713,000

[krapug1]

That's kind of what I touched on in my previous post. I think Mayor Coleman Young was a Mayor of the times and a Mayor for the people. He was loved by a population of Detroit that was almost completely Black. Blacks felt proud.

But aside from that, other American cities were dying as well. But they had leadership in the 90's and 00's to capitalize on the economic booms. We didn't take advantage of America's time of economic prosperity when we had the chance. And as much as I hate to kick a man when he's down, I'm talking mostly about Kwame Kilpatrick. Archer made a lot of bad moves too, especially along the riverfront and displacing hunders of people but he re-established relationships with the burbs and also put a lot of positive changes in place for the future. Unfortunately KK didn't take the ball and run.

Very astute remarks here.

I could not help but think, with the current population numbers, Boston will soon have more people than Detroit. The dramatic population increase in Boston also shows that even a northern city
can reverse it's population decline.

Ken

[iheartthed]

That's kind of what I touched on in my previous post. I think Mayor Coleman Young was a Mayor of the times and a Mayor for the people. He was loved by a population of Detroit that was almost completely Black. Blacks felt proud.

But aside from that, other American cities were dying as well. But they had leadership in the 90's and 00's to capitalize on the economic booms. We didn't take advantage of America's time of economic prosperity when we had the chance. And as much as I hate to kick a man when he's down, I'm talking mostly about Kwame Kilpatrick. Archer made a lot of bad moves too, especially along the riverfront and displacing hunders of people but he re-established relationships with the burbs and also put a lot of positive changes in place for the future. Unfortunately KK didn't take the ball and run.

Very astute remarks here.

I could not help but think, with the current population numbers, Boston will soon have more people than Detroit. The dramatic population increase in Boston also shows that even a northern city
can reverse it's population decline.

Ken

There have been plenty of examples of northern cities reversing their population declines. Boston actually began to reverse its decline a couple decades ago. New York as well. Even Philadelphia, which was also a city thought to be in perpetual decline like Detroit, reserved its trajectory for this census. And Chicago posted growth last census. Maybe in Detroit decline just became too normal......

[Novine]

Let's play the game of "what do all of these cities have that Detroit doesn't?"

[mwilbert]

Competent mayors.

A decent regional economy.

Probably not the answer you were thinking of, but seriously there is more than one thing going on here.

[iheartthed]

Let's play the game of "what do all of these cities have that Detroit doesn't?"

Haha, I would but I think I'm already beginning to sound like a broken record. If they don't get it by now then just let the damn city die.

[Hermod]

Let's play the game of "what do all of these cities have that Detroit doesn't?"

They have a port. Detroit used to have a port. Detroit now has just a pass-through strait.

[DetroitPole]

They have a port. Detroit used to have a port. Detroit now has just a pass-through strait.

Did I miss something? Did something happen to the Port of Detroit?
Clark and Jefferson.

http://www.nicholson-terminal.com/

http://www.portdetroit.com/images/ne...drid_nich.html

[NorthEndere]

"I was messing around the new American FactFinder [[a horribly user-unfriendly tool), and was able to find the population of the three Census tracts that cover downtown."

It would be helpful to see those numbers associated with the geographic areas. The problem with maps showing population changes in percentages is that they don't give any sense of the actual numbers involved. If a place has a really low population to start, a relatively modest increase in actual numbers can look like a huge increase in percentages. Seeing the actual increases and declines in the various tracts should give a real idea of what areas are making real progress versus being a statistical blip on the map.

It wasn't a percentage change. I did that manually. I think I gave the number. The 2010 number for the three tracts was 5,287 and the 2000 number was 6,141. Again, a drop of 14%. Two tracts gained, put the eastern tract that covers that half of downtown lost a full 50% of its population. I'm wondering what exactly had to be demolished for that to happen? Even a high vacancy for the Millender Center wouldn't do that.

Here are the downtown tracts...

2000

Tract 5172: 2,921
Tract 5207: 1,919
Tract 5208: 1,301

2010:

Tract 5172: 1,438
Tract 5207: 2,233
Tract 5208: 1,616

As you can see, the other two grew, but the 5172 [[eastern downtown) fell off a cliff. I know there was far more loft development in the western half of downtown, but what would cause the eastern half to lose over 50% of its population over the decade? I know, the Greektown Hotel tower garage took out a low-income mid-rise, but that have only accounted for a few hundred people, at most. Was there a lot of residents in the vicinity of Comerica Park and Ford Field that were displaced?

[Novine]

My comments weren't directed at your specific post which was informative. It was more about the various news articles and graphics put out showing everything in percentages. Lets see numbers with geographic areas so people can the actual movement in people that's taken place.

[DetroitDad]

It wasn't a percentage change. I did that manually. I think I gave the number. The 2010 number for the three tracts was 5,287 and the 2000 number was 6,141. Again, a drop of 14%. Two tracts gained, put the eastern tract that covers that half of downtown lost a full 50% of its population. I'm wondering what exactly had to be demolished for that to happen? Even a high vacancy for the Millender Center wouldn't do that.

Here are the downtown tracts...

2000

Tract 5172: 2,921
Tract 5207: 1,919
Tract 5208: 1,301

2010:

Tract 5172: 1,438
Tract 5207: 2,233
Tract 5208: 1,616

As you can see, the other two grew, but the 5172 [[eastern downtown) fell off a cliff. I know there was far more loft development in the western half of downtown, but what would cause the eastern half to lose over 50% of its population over the decade? I know, the Greektown Hotel tower garage took out a low-income mid-rise, but that have only accounted for a few hundred people, at most. Was there a lot of residents in the vicinity of Comerica Park and Ford Field that were displaced?

During the 2000s, many older apartment buildings underwent remodeling, in order to meet the demands of additional demographic groups for larger apartments. The remodels combined studios to increase living space in several buildings. For example, my two bedroom apartment was actually made by combining three studios, along with part of the hallway corridor. Room numbers were also greatly reduced in our Downtown hotels and office buildings. Typical hotel rooms, offices, and apartments were all much smaller at one time.

PS: Here is a PDF copy of a map showing the census tracks;

[NorthEndere]

But, that would have the same effect everywhere. Albeit, there were more units added west of Woodward than east of Woodward, but not enough to explain why east of Woodward's population fell through the floor and west of Woodward's population boomed. Again, does anyone remember if there were a lot of residential properties that were lost east of Woodward for the construction of Comerica and Ford Field?

[DetroitDad]

But, that would have the same effect everywhere. Albeit, there were more units added west of Woodward than east of Woodward, but not enough to explain why east of Woodward's population fell through the floor and west of Woodward's population boomed. Again, does anyone remember if there were a lot of residential properties that were lost east of Woodward for the construction of Comerica and Ford Field?

Comerica Park was completed in 2000, and Ford Field in 2002.

I mentioned larger buildings as examples, but East Downtown has several smaller buildings that changed significantly in the same manner, without the same amount of new units added like was done in West Downtown.

How are homeless counted? I know the 2000 census went to great lengths to count the homeless.

With Detroit's newfound popularity as a regional entertainment center, how many people do not list their Downtown loft, studio, or apartment as their primary residence?

[Hermod]

Did I miss something? Did something happen to the Port of Detroit?
Clark and Jefferson.

http://www.nicholson-terminal.com/

http://www.portdetroit.com/images/ne...drid_nich.html

What is the tonnage in and out of that port? What was the tonnage in and out a hundred years ago? How much of ship chandler business is left in Detroit [[resupplying passing freighters)?

[Pushtina]

The NYT featured this morning a very detailed map that breaks down the census information quite well. Check it out...

http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map?hp

ps) 11 people live on Belle Isle??

[Novine]

It would be helpful if they showed the 2000 population with the percentage but that's very helpful.

[NorthEndere]

Nice find, Pushtina. The Freep had a map, but they had the color-code all wrong, IMO, and it wasn't interactive.

Despite losing +20% of its population, as well, I was surprised to find a census tract in Highland Park, growing. Just goes to show that everything's a mixed bag. Kind of sad to see Southwest Detroit allegedly emptying out, despite Detroit's hispanic population actually holding steady over the decade, the only ethnic group to hold their population. Man, look at what happened to the Cass Corridor, though. It lost nearly 55% of its population over the decade, though, it looks like that's probably the bottom, and then, again, the 50% loss on the eastside of downtown.

Other than that, though, it's clear the area around downtown held up better than most, which was expected. East Jefferson was hit a little less hard than most, and a few sections of northwest Detroit aren't see the ridiculously mass exoduses of some of the surrounding neighborhoods. I was a little surprised to the see the tract that covers Southfields "downtown" posting 46% gain; I didn't realize there was that many housing units in the area.

[mwilbert]

The Freep had a map, but they had the color-code all wrong, IMO,

Your opinion is completely correct. I have no idea what they were thinking. The NYT map is much easier to read.

[NorthEndere]

BTW, is there a formal name for the neighborhood directly west of greater Woodbridge, more specifically the triangle bound by MLK, Grand River and 96? I'd always thought that area was basically a goner, but the Census map shows it having one of the largest population percentage increases in the city having grown nearly 25%, the same percentage the city as a whole lost. Meanwhile, it's neigborhods like Corktown, N. Corktown/Briggs and Woodbridge all show losses. Is this a result of public housing relocation from the Jeffries and Brewsters?

[Bham1982]

I am getting more skeptical of the Census. Yes, I don't know if the overall count is correct or not, but residents on Belle isle?

The NY Times has an article on NYC census counts. Supposedly the Census found 50 folks living in a Brooklyn cemetary. They also allegedly found that NYC's packed immigrant neighborhoods had tons of vacant units [[obviously folks were not answering the door for fear of deportation).

I mean, what is going on here with our Census takers? Don't they know undocumented folks will not talk to officials? Don't they find it strange that folks are allegedly living in cemetaries?

I suspect that the Detroit count is similarly rife with error.

[mwilbert]

BTW, is there a formal name for the neighborhood directly west of greater Woodbridge, more specifically the triangle bound by MLK, Grand River and 96?

Some people call at least some of that area "Core City", but I do not know what the extent of the area covered by that name is.

[Magnatomicflux]

I havn't read the whole thread so I'm not sure if this local comparison has been made or not.

If the census numbers are right Detroit lost 238,270 people. Windsor and LaSalle of 2006 [[216,473/27,652) had a combined population of 244,125. So we have only 5,855 more people in these two places then Detroit has lost? That's nuts! According to the Windsor Star's numbers, Detroit has basically lost one resident, every 22 minutes for the past decade. Wow.

Do they count homicide numbers when they do these? Not saying Detroit is so bad it would seriously alter the numbers, I'm just wondering.

It's weird for me, living a such a smaller city, to think that 700,000 people is a bad thing. I would think it'll make the City easier to manage, but I don't know jack about how it all works. Obviously this is a horrible problem.

[mwilbert]

They don't actually count how many people are lost, they just count the people at different dates. When they say the city lost X people, that ends up including both deaths and emigrants, and subtracts births and immigrants, but they don't count any of those things as part of the enumeration. So the homicides are in there, but not in any specific way.

[Magnatomicflux]

Gotcha, thanks.

[Al Publican]

Any city workers on this site? I was a fire inspector in Detroit for most of the twenty five years that I was with DFD. I came to realize that city hall was one bigass permit mill that kept dumping fees for this and that on businesses.

One of the biggest farces in city administration in regard to permits was the ongoing pissing match between the Fire Marshal Division and the Dept. of Buildings & Engineering. Both departments issued permits that often overlapped such as a permit to erect an awning over a store front.

When ADA requirements kicked in about twenty years ago, the Plan Exam section of the DFD was quick to jump in on inspections of items like reconfigured restroom doors and and wheelchair ramps, even though such items are not fire department concerns in regard to egress from buildings and life safety code issues.

A few years ago the LA Times ran a piece that compared its municipal workforce and population ratio to other cities. Detroit had a far higher ratio of city workers to population than LA and some other cities.

In recent decades the two main enterprises in Detroit have been government and church. That doesn't make for a viable economy for the city.

[Hermod]

A few years ago the LA Times ran a piece that compared its municipal workforce and population ratio to other cities. Detroit had a far higher ratio of city workers to population than LA and some other cities.

In recent decades the two main enterprises in Detroit have been government and church. That doesn't make for a viable economy for the city.

I wonder what the ratio of workers to population was back in 1950 when we had 1.8 million in the city?

I wonder what the ratio of employees [[other than classroom teachers) to students is in DPS and compare that to 1950.

Parkinson's Law is functioning well in Detroit.


From Wiki:

Parkinson's Law is the adage first articulated by Cyril Northcote Parkinson as the first sentence of a humorous essay published in The Economist in 1955:
Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion. It was later reprinted together with other essays in the book Parkinson's Law: The Pursuit of Progress [[London, John Murray, 1958). He derived the dictum from his extensive experience in the British Civil Service.
The current form of the law is not that which Parkinson refers to by that name in the article. Rather, he assigns to the term a mathematical equation describing the rate at which bureaucracies expand over time. Much of the essay is dedicated to a summary of purportedly scientific observations supporting his law, such as the increase in the number of employees at the Colonial Office while Great Britain's overseas empire declined [[indeed, he shows that the Colonial Office had its greatest number of staff at the point when it was folded into the Foreign Office because of a lack of colonies to administer). He explains this growth by two forces: [[1) "An official wants to multiply subordinates, not rivals" and [[2) "Officials make work for each other." He notes in particular that the total of those employed inside a bureaucracy rose by 5-7% per year "irrespective of any variation in the amount of work [[if any) to be done."
In 1986, Alessandro Natta complained about the swelling bureaucracy in Italy. Mikhail Gorbachev responded that "'Parkinson's Law works everywhere."

Of course in Detroit, you also have to add in nepotism and kleptocracy.