New Estimates of Detroit's Population

[Vox]

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

HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE
Total households

317,357
264,561

52,796 MORE households?

RELATIONSHIP
Population in households

897,597
766,649

130,948 more people?

And here's a good one.

SCHOOL ENROLLMENT
Population 3 years and over enrolled in school

264,557
233,925

30,632 MORE students?

[runnerXT]

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.

You believe anything huh? Why not read about the American Community Survey bedore coming out with the aliens have landed conspiracy theories.

The ACS is about characteristics of the population, not the size.

The ACS does not provide any new data regarding the counts of persons or households.

The ACS is not for measuring population. It is for a snapshot of the population's makeup.

[Det_ard]

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...

When's the last time you drove around Detroit? CP is right, there's been massive disinvestment in Detroit both residentially and commercially. It's obvious when you revisit neighborhoods that you're familiar with. Correspondingly, there's an influx of Detroiters who are buying or renting in the suburbs. House rents in many inner ring suburbs are equal or close to what they are in Detroit so many families have taken advantage of the better schools and lower crime rates. Look at the increasing trend in % black students in school districts like Ferndale, Oak Park, Southfield, WCS, GP [[Harper Woods). Then poorer Detroiters who couldn't afford to live in the better areas of Detroit are moving into the homes now available after the residents moved out of the city.

It's like a game of musical chairs except the number of chairs [[houses) stays the same and the number of players decreases. The empty chairs are the least valuable houses and they are permanently abandoned. Most are in Detroit, hence disproportional population loss in Detroit versus the region as a whole.

[iheartthed]

When's the last time you drove around Detroit? CP is right, there's been massive disinvestment in Detroit both residentially and commercially. It's obvious when you revisit neighborhoods that you're familiar with. Correspondingly, there's an influx of Detroiters who are buying or renting in the suburbs. House rents in many inner ring suburbs are equal or close to what they are in Detroit so many families have taken advantage of the better schools and lower crime rates. Look at the increasing trend in % black students in school districts like Ferndale, Oak Park, Southfield, WCS, GP [[Harper Woods). Then poorer Detroiters who couldn't afford to live in the better areas of Detroit are moving into the homes now available after the residents moved out of the city.

It's like a game of musical chairs except the number of chairs [[houses) stays the same and the number of players decreases. The empty chairs are the least valuable houses and they are permanently abandoned. Most are in Detroit, hence disproportional population loss in Detroit versus the region as a whole.

I drove through the city of Detroit plenty of times between 2006 and 2008, and I certainly didn't notice 8 square miles just suddenly disappear.

[Todd_Scott]

You believe anything huh? Why not read about the American Community Survey bedore coming out with the aliens have landed conspiracy theories.

The ACS is about characteristics of the population, not the size.

The ACS does not provide any new data regarding the counts of persons or households.

The ACS is not for measuring population. It is for a snapshot of the population's makeup.

You saved me time because I was going to post something similar. I'm glad the ACS population numbers are now closer to the regular estimates. It was ridiculous having such a discrepancy. And, I've seen researchers use the 2008 ACS population estimates which made some Detroit analysis more inaccurate than it already was.

[Hermod]

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

It is implied. Over count would favor Democrats and under count would favor GOP.

In this instance though, the GOP is in favor of a "straight count" while the Democrats have made no bones about wanting to play with the numbers.

[DetroitPlanner]

You believe anything huh? Why not read about the American Community Survey bedore coming out with the aliens have landed conspiracy theories.

The ACS is about characteristics of the population, not the size.

The ACS does not provide any new data regarding the counts of persons or households.

The ACS is not for measuring population. It is for a snapshot of the population's makeup.

Ding Ding we have a winner. Wait till the real census comes out. The ACS is a sampled survey used to find trends.

[mwilbert]

In this instance though, the GOP is in favor of a "straight count" while the Democrats have made no bones about wanting to play with the numbers.

Of course, you would have a hard time finding a statistician who has looked at the mechanics of doing the census who would claim that the "straight count" is as accurate as a statistically adjusted count would be. Nor is a "straight count" actually done now, because they still do imputation. Even the Republicans don't really claim that there is a technical problem with sampling but rather that the Constitution requires an "enumeration" which they claim a statistical process would not be. I might buy that, and the Supreme Court did, but that doesn't mean that the enumeration is more accurate. The census bureau does statistical checking on the enumerated result, and although this checking cannot be used to change congressional apportionment, it can be used to show the weaknesses of the system of enumeration.

For more info on this see http://www.scienceclarified.com/disp...es-Census.html

[313WX]

It's still very possible more people are doubling down due to the mortgage crisis.

[RO_Resident]

From a Jack Lessenberry column a few weeks ago:

So I decided to pay a visit to the Great Demographer, Kurt Metzger, who now runs a two-year-old nonprofit population study center called Data Driven Detroit [[datadrivendetroit.org). Originally from Cincinnati, Metzger has spent most of his life studying southeast Michigan, first with the Census Bureau itself, then at Wayne State for years before leaving for United Way. Now he's running his own shop. I know from experience that if you need to find the number of left-handed immigrants of Nepalese extraction in Roseville, he's your man. So, I asked: What's your best estimate of Detroit's actual population? He frowned, staring at his turkey sandwich at the Roma, perhaps the only restaurant still around which was in business when Detroit last had so few people.
"Something less than 800,000, certainly. Perhaps between 750,000 and 775,000. SEMCOG [Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments] is using 772,000 as their figure.

Yeah, the ACS was normalized to the adjusted Detroit population a from a few years ago. I think we will see a big drop when the new Census numbers are released.

[Hermod]

From a Jack Lessenberry column a few weeks ago:

Yeah, the ACS was normalized to the adjusted Detroit population a from a few years ago. I think we will see a big drop when the new Census numbers are released.

A couple of months back, I floated the 750,000 number as a good possibility and was roundly chastised for making up numbers.

[dtrrman]

A couple of months back, I floated the 750,000 number as a good possibility and was roundly chastised for making up numbers.

There is no way there is more than 750K-800K people left in that city.

[Crumbled_pavement]

I drove through the city of Detroit plenty of times between 2006 and 2008, and I certainly didn't notice 8 square miles just suddenly disappear.

Sure is a lot of dark blue on this map.

[iheartthed]

Sure is a lot of dark blue on this map.

That's pretty irrelevant to my point, which is that it's highly unlikely that 50,000 people left Detroit between 2006 and 2008. Do I think 50,000 people have left Detroit since 2000? Absolutely! But it's almost unprecedented for 50,000 people to have left the city in just two years. The only other period in history where Detroit's population loss was that high [[both percentage and raw number) was during the 1970s at the height of white flight [[which was fueled by a glut of excess housing in the suburbs coupled with cheap credit).

You want to prove your point? Show me the vacancy rates in 2005 and then show me what they were in 2009.

I'm not saying that there is no way possible for this to have happened, but I just haven't seen any evidence other than folks pulling numbers out of their asscrack to convince me that Detroit lost that many residents in such a short period of time. I don't think the conditions were as favorable this decade as they were in the 70s for such a large wave to leave at once.