The region's 2013 population shifts are incredibly fascinating...

[iheartthed]

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?

Per the US Census, yes, it is dead:

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

[Bham1982]

Per the US Census, yes, it is dead:

Seems like the U.S. Census is reporting just the opposite.

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.

[believe14]

Seems like the U.S. Census is reporting just the opposite.

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.

People that stick around Michigan continue to flee the "Detroit creep"

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

Seems like the U.S. Census is reporting just the opposite.

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.

Since you seem to be a fan of sprawl, shouldn't you move about 20 miles north?

[Bham1982]

Since you seem to be a fan of sprawl, shouldn't you move about 20 miles north?

Sorry, not a fan of sprawl. Just don't think it's dead.

[iheartthed]

Seems like the U.S. Census is reporting just the opposite.

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.)

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.

[Bham1982]

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.

The data show the opposite. Suburban areas show more growth than urban areas.

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.

[nain rouge]

Since you seem to be a fan of sprawl, shouldn't you move about 20 miles north?

Better yet, he should move to Houston, which is apparently his idea of paradise [[though he'll deny it, only to tout Houston's growth the next post).

What Bham1804 refuses to acknowledge is that while you can economically get away with sprawl when your economy and population is growing at a quick rate, to sprawl while stagnant or declining is infrastructural suicide. When you do the latter, you'll inevitably lack the funds to maintain many of your neighborhoods, and the result is an ugly, declining atmosphere that citizens and visitors find very unappealing, and higher taxes to boot.

Of course, the idea that such conditions could hurt your region is completely alien to Bham. He simply doesn't see it as possible. After all, explain Houston!, he'll say.

[Bham1982]

What Bham1804 refuses to acknowledge is that while you can economically get away with sprawl when your economy and population is growing, to sprawl while stagnant or declining is infrastructural suicide.

Tell it to Pittsburgh or Cleveland. Those metros are shrinking.

Metro Detroit has been growing for the last few years, and faster than most metros in this part of the Midwest.

Sprawl isn't "good" or "bad". It's just an illustration of preferred living patterns. In Metro Detroit people are voting with their feet, and are happy to pay 500k way out in sprawl as opposed to dealing with poor schools, safety, and declining public services.

And if you think sprawl is "inefficient", it's curious that your solution is to stop the sprawl. Why not help people move out to desirable communities, and stop investing in commuties that are hopeless sinkholes? Wouldn't it be more efficient to enable people to live in Oakland Twp as opposed to forcing people to live in Highland Park?

[ghettopalmetto]

Tell it to Pittsburgh or Cleveland. Those metros are shrinking.

Metro Detroit has been growing for the last few years, and faster than most metros in this part of the Midwest.

While it's true that Metropolitan Detroit has been *expanding* physically outward, to say that it has been "growing" is a stretch by any measure. Cleveland is in the same boat, although it doesn't sprawl nearly as bad as the Detroit area. A major difference is that Cleveland's primary employment centers aren't located in the next county over. The two largest [[far and away) are within the city limits. On the other hand, if cranky old folks want to leave and retire to Florida to be replaced by young, ambitious people, I'm totally okay with that. Political leadership is starting to recognize that a cooperative regional approach to development and transportation will be necessary in order to thrive. There are already institutions in place that set a precedent for regional collaboration--an area where Detroit falls well short.

Sprawl isn't "good" or "bad". It's just an illustration of preferred living patterns. In Metro Detroit people are voting with their feet, and are happy to pay 500k way out in sprawl as opposed to dealing with poor schools, safety, and declining public services.

This is ironic. Sprawl is most definitely bad if you like travelling by foot...or bicycle, or transit, or anything that doesn't involve a car. Because of the policies endorsed by the State of Michigan [[e.g. build massive highways through farms and orchards, but not a nickel for transit in Detroit; money for new school construction in the exurbs, but no money to repair school buildings in existing communities), sprawl continues unabated in Michigan.

And if you think sprawl is "inefficient", it's curious that your solution is to stop the sprawl. Why not help people move out to desirable communities, and stop investing in commuties that are hopeless sinkholes?

They are. They're moving to Chicago, DC, New York....

Many solutions to sprawl have been proposed in numerous places. Among them are: growth boundaries, revised zoning regulations, inclusive transportation policies, increases in allowable density and floor area ratios, reductions in building setbacks, decreases in parking requirements, reductions in minimum lot sizes, provision of effective transit service.

[iheartthed]

The data show the opposite. Suburban areas show more growth than urban areas.

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.

The data does not show that. The data shows, as every single article written about this subject today has said, that the census numbers released today show central cities growing faster than the nation as a whole. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that unless you're trying to push some agenda.

[Eber Brock Ward]

The data show the opposite. Suburban areas show more growth than urban areas.

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.

Not sure if ACS has data by census tract, but I'd expect it to bear out that the "7.2 square mile" core of the city outpaced most, if not all, outlying areas, city or suburb.

I don't think anyone reasonably considers Brightmoor or Warrendale to be the "core city."

Not directed at you specifically, but relevant to the broader discussion.

[Danny]

HAH! Detroit will not a ghost town that fast.

What people are coming back to Detroit? Young professionals from Downtown to Midtown.

What people are leaving Detroit? middle class black people. That's right Black flight.

What people are stuck in their own ghetto hood stupidity sucking up welfare checks and food stamps while hooked on crack and smoking weed? Poor people.