Detroit's Population in 2018

This week the Census Bureau released information for cities from their 2018 survey. The population loss in Detroit
continues but at a much muted rate. The Census Bureau’s estimate is that Detroit had 672,681 residents in 2018, down about 1500 from their 2017 estimate. From 2010 to 2014, the city lost an average of 7,800 residents each year; from 2014 to 2018, Detroit lost an average of 2500 per year and only 1500 in the last year.
Detroit continues to become diverse. From 2014 to 2018, the white population rose by 5% and, for the first time since about 2004 now exceeds 100,000. The migration of African Americans to the suburbs apparently continues with a loss of 3 percent from 2014 to 2018. The Asian population grew 25% from 2014 to 2018 thanks, perhaps,to a growing population in Banglavillage. The city’s Hispanic population was up 10% from 2014 to 2018.
These are estimates from a Census Bureau survey of about 5100 Detroit households. It will be interesting to see the results of Census 2020. Let's hope the Detroit and
Michigan complete count committees help to get everyone counted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by renf

This week the Census Bureau released information for cities from their 2018 survey. The population loss in Detroit
continues but at a much muted rate. The Census Bureau’s estimate is that Detroit had 672,681 residents in 2018, down about 1500 from their 2017 estimate. From 2010 to 2014, the city lost an average of 7,800 residents each year; from 2014 to 2018, Detroit lost an average of 2500 per year and only 1500 in the last year.
Detroit continues to become diverse. From 2014 to 2018, the white population rose by 5% and, for the first time since about 2004 now exceeds 100,000. The migration of African Americans to the suburbs apparently continues with a loss of 3 percent from 2014 to 2018. The Asian population grew 25% from 2014 to 2018 thanks, perhaps,to a growing population in Banglavillage. The city’s Hispanic population was up 10% from 2014 to 2018.
These are estimates from a Census Bureau survey of about 5100 Detroit households. It will be interesting to see the results of Census 2020. Let's hope the Detroit and
Michigan complete count committees help to get everyone counted.

---

Census yearly estimates are not accurate enough to detect a difference of 1500 people. It's well within the margin of error.

Yeah these 1000 something loses every year are annoying and I'm at the point where I'm not sure I believe it they're counting the demolition program as a loss of people and that's not accurate.

Also interesting data for cities change in white population from 2010-2017

Baltimore: -3.3%
Buffalo: -7.1%
Chicago: 4.5%
Cleveland: -4.4%
Detroit: 27.4%
Milwaukee: -5.9%
Philadelphia: -3.1%
Pittsburgh: -0.7%
St. Louis: -0.2%

I got it from Pete Saunders twitter who's an urban planner in Chicago he has contributed some articles on curbed a few times. Can anybody confirm these percentages?
https://twitter.com/petesaunders3/st...01594355060736

The Census Bureau and several other sources provide access to the
annual data for cities coming from the Census Bureau's annual American Community survey. The numbers shows about change in the white population are accurate.

In Detroit, the white population of the city rose 37% from Census 2010 to the estimate for 2018 while the African American population declined by 12%. Nevertheless, the post bankruptcy efforts to improve the quality of life in Detroit may be reducing the out migration of African Americans to the suburbs. According to the Census Bureau's estimates, the city lost an annual average of 12,600 African American from 2010 to 2014. From 2014 to 2018, the average annual loss was 4,400. These
data come from a survey so the margins of error are moderate.

Data are available to calculate measures of racial residential segregation for the city and they show a modest decline in white-African Americn
segregation since 2010. A quick examination of HMDA - and not a
thorough analysis - suggests that white applicants are seeking home mortgages in census tracts with majority African American population. And in the suburbs, African-Americans appears to be seeking mortgages
in many census tracts with largely white population. However, further
analysis is needed with those HMDA data to confirm this.
in many

The reversal is well underway.

The 2020 Detroit census will be just as bleak and shocking as was the 2010 census. A thin narrow band of light development within the old Cass Corridor will not be sufficient for the massive population losses in the neighborhoods. I'd say Detroit will come in at 550,000 for 2020.

^ I sense a pattern with your excessively negative posts here even if it's totally divorced from reality like that UAW thread you started.

Point on the doll where Detroit hurt you.

In all fairness, the same thing has happened in the past with the Census estimates, as far as them being way too optimistic with Detroit's population trends. If I'm not mistaken, they thought the city still had over 900,000 people in their 2009 estimate.

I will also add to Colombian Dan's point that the city outside of Midtown/Downtown feels a lot more emptier than it did back in 2010.

^ I can't find 2009 numbers you mind pulling those up?

That was during the worst point of the great recession after the state's lost decade and well into the foreclosure crisis. The opposite situation is true today with a booming economy and the most investment in the city we've seen in 40-50 or so years. I have no reason to believe the numbers would be so dramatically off. How much time have you spent in the actual neighborhoods lately? I see renovations almost everywhere including new construction. traditional mortgages are fully recovered from what they were, neighborhood break downs show most areas growing or stable. To say that there's only been light development around cass corridor is just absurd and false.

The population estimates can be quite far off. The estimates of population demographics should be reasonably close.

Don't think it is likely the city's population is below 600K though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metro25

^ I can't find 2009 numbers you mind pulling those up?

---

Here you go.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mli...outputType=amp

A ton of peoole also fled the city in the run up to the city's bankruptcy that weren't accounted for in the 2010 census

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwilbert

The population estimates can be quite far off. The estimates of population demographics should be reasonably close.

Don't think it is likely the city's population is below 600K though.

---

Agreed on the second part. If the demographic numbers are correct, we can expect Detroit's 2020 population to clock in around 640K - 650K. A decline of 60K is very close to the estimated population decline of Wayne County since 2010. The county's population declines tend to closely mirror Detroit's.

To 313: we have no way of knowing how many people and no reasoning that estimates wouldn't have accounted for it. A ton of people have also came to the city during and post 2013. I guess we'll wait and see but so far his predictions have no real backing. Just a hunch or a feeling and pointing to an inaccurate census estimate over ten years old now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metro25

To 313: we have no way of knowing how many people and no reasoning that estimates wouldn't have accounted for it. A ton of people have also came to the city during and post 2013. I guess we'll wait and see but so far his predictions have no real backing. Just a hunch or a feeling and pointing to an inaccurate census estimate over ten years old now.

---

Agreed about just waiting and seeing.

That being said, expectations need to also be kept in check in the opposite direction as well. Using words such as "booming" or implying the city is growing on just a hunch when you look at Detroit's condition as a whole is also not reasonable.

I wonder how many "new" Detroiters still use a address outside of Detroit and won't be counted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitdave

I wonder how many "new" Detroiters still use a address outside of Detroit and won't be counted?

---

Good point. Once auto insurance and income tax shake down reform, maybe then the numbers will be more reflective of reality

This seems to be a pattern in most major/Big American cities across the nation.
I'm curious and wonder, if this pattern continues ,what will big cities look like?.
If what's happening in downtown and midtown moves to the rest of the city, which is starting to happen,Detroit will be a very different city.
Is a blue collar town ready for Yoga Studios and $5.00 coffee shops? Seems to be working in certain parts of the city, but is the rest of the city ready?
I guess we will see soon enough.

QUOTE=renf;580538]The Census Bureau and several other sources provide access to the
annual data for cities coming from the Census Bureau's annual American Community survey. The numbers shows about change in the white population are accurate.

In Detroit, the white population of the city rose 37% from Census 2010 to the estimate for 2018 while the African American population declined by 12%. Nevertheless, the post bankruptcy efforts to improve the quality of life in Detroit may be reducing the out migration of African Americans to the suburbs. According to the Census Bureau's estimates, the city lost an annual average of 12,600 African American from 2010 to 2014. From 2014 to 2018, the average annual loss was 4,400. These
data come from a survey so the margins of error are moderate.

Data are available to calculate measures of racial residential segregation for the city and they show a modest decline in white-African Americn
segregation since 2010. A quick examination of HMDA - and not a
thorough analysis - suggests that white applicants are seeking home mortgages in census tracts with majority African American population. And in the suburbs, African-Americans appears to be seeking mortgages
in many census tracts with largely white population. However, further
analysis is needed with those HMDA data to confirm this.
in many[/QUOTE]

Between 1970 and 1980 we lost 310,600
Between 1980 and 1990 we lost 175,000
Between 1990 and 2000 we lost 77,000
Between 2000 and 2010 we lost 238,000

I'm with most here in believing that the second half of this decade was very good in Detroit,.. and so instead of the average loss of 200,000 residents,.. I think we're only going to loose about 130,000 this time around.

So I'll go on the record with my guess,... that the 2020 census will come back at about 585,000 or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 313WX

In all fairness, the same thing has happened in the past with the Census estimates, as far as them being way too optimistic with Detroit's population trends. If I'm not mistaken, they thought the city still had over 900,000 people in their 2009 estimate.

I will also add to Colombian Dan's point that the city outside of Midtown/Downtown feels a lot more emptier than it did back in 2010.

---

Does it perhaps feel a lot more emptier as you say because half of the abandoned and burnt out structures artificially filling the aesthetic of the neighborhoods are gone? As someone who is regularly in those places, methinks so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bartocktoo

Does it perhaps feel a lot more emptier as you say because half of the abandoned and burnt out structures artificially filling the aesthetic of the neighborhoods are gone?

---

That's probably a part of it.

Another part might be that unemployment is way down,... so there are less people just standing around on the corner all day.

Detroit 2020

74.4% BLACK
16.0% WHITE
8% HISPANIC
1% OTHER
1.4% ASIAN

Detroit 2030

61.8% BLACK
25.1% WHITE
9.9% HISPANIC
1% OTHER
1.9% ASIAN

Detroit 2040

51.2% BLACK
33.6% WHITE
11.5% HISPANIC
3.8% ASIAN
2% OTHER

Detroit 2050

43.9% BLACK
45.8% WHITE
8.7% HISPANIC
1.7% OTHER
3.3% ASIAN


So what's next!!!

500,000 would surprise [[barring insurance and residency) --- Portland and Seattle have much more as is told by the Census

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SammyS

Good point. Once auto insurance and income tax shake down reform, maybe then the numbers will be more reflective of reality

---

What are the odds that either of these things happen though?

Both parties seem to be unwilling to do what needs to be done on auto insurance. They had an opportunity to make needed changes, like making the whole state one geographic risk pool or stopping hospitals from charging car crash victims exponentially more for service than other patients. These changes of course would require the courage to stand up to big money in healthcare and insurance. Republicans actively protect these groups and Democrats lack the spine or votes to do anything.

Reform of income tax at the city level though is certainly doable. Eliminate the difference between the rates for working and working/living in the city to incentivize those who already work in Detroit to move in as well.

I agree that these are the two big barriers to population recovery right now and fixing them will almost certainly turn around the population trend overnight.

People who work in the city but dont live there should be taxed, people who do work and live in the city shouldn't. I dont understand why it's the other way around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metro25

People who work in the city but dont live there should be taxed, people who do work and live in the city shouldn't. I dont understand why it's the other way around.

---

It isn't quite.

People who work AND live here pay 2.4%
People who work here but live elsewhere pay 1.2%

So the difference is 1.2%,... which I doubt plays much of a factor in where someone decides to live.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say crime, home/auto insurance rates and schools are each on their own some 10x more of a factor than City income tax rates.

Let's say you make 50k a year. 1.2% of that is only $600 A YEAR.

But the extra homeowners insurance might be $800 more a year, and the extra cost of insuring 2 cars might be $2,500 a year, PER CAR [[than if you lived in Oakland County or Ann Arbor),... That's $5,800 more per year.

And if you have to have to send your 2 children to private school,... that's an extra $15,000 a year.

That extra $600 a year in income tax quickly becomes a non factor.

Regardless people not living in the city should be paying more. not the other way around.

I remember when the debate was whether or not Detroit had a million and San Diego would be a "bigger" city. Anything new is better than nothing at all IMO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metro25

Regardless people not living in the city should be paying more. not the other way around.

---

Why? The income tax supports city services, which inure primarily to the benefit of city residents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigdd

It isn't quite.

People who work AND live here pay 2.4%
People who work here but live elsewhere pay 1.2%

So the difference is 1.2%,... which I doubt plays much of a factor in where someone decides to live.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say crime, home/auto insurance rates and schools are each on their own some 10x more of a factor than City income tax rates.

Let's say you make 50k a year. 1.2% of that is only $600 A YEAR.

But the extra homeowners insurance might be $800 more a year, and the extra cost of insuring 2 cars might be $2,500 a year, PER CAR [[than if you lived in Oakland County or Ann Arbor),... That's $5,800 more per year.

And if you have to have to send your 2 children to private school,... that's an extra $15,000 a year.

That extra $600 a year in income tax quickly becomes a non factor.

---

But if you don't need a car because the city provided sufficient alternative transit options... That would be a game changer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

But if you don't need a car because the city provided sufficient alternative transit options... That would be a game changer.

---

Great point. This would also be in tandem with an effort to concentrate more of the jobs in the city and the inner ring suburbs.

Anyway, I think the city's population is closer to 500,000. Black flight to the suburbs and Atlanta/Phoenix has not subsided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

But if you don't need a car because the city provided sufficient alternative transit options... That would be a game changer.

---

The math never works out on that though [[except in Manhattan).

Let’s say you buy a well used car and put PLPD on it. Pay $3k for the car and it lasts you 4 years before you junk it. That gives us $750 per year for car,…. plus $1200 for the PLPD insurance. You drive it 20 min each way to work,.. plus some on the weekends, or about 210 hours a year. Fuel at $3 a gal, or $9 in gas an hour. Total cost of using a car ends up at something like $18 an hour.

So it costs you $6 to drive the 20 min each way to work.

OR,… you could spend an hour waiting in the cold for a bus, riding the bus.. then taking a transfer etc to get there. And of course the ride costs you $2.50 [[less if you buy a monthly pass). So you save $3.50 - $4.00 for that miserable extra 40 min.

So in conclusion,…. if you make more than $4.75 an hour,… YOU SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD to take public transportation. People that don’t do that math are destined to be poor all their life.


It works in Manhattan for 3-4 reasons
1. The population density is 5.5 x what it is in Detroit. [[26,400 per sq mile v.s. 4,880)
2. Traffic is so bad and parking so scarce, that it’s actually FASTER taking the subway. [[It’s slower in every other city). People aren’t doing it to SAVE money,.. they’re doing it to MAKE MORE.
3. That pop density means there is a subway coming every 5 or so minutes. In a place with less than 1/5the population like Detroit,.. there would be far fewer trains,.. and hence, longer waits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigdd

The math never works out on that though [[except in Manhattan).

Let’s say you buy a well used car and put PLPD on it. Pay $3k for the car and it lasts you 4 years before you junk it. That gives us $750 per year for car,…. plus $1200 for the PLPD insurance. You drive it 20 min each way to work,.. plus some on the weekends, or about 210 hours a year. Fuel at $3 a gal, or $9 in gas an hour. Total cost of using a car ends up at something like $18 an hour.

So it costs you $6 to drive the 20 min each way to work.

OR,… you could spend an hour waiting in the cold for a bus, riding the bus.. then taking a transfer etc to get there. And of course the ride costs you $2.50 [[less if you buy a monthly pass). So you save $3.50 - $4.00 for that miserable extra 40 min.

So in conclusion,…. if you make more than $4.75 an hour,… YOU SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD to take public transportation. People that don’t do that math are destined to be poor all their life.


It works in Manhattan for 3-4 reasons
1. The population density is 5.5 x what it is in Detroit. [[26,400 per sq mile v.s. 4,880)
2. Traffic is so bad and parking so scarce, that it’s actually FASTER taking the subway. [[It’s slower in every other city). People aren’t doing it to SAVE money,.. they’re doing it to MAKE MORE.
3. That pop density means there is a subway coming every 5 or so minutes. In a place with less than 1/5the population like Detroit,.. there would be far fewer trains,.. and hence, longer waits.

---

1. Many cities of low densities have robust public transit and rapid transit systems. Cities like Salt Lake City, Denver, Charlotte, Dallas, Atlanta, Portland, Cleveland, Minneapolis/St. Paul, St. Louis, San Jose, Phoenix, San Diego and others all have rail rapid transit. None of these are nowhere near as compact as Manhattan.

2. A $3,000 car is going to break down and have some costly repairs. You are also going to need to do tune-ups and oil changes. Insurance in the city is going to cast at least $150 per month for no-fault, not $100. I am paying $4,000 per year for 2 vehicles that are a combined 32 years old.

[[P.S. a 20-minute commute? Most people have longer commutes than that)

3. A more robust transit system's main goal would be to connect the city with the suburbs, so that 4,880 density figure should also include the density of the suburban communities that would be getting better connected to the city.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by masterblaster

1. Many cities of low densities have robust public transit and rapid transit systems. Cities like Salt Lake City, Denver, Charlotte, Dallas, Atlanta, Portland, Cleveland, Minneapolis/St. Paul, St. Louis, San Jose, Phoenix, San Diego and others all have rail rapid transit. None of these are nowhere near as compact as Manhattan.

2. A $3,000 car is going to break down and have some costly repairs. You are also going to need to do tune-ups and oil changes. Insurance in the city is going to cast at least $150 per month for no-fault, not $100. I am paying $4,000 per year for 2 vehicles that are a combined 32 years old.

[[P.S. a 20-minute commute? Most people have longer commutes than that)

3. A more robust transit system's main goal would be to connect the city with the suburbs, so that 4,880 density figure should also include the density of the suburban communities that would be getting better connected to the city.

---

Nonsense. Why? I've spent over 4 months seeing what's going on

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LongGone06

Why? The income tax supports city services, which inure primarily to the benefit of city residents.

---

Because they already pay for those services via property taxes while workers who don't like in the city dont yet still use city infrastructure and services.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metro25

Because they already pay for those services via property taxes while workers who don't like in the city dont yet still use city infrastructure and services.

---

City income tax exists for the very reason that property taxes are insufficient to support the services residents enjoy, or in some cases, lack. Along with the cost of parking, it is [[or at least it used to be) a competitive disadvantage to landlords and businesses located in the city. Employees who commute daily to business centers in Southfield, Troy, and Farmington Hills use those cities' infrastructure and services, but are not burdened with an additional tax. I paid city income tax for many years while working downtown, though I did not live in the city. The income tax was always a point of contention with potential new hires.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigdd

The math never works out on that though [[except in Manhattan).

Let’s say you buy a well used car and put PLPD on it. Pay $3k for the car and it lasts you 4 years before you junk it. That gives us $750 per year for car,…. plus $1200 for the PLPD insurance. You drive it 20 min each way to work,.. plus some on the weekends, or about 210 hours a year. Fuel at $3 a gal, or $9 in gas an hour. Total cost of using a car ends up at something like $18 an hour.

So it costs you $6 to drive the 20 min each way to work.

OR,… you could spend an hour waiting in the cold for a bus, riding the bus.. then taking a transfer etc to get there. And of course the ride costs you $2.50 [[less if you buy a monthly pass). So you save $3.50 - $4.00 for that miserable extra 40 min.

So in conclusion,…. if you make more than $4.75 an hour,… YOU SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD to take public transportation. People that don’t do that math are destined to be poor all their life.


It works in Manhattan for 3-4 reasons
1. The population density is 5.5 x what it is in Detroit. [[26,400 per sq mile v.s. 4,880)
2. Traffic is so bad and parking so scarce, that it’s actually FASTER taking the subway. [[It’s slower in every other city). People aren’t doing it to SAVE money,.. they’re doing it to MAKE MORE.
3. That pop density means there is a subway coming every 5 or so minutes. In a place with less than 1/5the population like Detroit,.. there would be far fewer trains,.. and hence, longer waits.

---

1 - People live car free in places other than Manhattan.
2 - If Detroit is going to ever rebound as a city, it will have to become a dense city again. So, you just spelled out exactly what Detroit needs to do in order to save itself.