The Population Thread

It seems some population and demographics are changing. The state has a small population increase, while the city's population decline is slowing. Suburbs like South Lyon and Macomb Township are growing, as well as Grand Rapids, which not surprising.

Whites are also moving back into the city. In my opinion, "smaller but stronger" must be Detroit's new slogan. Stabilize the neighborhoods through more policing and blight busting and grow and invest the CBD [[which would make a nice re-branding of the entire New Center, Midtown, and Downtown aka Woodward strip). I do believe that if we can create a better, cleaner, more urban, and well "stocked" [[stores, people, transit, entertainment) area within the 7.2 sq. miles, that will spill into the neighborhoods.


http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2015/05/...-white-flight/

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loca...igan/27661485/

This is opening a can of cynical worms I know, but it's important to talk about. Thoughts?

If progress can be made on the fundamental problems like crime, schools, blight [[code enforcement) and stupid high property/rent tax rates the "population problem" will take care of itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

Whites are also moving back into the city.

---

There are no intercensal race-based data for municipalities. They're probably misusing the ACS housing survey, or just making up stuff. I doubt Detroit is experiencing growth in white population, as the largest white concentration in the city [[SW) is declining, but we'll have to wait until 2020.

But of course the Freep and DetNews were up to their usual shenanigans. If you just read the headlines and skimmed the articles, you would assume that Detroit's population was booming.

Instead the estimates released this morning show the city has the worst population loss of any city in the U.S, with 100k+ population and on pace to have a population of zero in some of our children's lifetimes. Only Flint looks worse when you look at all cities in the U.S.

The fastest growing municipalities in the state were Novi, Lyon Twp. and Macomb Twp., yet both articles have juicy quotes alluding to the end of sprawl. Just love our fine papers...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

There are no intercensal race-based data for municipalities. They're probably misusing the ACS housing survey, or just making up stuff. I doubt Detroit is experiencing growth in white population, as the largest white concentration in the city [[SW) is declining, but we'll have to wait until 2020.

But of course the Freep and DetNews were up to their usual shenanigans. If you just read the headlines and skimmed the articles, you would assume that Detroit's population was booming.

Instead the estimates released this morning show the city has the worst population loss of any city in the U.S, with 100k+ population and on pace to have a population of zero in some of our children's lifetimes. Only Flint looks worse when you look at all cities in the U.S.

The fastest growing municipalities in the state were Novi, Lyon Twp. and Macomb Twp., yet both articles have juicy quotes alluding to the end of sprawl. Just love our fine papers...

---

Wait you accuse people of not reading the article then say stuff that is opposite of what is in the article? The Freep article mentions that exurban sprawl is still happening due to new home developments. They say that west of Ten Mile is hot right now for new housing.

The CBS Detroit article says the white population estimate to be 88,000, which up from 76,000 in 2010. Yes these are estimates, but just because you claim that they are somehow "misusing" statistics doesn't make you more credible than the actual department that is in charge of calculating these things. In fact it makes you sound desperate and ignorant.

Both articles clearly mention Detroit overall is still losing population. No one will be denying that. The Freep article is named "Detroit POPULATION LOSS slows...SUBURBS see GAINS". Who in their right mind would infer the city's population is booming?

But please, let's see your statistics and demographic data.

One thing that most non-demographers overlook:

There are two components, related but still different: Population and housing units.

The Census Bureau counts [[or estimates, etc.) both including putting out data on permits and housing starts. Doesn't DETROIT lead in in S.E. MI for permits or housing starts for HOUSING UNITS [[remember, we are talking housing units and multi-family housing is multi-not singular).

What folks typically misinterpret and over-value is new single family houses with say 3K square feet.

What do I mean: They seem impressive [[and are for value and tax purposes) but those houses may hold say 2, 3, or maybe 4 people each. So a sub-division of 100 new single family homes might equal 250 people.

The Gilbert multi-family housing project in Brush Park will hold multiples of that [[250) number.

Subdivisions are visually impressive but don't do much to add to population totals. They are more valuable for tax base [[and income of the people who live there).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

There are no intercensal race-based data for municipalities. They're probably misusing the ACS housing survey, or just making up stuff. I doubt Detroit is experiencing growth in white population, as the largest white concentration in the city [[SW) is declining, but we'll have to wait until 2020.

But of course the Freep and DetNews were up to their usual shenanigans. If you just read the headlines and skimmed the articles, you would assume that Detroit's population was booming.

Instead the estimates released this morning show the city has the worst population loss of any city in the U.S, with 100k+ population and on pace to have a population of zero in some of our children's lifetimes. Only Flint looks worse when you look at all cities in the U.S.

The fastest growing municipalities in the state were Novi, Lyon Twp. and Macomb Twp., yet both articles have juicy quotes alluding to the end of sprawl. Just love our fine papers...

---

I, my brother and my sister have all moved in to the City of Detroit over the past few years and guess what....all three of us are white! So, maybe the data is overly optimistic, but there is some of this happening.

It should also be noted that I have 2 white roommates, both of whom moved in to Detroit from Ferndale and Royal Oak respectively over the last year, and both my siblings have white roommates that moved down from Southfield. My brother's last roommate moved from Pleasant Ridge to Midtown and then on to Corktown [[thus stayed in the City).

I know you think the green pastures of Oakland County are God's country, and everyone should want to work along Big Beaver....but guess what, the millennial generation prefers a vibrant urban environment and now that Detroit is starting to boast this, as long as momentum continues, the "suburban flight" for young, creative professionals will speed up.

Also, this made the Chicago Tribune too:


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...521-story.html

Great to see Detroit's losses slowing and white folks moving back. Now to turn it positive by 2020!

1953

As far as demographic in/out migration in Detroit my seat of the pants [[BUT we really need to wait until April 1, 2020 to know current trends for sure esp. as the next 5 years could see some positive changes, compared to 2005-10 which was a nightmare):

1). Whites moved out in streams going back say a half century or more [[and esp. after the 1967 Detroit riots). I have relatives [[many) who left Detroit in the 50s for places like Dearborn.

2). Others also moved out, many now residing in Oakland County and elsewhere. Don't know how many left the state and many might have returned to say the South [[there was extensive in-migration to the North for those, now gone, factory jobs in the 1960s. Some found factory jobs; others landed on public assistance, but still better off than the deep South.).

3). There was tremendous de-population associated with the housing/financial crisis around 2008.

4). There is still, mostly antedotal [[?), evidence of a reverse migration to CERTAIN parts of the city of Detroit. The hope for Detroit is that in-migration > out-migration. Maybe after April 1, 2020 we'll know how many folks have moved to the CBD, Brush Park, Midtown, and some of the other neighborhoods which are coming back. Whether Detroit can stabilize its population is also a factor of births minus deaths. If Detroit is an 'old' city with a lot of elderly, the death rate could be, probably is, greater then the birth rate. So even if net migration is 'net zero', population growth will probably be negative because of a low birth rate within the city.

5). And 'what are we talking about?' Are we talking of say a family, maybe ethnic, which has husband, wife and say 3, 4 or 5 children? Or are we talking about two good income Millennials with no children. Are we talking population? Are we talking income and disposable income?

BTW if I were to make a seat of the pants guess:

City of Detroit may have zero population loss in 2017, by that time there will be enough 'growth' in a number of neighborhoods to counterbalance the 'losses' from neighborhoods still in decline.

Same general pattern as what happened with D.C. population growth fueled by 'new' or redeveloping neighborhoods but counterbalanced by population losses in other parts of the city caused by smaller families [[population per housing unit).

Does anyone know if or where this data is available based on either zip code or census tract?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

It seems some population and demographics are changing. The state has a small population increase, while the city's population decline is slowing. Suburbs like South Lyon and Macomb Township are growing, as well as Grand Rapids, which not surprising.

Whites are also moving back into the city. In my opinion, "smaller but stronger" must be Detroit's new slogan. Stabilize the neighborhoods through more policing and blight busting and grow and invest the CBD [[which would make a nice re-branding of the entire New Center, Midtown, and Downtown aka Woodward strip). I do believe that if we can create a better, cleaner, more urban, and well "stocked" [[stores, people, transit, entertainment) area within the 7.2 sq. miles, that will spill into the neighborhoods.


http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2015/05/...-white-flight/

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loca...igan/27661485/

This is opening a can of cynical worms I know, but it's important to talk about. Thoughts?

---

Seems like what I would expect. If Detroit is averaging more than 2% population decline per year then that probably means Michigan is declining in population too. If Detroit is only declining by 1% then that ties out with Michigan as a whole having a flat population or slight population increase.

Since we're prognosticating, I'll throw my hat into the ring: Between 2015 and the 2020 census we will see massive increases in the documented white population of Detroit, because of [if there is] a resolution to the insanity of Detroit car insurance prices.

Huge swaths of the [[predominantly white) young influx are still, on paper, residents of the suburbs as a byproduct of their insurance fraud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BankruptcyGuy

Does anyone know if or where this data is available based on either zip code or census tract?

---

I'm going to guess, no.

I used to work at the Census Bureau in demographic surveys during the 1980 Decennial Census of Population and Housing.

The ACS is a replacement for the 'long form' which Census used to send to 5% [[???). The short decennial Census form asked basic demographics and housing. The 'exotic' information came from the 5% sample.

Technically, the 1980 census are counts of population and housing including cross-tabs [[e.g., population by age and sex). Data from the long form, because it was a survey [[5%), would be estimates [[as are all survey data).

As such I doubt the ACS is designed to give population estimates, but collect information which used to be asked in the long form. I'd assume population controls come from the 2010 census.

What makes this difficult is that Census Bureau has to update their master lists of housing units. Units are added [[e.g., new construction, re-purposed like an office building, etc.) or lost [[e.g., units are demolished, taken out because of fire, etc.). As such Census would need to draw a new sample based on the 2010 Census of Housing minus losses but have to add new housing units also.

I'll try to look it up.

Given the massive errors in the 2009 ACS for Detroit, i would take any Detroit population numbers based on it with a grain of salt. In any case, it is obvious without Census data that the population of greater downtown is growing and it is almost as obvious that the total population of the rest of the city is declining. What the overall balance is probably doesn't tell us anything useful. Getting the tract and block level data in the 2020 census will be very interesting.

Interesting take on urban vs. suburban, focusing not on any definition, but on what the survey responder feels is the proper definition.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...erican-cities/

Interesting that the highest growth within city limits is in the cities where the fewest residents think they are urban.

I'm fascinated by the ACS methodology.

When I worked at Census, our interviewers [[and others such as the Current Population Survey, which is the household survey used [[by BLS) to estimate the unemployment rate) made visits to housing units and either got an interview [[or a refusal) or indicated the house was vacant or house was temporarily or permanently removed from the inventory, e.g., the house was demolished or destroyed by fire).

Census should have understood the special situations in cities line New Orleans, Detroit, etc. where tens of thousands housing units which were occupied in 2000 were unoccupied or out of the inventory later in that decade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

They say that west of Ten Mile is hot right now for new housing.

---

Since 10 Mile Road runs east to west, how can something be "west of 10 mile"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

Since 10 Mile Road runs east to west, how can something be "west of 10 mile"?

---

I think they mean down the western corridor of 10 Mile. Sorry I didn't make the more clear.