Printable View
What are the implications?
Is it a Metro Detroit problem or a city of Detroit problem? Or is it even a problem at all?
I was skeptical about the previous predictions of a less than 800,000 resident Detroit. But that was before the Ohio numbers released today showed that Cleveland declined by over 17%. Detroit and Cleveland inner-cities have pretty much mirrored each other in decline since 1960. So, I think a less than 800,000 resident Detroit has gone from improbable to inevitable.
I don't think it particularly matters whether the population is above or below some random arbitrary threshold at some random arbitrary point in time. There are lots of examples of thriving, successful cities with populations both above and below 800,000. The real issue in Detroit is that the city is continuing to shrink rather than stabilizing at some lower level, and that's something we've been confronted with for quite a long time.
Much of the eastside has returned to savanna. Why not take advantage of that land and turn it into productive farm land?
The only real implication is the city proper will lose more federal dollars to cities such as Indianapolis, San Francisco and Jacksonville.
Otherwise, everything's ho-hum as usual.
EDIT: Well there's one more thing. If Detroit continues to decline then the suburbs will lose their ticket to rectify their relevance to the rest of this country [[and maybe the state) because the city will lose its stance as a "major" city.
Not sure what you meant by this, could you elaborate please?Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
As said before the only thing the city/state will lose is federal dollars. My question is this money given to the state in the form of a block grant, then the state decides how to hand it out? If that is the case I could see the legislature redefining what criteria [[specifically population) cities need to meet to receive such monies.
Well lets face it, outside of the area, who would give "SE Michigan" a second thought without Detroit?Quote:
Originally Posted by 5speedz34
I don't agree that the number is arbitrary. Yes, there are cities with less than 800,000 residents that are thriving, but none of those cities are 1) at the center of a 4.5 million person region and 2) have the same land area as Detroit. Let's take Boston for instance. Boston Metro is about the same size as Metro Detroit. Boston as of the 2000 census had 589,000 residents. Detroit at the time had 951,000. But Boston only has a land area of 48 square miles, whereas Detroit has a land area of 139 square miles. When you expand the physical boundaries of Boston to a size comparable to Detroit city it's a much different story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Augustiner
If Boston had annexed the contiguous set of towns* surrounding it until it reached an area of roughly the size of Detroit, then in 2000 it would have had a population of 1.14 million. Now, there isn't a huge difference between 1.14 million and 951,000, but the trajectory of the population in Detroit was clearly still negative in 2000, whereas in Boston the population had already stabilized. So we're now likely talking about less than 800,000 people in the same space that a thriving area like Boston fits 1.14 million [[probably something more like 1.3 million once the 2010 numbers are released for Massachusetts).
*For comparison purposes, I merged the following towns to make the larger Boston for comparison purposes [[all in Massachusetts): Brookline, Dedham, Needham, Newton, Cambridge, Somerville, Watertown, Belmont, Arlington, Waltham, Wellesley.
Detroit has also quite possibly gone from being the second largest municipality in the Midwest to being fourth.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX