Detroit lost another 10,000 year over year. Brighton, Milford/Lyon, Clarkston, Oakland Twp, Shelby, and Northville are the few region's cities that actually saw population growth. Those towns have one thing in common: they are about as far as you can realistically go if you work in/near the city.
Other inner cities:
Grand Rapids +2,000
Flint -1,000
Pontiac +300
http://www.freep.com/article/20140522/NEWS06/305220121/
So Oakland, Macomb, and Lyon Townships have the greatest population growth, and Detroit and the older/inner suburbs have the greatest population decline.
So is the "sprawl is dead" claim BS, per the Census results, or is the issue more nuanced?
688,701 with about 10K loss or about 1.5% loss year over year gives the appearance of slowing losses. 2013 - 2014 figures might surprise us by showing population loss as flat, fueled by an improving economy and city image.
Quote:
Detroit— The 60-year exodus from Detroit is continuing but may be slowing, as the city’s population has fallen under 700,000 residents, according to estimates released today by the U.S. Census Bureau.
The government pegs the city’s population at 688,701 as of summer 2013, down nearly 10,000 residents from 2012. The rate of decline, though, has slowed to an average of 7,500 per year since 2010 compared with 24,000 per year in the 2000s.
Suburban counties — Oakland, Macomb and Livingston — gained about 1 percent in population, while Wayne County lost about 1 percent, the records show. Its decline is fueled largely by Detroit, which had 1.9 million residents in 1950 and is now smaller than it was at any point since before 1920.
From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz32RkhnR2w
That was my takeaway. And also, Grand Rapids gets it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
That's an optimistic way to look at it. In my opinion, the slowdown is likely from families that remain have the most limited resources, and thus no mobility to make a move, even if they wanted to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell
It is called "voting with your feet". When things become intolerable and you are politically powerless to fix it, you move. Maybe Detroit could put up "Berlin Walls" along 8-Mile and Telegraph to stop the outflow.
Keep in mind these are just estimates. Didn't the 2009 Census estimate Detroit's population at just over 900,000?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell
If you drive around parts of the city that are not Downtown/Midtown frequently enough, you will see the decline is still happening in real time at a steady pace.
Estimating pop. by using new housing permits and demolitions seems totally useless in Detroit. None of the rehabs of abandoned houses would count and if more houses, already abandoned for yrs., are demolished, that counts against the city.
They were doing that before the last official census, and the estimates were actually above what the actual population of Detroit turned out to be in 2010. But you did get one thing right - the formulas the Census Bureau devised weren't intended to accurately chart the death of a major American city.Quote:
Originally Posted by 401don
Also, don't let characters like Bham1926 or whatever know you doubt Census estimates. The whole "Metro Detroit is growing again" argument counts on those estimates.
Per the US Census, yes, it is dead:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
Quote:
Americans’ growing love affair with cities shows few signs of abating, with several large cities growing last year at several times the national, suggest new findings from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Census out Thursday, show that in 2013 Americans kept moving to cities, favoring them over suburbs across the USA. In a few areas, the shift has resulted in unprecedented changes: San Jose, in the heart of California’s Silicon Valley, is poised to crack the million-resident milestone for the first time. It is the 10th-largest city, surpassing its neighbor San Francisco, as well as places like Austin, Indianapolis and Jacksonville.
http://www.freep.com/article/20140522/NEWS07/305220182/In-latest-U-S-Census-figures-cities-continue-growing
Seems like the U.S. Census is reporting just the opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
For raw population growth, among the 15 cities with the greatest population growth, only NYC, at #1, is an old-line city. The rest are all sprawly cities that annexed their suburbs [[places like Houston, Fort Worth, Phoenix, etc.)
For % population growth, among the the largest U.S. cities, the worst performer is Chicago, clearly a traditional-style urban city, and the best performer is Austin, clearly a Sunbelt sprawler.
For overall fastest growth, Texas and Utah cities dominate the list. For overall population decline, Michigan, Ohio, and Illinois cities dominate the list.
In Michigan, fastest growing jurisdiction, by far, is Lyon Twp. in sprawliest part of Oakland County. Fastest declining jurisdiction is Highland Park, in traditionally densest part of Wayne County.
That's a nicely skewed axis... 1990, 2000, 2010, 2012 :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by SDCC
I don't know what data you're looking at... The only Oakland\Macomb inner-ring suburb to lose population was Royal Oak Township. The rest all gained population.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
People that stick around Michigan continue to flee the "Detroit creep"Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
I never said anything specifically about inner-ring Oakland-Macomb suburbs.Quote:
Originally Posted by 48307
But the data seems to support what I wrote. The inner ring suburbs are generally showing decline, and the outer ring is generally showing growth.
In Oakland and Macomb basically no jurisdiction is showing absolute population decline [[that's reserved for Wayne), but you see all the growth in the outer fringe, not the inner suburbs. Oakland and Macomb are healthy and growing overall, while Wayne is sick and declining overall, but even in Oakland and Macomb, you see the outer fringe sprawl driving the growth.
Since you seem to be a fan of sprawl, shouldn't you move about 20 miles north?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
Sorry, not a fan of sprawl. Just don't think it's dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroiterOnTheWestCoast
No, you would need to measure the urban cores against growth of those suburbs to draw your conclusion. You can't say because Houston has a higher rate of growth than San Francisco that people must love sprawl because Houston is relatively sprawly. Taken all together the article is saying that the growth of urban cores nationwide is higher than suburban growth rates nationwide. This is something that hasn't happened on a national level in the postwar era.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
If populations continue to shift outward, how is that "healthy"? See you're own comment about Wayne County "sick and declining overall". You think that kind of phenomenon hits the brakes at 8 Mile Road?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
And is it really "growth" if it's just a physical shifting of the population?
Please explain how jurisdictions like Warren, Hazel Park, Roseville, Oak Park, Southfield are all suffering from decline then. I don't really understand this statement. These areas are built out, have had little new development and the household size continues to shrink. .3 is not growth is is at best maintenance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
Only in Michigan apparently...Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
Yay! Stagnant regional population and more infrastructure. How can this go wrong in the long term. Better spend billions to widen roads and expand schools in the far flung townships.
It just makes great economic sense. Continue to expand the infrastructure while the total population is the same it was 40 years ago. And there are people out there that actually call this growth and progress. Something in the water in this area must really turn people into economic retards
I never said that every single older suburb is showing absolute decline, just not like every single newer sprawlburb is showing crazy growth.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
I said that the sprawly outer fringe is generally growing, and the urban/inner suburban ring is generally declining, which is true. Whether a few inner suburbs show small growth doesn't really change the narrative, as places like Southfield are losing out to places like Novi.
The data show the opposite. Suburban areas show more growth than urban areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
There are only a few traditional urban areas showing robust growth. NYC, SF, DC, maybe Boston. These are special cases, for obvious reasons. The rest are basically stagnant or declining.