Census Bureau will release Michigan data next week: Predict Detroit's population.

**Carey** · March-19-11, 09:03 PM

The census bureau's web site says Michigan results will be available next week. It doesn't specify a day. After what seems like a decade of discussion about how many people Detroit will lose, it's now time make our official predictions. The winner will get to bask in the glory of having bested all the other amateur demographers on DetroitYes.

Here's my prediction: 797,438.
Next?

**313WX** · March-19-11, 09:09 PM

City = 756,328
Metro = 4,024,876

**Brian1979** · March-19-11, 09:24 PM

City: 865,032
Metro: 4,183,265

**East Detroit** · March-19-11, 09:57 PM

I defer to Danny.

**Crumbled_pavement** · March-19-11, 10:06 PM

Prediction? A significantly lesser populated city of Detroit. It's amazing in the last 5 years how many neighborhoods have been abandoned, stripped, and burnt to the ground. At least 100K less than whatever the last official census numbers were.

**ASR89** · March-19-11, 10:07 PM

City = 901,451
Metro [[MSA) = 4,381,753

**Mind field** · March-19-11, 10:14 PM

city=715,000

**mwilbert** · March-19-11, 11:18 PM

Between 740,000 and 790,000.

NorthEndere · March-19-11, 11:21 PM

There is already a thread on this down-page [[2010 Census).

Anyway, I'll guess 838,500 for sh%ts-and-giggles, and that's me being kind of optimistic. If Cleveland [[a city with very similar population trends to Detroit) is any guide, it'll be about 770,00.

**English** · March-19-11, 11:30 PM

No guesses on Detroit.

Metro Detroit = falls below 4 million.

**Cincinnati_Kid** · March-19-11, 11:37 PM

If Detroit falls under 750,000 then Indianapolis will surpass it in population. Damn.

**English** · March-19-11, 11:39 PM

Originally Posted by Cincinnati_Kid

If Detroit falls under 750,000 then Indianapolis will surpass it in population. Damn.

In my worst moments, I feel as if less than 500,000 people are in the city. It feels as if it has half the population that it did 10 years ago. That's why I said I can't provide an informed guess.

NorthEndere · March-19-11, 11:42 PM

English, no way. Sorry. That mean that the region lost over 400,000 people, alone, which would mean that the state outside of Detroit would have had to have added about 350,000, since Michigan only lost a little over 50,000 people, net. There is no way that 350,000 net were added outstate, so there is no way that Metro Detroit loses 500,000 people.

The last Census estimate [[4.40 million as opposed to 4.44 million) for the Metro will be very close to what they find, I'd bet you. The very worst it could come in at is 4.35 million). I think people have to actually look at trends and do a bit of math before just throwing out numbers. Michigan had a tough decade, but you have to look at trends across the state and Metro Detroit historical trends.

Originally Posted by Cincinnati_Kid

If Detroit falls under 750,000 then Indianapolis will surpass it in population. Damn.

Indy is already 830,000.

**English** · March-20-11, 12:00 AM

Originally Posted by NorthEnder

English, no way. Sorry. That mean that the region lost over 400,000 people, alone, which would mean that the state outside of Detroit would have had to have added about 350,000, since Michigan only lost a little over 50,000 people, net. There is no way that 350,000 net were added outstate, so there is no way that Metro Detroit loses 500,000 people.

No need to fuss... that's why I said I wasn't really providing an informed guess. This place just feels emptier than a decade ago, and let's not even talk about 20 years ago. There are entire neighborhoods that my friends lived in growing up that don't even exist anymore... and we grew up in CAY's supposedly emptied-out, post-riot, 1980s Detroit.

I am sure that the numbers are less bleak than my perception. At least, I hope so.

NorthEndere · March-20-11, 01:21 AM

English, I didn't mean to be so pushy. Sorry about that. I just don't think people realize how deceptive looks can be, and how much we've bought into "the world is falling" rhetoric by our local, state, and national media.

Detroit is almost certainly going to lose a greater percentage of its population than over the 90's [[when it lost about 7.5%), but some of this wild predictions are about as bad as the overly optimistic, head-in-the-sand predictions. There are a few things we know:

- The Greater Grand Rapids metropolitan area [[CSA) is predicted to have added a little over 72,000 people, which will be the greatest numerical gain anywhere in the state. Lansing adds only another 4,100, Kalmazoo about 8,900 and Ann Arbor another 25,000. The other metropolitan areas in the state are either losing population [[and more quickly than Detroit, I'll add), or are not large enough to make much a numerical difference.

- Add up those large out-state metropolitan areas and you have about 110,000 in outstate metropolitan areas. When you include all non-metropolitan counties, and the other shrinking metropolitan areas and counties, I can't imagine the number changing much. As was stated in the other thread, of Michigan's 83 counties, over 60 of them are estimated to have declined in population from 2000. So total out-state growth might even only be in the 100,000 range.

- Given all of that, there are only a few possibilities 1.)Metropolitan Grand Rapids/West Michigan will have grown A LOT more than predicted if Metro Detroit fell anywhere near these most pessimistic scenarios, 2.) Detroit proper could possibly have a horrendous loss, but most of those would have had to have stayed within the tri-county area given the state only lost 50,000 on net, so the Census has underestimated the populations of nearby Macomb, Oakland, and out-county Wayne, 3.) the 50,000 net loss from Michigan will be far more evenly distrubuted across the state than some think, meaning we'll see high-growth predictions for some areas be more modest, and high-decline predictions for others be less than anticipated.

I really don't know how this is going to turnout, but I want to believe it my #3 is right, even though it seems like my #2 is probably more likely. #1 seems completely improbable given how West Michigan struggled economically in the second-half of the decade.

BTW, want to mention one last thing. Even though the city will see an overall loss, there are a few bright spots. There will definitely be Census tracts and neighborhoods within the city to show considerably growth and regeneration, and a few will hold steady. The Census is also sure to show the city becoming more diverse [[more diverse than it's been in decades), as it is almost certain that both the hispanic, Asian, and foreign-born populations in the city will have continued to grow like they have been since the 90's even as the African American population on net has suburbanized.

**Meddle** · March-20-11, 02:13 AM

750-ish

......

**Detroit Signal** · March-20-11, 02:30 AM

Detroit - 699,000
Metro - 4,700,000

**jjw** · March-20-11, 06:54 AM

A lot of cities had a greater loss than expected: St. Louis, Chicago, Cleveland to name a few. Will Detroit buck that trend?

**iheartthed** · March-20-11, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by NorthEnder

English, I didn't mean to be so pushy. Sorry about that. I just don't think people realize how deceptive looks can be, and how much we've bought into "the world is falling" rhetoric by our local, state, and national media.

Yeah, Chicago also looked like it grew over the last decade. Ended up being 200,000 residents smaller than it was 10 years ago.

**iheartthed** · March-20-11, 09:21 AM

My guess is that the city's population contracted by about 20% since 2000... So I say somewhere in the 750,000 - 760,000 range.

**English** · March-20-11, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by NorthEnder

English, I didn't mean to be so pushy. Sorry about that. I just don't think people realize how deceptive looks can be, and how much we've bought into "the world is falling" rhetoric by our local, state, and national media.

Detroit is almost certainly going to lose a greater percentage of its population than over the 90's [[when it lost about 7.5%), but some of this wild predictions are about as bad as the overly optimistic, head-in-the-sand predictions. There are a few things we know:

- The Greater Grand Rapids metropolitan area [[CSA) is predicted to have added a little over 72,000 people, which will be the greatest numerical gain anywhere in the state. Lansing adds only another 4,100, Kalmazoo about 8,900 and Ann Arbor another 25,000. The other metropolitan areas in the state are either losing population [[and more quickly than Detroit, I'll add), or are not large enough to make much a numerical difference.

- Add up those large out-state metropolitan areas and you have about 110,000 in outstate metropolitan areas. When you include all non-metropolitan counties, and the other shrinking metropolitan areas and counties, I can't imagine the number changing much. As was stated in the other thread, of Michigan's 83 counties, over 60 of them are estimated to have declined in population from 2000. So total out-state growth might even only be in the 100,000 range.

- Given all of that, there are only a few possibilities 1.)Metropolitan Grand Rapids/West Michigan will have grown A LOT more than predicted if Metro Detroit fell anywhere near these most pessimistic scenarios, 2.) Detroit proper could possibly have a horrendous loss, but most of those would have had to have stayed within the tri-county area given the state only lost 50,000 on net, so the Census has underestimated the populations of nearby Macomb, Oakland, and out-county Wayne, 3.) the 50,000 net loss from Michigan will be far more evenly distrubuted across the state than some think, meaning we'll see high-growth predictions for some areas be more modest, and high-decline predictions for others be less than anticipated.

I really don't know how this is going to turnout, but I want to believe it my #3 is right, even though it seems like my #2 is probably more likely. #1 seems completely improbable given how West Michigan struggled economically in the second-half of the decade.

BTW, want to mention one last thing. Even though the city will see an overall loss, there are a few bright spots. There will definitely be Census tracts and neighborhoods within the city to show considerably growth and regeneration, and a few will hold steady. The Census is also sure to show the city becoming more diverse [[more diverse than it's been in decades), as it is almost certain that both the hispanic, Asian, and foreign-born populations in the city will have continued to grow like they have been since the 90's even as the African American population on net has suburbanized.

You weren't being pushy. We're on the same side. I just hope you're right... is anyone other than me dreading the official census data announcement?

Of course, some of my friends are already preparing not to believe whatever the official number is. One of my mentors and good buddies is a retiree who worked the census last year. Their take is that there are MANY Detroiters in 2010 who had good reason to hide their presence in a household for legal or financial reasons.

I just hope you guys are right. I can't believe some of the cities that are now bigger and more happening than we are. I mean, Indy? Columbus???

**professorscott** · March-20-11, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by English

Is anyone other than me dreading the official census data announcement?

It's not worth the bother of dreading census data. The census data represents an effect. What we all ought to be dreading is the cause. Detroit continues to lose population because the government of Detroit is not making any meaningful changes to reverse the trend. I don't see an end to that in sight, but perhaps I'm just cynical because of my age; does anyone else see anything coming down the pike that might reverse this trend?

**3rdDegreeBurns** · March-20-11, 11:25 AM

The big difference between Indy and Detroit is that the city of Indianapolis is almost 50% of the metro area's population. Detroit is only about 20%. Both Indy and Columbus have a lot going for them right now, but the arbitrary line between city and suburb often skews population comparisons. For instance, who thinks Miami is a small city? Well, according to the 2009 census estimate, it was the 42nd largest U.S. city. However, it is part of the 7th largest metro area.

Indianapolis may be the 14th largest city, but it is part of the 34th largest metro... Detroit is the rare example of a city and metro that currently hold the same position on both lists [[11th).

What does city population size really tell us anyway? Boston and San Francisco are much smaller that Detroit, but doing much better. It is really the change over time that tells us something. The large declines in population in Detroit [[while the land area remained the same) is what is causing the problems [[and also is a symptom of the city's problems). It doesn't matter very much where we rank on the list of big cities, what matters is stopping the massive out-migration and matching city services with the new, smaller city.

**iheartthed** · March-20-11, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by professorscott

does anyone else see anything coming down the pike that might reverse this trend?

Yeah. The end of Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and the 30 year mortgage: http://finance.yahoo.com/loans/artic...mod=loans-home

**mwilbert** · March-20-11, 04:27 PM

Yeah. The end of Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and the 30 year mortgage: http://finance.yahoo.com/loans/artic...mod=loans-home

That may restrain sprawl somewhat in some metros, because it will make it harder to build new housing, but I don't think that would be sufficient to stop the depopulation of Detroit. There is plenty of housing in the Detroit area, so presumably you would just see prices fall a bit. It isn't as if the metro area is done losing population itself.