"Dan Gilbert is an irritation as far as our economic development" -L Brooks Patterson

[tkelly1986]

Trends are a bigger irritation for Oakland County. Metro Detroiters need to ask,“why did my kid move to Chicago”? Did they do so for Schaumberg, Bolingbrook or Hoffman Estates? No, the odds are they work in the Loop and live in Bucktown,Lincoln Park or River North. Crain’s March 29th article hints at this, and it’s the issue that Michiganders ignore while brain-drain continues; millennials want to work/live in walk-able, transit oriented, sustainable communities that do not require a car for every movement.

Fortunately for Brooks, many corporate boards still think in the present; their members, who live in far flung suburbia,want a drive-able office, while their idea of a “great work environment” is a self-contained, isolated structure surrounded by ample parking. Moreover, they look strictly at the financials today, and resist the appeal of tomorrow. This,however, is not attractive to the potential next generation of leaders. But if your “innovative” firm is ok with offering the fourth, fifth or sixth choice candidate a position, then ignore this glaring fact.

When reported the Ally was considering a suburban exodus, my first thought was “uninspiring for a firm trying to reinvent itself”. The turn of events, however, has thrown Ally in to the spotlight, and gained well-deserved notoriety. When a Saginaw based auto part supplier recently announced their movement to new digs in northern Oakland County, it received a “ho-hum” response. Ally’s commitment to Detroit nevertheless earned a write-up in the Wall-Street Journal. Though it may not have been the original intent, Ally becomes an example of where corporate America needs to be, in a City that sings their praises and continues to attract young talent. For the aforementioned, not to be named, auto part supplier, they're main just that; an afterthought, caught up in a mindset that was “innovative”twenty years ago. My hope is that other firms take note, and think beyond that short commute.

[emu steve]

Trends are a bigger irritation for Oakland County. Metro Detroiters need to ask,“why did my kid move to Chicago”? Did they do so for Schaumberg, Bolingbrook or Hoffman Estates? No, the odds are they work in the Loop and live in Bucktown,Lincoln Park or River North. Crain’s March 29th article hints at this, and it’s the issue that Michiganders ignore while brain-drain continues; millennials want to work/live in walk-able, transit oriented, sustainable communities that do not require a car for every movement.

Fortunately for Brooks, many corporate boards still think in the present; their members, who live in far flung suburbia,want a drive-able office, while their idea of a “great work environment” is a self-contained, isolated structure surrounded by ample parking. Moreover, they look strictly at the financials today, and resist the appeal of tomorrow. This,however, is not attractive to the potential next generation of leaders. But if your “innovative” firm is ok with offering the fourth, fifth or sixth choice candidate a position, then ignore this glaring fact.

When reported the Ally was considering a suburban exodus, my first thought was “uninspiring for a firm trying to reinvent itself”. The turn of events, however, has thrown Ally in to the spotlight, and gained well-deserved notoriety. When a Saginaw based auto part supplier recently announced their movement to new digs in northern Oakland County, it received a “ho-hum” response. Ally’s commitment to Detroit nevertheless earned a write-up in the Wall-Street Journal. Though it may not have been the original intent, Ally becomes an example of where corporate America needs to be, in a City that sings their praises and continues to attract young talent. For the aforementioned, not to be named, auto part supplier, they're main just that; an afterthought, caught up in a mindset that was “innovative”twenty years ago. My hope is that other firms take note, and think beyond that short commute.

It is interesting that [[again) companies are looking at the effects of their decisions on employees and recruitment [[of employees esp. millennials).

Koch Industries [[perhaps getting some blowback because of the politics of their namesake owners) is actively advertising on television that their company is a very good place to work.

What we are seeing is the reverse migration from CBD to 'burbs back to the CBD. This is not just true in Detroit.

[Bham1982]

Trends are a bigger irritation for Oakland County. Metro Detroiters need to ask,“why did my kid move to Chicago”? Did they do so for Schaumberg, Bolingbrook or Hoffman Estates? No, the odds are they work in the Loop and live in Bucktown,Lincoln Park or River North.

LOL. Illinois has the worst population loss in the U.S., and the worst economy in the U.S. Chicago and Cook County are shrinking, not growing. Both city and state are near bankruptcy.

Oakland County, despite being the DYes boogeyman, is an economic shining star compared to Chicago. People are moving to Oakland County, while they're fleeing Chicago.

Young people have always gravitated towards cities, and they will always do so. But when it comes to settling down, Chicago is one of the least likely places in the U.S. for inmigration.

Expressing surprise that a big city like Chicago has a huge millennial cohort makes as much sense as expressing surprise that the 18-23 cohort is in East Lansing and Ann Arbor, or the 60+ cohort is in Naples and Boca. Big cities will always draw those starting out professionally, who obviously aren't going to buy a McMansion in the exurbs at 24.

[tkelly1986]

LOL. Illinois has the worst population loss in the U.S., and the worst economy in the U.S. Chicago and Cook County are shrinking, not growing. Both city and state are near bankruptcy.

Oakland County, despite being the DYes boogeyman, is an economic shining star compared to Chicago. People are moving to Oakland County, while they're fleeing Chicago.

Young people have always gravitated towards cities, and they will always do so. But when it comes to settling down, Chicago is one of the least likely places in the U.S. for inmigration.

Expressing surprise that a big city like Chicago has a huge millennial cohort makes as much sense as expressing surprise that the 18-23 cohort is in East Lansing and Ann Arbor, or the 60+ cohort is in Naples and Boca. Big cities will always draw those starting out professionally, who obviously aren't going to buy a McMansion in the exurbs at 24.

A big driver in population loss in Chicago is not 24 year olds from Michigan deciding against the move, it's black and white middle class moving out. Chicago is still the young, vibrant city Detroit is aiming to become and that is what attracts people. Southfield, Troy, Bloomfield is NOT that. And yes, when folks are ready to settle down and have a family the burbs will be a draw. The problem is that Metro Detroit does not have that initial hook [[urban setting). Young people are working in Troy because they have to, not because they want to like so many that left for Chicago.

[Bham1982]

A big driver in population loss in Chicago is not 24 year olds from Michigan deciding against the move, it's black and white middle class moving out.

Obviously, yes. Young people will always gravitate to big cities. This was true 50 years ago, and will likely be true 50 years from now.

Chicago is still the young, vibrant city Detroit is aiming to become and that is what attracts people.

Agreed, but has nothing to do with this thread. Chicago's economy [[on a relative basis) stinks. It's a very urban city, though, obviously the class of the Midwest. Urbanity and economic health are unrelated.

Southfield, Troy, Bloomfield is NOT that. And yes, when folks are ready to settle down and have a family the burbs will be a draw. The problem is that Metro Detroit does not have that initial hook [[urban setting). Young people are working in Troy because they have to, not because they want to like so many that left for Chicago.

This was always the case, though. It wasn't like Oakland County was ever attractive to 24 year olds desiring an urban center.

Detroit [[the city) can probably pick off some millennials currently headed to other big cities, but, on a macro level, if someone really wants an urban environment different than what's the norm locally, they aren't going to Detroit [[or even Chicago for that matter). They're probably going to the East or West Coasts, where you have very different built environments, and usually more dynamic economies.

You are never going to build a healthy city on the back of a single age cohort, though. Chicago gets huge numbers of educated 20-somethings, yet has the worst major-city economic and population trends in the U.S. It's downtown looks great, probably busier and more vibrant than ever, yet the city overall is rotting away.

[Junjie]

... Chicago gets huge numbers of educated 20-somethings, yet has the worst major-city economic and population trends in the U.S. It's downtown looks great, probably busier and more vibrant than ever, yet the city overall is rotting away.

The US Census Bureau estimates that the city of Chicago has gained population every year since the 2010 census. Click "2013" on the left side.

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/t...2011_PEPANNRES

[Hermod]

The US Census Bureau estimates that the city of Chicago has gained population every year since the 2010 census. Click "2013" on the left side.

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/t...2011_PEPANNRES

Wait for the "hard count". Remember how inaccurate they were with Detroit 2000-2010? The hard count in 2010 surprised the hell out of everyone.

[emu steve]

Wait for the "hard count". Remember how inaccurate they were with Detroit 2000-2010? The hard count in 2010 surprised the hell out of everyone.

Maybe, but Detroit during the 2000-10s was very, very difficult to estimate.

In demography change = births - deaths + net migration [[net migration was a huge loss for Detroit). Net migration is hardest to estimate and that decade was incredible unstable with depopulation.

I thought Census used driver license registration data. Someone moves from Southfield to [[downtown) Detroit so that would be -1 for Southfield and Oakland and +1 for Detroit and Wayne.

My guess is that school enrollment data [[is it still called the 'fourth Friday' count?) also shows gains/losses in the K-12 school aged population.

My guess that population estimates for 'stable' cities like D.C., N.Y., probably Chicago are accurate. Detroit still not sure... Maybe need to see school enrollment data to see if the neighborhoods are holding up or still losing a lot of people.

Just a population note: I saw a nice article on D.C.'s population growth and it is really slowing [[still + though) in recent years which seemed to do with a negative [[if I remember right) natural increase [[births - deaths) or actually decrease [[more dying then born) in recent years. In D.C.'s case, more people are moving in than moving out, the millennial effect [[?).

I suspect this is a big demographic trend in America: births - deaths isn't a big driver of population growth, it is migration either internal to the country, state, etc. or external such as people migration to the U.S.

[Bham1982]

The US Census Bureau estimates that the city of Chicago has gained population every year since the 2010 census. Click "2013" on the left side.

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/t...2011_PEPANNRES

The annual estimates for the city did show very slight gains in 2011, -12 and -13, but the official estimates from the last Census showed massive population losses for Chicago, second only to Detroit.

And this year's estimates will almost certainty show losses for the city proper, as Cook County's results are out, and show population losses, and most of Cook is Chicago. In previous years estimates, the city population trends always mirrored the county population trends.

Illinois, overall, had the worst population loss in the nation last year, and Chicagoland had slower proportional growth than even Metro Detroit. The region has much to offer, but is struggling somewhat relative to the other major metros.

The biggest boomtown in the U.S. is Houston, which has horrible urban form and is sprawlier than even Detroit. The issue of urbanity is separate from the issue of regional economic vibrancy.

[Junjie]

The annual estimates for the city did show very slight gains in 2011, -12 and -13, but the official estimates from the last Census showed massive population losses for Chicago, second only to Detroit.

And this year's estimates will almost certainty show losses for the city proper, as Cook County's results are out, and show population losses, and most of Cook is Chicago. In previous years estimates, the city population trends always mirrored the county population trends.

...

You claimed Chicago has the worst population trend in the country when in fact the Census Bureau thinks it was growing 2010-2013 with the data for 2014 not out yet. [[And wait, aren't we on a forum about a city that's estimated to be down 50,000 over the past four years?? ) Now you're claiming that there will be substantial losses this year to make up for that growth because of available county data, and yet the only 2014 estimate for Cook County on the Census Bureau's site shows a loss of a whopping 179 people in a county of 5.25 million.

You can follow the link in my original post to see this. Note by the way that the county population is double that of the city of Chicago, so it's probably worth waiting for the actual city data to make any judgments on 2014.

But Chicago has one of the slowest growing economies in the U.S., and in fact has fallen from 3rd to 5th largest economy in the U.S. in the last five years. Both the Bay Area and DC now have significantly larger economies than Chicago.

Brookings Institution says Chicago's metro GDP [[since you mentioned the Bay Area I'm assuming we're now talking metro areas) is significantly larger than either DC's or San Francisco's + San Jose's combined. $563bn for Chicago versus $442bn in DC or $491bn for SF + SJ.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/re...-metro-monitor

So, do you have any evidence for what you're saying that you can link? It's true that Chicago lost a lot of population 2000-2010 and has grown its economy only slowly [[though with a massive base), but you're making a lot of other specific claims here and anyway we're now five years on from 2010. Given that you've been wrong on some pretty basic stuff, I don't see why anyone should believe you unless you can show some actual data.

[Chicago48]

LOL. Illinois has the worst population loss in the U.S., and the worst economy in the U.S. Chicago and Cook County are shrinking, not growing. Both city and state are near bankruptcy.

Oakland County, despite being the DYes boogeyman, is an economic shining star compared to Chicago. People are moving to Oakland County, while they're fleeing Chicago.

Young people have always gravitated towards cities, and they will always do so. But when it comes to settling down, Chicago is one of the least likely places in the U.S. for inmigration.

Expressing surprise that a big city like Chicago has a huge millennial cohort makes as much sense as expressing surprise that the 18-23 cohort is in East Lansing and Ann Arbor, or the 60+ cohort is in Naples and Boca. Big cities will always draw those starting out professionally, who obviously aren't going to buy a McMansion in the exurbs at 24.

You may be right about population decline, but you wouldn't know it by all the shtload of high-rise luxury apartments being built all around Chicago. In fact it's downright scary for those of us who live here because we want to stay living in the City, but with rents like $1950 for a studio apartment staring at us, we won't be able to afford this city.
They keep on building those high rises and I for one want to know where these people are coming from.

[Bham1982]

You may be right about population decline, but you wouldn't know it by all the shtload of high-rise luxury apartments being built all around Chicago. In fact it's downright scary for those of us who live here because we want to stay living in the City, but with rents like $1950 for a studio apartment staring at us, we won't be able to afford this city.

Chicago has relatively cheap rents, and relatively little housing construction, at least compared to the NYC, LA, SF, Bos, DC type cities. There was lots of housing construction in the 90's and early 00's, boom but not as much lately.

I don't know where the hell you live where your only option is a $1950 studio. Even in the Gold Coast, the richest neighborhood in Chicago, there are studio apartments for many hundreds less, and these are even in luxury highrise doorman buildings. Heck there are one bedrooms in luxury buildings in the Gold Coast for less than $1950.

In a typical Chicago neighborhood, there is probably no one paying $1950 for a freakin studio. That would be more than even the average mortgage payment, given the median sales price of a home in Chicago is somewhere in the low 200's.

Even somewhere like NYC or London there are tons and tons of studio apartments for far less than $1950. You can live in a nice neighborhood in Brooklyn and snag a $1,300 studio in a good building, even today.

[Eber Brock Ward]

LOL. Illinois has the worst population loss in the U.S., and the worst economy in the U.S. Chicago and Cook County are shrinking, not growing. Both city and state are near bankruptcy.

Seriously, folks. Don't let BTroll1982 get away with this.

Chicago, Cook County, and Illinois all grew from 2010 to 2013, based on census estimates: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/1714000.html. I would also guess that median and mean income rose as people decamped from tougher neighborhoods on the south and west sides and more young professionals and other upwardly mobile types piled into the north and near west sides.

[[That said, Chicago is a ticking municipal finance time bomb, many measures worse than Detroit pre-BK)

[313WX]

Seriously, folks. Don't let BTroll1982 get away with this.

Chicago, Cook County, and Illinois all grew from 2010 to 2013, based on census estimates: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/1714000.html. I would also guess that median and mean income rose as people decamped from tougher neighborhoods on the south and west sides and more young professionals and other upwardly mobile types piled into the north and near west sides.

[[That said, Chicago is a ticking municipal finance time bomb, many measures worse than Detroit pre-BK)

Chicago may technically be balance sheet insolvent [[so is Ford, in fact, as a comparison), but what matters when determining the likilihood of them defaulting on loans and going bankrupt is whether of not they have the liquidity to meet their obligations, which they do since most of Illinois' major employers are based IN Chicago and most of the city's middle class hasn't abandoned it like Detroit. As long as Chicago doesn't experience a massive flight in capital, things should be ok and the bankruptcy fears are probably overblown.

[Bham1982]

Seriously, folks. Don't let BTroll1982 get away with this.

LOL. Chicago extreme homer alert. The B10 Chads and Trixies from Shelby Twp. are getting worked up.

You conveniently "forgot" to show the most recent Census estimates, which is exactly what I'm referring to. The latest results show worse results than even Metro Detroit, or Michigan.

If you prefer estimates over the official decennial numbers, fine. If you prefer the decennial numbers, also fine. Pick either, and Chicago is losing population, and Chicagoland [[and Illinois) are basically at the bottom of the pack nationally.

And your excuse "yeah Chicago might be losing people but it's those poor black people, while white rich kids are streaming in" doesn't seem to hold water.

If a metro area were experiencing some unusual trend where the poor were mass-vacating in favor of the rich, there would be significant increases in median earnings and gross regional product relative to other metros.

But Chicago has one of the slowest growing economies in the U.S., and in fact has fallen from 3rd to 5th largest economy in the U.S. in the last five years. Both the Bay Area and DC now have significantly larger economies than Chicago.

[Towne Cluber]

Trends are a bigger irritation for Oakland County. Metro Detroiters need to ask,“why did my kid move to Chicago”? Did they do so for Schaumberg, Bolingbrook or Hoffman Estates? No, the odds are they work in the Loop and live in Bucktown,Lincoln Park or River North. Crain’s March 29th article hints at this, and it’s the issue that Michiganders ignore while brain-drain continues; millennials want to work/live in walk-able, transit oriented, sustainable communities that do not require a car for every movement.

Fortunately for Brooks, many corporate boards still think in the present; their members, who live in far flung suburbia,want a drive-able office, while their idea of a “great work environment” is a self-contained, isolated structure surrounded by ample parking. Moreover, they look strictly at the financials today, and resist the appeal of tomorrow. This,however, is not attractive to the potential next generation of leaders.

Most of the "kids" that I know that moved away to other cities [[for jobs and a 'nightlife') are now starting a family...and have moved to the suburbs of those cities. The ones that remain in their adopted city are childless and/or from wealthy families [[able to afford a large place in the city, private school, car in the city, etc). Some have moved back to the suburbs of Metro Detroit.

To answer the question of why they moved, it was for better job opportunities [[both in the city and suburbs) than what the entire state of MI could provide, a vibrant city life in their 20s/early 30s, and a better opportunity to meet a wife/husband.

[mwilbert]

Most of the "kids" that I know that moved away to other cities [[for jobs and a 'nightlife') are now starting a family...and have moved to the suburbs of those cities. The ones that remain in their adopted city are childless and/or from wealthy families [[able to afford a large place in the city, private school, car in the city, etc). Some have moved back to the suburbs of Metro Detroit.

To answer the question of why they moved, it was for better job opportunities [[both in the city and suburbs) than what the entire state of MI could provide, a vibrant city life in their 20s/early 30s, and a better opportunity to meet a wife/husband.

There is no doubt that the suburbs are prime territory for families with children, but I think this misses most of the point. When young people move away to other core cities in their 20s, and get married and have kids, they probably mostly aren't going to come back to Oakland County. Whereas if they moved to Detroit in their 20's, that would be much more likely. Also, that proportion of people who are childless, either for a long time or permanently, keeps going up. A lot of those people are likely to remain in urban cores for a pretty big chunk of their lives.

[Bham1982]

There is no doubt that the suburbs are prime territory for families with children, but I think this misses most of the point. When young people move away to other core cities in their 20s, and get married and have kids, they probably mostly aren't going to come back to Oakland County.

I think this probably isn't true. When people move to the suburbs, as most are apt to do, they are likely to consider things like family, caregiving and the like. If you're moving to some random suburb in Illinois or Ohio, you might as well do it in Michigan, because suburbs are more or less the same, but the advantage in Michigan [[provided you're from Michigan) is proximity to family and caregivers.

Certainly some stay in their out-of-state metros, and move to their local suburbs. My anecdotal sense is that lots of 20-somethings are single in other cities, and end up 30-something and coupled/with children back in Michigan.

Now if you hate suburbia, and desire an urban environment, no, you likely won't be moving back. But kids tend to change everything. When they're part of the equation, it doesn't really matter if you find urban areas more interesting, it's just a hell of a lot more difficult raising kids in the city, and your priorities totally change.

I think there are plenty of people acknowledging that Novi kind of sucks, yet, at the same time, Novi is a much easier place to be married with kids than some urban yuppie neighborhood.

[mwilbert]

I think this probably isn't true. When people move to the suburbs, as most are apt to do, they are likely to consider things like family, caregiving and the like. If you're moving to some random suburb in Illinois or Ohio, you might as well do it in Michigan, because suburbs are more or less the same, but the advantage in Michigan [[provided you're from Michigan) is proximity to family and caregivers.

Certainly some stay in their out-of-state metros, and move to their local suburbs. My anecdotal sense is that lots of 20-somethings are single in other cities, and end up 30-something and coupled/with children back in Michigan.

You are saying that people who move to a different major city in their 20's/30's are about as likely to move back to a local suburb as people who move into the local core city are? I don't think there is any chance that is true. Not to say it doesn't happen, but a lot of those people are gone for good.

I think there are plenty of people acknowledging that Novi kind of sucks, yet, at the same time, Novi is a much easier place to be married with kids than some urban yuppie neighborhood.

It is also not my experience that it is easier in general to raise kids in the suburbs than in a normal city either. Of course it depends on the suburb, but my impression is that people want to raise their kids in suburbs because the public schools tend to be better and perhaps that the environment is cleaner/safer, but there is nothing easy about providing the endless chauffeur services that kids in a non-walkable area are going to require. My daughter grew up in a suburb, and even if I thought the benefits were worth it [[which I'm not sure of), it was definitely not easier than living in town.

[Towne Cluber]

You are saying that people who move to a different major city in their 20's/30's are about as likely to move back to a local suburb as people who move into the local core city are? I don't think there is any chance that is true. Not to say it doesn't happen, but a lot of those people are gone for good.



It is also not my experience that it is easier in general to raise kids in the suburbs than in a normal city either. Of course it depends on the suburb, but my impression is that people want to raise their kids in suburbs because the public schools tend to be better and perhaps that the environment is cleaner/safer, but there is nothing easy about providing the endless chauffeur services that kids in a non-walkable area are going to require. My daughter grew up in a suburb, and even if I thought the benefits were worth it [[which I'm not sure of), it was definitely not easier than living in town.

1. From what I've seen, 25%-33% [[or slightly more) of 20-30 somethings that I know have moved back to Michigan in the last few years.

2. Again, from what I've seen/heard, parents have said it is far easier to raise kids in the suburbs than in a city. Given the endless activities these days [[spread out between suburbs and city), it's endless chauffeuring no matter where a family lives.

[iheartthed]

1. From what I've seen, 25%-33% [[or slightly more) of 20-30 somethings that I know have moved back to Michigan in the last few years.

That's a pretty poor recovery considering that there is virtually no in-migration to Michigan from non-natives.

I'm in my early 30s and of my friends who left the state I think less than 10% of us have gone back. Of those who haven't already gone back I don't think many of us have a real desire to ever go back. I'm an older millennial but it will be interesting to see how this plays out among the younger millennials who left college after the economic collapse.