Detroit continues to die

[O3H]

How about agreeing the number is 670,000 plus or minus a few. :-)

Detroit News 2018 figures - Detroit's population was 673,104
as of last summer, a decline of 2,376 residents.
The drop is close to the previous year's loss of 2,770.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...ows/634577002/

The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments forecasts
that the city will continue to lose residents until 2025,
when it predicts it will bottom out at 631,668. [[SEMCOG)

Let's stop with the absolute nonsense and face reality - head on -

From April 2010 to April 2018 –
the labor force in Detroit shrank from 277,972 to 244,123.
The city’s population continued to shrink, though at a slower rate.

White folks will not plunge head on into a 80% -90% BLACK population
where the school system simply sucks a tremendous amount.
Few BLACK people would bother to move in those neighborhoods

[Bham1982]

The census just reports numbers at a specific point in time. It is entirely possible [[and likely) that Detroit's population has stabilized. The census will not be able to corroborate that for decades.

Bizarre.

So you refuse to believe any Census data point, since none are collected in real-time [[which would be impossible, since the data needs to be rigorously vetted)?

Why is it "entirely possible and likely" that Detroit's population has stabilized? Based on what?

Why would Census "not be able to corroborate for decades" when they have official population numbers every 12 months?

In reality, Detroit officially shows population decline, you don't like it, so you make excuses for it. If Detroit showed something different than population decline, I seriously doubt you would argue the official data were suspect.

[iheartthed]

Why would Census "not be able to corroborate for decades" when they have official population numbers every 12 months?

They don't have official population numbers every 12 months. The official census only happens every 10 years. They have estimates every 12 months, which really shouldn't be taken as anything more than a rough guess. The ACS estimates were substantially wrong for a number of cities in the lead up to the 2010 census. It was only apparent that the estimates were wrong when the actual census came out.

Why is it "entirely possible and likely" that Detroit's population has stabilized? Based on what?

Because housing prices have started to rebound.

In the city of Detroit, the median sales price hit $38,500 in June, up 41 percent from a year earlier, according to a report released Monday by Realcomp.

Detroit's median home sales price is now about 275 percent higher than it was five years ago [[$10,325), back when many houses in city limits still sold for less than the cost of used cars.

https://www.freep.com/story/money/business/2018/07/16/home-prices-rising-metro-detroit/783387002/

[masterblaster]

Detroit levies property taxes at high rates
to compensate for the exodus of people
and businesses from the city,
which has eroded the property tax base,
creating a relatively low taxable value per capita.

This is real, now, today, late 2018

Do you have any suggestions on how Detroit can change what you just stated above?

[bragaboutme]

As far as the media I understand. As far as census statistics I understand. Let's make a real point the neighborhoods that I have seen with my own eyes. The houses that were boarded up are now occupied, meaning there are still abandoned houses, but from Eastside to westside I have actually seen people that weren't there 5 years ago. You came arrive with all the statistics you want, but I'm going from what I've seen in my neighborhood and across the city. Actual houses being occupied. I went to Woodbridge and ate at a pizza place on Trumbull that was abandoned 5yrs ago the growth is real. The name of this thread is Detroit dieing, am I right? From what I've seen from real eye sight is there is growth in the neighborhoods. Let's look at real numbers from my block and the block across and beyond. I look at my house that I'm rehabbing. That is one resident. Next door is my uncle that's two. We have to go etc. With this I have known this and my whole area for all my life net gain in a six block area in the last 5 years is 50. So that's 50 people just in a 6 block area. No Google maps, no census. This is real from a bird's eye view just in my area. I grew up here and I make over the amount that you would consider poverty and midclass. Also around Helen and Mack my family grew up and still are there is a real sure of growth right around the corner from Indian village. New construction and real growth. If anyone that lives and grew up on the Eastside of Detroit can say anything otherwise let me know. The fundamentals of debate is point, counter point. Google maps is not a counter point. As the great moderator Lowell started this website said, "let's discuss!".

[SammyS]

^^
I hear ya brags. Let's not forget my favorite neck of the woods, Brush Park. 80% sold out at ~$600k a pop. That's over $50M and Google maps has this to show.

[SammyS]

Google maps vs. reality

[SammyS]

The Googs, and the real

[SammyS]

In all seriousness, I always take out-of-towners down at every opportunity I can take. Not a single person has been disappointed at the progress Detroit has made over the past few years. There's certainly a buzz and those that believe do feel it.

[O3H]

The actual MAP looks a whole lot more like this :

https://images.theconversation.com/f...mat&q=45&w=754

Skip Google , it doesn't show the BIG picture of the boundaries of Detroit

Only a very small sliver, a thin pie slice has had some ""recovery"
The majority of Land Mass - just isn't making it forward

NO ONE takes people on the 143 SQUARE MILE tour of the city
---- c'mon now, let's be serious, truthful, and honest ----------

The city’s hottest corridors for redevelopment is just 7.2 square miles.
This encompasses the traditional downtown along with adjoining neighborhood districts such as Midtown, Corktown, and Woodbridge.
“The 7.2,” as it is called, houses the major institutions and attractions
in the city, from sports stadiums to Wayne State University,
from clusters of art galleries to collections of
architecturally significant buildings,
and that is where potential exists.

I've done my homework ----- who did theirs ?

[SammyS]

And I will bet that only 5 years ago you were shitting on the "small slivers" too, right?

I think I'm done with this thread

[O3H]

Calling you out on the 100 square miles of Detroit
--- would make you quit ----- By Bye Sammy

Try touring Brightmoor, the roughly 4-square-mile
neighborhood in Detroit, Michigan, which is BOOMING.....[[not)

Not a single person has been disappointed at the progress Detroit has made over the past few years.

https://www.roadsnacks.net/worst-detroit-neighborhoods/

[mwilbert]

Of course we do. The Census reports population loss. Census numbers are the official numbers and there are no competing data sources.

Unless you want to call the Census and their army of PhDs "fakenews" there is no debate re. Detroit's continuing population loss.

No, it isn't fake news. But the non-decade numbers aren't accurate enough to determine what is actually happening when you are looking at small differences. According to the census, Detroit's population was 0.35% higher in 2016 than in 2017. And that may well be true, but while the actual error of both the 2016 or 2017 numbers is unknown, it is estimated to be likely to be something like 1.5% of the correct value, so when you subtract one from the other, a difference of 0.35% is just not telling you much. It is pretty certain that Detroit has fewer people now than it did in 2010, quite likely it has fewer now than in 2014, but beyond that it is hard to know.

The reason someone [[Iheartthed) says we might not know for decades is similar. If the population is now increasing slowly [[I am not saying that it is), the 2020 census will still probably show a lower population in 2020 than 2010. Presumably it would then show growth in 2030, but that's a long time from now. Obviously when the numbers are changing fast you don't have as much of a problem, but they aren't.

[Bham1982]

They don't have official population numbers every 12 months.

Yes, they do. Official Census estimates happen every 12 months. The decennial data are no more "official" nor more "accurate" than the annual estimates; the difference is that they're enumerated counts, not sampled estimates.

And that makes no sense, because Detroit's enumerated counts have been far worse than sampled estimates. You're just claiming the annual counts are "fakenews" because they conflict with your viewpoint. If they showed growth in the next release I have no doubt you would then support the data.

Because housing prices have started to rebound.

What does this have to do with claims of population growth?

Housing prices have "started to rebound" everywhere. Detroit has had many periods of robust housing value growth over the last 70 years, all as the city declined. Under Archer there were tremendous housing value gains, far exceeding the current situation.

Housing prices increase during robust economic cycles. Since we're in one now, with record earnings for the Big 3, and the highest median household income in recorded history, housing prices show big gains, from Flint to Bloomfield.

Homes have more than doubled in value on my street over the last 10 years. That has zero to do with whether or not there are more people living on my street [[there are probably fewer, since families with young kids can no longer afford it).

[iheartthed]

Yes, they do. Official Census estimates happen every 12 months. The decennial data are no more "official" nor more "accurate" than the annual estimates; the difference is that they're enumerated counts, not sampled estimates.

And that makes no sense, because Detroit's enumerated counts have been far worse than sampled estimates. You're just claiming the annual counts are "fakenews" because they conflict with your viewpoint. If they showed growth in the next release I have no doubt you would then support the data.

It's not a claim, this is a fact. We need go no further than this very forum to verify:

Yesterday the Census Bureau released their July 1, 2009 estimate for the city of Detroit and for all other incoporated places. The estimate for Detroit is 910,200. This implies a loss of just 1700 from July 1, 2008 and 40,000 from census data 2000.

https://www.detroityes.com/mb/showth...ity-of-Detroit

Oh how naive we were...

What does this have to do with claims of population growth?

Housing prices have "started to rebound" everywhere. Detroit has had many periods of robust housing value growth over the last 70 years, all as the city declined. Under Archer there were tremendous housing value gains, far exceeding the current situation.

Housing prices increase during robust economic cycles. Since we're in one now, with record earnings for the Big 3, and the highest median household income in recorded history, housing prices show big gains, from Flint to Bloomfield.

Homes have more than doubled in value on my street over the last 10 years. That has zero to do with whether or not there are more people living on my street [[there are probably fewer, since families with young kids can no longer afford it).

This is basic free market economics. Greater demand means prices go up. Less demand means prices go down. If home sale prices are up in your neighborhood it means there are more buyers.

[313WX]

Greater demand for housing could just mean more renters amongst the existing population are now in good enough financial standing to own a home, not necessarily that more people from outside a jurisdiction are moving in.

[O3H]

IF you can buy a house for $5,000 or maybe $10,000
than the rule ""it's too good to be true"" is in full effect.
There are very specific reasons it is soooooooo darn cheap.

Population dwindled in Detroit, everyone with common sense knows it.
PLENTY of neighborhoods in those 100+ SQUARE MILES are not
exactly where a ""new family"" relocating to Michigan would choose

Evictions are a real , harsh reality, for many renters in metro Detriot.
https://www.detroityes.com/mb/showth...ered-evictions

[iheartthed]

Greater demand for housing could just mean more renters amongst the existing population are now in good enough financial standing to own a home, not necessarily that more people from outside a jurisdiction are moving in.

Rents have also been increasing.

[K-slice]

I have an issue with the whole argument based on "Detroit is improving but only in a limited number of areas". People who subscribe to this seem not to notice that their list of these improving areas is constantly growing.

Today it includes Downtown, Corktown, Midtown, New Center, Lafayette Park, Boston Edison, Indian Village, West Village, Woodbridge, and maybe a few others.

Five years ago this list included Downtown, Corktown, Midtown, New Center, Lafayette Park, Boston Edison and Indian Village.

Ten years ago this list included Downtown, Corktown, Midtown, and New Center.

I'm convinced he people still making this argument won't be satisfied or acknowledge the comeback until every neighborhood in the "100 square miles" is thriving and full of residents and businesses.

[Bham1982]

Today it includes Downtown, Corktown, Midtown, New Center, Lafayette Park, Boston Edison, Indian Village, West Village, Woodbridge, and maybe a few others.

That's like 5% of the city. And all those areas were improving 5 and 10 years ago.

Also, most these areas have very modest gains. B-E is still dirt cheap for grand mansions on the region's main drag. Indian Village is cheaper still. You can buy a beautiful 4,000 square foot home in IV for less than a crappy McMansion in exurban Brighton. Woodbridge is like two streets. Lafayette Park is a few urban renewal towers and townhouses, and was never bad, ever.

[O3H]

Click the link
https://images.theconversation.com/f...mat&q=45&w=754

Detroit [[as a whole city) isn't doing much evolution forward

When the scales tip 55/45 , then I would it call it a renaissance beginning

[bragaboutme]

The list is pretty long so far and growing, you can't argue that. There is new construction and rehabbing going on through out the whole city, you can't argue that. The are people the where there were absolutely no people there 5 years ago, you can't argue that! Detroit as a whole especially downtown looked cold and desolate 5 years ago, you can't argue that! The name of the thread is, is Detroit dieing?, You can't argue that. The census numbers are all over the place, nothing accurate, you can't argue that. If this discussion took place 5yrs ago I would have been with you, but the argument stands in favor of significant increase in the future for Detroit as a whole even if the population went down to 600,000 that's still a lot of people! Saying Woodbridge is like two blocks is like saying Wayne State is like a community college. You should really ride or walk and actually see what's going on with these areas that's all I'm saying.

[O3H]

I can, and will argue that, exactly !!!!
Detroit , as a city entity, isn't in great shape financially/otherwise.

Who travels to the NASTY places on a regular basis
to view them and track them, account for them ????
Certainly not the majority of people from the suburbs sightseeing.

It's like selling someone an 8 cyl engine with 200,000 miles on it,
just because you degreased it and repainted it, to look nice at first glance.
The guts still have a lot of wear and tear on them and will fail soon.

Let us count how Detroit gets money, functions, operates, lately.
Detroit revenue by source
https://i2.wp.com/crcmich.org/wp-con...ng?w=483&ssl=1

That is not a healthy pie chart, it indicates problems.

[Bham1982]

The list is pretty long so far and growing, you can't argue that. There is new construction and rehabbing going on through out the whole city, you can't argue that.

Actually, yeah, I can definitely argue this. There is very little new construction/rehab on a citywide basis, especially compared to other major cities.

In many cities, every other house is being replaced or gut renovated. In Detroit, there's almost zero infill except for some horrific, largely abandoned tract homes from the early 2000's.

Detroit has shown some modest, localized improvement, but is still declining overall. Visit Seattle, or Toronto, or Brooklyn/Queens and get back to us on urban infill.

[O3H]

IF land is soooo cheap, and we have open/clear areas of 25, 50, 75 acres
- Why are we not seeing dozens of the Million Square Foot Warehouses,
Manufacturing/Operational Facilities ?

CAPITAL INVESTMENT seems to elude the city of Detroit , as many, many companies passed over the city, just to build somewhere else.

Ask yourself, if you were CEO, would you risk your company's image
to build in a ghetto/slum, bare field, devoid of infrastructure and services ?
Who would move there, relocate there, start a new life in that area ?

Allocation of capital is key to getting THE WHOLE city
back on its feet again with a cycle of investment backing, partnerships/growth

I actually like the Mayor, and Detroit. There are nice things existing.
What I don't buy into is the gambling, sports, entertainment fluff.