http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/mar...,7688197.story
After years of losing population, Baltimore has turned the tide among other cities that have recently gained population. When will the tide turn in Detroit?
Printable View
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/mar...,7688197.story
After years of losing population, Baltimore has turned the tide among other cities that have recently gained population. When will the tide turn in Detroit?
Detroit is going "splat" as we speak, with the EM and the Kwame and the Exodus. As to how much longer the BS and incompetence will last, and when things will start to turn the corner, a simple drive around town will leave you with as big a question mark as any.
But but but downtown and the corridor are doing so well?!
Not until at least 2030, according to SEMCOG:
Quote:
None of the decisions, experts here say, will be simple, and some wonder whether Detroit can be saved at all. Some 700,000 residents now live in this vast 139-square-mile city that once was home to nearly two million people. That number may fall to close to 600,000 by 2030 before the population begins to rise again, one regional planning group projects.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/us/for-detroit-a-financial-crisis-was-long-coming.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0
Keep in mind Census estimates tends to OVERESTIMATE the population numbers.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE
Quote:
Detroit lost a quarter of its population between 2000 and 2010 and demographer Xuan Liu estimates it had fallen to 678,000 by last July, down from the 713,717 estimated by the 2010 Census.
600K by 2030? ?? ??? ???? ?????Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
That's rich. Detroit would be lucky if it has 600K in 2020. I seriously think Detroit will be down to about 400K before the population even stabilizes - assuming the population ever stabilizes.
Granted it's an apples and oranges comparison, but Pittsburgh [[304k) has lost more than half it's population since 1950, Cleveland [[397k) lost at about the same rate and is still falling. So although the numbers are large, the population drop in Detroit seems to mirror other rust belt cities in rate of population decline since 1950.
Although both cities have had some rough times [[Cleveland probably more so), both seem to be doing reletively OK at the moment. So I guess it's not so much the population loss, it's how you handle it that counts.
Detroit's future population loss stats don't make sense to me. I struggle to find where this huge chunk of Detroit residents that will leave are moving to that will drop the population dramatically lower than it is. 36% of the population is below the poverty level. Almost 50% cant read. These people have the option to leave? If so where are they going where their situation would be better?
Their children can get a better education, the police/fire/ems wil show up on time if they have an emergency, and they will be in easier reach to the lower wage jobs by moving to the suburbs.Quote:
Originally Posted by maverick1
Harper Woods and Eastpointe have already started to become renter communities as everyone else fled for Shelby Township and Sterling Heights. Yet and still these suburban communities don't suffer from the same type of institutional dysfunction that Detroit does.
I don't think it's possible for Detroit to go that low without southeast Michigan completely imploding on itself. We'll see though...Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumbled_pavement
The EM was put in place purposely to make sure Detroit doesn't drag down the rest of the region with its population decline.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
You can bet Brooksie did the harlem shake when Snyder made the announcement today.
It is likely that your 36% and 50% are the same people so that that all or some of the other 50% [[or 350,000) might want to leave for a better life. This would indicate that a likely realistic minimum population would bottom at over 350,000 depending on the birth rate of the 50% that spend their time not reading. The scarey question for the suburbs is if the criminals start to re-locate, because we have too many of our own. We just hope they are below the poverty line and can't read.Quote:
Originally Posted by maverick1
I'm not sure he should be so happy. I highly doubt that Detroit avoids bankruptcy unless Michigan is willing to front the cash for its obligations. And if Detroit loses another 100,000 [[or 300,000) residents then it will absolutely go into bankruptcy.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
But further than that... Detroit doesn't exist in a bubble. There are regional dynamics related to Detroit's population stability that go far beyond city hall. The most obvious question is if another 300,000 people leave Detroit then where are they going? Since we're talking about a population that isn't very affluent overall that would mean where ever they go would have to be very cheap. So if they go to the suburbs then that would mean the bar to entry in the suburbs is pretty low. What type of dynamics would be at play in the suburbs to make the cost of living in the suburbs low enough to allow a bunch of poor Detroit residents to move in? There are a lot of variables and it'll be interesting to see how this will play out.
When Detroit goes into bankruptcy, Michigan's going to make sure it's managed as much as possible to prevent collateral damage to the finances of the state and surrounding suburbs.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
As far as Detroit bleeding more people into the suburbs, that will be interesting to see what socio-economic impacts it will have on the region. What I imagine will happen instead is we'll have downtown as an island of prosperity, the outer ring suburbs as another ring of prosperity while the areas in between [[Detroit's outer neighborhoods and the inner ring suburbs) will be the new dumping ground for SE Michigan's undesirables.
This region us good at shuffling around its problems versus addressing them head on.