Detroit one of America's most "compact" cities; Warren one of most "sprawling"

[jt1]

Look at how rosy things are in Oakland County according to the SEMCOG numbers:

http://www.semcog.org/Data/Apps/comp....cfm?cpid=2999

Note: 2000-2010 the population in age groups under 50 dropped by 85,000. The population for ages 50 and above increased by 93,000.

Someone please tell me how that can paint a picture of long term growth or financial stability. So even the wonderland that is OC is loosing young people and middle age people in their prime earning years while seing an increase in the oldest age groups.

Older people may be staying there but young people and families did not increase between 2000 and 2010. And that is one of the rosiest outlooks for the area.

[jt1]

Then, given that decrease in younger people and families, SEMCOG is projecting that between 2010 and 2040, the population of 34 and under will only drop by 8,600.

So 34 and under drops by 46,000 in ten years but will only drop by 8,600 in the next 30.

Their projections are based upon no logic at all. Their projections are to direct funding, nothing more.

[nain rouge]

SEMCOG's projections are always like that. It reflects reality for a decade or so, and then it curiously starts to resemble an exponential growth curve.

[Detroitnerd]

You could say that SEMCOG's projections are based on junk science.

But, in order for that to be true, they'd have to be based on science of any kind.

[jt1]

It't the science of where they want the regional infr. dollars spent.

[Detroitnerd]

I've felt that the SEMCOG people do their "projections" by consulting with developers, who really run the show. They ask them where they're going to build over the next 10 years, and the developers tell them, and then they declare that people are going to move to areas X, Y and Z and that we'll need to expand the roads out in those areas.

[Detroitnerd]

Put it another way, the developers throw the darts at the wall.

SEMCOG draws bull's-eyes around them.

[Pickford-Bentler]

This study makes no sense. Detroit has more urban prairie due to demolished or abandoned structures than any large, an maybe small, city in the USA. Is access to tillable soil a factor in making a city more compact?

This reminds me of those stupid fitness tests that are skewed to favor the person who sets the standard - typically a person with an inferiority complex with respect to strength trainers. The test will be loaded with endurance tests or bodyweight moves like push ups.

In physics, we rate a motor by how much work it can do in a given amount of time.

So who is going to be able to carry 200 sixty pounds bags of cement up two flights of stairs faster?

A 225 pound MMA fighter?

or

A Tour de France cyclist?


Note that both my example are fit in their own way. So one can logically conclude that their are different types of fit to meet various needs.

And that logic applies to cities.

According to this study, a child born in Detroit has more economic opportunity and longer life span potential than just about any other child in the USA.

[Bham1982]

Look at the 2013 census estimates. Look at them! What's that with a negative sign next to it? Oh yes, that's Metro Detroit!

No, in fact you're just making up stuff now. You're either lying or unable to interpret the Census results.

Again, Metro Detroit is GROWING per the 2013 Census. I'm sorry you find that distressing.

And practically every other major metro area in the immediate region is SHRINKING per the 2013 Census. Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Toledo, etc. all shrinking.

But we don't have light rail like Pittsburgh or Cleveland so how is this possible? I thought light rail was the savior...

[Bham1982]

.

No one seriously points to movement from county to county within a metropolitan area as growth unless they have a delusional agenda to push.[/COLOR]

This might be the silliest thing yet on this thread, and there have been some doozies.

Your wacky new Census business rule of "a county isn't growing if people are moving into the county from nearby" means that basically no county in the U.S. is growing. The vast majority of moves in the U.S. are local, from Maine to California.

Can you point out even one metro area in the U.S. where the area would have counties that do not heavily rely on regional in-migration? Just one, please.

[nain rouge]

I knew - I KNEW - if I didn't qualify growth in that statement as "metropolitan growth", Bham1982 would come back with that clever zinger. In fact, I thought about editing it, but I thought it would be more fun to test my powers of clairvoyance.

See, I thought we were talking regional growth. But now you're subtly shifting the argument to one or two counties to keep your flimsy rationale afloat. Trust me, no one is being fooled.

Let's put it this way. Say magnificent Oakland County booms to a population of 2 million, but the metropolitan area sinks to 3.5 million people total. Are you going to tell us that we're growing as a region? You'd really have to skew the numbers.

Your argument that we're growing only makes sense if the growing counties area outpaceing the overall decline of the region. And that's not happening here. The Census numbers clearly and undoubtedly back that up.

Riddle me this: if Oakland County is so healthy and generating so much wealth - as opposed to acting as a glorified lifeboat for what money remains in the metropolitan area - why has the median income in Oakland County plummeted by tens of thousands of dollars? If a ship is sinking, people are going to flee to the parts of the boat that are still above water. That's what Oakland County is right now. That's your "growth" -the parts above water.

If anything, I'd say we're consolidating.

[313WX]

If anything, I'd say we're consolidating.

You had it right before.

Consolidating is just a Pollyanna/politically-correct way of saying declining/shrinking/dying.

[Bham1982]

Your argument that we're growing only makes sense if the growing counties area outpaceing the overall decline of the region. And that's not happening here. The Census numbers clearly and undoubtedly back that up.

Once again, this is wrong. The region is growing, not shrinking. The Census shows growth in the region.

[Don K]

Once again, this is wrong. The region is growing, not shrinking. The Census shows growth in the region.

Wrong!

The Census Bureau estimates the population of the Detroit CSA [[which includes everything out to St Clair, Lapeer, Genesee, Livingston, and Washtenaw counties - I think that's a pretty good proxy for SE Michigan) was 5,314,163 on 7/1 of last year, compared with actual population of 5,318,744 on 4/1/10. That sure looks like a decline to me.

If you want to argue that Oakland and Macomb are doing better than Wayne, that's fine. You won't get an argument from me. The fact remains, SE MI is losing residents to the rest of the country, and I doubt Oakland and Macomb are running counter to that trend.

[mwilbert]

Given the known inaccuracies of the Census US Population Estimates, you can't tell whether the area is shrinking or growing from this data--the change is too close to zero relative to the expected errors in making the estimates. And even if you assumed the numbers were exactly correct, this amount of growth or shrinkage wouldn't really tell you anything other than that the population is pretty static.

On the other hand, in some cases it appears that the numbers do work as an impromptu Rorschach test.

[Lombaowski]

This is one of the stupidest comparisons I have ever seen.

This......

[DetroitPlanner]

In reading this I am finding that most of you equate density with being a good thing overall. Take a look at Santa Ana, CA and tell me if this is where you would want to live. It is dense, yet it still has houses jammed cheek-to-jowl around curvilinier suburban style streets and poor access to main roads. The main roads are mostly 6-7 lanes wide. Very little landscaping. Not exactly what I would consider a high quality of life environment. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sa...4f843a1f1efdbc

The years of the tenements in New York City were the years that that city was at its most densest yet it was also a time where Jacob Riis chronicled the horrible living conditions of families living in apartments without any windows, shared bathrooms with about 20 people, and a time when the NYC was rife with desiese. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87SCTEsIufY

Density in and of itself is not desirable. Density does not spur population growth. Under most conditions it works against it. What spurs population growth? A healthy economy. Southeast Michigan shares its economy. Very few people live and work in the same place. A growing region shows that the economy is growing and is a good thing. It is how we develop it that matters. People need good access to quality schools, medical facilities, transportation. They desire parks and recreational areas [[which work against density because no one lives in parks). We need a healthy economy and we need access, we do not need density. Density may come, but it is not a desirable quality in and of itself. It can be a by product, but it is not one that will draw people into a City. Jobs, good schools, parks all do. This is the only reason why the Cass Corridor has become Midtown. Lots of money has been spent on schools, creating job incubators like tech town, and on recreational facilities such as the Midtown Loop.

Friendliness and an openess to others also helps. Ripping on your neighbors is not an attitude that bring people. It repels them. Feeling superior because you are more dense than Warren? Really? Who cares! We are all still Detroit no matter what side of 8 mile you put your head in your bed.

[mwilbert]

I don't agree with this analysis of the value of density. There are lots of people who prefer to live and/or work in walkable areas, and you can't really have walkable areas without density.

On the other hand, I completely agree that the region has a shared economy, and it is the regional economy that mostly dictates how the regional population will grow or shrink. But the attractiveness of the communities in a region certainly affects the extent to which businesses find the area desirable to operate in. If you want to attract or retain businesses who need to hire employees who prefer a particular residential or commercial environment, you need to have those kinds of environments available in your region.

[DetroitPlanner]

I don't agree with this analysis of the value of density. There are lots of people who prefer to live and/or work in walkable areas, and you can't really have walkable areas without density.

Connectivity is much more important for an area to be walkable than density. Look at Ann Arbor. They are approving these oversized buildings that are several stories tall with six bedroom apartments. Yes it is increasing density. However, it is also increasing the number of trips that the parcel of land generates. Not only are trips increasing but land values are seriously out of whack. This means a further sprawling of supermarkets to the periphery of the city reducing connectivity and walkability. They are almost forcing more trips to be made by car over a longer length. Try walking to a grocery store from downtown Ann Arbor and carrying your perishables back. You can't do it. AAATA is not much of a help either as many of its routes take twisting turns and it might take you an hour to get to the grocery 1.5 miles away.

When they built the Costco they built it in a place that almost forces you to drive to it. People living in six bedroom apartments are going to shop at Costco, not 7-11!

[mwilbert]

I think you overestimate the importance of local supermarket shopping as I don't think walkability means never driving. I've never lived in Ann Arbor, but I lived in Cambridge MA for a long time, and while I think almost anyone would say it is highly walkable, I didn't usually walk to get my groceries. Pick up a few things on the way home, yes. I'd guess you can do that in Ann Arbor.

[DetroitPlanner]

I guess you over estimate the density of Cambridge. Is Cambridge dense? Yes it is. However, there are lots of single family homes a block off of its main streets, lots of parks, and a huge freaking university that reduces its real density. No one lives in classrooms. Not many buildings in Cambridge are tall either. Cambridge is walkable but it is not ridiculously dense. Where in Downtown Ann Arbor can you walk to and do real grocery shopping? Sure there is Zingermans or the coop, but you would go broke shopping at those places.

If Cambridge did not have the university, would it be as dense? No way, it would just be another Boston crap neighborhood. The original post mentioned that Santa Ana is denser than Detroit. Yep it sure is, but that does not make it walkable. Check out the link to the aerial I provided. That place is a souless mess. Density is no where near as important to an areas vitality than having good schools [[Harvard), jobs, or recreational space.

[nain rouge]

In reading this I am finding that most of you equate density with being a good thing overall. Take a look at Santa Ana, CA and tell me if this is where you would want to live. It is dense, yet it still has houses jammed cheek-to-jowl around curvilinier suburban style streets and poor access to main roads.

Santa Ana highlights a frequent urban planning problem in the US. Look, I have no problem with suburbs, but we're so in love with the idea of suburbs that we too often built suburban-style developments when an urban development would be more appropriate. To put it simple, you CAN'T build a good suburb with that high of demand for real estate. If you try, you get a chaotic, overpopulated mess, as you noticed.

Santa Ana should've had more urban characteristics. The planners failed and created a very ugly city.

Detroit has that same problem. There was too much suburban development within the city when the obvious overcrowding called for urban development. When people were dividing what were intended as single-family homes into apartments, that was a call to BUILD APARTMENTS, not more far-flung suburbs doomed to be undesirable in 20-30 years.

Of course, now it's gotten to the point where we don't even know how to build in an urban style anymore. Ask for rowhouses and you'll get single-use, suburban-style townhomes stretching for blocks. Oh well.

[Hermod]

I've felt that the SEMCOG people do their "projections" by consulting with developers, who really run the show. They ask them where they're going to build over the next 10 years, and the developers tell them, and then they declare that people are going to move to areas X, Y and Z and that we'll need to expand the roads out in those areas.

No, the developers build the subdivisions where they can buy the land. people move in and the roads get crowded. People complain and the engineers do a traffic count. Yes, the volume on this road exceeds the capacity of a two lane road and it must be widened. It is always population first and roads later.

[jt1]

"It is always population first and roads later."

You have clearly not lived around here for a long time.

[DetroitPlanner]

"It is always population first and roads later."

You have clearly not lived around here for a long time.

Then why is it that the only road people bitch about on this forum is the I-94 widening?