L. Brooks: "I Don't Want to End Sprawl. I Love it."

**Detroitnerd** · February-13-12, 12:17 PM

Umm ... Detroit has flatlined for decades.

What planet do you live on?

**Bham1982** · February-13-12, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Umm ... Detroit has flatlined for decades.

What planet do you live on?

The planet with something called the U.S. Census Bureau.

Detroit has growth some years, and decline other years. The long-term trend is one of relative stability [[or stagnation, depending on perspective), but the fact is that most other metros in the Eastern Great Lakes have even worse population trends, and they're much more transit-friendly and sprawl-averse.

So why is transit-friendly, revitalized Pittsburgh losing more folks than Detroit? Even in Detroit's decade of horrors [[oo's), it barely lost any population, while Pittsburgh had very significant population decline.

My guess is that sprawl and transit play very minor roles in regional population trends. I don't see any evidence that more centralized, transit friendly regions have more growth than sprawly, crap transit regions.

**Detroitnerd** · February-13-12, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

The planet with something called the U.S. Census Bureau.

Detroit hasn't flatlined. It has growth some years, and decline other years. The long-term trend is one of relative stability [[or stagnation, depending on perspective), but the fact is that most other metros in the Eastern Great Lakes have even worse population trends, and they're much more transit-friendly and sprawl-averse.

What weaseling! The population has remained stagnant, more or less, as you admit. And yet you want to also say that it has grown. You can't have it both ways. I know your type. Can't argue the facts, argue the circumstances. Distract. Change the subject. Shift the context. Alter the definitions of what you're talking about.

**jt1** · February-13-12, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

The planet with something called the U.S. Census Bureau.

Detroit has growth some years, and decline other years. The long-term trend is one of relative stability [[or stagnation, depending on perspective), but the fact is that most other metros in the Eastern Great Lakes have even worse population trends, and they're much more transit-friendly and sprawl-averse.

So why is transit-friendly, revitalized Pittsburgh losing more folks than Detroit? Even in Detroit's decade of horrors [[oo's), it barely lost any population, while Pittsburgh had very significant population decline.

My guess is that sprawl and transit play very minor roles in regional population trends. I don't see any evidence that more centralized, transit friendly regions have more growth than sprawly, crap transit regions.

Strictly comparing population growth is not the relevant argument.

Comparing population growth and additional land converted to residential/business use is the important metric to consider.

Even if Metro Detroit's population [[remaining flat) is better than Pittsburgh's growth over the years it is critical to look at additional land use consumed over that time. That will really give you a true comparison of what is relevant to this dicussion.

What is better: Adding one person [[and converting 1000 acres to residential/business use) or losing one person and not expanding the metr footprint.

Given that roads, schools and other infrastrcuture are costly I would prefer to lose the one person and not grow our regional footprint [[and associated costs)

**Novine** · February-13-12, 12:36 PM

"So why is transit-friendly, revitalized Pittsburgh losing more folks than Detroit? Even in Detroit's decade of horrors [[oo's), it barely lost any population, while Pittsburgh had very significant population decline."

Wrong. Detroit MSA's percentage of population decline was greater than Pittsburgh's over the past 10 years. It also deliberately ignores the point that whatever Patterson thinks are the virtues of sprawl, it has resulted in almost no population growth in the MSA over the past 40 years. Detroit's simply spread the same number of people out over a greater area. As that growth has spread, so has the infrastructure, creating an ever-increasing burden on everyone who lives in the MSA to pay for it. That's as true in the suburbs as it is in the city. Why do you keep pretending that it's not the case? Why do you think that's a healthy pattern of growth for the MSA?

**gameguy56** · February-13-12, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Oakland has some of the densest, most walkable parts of the metro.

Some, but the Woodward5 + Birmingham communities are only about 10% of the county's population. 90% of Oakland County residents live in sprawly messes.

**iheartthed** · February-13-12, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

I'm comparing apples-to-apples.

Relative to other Rust Belt metros, Detroit has exhibited fairly robust growth. It's post-WWII growth rates have regularly bested most other cities in the industrialized Great Lakes region.

Though you're right that my terminology was off, as Detroit's growth isn't really "impressive", but it isn't a negative outlier either.

Obviously Detroit's relative growth sucks compared to Riverside-San Bernadino, which is just an exurban centerless Sunbelt sprawl.

But I thought, [[according to this thread, at least) that centerless Sunbelt sprawls with no transit can't grow. How is it that this heat-baked crapload of ugly SoCal cities manages to grow?

It's been better than Pittsburgh and Buffalo, similar to Cleveland, worse than Chicago and the former manufacturing cities on the east coast. I believe the only four major metros in the country to have ever, in the history of the census, posted decade-over-decade population losses are Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Cleveland and Detroit. Detroit has had three decades where it has posted population loss and they'd all be consecutive if not for the blip of the 1990s [[the three lost decades were 1970 -1980, 1980 - 1990, and 2000-2010). Detroit may not be quite Pittsburgh or Buffalo, but it's hardly been the brightest spot in the Rust Belt either.

My theory about Detroit is that the deficiencies in the auto industry-dependent economy were somewhat covered up by sprawl construction. I think it's similar to what happened in Inland Empire, CA, Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Atlanta, etc., and how their "booming" economies were artificially propped up by excess construction. It was all just building for the sake of building.

These places all shared the distinction of suffering the worst losses in value after the housing collapse. They also had the highest unemployment rates at the height of the mortgage collapse. I believe the Detroit area still has the sole distinction among major U.S. metros of having average home values that are currently less than they were in 2000. Sprawl caused that, not just a faltering auto industry.

**iheartthed** · February-13-12, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Novine

"So why is transit-friendly, revitalized Pittsburgh losing more folks than Detroit? Even in Detroit's decade of horrors [[oo's), it barely lost any population, while Pittsburgh had very significant population decline."

Wrong. Detroit MSA's percentage of population decline was greater than Pittsburgh's over the past 10 years. It also deliberately ignores the point that whatever Patterson thinks are the virtues of sprawl, it has resulted in almost no population growth in the MSA over the past 40 years. Detroit's simply spread the same number of people out over a greater area. As that growth has spread, so has the infrastructure, creating an ever-increasing burden on everyone who lives in the MSA to pay for it. That's as true in the suburbs as it is in the city. Why do you keep pretending that it's not the case? Why do you think that's a healthy pattern of growth for the MSA?

And if that weren't bad enough the GDP to support that infrastructure has been on a death spiral compared to other major metropolitan areas in the country. So you're supporting more land with less money. That ponzi scheme is clearly showing the strains even if some people feel that they are shielded by artificial boundaries.

**antongast** · February-13-12, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

But I thought, [[according to this thread, at least) that centerless Sunbelt sprawls with no transit can't grow.

Nobody here is making that argument. Growth and sprawl exist independently from one another, and people who conflate the two are [[like Patterson) typically trying to mislead people into supporting or condoning sprawl.

Some places [[like the Sunbelt) both grow and sprawl simultaneously. Some places grow without sprawling, or [[like metro Detroit) sprawl without growing. Some places neither sprawl nor grow. You can have both together, or neither, or either one without the other. There is nothing inconsistent or unrealistic about supporting growth while opposing sprawl. That doesn't mean there's no room for debate about the merits of that position, but Patterson is trying to delegitimize the position itself and discredit its proponents, not participate in a good-faith debate on the merits.

**313WX** · February-13-12, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Metro Detroit also grew in conjunction with its sprawl.

Novine pretty much covered everything, but what I will add to it is...

Chicago has grown from 5 million people to 10 million people since 1960 [[doubling in population).

Detroit has increased from just above 4 million people in 1960 to...oh wait, it hasn't grown, as it's still JUST ABOVE 4 MILLION PEOPLE.

Yet the land area has increasing by at least 50%.

**Bham1982** · February-13-12, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by Novine

Wrong. Detroit MSA's percentage of population decline was greater than Pittsburgh's over the past 10 years.

No, this isn't true.

Per 2010 Census results, Metro Detroit lost 2.5% of its population, and Metro Pittsburgh lost 3.1% of its population, for the years 2000-2010.

And this past decade was a big outlier. In most decades since WWII and deindustrialization, the difference is far greater, with Detroit recording small gains, and Pittsburgh recording sizable losses.

So why is it that a city doing everything right, by your calculation, is doing worse than a city doing everything wrong?

My guess is that sprawl and transit quality have little to do with relative levels of economic prosperity. These issues speak more to a region's priorities and historical development timeframe than any overarching issues of relative prosperity.

**Detroitnerd** · February-13-12, 02:00 PM

Don't want to admit Detroit has flatlined? Change the subject and argue about something else!

What a piece of work this guy is.

**Bham1982** · February-13-12, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

Novine pretty much covered everything, but what I will add to it is...

Chicago has grown from 5 million people to 10 million people since 1960 [[doubling in population).

Detroit has increased from just above 4 million people in 1960 to...oh wait, it hasn't grown, as it's still JUST ABOVE 4 MILLION PEOPLE.

None of this is true.

Chicago grew from 6.8 million to 9.4 million from the period 1960-2010.

Detroit grew from 3.7 million to 4.3 million from the period 1960-2010.

So both metros grew substantially, though Chicago grew more substantially. Both areas very badly trail national growth during the same time period.

But this misses the larger point that IMO there is no evidence that cities grow faster or stronger if they have light rail or less sprawl or bigger downtowns.

The fastest growing metros during this time period rarely have any of these things.

**Detroitnerd** · February-13-12, 02:11 PM

This reminds me of a game of darts where one player just keeps moving the dartboard wherever their darts landed.

**jt1** · February-13-12, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

No, this isn't true.

Per 2010 Census results, Metro Detroit lost 2.5% of its population, and Metro Pittsburgh lost 3.1% of its population, for the years 2000-2010.

And this past decade was a big outlier. In most decades since WWII and deindustrialization, the difference is far greater, with Detroit recording small gains, and Pittsburgh recording sizable losses.

So why is it that a city doing everything right, by your calculation, is doing worse than a city doing everything wrong?

My guess is that sprawl and transit quality have little to do with relative levels of economic prosperity. These issues speak more to a region's priorities and historical development timeframe than any overarching issues of relative prosperity.

Where are you getting the 2.5% figure?

The information I have lists 2000 population at 4,452,557 and 2010 population of 4,296,250 for a 3.51% loss. This is less than the 3.08% loss in PIttsurgh.

But, as discussed before, the critical factor in this discussion is equivalent growth [[or decline) in population as well as additional lands developed for use.

Ignoring land use makes the argument of population loss irrelevant here. If you want to discuss population loss by MSAs there were only 8 MSAs out of 366 that did worse that the Detroit-Warren-Livonia MSA.

So what are we doing so right? How could one defend LBPs positions that have been a contributor [[albeit only one of many) to this?

**jt1** · February-13-12, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

None of this is true.

Chicago grew from 6.8 million to 9.4 million from the period 1960-2010.

Detroit grew from 3.7 million to 4.3 million from the period 1960-2010.

So both metros grew substantially, though Chicago grew more substantially. Both areas very badly trail national growth during the same time period.

Interesting that you chose 1960. Now let's go with 1970 - 2010.

Detroit DECLINED from just over 4.3 million to to just under 4.3 million from the period 1970-2010.

There are lies, damn lies and statistics. You are using stats to prove a point that is incorrect. Metro Detroit has declined in the last 40 years. The Census supports that.

**Novine** · February-13-12, 03:08 PM

Here's my source.

You want to see a real indicator of sprawl? Detroit's MSA added almost 90,000 housing units between 2000 and 2010 while losing 156,000 people. Pittsburgh lost 74,000 people but only added 23,500 housing units. In Detroit, we built more homes and more water and sewer lines and more roads and added more debt and abandoned more existing infrastructure at the same time we lost over 150,000 people. There's your sprawl and that's why this region is in decline. We can't afford what we have but we continue to build more of it.

**Novine** · February-13-12, 03:14 PM

More stats showing the "growth" in Oakland County is mostly about shuffling deck chairs.

**iheartthed** · February-13-12, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

None of this is true.

Chicago grew from 6.8 million to 9.4 million from the period 1960-2010.

Detroit grew from 3.7 million to 4.3 million from the period 1960-2010.

So both metros grew substantially, though Chicago grew more substantially. Both areas very badly trail national growth during the same time period.

But this misses the larger point that IMO there is no evidence that cities grow faster or stronger if they have light rail or less sprawl or bigger downtowns.

The fastest growing metros during this time period rarely have any of these things.

Did you notice that all of the Detroit MSA's growth took place between 1960 and 1970?

Chicago MSA
1960 Census: 6,794,461
1970 Census: 7,612,314 [[11%)
1980 Census: 7,869,542 [[3%)
1990 Census: 8,065,633 [[2.5%)
2000 Census: 9,098,316 [[12.5%)
2010 Census: 9,461,105 [[5%)

Detroit MSA
1960 Census: 3,762,360
1970 Census: 4,307,470 [[14.5%)
1980 Census: 4,353,365 [[1.1%)
1990 Census: 4,382,299 [[0.7%)
2000 Census: 4,452,557 [[1.6%)
2010 Census: 4,296,250 [[-3.5%)

There are a lot of ways to interpret those numbers. None tell a particularly flattering story of Detroit in relation to Chicago. In every census since 1970 Chicago has grown faster than Detroit*. Detroit is smaller today than it was in 1970. All of the Detroit MSA growth that you cited took place between 1960 and 1970. The CSA numbers tell an even worse story since the Detroit CSA actually lost population in 1970, 1980 and 2010.

But Detroit had actually outgrown Chicago substantially in every decade of the 20th century until 1970. So much so that Detroit was projected to have overtaken Chicago in population by now.

**Detroitnerd** · February-13-12, 03:35 PM

http://www.facebook.com/groups/2243034379/

**rex** · February-13-12, 11:14 PM

Originally Posted by Cincinnati_Kid

^^ Good call. L Brooks doesn't give a damn about Detroit. Never did. It's all about Oakland County.

well. He is the oakland county commissioner. Oakland County will be alright. I would like to see it start moving back towards the inner ring but i doubt that will happen.

**Wesley Mouch** · February-14-12, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by Mark Smiles

People have a right to follow their dreams. If others want to call it sprawl, I really don't care.

Those who want to make it illegal for people to follow their dreams scare me.

If someone does not want to see a piece of property developed one can purchase it and feel good about driving by it once in a while.

You've touched on a very important thing here -- the left's belief that the ends justify the means [[BAMN for example). Our pluralistic society should decide these issues in a collective, not dictatorial manner.

And if someone wants to live at 55 Mile Road and BFE Parkway, the have that right.

What they do not have, is the right to demand that the costs of the sprawl be subsidized by others. The deck's been stacked far too long in favor of sprawl. That can and should be changed.

Move out, should you enjoy that. But you don't get traffic signals, widened roads, new libraries, etc. unless you pay for them 100%.

**Hypestyles** · February-14-12, 11:01 AM

... so are there any realistic contenders to take on patterson.. whether democrat, moderate republican or independent?

**poobert** · February-14-12, 11:06 AM

Metro Detroit's perpetual scourge is leadership that never shifted out of the 1970's.

We need a strong, vibrant Detroit as the cultural and commercial center of our region to be viable.

I'm not hating on OC, but, that, Oakland County is not, very simply. Also, if the fine people of Oakland County elect people like L. Brooks Patterson as Eternal President and Janice Daniels for anything, I have to seriously question their intelligence and foresight, as well as their claim that OC is such a great place.

**Dexlin** · February-15-12, 04:03 AM

Like a lot of other politicians in this area [[of both parties, mind you), Patterson has stayed a few -- I'm trying to be nice -- terms too long. If he had any grace or dignity, he'd have bowed out into retirement and left the job to someone more competant years ago, someone not struck in the bitter, regional cultural wars of decades past.

I know he says he loves sprawl, but even he has to realize that the jig is up. Oakland County, which it still has many nice and liveable areas, is yesterday's news. If he had any vision for the future, seeing that the southern section of his county had matured, he'd be plowing dollars back into these mature areas instead of championing a wasteful use of resources for far-out exurbs. He'd be promoting transit in the urban parts. It's been clear for some time, now, that southeast Oakland County might as well be another world, because he hasn't served it in years.

I don't see how people like him can claim to be conservatives, when their policies and ideologies are anything but. Sprawl is not conservative. Running new roads and pipes out to Washington Township is not fiscal conservatism.