713,000

[Hermod]

Detroit 713,000 just made the main headline of USA Today

[Crumbled_pavement]

Detroit 713,000 just made the main headline of USA Today

It was there yesterday.

[iheartthed]

Atlanta comes to mind.

How much of that is developed?

[iheartthed]

What's going to stop the population from shifting that far down? We see what has happened over the last decade? You see a slow down in the population loss in the future?

I didn't say that the population couldn't go there. [[I think I'm gonna get out of the predicting where Detroit will bottom out game, because clearly my past predictions were way off the mark.) But can a city that was once nearly 2 million people, with all the structural and economic legacies/obligations of a 2 million resident city, really be a well functioning 400,000 resident city??? I highly doubt that. If it is possible, it will probably take a couple of generations to work itself out. By then I myself will probably be ready for my AARP card... And I'm currently still in my 20s. So the time would probably be better spent in identifying 1) why Detroit has effectively become toxic and 2) implementing the necessary stop gaps to ensure the trend does not continue.

[bartock]

How much of that is developed?

I'm not sure. You?

[Crumbled_pavement]

I didn't say that the population couldn't go there. [[I think I'm gonna get out of the predicting where Detroit will bottom out game, because clearly my past predictions were way off the mark.) But can a city that was once nearly 2 million people, with all the structural and economic legacies/obligations of a 2 million resident city, really be a well functioning 400,000 resident city??? I highly doubt that. If it is possible, it will probably take a couple of generations to work itself out. By then I myself will probably be ready for my AARP card... And I'm currently still in my 20s. So the time would probably be better spent in identifying 1) why Detroit has effectively become toxic and 2) implementing the necessary stop gaps to ensure the trend does not continue.

Obviously it would take restructuring Detroit's debt, which will probably happen under Bing/Snyder through an EFM. Detroit might not function with a population that low,but it certainly isn't functioning now. There are not many jobs inside the city that provide a living wage. That is one major issue. The population has to get down to the amount that can be supported by the number of jobs available. Working as the cashier at Home Depot or the bag boy at Mike's Fresh Market isn't going to cut it. There are more living wage jobs outside the city so you will continue to see the out migration. I hope I'm wrong, but 1/3 of the city is already vacant as is. I don't really consider Detroit as completely developed at the moment, I consider large swaths of it as having gone back to nature and essentially undeveloped.

[R8RBOB]

I am sad to think of Detroit as a ghost town, that's not what I want to happen. Detroit isn't just connecting two lakes R8RBOB, it's an international border. The potential is huge and no one seems to want to take advantage of that. The frontage along the waterfront, the history of Detroit, Belle Isle....there are so many things that can bring people to Detroit. The things that are keeping people out of Detroit need to be addressed before any of that can happen. In your opinion, what is the most important problem in Detroit that makes people want to leave?

I will be more than happy to answer your question. The most important problem in Detroit that makes people want to leave is no money. To paraphrase Baltimore Police Commissioner Ervin Burrell; "It's Detroit, gentlemen. The gods won't be able to save you." No one is going to stay in the D if the money ain't flowing.

[iheartthed]

I'm not sure. You?

Well, considering that Atlanta peaked at 500,000 and Detroit at nearly 2,000,000, I think it's safe to say that a lot less of Atlanta's land area is developed than is Detroit's.

[fareastsider]

Anybody familiar with how the census numbers are figured relating to villages. From what I can tell the townships with villages totals include the population of the villages in them. First I noticed that Lenox was over 10000 which I did not see feasible unless you counted the village of New Havens population as part of the township total. New Haven has seen a lot of development while Lenox Township proper has seen little to no development. The math seems to back this up when compared to county totals. If I remember correctly village and township governments are very closely connected as opposed to being a city.

[Novine]

Unlike cities, residents of villages are also residents of the underlying township or townships that the village covers. That means that New Haven residents are also residents of Lenox Township and counted as such for Census purposes. The state has the village population counts broken out here:

http://www.michigan.gov/cgi/0,1607,7...2541--,00.html

You'll have to do some math to separate out how much of the growth was attributable to growth in the village versus growth in the township by comparing those numbers to the MCD numbers from that site.

[bartock]

Well, considering that Atlanta peaked at 500,000 and Detroit at nearly 2,000,000, I think it's safe to say that a lot less of Atlanta's land area is developed than is Detroit's.

I don't think that is safe to say at all. Their land areas are roughly the same in square miles. As stated by others, there are large areas of Detroit that are back to nature. I tried to look up "undeveloped areas" in Atlanta, couldn't find anything. Figured maybe swamps or something, but nothing. At nearly 2 million, Detroit was totally packed out. Just because Atlanta isn't packed out, doesn't mean it isn't developed. The lack of aesthetic and urban...ness aside, Atlanta at 420,000 people is anchoring a metro of more than 5 million and doing relatively well.

[Novine]

"What's going to stop the population from shifting that far down? We see what has happened over the last decade? You see a slow down in the population loss in the future?"

A small number of census tracts, mostly around downtown, did see an increase in population. Without looking at the actual numbers, it's hard to say how much of an increase. But there are areas of the city that actually added people since 2000. Those are the places to focus resources to continue to attract people. I also would focus on those area that only saw minor declines in population. You want to at least stabilize those areas.

[iheartthed]

I don't think that is safe to say at all. Their land areas are roughly the same in square miles. As stated by others, there are large areas of Detroit that are back to nature. I tried to look up "undeveloped areas" in Atlanta, couldn't find anything. Figured maybe swamps or something, but nothing. At nearly 2 million, Detroit was totally packed out. Just because Atlanta isn't packed out, doesn't mean it isn't developed. The lack of aesthetic and urban...ness aside, Atlanta at 420,000 people is anchoring a metro of more than 5 million and doing relatively well.

I can point to several cities that are/were smaller than Detroit that anchor regions as large or larger. My point isn't that a 400,000 resident city can't do that; it's that a 400,000 resident city that used to be a 2 million resident city probably can't do that. Boston, San Francisco, Washington, Miami, Seattle, etc., are all examples of cities smaller than Detroit that anchor large regions. I'm no expert on Atlanta, so I can't explain what is going on there. But of nearly every other functioning city that I know, the development patterns are dense at the center and gradually space out as you travel from the core, and the development is contiguous. I can't think of any healthy region that will have the development pattern that would be needed for Detroit to be 400,000 residents and is still considered healthy.

[bartock]

I can point to several cities that are/were smaller than Detroit that anchor regions as large or larger. My point isn't that a 400,000 resident city can't do that; it's that a 400,000 resident city that used to be a 2 million resident city probably can't do that. Boston, San Francisco, Washington, Miami, Seattle, etc., are all examples of cities smaller than Detroit that anchor large regions. I'm no expert on Atlanta, so I can't explain what is going on there. But of nearly every other functioning city that I know, the development patterns are dense at the center and gradually space out as you travel from the core, and the development is contiguous. I can't think of any healthy region that will have the development pattern that would be needed for Detroit to be 400,000 residents and is still considered healthy.

Detroit is not considered healthy. And I mean the region.

Atlanta is the only city that is roughly the same size in square mileage. Those other cities are much smaller in size and denser than Detroit. San Francisco only has about 1/3 the land despite 800,000 population. If Detroit builds up the core and becomes dense at the center [[Grand Blvd. on in, some signs of which are there), land is re-zoned, re-used in a different way than before [[sounds Bing-ish, but see the "McMansion" thread), it is very possible to have Detroit as a thriving center of a thriving region even with less population in the city proper at the outset. It is a chicken/egg thing...the city is going to have to be considered healthy before people start moving back. Who knows what the bottom will be at, but I really doubt that Detroit is going to suddenly stop hemorrhaging 2,000 people a month in the foreseeable future.

[stromberg2]

I am sad to think of Detroit as a ghost town, that's not what I want to happen. Detroit isn't just connecting two lakes R8RBOB, it's an international border. The potential is huge and no one seems to want to take advantage of that. The frontage along the waterfront, the history of Detroit, Belle Isle....there are so many things that can bring people to Detroit. The things that are keeping people out of Detroit need to be addressed before any of that can happen. In your opinion, what is the most important problem in Detroit that makes people want to leave?

The gangs, thugs and lack of police presence.

Stromberg2

[iheartthed]

Detroit is not considered healthy. And I mean the region.

Atlanta is the only city that is roughly the same size in square mileage. Those other cities are much smaller in size and denser than Detroit. San Francisco only has about 1/3 the land despite 800,000 population. If Detroit builds up the core and becomes dense at the center [[Grand Blvd. on in, some signs of which are there), land is re-zoned, re-used in a different way than before [[sounds Bing-ish, but see the "McMansion" thread), it is very possible to have Detroit as a thriving center of a thriving region even with less population in the city proper at the outset. It is a chicken/egg thing...the city is going to have to be considered healthy before people start moving back. Who knows what the bottom will be at, but I really doubt that Detroit is going to suddenly stop hemorrhaging 2,000 people a month in the foreseeable future.

So we agree again... Imagine that. Anyway, nuanced points of disagreements aside, one of the major problems that Detroit faces is that the bulk of its current population, and thus whats left of its tax base, is outside of that Grand Blvd loop. How does Detroit "shrink the city" without upsetting the tax base? Or does "shrink the city" mean abandoned large swaths of the core within the Blvd? This is one of the fundamental disagreements that I've always had with the idea of shrinking the city. Yeah, you can "deactivate" some blocks of the city, but I can't pinpoint a contiguous section of the city that it makes sense to completely take off the grid.

[Buy American]

Haven't you figured out his schtick yet? Huge multinational corporations should be worshipped. They are the only reason that cities even exist. Nevermind that Detroit and other cities have proven it to be a not so wise strategy.

The auto industry was the one bit of glue that held Detroit together. If it wasn't the auto industry, tell me what it was.

I have no ties to the auto industry in Detroit other than the fact that I am an American and believe in being loyal to where the bread is buttered and it certainly isn't coming from Toyota or Honda.

[Detroitnerd]

How about this. Big corporations don't care about you, your city, your family or anything but making more money. That goes for Toyota and Honda AND GM and Ford.

[mwilbert]

Ultimately [[and by that I mean soon), I believe that to husband resources Detroit will have to close down some areas that aren't completely abandoned yet. If I get a chance I will draw a map of what I think should be shut down; it is too hard to describe the areas verbally. Of course this is something that people will and should disagree about--it is just what I would do if I were dictator for a decade.

[mwilbert]

How about this. Big corporations don't care about you, your city, your family or anything but making more money. That goes for Toyota and Honda AND GM and Ford.

Mostly true, but I would say that Ford and GM care more about Detroit than Toyota and Honda. We can argue about how much that is.

[DetroitDad]

Interesting, I'm not sure why anyone would have expected any different.

New Orleans, another post collapse city, saw a similar percentage decline. The existence of a natural disaster is irrelevant. What matters is conditions during the collapse of societies and complex systems. I would predict similar findings in Las Vegas and Phoenix, as well as some other cities on the West and gulf coasts, during the next census. Prospects for several cities in Europe, the Middle East, Japan, and Hawaii are likely to be equally grim in the coming decades.

Many super cities will see much more modest declines that will likely pick up by mid century.

[iheartthed]

Mostly true, but I would say that Ford and GM care more about Detroit than Toyota and Honda. We can argue about how much that is.

Perhaps... And I'm sure the same could be said about Apple or Microsoft or Texas Instruments. The bottom line is that we shouldn't be building cities to cater to big multinational corporations, or even to single industries. We should be building cities to support people and let the people build the industry. This is probably why the correlation between single industry town and depressed local economy is so strong; policies in single industry towns get perverted to the whims of the industry even if it is in odds to what's good for the health of the city.

[Danny]

Face it folks, People from all over of the world is laughing at Detroit. The first American ruin city in the United States. Republicans are laughing at liberal Detroiters for their politics is lowsy and the unions are crappy. The baised news media is creating Detroit stories as propaganda tool to prevent anyone from living and working there.

I can't wait for the FINAL SOLUTION! for Detroit and its poor residents who are living there. By eminent domain of the U.S. Constitution, the government to shut Detroit down and move its residents to other cities or relocate themselves.

There is another solution and Governor Snyder, THE NERD! can create:


1. Have Detroit merge with all the surounding suburbs to gain population and increase government funding for next census.

2. Downsize almost vacant neighbohorhoods for future developments.

3. Create a new municipal city government; Establish wards [[ In which I don't like).

4. Create better public city services and neighborhood city halls.

5. Create a regional businesses and apply jobs and work programs for those who desperately need.

Detroit needs to do something fast before the 2020 Census where Detroit's population might reach to 1830 levels.

WORD FROM THE STREET PROPHET

Will the last person in Detroit please turn off the lights.

Neda, I miss you so.

[laphoque]

I made this chart with applicable transit and Detroit history dates.

[BrushStart]

That's a fantastic graph.