Is Detroit Really Making a Comeback?

[Bham1982]

Wow! With that type of credentialing, Vetting should take say 5 mins.

Current U.S. vetting is 2 years, requires unanimous approval from nine separate agencies, requires thousands in fees from an approved sponsor, and the vast majority of applicants are denied. Of course, certain fact-averse deplorables believe we have "open borders".

I think, if the country weren't so caught up in anti-immigrant hysteria, we would seek to somewhat loosen the requirements, while still keeping the country safe. Do you really need nine separate agencies signing off? Does it really take 2 years to reasonably ensure that a middle class professional family isn't going to be a threat?

They certainly won't need any food stamps or relocation assistance since their job skills will immediately be marketable in the U.S.

I don't know what this means. Sponsors [[churches, nonprofits, etc.) cover most of the relocation fees. No one claimed that all migrants are going to be earning professional salaries the second they step off the plane. Overall they will be a net economic positive, though; putting aside the moral imperative of saving lives, and taking responsibility for a region we destroyed, economists on the right and left agree on the broad economic benefits of immigration.

[dtowncitylover]

Wow! With that type of credentialing, Vetting should take say 5 mins.
They certainly won't need any food stamps or relocation assistance since their job skills will immediately be marketable in the U.S.
They just need to be trained to spend money on sporting events and how to properly BBQ and they will fit right in with the rest of the U.S.
Detroit better get that soccer stadium ready fast!

Not what anyone is saying at all. Obviously they are going to be vetted, but these people aren't stupid and yes can actually help the economy if they learn English and work hard, like immigrants have done for 200 years.

[GMan]

Current U.S. vetting is 2 years, requires unanimous approval from nine separate agencies, requires thousands in fees from an approved sponsor, and the vast majority of applicants are denied. Of course, certain fact-averse deplorables believe we have "open borders".

NO Way to Vet when government that people come from is in shambles because of civil war. Wheres the paperwork or other countries civil service to authenticate the documents?


I think, if the country weren't so caught up in anti-immigrant hysteria, we would seek to somewhat loosen the requirements, while still keeping the country safe. Do you really need nine separate agencies signing off? Does it really take 2 years to reasonably ensure that a middle class professional family isn't going to be a threat?



I don't know what this means. Sponsors [[churches, nonprofits, etc.) cover most of the relocation fees. No one claimed that all migrants are going to be earning professional salaries the second they step off the plane. Overall they will be a net economic positive, though; putting aside the moral imperative of saving lives, and taking responsibility for a region we destroyed, economists on the right and left agree on the broad economic benefits of immigration.

Church agencies that are getting paid for their services by???? the federal government.

I've been through a couple of vetting processes as both a witness and as a sponsor. What is happening here is not the same.

[Bigdd]

Current U.S. vetting is 2 years, requires unanimous approval from nine separate agencies, requires thousands in fees from an approved sponsor, and the vast majority of applicants are denied. Of course, certain fact-averse deplorables believe we have "open borders".

Unless of course they claim to be oppressed somehow,.. then they get a green card immediately. A distant relative of my wife falsely claimed to be oppressed by Communism. She wasn't in any way,.. she just wanted to have children she couldn't afford. She was allowed in with no wait. She got on social services in California and popped out a child 7 months later.

It pisses my wife off who did it the right way.

I think, if the country weren't so caught up in anti-immigrant hysteria, we would seek to somewhat loosen the requirements, while still keeping the country safe. Do you really need nine separate agencies signing off? Does it really take 2 years to reasonably ensure that a middle class professional family isn't going to be a threat?

I think you mean "Anti ILLEGAL immigrant rational". The forever lying leftist media keeps trying to claim it's anti-immigrant,.. but nothing could be further from the truth. I see you often repeating their propaganda.

And no,.. it shouldn't take 2 years if they are valuable employees. However that too has a consequence. And we actually have programs to expedite those very people. Firms here are laying off highly-skilled American engineers by the hundreds, and replacing them with engineers from India and other places under the expedited H-1B program.

So which do we do? Lay off highly-skilled Americans and bring in highly skilled foreigners to take their place,.. so that American companies can save lots of money? Then pay unemployment etc to the laid off workers?

Tough to figure out which direction is best. Both have an upside and a downside.

[Calltoaction]

Detroit is on par to have lost over 1.4 million residents since 1950 when the 2020 census comes out. This is an astronomical number that no other city in history has ever experienced. To put this loss in context, Mosul Iraq had a population of about 2 million before ISIS took over. During the ISIS occupation Mosul had about 1.5 million people.

Except these people didn't actually leave Detroit, they went to the suburbs, the metro has had a stable population with a steady increase since 1950. Metro Regions are the true bodies of cities these days, not city limits.
Detroit is no special case, every city in the US dramatically declined because of suburban sprawl, St. Louis actually lost a larger percentage of it's population than Detroit.

[313WX]

Detroit is no special case, every city in the US dramatically declined because of suburban sprawl, St. Louis actually lost a larger percentage of it's population than Detroit.

NYC
NYC has grown since the 1950s, and so have the vast majority of other top 20 US major cities.

Even Chicago and Philadelphia have only declined by roughly 25% of their peak population [[versus Detroit's 2/3rds and growing).

As far as St. Louis, then losing maybe a couple more percentage points of their share of population than us at most is nothing to brag about.

[Calltoaction]

NYC
NYC has grown since the 1950s, and so have the vast majority of other top 20 US major cities.

Even Chicago and Philadelphia have only declined by roughly 25% of their peak population [[versus Detroit's 2/3rds and growing).

As far as St. Louis, then losing maybe a couple more percentage points of their share of population than us at most is nothing to brag about.

I never said it was? That's a really bizarre statement for you to make.

The point is Detroit is not a unique case at all, New York would have went bankrupt too if the feds hadn't of granted them billions of dollars. Detroit is a little late to revitalize, that's about it. Detroit's Metro has grown in the same way and continues to be a prosperous region.

Suburbanization and urban decline happened to every single city in the US, fixing it is a choice.

[313WX]

I never said it was? That's a really bizarre statement for you to make.

The point is Detroit is not a unique case at all, New York would have went bankrupt too if the feds hadn't of granted them billions of dollars. Detroit is a little late to revitalize, that's about it. Detroit's Metro has grown in the same way and continues to be a prosperous region.

Suburbanization and urban decline happened to every single city in the US, fixing it is a choice.

Detroit is unique in that it's the only city of its scale to not only decline as much as it has, but also continue to steadily decline.

And since you shifted the goal posts from the city proper's population to the metro area's poulation, *Metro* Detroit has also been stagnant in its population since the 1970s while the vast majority of other Metro areas have continued to grow [[including Chicago and Philadelphia). In fact, Metro Detroit has fallen from a top 5 metro to [[last I checked) the #14 largest metro.

[MSUguy]

The Hudson-Webber Foundation’s 7.2 Square Miles report highlights the concentration of positive activities in the Downtown and Midtown areas of the city. Although home values in Midtown have increased by 5 percent since 2008

I'm going to call some fouls on this research the 7.2 sq mile report was published in February of 2015 most of the data cited in it is from 2012-2014. Anyone with slightest bit of local real estate knowledge knows Midtown property values are up more than 5 percent since 2008.

The second foul is on the Detroit employment data from 2007-2014 again using data that couple years old hardly give the most accurate picture of the city.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

http://detroit.curbed.com/maps/detro...ws-development

This map answers the ridiculously unnecessary question asked in this thread.

[emu steve]

NYC
NYC has grown since the 1950s, and so have the vast majority of other top 20 US major cities.

Even Chicago and Philadelphia have only declined by roughly 25% of their peak population [[versus Detroit's 2/3rds and growing).

As far as St. Louis, then losing maybe a couple more percentage points of their share of population than us at most is nothing to brag about.

I agree with your point.

We need to be VERY careful about discussing big urban cities.

I can grab say SOME of the 25 largest cities [[not-metro areas) and make what ever point I want about population declines [[or gains) in large cities. My guess is that the key is where is the city located: Rust belt? Either coast? Sun belt?

Someone with an interest in demography might write a paper: "Changing employment and population change in large U.S. cities." One could correlate income levels and population growth or decline. Population follows the good paying jobs. If they come, people come; if they leave, people leave.

I'm old enough to remember the migration from the South for good paying automobile jobs in Michigan say 50 years ago.

[emu steve]

Here is a Wikipedia table composed of Census bureau 2015 est and 2010 census data.

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

One can go from the most populous city, NYC, and work down to say #75 and find all of the cities which lost population and guess them.

#21 - Detroit,
#51 - Cleveland,
#60 - St. Louis,
#63 - Pittsburgh,
#71 - Toledo,
#78 - Buffalo

Quite frankly, anyone with a good knowledge of American current events should not be surprised.

Each of those cities suffered job losses and when jobs go, people go... People don't normally migrate to cities which are losing jobs.

Also what is surprising is how ROBUST population growth is in many, many large cities and I'm not talking just sunbelt. NYC, BOS, D.C. Columbus, Denver, Seattle, etc. are doing very nicely.

To say American large cities are in decline is not true. Some are, for known reasons, but most are not.

[emu steve]

BTW, this WaPo article on NAFTA and the border economy Texas/Mexico doesn't pertain to Detroit and automobiles, but it is really a good article on the 'economic ecosystem' in the textile industry around Juarez/El Paso.

It would be nice if someone wrote a similar article on automobiles... [[I was window shopping at a car dealer this week while getting mine serviced. One of the automobiles on the lot listed three foreign countries for engine manufacture [[Thailand), assembly [[think in Asia), etc. I think the only thing made in the U.S. was the window sticker I was reading... Ugh.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...=.7cf8c6f587b8

[GMan]

Here is a Wikipedia table composed of Census bureau 2015 est and 2010 census data.

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

One can go from the most populous city, NYC, and work down to say #75 and find all of the cities which lost population and guess them.

#21 - Detroit,
#51 - Cleveland,
#60 - St. Louis,
#63 - Pittsburgh,
#71 - Toledo,
#78 - Buffalo

Quite frankly, anyone with a good knowledge of American current events should not be surprised.

Each of those cities suffered job losses and when jobs go, people go... People don't normally migrate to cities which are losing jobs.

Also what is surprising is how ROBUST population growth is in many, many large cities and I'm not talking just sunbelt. NYC, BOS, D.C. Columbus, Denver, Seattle, etc. are doing very nicely.

To say American large cities are in decline is not true. Some are, for known reasons, but most are not.

I would hazard a guess that the cities in decline are historically based in manufacturing and failed to adjust as factories and the high paying, low knowledge based jobs left. The cities mentioned as thriving have high costs of living and a job market that can demand the talent and pay the wages that it takes to live in those cities. Along with the money comes the arts and entertainment industry which requires more than a ball game or movie theater. There is also the character factor of a city. Maintaining its sense of history which is a draw. Detroit has always been a working mans city built on the back of industry. That's not a glamorous selling point for many.

[emu steve]

I would hazard a guess that the cities in decline are historically based in manufacturing and failed to adjust as factories and the high paying, low knowledge based jobs left. The cities mentioned as thriving have high costs of living and a job market that can demand the talent and pay the wages that it takes to live in those cities. Along with the money comes the arts and entertainment industry which requires more than a ball game or movie theater. There is also the character factor of a city. Maintaining its sense of history which is a draw. Detroit has always been a working mans city built on the back of industry. That's not a glamorous selling point for many.

Absolutely, folks moved to Detroit 50 or 60 year ago for automobile employment. Probably not for the weather. Lol.

Folks moving to N. Dakota and other places such as Alaska in search of good paying jobs in the extraction industries, despite the weather. Who wants to live in say Florida but not have a good paying job?

Silicon Valley for IT. NYC for financial. D.C. as many have commented as federal employment grew. Say Miami/Miami Beach for leisure and hospitality and retirement [[someone had to build and staff Mar a Largo or all of these gated communities in say Boca Raton.).

As new industries [[e.g., IT) have grown over the last 3 or 4 decades so have they shaped employment.

As many know, IT can be done anywhere. So it most likely to end up where the weather is nice, a lot of great universities, great culture, etc. Hello, Silicon Valley.

In the D.C. there is a small, growing biotech industry. Why D.C. similar to Silicon Valley and close to the Federal government.

Detroit has NO new industries I can think. Everything they seem to have, e.g., manufacturing, medical, etc. etc. are industries which they have had for decades.

I think two mid-Michigan cities are also good case studies:

Midland is a company, headquarters town [[Dow) and it has thrived.

Bay City was built on automobile factories in the Bay City/Saginaw area and has declined badly.

I think those two cities are about 25 miles apart.

[iheartthed]

Detroit within its current boundaries will never be the 4th largest city in the US again. Maybe there is some version of the world where it could reach its previous peak population, but that seems super unlikely unless the population of the US grows wildly above what I would expect. Neither of those things would be required for me to think there was a comeback, because I don't define a comeback as requiring you to get all the way back to your peak, but rather recovering a decent way from your nadir. A stable, increasingly affluent population, reduction in the percentage of the population in poverty, more employment within the city, reduced physical decrepitude, all would be nice indicators of a comeback in my book.

Yes, "comeback" is subjective. But "comeback" is not the noun I would use to speak about Detroit's present day status. I think a more appropriate question is has Detroit stabilized yet?

[iheartthed]

Absolutely, folks moved to Detroit 50 or 60 year ago for automobile employment. Probably not for the weather. Lol.

Folks moving to N. Dakota and other places such as Alaska in search of good paying jobs in the extraction industries, despite the weather. Who wants to live in say Florida but not have a good paying job?

Silicon Valley for IT. NYC for financial. D.C. as many have commented as federal employment grew. Say Miami/Miami Beach for leisure and hospitality and retirement [[someone had to build and staff Mar a Largo or all of these gated communities in say Boca Raton.).

I agree with the bottom line [[the Detroit area is not attracting new blood) but disagree with the cause. If you go back 40 years and look at industry in New York, San Francisco, Boston, etc., they all had different predominant industries than they do today. Go back 40 years ago and look at Detroit and it's the same industry. Go back a few decades further and those cities had different economies than they did 40 years ago.

I think that the ability of a city to transition its economy is central to whether it remains a major population center. Detroit, for whatever reason, has been unable to do this. Detroit is going through what the South went through in the 19th century after the cotton gin made cotton farming dramatically more efficient... except without all the organized domestic terrorism... so far.

[noise]

I think you mean "Anti ILLEGAL immigrant rational". The forever lying leftist media keeps trying to claim it's anti-immigrant,.. but nothing could be further from the truth. I see you often repeating their propaganda.

My eyes rolled so hard it almost took DYes offline.

Come on. This is absurd. Pay some attention to the world and the rhetoric. You don't exist in a vacuum. And you don't need the "forever lying leftist media" to confirm what people like you are actually saying.

[Bham1982]

I think you mean "Anti ILLEGAL immigrant rational". The forever lying leftist media keeps trying to claim it's anti-immigrant,.. but nothing could be further from the truth. I see you often repeating their propaganda.

This entire statement is bizarre, right-wing nonsense.

Trump and his Deplorables are against immigration, period. They don't like "foreigners" and want to build walls, both physical and metaphorical, around our borders.

Trump wants to drastically cut LEGAL immigration. He wants to drastically cut LEGAL refugees. He even sought to block LEGAL Green Card holders and U.S. residents from entering the country. He called LEGAL Mexicans "rapists and murderers". He called LEGAL Latinas "Miss Housekeeping". He's a bigot, and so are his deplorable followers.

If Trump truly only cared about illegal immigration, then he would start by deporting his wife [[who worked illegally under a tourist visa), he would stop employing illegals in his businesses, and he would go after U.S. employers, who are the only reason there are any undocumented Americans. But he isn't doing any of this, and never will.

He hates foreigners [[unless they're hot Eastern European models) and brown people, and was elected on a platform of demonizing such people.

[Bigdd]

My eyes rolled so hard it almost took DYes offline.

Come on. This is absurd. Pay some attention to the world and the rhetoric. You don't exist in a vacuum. And you don't need the "forever lying leftist media" to confirm what people like you are actually saying.

That response means you do not have an answer,.. and believe yourself to be wrong.

IF you thought you were right,.. you would state why.

BHam is totally wrong,.. but at least he believes what he is saying.

[Bigdd]

This entire statement is bizarre, right-wing nonsense.

It wasn't a statement,... it was a question,. for which I have yet to hear a coherent answer.

Trump and his Deplorables are against immigration, period. They don't like "foreigners" and want to build walls, both physical and metaphorical, around our borders.

There you go with the name calling again. The sure sign of someone that knows they're wrong. Of course you build walls,.. so you can control who comes in. That's not racists,.. that means you wish to have a country,.. and then protect it. Letting in only those that are legal,..and keeping out those who are illegal,. and hopefully a good chunk of the drugs too. You really can't understand that?

Trump wants to drastically cut LEGAL immigration. He wants to drastically cut LEGAL refugees. He even sought to block LEGAL Green Card holders and U.S. residents from entering the country. He called LEGAL Mexicans "rapists and murderers". He called LEGAL Latinas "Miss Housekeeping". He's a bigot, and so are his deplorable followers.

I think one time he failed to qualify his statement on the rapists thing,.. and ever since he has made sure to carefully qualify what he meant. But you persist. Yet I don't hear you banging on and on about how Hillary once said she wanted to have big tax increases on the middle class. Hmmm. I smell the familiar stench of liberal hypocrisy.

The number of immigrants let in varies over time. Having a lot of refugees and tens of millions of illegals means the system is overloaded. So reducing all types of people coming in for a while makes sense. [[Especially from the 7 failed states where vetting is not possible) Once the illegal and refugee problem is sorted out,.. the number of legal immigrants let in per year can be adjusted to a proper level.

Hillary referred to the Latina vote as the "taco bowl". Why aren't you railing against the Democrats? I smell the familiar stench of liberal hypocrisy.

If Trump truly only cared about illegal immigration, then he would start by deporting his wife [[who worked illegally under a tourist visa), he would stop employing illegals in his businesses, and he would go after U.S. employers, who are the only reason there are any undocumented Americans. But he isn't doing any of this, and never will.

Soooo,.. you have evidence no one else does? What illegals does he employ? And no,.. employers AREN'T the only reason there are illegals. You PRESUME that 100% of illegals are here to work hard, and none are here to free-load or import dope. But that's not the case,.. and the crimes they commit and the social services they consume cost us $90+ BILLION a year. Enough to build more than 4 walls every year.

He hates foreigners [[unless they're hot Eastern European models) and brown people, and was elected on a platform of demonizing such people.

What makes you think that? Any evidence? I've not heard him say anything of the sort. You're just making that up aren't you?

[Richard]

Not what anyone is saying at all. Obviously they are going to be vetted, but these people aren't stupid and yes can actually help the economy if they learn English and work hard, like immigrants have done for 200 years.

Depends on where you live,try Miami or Orlando,if you do not speak Spanish,do not expect to find a job.

[softailrider]

I didn't read that City Lab report but I would say that a lot of the neighborhoods are looking noticeably better. These are the parts of town that held up the best during the decades long downturn though. People do seem to me to be taking more pride in their houses. However, a lot of the neighborhoods look noticeably worse, I would say that 50 to 60 percent of the city is still very much FU'ed. That might be a optimistic number. The neighborhood business districts are almost totally gone. What is shocking to me is that the number of apartment building throughout the city that remain are perhaps 25% of what were viable 30 years ago, again, that might be an optimistic number.

Another thing that's weird to me is how big the differences can be block to block. An example would be East State Fair off Gratiot. The neighborhood is beautiful, almost every house is a gem. One block over on Tacoma the street looks like some city in Iraq after a heavy duty bombing.

[Bham1982]

Depends on where you live,try Miami or Orlando,if you do not speak Spanish,do not expect to find a job.

This is absurd. Even second-generation U.S. Hispanics barely speak Spanish. The kids of Spanish-speaking immigrants all speak English in school and with their friends, obviously. I'm in Miami for work frequently and have never encountered a language problem.

If anything the problem in the U.S. is too much English and not enough foreign language proficiency. Fluent Spanish, German, Japanese, or Mandarin-speaking engineers in Metro Detroit have a HUGE employment advantage.

Do Deplorables really believe all their crazy claims? They think our ultra-militarized border is "open"? They think there are "no go zones" in Sweden and "Sharia law" in Germany? They think refugee children being massacred are "threats" while gun-toting nutcase Americans are "patriots". Now they apparently think Florida is a defacto Spanish-speaking state. Every day the claims get crazier.