Detroit Loses A Few Thousand More Residents, Still 'Great'

[emu steve]

Detroit has a fraction of the population it used to [[graphs are powerful tools), but
population is but one component of what a city is.

Many cities have more population than Detroit but what else do they have?

Detroit is a de-populated great city [[hoping to start re-populating this year) with a lot that other cities do not have.

What does San Antonio have [[beside population)? El Paso?

Not sure what I'd do living in those cites????

If one wants to look at three adjacent cities in the chart: El Paso, Detroit, and Washington, D.C.

What does El Paso have????

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/new...ince/84574198/

[TTime]

“A lot of Detroiters really think of themselves as being in one of the country’s biggest cities, and that’s just not true anymore,” said Kevin Boyle, an author and history professor at Northwestern University, who grew up in Detroit. This quote rang true to me but I'm sure plenty on Dyes will disagree as they are the ones this quote is referring to.

[Bham1982]

Anyone who thinks our local media aren't bought-and-paid for cheerleaders for certain interests needs to read that article. It reads like it was drafted at Quicken HQ.

They're spinning some of the worst population numbers in the U.S. to some fantastic turnaround. You even have Duggan offering congratulations and the Freep breathlessly announcing "the first signs of growth".

The reality is that, in the last 12 months, Detroit shrank more than basically anywhere in a nation of 320 million people. But keep spinning. Gotta keep certain interests fat and happy.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Bham1982, your pessimism is nothing if not consistent. It is true that Detroit still shrank again in the metrics just released. But I think the mayor is right in pointing out that they are about to begin to turn around in the numbers going forward.

In the long run, there are really 2 Detroits: the revitalized and growing downtown & its perimeter neighborhoods, which will continue to add residents at a growing clip. The other Detroit is the ever-shrinking, disintegrating neighborhoods dotting our city. The problem in those areas are not easily fixed. The good news [[population numbers-wise) is that areas are now populated largely by people without the will or the means to leave the city. Those with that intent and ability by and large have left. So the "new Detroit" will add more people, while "old Detroit" will stop losing very many people. Now, fixing the old city will take decades, because it involves not developments and government initiatives, but people righting their own, individual lives. Some will, many never will.

[dtowncitylover]

“A lot of Detroiters really think of themselves as being in one of the country’s biggest cities, and that’s just not true anymore,” said Kevin Boyle, an author and history professor at Northwestern University, who grew up in Detroit. This quote rang true to me but I'm sure plenty on Dyes will disagree as they are the ones this quote is referring to.

Sorry but nobody on here disagreed with any assertion that Detroit will keep losing people. The rate of population loss, as mentioned in the article, is declining, the smallest in decades.

I for one see myself as a realist optimistic. That despite Detroit's population loss, there is a turn around happening that I believe will soon spill into the neighborhoods in the next decade.

It took 60 years to come to this point, it may take 60 years to bounce back. So be it.

[Bham1982]

Bham1982, your pessimism is nothing if not consistent. It is true that Detroit still shrank again in the metrics just released. But I think the mayor is right in pointing out that they are about to begin to turn around in the numbers going forward.

But it's always "about to begin to turn around". Everything is "about to begin to turn around" in Detroit since about 1970.

The actual data show that Detroit had the absolute worst numeric population loss of any municipality in the U.S. last year. Yes, I am generally one of the more negative posters, but you have to admit, it takes a pretty wild-eyed optimist to spin absolute worst population numbers anywhere into something positive. There are 35,000 incorporated municipalities and townships in the U.S. Worst of 35,000?

I mean, what if Detroit actually grew one year? I don't think there are enough superlatives in the English language for that Freep article. I think all the cheerleaders would spontaneously combust.

[401don]

I think including house demolitions in the calculation does Detroit a disservice. Including homes that may have been empty 10 or 20 yrs. is not an accurate reflection on current trends. It may be for other cities with very small demolition numbers, whereby a small increase reflects population loss but not necessarily in Detroit, which is still playing catch-up with demolitions from population loss many years ago.

[BankruptcyGuy]

Does anyone know where I can get this data on a zip code-by-zip code basis?

[JBMcB]

What does San Antonio have [[beside population)? El Paso?

I've only driven through El Paso - seems nice enough, but San Antonio is a really nice city:

[middetres]

West Bloomfield, Bingham Farms, Pleasant Ridge and Clarkston all lost close to the same percentage as Detroit. I'm never visiting those hellholes again. They must all be on a never-ending death spiral.

[DeLemur]

Sober stats on the duality of Detroit and how deep its problems are.
We need to bring back the black middle class to the city who have fled to Southfield, Oak Park, Lincoln park and Warren. The lag in appreciation of the city needs to be closed and it needs to be done with its metro African american residents. Its a big part stopping the population loss.

[Mackinaw]

Articles like this really need to focus on the fact that we aren't just being out-paced by rapidly growing sunbelt cities, we are being "ranked" behind cities that are coterminous with their counties, or which otherwise have annexed many suburban areas. This is extremely common in the south, i.e. Jacksonville, and also seen in Columbus, OH, for example. If this is the metric then those city's municipal population ought to be compared with our core metro population, which is something like 3.5 million and blows these other places away.

Not only is Detroit of greater significance-- cultural and economic, i.e.-- that many of the cities "ranked" above it-- but it is also still a more substantial central city than many of them may ever be. We should really not use raw municipal population as a "ranking" of a city. Either that or Detroit should annex Dearborn, Ferndale, and Grosse Pointe and then we'll jump right up the charts.

[Bham1982]

West Bloomfield, Bingham Farms, Pleasant Ridge and Clarkston all lost close to the same percentage as Detroit. I'm never visiting those hellholes again. They must all be on a never-ending death spiral.

Mature, healthy suburban communities that are fully built-out may have some population decline due to smaller household sizes. There is no opportunity to build new units, so aging communities will show declines. In fact Bloomfield Hills has some of the largest declines, because it's the oldest community in the state.

But I hope you aren't serious in your response, which is incredibly silly. Detroit isn't losing population because it's fully built out and opposed to new development and/or because of declining household sizes.

[SammyS]

Someone made a correct comment on another thread that it was not the '67 riots that ignited the mass exodus. Can't argue with that chart.

[BankruptcyGuy]

Articles like this really need to focus on the fact that we aren't just being out-paced by rapidly growing sunbelt cities, we are being "ranked" behind cities that are coterminous with their counties, or which otherwise have annexed many suburban areas. This is extremely common in the south, i.e. Jacksonville, and also seen in Columbus, OH, for example. If this is the metric then those city's municipal population ought to be compared with our core metro population, which is something like 3.5 million and blows these other places away.

Not only is Detroit of greater significance-- cultural and economic, i.e.-- that many of the cities "ranked" above it-- but it is also still a more substantial central city than many of them may ever be. We should really not use raw municipal population as a "ranking" of a city. Either that or Detroit should annex Dearborn, Ferndale, and Grosse Pointe and then we'll jump right up the charts.

Yes, that is a very good point. Look at this link for the boundaries of San Antonio over the decades. It's probably 4-5 times its size in the past.

http://www.sanantonio.gov/Portals/0/...tionDecade.pdf

[SDCC]

But it's always "about to begin to turn around". Everything is "about to begin to turn around" in Detroit since about 1970.

The actual data show that Detroit had the absolute worst numeric population loss of any municipality in the U.S. last year. Yes, I am generally one of the more negative posters, but you have to admit, it takes a pretty wild-eyed optimist to spin absolute worst population numbers anywhere into something positive. There are 35,000 incorporated municipalities and townships in the U.S. Worst of 35,000?

I mean, what if Detroit actually grew one year? I don't think there are enough superlatives in the English language for that Freep article. I think all the cheerleaders would spontaneously combust.

I don’t think that will occur in my lifetime. It has nothing to do pessimism, optimism or pragmatism. The city will rebound eventually – and yes I’m being optimistic – but that will take a few decades. The rate of demolitions is painfully slow, there are tens of thousands of homes in the queue. To the novice visitors, many, many of the neighborhoods appear to be bombed out. Even the average neighborhood requires a trip through an oasis of burned, dilapidated, and outright scary scenery. To individuals that either witnessed the decline, or have seen nothing but the current view, they are immune to the reality of the shocking conditions the city neighborhoods appear to out -of-towners.

On another note; the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as the Federal Office of the Inspector General, have two investigations underway about Detroit’s demolition program.
Detroit does keep various Federal agencies busy.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/2016...gram/84256286/

[Danny]

Detroit may loss some folks, but its gaining in regional growth.

Mostly people are leaving Detroit are blacks. They don't like the violent street crime, poor schools, blighted ghetto hoods, gentrification and lack of mom and pop businesses.

People who are coming to Detroit is whites, Hispanics, few Asians and fewer Arabs. They are contributing to regional businesses growth from Gilberttown to Midtown from Corktown to Mexicantown.

We will see in next 50 years what Detroit looks like. But it will be a better place for black folks and poor people because they are being displaced from their hoods every day.

[mkd]

As mentioned above, you need to look at metro population when comparing, not population within city limits. And note that Metro Detroit only includes the tri-county area and not Washtenaw and obviously the Canadian side.

[iheartthed]

But it's always "about to begin to turn around". Everything is "about to begin to turn around" in Detroit since about 1970.

The actual data show that Detroit had the absolute worst numeric population loss of any municipality in the U.S. last year. Yes, I am generally one of the more negative posters, but you have to admit, it takes a pretty wild-eyed optimist to spin absolute worst population numbers anywhere into something positive. There are 35,000 incorporated municipalities and townships in the U.S. Worst of 35,000?

I mean, what if Detroit actually grew one year? I don't think there are enough superlatives in the English language for that Freep article. I think all the cheerleaders would spontaneously combust.

Actually, if you bothered to read the article, the demographer said that Detroit was likely to show a population increase next year. That hasn't happened in almost 70 years.

[Junjie]

They're spinning some of the worst population numbers in the U.S. to some fantastic turnaround. You even have Duggan offering congratulations and the Freep breathlessly announcing "the first signs of growth".

The reality is that, in the last 12 months, Detroit shrank more than basically anywhere in a nation of 320 million people. But keep spinning. Gotta keep certain interests fat and happy.

Keep spinning, indeed. Here's a picture. Maybe you can work out for yourself why people are feeling more optimistic than they have in a good while.

[Bham1982]

Keep spinning, indeed. Here's a picture. Maybe you can work out for yourself why people are feeling more optimistic than they have in a good while.

Worst in the nation isn't grounds for much optimism in my book.

And your chart is absolute spin because it conflates decennial counts [[enumerated counts) with annual estimates [[sampled estimates). The only numbers that make any sense are 2011 forward. Those numbers show a spike in 2012-14 and a decline in 2014-15.

[Bham1982]

Actually, if you bothered to read the article, the demographer said that Detroit was likely to show a population increase next year. That hasn't happened in almost 70 years.

Read the article, and that same demographer says the same thing every year.

K. Metzger has been claiming a population increase since forever, which makes sense, as his organization is part of the problem. Their population projections have been absurdly wrong, which makes sense as he's part of the same echo chamber. He's funded by Quicken and other downtown heavyweights.

[Hermod]

I think including house demolitions in the calculation does Detroit a disservice. Including homes that may have been empty 10 or 20 yrs. is not an accurate reflection on current trends. It may be for other cities with very small demolition numbers, whereby a small increase reflects population loss but not necessarily in Detroit, which is still playing catch-up with demolitions from population loss many years ago.

Well, the last several censuses [[censii?) showed more loss than the guesstimates up until that time.

[Bham1982]

Well, the last several censuses [[censii?) showed more loss than the guesstimates up until that time.

Which is why the above chart is nonsensical.

The data from 2010 earlier is decennial count; data from 2011 forward are estimates; the estimates always show higher numbers than subsequent count, so Detroit will show "reduced declines" until the end of time, even if population loss doesn't decline, because of the nature of the recalculated data every 10 years.

[Scottathew]

My co-worker and I took the expanded Dequindre Cut today. I hadn't been on it since last season. What I found shocking wasn't the new part of the cut, but rather all the residential development around the Dequindre Cut. There had to be units in the hundreds.

I know a lot of the neighborhoods are still hurting, but it's great to see development in an otherwise abandoned area. This isn't the CBD, granted it is adjacent to the CBD.

This is going to be high quality housing for folks that probably have jobs downtown. I hope all this development keeps growing. It's amazing what an influx of jobs can do.