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

[emu steve]

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.

That is pretty much part of the point I was making at the start of this thread.

BUT population itself [[per se) is not we are interested in. Let me explain.

Historically, cities and metro areas which are/were very large got a lot of the perks of that size.

Most obvious was professional sports teams and also cultural attractions. Is there the Grand Rapids Institutes of Arts? Does G.R. have MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA, etc. teams? Does it have a university as large as WSU?

Is it home to an industry or major employer? Have a very large downtown commercial hub?

I like to use Jacksonville as a point of comparison. It has vastly more land [[as was noted), much larger population, etc. etc. BUT how many of the perks that Detroit has? It has a mild climate and a bad football team, but isn't a great city by any stretch.

No offense to El Paso but I can't name one thing [[attraction) about the city other than hosting a university.

[mwilbert]

I don't trust Census estimates at all [[as distinguished from the decennial enumerations) but at face value this is a marked slowing of population loss. Assuming that this is a more-or-less correct number, as housing production in greater Downtown continues to increase it is very likely that we will see a citywide annual population increase before the end of the decade. Unlikely that there will be 2010-2020 gain, but I suppose it is possible.

[Gistok]

In fact Bloomfield Hills has some of the largest declines, because it's the oldest community in the state.

I had a real chuckle in your response... you called someone else out for being incredibly silly... and in the same post you mention this doozy.

The oldest communities in the state are Sault St. Marie [[1668), St. Ignace [[1688) and Detroit [[1701).... Bloomfield Hills became a village in 1927 and a city in 1932. Just try to remember... it's way down the list....

[mwilbert]

I had a real chuckle in your response... you called someone else out for being incredibly silly... and in the same post you mention this doozy.

The oldest communities in the state are Sault St. Marie [[1668), St. Ignace [[1688) and Detroit [[1701).... Bloomfield Hills became a village in 1927 and a city in 1932. Just try to remember... it's way down the list....

I'm pretty sure he meant the age of the residents, not the age of the municipality.

[masterblaster]

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...

El Paso has MOUNTAINS, which is very important to a lot of people. A ton of people love the outdoor recreation of hiking in rugged terrain and mountains. This is one of the big reasons why cities like Seattle and Denver and Phoenix are so popular. Plus El Paso is in a state with no income tax. In addition, like you posted, EL Paso has warm weather, a lot of people are leaving the northeast and Midwest to escape the cold.

[iheartthed]

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?

Detroit City is still bigger than some other cities that we would all call large cities [[Atlanta, Miami, Washington, D.C.). However, Detroit wasn't just a big city, it used to be one of the biggest. It was in a league of American cities that had no other peers.

Maybe one of the reasons that Detroiters think of themselves as still living in a big city is because Detroit occupied a space that few other cities have been in. In the past 100 years there have been 4 cities consistently in the top 5: NYC, Chicago, LA, Phil. Detroit occupied that top 5 space with the others for roughly 50 of those hundred years. Many people alive today were alive when Detroit was a top 5 city.

[Bham1982]

El Paso has MOUNTAINS, which is very important to a lot of people. A ton of people love the outdoor recreation of hiking in rugged terrain and mountains. This is one of the big reasons why cities like Seattle and Denver and Phoenix are so popular. Plus El Paso is in a state with no income tax. In addition, like you posted, EL Paso has warm weather, a lot of people are leaving the northeast and Midwest to escape the cold.

El Paso is a small city that barely has any population growth. It's basically "Rust Belt" for Texas standards of growth. The city population is surprisingly large because basically the entire metro is within city limits.

I doubt too many people are moving to El Paso for outdoor recreation or weather. El Paso gets snow and cold, and is mostly surrounded by the Sonoran desert. It's a city dominated by Mexican Americans and military folks, or people with interests in adjacent, much larger Juarez, which is a hellhole.

[Bham1982]

I'm pretty sure he meant the age of the residents, not the age of the municipality.

Yes, obviously I was referring to the median age of the residents. Old communities will have lower household size [[because empty nesters and widows/widowers).

A city's founding date would be unrelated to household size.

[Armin]

El Paso gets snow and cold, and is mostly surrounded by the Sonoran desert. .

The Sonoran desert isn't even close to Texas. El Paso is located in the Chihuahuan Desert

[Bham1982]

The Sonoran desert isn't even close to Texas. El Paso is located in the Chihuahuan Desert

Oops, my bad. Yeah, it's the Chihuahuan Desert. I've taken a desolate drive south of El Paso/Juarez, and there's nothing.

[ABetterDetroit]

The Sonoran desert isn't even close to Texas. El Paso is located in the Chihuahuan Desert

Hey...slow down here. Bham knows everything so of course they must have moved El Paso Texas to Arizona.

[Bham1982]

Hey...slow down here. Bham knows everything so of course they must have moved El Paso Texas to Arizona.

Yep, you got me. Obviously I got my desert wastelands mixed up, which, of course, invalidates the Census results.

[maverick1]

Detroit City is still bigger than some other cities that we would all call large cities [[Atlanta, Miami, Washington, D.C.). However, Detroit wasn't just a big city, it used to be one of the biggest. It was in a league of American cities that had no other peers.

Maybe one of the reasons that Detroiters think of themselves as still living in a big city is because Detroit occupied a space that few other cities have been in. In the past 100 years there have been 4 cities consistently in the top 5: NYC, Chicago, LA, Phil. Detroit occupied that top 5 space with the others for roughly 50 of those hundred years. Many people alive today were alive when Detroit was a top 5 city.

We forget this. Most cities in America have never been in the top 5 or 10 in the last 100 years. Being in the top 5 is upper echelon. Top 10 is still an elite group. I don't know how much it matters now because so many cities have annexed their neighbors, so their numbers are bigger. What's interesting is that over the last 100 years most of the cities that fell out of the top 10 all had a prominent manufacturing based economy.

[TTime]

Detroit City is still bigger than some other cities that we would all call large cities [[Atlanta, Miami, Washington, D.C.). However, Detroit wasn't just a big city, it used to be one of the biggest. It was in a league of American cities that had no other peers.

Maybe one of the reasons that Detroiters think of themselves as still living in a big city is because Detroit occupied a space that few other cities have been in. In the past 100 years there have been 4 cities consistently in the top 5: NYC, Chicago, LA, Phil. Detroit occupied that top 5 space with the others for roughly 50 of those hundred years. Many people alive today were alive when Detroit was a top 5 city.

You make a valid point in regard to the population of those 3 cities. It really speaks to how much land is contained within Detroit proper. It's also really interesting to step back and look at the list because many of the towns with the largest populations don't have the skyline to match. Unfortunately for Detroit it doesn't have the the skyline or downtown to compete with the big boys and now it doesn't have the population either.

[archfan]

No offense to El Paso but I can't name one thing [[attraction) about the city other than hosting a university.

I use their taco sauce sometimes.

[casscorridor]

Detroit City is still bigger than some other cities that we would all call large cities [[Atlanta, Miami, Washington, D.C.). However, Detroit wasn't just a big city, it used to be one of the biggest. It was in a league of American cities that had no other peers.

Maybe one of the reasons that Detroiters think of themselves as still living in a big city is because Detroit occupied a space that few other cities have been in. In the past 100 years there have been 4 cities consistently in the top 5: NYC, Chicago, LA, Phil. Detroit occupied that top 5 space with the others for roughly 50 of those hundred years. Many people alive today were alive when Detroit was a top 5 city.

Yeah, it's a sad fate. Had Detroit invested its vast resources into great city building projects such as a rapid transit system, and several more universities, things might be different.

I would also add a few cities, although not as large in population, were just as important while Detroit was in the top 5, and continue to be today namely Boston, San Francisco and Washington DC. They all have large urban cores, complex mass transport systems and many universities; and in the case of DC, the nation's capital.

[313WX]

Folks on another board made a couple interesting points to in regards to Detroit's population numbers. Make of these points what you will:

1. In a town like Detroit with the poor schools, high poverty rate and lack of good-paying jobs, you have a ton of people [[derelicts basically) who are hesitant to participate in the Census because of their distrust of government or legal problems. So essentially, they either won't send the forms back at all, they'll under report the number of people living with them, or they don't answer the door when the surveyors stop by. And in many many neighborhoods where you have a ton of renters, the landlords and neighbors may only know of the primary residents living there, but not any additional tenants.

2. People discuss the growth that's taking place in areas such as Downtown and Midtown, but how many of these people are still using suburban addresses to dodge Detroit's high insurance rates and income tax. This is especially true for retirees who have bought homes outright in the suburbs or yuppies who have parents that still live in the suburbs. Thus, the question is to what extent will this growth even reflect itself in the official numbers?

[313WX]

AS far as Detroiters [[including suburbanites) still being of the mind set that Detroit is still a large city. Although the city has fewer people that call it home and its skyline from a modern context leaves a lot to be desired:

1. Detroit still has big city infrastructure left over from its hey day that's only on par with places such as Philadelphia, Chicago, NYC, Los Angeles, etc.

Places like Seattle, El Paso, Charlotte, etc. don't have bus routes, airports, street-lighting patterns, museums, theatres, sports teams, zoning patterns, government, politics, etc. nearly as extensive as Detroit does.

2. Detroit is still a much bigger economic powerhouse that these other cities with its proximity to one of America's biggest trading partners and the Auto Industry. Even the smaller and leaner GM and Ford [[given all of the suppliers, law firms, accounting firms, advertising firms, etc. that depend on their existence) are still vital to the health of the country's economy.

3. Detroit's history is far richer than most top 20 cities of today. Places such as Houston, Phoenix, etc. can't lay claim to the fact that:

*They graced the world with the Motown sound,
*They were home to the 2nd largest department store in the world
*They are home to the 2nd largest movie house in the world
*They're home to the largest Maasonic Temple in the world
*They invented foods such as Detroit-style pizza or the Coney Island
*They invented the oldest Gingle Ale in the world
*They're the hub for the busiest international crossing in the world

[Bham1982]

Folks on another board made a couple interesting points to in regards to Detroit's population numbers. Make of these points what you will:

1. In a town like Detroit with the poor schools, high poverty rate and lack of good-paying jobs, you have a ton of people [[derelicts basically) who are hesitant to participate in the Census because of their distrust of government or legal problems. So essentially, they either won't send the forms back at all, they'll under report the number of people living with them, or they don't answer the door when the surveyors stop by. And in many many neighborhoods where you have a ton of renters, the landlords and neighbors may only know of the primary residents living there, but not any additional tenants.

2. People discuss the growth that's taking place in areas such as Downtown and Midtown, but how many of these people are still using suburban addresses to dodge Detroit's high insurance rates and income tax. This is especially true for retirees who have bought homes outright in the suburbs or yuppies who have parents that still live in the suburbs. Thus, the question is to what extent will this growth even reflect itself in the official numbers?

Keep in mind these are imputed estimates. They're taking these issues into account.

And there are similar issues in all cities. What about the tons of undocumented immigrants in NYC and LA, for example? What about the anti-govt. yahoos in certain parts of the country? What about people with outstanding warrants? The homeless in SF? The snowbirds in Oakland County?

There are plenty of people who don't want to be counted, or who fudge home address for tax/insurance/legal reasons. This isn't a count, though.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Hey...slow down here. Bham knows everything so of course they must have moved El Paso Texas to Arizona.

Knows everything, been everywhere. Not gonna sneak anything by this guy......

[Gistok]

Population and land size are 2 important factors in figuring out city size. Some cities such as Indianapolis and Toronto have expanded via incorporating towns and cities beyond their original boundaries.... something that Detroit hasn't done since the 1920s.

If Detroit were to have incorporated many of the suburbs, [[after the screams of indignation from the outer folks) we'd have a city with nearly 4 million people, but without any suburbs.

So when you factor in the size of the newly incorporated areas... things tend to look differently.

So yeah.... when you factor in the incorporated land areas... you'll find out that the reason some of these cities are larger than Detroit includes the fact that they have 3-4 times the land area of Detroit [[Houston, San Antonio, Phoenix, Jacksonville, Indianapolis... etc)....

After all Detroit is the 65th largest city in America by land area..... so let's keep things in perspective, instead of basing your comments narrowly focused on just population numbers....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...cities_by_area

[Jason]

Also, Detroit is still in the top 25 cities in the world by GDP, U of M is one of the biggest research universities in the country, GM and Ford are some of the biggest companies in the world. There are a lot of genuinely good things about Detroit that are linked to the city's previous size, but which still exist and aren't demolished or historical factoids. These are things that can be built on moving forward.

On one hand it seems like there's so much great stuff and potential that with the right spark there could be a lot of quality growth, and on the other hand all of our historical problems [[poverty, corruption, race, etc.) seem so impossible to overcome. It's a mix of both I suppose.

Regardless a stabilized population is fantastic.

[iheartthed]

Population and land size are 2 important factors in figuring out city size. Some cities such as Indianapolis and Toronto have expanded via incorporating towns and cities beyond their original boundaries.... something that Detroit hasn't done since the 1920s.

If Detroit were to have incorporated many of the suburbs, [[after the screams of indignation from the outer folks) we'd have a city with nearly 4 million people, but without any suburbs.

So when you factor in the size of the newly incorporated areas... things tend to look differently.

So yeah.... when you factor in the incorporated land areas... you'll find out that the reason some of these cities are larger than Detroit includes the fact that they have 3-4 times the land area of Detroit [[Houston, San Antonio, Phoenix, Jacksonville, Indianapolis... etc)....

After all Detroit is the 65th largest city in America by land area..... so let's keep things in perspective, instead of basing your comments narrowly focused on just population numbers....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...cities_by_area

However, if Detroit still had its 1950 population it would be still be one of the 5 largest cities in the U.S.

[IrishSpartan]

However, if Detroit still had its 1950 population it would be still be one of the 5 largest cities in the U.S.

It would be still in the Top 5 with the 1960 population and just barely outside the current Top 5 using the 1970 population, which was Detroit's final decennial year in the Top 5.

[iheartthed]

It would be still in the Top 5 with the 1960 population and just barely outside the current Top 5 using the 1970 population, which was Detroit's final decennial year in the Top 5.

Yes, the point I was making is that the only reason Detroit is not a top 5 city in 2016 is due to a dramatic population decline. It's not because of the growth rate in other cities, nor is it about how they have drawn the boundaries of other cities.