713,000

[DetroitPole]

Jesus Christ, we're fucked.

[MrJones]

Every city bitches about being undercounted, but this is just ridiculous. The real number is 750,000 at the lowest.

You seem so sure your number is correct rather than the agency whose job it's been for over 200 years to count the population...
I wonder if Detroit's number may have been INFLATED, due to mail-in census forms. What's up with the psychotic denial exhibited by folks early on in the thread, and pointing fingers and toes at Oakland/Macomb County numbers as not really increases?

I hope that percentage of the population who doesn't care but studiously pays their tax bill is ready to fork over the $240,000,000 that Detroit just lost in federal funding.

Oh, now I understand the stakes a little better,

[English]

Wow, that's powerful stuff.

Also some very good points by English in here. My Detroit is also more recent [[72-86 living) and what we considered ghetto then, is now gone or so abandoned that it really should be. There was a lot of crime when I grew up but it was unthinkable to see an abandoned house anywhere near my neighborhood near W. Chicago and Evergreen. Now that neighborhood has boarded up houses and the fire but has even hit it somewhat [[more towards Tireman than towards Joy).

All the people that lived in my neighborhood are gone except for some elderly who long ago finished paying for their house. For those people they barely hang on to a sense of the past that actually forced my family out. To those people those were the good ole days. Yeah the crack epidemic and runaway crime was better than bad mortgages and total flight from the city.

Those who could leave have left. Many who are left behind wished they had, because now they are stuck. This has happened over and over again since the 1960s, rich flight, white flight, African American flight and just flight these days. At some point this will stop, it has to but whoever is still in that city for the most part is as desperate of a population as you'll find. I always go back to the neighborhood when I'm in town to visit the lady across the street from the house I grew up in. She said her daughter lives in Madison Heights now and that the daughter wants her to move there because our neighborhood is no longer stable enough to be trusted. This includes visits by her grandchildren and great grandchildren, they no longer want to even visit the city anymore. And this is Franklin Park, there are dozens of neighborhoods worse off in every single way.

I am an optimistic person and I really bash those people not from Detroit that hold the city in contempt. But between Detroiters I sometimes have trouble being optimistic, I am terrified I will not only never get to see the Detroit my Dad enjoyed in the 50s...but even the Detroit I enjoyed in the mid to late 70s and early 80s. I mean seriously I know five or six people that live in the city now, 30 years ago almost everyone I knew and most of my family lived within the borders.

Detroit just can't catch a break, hasn't been able to catch one in 30 or 40 years it seems. Not sure what else to say, I love the city like it was my family but it's getting pretty tough for even me to swallow all this bad news year after year, decade after decade.

Wow. This is my story, too. It sounds like you're from my generation -- you've just got a few years on me. Never thought that the 70s, 80s, and 90s would be the good old days, huh?

I think all metro Detroiters have been going through some kind of low-grade PTSD for decades now. After all, if we'd lost our childhood homes, neighborhoods, and schools to war or a nuclear disaster, people would feel sorry for us. The scale of what has happened to metro Detroit is unprecedented in US history.

I'm not a naysayer. But what a sad, sad day.

[JTistle1]

Considering Detroit is approximately 138 square miles, that means every single resident could have 17.818 acres to themselves. What other major city can claim that?

[mwilbert]

You seem so sure your number is correct rather than the agency whose job it's been for over 200 years to count the population...

While I agree that it is hard to disagree with the Census numbers without some substantial basis for doing so, it is also true that the methods the Census is required to use to count people for apportionment almost certainly lead to undercounts, especially in areas with large populations of irregularly housed and employed people. But while the exact number obviously has an effect on the city's finances, the basic story wouldn't change for any plausible undercount--people were fleeing at a truly impressive rate. The big question is how many are left who are waiting to flee.

I have to agree with English--if the city is actually going to lose that much funding, the governor should start looking for an EFM right now.

[Carey]

Someone on this thread, it doesn't matter who, wrote: "At some point Detroit will bounce back but a population between 750k and 1 million is probably about right long-term."

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Detroit will turn around. Haven't we been waiting for a "turnaround" since about 1970?

I love Detroit, but my optimism decreases in proportion to the population loss.

[mwilbert]

Considering Detroit is approximately 138 square miles, that means every single resident could have 17.818 acres to themselves. What other major city can claim that?

You slipped a digit someplace. The correct number is about an eighth of an acre.

[Carey]

From NYT story:

Laying bare the country’s most startling example of modern urban collapse, census data on Tuesday showed that Detroit’s population had plunged by 25 percent over the last decade. It was dramatic testimony to the crumbling industrial base of the Midwest, black flight to the suburbs and the tentative future of what was once one of America’s most thriving cities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/23/us/23detroit.html?hpw

[Lombaowski]

Someone on this thread, it doesn't matter who, wrote: "At some point Detroit will bounce back but a population between 750k and 1 million is probably about right long-term."

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Detroit will turnaround. Haven't we been waiting for a "turnaround" since about 1970?

I love Detroit, but my optimism decreases in proportion to the population loss.

I wrote it but saying there is absolutely no evidence Detroit will turn around is equally as flawed. The city has a metropolitan population of 4+ million people and a few good breaks will add people to the area. I mean it can't get much worse than it is now, at some point the region WILL rebound and the city of Detroit would definitely benefit.

Rightsizing, ridding the city of it's inefficiencies, making it livable and bringing the tax base back are all very possible. You're talking like it's Chernobyl, it can definitely rebound and given its geography, proximity to shipping and its role as a major international border city all benefit it...forever. It just needs a lot of work and a ot of commitment, a few good mayors and a few thousand citizens can get it down. Throw in better business environments, tax breaks for corporations and residents alike, flood the streets with police, push the bad element to Inkster and WALA!

[Buy American]

The decline of Detroit didn't just happen...it's been steadily going down for years. Too many people thought Toyotas and Hondas were better than a Chrysler or a Chevy or a Ford. When that mindset took hold, Detroit began its decline, plain and simple.

Stop major crime in Detroit, get rid of thugs and gangs and drug dealers; clean up the City [[not too many care about what their neighborhood looks like); get some police on the streets, EMS up and working, get some decent fire equipment; get rid of the corruption in City Hall [[and I don't mean Bing); fix the DPS; give the citizens something for the high taxes they are paying and then maybe Detroit stands a chance to turn itself around.

[Lombaowski]

The decline of Detroit didn't just happen...it's been steadily going down for years. Too many people thought Toyotas and Hondas were better than a Chrysler or a Chevy or a Ford. When that mindset took hold, Detroit began its decline, plain and simple.

Um, no. Hondas and Toyotas contributed to the downfall but mostly because Detroit just made shitty cars in the 70s and 80s and the unions were fat, bloated and overpaid. Detroit began its decline in the 1950s, not in the 1980s and the riots, the segregation, the fair housing act, the crack epidemic, runaway crime and finally the mortgage crisis had more to do with the city's fall than people buying Hondas.

I can't believe people still talk like this, incredible.

[mwilbert]

I love Detroit, but my optimism decreases in proportion to the population loss.

Mine does not. It has been apparent for some time that the population loss wasn't going to stop with 700,000 people still left in the city. I didn't expect it to get here so quickly, but there are advantages to it happening faster. The more this looks like an emergency [[and yes, it has looked like an emergency for a long time, but some people are slow on the uptake) the sooner something useful can be done. In my opinion it is better to get as many people who don't want to be in the city out of it and into more congenial situations as soon as possible, and to have a smaller city that is easier to deal with. It is true there will be less revenue, but there wasn't enough revenue before either. What is needed is a sense of urgency and an willingness to completely rethink what the city is doing. Probably the EFM will help with that.

[JTistle1]

138 square miles = 3847219200 square feet = 88320 acre divided by 713777 people = 0.123736125 acres per person. Must have entered something wrong first time .....sorry. At least I admit my mistakes!

[Carey]

Lomba: I hesitate to get into a discussion in which I argue for the further demise of Detroit, because I want it to flourish. But people have been saying for decades now that "it can't get much worse." But it keeps getting worse, and it's never been as bad as now. Parts of the city improve, like Midtown is improving. But the larger city keeps deteriorating. Population loss is not a positive development, no matter how you spin it. I still haven't read one comment on this thread that points to anything solid that is going to turn the city around, with very tangible negatives out there like increasing money problems; further population loss; the decline in manufacturing...I'll stop there. I hope you are right, but I don't see it.

[Buy American]

Um, no. Hondas and Toyotas contributed to the downfall but mostly because Detroit just made shitty cars in the 70s and 80s and the unions were fat, bloated and overpaid. Detroit began its decline in the 1950s, not in the 1980s and the riots, the segregation, the fair housing act, the crack epidemic, runaway crime and finally the mortgage crisis had more to do with the city's fall than people buying Hondas.

I can't believe people still talk like this, incredible.

Believe it...I was born and raised in Detroit and I don't look at the city through rose colored glasses like some do. I've seen the decline and the reasons for it. Riots, crime, and yes, mortgage crisis played a big part in what has happened. Don't blame the unions for the problems, the unions helped establish the middle class which is waning as we speak. We have the rich and we have the poor, nothing in the middle any longer. You think it's incredible that people still believe in the American Auto Industry and I think it's incredible that some people believe that it's someone elses fault that Detroit turned out like it has.

When Detroit residents continuously voted in a thug who raped and pillaged the City, who brought it to its' knees, I knew there was no turning back to the way it was. The voters of Detroit were sending a message to other communities to mind their own business, Detroit can handle it's own problems, we don't need or want your help. Well look what's happenening now...even the most staunch supporters of Detroit are leaving. Hell, even the thugs and drug dealers are leaving according to the crime statistics in some suburban communities.

[Lombaowski]

Believe it...I was born and raised in Detroit and I don't look at the city through rose colored glasses like some do. I've seen the decline and the reasons for it. Riots, crime, and yes, mortgage crisis played a big part in what has happened. Don't blame the unions for the problems, the unions helped establish the middle class which is waning as we speak. We have the rich and we have the poor, nothing in the middle any longer. You think it's incredible that people still believe in the American Auto Industry and I think it's incredible that some people believe that it's someone elses fault that Detroit turned out like it has.

When Detroit residents continuously voted in a thug who raped and pillaged the City, who brought it to its' knees, I knew there was no turning back to the way it was. The voters of Detroit were sending a message to other communities to mind their own business, Detroit can handle it's own problems, we don't need or want your help. Well look what's happenening now...even the most staunch supporters of Detroit are leaving. Hell, even the thugs and drug dealers are leaving according to the crime statistics in some suburban communities.

Ok, now you're putting words in my mouth. I think it's great what we've done as of late but what I said was that we pushed out some really bad vehicles in the 70s and 80s giving the advantage to the Japanese. Unions play a big role in the decline of Detroit because they took, took, took while sending out inferior products for decades. So if you want to blame Toyota and Honda I would suggest you look at the reality of the auto industry in Detroit that let them take the market share while the employees were severely overpaid and benefit hungry while doing it.

As far as Coleman Young which I believe you are referencing, he was brought to power long before Detroit starting putting out crappy cars which kind of makes my point for me. He was brought in because of racism, real estate speculation and the end to segregation in the city. White people left, the blacks got the voting majority and Young was brought in. We are getting way off track here but Young did the city no favors when he could have stabilized a city on its heels just six years after the riots had shook it to its core. But by that time and about the same time I was born, the city was well on its way to where it is today. The auto industry buoyed the city for a time but in those years plants were shifting outside the city and all the auto hamlets where neighborhoods had tool and die shops, parts warehouses and all the infrastructure to support the plants and associated machines of labor moved out too.

Detroit also never had real strong ethnic enclaves which hurt it in the long run, and people weren't as inclined to stay at the first sight of trouble. It took decades to move Italians out of East Harlem, it took a few months to move a scared white family out of a neighborhood off Grand River in 1968. and this phenomenon continues today, all over the country. D.C. is a great example as the NE side is gentrifying and pushing all many lower income families into the surrounding counties [[well mostly just Prince George County). Then people in those PG County neighborhoods move to nearby counties completely changing the complextion of a significant metropolitan area in about a decade. Housing prices are impacted going up in DC, down in PG while tax bases shift and tug and pull.

Anyway I'm way off track now, but what has happened to Detroit is a 10,000 page book in very small font. People want to simplify it and usually those people are from places like Phoenix or Denver, suburbanite experts who only relate to city issues because they once rode a city bus. I caution those people that one day their strip malls and houses built in six days with cheap materials will one day lose their luster because that is the worst kind of living. Everything is cyclical, Detroit will have its day again but it won't be anytime soon.

[Virgule]

Could be worse... Highland Park lost a third of its population.

Anyway, as I understand it Michigan has special statutes for cities with a population of more than 750,000. Now that Detroit is below that, what does this mean for the city?

[Don K]

No, it's simply more obvious than ever that we need to diversify our industrial base [[and therefore our economy) to survive. You can't go back to the economic structure of the '50s and '60s. It's time to stop relying on the auto industry as a crutch.

I would think that folks would be sick and tired of living and dying with the car companies by now. I know I am.

Amen. The Detroit area hitched its wagon to the auto industry a century ago, rode the wagon to prosperity, and now has ridden it back down the hill again. The metropolitan population numbers are a reflection of this fact. It's time to recognize we can't re-create the Detroit [[or the Detroit area) of the 50's and 60's; the auto companies will never again be the drivers of prosperity in the area [[and I say that as one who retired from Ford and who depends on Ford for my pension and my health coverage, at least until I reach 65).

As far as Detroit itself goes, we have to ask why Detroit was uniquely unattractive among the largest cities in the U.S. in 1950 that it has fallen so far. I've only looked at population trends for Detroit and Philadelphia [[I grew up in the Philly area), so that's what I'll concentrate on here. In 1950, Detroit had 1.85 million people, while Philadelphia had 2.07 million. The Philly metro area [[eight counties in Pennsylvania and South Jersey) had 3.67 million, while the Detroit metro area [[I'm defining it as the three counties plus Lapeer, Livingston, St Clair, and Washtenaw) had 3.3 million. By 1960 [[pre-riots), the Detroit area had grown by 25% [[good decade for the auto companies) vs. 18% for the Philadelphia area, but Detroit had lost 10% of its population, while Philadelphia proper had only lost 3%. In every succeeding decade, the metro populations pretty much kept pace with each other, so that by 2000 the Detroit area was 44% larger than in 1950, while the Philadelphia area was 37% larger. At the same time, Detroit lost a larger part of its population than did Philadelphia every single decade, and in 2000 Detroit was at 51% of its 1950 population, while Philly was at 73%. Now, in the first decade of the 2000's, Detroit has lost a further 22%, while Philadelphia actually gained a few thousand people, so that Detroit now is less than half the size of Philly.

To me the question is what did Philly do relatively right over the last 60 years that allowed it to avoid becoming a basket case, and what does that tell us about what Detroit has to do to stop the decay and perhaps begin a recovery.

[lilpup]

Pointless comparison - it's ludicrous to believe that anything that "worked" in Philly would "work" in Detroit - same is true of any other two cities being compared. Every place has its own strengths and weaknesses.

[Lombaowski]

Amen. The Detroit area hitched its wagon to the auto industry a century ago, rode the wagon to prosperity, and now has ridden it back down the hill again. The metropolitan population numbers are a reflection of this fact. It's time to recognize we can't re-create the Detroit [[or the Detroit area) of the 50's and 60's; the auto companies will never again be the drivers of prosperity in the area [[and I say that as one who retired from Ford and who depends on Ford for my pension and my health coverage, at least until I reach 65).

As far as Detroit itself goes, we have to ask why Detroit was uniquely unattractive among the largest cities in the U.S. in 1950 that it has fallen so far. I've only looked at population trends for Detroit and Philadelphia [[I grew up in the Philly area), so that's what I'll concentrate on here. In 1950, Detroit had 1.85 million people, while Philadelphia had 2.07 million. The Philly metro area [[eight counties in Pennsylvania and South Jersey) had 3.67 million, while the Detroit metro area [[I'm defining it as the three counties plus Lapeer, Livingston, St Clair, and Washtenaw) had 3.3 million. By 1960 [[pre-riots), the Detroit area had grown by 25% [[good decade for the auto companies) vs. 18% for the Philadelphia area, but Detroit had lost 10% of its population, while Philadelphia proper had only lost 3%. In every succeeding decade, the metro populations pretty much kept pace with each other, so that by 2000 the Detroit area was 44% larger than in 1950, while the Philadelphia area was 37% larger. At the same time, Detroit lost a larger part of its population than did Philadelphia every single decade, and in 2000 Detroit was at 51% of its 1950 population, while Philly was at 73%. Now, in the first decade of the 2000's, Detroit has lost a further 22%, while Philadelphia actually gained a few thousand people, so that Detroit now is less than half the size of Philly.

To me the question is what did Philly do relatively right over the last 60 years that allowed it to avoid becoming a basket case, and what does that tell us about what Detroit has to do to stop the decay and perhaps begin a recovery.

If you want the answers to that exact question, read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Urban-.../dp/0691121869

The author, like you, is from Philadelphia and draws comparisons to the two cities. It has to do with my prior posts, ethnic enclaves which Philadelphia has a ton of...and the dependence on one industry.

Detroit had neighborhoods that for square miles supported a plant. Around the plant were specialty shops, metal, tool & die, rubber you name it. Then you had the grocery stores, delis, butchers, barber shops, bars, dime stores and everything else that supported those populations. People walked to work, they lived across the street from the guy they worked across from and they had a few beverages with those folks on a hot summer night. They bought cabins together in the great white north, they went fishing and they went to Tigers games together. In Philadelphia you had people settling with their ethnic groups, in Detroit they settled with their peers. So what happens when that big or medium sized plant closes? Well, chaos happens.

Seems simple but I believe this along with the race wars hit Detroit harder than anything and the gradual decline of the industrial complex [[not just auto industry) led to the downward spiral. Read that book though, it's quite possibly the most comprehensive thinking on the topic and at leat with me, has spawned more questions and more answers that allow me to cope with what has happened to my city.

[Hamtragedy]

Personal observations of neighborhoods, some long gone, and some hanging on, in the 2000 Census that are now largely vacant, or quickly on their way. Not exhaustive, missing southwest.

Blightmore. Don't believe the stuff you hear on the radio. It's done. Includes Burt Rd to Gr. River.

McNichols, north of old 16th pct. E. to Evergreen.

Plymouth corridor, from Schaefer to Rouge park.

Grand River corridor, downtown to St. Mary's

Schoolcraft corridor, N. of Jeffries to Fenkell, Greenfield to Ewald Circle.
Schoolcraft, W. of Southfield, south to Jeffries
Schoolcraft, W. of Greenfield to St. Mary's south to Jeffries

Lyndon, Adams Rec Ctr. to Livernois.

Herman Gardens.

Warrendale. Showed huge signs of potential in early 2000s. Decimated by foreclosures.

Lonyo, E to Central, north of Radcliff.

Puritan,south to Lodge, E of Linwood to Highland Park.

Chicago, E of Grand River to Sacred Heart.

Joy Rd. E of Oakman to 14th

Warren, from Jeffries to Water Treatment plant.

Woodrow Wilson, Davison to Fullerton.

W Grand Blvd, south to the Ford. Btw Commonwealth and GrandRiver, along McGraw.

E. Grand Blvd, from Packard to Belle Isle. Crying out loud.

The area north of Hamtramck, Carpenter to McNichols, Btw Chrylser Fwy and Mound. Includes projects. Cabs no longer pickup or drop off fares here.

Woodward, East Corridor, [[northend) north to Holbrook, East to Chrysler Fwy.

Poletown neighborhood. Completely gone.

Everything E of Indian Village, south of Charlevoix, to St. Jean. Cadillac Blvd barely hanging.

Everything E. of Waterworks, [[except St. Clair.) south of Jefferson. Development never completed

Everything E of Conner, to Alter, south of Mack, including Dickerson by the river, not including the Canals. Large sections north of Mack to Parksides. Completely gone.

Concord, north of the Ford, [[not including land btw Lynch Rd. & Huber cleared out in mid 90s) east to the......

Van Dyke corridor, north of the Ford to St. Cyril.

Jefferson, North to Elmwood, East of the Blvd, [[with few exceptions).

Sadly, the Canals. Marlborough to Chalmers. Riverfront property. Worthless in Detroit.

[Brian1979]

713,777....well it was expected. Drive through areas like Brighmoor and it is a believable number. But this is a sad day not only for Detroit but for Metro Detroit. Detroit loses, everyone loses, period.

So just because it's believeable in Brighmoor means it's belielveable citywide?

[illwill]

Despite the many differences of opinions that readers have posted, I’ve been impressed by the many great analysis’ of “what caused The Great Demise of Detroit”. I think it was a little bit of everything that we’ve read thus far. Not everyone left Detroit for the same reasons. But depending on your race views, personal views, job, life experiences and decade of flight, most likely, it was one of the reasons that someone has mentioned above.

Compared to the other rust belt cities aside from Cleveland, Detroit never really got a second chance for revival. I distinctly remember thinking “in time,” two specific periods over the past 30 years, that Detroit missed two key economic booms. During these economic booms, many cities made big, big comebacks. Of course the two biggest being the rebirths of New York and Chicago. Other newer cities made names for themselves. And I remember thinking “Detroit is the only big city remaining stagnant?” No cranes in the air, no infrastructure improvements…nothing! I blame this on the incompetency of our city and state leaders. I remember again, 2 distinct periods when our Mayors didn’t meet budget deadlines and were ordered to return federal money. This again took place with federal money that should have been given to the schools. Because of missing filing deadlines, money was returned. To me, that was the first sign of Black flight. Residents were livid! While other cities grew, Detroit continued to hemorrhage. This is a classic example of fiscal mismanagement.

It was not until the last and most recent economic boom, that for the first time in my life, I saw Detroit starting to rebuild and grow. This began under the Dennis Archer administration. Although, the casinos had been in place for years, we finally saw small businesses pop up, lots of new construction, restaurants, condos and hotels being built and people were buying in the city. Detroit would sell more units than the suburbs and Detroit was on fire. Little did we know that around the corner, the mortgage crisis would become one of Americas biggest scams and this event would ultimately backfire, only to leave Detroit in a worse off position than it has ever seen. And a faster decline than we have ever seen as well.

I think Detroit will be a nice city again, maybe years and years to come. But it will never be the same and it’ll never have that great and unique Detroit feel and spirit that it once had. Every big city has big problems and most have gotten through them via the struggle. But unfortunately in Detroit, we couldn’t overcome ours. We have strong residents and we’ll never die but it won’t be the same. I personally blame those two periods in history for preventing the rebirth of Detroit. We were right there on the cusp and if we had the right leadership in place, Detroit could have remained one of the greats. One of The Great Big Cities!

[NorthEndere]

I don't know. I don't think Detroit [[and a handful of other cities) ever had a chance at a real turnaround. When America gave up on manufacturing, it sealed the fate of the likes of Detroit and Cleveland, and even Chicago to an extent. Some of the other cities have strong central cores, but differ little from Detroit outside of them. The problem with Detroit more than anything else is that it's in the United States, hate to say. No developed Western nation on earth would let central cities fall as far as Buffalo, of Cleveland, or Detroit, or Pittsburgh. America gave up on these places, and then the residents, seeing they'd been left stranded in the ocean gave up, too.

Detroit could boast a 100% high school graduation rate, low crime, and the whole shebang, but at the end of the day, unless people are willing to start businesses here, we're just training them for some other state or city. We don't make things in central cities, anymore. Even Midwest "success" stories are successes by the most narrow definitions. Chicago had one of the largest city center booms in America's recent history over the last decade, and it out neighborhoods, where the vast majority of the citizens live still saw epic displacement. The "success" stories are turning into disneyfied playgrounds ringed by shrunked neighborhoods, and those still struggling are just a lost cause on the whole.

What makes this even sadder is that if the Census number is correct, Detroit is still denser than all of the sunbelt cities it finds itself now in rank with. That says something. Detroit lost over 200,000 people, supposedly, in one decade and it still has the density to support a successful revitalization if its citizens wanted to make the place work. It's not like there is nothing there to work with.

[Hermod]

138 square miles = 3847219200 square feet = 88320 acre divided by 713777 people = 0.123736125 acres per person. Must have entered something wrong first time .....sorry. At least I admit my mistakes!

Easier is that 1 sq mile equals 640 acres.

640*138/713,000=0.124