300,000 new Detroiters

[Detroitnerd]

Those swamps were drained in the 1800s out Woodward way.

[Hermod]

Those swamps were drained in the 1800s out Woodward way.

Yes, and early development occurred along Woodward and Gratiot.

The big postwar development was after the bulk of the swamps were drained. For a while, development "jumped over" the swamps to places like Rochester and Utica before moving back in to the Warren and Roseville areas.

[Detroitnerd]

Development did not "jump over" the swamps. It went around the swamps, following the natives up the Detroit and then up the Clinton [[then Huron) river. That's why early settlers like the Grahams settled Rochester in the 1810s.

[Wesley Mouch]

Sadly, it'll probably swing the other way: Identifying the 300,000 people we DO want to leave Detroit.

Gentrification never raises all boats. It just moves them.

Yes, this is true. The problem is that gentrification has been resulting in people with the money moving out of the city. What we need to do is figure out how to get the people with the money back into the city.

This is very troubling.

Its not the gentrification that's the problem. Its not a problem at all. Everyone should become the gentry [[or shall we say wealthy?)

The problem is that people who become wealthy are seeking a functional place where they can enjoy life. A percentage is moving downtown. That's a great trend -- but its probably 10% or less of those who can afford to move. 90% seek the more stable, safer, less racially polarized world that the suburbs and exurbs offer.

There's nothing wrong with gentrification.

The problem is the City isn't a place most people want to live. Work on that, and you may change that trend.

[Detroitnerd]

Its not the gentrification that's the problem. Its not a problem at all. Everyone should become the gentry [[or shall we say wealthy?)

This is a simplistic conception of gentrification. Gentrification isn't a solution to poverty. It just moves poverty around. It saves the wonderful buildings and streets and bones of the city I love, but the people who were its stewards for decades are unceremoniously forced to move to the next ghetto by economic forces. It doesn't have to be like this, and it could be done in ways that benefit all, but then it wouldn't be wuite the real estate bonanza that real estate companies and property holders want it to be.

Anyway, I'd rather not argue the merits or drawbacks of gentrification ... your other point caught my attention.

The problem is that people who become wealthy are seeking a functional place where they can enjoy life. A percentage is moving downtown. That's a great trend -- but its probably 10% or less of those who can afford to move. 90% seek the more stable, safer, less racially polarized world that the suburbs and exurbs offer.

These numbers do not take into account another, more obvious trend. Perhaps you're right that 10 percent or less of those who can afford to move seek a spot in downtown or the mid-city area.

But I imagine that a significant percentage of those who can afford to move also choose not to live in the suburbs or exurbs.

They choose to leave metro Detroit. Metro Detroit probably loses about 30,000 people each year.

And it's not just snowbirds. Metro Detroit probably loses about 10,000 to 15,000 college-educated young people every year.

These people aren't just seeking functional downtowns. They are seeking functional metropolitan areas. They look at what metro Detroit has to offer -- city and suburb alike -- and say, "No, thanks."

To say 90 percent of the people who can afford to move choose our suburbs is to overlook this important point.

[Hermod]

These numbers do not take into account another, more obvious trend. Perhaps you're right that 10 percent or less of those who can afford to move seek a spot in downtown or the mid-city area.

But I imagine that a significant percentage of those who can afford to move also choose not to live in the suburbs or exurbs.

They choose to leave metro Detroit. Metro Detroit probably loses about 30,000 people each year.

And it's not just snowbirds. Metro Detroit probably loses about 10,000 to 15,000 college-educated young people every year.

These people aren't just seeking functional downtowns. They are seeking functional metropolitan areas. They look at what metro Detroit has to offer -- city and suburb alike -- and say, "No, thanks."

To say 90 percent of the people who can afford to move choose our suburbs is to overlook this important point.

Question: If the auto companies were hiring several thousand new college grads in engineering, accounting, marketing, and management every year, would the region be losing these people? Do they leave because they don't like the area or because there are better economic opportunities for their education elsewhere?

[maverick1]

Question: If the auto companies were hiring several thousand new college grads in engineering, accounting, marketing, and management every year, would the region be losing these people? Do they leave because they don't like the area or because there are better economic opportunities for their education elsewhere?

No they wouldn't the auto companies have been hiring. While the opportunities here aren't great here they're better than other areas. Everyone I know not from here has a negative view of Detroit and that affects the suburbs. Metro Detroit not having a typical downtown really hurts us in addition to other issues. Most college grads want to go to a "ready made scene" and not build it.

[Detroitnerd]

Question: If the auto companies were hiring several thousand new college grads in engineering, accounting, marketing, and management every year, would the region be losing these people? Do they leave because they don't like the area or because there are better economic opportunities for their education elsewhere?

More and more, young people with good educations first choose where they'd like to live. Then they go there and look for jobs.

In metro Detroit, we've all but said, "Your two choices are suburban classic or urban shithole. And if you live in the shithole, 90 percent of the people will be so uncomfortable with your choice that you'll have to consistently explain over and over why you choose the shithole. And if you choose suburban classic, you'll be surrounded by people who talk about what a shithole the city center is."

To many people, especially young, well-educated people, there's no contest. The answer is often: "I don't care how many jobs there are for engineers here. Good-bye."

[Hermod]

Development did not "jump over" the swamps. It went around the swamps, following the natives up the Detroit and then up the Clinton [[then Huron) river. That's why early settlers like the Grahams settled Rochester in the 1810s.

I understand that is how Rochester and Utica were firsr settled. During the fifties, there were many subdivisions being developed out by Rochester and Utica long before the area north of Fourteen Mile and south of Auburn Rd began filling in. That is what i meant when I said that development "jumped over". Troy and Sterling Heights were filled in after.

[DetroitPlanner]

Places like Rochester grew out of older farming centers of commerce. The interurban helped these places to grow in the early 1900's. Places like Troy and Sterling Heights were not Farming Centers of Commerce, they were farms. As transportation changed so did the land use. Farmers found it very more profitable to grow houses than cows, pigs, or produce.

[Hermod]

Places like Rochester grew out of older farming centers of commerce. The interurban helped these places to grow in the early 1900's. Places like Troy and Sterling Heights were not Farming Centers of Commerce, they were farms. As transportation changed so did the land use. Farmers found it very more profitable to grow houses than cows, pigs, or produce.

The farmers around Rochester began selling their farms for subdivisions long before the farmers in Troy gave up farming.

Rochester was an interurban center with a car barn, shops, powerhouse, and just north of the city, a junction of two lines.

Rochester was also served by two railroads with separate stations and had passenger service up until the early 1960s.

[EastsideAl]

In metro Detroit, we've all but said, "Your two choices are suburban classic or urban shithole. And if you live in the shithole, 90 percent of the people will be so uncomfortable with your choice that you'll have to consistently explain over and over why you choose the shithole. And if you choose suburban classic, you'll be surrounded by people who talk about what a shithole the city center is."

What a great, if sad, description of our toxic local culture. Sounds very much like the reasons I left here for Boston, NYC, and SF for several years.

[Strong]

Sorry about the bad gammar, I accidently sent the first draft and not the revised draft.

[wolverine]

If we were to say 300,000 Detroiters appear over night [[all housed, but no jobs), I don't think it would do much of anything positive. In fact, it could have dire consequences. People in a city cost money. Crazy as it sounds, the ultimate situation for a city is to have all business and zero residents. Residents do provide sort of buffer in tax revenue when the local economy goes on a roller coaster ride, but needs and services required by residents are way more demanding than business.

The other factor is distribution of those residents. Spread evenly across the city they may help local businesses become more profitable, but it's unlikely you would see a tremendous transformation of commercial corridors...I mean it really wasn't all that long ago that Detroit had 300,000 more people, and the week economy had already made its mark on the city landscape.

On the flip side, if those residents were concentrated in one area, the impact would be extraordinary large.

It gets more complex when you think about jobs. What are their skillsets? What would make the city attractive enough for tens of thousands of companies to move into the city or downtown?

[Strong]

I think that 300,000 new Detroiters from the metro area and throughout the country would be huge step for our city. How I take for granted that they moved here for some job opportunity and others came because they saw oppportunities to create jobs.
The trick is to find a few large employers to believe in Detroit and want to step up shop here, bringing with them hundreds of employees and openings for hundreds more. Then other companies might need to move close to these new companies to become suppliers and you get the pictures.
Then as with what's happening with the Quicken Loans and Compuware people want to live close to work and so new housing developments spring up like what we see happening.
And, maybe just maybe 300,000 new Detroiters.

[Strong]

If 10 manufacturers opened in Detroit, equating to about 6,000 new employees located in our city and 2500 of moved to Detroit bringing with them their families totaling about 9,000 new residents, then our computer flourish with about 20 new companies with about 6,000 new employees and so on.

[Hermod]

If 10 manufacturers opened in Detroit, equating to about 6,000 new employees located in our city and 2500 of moved to Detroit bringing with them their families totaling about 9,000 new residents, then our computer flourish with about 20 new companies with about 6,000 new employees and so on.

Somewhere in that paragraph, your grammar and sense began breaking down. You might want to have a do-over.

[canuck]

Somewhere in that paragraph, your grammar and sense began breaking down. You might want to have a do-over.

Does not compute?

[Strong]

I meant to say, then our computer industry might flourish with about 20 new companies with about 6000 new employees and so on.

I'll admit that this post is wishful thinking, daydreaming, hoping for the best, etc. etc. etc.

[Hermod]

I meant to say, then our computer industry might flourish with about 20 new companies with about 6000 new employees and so on.

I'll admit that this post is wishful thinking, daydreaming, hoping for the best, etc. etc. etc.

Sorry Strong. I do mean to be critical, but 30o,000 people from southern Mississippi do not equal 300,000 from Silicon Valley.

[KJ5]

How about let's try for 3,000 people first. 300,000 is a pretty huge pie-in-the-sky number given the state of things now.

[Strong]

People are questioning where the 300,000 people come from. My estimates include people from everywhere, i.e. across the nearby counties, in the state and from across the country. And, these people are from various backgrounds, races, and skill sets.

[MidTownMs]

People are questioning where the 300,000 people come from. My estimates include people from everywhere, i.e. across the nearby counties, in the state and from across the country. And, these people are from various backgrounds, races, and skill sets.

And when exactly do you anticiate this great migration will occur? And what will be the incentive for moving to Detroit from wherever they happen to be moving from?

[GUSHI]

All the farm land that's available on the East Side.

And when exactly do you anticiate this great migration to occur? And what will be the incentive for moving to Detroit from whereever they happen to be moving from?

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Well, about that many people lived in Detroit in 1990.

Ah, 1990. Detroiters were anxiously playing Oregon Trail on their Apple IIs while enjoying You Can't Touch This by MC Hammer as the Gulf War was erupting and the Soviet Union was collapsing.

Aside from that, it was still an extremely unglamorous time for Detroit, but the big difference was that this felt like a big, functioning, albeit troubled city, as opposed to an abandoned godforsaken hellhole. Well, I guess it did feel kind of godforsaken, but in a less desolate way.

As the city was at one time holding 2 million people, there would be [[as their was when we had 1 million people) significant abandonment.

I guess what I am getting at is that 300k people would not be a magic bullet, as things were still generally horrible when we had that many people, horrible enough to make them all leave.

Your predictions remind me of this:
http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/3...s_-_Profit.png

Except structured thusly:
1) 300,000 additional people move to the city
2) ?
3) Pistons move to the city!

I do think that the difference is that if 300,000 people moved here they would end up in the more viable areas and greatly stabilize those areas. Before [[as today) people were scattered throughout the city in very good, vibrant areas and very desolate areas and everything in between. Now we are left with a handful of basically good areas and everywhere else looks like something out of Dante's Inferno.

While I don't support turning the eastside into rainwater retention ponds or some shit, I do think some sort of rightsizing is necessary, but also an influx of new citizens who are productive members of society [[which I presume you imply). I think that is the only way this city can continue to exist as we know it.

Please clarify what you mean't that just over 300,000 people lived in Detroit in 1990? If I remember correctly, the census was just over a million people lived in Detroit in 1990. It didn't dip to under 1 million until the census that was taken in the mid-2000"s. Correct me if I'm wrong.