Detroit Loses A Few Thousand More Residents, Still 'Great'

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

Engaging with Bham1982 is pointless; its not just that he is "negative", he actively roots against any progress in the city. I am not sure why; its a totally myopic approach as that ultimately translates into rooting for failure of the metro area and Michigan itself. Any positive development in Detroit is just a chimera, and Birmingham is heaven on Earth
.

[MizMotown]

and in the meantime Detroit's closest surrounding suburbs are slowly going to shit and will be losing population soon

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

My co-worker and I took the expanded Dequindre Cut today. I hadn't been on it since last season. What I found shocking wasn't the new part of the cut, but rather all the residential development around the Dequindre Cut. There had to be units in the hundreds.

I know a lot of the neighborhoods are still hurting, but it's great to see development in an otherwise abandoned area. This isn't the CBD, granted it is adjacent to the CBD.

This is going to be high quality housing for folks that probably have jobs downtown. I hope all this development keeps growing. It's amazing what an influx of jobs can do.

It would be interesting to see some information on who is moving into the new housing you mention or any of the other new or renovated buildings. I'd be curious to see how many residents are relocating within the city, or from outside the city. As well as for that later, where they came from.

[Mind field]

My co-worker and I took the expanded Dequindre Cut today. I hadn't been on it since last season. What I found shocking wasn't the new part of the cut, but rather all the residential development around the Dequindre Cut. There had to be units in the hundreds.

I know a lot of the neighborhoods are still hurting, but it's great to see development in an otherwise abandoned area. This isn't the CBD, granted it is adjacent to the CBD.

This is going to be high quality housing for folks that probably have jobs downtown. I hope all this development keeps growing. It's amazing what an influx of jobs can do.

Hopefully the phenomenon that has brought countless thousands of jobs to the Chicago Loop arrives in metro Detroit as well. Companies move downtown to access a deep talent pool that desires living and working in an urban environment. I'm sure there are a few people who reverse commute out of downtown and midtown to suburban jobs, hopefully this will continue and intensify as downtown and midtown become ever more attractive options for living.

[iheartthed]

Read the article, and that same demographer says the same thing every year.

K. Metzger has been claiming a population increase since forever, which makes sense, as his organization is part of the problem. Their population projections have been absurdly wrong, which makes sense as he's part of the same echo chamber. He's funded by Quicken and other downtown heavyweights.

Uh, no. He doesn't. Just 3 years ago he was saying that the population would go below 600K.

Demographer Kurt Metzger said he expects the city’s population to fall to as low as 600,000 before Detroit stabilizes.

http://motorcitymuckraker.com/2013/0...700000-people/

He was also the one who was predicting a substantial population loss in the 2010 census, although not as bad as it actually ended up being.

[dtowncitylover]

Uh, no. He doesn't. Just 3 years ago he was saying that the population would go below 600K.


[/FONT][/COLOR]
http://motorcitymuckraker.com/2013/0...700000-people/

He was also the one who was predicting a substantial population loss in the 2010 census, although not as bad as it actually ended up being.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[Junjie]

Worst in the nation isn't grounds for much optimism in my book.

And your chart is absolute spin because it conflates decennial counts [[enumerated counts) with annual estimates [[sampled estimates). The only numbers that make any sense are 2011 forward. Those numbers show a spike in 2012-14 and a decline in 2014-15.

Yes, obviously it includes sampled counts and enumerated counts. The census doesn't take a full census every year. Good catch.

What's the concrete assertion that you're making? That the estimated numbers are wrong? Ok - give us the explanation of the bias in the Census Bureau's methodology, or give us your better numbers. That would be a useful response. But you say the 2011-2015 numbers are the "only ones that make sense" - ok, so then why are you even arguing? People are happy that the population decline is at the lowest level since the 1990s, and you agree on the numbers, so get over it.

Edit: Let's put this in extremely basic terms. The enumerated count showed that Detroit lost about 250,000 people between 2000 and 2010, which works out to 25,000 per year. Forget the individual years between 2000 and 2010 - sampled, recalculated, whatever, doesn't matter. We know the city had to average a 25,000 per year loss.

Right now, the Census Bureau estimates Detroit has averaged a loss of 7,000 each year since 2010. Do you expect these numbers to be revised upward by 250% after the 2020 census? Because that's what it will take for there not to be a decline in population loss.

[Bham1982]

Uh, no. He doesn't. Just 3 years ago he was saying that the population would go below 600K.

Uh, yeah, he does. He has consistently overestimated population trends in the city and region. He's wrong, year after year.

The fact that he massively underestimated population trends one year before his current gig doesn't exactly make him a reliable source; it means his predictions are crap.

He was also the one who was predicting a substantial population loss in the 2010 census, although not as bad as it actually ended up being.

That's exactly the point. He's being paid by downtown interests. His "estimates" are worthless.

The Census is the only reliable source for Detroit population estimates. SEMCOG and DDD have no validity.

But if you wish to ignore actual Census data, and embrace wacky future predictions from local Quicken mouthpieces, from folks who have never made an accurate prediction, fine by me. There are about a billion threads on DYes where people argue against current reality by clinging to random future predictions.

[dtowncitylover]

Uh, yeah, he does. He has consistently overestimated population trends in the city and region. He's wrong, year after year.

The fact that he massively underestimated population trends one year before his current gig doesn't exactly make him a reliable source; it means his predictions are crap.



That's exactly the point. He's being paid by downtown interests. His "estimates" are worthless.

The Census is the only reliable source for Detroit population estimates. SEMCOG and DDD have no validity.

But if you wish to ignore actual Census data, and embrace wacky future predictions from local Quicken mouthpieces, from folks who have never made an accurate prediction, fine by me. There are about a billion threads on DYes where people argue against current reality by clinging to random future predictions.

Serious question, where is the evidence these are "Quicken mouthpieces"? Is Data Driven Detroit owned by Bedrock or something?

[Junjie]

The Census is the only reliable source for Detroit population estimates. SEMCOG and DDD have no validity.

What a surreal thread. You realize the whole thing was only written about because of numbers from the Census Bureau, not SEMCOG or DDD or anyone else, right? They're posted here:

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/t...xhtml?src=bkmk

[iheartthed]

The Census is the only reliable source for Detroit population estimates. SEMCOG and DDD have no validity.

But if you wish to ignore actual Census data, and embrace wacky future predictions from local Quicken mouthpieces, from folks who have never made an accurate prediction, fine by me. There are about a billion threads on DYes where people argue against current reality by clinging to random future predictions.

The census ACS estimated that Detroit would have a population increase in 2010.

[Oddz313]

Keep spinning, indeed. Here's a picture. Maybe you can work out for yourself why people are feeling more optimistic than they have in a good while.

Attachment 30456

graph kind of worries me about the economy, seems that they stop leaving as much when things tighten up

[emu steve]

Bham1982, your pessimism is nothing if not consistent. It is true that Detroit still shrank again in the metrics just released. But I think the mayor is right in pointing out that they are about to begin to turn around in the numbers going forward.

In the long run, there are really 2 Detroits: the revitalized and growing downtown & its perimeter neighborhoods, which will continue to add residents at a growing clip. The other Detroit is the ever-shrinking, disintegrating neighborhoods dotting our city. The problem in those areas are not easily fixed. The good news [[population numbers-wise) is that areas are now populated largely by people without the will or the means to leave the city. Those with that intent and ability by and large have left. So the "new Detroit" will add more people, while "old Detroit" will stop losing very many people. Now, fixing the old city will take decades, because it involves not developments and government initiatives, but people righting their own, individual lives. Some will, many never will.

Some of what I was getting at is that Detroit has many great assets [[e.g., pro teams, many cultural venues, Belle Isle, water front, several large universities, booming downtown, casinos, etc. etc.) other than population and employment.

To be 'great' a city needs to have more than population and jobs.

That is why I tossed in El Paso. I don't know their 'assets' [[other than warm weather and their university) but I doubt they'd stack up favorably to the list I created two paragraphs above.

So while growing population, growing employment, financial stability, good schools, low crime rates, etc. are typical barometers of a city they aren't all that matters.

If someone was only interested in some of these indicators they could move to Frankenmuth or Traverse City or some other city which is 'really nice' but...

There are things in very large cities which many people think are 'necessary' for a good life...

[emu steve]

Articles like this really need to focus on the fact that we aren't just being out-paced by rapidly growing sunbelt cities, we are being "ranked" behind cities that are coterminous with their counties, or which otherwise have annexed many suburban areas. This is extremely common in the south, i.e. Jacksonville, and also seen in Columbus, OH, for example. If this is the metric then those city's municipal population ought to be compared with our core metro population, which is something like 3.5 million and blows these other places away.

Not only is Detroit of greater significance-- cultural and economic, i.e.-- that many of the cities "ranked" above it-- but it is also still a more substantial central city than many of them may ever be. We should really not use raw municipal population as a "ranking" of a city. Either that or Detroit should annex Dearborn, Ferndale, and Grosse Pointe and then we'll jump right up the charts.

I agree with your post.

[emu steve]

My co-worker and I took the expanded Dequindre Cut today. I hadn't been on it since last season. What I found shocking wasn't the new part of the cut, but rather all the residential development around the Dequindre Cut. There had to be units in the hundreds.

I know a lot of the neighborhoods are still hurting, but it's great to see development in an otherwise abandoned area. This isn't the CBD, granted it is adjacent to the CBD.

This is going to be high quality housing for folks that probably have jobs downtown. I hope all this development keeps growing. It's amazing what an influx of jobs can do.

Agree.

I'm going to repeat a point I've made before:

A city like Detroit has its downtown [[and in Detroit's case, and other cities like Pittsburgh, I believe) have a strong adjacent area next to the downtown and, of course, neighborhoods.

I've always maintained that if the Detroit downtown went to hell, the neighborhood would further decline and we'd have suburbs with no city [[or central city as demographers would refer to a city like Detroit) to speak of.

Many neighborhoods, for example, are desirable because of their proximity to a thriving downtown. Downtown and Midtown [[e.g., WSU, medical centers, DIA, etc.) feed off of each other.

If all the jobs moved to Southfield there would be less reason for folks to live downtown or near downtown.

[313WX]

Anyone who thinks our local media aren't bought-and-paid for cheerleaders for certain interests needs to read that article. It reads like it was drafted at Quicken HQ.

They're spinning some of the worst population numbers in the U.S. to some fantastic turnaround. You even have Duggan offering congratulations and the Freep breathlessly announcing "the first signs of growth".

The reality is that, in the last 12 months, Detroit shrank more than basically anywhere in a nation of 320 million people. But keep spinning. Gotta keep certain interests fat and happy.

Besides that, census estimates are always overly optimistic. As late as 2009, the Census estimated that the city still had ~900,000 and oh how wrong it was!!!

The same thing will probably be the case in the 2020 Census because there was a significant amount of people who left during the 2010 - 2014 period [[you know, when the PD was only open 12 hours a day, people's homes were burning down to the ground due to 1+ hour emergency response times, half of the city was pitch black every night, etc.) that weren't accounted for in the 2010 results.

[313WX]

As mentioned above, you need to look at metro population when comparing, not population within city limits. And note that Metro Detroit only includes the tri-county area and not Washtenaw and obviously the Canadian side.

A couple things:

1. Metro areas are defined by commuter patterns [[how many people in the region commute into Detroit proper for work?). Since so few people in Metro "Detroit" work in the city, our Metro area is much smaller in footprint compared to other regions, such as Houston.

2. Metro Detroit has also been shrinking at a fairly alarming place. It was a top 5 region as recently as the 1980s, and now it's barely in the top 15.

[BankruptcyGuy]

The data is meaningless when aggregated over the whole 138 sq. mi. of Detroit. You have to look at it by region and area to make any sense of what's going on, what went on, and what policies need to be in place.

[Jason]

So 2016 will be the year foretold in the prophecies? The first year of population gain??

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

Articles like this really need to focus on the fact that we aren't just being out-paced by rapidly growing sunbelt cities, we are being "ranked" behind cities that are coterminous with their counties, or which otherwise have annexed many suburban areas. This is extremely common in the south, i.e. Jacksonville, and also seen in Columbus, OH, for example. If this is the metric then those city's municipal population ought to be compared with our core metro population, which is something like 3.5 million and blows these other places away.

Not only is Detroit of greater significance-- cultural and economic, i.e.-- that many of the cities "ranked" above it-- but it is also still a more substantial central city than many of them may ever be. We should really not use raw municipal population as a "ranking" of a city. Either that or Detroit should annex Dearborn, Ferndale, and Grosse Pointe and then we'll jump right up the charts.

That's a point I had not thought about. Jacksonville FL at 12th most populous as of 2010 looks a bit less impressive when one realizes its around 875 square miles compared to Detroit at about 140. But don't annex Birmingham or you know who will have to move to the UP.

[emu steve]

Sorry but nobody on here disagreed with any assertion that Detroit will keep losing people. The rate of population loss, as mentioned in the article, is declining, the smallest in decades.

I for one see myself as a realist optimistic. That despite Detroit's population loss, there is a turn around happening that I believe will soon spill into the neighborhoods in the next decade.

It took 60 years to come to this point, it may take 60 years to bounce back. So be it.

I agree with this post.

Over the coming decades a number of neighborhoods should come back strong. Some will not.

Again, we need to be careful about population. Sixty years ago population was fueled by LARGE families. These don't commonly occur now.

In the 'olden days' one could have 100,000 housing units occupied by say 400,000 people. Today, 100,000 housing units might have 200,000 people.

The problem in Detroit was both the decline in number of residents per housing unit but also the number of vacant housing units after the economic problems during the Great Recession.

[Junjie]

Besides that, census estimates are always overly optimistic. As late as 2009, the Census estimated that the city still had ~900,000 and oh how wrong it was!!!

The same thing will probably be the case in the 2020 Census because there was a significant amount of people who left during the 2010 - 2014 period [[you know, when the PD was only open 12 hours a day, people's homes were burning down to the ground due to 1+ hour emergency response times, half of the city was pitch black every night, etc.) that weren't accounted for in the 2010 results.

The Census American Communities Survey estimated Detroit at 777,493 in 2008. An overestimate for sure, but closer than the alternate 900,000+ number people now remember. The corrected official number after the 2010 census was 756,383 in 2008. Here's an article from Crain's talking about the two different methodologies the Census Bureau uses.

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...lt-to-estimate

ACS data for 2015 isn't available yet, but the ACS figure for 2014 was 680,281 while the Census Population Estimates Program [[the "official" data) had the figure at 680,223 for 2014. So we don't see anything like the kind of discrepancy that was apparent in the late 2000's.

[emu steve]

The Census American Communities Survey estimated Detroit at 777,493 in 2008. An overestimate for sure, but closer than the alternate 900,000+ number people now remember. The corrected official number after the 2010 census was 756,383 in 2008. Here's an article from Crain's talking about the two different methodologies the Census Bureau uses.

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...lt-to-estimate

ACS data for 2015 isn't available yet, but the ACS figure for 2014 was 680,281 while the Census Population Estimates Program [[the "official" data) had the figure at 680,223 for 2014. So we don't see anything like the kind of discrepancy that was apparent in the late 2000's.

I used to work with the Census Bureau in the 80s on their Annual Housing Survey which, as a by-product, had population estimates based on sampling and calculations using weights rather than the demographic model of base population + birth - deaths + net migration which is done for the pop. estimation program.

This was a large sample survey. Each large metropolitan area [[e.g., Detroit) had I believe 15K sample units. Small metropolitan unit had 5K sample units. Each year the bureau did 20 metropolitan areas [[total of 60 over a 3-year period). Data was reported for individual metropolitan areas, the central city [[e.g., city of Detroit proper), and the balance of the metropolitan area.

Critical for these data to be reliable, esp. Detroit, for interviewers to go out a literally check the status of a housing unit. Is it occupied? Vacant? Unoccupied but may come into the inventory in the future? Demolished? Interviewers also needed to see if new construction had occurred using lists derived from building permits.

Getting an accurate 'universe' [[Census used that term) of all housing units is no easy task for a city like Detroit and other cities which experienced so much turmoil with the 2008 Great Recession.

[TTime]

Sorry but nobody on here disagreed with any assertion that Detroit will keep losing people. The rate of population loss, as mentioned in the article, is declining, the smallest in decades.

I for one see myself as a realist optimistic. That despite Detroit's population loss, there is a turn around happening that I believe will soon spill into the neighborhoods in the next decade.

It took 60 years to come to this point, it may take 60 years to bounce back. So be it.

No argument that it may take 60 years to bounce back, if ever but the quote I showed said Detroiters think of themselves as living in one of the nation's largest cities and in my opinion they seem to think that Detroit carries the relevance of a large city too. Detroit is no longer a large city. Let me ask you this...how often do you think of El Paso? Probably not very much and that's exactly the point. They don't think about us either because we simply aren't as important as we used to be. Sure, we grabbed headlines recently because of historic events like the bankruptcy but when that hype fades this town will simply be another mid sized Rust Belt town and what's wrong with that?

[maverick1]

No argument that it may take 60 years to bounce back, if ever but the quote I showed said Detroiters think of themselves as living in one of the nation's largest cities and in my opinion they seem to think that Detroit carries the relevance of a large city too. Detroit is no longer a large city. Let me ask you this...how often do you think of El Paso? Probably not very much and that's exactly the point. They don't think about us either because we simply aren't as important as we used to be. Sure, we grabbed headlines recently because of historic events like the bankruptcy but when that hype fades this town will simply be another mid sized Rust Belt town and what's wrong with that?

I think Detroiters feel they're in a big city because of legacy and the metro area. So, while Detroit proper is a mid-size city the metro-area is the 14th largest in the country.