Detroits population tipping point

[2blocksaway]

We all know Detroit's population peaked around 1950 at about 1.85 million.

I would like to ask all of you how low the population will go before it begins to rise again and when that will be?

I think it still has a long way to go. Probably somewhere around 350,000 people 20-30 years from now.

[Detroit500]

I hope not 350,000, but I do think we have a long way to go before hitting bottom. The biggest problem is, there comes a diminished opportunity to supply core services with each individual who leaves the city. The only way Detroit can buck this trend, is to call eminent domain, return some of these areas back to wildlife/community parks, etc. and force everyone into more centralized areas of the city. They've talked about it, though if they actually do it, we'll have to wait and see!

[buildingsofdetroit]

I hope not 350,000, but I do think we have a long way to go before hitting bottom. The biggest problem is, there comes a diminished opportunity to supply core services with each individual who leaves the city. The only way Detroit can buck this trend, is to call eminent domain, return some of these areas back to wildlife/community parks, etc. and force everyone into more centralized areas of the city. They've talked about it, though if they actually do it, we'll have to wait and see!

I couldn't agree more. It HAS to be done. No question. The problem would be the cost of doing it, not only for buying people out but for the lawsuits that are sure to rise. The other problem is the social cost and unfairness: Giving someone the fair market value for their rundown house of $5,000 isn't going to let them move anywhere else. You'd almost have to give them the $5K AND pay to put them up in Section 8 or something.

[jbd441]

I couldn't agree more. It HAS to be done. No question. The problem would be the cost of doing it, not only for buying people out but for the lawsuits that are sure to rise. The other problem is the social cost and unfairness: Giving someone the fair market value for their rundown house of $5,000 isn't going to let them move anywhere else. You'd almost have to give them the $5K AND pay to put them up in Section 8 or something.

Thought I read where Flint was trying to do this. That city has come to the realization it will never be 1/4 as large[[population) as it was back in the 40's and 50's. Why try to support neighborhoods with city services when there is only one house left on a block.
What will hold up any solution to Detroit's problems will be corrupt city leaders who know that as long as they have a paycheck city services etc come 2nd. Same with the DPS.

[casscorridor]

Detroit's population will NEVER dip to 350,000.

If the population continues to decline, I don't think it will ever dip below 800,000... thats just my feeling. That means we could still loose another 100,000 people and I'd still be right.

But I don't think either will happen. I feel that we might continue to loose a little bit more, but that the bottom is here basically, or very close, and that soon the population will start to rise again.

I predict we will have at least 1,000,000 again by 2030. That is 28 1/2 years from now. Plenty of time to gain only mere 100,000 people.

I think the goal ought to be reestablishing the population at peak levels of around 1,800,000 pushing toward 2 million by 2050.... interestingly enough, one-hundred years after the peak.

These are conservative goals.

[crawford]

Detroit's population will NEVER dip to 350,000.

If the population continues to decline, I don't think it will ever dip below 800,000... thats just my feeling. That means we could still loose another 100,000 people and I'd still be right.

There is no way in hell Detroit has 900.000 people right now. I do not believe that its population has decreased so little in recent years. I see more abandonment now than I have ever seen.

Even places like the University District have vacant homes all over the place. Green Acres has one block that looks like a mini-Brush Park.

This wasn't true even three years ago.

[casscorridor]

I hope not 350,000, but I do think we have a long way to go before hitting bottom. The biggest problem is, there comes a diminished opportunity to supply core services with each individual who leaves the city. The only way Detroit can buck this trend, is to call eminent domain, return some of these areas back to wildlife/community parks, etc. and force everyone into more centralized areas of the city. They've talked about it, though if they actually do it, we'll have to wait and see!

Like it or not, the least centralized areas in the city are often times the least abandoned. Look at the northwest and northeast sides that resemble suburbs more than city. The areas that these politicos with their grand visions are calling to "turn back to wilderness" are often core urban neighborhoods that absolutely must be preserved and redeveloped in order to have a real urban core-- and I mean an urban core to a metropolitan region... we need dozens of good, solid, dense, urban neighborhoods at the center.

So even though some of those core neighborhoods are in good condition -- Woodbridge, Corktown, Eastern Market, Midtown, New Center, etc. Others are resemble praire -- for example, Chene St/"poletown" is completely gone. The core urban fabric has already been compromised so much that destroying it anymore would such more life out of "good" neighborhoods. What would strengthen those good neighorhhods, along with Downtown, and the neighborhoods further out, is completely redeveloping this "donut" of sorts around the core.

The places that might have to be turned into prarie in the city, if any, will have to be the far flung areas that are 7, 8, 9, 10 miles away from Campus Martius. But it is my opinion that no areas should be turned back to nature intentionally within the city, with small exceptions for greenways. Instead, it is really outer ring suburbs that should be turned back to nature -- Sterling Heights, Rochester Hills, Auburn Hills, Novi, Canton, etc etc etc. -- these place have no future.

When people propose destroying entire core urban neighorhoods in Detroit, no one flentches, but if actually destroying entire suburban neighborhoods like the ones I mentioned, there would be incredible upheaval and resistance to the idea. A simple idea of fixing a mistake that led to the decline of the city... suburban sprawl. Not one single proposal for returning areas of Detroit back to nature ever include anything about the suburbs, it is completely out of context. A few small changes [[education, safety, economics, etc) could lead to a massive inward migration to the city and cripple the suburbs almost overnight.

To the dustbin of history for suburbs! Long live the city!

[Roq]

A few small changes [[education, safety, economics, etc) could lead to a massive inward migration to the city and cripple the suburbs almost overnight.

Though I think this post is a work, I'm going to bite anyway. What makes you think if the scenario you describe happens that people will move back into the City? I say they leave the region altogether.

[HazenPingree]

I hope not 350,000, but I do think we have a long way to go before hitting bottom. The biggest problem is, there comes a diminished opportunity to supply core services with each individual who leaves the city. The only way Detroit can buck this trend, is to call eminent domain, return some of these areas back to wildlife/community parks, etc. and force everyone into more centralized areas of the city. They've talked about it, though if they actually do it, we'll have to wait and see!

Would be nice, but the Wayne v. Hathcock case has made this very hard.

[mwilbert]

I'm not a lawyer, but Wayne v. Hathcock doesn't look to address this issue directly. These takings would be for public purposes [[improving city services and public safety) more than for private economic development.

One specific objection was the taking of private land for transfer to private parties, which would not be happening a shrinkage plan.

[Stosh]

I think that the correct method would be one of simple unincorporation of any portion of land that the city would deem to be undesirable. That land would then revert to townships, which technically haven't had a government for a while. So, while the city would technically "shrink", the people living there would not have to move.

Their choice, I suppose, but they also would have the opportunity to tax themselves, form government, and possibly fire and police services. Or to join cities that abut their area. Or, more likely, just abandon their area altogether.

The whole premise of Detroit actually paying someone to move is probably the most insane move a city on the verge of bankruptcy could make.

[Bearinabox]

Why does the city need to take possession of anything to implement a centralization plan? If the only goal is to reduce the cost of providing city services, then just tell residents in those areas that services will no longer be provided after a certain date, and offer to buy them out before that date for X amount of money. Anyone who doesn't take the buyout is welcome to dig a well and buy a shotgun and drive their garbage to the dump, and will be exempted from all city taxes for as long as they want to stay there. I'm sure I'm not the first one to think of this, and I'm sure there's a reason why it wouldn't work, but I'd be curious to know what the reason is.

[mwilbert]

Reducing the cost of city services would not be the only goal--if that were the only goal, you could just stop providing city services now, and continue collecting the taxes.

[royce]

Why does the city need to take possession of anything to implement a centralization plan? If the only goal is to reduce the cost of providing city services, then just tell residents in those areas that services will no longer be provided after a certain date, and offer to buy them out before that date for X amount of money. Anyone who doesn't take the buyout is welcome to dig a well and buy a shotgun and drive their garbage to the dump, and will be exempted from all city taxes for as long as they want to stay there. I'm sure I'm not the first one to think of this, and I'm sure there's a reason why it wouldn't work, but I'd be curious to know what the reason is.

Bearinbox, I am in absolute agreement with you on the plan you propose. If eminent domain no longer works, then the plan above should be possible. A city should have some say over how it wants to use "its" land. Private ownership of one's property is important in a free society, but should it be an absolute? Giving people the option to take a buy-out and relocate or stay on their property and not have to pay taxes but lose city services, should be a win-win situation for the city and resident.

[Crumbled_pavement]

Zero. Once Detroit gets down to zero, the crime, education, economic, and moral issues will disappear. Guarantee you when Detroit gets down to zero people you won't see a single newstory about crime in Detroit!

[casscorridor]

AND just to be clear: I am not anti-suburb. I am anti-suburban sprawl. I think there are good suburbs that will continue to be great places long into the future. Ferndale, Royal Oak, Dearborn, Grosse Pointe, are among these communities. In the future, when Detroit is once again great, it may be of great benifit to these suburbs to finally put away their individual governments and join the City of Detroit as neighborhoods instead of seperate cities.

[Quonset Hut]

AND just to be clear: I am not anti-suburb. I am anti-suburban sprawl. I think there are good suburbs that will continue to be great places long into the future. Ferndale, Royal Oak, Dearborn, Grosse Pointe, are among these communities. In the future, when Detroit is once again great, it may be of great benifit to these suburbs to finally put away their individual governments and join the City of Detroit as neighborhoods instead of seperate cities.

What you are saying, except for the Pointes, is that you love the little ranches and capes piled almost on top of each other, in straight blocks, just like you were in Detroit. While I didn't grow up in SE Michigan, people left for a variety of reasons, some to have a larger house with enough room for their kids to play. I just left a house in Lansing on a 40 x 100 lot where my neighbor spends spring, summer, and fall on his back porch, talking loudly to everyone, and his grill smoke always went right into my window. I'll guess I can't be forgiven by the land use thought police because we now live most of the time in blessed silence, though kids do play in the common area behind the house.

If I remember correctly, the "Detroit specific" state laws were changed to "a city over 700,000 population". I'd like to see the city of Detroit do better. But when it takes months and months just to get a simple permit, many sensible people decide to do things elsewhere.

To think the the old suburbs would join Detroit is laughable. First, Detroit government would have to not be a joke. This, by itself seems too much to overcome, so I won't bother listing anything else,,,

[Bearinabox]

What you are saying, except for the Pointes, is that you love the little ranches and capes piled almost on top of each other, in straight blocks, just like you were in Detroit. While I didn't grow up in SE Michigan, people left for a variety of reasons, some to have a larger house with enough room for their kids to play.

First off, "enough room for kids to play" must mean something entirely different to you than it does to me. I grew up in a pre-WWII house on a small lot and never had any trouble playing--I rode my bike all over the neighborhood, and made use of the many nearby parks, but my house and yard were usually perfectly fine for any sort of game I could think up. What kids really need to play is other kids, and I had several good friends within easy walking distance.

Secondly, I don't think moving from the street grid to the rat maze has really increased the amount of space most people have in their yards. I've visited acquaintances in spanking-new vinyl subdivisions in northern Oakland and Macomb, and even in fairly rural parts of Livingston County, and I don't think any of them have much more space of their own than I did growing up. Eliminating fences and making the lot shapes irregular creates the illusion of a wide expanse of green lawn, but the slice of it that belongs to each individual homeowner is still relatively small. There are exceptions [[many of the older neighborhoods along the Southfield-Farmington border have enormous lots, for example), but the average subdivision of McMansions out on the exurban fringe doesn't provide a whole lot more breathing room than the average prewar outer-city or inner-suburban neighborhood.

If people were moving to the exurbs and buying farms instead of McMansions, maybe you'd have a point, but I think sprawl has very little to do with a desire for "space for the kids."

[Quonset Hut]

First off, "enough room for kids to play" must mean something entirely different to you than it does to me. I grew up in a pre-WWII house on a small lot and never had any trouble playing--I rode my bike all over the neighborhood, and made use of the many nearby parks, but my house and yard were usually perfectly fine for any sort of game I could think up. What kids really need to play is other kids, and I had several good friends within easy walking distance.

Secondly, I don't think moving from the street grid to the rat maze has really increased the amount of space most people have in their yards. I've visited acquaintances in spanking-new vinyl subdivisions in northern Oakland and Macomb, and even in fairly rural parts of Livingston County, and I don't think any of them have much more space of their own than I did growing up. Eliminating fences and making the lot shapes irregular creates the illusion of a wide expanse of green lawn, but the slice of it that belongs to each individual homeowner is still relatively small. There are exceptions [[many of the older neighborhoods along the Southfield-Farmington border have enormous lots, for example), but the average subdivision of McMansions out on the exurban fringe doesn't provide a whole lot more breathing room than the average prewar outer-city or inner-suburban neighborhood.

If people were moving to the exurbs and buying farms instead of McMansions, maybe you'd have a point, but I think sprawl has very little to do with a desire for "space for the kids."

Sure, I grew up in a densely packed area of East Lansing, and went to the schoolyard and woods to play. Of course, almost all the woods are gone. One problem now is parents are afraid to let their kids go to the park unsupervised. As for the newer big house/small lot developments, you are right. We moved to a 60's/70's development in F.H. There is a 14 acre common area in back of my lot.

Getting back to the original issue, the reduction in family size has been a large factor in population loss in most areas, particually where there is little new development. I once lived in Parsippany, NJ, a bedroom community. While there was much residential development from 1970 to 1980, the population did not change as baby boomers went on their own and average family size dropped.

[Detroit_ExPat]

I'd say about 500,000 by 2020, and down to 300,000-400,000 by 2030.

[R8RBOB]

I'd say about 500,000 by 2020, and down to 300,000-400,000 by 2030.

I'm sorry but you need to re-crunch the numbers. Did you factor the net gains/loss of the suburbs? Let's say in 11 years the population reaches a number of 500,000. That means you would have half the city basically empty. Empty for redevelopment and the suburbanites will simply do what they did fifty years ago. White flight in reverse. You forgot another group of people that will repopulate the city, Latinos. They have no problem moving in. Detroit's population will continue to dip because there is nothing here but losing close to 400,000 in 11 years is "off the wall."

[wolverine]

Think I'll wait for SEMCOG's numbers.

[Ray1936]

I think Detroit_ExPat nailed it.

[MIRepublic]

People need to do some simple math and extrapolation, here, and look at the previous drops in the last few decades. The percentage loss has slowed every decade since the 70's, I believe. I think it's clear the percentage loss most likely sped up this decade, but even if it turns out the loss was twice the 7.4% population loss of the 90's [[14.8%), that'd still yield a population of 810,000 for the 2010 Census. And, to be honest, I don't see the loss as having doubled over the 90's. Now, let's double, unrealistically, 14.8% again [[29.6%) for 2020. That yields 570,000 for 2020.

Truth is, the doubling of loss each decade is just ridiculous. As you can see, even in the worst case scenario it'd take decades for Detroit to drop below half a million even with ridiculously postulating that the population loss percentage would double each decade from the 90's. Realistically, it probably won't ever drop much beyond 800,000. The truth of that matter is that it's getting harder and harder to leave Detroit for those that are left, so you'd expect the population loss to dwindle or stagnant, not explode.

I honestly don't think Detroit will post a gain, for decades, but I think it's just as ridiculous to believe that it's going to double, or more than double, every decade given the financial demographic left in the city. Detroit is most likely going to stagnate, population-wise, and stagnate hard in a weird limbo situation for decades to come barring some new technological innovation that the local economy will wrap itself around.

The tipping point is nigh; it simply almost has to be.

[iheartthed]

I actually think Detroit has just about bottomed out now. Whatever the census reports in 2010 is where Detroit will hover, if all external factors such as energy cost and job availability stays near what it has been in the past 10 years. As CassCorridor mentioned above, the areas of Detroit that experienced the most drastic depopulating were those neighborhoods that were the most densely populated [[and public transit oriented). Detroit is probably close to a balance where it will make economic sense for residents to keep these medium density neighborhoods populated rather than continue to abandon them for suburban areas. Also, the housing boom in the outer burbs has gone bust, so leaving the city won't be as cheap as it had been in recent years [[once the excess inventory gets soaked up or destroyed).

I doubt any of us reading this will ever live to see the day where Detroit's population is 350,000. That would take an extremely drastic external event, like say the domestic auto industry completely collapsing before the local economy is diversified... or some catastrophic situation like a hurricane [[highly unlikely), terrorist attack [[probable, but not likely), or nuclear explosion [[probable, but not likely).