone" with masses of farm land between them. Almost 50%of Michigan's population is within Detroit Metro. GR? 1%. Of Michigan's 20 largest cities [[using the 2010 census again), 15 are in Metro Detroit. In downtown Detroit on any given day there are more people due to sports events, concerts, the riverfront, casinos, bars, restaurants, DSO, Opera House, DIA, etc. etc. etc. - that can pull from this large suburban community - than during even the largest of events in GR, such as ArtPrize, or any other city in the state.

The point here being, let's not exaggerate things or make irrelevant doomsday style generalities. Have we "bottomed out?" Yes and no. This is too simple of a question for a very complex situation.

[G-DDT]

No. We have not [[and I trust I'm being accurate with the greater participants of DY when I use the term "we", yes?). Detroit has been through far too much to quit. It's always when things look the most abandoned or unattractive to a suburban scope of things that some of the most amazing DIY culture has sprung forth [[very much how Indie and Techno music in the '90s had Detroit in the forefront).

Also, we are a city removed from most of the banality-that creeping meatball-that has engulfed the suburbs with the cruddy strip malls and such. We can join the chorus of over-dramatic personas of the media who only put a selective magnifying glass on the problems of Detroit only [[thus only increasing them tenfold) or the corporate astroturfers who clog the internet with dismay in hopes to drive the last gentrifying nail in,-OR, we can calmly address Detroit's problems without the hopelessly fatalistic speculation, in hopes of improving things.

[Gpwrangler]

When I think of the country, I think of a place that isn't filled with McMansions / Ranch Homes, Strip Malls nor places that are always clogged with traffic during 9-5 business hours.

Romulus certainly doesn't fit the above bill.

lol well the post just said "cornfield" it didn't specify boondocks. Keep going; Sumpter twp is another 20 minutes and you won't see too many offensive homes there.

[mtburb]

lol well the post just said "cornfield" it didn't specify boondocks. Keep going; Sumpter twp is another 20 minutes and you won't see too many offensive homes there.

Or you can just simply head down I-275 past the Huron River.

I remember going through Brownstown in the 80's when it was nothing but farms and trees, now it's more. A lot more. I still remember when the intersection of Telegraph, Dix-Toledo and West Road was like navigating through a Pacman level, now it's just two simple traffic lights.

[illwill]

I think it depends on how you define "bottomed out?" In terms of fiscal matters, I say yes. Bankruptcy has been the answer to Detroit's fiscal woes for at least 10 years. Only time will tell if the city is able to maintain a balanced budget while delivering satisfactory city services and more importantly delivering improved city services. I also agree with Richard's previous post. The city now has hope. This is evident by the number of individuals and small groups getting involved with Detroit's rebound. NEVER, has there been a time where Detroit has quite seen a movement of this magnitude for this long period of time. Many of us forget just how deep in a rut we were. There's been much improvement, although we have so much farther to go. I credit the use of social media for giving pro-Detroiters a platform to network, connect and implement ideas to fruition. This has played a major in Detroit's resurgence.

Second, if the term "bottomed out" refers to population loss, then I think the population continues to decline for many different reasons we're all well aware of. As someone previously mentioned, cities all across the world are becoming the epicenters for progressive businesses and this includes Detroit. In fact, Detroit has the opportunity to become a model city for the new urban landscape. But I don't know how confident I am in our current leaders to make that happen. IF S.E. Michigan has any chance of competing with other major world cities Detroit will have to be the hub. I think the early corporate defectors of the suburbs for the city understand how critical it is for them to get a jump start on this permanent trend. Detroit is at a crossroads and the city can either go in one of two directions. If we're ever to make it out of this mess systematic changes will have to be made and some form of socialism will have to play an important part to address mental illness, joblessness, extreme poverty, education etc.

[TTime]

I think it depends on how you define "bottomed out?" In terms of fiscal matters, I say yes. Bankruptcy has been the answer to Detroit's fiscal woes for at least 10 years. Only time will tell if the city is able to maintain a balanced budget while delivering satisfactory city services and more importantly delivering improved city services. I also agree with Richard's previous post. The city now has hope. This is evident by the number of individuals and small groups getting involved with Detroit's rebound. NEVER, has there been a time where Detroit has quite seen a movement of this magnitude for this long period of time. Many of us forget just how deep in a rut we were. There's been much improvement, although we have so much farther to go. I credit the use of social media for giving pro-Detroiters a platform to network, connect and implement ideas to fruition. This has played a major in Detroit's resurgence.

Second, if the term "bottomed out" refers to population loss, then I think the population continues to decline for many different reasons we're all well aware of. As someone previously mentioned, cities all across the world are becoming the epicenters for progressive businesses and this includes Detroit. In fact, Detroit has the opportunity to become a model city for the new urban landscape. But I don't know how confident I am in our current leaders to make that happen. IF S.E. Michigan has any chance of competing with other major world cities Detroit will have to be the hub. I think the early corporate defectors of the suburbs for the city understand how critical it is for them to get a jump start on this permanent trend. Detroit is at a crossroads and the city can either go in one of two directions. If we're ever to make it out of this mess systematic changes will have to be made and some form of socialism will have to play an important part to address mental illness, joblessness, extreme poverty, education etc.

Why does Detroit have to be the hub? Why does the region need a strong central hub at all? Times change and regions change...if indeed it does need a hub why not Ann Arbor? Why not some other city? If you weren't from Detroit would you believe that Detroit needs to be the hub? Probably not. Also, I'm not asking these questions to be a smart ass I'm interested in the reasoning behind the notion that Detroit has to be this strong hub? My guess is people from Ann Arbor and Birmingham and Northville will continue to do just fine with or without Detroit as the hub.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Before you know it, Grand Rapids will become the state's largest city by 2020.

I'm sorry, I just don't see GR overtaking the throne, of being Michigan's largest city. Detroit could dip as low as 500,000 people and still be the largest population and area wise.

[Dbest]

Your anecdotes are kind of meaningless... when in just 2013 Grand Rapids grew by 1,333 residents. So unless there's a sudden influx, it will take many many decades for Grand Rapids to surpass Detroit.

Maybe real statistics will give you a better picture as to the true growth rate of Grand Rapids....
http://www.biggestuscities.com/city/...apids-michigan

Hard to argue that their metro area isn't on a roll though.

The Grand Rapids metropolitan area had the ninth fastest growing economy in the U.S. last year and the 69th fastest growing economy among the 300 largest metropolitan areas in the world, according to a study released Thursday, Jan. 22, by the Brookings Institution.

[Bham1982]

Why does Detroit have to be the hub? Why does the region need a strong central hub at all? Times change and regions change...if indeed it does need a hub why not Ann Arbor? Why not some other city? If you weren't from Detroit would you believe that Detroit needs to be the hub? Probably not. Also, I'm not asking these questions to be a smart ass I'm interested in the reasoning behind the notion that Detroit has to be this strong hub? My guess is people from Ann Arbor and Birmingham and Northville will continue to do just fine with or without Detroit as the hub.

It's certainly desirable, but not necessary, for Detroit to be the hub. The state can thrive without a healthy Detroit, and it can sink with a healthy Detroit.

Illinois has the worst population numbers and worst financial situation of any U.S. state, yet Illinois has one of the strongest city centers in the U.S. In contrast, Texas has some of the best population numbers and best financial situations, yet it tends to be even sprawlier and less urban-focused than Michigan.

So a revitalized Detroit would be an additional feather in the proverbial cap, rather than a definite statewide game-changer. Michigan is doing reasonably well right now, with job growth and unemployment rate better than the national average.

And not sure why people are talking about Grand Rapids. That city isn't growing. The metro area is growing, but that's sprawl 30 miles from the city center. The metro area added a few counties a few years back, and that's all the growth. The city proper and Kent County aren't growing.

[TTime]

It's certainly desirable, but not necessary, for Detroit to be the hub. The state can thrive without a healthy Detroit, and it can sink with a healthy Detroit.

Illinois has the worst population numbers and worst financial situation of any U.S. state, yet Illinois has one of the strongest city centers in the U.S. In contrast, Texas has some of the best population numbers and best financial situations, yet it tends to be even sprawlier and less urban-focused than Michigan.

So a revitalized Detroit would be an additional feather in the proverbial cap, rather than a definite statewide game-changer. Michigan is doing reasonably well right now, with job growth and unemployment rate better than the national average.

And not sure why people are talking about Grand Rapids. That city isn't growing. The metro area is growing, but that's sprawl 30 miles from the city center. The metro area added a few counties a few years back, and that's all the growth. The city proper and Kent County aren't growing.

Yes agreed that it is desirable but not necessary. Glad you brought up Chicago as an example of a strong hub that does not benefit the rest of the state because that is absolutely true. The remainder of Illinois outside of Chicagoland is pretty brutal.

[preserve]

Drive W on Ford Road and connect with Edward Hines Drive - a very beautiful, peaceful escape from traffic, strip malls, etc. When you get close to the end, you'll find yourself right back in suburbia.

[ParisianLesion]

It's certainly desirable, but not necessary, for Detroit to be the hub. The state can thrive without a healthy Detroit, and it can sink with a healthy Detroit.

Illinois has the worst population numbers and worst financial situation of any U.S. state, yet Illinois has one of the strongest city centers in the U.S. In contrast, Texas has some of the best population numbers and best financial situations, yet it tends to be even sprawlier and less urban-focused than Michigan.

So a revitalized Detroit would be an additional feather in the proverbial cap, rather than a definite statewide game-changer. Michigan is doing reasonably well right now, with job growth and unemployment rate better than the national average.

And not sure why people are talking about Grand Rapids. That city isn't growing. The metro area is growing, but that's sprawl 30 miles from the city center. The metro area added a few counties a few years back, and that's all the growth. The city proper and Kent County aren't growing.

I agree with this on all counts. I would add however that there seems to be a synergy - a "whole is greater than the sum of its parts" - that the culture, institutions, diversity, education, and business that a strong city center provides. When these things are more broken up geographically, I don't think the same applies. I don't know how to quantify it, and maybe there's nothing to quantify, but not only does it seem logical but you can just see it, feel it, smell it when you visit cities like San Jose, Boston, NYC, Toronto...

[Bham1982]

I agree with this on all counts. I would add however that there seems to be a synergy - a "whole is greater than the sum of its parts" - that the culture, institutions, diversity, education, and business that a strong city center provides. When these things are more broken up geographically, I don't think the same applies. I don't know how to quantify it, and maybe there's nothing to quantify, but not only does it seem logical but you can just see it, feel it, smell it when you visit cities like San Jose, Boston, NYC, Toronto...

I agree that certain cities have a synergy and whole greater than sum, but don't think it has to be in a centralized format. NYC, yeah, obviously successful and centralized. San Jose is basically a big suburb, though, with a downtown less important than that of even Grand Rapids, yet is the innovation hub of the planet. Downtown SJ is basically irrelevant, yet most of the world's tech innovation originates from a 15-20 mile radius of SJ.

[Richard]

Why does Detroit have to be the hub? Why does the region need a strong central hub at all? Times change and regions change...if indeed it does need a hub why not Ann Arbor? Why not some other city? If you weren't from Detroit would you believe that Detroit needs to be the hub? Probably not. Also, I'm not asking these questions to be a smart ass I'm interested in the reasoning behind the notion that Detroit has to be this strong hub? My guess is people from Ann Arbor and Birmingham and Northville will continue to do just fine with or without Detroit as the hub.

Agreed,Detroit does not in need to be the hub but the economics dictate it as the hub,it has the name recognition,infrastructure,such as it is,and is poised to be the hub with the least amount of disruption and funding.It is cheaper easier and quicker to occupy a vacant house then to build a new one from scratch.

Can one imagine moving an entire manufacturing and support industry to Ann Arbor,it would never happen and its not to say Ann Arbor is any less of a city,it just has a different identity,all of those different cities are what make up the population that desires that way of life,I get the anger towards Detroit because of the past but maybe it would be better as a state to bury that hatchet and move on to a better future as a collective state.

Instead of the silly infighting between the cities band together for a stronger state and everybody wins including the rest of the country.It takes a lot of energy to fight and divide.

The one thing I do notice is that in other forums there is a growing support for Detroit as a city verses in the past where every comment was negative.

[MicrosoftFan]

Or you can just simply head down I-275 past the Huron River.

I remember going through Brownstown in the 80's when it was nothing but farms and trees, now it's more. A lot more. I still remember when the intersection of Telegraph, Dix-Toledo and West Road was like navigating through a Pacman level, now it's just two simple traffic lights.

My father's childhood home was on King Road, a dirt road and a farm across the street. Now across the street is a McMansion suburb that collapsed in 2006 and the builders went to jail for fraud. Now King Road is paved and is 5 lanes just a mile down the road.

Also, may a mention the doomed Brownstown Town Center Project? Seems like they've started construction.

[maverick1]

Is there an example of a metro-area that's a destination and globally relevant without a strong core? Metro-Detroit has been working on it for 50 years and it hasn't worked out.

[Bham1982]

Is there an example of a metro-area that's a destination and globally relevant without a strong core? Metro-Detroit has been working on it for 50 years and it hasn't worked out.

Seriously? In the U.S., how about "almost all". It would actually be easier to list cities with a strong core that are destinations and globally relevant, because there are far fewer.

San Jose- tech capitol of the world
LA- entertainment capitol of the world and second largest first world city in the Western world
Houston- energy capitol of the world
Dallas- diversified economy and will eclipse Chicago in population and economy within 20 years
South Florida- gateway to Latin America and 6 million+ residents
Atlanta- capitol of the South
Charlotte- #2 city of the South
Raleigh Durham, Nashville, hell, any major Southern city excepting New Orleans
San Diego, Phoenix, hell, any major Western city excepting SF, and arguably Seattle and Portland
Austin- fastest growing U.S. metro and tech/hipster center

All of these cities are ultra-sprawly and have a tiny proportion of regional jobs in their CBDs.

Detroit, BTW has not been "working on it for 50 years". The opposite is true. Detroit has spent vast sums trying to build up the core over the last 50 years, to little avail.