2010 Census Results...

[Richard]

I moved from Royal Oak to Charlotte, NC in 2009 for a job, as I was laid off 3 times in 5 years back in MI. So, I guess I'm in that number, as well as my wife and two kids.

Note: if you work in IT, as a developer or whatnot, there are tons of job openings in Charlotte. Charlotte has the second largest banking industry in the US after New York. Thye need lots of IT professionals. Lowe's and Goodrich HQs are here too.

Thats the part I am not understanding, 20 years ago when schools started dropping trades classes in school it was because they said the future was going to be in banking and tech, it was well known where the path was leading but yet we are here today.

Health care is a hugh growing industry also I had a friend that 2 years out of high school she was working as a Dr assistant for $20k a year she moved to the Carolinas and now makes $80k a year how can a city retain residents at that rate.

[NorthEndere]

Almost every locale outside of Metro detroitr had growth, so this only tells us Metro Detroitr lost quite a few people for Michigan to still have a lost.

I've been following population estimates and trends pretty regularly over the decade, and this simply isn't true. In raw numbers, Southeast Michigan has lost more, but that's what you'd expect give that it's the most densely populated region of the state. To be sure, parts of the UP, North-Central Michigan, Metro Flint, and Metro Saginaw have had percentage losses greater than Metro Detroit. In the case of north-central/north-east Michigan, the losses have been much greater, percentage-wise, with their unemployment rate sometimes nearly double that of Metro Detroit.

I'm very unsure about what the Census will show about Detroit proper's population, but I think their estimate for the region is about right. It'll probably lose anywhere from 1 to 2% of its population [[which would still have it losing less than Cleveland and Pittsburgh, whose metros have been declining for decades) to bring it in very close to where it was in 2000, probably anywhere from 4.2 million to 4.4 million.

The worse case scenario seems to be a possibility. Say it loses as much as Cleveland [[-17%), that gives you a population of about 790,000, which is pretty close to the SEMCOG estimate. The middle case scenario sees a loss of about 10% [[DEGC recent estimate), that give you a population of about 856,000. Say the city somehow manages to loss only as much as it did over the 90's [[-7.5%) in the best case scenario, that gives you a population of about 880,000.

I think 770,000 to 790,000 is definitely possible, but I think somewhere in between 800,000 to 850,000 is most likely.

[313WX]

I've been following population estimates and trends pretty regularly over the decade, and this simply isn't true. In raw numbers, Southeast Michigan has lost more, but that's what you'd expect give that it's the most densely populated region of the state. To be sure, parts of the UP, North-Central Michigan, Metro Flint, and Metro Saginaw have had percentage losses greater than Metro Detroit. In the case of north-central/north-east Michigan, the losses have been much greater, percentage-wise, with their unemployment rate sometimes nearly double that of Metro Detroit.

Western and Northern Lower IIRC gained population, which is waht I meant by "almost."

[NorthEndere]

BTW, with the exception of tiny San Francisco, the cities that Detroit will most likely be grouped near are physically HUGE compared to Detroit:

Jacksonville: 767 sq mi
Indianapolis: 365 sq mi
Forth Worth: 292.5 sq mi
Austin: 251.5 sq mi
Charlotte: 242.3 sq mi
Columbus: 210.3 sq mi
...
Detroit: 138.8 sq mi

You could add Livonia and Warren to Detroit, and still be 208.8 sq mi [[size of Columbus, about), but with 1.134 million

[NorthEndere]

Western and Northern Lower IIRC gained population, which is waht I meant by "almost."

That still doesn't make sense. "Almost" implies that most of Michigan outside of Metro Detroit grew. This isn't true. In fact, most Michigan counties, period, have lost population since 2000. As someone else stated, the Census estimates that 60+ of Michigan's 83 counties are down, and Southeast Michigan is only made up of a few counties. Your statement is just kind of wrong flat on its face.

BTW, to be very clear, I'm not arguing that Metro Detroit hasn't struggled, but I think the media has been irresponsible and unfair in the portrayal of the region's economic situation as uniquely struggling when even outside of Metro Detroit, much of the rest of the state isn't doing much better, and some areas even worse. I mean, while Grand Rapids metro has shown population gain, it still ranks among the worst areas in the country for job growth, unemployment and foreclosures, but you'd never know it because it looks so good by comparison, and because they are way less pessimistic about their region's future.

I think we're going to be surprised. I think instead of spun narrative that Southeast Michigan will be the unique drag of the state, that we'll actually see losses spread out far more evenly than is currently being portrayed. I expect it to be far more of a mixed bag.

[illwill]

Those are two very interesting but completely different comparisons Houdini and Bram. I'd like for you both to provide your sources so we can see which state is closer to accuracy than the other.

[Crumbled_pavement]

Since this thread was started I've seen more houses go vacant, get stripped, then burnt out. No slow down in sight. Good luck to Bing challenging the 713K number. It might not even be that high now.

[iheartthed]

Since this thread was started I've seen more houses go vacant, get stripped, then burnt out. No slow down in sight. Good luck to Bing challenging the 713K number. It might not even be that high now.

If the rate of loss kept steady then Detroit is well under 700,000 by now.

[bartock]

BTW, with the exception of tiny San Francisco, the cities that Detroit will most likely be grouped near are physically HUGE compared to Detroit:

Jacksonville: 767 sq mi
Indianapolis: 365 sq mi
Forth Worth: 292.5 sq mi
Austin: 251.5 sq mi
Charlotte: 242.3 sq mi
Columbus: 210.3 sq mi
...
Detroit: 138.8 sq mi

You could add Livonia and Warren to Detroit, and still be 208.8 sq mi [[size of Columbus, about), but with 1.134 million

If you added Livonia [[under 100,000) and Warren [[135.000) to Detroit you'd be about where Detroit was at last census, 951,000.

[coracle]

350 - 400K. I don't even have a problem with that either. I'd rather a world class city with about 400K citizens over a dysfunctional city with 1.8M people.

I'm not sure how you decide what makes a city "world class" crumbled_pavement but common sense tells me that if a city is a great city to live in people will compete to move into it; they certainly won't continue to flee from it continuously for decades. My thinking is Detroit was a world class city when the population was 1.8 million.

[Crumbled_pavement]

I'm not sure how you decide what makes a city "world class" crumbled_pavement but common sense tells me that if a city is a great city to live in people will compete to move into it; they certainly won't continue to flee from it continuously for decades. My thinking is Detroit was a world class city when the population was 1.8 million.

If 350 - 400K is the bottom then obvious that would be the point people stopped fleeing from it. I forget on this site people hang on every single word you say and completely ignore the obvious meaning of what you are saying. Let me try to make my point more simple: I'd rather have a lower population but with more productive people than a higher population with unproductive people. Yes Detroit was better when it had 1.8M residents, but is our only goal simply to get back to a couple million residents? Detroit will NEVER see 1.8M residents again. So we can focus on quality going forward or we can worry and cry over that 1.8M that's never coming back.

[erikd]

I'm not sure how you decide what makes a city "world class" crumbled_pavement but common sense tells me that if a city is a great city to live in people will compete to move into it; they certainly won't continue to flee from it continuously for decades. My thinking is Detroit was a world class city when the population was 1.8 million.

High population isn't a very good indicator of a quality city. Cairo, Mexico City, and Calcutta have populations far higher than Paris and London. Bogota and Baghdad have higher populations than Toronto and San Francisco. Columbus and Fort Worth have higher populations than Boston.

[coracle]

High population isn't a very good indicator of a quality city. Cairo, Mexico City, and Calcutta have populations far higher than Paris and London. Bogota and Baghdad have higher populations than Toronto and San Francisco. Columbus and Fort Worth have higher populations than Boston.

I agree with you erikd. But I don't think the cities you name have suffered a 60% loss of population in the last 50 years or 25% loss in the last decade. Total population doesn't indicate quality but it does indicate that for whatever reason people choose to want to move there so the cities have a dynamic population count. I think Paris, London [[I've lived in London), Toronto, San Fran and Boston might be great cities to live in. Don't know about the rest. I think Downtown Detroit would be a great place to live if I didn't have family responsibilities; but I've got my doubts about it's environs.

[iheartthed]

I agree with you erikd. But I don't think the cities you name have suffered a 60% loss of population in the last 50 years or 25% loss in the last decade. Total population doesn't indicate quality but it does indicate that for whatever reason people choose to want to move there so the cities have a dynamic population count. I think Paris, London [[I've lived in London), Toronto, San Fran and Boston might be great cities to live in. Don't know about the rest. I think Downtown Detroit would be a great place to live if I didn't have family responsibilities; but I've got my doubts about it's environs.

Paris has about 700,000 fewer residents today than it did in the 1950s.

[begingri]

Some city neighborhoods gain despite Detroit's population pain

http://detnews.com/article/20110502/CENSUS/105020335/Some-city-neighborhoods-gain-despite-Detroit’s-population-pain#ixzz1LAfMn0R6