City Center grows, but neighborhoods in rapid decline

[BankruptcyGuy]

The headline is not about Detroit, but about our midwestern neighbor and lodestone, Chicago.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...ing10-20161213

From 2000 to 2010, population there is down 200,000.
From 2010 to 2015, most of the areas are flat, the city center gained, and the south side lost a ton of residents.

My point is that I think the trend there, which matches the trend here, is broader than just our city's management. There appears to be an overall trend in that direction. Good thing or bad thing? I don't know. But it's not something particular to Detroit.

[ndavies]

It's directly tied to the cities mismanagement. Chicago has exactly the same problems Detroit has.

High taxes, High Crime and bad schools. Detroit went through Bankruptcy, Chicago is headed towards bankruptcy. No wonder the people are fleeing these 2 cities.

[Calltoaction]

The wealthy are not fleeing, the south side is just moving out. Which is actually good for Chicago.

Stop your fear mongering.

[Bham1982]

The wealthy are not fleeing, the south side is just moving out. Which is actually good for Chicago.

Stop your fear mongering.

How on earth is it "good" when Chicago when you have massive middle class flight and the worst population loss in the nation?

Chicago is losing its middle class. The wealthy and poor are generally staying, but the middle class is fleeing. The vast majority of Chicago neighborhoods have population loss, and the city is losing blacks, whites, and others.

[Wesley Mouch]

It's directly tied to the cities mismanagement. Chicago has exactly the same problems Detroit has.

High taxes, High Crime and bad schools. Detroit went through Bankruptcy, Chicago is headed towards bankruptcy. No wonder the people are fleeing these 2 cities.

As I've preached before here, nothing is single-factor. This Chi/Det plague isn't just about civic mismanagement. Problems are complex and multifaceted.

I also doubt that this problem is limited to Det/Chi. Seems like you would probably find the same issues in Cleveland, St. Louis, Buffalo, Cincinnati -- and to go father afield, Oakland, Los Angeles, or Denver.

Suppose that Detroit and Chicago both were perfect managers of older, subdivided neighborhoods? Would those areas still be experiencing decline? I think yes. However I think the obvious mismanagement at city, county, state, and federal levels has made it much, much worse that it might have been.

The decline remains a condemnation of how we've not controlled decay, infrastructure, investment, taxes, and most important -- public safety.

[erikd]

It's directly tied to the cities mismanagement. Chicago has exactly the same problems Detroit has.

High taxes, High Crime and bad schools. Detroit went through Bankruptcy, Chicago is headed towards bankruptcy. No wonder the people are fleeing these 2 cities.

Are you asserting that the post-2000 population declines in Detroit and Chicago are the result of city mismanagement, or are you asserting that the widespread population decline that plagued all American cities in the post-war period are directly tied to city mismanagement?

[emu steve]

The headline is not about Detroit, but about our midwestern neighbor and lodestone, Chicago.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...ing10-20161213

From 2000 to 2010, population there is down 200,000.
From 2010 to 2015, most of the areas are flat, the city center gained, and the south side lost a ton of residents.

My point is that I think the trend there, which matches the trend here, is broader than just our city's management. There appears to be an overall trend in that direction. Good thing or bad thing? I don't know. But it's not something particular to Detroit.

This is part of the new urbanization.

There is a movement [[migration) back to the city but it isn't equal to what it was.

In other words, maybe thousands left Brightmoor but thousands move to downtown, Brush Park, etc.

There is both de-population [[Brightmoor) and re-population [[downtown) going on.

Someone may prefer a suburb over Brightmoor, but someone else may prefer downtown over a suburb [[or Brightmoor).

No one should assume that if Detroit gains 25K new residents that they will be distributed equally throughout the city. There are hot neighborhoods which will gain most of the new residents and most other neighborhoods will get few.

[GMan]

This is part of the new urbanization.

There is a movement [[migration) back to the city but it isn't equal to what it was.

In other words, maybe thousands left Brightmoor but thousands move to downtown, Brush Park, etc.

There is both de-population [[Brightmoor) and re-population [[downtown) going on.

Someone may prefer a suburb over Brightmoor, but someone else may prefer downtown over a suburb [[or Brightmoor).

No one should assume that if Detroit gains 25K new residents that they will be distributed equally throughout the city. There are hot neighborhoods which will gain most of the new residents and most other neighborhoods will get few.

People who are moving into the city are moving into the vibrant areas where they can reap the benefits of the revitalization of Detroit.
Can it be sustained and swell the bubble to the outlying areas of the city.
This is the Million dollar question.

[emu steve]

People who are moving into the city are moving into the vibrant areas where they can reap the benefits of the revitalization of Detroit.
Can it be sustained and swell the bubble to the outlying areas of the city.
This is the Million dollar question.

Agree and that has always been about downtowns and building sports facilities there, entertainment venues, eateries, etc. etc. as well as easy transportation [[e.g., QLine) and employment.

When I was in Detroit for Thanksgiving, I drove down Michigan Ave. and wondered what would happen if the QLine was extended west to out by Slows? Would that invigorate the western part of downtown and Corktown? Would Michigan Ave. in that area redevelop?

[DeLemur]

Obviously a multitude of factors but income inequality and the hollowing out of decent, accessible employment like $20/hr jobs with benefits is still occurring. Think about all those workers who took the "buy out" from auto, their money is long gone now and they're likely in a lower paying job. Their neighborhood went from middle class to lower class, plain and simple. The neighborhoods will never turnaround without broad, decently paid jobs.
Now that Trump put in a guy who questions even the minimum wage as head of Labor department and who makes millions in fast food industry dependent on $9hr workers - income inequality and decent paying jobs in the U.S. doesn't look to be on the radar for workers and thus neighborhoods.

Weak city services, crime, broken families those play into it as well but fifty years of income loss for the worker leads to wider neighborhood decline.

[Chicago48]

Obviously a multitude of factors but income inequality and the hollowing out of decent, accessible employment like $20/hr jobs with benefits is still occurring. Think about all those workers who took the "buy out" from auto, their money is long gone now and they're likely in a lower paying job. Their neighborhood went from middle class to lower class, plain and simple. The neighborhoods will never turnaround without broad, decently paid jobs.
Now that Trump put in a guy who questions even the minimum wage as head of Labor department and who makes millions in fast food industry dependent on $9hr workers - income inequality and decent paying jobs in the U.S. doesn't look to be on the radar for workers and thus neighborhoods.

Weak city services, crime, broken families those play into it as well but fifty years of income loss for the worker leads to wider neighborhood decline.

I live in Chicago. True, the [[black/minority) south side and west side are losing residents because of high crime, no commercial businesses and failing schools. The population is increasing in the downtown and Loop downtown areas. Lots of restaurants, condos, apts, retail, lots of activity. But Chicago overall still has a healthy economy. Lots of tourism. I live on the northside and the cost of renting/owning is through the roof. How about $2200 for a one-bedroom apartment?
And these buildings are full occupancy. So yes, the south & west side where the poorer and black people live are losing population.

[Bham1982]

So yes, the south & west side where the poorer and black people live are losing population.

This is semi-true, but misleading. The South and West Sides are about 70% of Chicago. And the North Side is losing population too. Basically all of Chicago is losing population except the downtown core. The worst population loss is in the South/West Sides, though.

And it isn't just African American people leaving. Chicago is losing whites too, in contrast to other major cities like NYC and LA, which are finally gaining whites.

And the poor aren't leaving; it's the middle class. Chicago is retaining the black underclass, and losing the middle class of all races. This is, in part, why Chicago is in such a deep financial crisis: the city is being

[emu steve]

This is semi-true, but misleading. The South and West Sides are about 70% of Chicago. And the North Side is losing population too. Basically all of Chicago is losing population except the downtown core. The worst population loss is in the South/West Sides, though.

And it isn't just African American people leaving. Chicago is losing whites too, in contrast to other major cities like NYC and LA, which are finally gaining whites.

And the poor aren't leaving; it's the middle class. Chicago is retaining the black underclass, and losing the middle class of all races. This is, in part, why Chicago is in such a deep financial crisis: the city is being

Don't forget d.c.

It is a modern success story of a city which had 'white flight', lost lot of middle income African-Americans, too, was in dire financial straits, etc. etc.

and now folks are moving back in. Lot of folks with nice incomes. Many thousands of new housing units, etc. Strong neighborhoods, like in N.W. D.C., Capitol Hill, etc. are still very strong but formerly bad or non-existent neighborhoods are really doing well. Some are in areas 10 or 20 years ago where one did not go, day or night.

Each big city has its own story and fate. Some 'not too good' while others getting stronger and stronger.

[swingline]

Don't forget d.c.

It is a modern success story of a city which had 'white flight', lost lot of middle income African-Americans, too, was in dire financial straits, etc. etc.

and now folks are moving back in. Lot of folks with nice incomes. Many thousands of new housing units, etc. Strong neighborhoods, like in N.W. D.C., Capitol Hill, etc. are still very strong but formerly bad or non-existent neighborhoods are really doing well. Some are in areas 10 or 20 years ago where one did not go, day or night.

Each big city has its own story and fate. Some 'not too good' while others getting stronger and stronger.

Hmm, and isn't it strange how formerly decrepit outer neighborhoods in DC like Shaw, Columbia Heights, 14th & U and the Navy Yard became the targets of over $1 billion in investment right before and immediately after the Metrorail Green line opened? One wonders if there could be some kind of connection there. Nah, probably not.

[dangelo]

Chicago isn't all that. It's overpriced, too much crime, too cold!

I don't understand why people use Michigan's weather an excuse to badmouth Michigan but they never complain about the other northern areas [[including Chicago) which have the same cold, snowy weather. Last year some places [[NYC) had even worse weather than Michigan!

[emu steve]

This article about Dan Gilbert indicates what I have been posting and posting: What happens downtown effects the other neighborhoods.

If folks don't work downtown they are less [[less is a good word) likely to live in the city.

Best way to get folks to live in the city is have a very large employment center in downtown and folks will try to find suitable [[appropriate, whatever that might be for them) as close to work as reasonably possible.

I think it also shows that downtown employment has created a significant demand for housing 'close in'. And I do believe Gilbert's work in Brush Park makes absolute sense.

http://www.freep.com/story/money/bus...ives/95198306/

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Each big city has its own story and fate. Some 'not too good' while others getting stronger and stronger.

Well, it seems to me the big southern and southwestern cities are doing quite well, Atlanta, Charlotte, Nashville, Dallas and Houston, to name a few. They've all had population increases the last few years.

[emu steve]

Well, it seems to me the big southern and southwestern cities are doing quite well, Atlanta, Charlotte, Nashville, Dallas and Houston, to name a few. They've all had population increases the last few years.[/COLOR]

Yes, there is a pattern.

I think the West [[or Left) coast is doing very well. I have no reason to doubt S.F., Seattle, Portland, etc.

The East coast and mid-Atlantic, etc. are doing well, e.g., D.C., Charlotte, and further south like Atlanta.

Toughest cities are rust belt and cities which really didn't have a lot going for themselves which never caught on late in the 20th century.

[erikd]

Yes, there is a pattern.

I think the West [[or Left) coast is doing very well. I have no reason to doubt S.F., Seattle, Portland, etc.

The East coast and mid-Atlantic, etc. are doing well, e.g., D.C., Charlotte, and further south like Atlanta.

Toughest cities are rust belt and cities which really didn't have a lot going for themselves which never caught on late in the 20th century.

The problems in Detroit have very little to do with the decline of manufacturing, outsourcing, de-industrialization, or any of the other fallacies that try to blame Detroits decline on a regional economic decline. It's simply not true.

At Detroit's peak, the metro Detroit population and economy was far smaller than it is today. Since 1950, the metro Detroit population has grown by almost 50%, while the city proper population has declined to almost a third of what it was.

In 1950, about 55% of the metro population lived the city of Detroit. In 2016, only about 15% of the metro Detroit population lives in the city of Detroit.

The problem in Detroit is suburban sprawl. Period. Not outsourcing, not rust belt decline, not loss of manufacturing. Suburban sprawl.

When you have a 65% decline in the city while the metro grows by 45%, the problem isn't that the jobs and people went down south, out west, or overseas. The problem is that the jobs and people went 10 miles up the road after we tore out the streetcars and built the freeways.

If the city of Detroit had only declined to 30-40% of the metro population, instead of 15%, the city would be dense, vibrant, and bustling. We have way more people and jobs now than we did at the city's peak, it's just that 85% of them are 5-10 miles up the road.

[Bham1982]

T
The problem in Detroit is suburban sprawl. Period. Not outsourcing, not rust belt decline, not loss of manufacturing. Suburban sprawl.

Sprawl is the least of Metro Detroit's problems. The main issues are the difficult economic transition, racial tension/white flight and Michigan's recent political shift from a progressive, education-oriented state into into redneck Mississippi North.

Sprawl is absolutely compatible with growth [[in fact most of the fastest growing metros in the U.S. are more sprawly than Metro Detroit). Places like Austin, Charlotte, Orlando, Phoenix and the like are practically nothing but sprawl.

[Calltoaction]

Sprawl is the least of Metro Detroit's problems. The main issues are the difficult economic transition, racial tension/white flight and Michigan's recent political shift from a progressive, education-oriented state into into redneck Mississippi North.

Sprawl is absolutely compatible with growth [[in fact most of the fastest growing metros in the U.S. are more sprawly than Metro Detroit). Places like Austin, Charlotte, Orlando, Phoenix and the like are practically nothing but sprawl.

Sprawl does not equal growth, you are very mistaken.

[emu steve]

The problems in Detroit have very little to do with the decline of manufacturing, outsourcing, de-industrialization, or any of the other fallacies that try to blame Detroits decline on a regional economic decline. It's simply not true.

At Detroit's peak, the metro Detroit population and economy was far smaller than it is today. Since 1950, the metro Detroit population has grown by almost 50%, while the city proper population has declined to almost a third of what it was.

In 1950, about 55% of the metro population lived the city of Detroit. In 2016, only about 15% of the metro Detroit population lives in the city of Detroit.

The problem in Detroit is suburban sprawl. Period. Not outsourcing, not rust belt decline, not loss of manufacturing. Suburban sprawl.

When you have a 65% decline in the city while the metro grows by 45%, the problem isn't that the jobs and people went down south, out west, or overseas. The problem is that the jobs and people went 10 miles up the road after we tore out the streetcars and built the freeways.

If the city of Detroit had only declined to 30-40% of the metro population, instead of 15%, the city would be dense, vibrant, and bustling. We have way more people and jobs now than we did at the city's peak, it's just that 85% of them are 5-10 miles up the road.

I agree with your thesis.

Suburbanization is certainly a big part of the 2nd half of the 20th century, but in Detroit's case what happened was much more than folks gradually moving outward. It was a mass exodus.

The mass exodus did irreparable damage to the city.

I might look at other cities which are thriving today, e.g., NYC, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Los Angeles, etc. and see the current population as a percentage of 'peak population.'

EDIT: e.g., San Fran has its highest population ever, having never had significant population loss.

Wash. D.C. is about 125K from its all time high.

NYC lost pop in the 1970s, but is now at an all time high.

Los Angeles has never lost pop between decennial censuses and is at an all time high.

Some folks like to make political talking point about big cities, but I find these four cities to be growing, healthy, great places to live and work.

What has happened to Detroit is very, very different than the experience in these other big cities.

[ABetterDetroit]

The problems in Detroit have very little to do with the decline of manufacturing, outsourcing, de-industrialization, or any of the other fallacies that try to blame Detroits decline on a regional economic decline. It's simply not true.

At Detroit's peak, the metro Detroit population and economy was far smaller than it is today. Since 1950, the metro Detroit population has grown by almost 50%, while the city proper population has declined to almost a third of what it was.

In 1950, about 55% of the metro population lived the city of Detroit. In 2016, only about 15% of the metro Detroit population lives in the city of Detroit.

The problem in Detroit is suburban sprawl. Period. Not outsourcing, not rust belt decline, not loss of manufacturing. Suburban sprawl.

When you have a 65% decline in the city while the metro grows by 45%, the problem isn't that the jobs and people went down south, out west, or overseas. The problem is that the jobs and people went 10 miles up the road after we tore out the streetcars and built the freeways.

If the city of Detroit had only declined to 30-40% of the metro population, instead of 15%, the city would be dense, vibrant, and bustling. We have way more people and jobs now than we did at the city's peak, it's just that 85% of them are 5-10 miles up the road.

This is a very accurate assessment of our problem in the metro area.

The sprawl in the tri-counties is not or hasn't been healthy growth for a long time. It resembles slash and burn agriculture followed by abandonment.

I am amazed how anybody who ever lived here can not see we have a region at war with itself, economically and socially.

[emu steve]

This is a very accurate assessment of our problem in the metro area.

The sprawl in the tri-counties is not or hasn't been healthy growth for a long time. It resembles slash and burn agriculture followed by abandonment.

I am amazed how anybody who ever lived here can not see we have a region at war with itself, economically and socially.

Agree 100 or 1,000%.

Detroit [[and S.E. Michigan) has itself to blame for the problems IT created. Other big cities have handled social change much better without the negative consequences. [[I do not include Chicago in this list. Chicago has many problems similar to Detroit).

As I have mentioned many times, I am very proud of how the D.C. area handles it urban issues.

Take one example: transportation.

We have a 'world class' [[although now suffering from decades of deferred maintenance, etc.) subway and bus system.

In order to do it, with the help of Federal dollars, the system is run by a board composed of members from D.C., Maryland, and Virginia.

Our bridges cross two or more state jurisdictions [[Wilson Bridge connects Va and Md, but the bridge is the responsibility of D.C.; there were howls in the 90s when D.C. couldn't fix pot holes on the 14th Street bridge.).

So we have THREE state jurisdictions running our public transportation, bridges, etc.

Could S.E. Michigan do anything CLOSE??????

One thing which makes the D.C. area great are its people and its governments. Our ethos is very much into working together, diversity, etc. etc.

We do not have the chasms which exist in S.E. Michigan.

I'm not sure we [[D.C. area) willingly build bridges [[maybe out of necessity), but we don't build walls, either.

A place in S.E. Michigan which is great is Washtenaw County, which has an ethos like the D.C. area.

[iheartthed]

The headline is not about Detroit, but about our midwestern neighbor and lodestone, Chicago.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...ing10-20161213

From 2000 to 2010, population there is down 200,000.
From 2010 to 2015, most of the areas are flat, the city center gained, and the south side lost a ton of residents.

My point is that I think the trend there, which matches the trend here, is broader than just our city's management. There appears to be an overall trend in that direction. Good thing or bad thing? I don't know. But it's not something particular to Detroit.

This is hardly shocking. Chicago's population decline was the second highest in the country at the 2010 census. Only Detroit's was worse.