Downtown Detroit employment numbers

I was shocked to read in this report that both downtown Ann Arbor and downtown Lansing have more workers downtown than Detroit does! Some other midwestern cities with much smaller metro populations have significantly more workers downtown! Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Cleveland to name a few. Pretty sad! Maybe some ways of measuring downtown employment use midtowns worker population of nearly 73,000 to inflate downtown's low numbers. It's so interesting to see what regions have very strong and centralized downtowns and which ones have multiple strong nodes.

The Detroit numbers are on page 35 of the report.
http://definingdowntown.org/read-the-report/

It shows in more ways than one.

Relative to other cities, Detroit doesn't have major traffic problems in/out of downtown during rush hours.

Also, aside from the Griswold street corridor, Greektown and Campus Martius, there's a severe lack of foot traffic.

There have been improvements for sure, but needless to say downtown still has a long way to go before being comparable to the downtowns in other cities.

Ann Arbor has a huge college next to its downtown and Lansing is the state capitol, so that's not really surprising. Also given the vacancy rate for downtown right now, it should be no surprise the the employment numbers are relatively low for a city/metro area of this size.

But what's really telling is how Troy has only 10,000 less jobs than Midtown and only 4,000 off from Grand Rapids. I thought Southfield would have been higher but it must have been due to where they considered 'downtown' to be. Either, it should be shocking at how decentralized Detroit is if you've been in the area for more than a day.

If you add up all the different sections of Southfield [[there are 3), there are over 100,000 workers in that city. Not sure why they break it down into 3 separate clusters.

I'd have to see some maps of what they consider downtown Ann Arbor and downtown Lansing. I live in the latter, and every year there is a report in the paper of how many state workers have been cut, which has been going on for a decade. There are fewer than 20,000 state workers in the immediate downtown area, anymore. With the state still employing more people downtown than the private sector, the number they give seems entirely unbelievable unless they are stretching the boundaries of "downtown" way the hell to the south and east. Basically, the one-mile square downtown is bound by the Olds Freeway to the south, Larch to th east, Saginaw/Oakland to the north and MLK to the west. Honestly, to get the number they are getting, you'd damn well near have to stretch all the way to downtown East Lansing.

Pulling some numbers out of the report to make the discussion easier.

Jobs:

Downtown: 78,144
Midtown: 72,911
Southfield Northwest: 50,300
Southfield Central: 28,530
Southfield Southeast: 32,758
Troy West/Mall: 63,884
Troy East: 45,443
Ann Arbor: 88,362
Grand Rapids: 67,277
Lansing: 78,611

Population:

Downtown:17,438
Midtown: 36,237
Southfield Northwest:28,227
Southfield Central:15,801
Southfield Southeast:42,594
Troy West/Mall:37,054
Troy East: 43,912
Ann Arbor: 67,144
Grand Rapids:43,347
Lansing: 34,379

Jobs Per Acre:

Downtown: 67 [[Categorized as "High" by the report)
Midtown: 36 [[Moderately High)
Southfield Northwest:20 [[Moderate)
Southfield Central: 28 [[Moderately High)
Southfield Southeast: 26 [[Moderately High)
Troy West/Mall: 9 [[Low)
Troy East: 14 [[Low)
Ann Arbor: 58 [[High)
Grand Rapids:111 [[Extremely High)
Lansing: 87 [[Very High)

Percentage of Workers Who Live within a one mile radius:

Downtown: 21.1% [[Categorized as "High")
Midtown: 21.0% [[High)
Southfield Northwest: 9.2% [[Limited)
Southfield Central: 5.0% [[Limited)
Southfield Southeast: 6.5% [[Limited)
Troy West/Mall: 12.1% [[Limited)
Troy East: 10.2% [[Limited)
Ann Arbor: 49.3% [[Extremely High - 6th highest in the country, behind Midtown Manhattan, Chicago, DC, the Las Vegas strip, and Rochester, Minnesota)
Grand Rapids:23.6% [[High)
Lansing: 21.7% [[High)

A couple other notes:

If you combine Downtown and Midtown, it's 151,055 total jobs, which would be the 20th biggest employment node in the Country, just after Downtown Pittsburgh. Now, that's a little misleading, because every city gets its equivalent of Midtown separated from its Downtown, but it does show that Central Detroit is still a pretty major employment center, almost twice the size of any other in the state.

If you combine Downtown, Midtown, and all the various pieces of Southfield and Troy, it's 371,970 jobs, which would be the 6th biggest employment node in the country, behind only Midtown Manhattan, Chicago, Downtown Manhattan, DC, and Downtown LA. Not that that kind of consolidation is possible or even necessarily desirable here, but it shows what we're working with in terms of total jobs.

150K jobs in downtown/mid-town is very impressive.

The distinction between downtown and mid-town is arbitrary as they are contiguous and obviously part of the same city [[it isn't like talking D.C. and say Arlington; two 'states' plus a river between them).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khorasaurus

Pulling some numbers out of the report to make the discussion easier.

---

Okay, that population numbers shows me that at least for these smaller cities, they are using entire inner-city and beyond definitions for downtown. A downtown population in Lansing of 34,379 would mean literally about a third of the city is considered "downtown" by their definition. lol This is a joke. Lansing's actually 1.1 square mile downtown only has a residential population of about 5,000 people. So, yeah, they are basically stretching "downtown" to the borders of the city. lol

I guess what I'm saying is that these are apples and oranges comparisons at least between the big cities and small ones. I would guess big-vs-big would be the only comparisons, and even then I'm wondering what they consider "downtown".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emu steve

150K jobs in downtown/mid-town is very impressive.

The distinction between downtown and mid-town is arbitrary as they are contiguous and obviously part of the same city [[it isn't like talking D.C. and say Arlington; two 'states' plus a river between them).

---

Not really considering our MSA population of ~4.2 million. The MSA population of Indianapolis is a little north of 1.7 million and downtown Indy has 136,417 jobs! Downtown Minneapolis has 232,458 jobs. Downtown Pittsburgh has a little more than 153,000 jobs and the neighborhood which might be considered an uptown, Oakland, has almost 80,000 jobs IN THE CITY. All of that with Pittsburgh having a MSA population of 2.36 million.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dexlin

Okay, that population numbers shows me that at least for these smaller cities, they are using entire inner-city and beyond definitions for downtown. A downtown population in Lansing of 34,379 would mean literally about a third of the city is considered "downtown" by their definition. lol This is a joke. Lansing's actually 1.1 square mile downtown only has a residential population of about 5,000 people. So, yeah, they are basically stretching "downtown" to the borders of the city. lol

I guess what I'm saying is that these are apples and oranges comparisons at least between the big cities and small ones. I would guess big-vs-big would be the only comparisons, and even then I'm wondering what they consider "downtown".

---

True. You'd hope they would use the same area, about a square mile, for each city but clearly they are not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mind field

Not really considering our MSA population of ~4.2 million. The MSA population of Indianapolis is a little north of 1.7 million and downtown Indy has 136,417 jobs! Downtown Minneapolis has 232,458 jobs. Downtown Pittsburgh has a little more than 153,000 jobs and the neighborhood which might be considered an uptown, Oakland, has almost 80,000 jobs IN THE CITY. All of that with Pittsburgh having a MSA population of 2.36 million.

---

Okay, fine, but no one is saying that Minneapolis or Pittsburgh are dead, dying, futureless cities [[as many across America believe about Detroit).

That said, who knows, maybe downtown/midtown have growth potential to say 175-200K within the next 10 years.

That would be impressive.

Here's something else I picked out of the document. This just reinforces how spread out we are.

Here are the 30 largest metro areas in the country, with the number of job centers that appeared in this study in each one.

New York: 5
Los Angeles: 14
Chicago: 3
Dallas: 9
Houston: 4
Philadelphia: 2
Washington: 8
Miami: 3
Atlanta: 4
Boston: 1
San Francisco: 11
Phoenix: 8
Inland Empire: 6
Detroit: 8
Seattle: 9
Minneapolis: 2
San Diego: 2
St. Louis: 1
Baltimore: 1
Denver: 7
Pittsburgh: 2
Charlotte: 1
Portland: 1
San Antonio: 2
Orlando: 1
Sacramento: 1
Cincinnati: 1
Cleveland: 2
Kansas City: 3

So when we compare to Pittsburgh or Cleveland or whatever, it's worth noting that they don't have a Southfield or Troy in their suburbs.

The only map I'm intimately familiar with is Chicago. That map's downtown is MUCH larger than what Chicagoans would consider downtown, and much larger than Detroit's downtown and Mid-town combined. It also includes huge swaths of residential property, which don't have much more than ground-level retail, if that. [[For Chicagoans, they include west of the river all the way to the Kennedy???, and north along Clybourn all the way to Chicago).

I will give Kudos for the analysis, though.

Don't worry, downtown Detroit has a long way to go, but we're certainly heading in the right direction. And fast.

Ann Arbor is a healthy compact city, which is great, but it's also a small city, so everything fits inside of their defined areas. If Ann Arbor was proportionally scaled up, they'd separate it into separate districts too.

Downtown Tuscon, AZ is in the highest density category, the same with manhattan [[and grand rapids...), but their downtown is like a handful of midrises and a bunch of parking lots.

Although these are all metrics we'd like to see Detroit improve in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason

Ann Arbor is a healthy compact city, which is great, but it's also a small city, so everything fits inside of their defined areas. If Ann Arbor was proportionally scaled up, they'd separate it into separate districts too.

Downtown Tuscon, AZ is in the highest density category, the same with manhattan [[and grand rapids...), but their downtown is like a handful of midrises and a bunch of parking lots.

Although these are all metrics we'd like to see Detroit improve in.

---

Good point on AA - I suspect the medical center, UM's central campus, and maybe even north campus are all considered "downtown" by this study, where in a larger city they would all be separate employment districts.

Grand Rapids actually has a very dense downtown, because it is trapped between the river and a steep hill. They also have two hospital complexes, a community college, and a bunch of GVSU facilities all crammed into that relatively small area. I'm not surprised they scored well on job density.

How many damn excuses are you guys going to make? Ann Arbor and Grand Rapids and the metro burbs are exponentially healthier than Detroit proper. Anyone with eyes can tell you that. Keep fighting the good fight. Unless you're Gilbert or pizza boy and in line to make an obscene amount of money on maintaining order, unsure what motivates you all to tolerate the place when the data shows you turn-key cities are merely 15, 40, 100 miles away. Chasing nostalgia? Fascinating to read. Good luck.

The discussion seems to be about downtowns...not the cities. Arguing that the numbers are inflated for Ann Arbor & Grand Rapids is not saying they are worse cities than Detroit. It actually seems like there's a nuanced discussion. Plus, there's plenty of Detroiters that would gladly live in "turn-key cities", but they can't afford to move. Even if all Detroiters could move 15, 40, 100 miles away, I'm pretty sure most of them wouldn't be welcomed with open arms by their new neighbors.

It's interesting as a snapshot for 2011 - or 2010. It's not clear whether the 2011 report was on 2011 data or 2010 data. Does Detroit have a lot to do? yep. is the trend up for Detroit? yep

There's also a little historical matter here. Downtown Detroit was never as large or as economically active as the centers of many other major cities, including many smaller than Detroit. Now, that's not to say that downtown Detroit wasn't once much more active and had many more people working in it than it does today [[so don't post any old photos of crowded streets in response), but just to say that it was smaller in comparison to other cities.

For one thing, the largest companies and employers in the Detroit area were never headquartered downtown [[at least until GM moved to Ren Cen). This alone makes Detroit quite different from a lot of other cities and accounts for some of the disparities. Also, unlike a lot of cities, Detroit's employment was centered around manufacturing and industry [[which spread out along industrial corridors centered on railroads and highways). Detroit was never a major national center of finance or other types big office-based businesses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EastsideAl

There's also a little historical matter here. Downtown Detroit was never as large or as economically active as the centers of many other major cities, including many smaller than Detroit. Now, that's not to say that downtown Detroit wasn't once much more active and had many more people working in it than it does today [[so don't post any old photos of crowded streets in response), but just to say that it was smaller in comparison to other cities.

---

Good point. The decentralization that gave us Southfield, Troy, Warren, and Auburn Hills started 100 years ago with Dearborn, Highland Park, and New Center.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emu steve

Pittsburgh are dead, dying, futureless cities [[as many across America believe about Detroit).

That said, who knows, maybe downtown/midtown have growth potential to say 175-200K within the next 10 years.

That would be impressive.

---

Actually, a lot of people say that about Pittsburgh, lol. I live outside of the Metro Detroit echo chamber so trust me when I say that there is a LOT more buzz about Detroit right now than about Pittsburgh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Actually, a lot of people say that about Pittsburgh, lol. I live outside of the Metro Detroit echo chamber so trust me when I say that there is a LOT more buzz about Detroit right now than about Pittsburgh.

---

Pittsburgh has made so much progress though. It was left for dead in the early 90s and has rebounded from the death of the steel industry very well. And they had a couple things going against them that Detroit doesn't:

1) The steel industry in this country barely exists anymore. The auto industry has had its struggles, but it's still around.

2) Pittsburgh's suburbs declined right along with it. Detroit's suburbs stayed relatively strong [[at the expense of the city, true, but they kept the regional economy going).

Now, Pittsburgh also has a couple things that helped it:

1) The downtown stayed relatively strong through the dark days, partially because there really isn't a competing suburban office center. Oakland stayed even stronger because Pitt and Carnegie Mellon are really strong anchors.

2) Topography. In Detroit, blight spreads along our broad, straight, flat avenues. In hilly Pittsburgh, it runs into a hill or ravine and then the neighborhood on the other side stays strong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khorasaurus

Pittsburgh has made so much progress though. It was left for dead in the early 90s and has rebounded from the death of the steel industry very well. And they had a couple things going against them that Detroit doesn't:

1) The steel industry in this country barely exists anymore. The auto industry has had its struggles, but it's still around.

2) Pittsburgh's suburbs declined right along with it. Detroit's suburbs stayed relatively strong [[at the expense of the city, true, but they kept the regional economy going).

Now, Pittsburgh also has a couple things that helped it:

1) The downtown stayed relatively strong through the dark days, partially because there really isn't a competing suburban office center. Oakland stayed even stronger because Pitt and Carnegie Mellon are really strong anchors.

2) Topography. In Detroit, blight spreads along our broad, straight, flat avenues. In hilly Pittsburgh, it runs into a hill or ravine and then the neighborhood on the other side stays strong.

---

I'm not saying that the perception of Pittsburgh is fair, but it just is what it is. A story about Detroit just grabs much more attention than one about Pittsburgh. I think it's because Detroit was once of the nation's primary cities -- and it was during the lifetime of many people who are still alive today -- while Pittsburgh never quite got there.

My only rebuttal is that both Detroit and Pittsburgh have suffered from a regional decline. It's not accurate to say that the only place in Metro Detroit with visible decline is Detroit. The places in the Detroit area outside of Detroit that have experienced decline/decay are numerous.

But I do agree that the topography of Pittsburgh lends itself to an urban revival there in ways that aren't as easy to replicate in Detroit. I mentioned on another thread that land scarcity is a major factor of gentrification, which is something that will happen a lot quicker in Pittsburgh due to its terrain.

Can I ask the DYes people this question: how would YOU define "Downtown Detroit"? I'd probably say the area bounded by 75, 375 and the Lodge. What say you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BankruptcyGuy

Can I ask the DYes people this question: how would YOU define "Downtown Detroit"? I'd probably say the area bounded by 75, 375 and the Lodge. What say you?

---

I'd would agree and throw in the Detroit river. Lol. Lest we try to include downtown Windsor... [[just kidding).

By the way, freeways, e.g., 94, 75, Lodge, 375 also define Midtown.

Freeways, as I learned in a college course, are 'great' at dividing neighborhoods which would not otherwise be divided [[usually for the worse - get a lot of the 'wrong side of the tracks' type stuff).

Other obvious man made or natural dividers are things like rivers, etc. [[including hills and ravines, as mentioned above).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BankruptcyGuy

Can I ask the DYes people this question: how would YOU define "Downtown Detroit"? I'd probably say the area bounded by 75, 375 and the Lodge. What say you?

---

I think it's pretty clear those are the borders today. But the building of the freeways did, over time, both broaden and constrict the definition of "downtown".

There were remaining residential neighborhoods in the northeast and northwest corners of that freeway-limned box that were not considered "downtown" at the time the freeways were built, and that remained into the '70s. On the other hand, the portion of Woodward north of where 75 is today [[where the new arena will be) once had several tall office buildings and hotels on it and would have been considered as "downtown".

Few things grate on my eyes and ears more though than seeing or hearing just any part of the central city referred to as "downtown." For instance I was recently reading an article that repeatedly referred to Wayne State as being in "downtown Detroit". I've seen areas as far afield as Indian Village or even Highland Park described as "downtown".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BankruptcyGuy

Can I ask the DYes people this question: how would YOU define "Downtown Detroit"? I'd probably say the area bounded by 75, 375 and the Lodge. What say you?

---

I think most people would agree with this definition. The surrounding neighborhoods, while part of the "core" or "center" or "7.2" or even "Greater Downtown" are not "Downtown."

Now, I have heard people in the suburbs say "going downtown" to refer to going to Slow's or the DIA or Eastern Market, but I think that's just a shorthand reference, not a claim that those places are part of "downtown." And it's better than when people say "going to Detroit" as if it's a totally separate place. [[personally, my preferred nomenclature is "going into the city").

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BankruptcyGuy

Can I ask the DYes people this question: how would YOU define "Downtown Detroit"? I'd probably say the area bounded by 75, 375 and the Lodge. What say you?

---

Officially, you're correct.

But some folks consider the entire area bounded by the freeways as far north as Grand Blvd. "downtown."

Some people are idiots, too.

That's definitely how downtown detroit is defined, but how is downtown ann arbor defined? Kerrytown isn't part of downtown, south u isn't part of downtown, the campus isn't part of downtown, and none of the single family houses are part of downtown. What someone in ann arbor considers "downtown" is probably less than a dozen blocks.

They chose their methodology for deciding these things, and the result is that some downtowns are getting rated very obviously incorrectly [[tuscon does not belong in the same category as manhattan), which throws into doubt the validity of all the other rankings.

I think the metrics they measured are important for the health of cities, and I don't expect Detroit to rank very high on most of those metrics, but this particular analysis is flawed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gnome

Some people are idiots, too.

---

Your point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khorasaurus

And it's better than when people say "going to Detroit" as if it's a totally separate place. [[personally, my preferred nomenclature is "going into the city").

---

I have heard a number of suburbanites say "going down to Detroit" as if the city was in Florida or something. It sounds so odd...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khorasaurus

And it's better than when people say "going to Detroit" as if it's a totally separate place. [[personally, my preferred nomenclature is "going into the city").

---

Oh yes, that grinds my gear just as much as "SE Michigan."

The news media does it too. Whenever someone's reporting a story from the city, instead of stating what side of town or intersection they're near [[which they SHOULD, as "Detroit" is the town they're licensed to and it' a huge place), they say just they're "in Detroit" or "from Detroit."

WJBK is probably the BIGGEST offender of this [[just yet another reason I hate their newscasts), but every station and newspaper does it to an extent.

I seriously want to punch anyone I run into [[in person) who does that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khorasaurus

Now, I have heard people in the suburbs say "going downtown" to refer to going to Slow's or the DIA or Eastern Market, but I think that's just a shorthand reference, not a claim that those places are part of "downtown."

---

Now this I'm fine with.

Fact of the matter is outside the hipster circles [[and who those are really knowledgeable about Detroit), no one has even heard of the name "Midtown" [[but instead, maybe Cass Corridor or New Center Area). However, when you say "downtown," people instantly know you're talking about the center of the city.

And again, I don't have an issue with calling the area that's the center and home base of the region's cultural attractions, flagship university and health care industry/research "downtown" as a short hand reference.

Now, those who say Indian Village, Highland Park and the Redford Theatre are "downtown" are just ignorant, lol.