City Center grows, but neighborhoods in rapid decline

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Bham1982]

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.

This is all bullshit. The DC area, if anything, is more racially segregated than the Detroit area. Almost the entire black population [[which is enormous, much bigger than Metro Detroit, and much more affluent) is within PG County and adjacent parts of DC and Montgomery County. There's a black half of the metro and a non-black half.

The DC metro is successful because it's the command center for the most important empire in global history. It has nothing to do with "working together" or "good government" or "racial harmony". If anything, they've had worse politicians, with clowns like crack-smoking Barry and the lethal, citizen-abusing PG Police Force.

And there's a TON of sprawl in the DC area. The vast majority of people in the DC area live in housing indistinguishable from that of Metro Detroit and because the economy is much better than ours, the sprawl machine has been far more active over the past few decades.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

^^ Do you agree with anybody on anything?? You should move to D.C., you'd fit right in....

[Bham1982]

^^ Do you agree with anybody on anything?? You should move to D.C., you'd fit right in....

I have no idea what this means. If I agreed with a post [[and I agree with many posts, in this thread, and others) generally I'm not going to respond with an alternative view, obviously.

And it's irrelevant what you or I think. The fact is that the DC area is quite segregated, has had tons of corruption, and works well in spite of itself. If Metro Detroit were capitol of the greatest empire in global history obviously things would work better too.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

It just seems to me, you answer most of your posts, with condescending answers. With a attitude, and for what reason? It's like you're not wrong about anything, when you very well could be. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trolling you, just asking a viable question. I don't profess to know everything, we all learn something new everyday.

[emu steve]

This is all bullshit. The DC area, if anything, is more racially segregated than the Detroit area. Almost the entire black population [[which is enormous, much bigger than Metro Detroit, and much more affluent) is within PG County and adjacent parts of DC and Montgomery County. There's a black half of the metro and a non-black half.

The DC metro is successful because it's the command center for the most important empire in global history. It has nothing to do with "working together" or "good government" or "racial harmony". If anything, they've had worse politicians, with clowns like crack-smoking Barry and the lethal, citizen-abusing PG Police Force.

And there's a TON of sprawl in the DC area. The vast majority of people in the DC area live in housing indistinguishable from that of Metro Detroit and because the economy is much better than ours, the sprawl machine has been far more active over the past few decades.

And, of course, I disagree.

Fairfax County is a close in and biggest governmental jurisdiction in the area [[largest county with over 1M population and also much larger than D.C.).

Check out the section on demographics. It has as much diversity as the U. N.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairfa...ty%2C_Virginia

Fairfax County's demographics mirror that of the U.S. incredibly. African-Americans and Latinos account for 1/4 of Fairfax County's population, similar to the nation as a whole.

Alexandria, Va, is also very diverse. 38% either African-American or Latino. [[about 61% white which is similar to the country as a whole).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria%2C_Virginia

As far as D.C. the only 'white enclaves' are far northwest and lot of that is pure economics, much of that housing starting in 7-figures.

Here are the demographics for Montgomery County, Md. They are similar to Alexandria, Va, Fairfax County, Va., etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgo...ty%2C_Maryland

[ABetterDetroit]

This is all bullshit. The DC area, if anything, is more racially segregated than the Detroit area.

There is "bullshit" for sure but it appears to be all yours by the data from a Major University respected in the field.

http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/cen...ation2010.html

[Bham1982]

There is "bullshit" for sure but it appears to be all yours by the data from a Major University respected in the field.

http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/cen...ation2010.html

Post the study, then. Your link is dead.

Show us a study that shows that the DC area doesn't have extreme white-black segregation, even though the Census confirms this segregation.

If you want to see where races live, the NY Times has a national map from the 2010 Census. You'll see the DC area has stark black-white divides, as bad as in Metro Detroit.

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/census/2010/map.html

[Bham1982]

Fairfax County is a close in and biggest governmental jurisdiction in the area [[largest county with over 1M population and also much larger than D.C.).

Why are you talking about Fairfax County, when no one has argued that Fairfax County is segregated? There are few blacks in Fairfax County, outside of military installations and a foreign-born black population.

We are talking about black-white segregation, not the fact that middle class Asians and foreigners live in harmony with U.S. born-whites in sprawly suburbs. We do the same here in places like Novi and Troy, which have majority-minority schools and there is no white flight.

Fairfax County is almost 100% hellish sprawl, just like Novi and Troy, BTW. And a gigantic proportion of employment/living patterns are driven by the military, which is essentially enforced desegregation.

Here are the demographics for Montgomery County, Md. They are similar to Alexandria, Va, Fairfax County, Va., etc.

Montgomery County is absolutely very racially segregated. The Eastern half of the county is dominated by nonwhites, and the Western half of the county is dominated by whites. Areas like Silver Spring have few whites while areas like Potomac have few nonwhites. Blacks, especially, are highly segregated in Montgomery County, just as in Metro Detroit.

A county isn't "diverse" when races are gerrymandered into discrete sections. That makes no sense. That's like saying that Oakland and Wayne Counties are overall "diverse".

Here's the reality: basically the entire eastern half of the DC metro is black [[almost all of PG + eastern Montgomery + NE/SE DC) and almost the entire western half of the DC metro is white [[almost all of Fairfax + NW DC + western Montgomery).

[Wesley Mouch]

...Show us a study that shows that the DC area doesn't have extreme white-black segregation, even though the Census confirms this segregation.

If you want to see where races live, the NY Times has a national map from the 2010 Census. You'll see the DC area has stark black-white divides, as bad as in Metro Detroit.

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/census/2010/map.html

I Segregation an active verb? Or is it a state?

Yes, I'm attacking the base argument that segregation is bad. Well, if its a state its not bad. If its an action, then its bad.

[ABetterDetroit]

Post the study, then. Your link is dead.

Show us a study that shows that the DC area doesn't have extreme white-black segregation, even though the Census confirms this segregation.

My apologies for your difficulties.

If you actually want to see the data you need to click on the:

• Black-White Segregation Indices for Metro Areas

to open the .pdf file

http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/cen...ation2010.html

for the source of the data.

Does that help or are you still challenged?

[emu steve]

My apologies for your difficulties.

If you actually want to see the data you need to click on the:

• Black-White Segregation Indices for Metro Areas

to open the .pdf file

http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/cen...ation2010.html

for the source of the data.

Does that help or are you still challenged?

Very fascinating data.

It certainly backs up my point about D.C., is and has been for decades, more integrated than most big cities.

What I found by browsing the numbers which isn't a total shock to me:

Look what metropolitan area was ranked highest in the segregation index for 1990...

[emu steve]

Or if someone wants a quote from Dr. Frey:

"Almost five decades after the 1968 Fair Housing Act was enacted, seven of these major metropolitan areas—including Milwaukee, New York, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, and St. Louis—show segregation indices exceeding 70, which is considered a high level of segregation. These slower-growing regions have shown modest or negative growth in their black populations in recent decades. And despite recent black suburbanization, which lowered their segregation rates from extremely high levels, they remain [[as in 2000) the most highly segregated areas of the country."

[emu steve]

What's neat about Frey's methods is that he uses census tract level data. Census tracts are small defined area say within a city or other MCD. They used to average about 4K population [[I'll check what it is now). So Frey can look at racial composition within maybe 150 - 200 census tracts within Detroit. He can identify those most diverse and those least diverse.

This makes it possible to avoid the issues B'1982 talks about: A city might be 90% white in one area and 90% black in another. That is segregation even though the numbers seem 'diverse' when aggregated.

By looking at census tracts one is literally looking at neighborhoods.

EDIT: In the U.S., Census tracts are "Designed to be relatively homogeneous units with respect to population characteristics, economic status, and living conditions, census tracts average about 4,000 inhabitants."U.S. Census Bureau definition

[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]

Sprawl does not equal growth, you are very mistaken.

Population density is also very important [[obviously).

[Wesley Mouch]

Or if someone wants a quote from Dr. Frey:

"Almost five decades after the 1968 Fair Housing Act was enacted, seven of these major metropolitan areas—including Milwaukee, New York, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, and St. Louis—show segregation indices exceeding 70, which is considered a high level of segregation. These slower-growing regions have shown modest or negative growth in their black populations in recent decades. And despite recent black suburbanization, which lowered their segregation rates from extremely high levels, they remain [[as in 2000) the most highly segregated areas of the country."

When you try and effect social change via the blunt tool of government action, you almost always get unintended consequences that exceed the original damage.

Real social change requires the public to 'buy in'.

I think more 'All in the Family' and less forced bussing would have been a better approach.

While we're at it, any idea why Trump won? IMO, its is not so much because of midwest economics as it is resistance to forced group-think of the progressive left.

So back to the point... why did the passage of 'fair housing' result in more segregated housing, if not unintended consequences?

[ABetterDetroit]

When you try and effect social change via the blunt tool of government action, you almost always get unintended consequences that exceed the original damage.


So back to the point... why did the passage of 'fair housing' result in more segregated housing, if not unintended consequences?

I removed the middle of your post because as you stated you wandered a bit.

So are you saying that you are against 'fair housing' or laws in general if they are imposed with the 'blunt tool of goverment'?

[GMan]

Population density is also very important [[obviously).

What type of density is ideal for the city? Detroit grew and annexed adjacent communities and was sprawl itself. Neighborhoods were built around uniform land plots and grid street layouts as the city grew out to the northwest. As the density has decreased could vacant neighborhoods be re-imagined with new street layouts and lower densities?
Infrastructure needs to be replaced anyway so why be limited to the existing layouts.
Should lot sizes be doubled? This would give more green areas with penetrable soils for handling groundwater run off reducing the burden on the sanitary sewers.
Neighborhoods could be clustered around some anchor [[School, Church, park, etc. ) that could define that area. Brightmoor comes to mind as a good starting point. There is some interesting topology there and the housing stock is old and mostly decimated.
If lot sizes are changed then they need to be reaccessed at a reasonable millage though, not just combining the taxable value of the two original lots at its current millage.