New Estimates of Detroit's Population

[renf]

This morning the Census Bureau released their findings from the 2009 American Community Survey showing social, demographic and economic characteristics for all geographic units of 65,000 or more. Data are readily available on the Census Bureau website. There are not the results of Census 2010.

Change in the city of Detroit is shown below [[Populations in thousands)
2000 2009 % Change
Total Population 946 910 - 3.8 %
Non-Hispanic White 99 121 + 21.9 %
Non-Hispanic Black 765 690 - 9.8 %
Non-Hispanic Asian 9 15 + 73.4 %
Hispanic 49 67 + 36.3 %
Multiple race & Other 24 17 - 26.8 %

Similar data are available for all other major areas of the state including most
suburbs.

[Meddle]

950K?


Doubtful.

[Hermod]

950K?


Doubtful.

Prepping you up for census bureau "statistical smoothing" in the 2010 census data to hide just how much major cities have lost population so that the cities can retain their congressional districts in the redistricting and their ability to apply for federal funding.

[Lowell]

If that shows up in the actual census, it is very encouraging news. A 4% loss may match the state's situation.

What is interesting is the ethnic mix changes. I would be interested in the trends in median income.

[Ray1936]

Was just reading the other thread about Grand Rapids. Wouldn't it be a hoot if GR ended up with a greater population than Detroit? Of course, the GR metro area still couldn't hold a candle to the Detroit metro area.

[Vox]

I can't imagine where those numbers came from.

Here's the real numbers.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet...select&-format=

[bailey]

There is no way that Detroit only lost 4% over the last 10 years. One only has to look around to know this.

[Meddle]

I'm pretty sure there are more than 915 Asians and 4,967 Hispanics. Or are there 0s missing from the ends of those figures?

[MikeM]

I'm pretty sure there are more than 915 Asians and 4,967 Hispanics. Or are there 0s missing from the ends of those figures?

Can no one read anymore?

Change in the city of Detroit is shown below [[Populations in thousands)

[Fnemecek]

950K?


Doubtful.

946K was the 2000 number. The 2009 number is 910K

[professorscott]

To be precise, 910,848, and they slice and dice it dozens of different ways.

[professorscott]

While browsing the census bureau site, I also find Wayne County slipped below 2M a few years ago and continues to slowly lose people; Oakland County is essentially flat since 2000 [[up 1%); Macomb County is up 5.5% since 2000.

[jt1]

[quote=Ray1936;185701]Wouldn't it be a hoot if GR ended up with a greater population than Detroit? [quote]

Why would that be a hoot?

[Vox]

There's something seriously wrong with these numbers. Take a look at this comparison chart at the census bureau.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet...-redoLog=false

And their population estimates/

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet...9&-context=gct

[MikeM]

There's something seriously wrong with these numbers. Take a look at this comparison chart at the census bureau.

I'm not sure what you're looking at, but the data in the first link starts with the number of households, not population.

[Vox]

I'm not sure what you're looking at, but the data in the first link starts with the number of households, not population.

First link in households, can you explain a 53,000 increase in household estimates from 2008 to 2009? A 130,000 increase in population?

Where the second link only lists a 2000 person deficit?

[iheartthed]

First link in households, can you explain a 53,000 increase in household estimates from 2008 to 2009? A 130,000 increase in population?

Where the second link only lists a 2000 person deficit?

That first link seems a little off in general. It says that Detroit lost 50,000 residents in the span of two years... Which is pretty unbelievable.

[Crumbled_pavement]

That first link seems a little off in general. It says that Detroit lost 50,000 residents in the span of two years... Which is pretty unbelievable.

You obviously have not been in Detroit recently. I've seen whole neighborhoods that were populated 5 - 6 years ago burned to the ground. There are lots of neighborhoods in Detroit that are just decimated, from being abandoned, scrapped, burned up, whatever. It is very believable that we lost 50k in the last two years. If we didn't, I'd love to know where they're living now. Almost every neighborhood in the city has at least one burnt, abandoned, or stripped home. Many blocks are littered with these type of residences. Personally, I'd say Detroit probably has 700k+ residents.

[iheartthed]

You obviously have not been in Detroit recently. I've seen whole neighborhoods that were populated 5 - 6 years ago burned to the ground. There are lots of neighborhoods in Detroit that are just decimated, from being abandoned, scrapped, burned up, whatever. It is very believable that we lost 50k in the last two years. If we didn't, I'd love to know where they're living now. Almost every neighborhood in the city has at least one burnt, abandoned, or stripped home. Many blocks are littered with these type of residences. Personally, I'd say Detroit probably has 700k+ residents.

At Detroit's estimated 2009 population density of 6,370 people per square mile, losing 50,000 residents would have clear out nearly 8 square miles in just two years. Again, very hard to believe that 6% of the city's land area was abandoned in just two years [[albeit not impossible).

ETA: This should be pretty easily verifiable through any data published by moving truck rental companies...

[Hermod]

First link in households, can you explain a 53,000 increase in household estimates from 2008 to 2009? A 130,000 increase in population?

Where the second link only lists a 2000 person deficit?

2008 = census bureau under GOP control

2009 = census bureau under Dem control.

It is in the interest of Democrats to over count the inner cities. The purpose is to skew congressional and legislative redistricting.

The Democrats have alwys wanted to do a "statistical model" which "properly adjusts" for the "under count" in large cities. In other words, they are trying to create what in England used to be called a "rotten borough" where a representative is supported by a fictional population base.

[iheartthed]

2008 = census bureau under GOP control

2009 = census bureau under Dem control.

It is in the interest of Democrats to over count the inner cities. The purpose is to skew congressional and legislative redistricting.

The Democrats have alwys wanted to do a "statistical model" which "properly adjusts" for the "under count" in large cities. In other words, they are trying to create what in England used to be called a "rotten borough" where a representative is supported by a fictional population base.

Why isn't it in the interest of the GOP to undercount the inner-cities?

[Vox]

2008 = census bureau under GOP control

2009 = census bureau under Dem control.

It is in the interest of Democrats to over count the inner cities. The purpose is to skew congressional and legislative redistricting.

The Democrats have alwys wanted to do a "statistical model" which "properly adjusts" for the "under count" in large cities. In other words, they are trying to create what in England used to be called a "rotten borough" where a representative is supported by a fictional population base.

I think that the ACS is not the model that should be looked at, it's only a statistical sampling, not every household gets it. The accurate estimate should be the second link I posted above, but I think it's skewed high too. Wait until December for the real numbers.

[Crumbled_pavement]

At Detroit's estimated 2009 population density of 6,370 people per square mile, losing 50,000 residents would have clear out nearly 8 square miles in just two years. Again, very hard to believe that 6% of the city's land area was abandoned in just two years [[albeit not impossible).

ETA: This should be pretty easily verifiable through any data published by moving truck rental companies...

I can believe it. Not a contigious 8 square mi. area, but I can believe all the areas totalled together would come out to that size. Along almost every freeway is devastation. Also there is devastation along many major streets. There are a few neighborhoods [[Rosedale, Grandmont, Indian Villiage, etc.) that are doing okay. But the average areas are especially hard hit along major thoroughfares [[i.e.: corner houses). It's depressing for me to drive through the city because it didn't look anywhere near as desolate just five years ago as it looks today.

[mwilbert]

The numbers seem a little high in general, but who can say.

To me the only surprising number is the one showing non-hispanic whites up 21%. Although it is in accord with trends that I see, it is visible in the numbers sooner than I would have thought. It will be interesting to see if the 2010 results are in line.

[MikeM]

First link in households, can you explain a 53,000 increase in household estimates from 2008 to 2009? A 130,000 increase in population?

Where the second link only lists a 2000 person deficit?

130,000 increase in household population, 2,000 decrease in population.