713,000

[the rock]

Charles Pugh stated on tv last night that the Detroit figures do not include the thousands of Detroiters who are incarcerated, and that when they are released, they will be returning to the city.
How comforting.

[mwilbert]

Aside from the fact that this isn't very comforting, presumably Detroit will continue to export convicts so I don't see that contributing a lot to the net population.

[R8RBOB]

Charles Pugh stated on tv last night that the Detroit figures do not include the thousands of Detroiters who are incarcerated, and that when they are released, they will be returning to the city.
How comforting.

How this guy get to be City County President again? He is the reason why the most vote requirement needs to be tossed out.

So Mr. Pugh, in a moment of panic is suggesting that the Census Bureau should included our criminals who deservedly earned their spots in their new locations like Jackson and Marquette. Naw, it is these bastards who played a role in Detroiters to flee the city and now this bastard is suggesting that they can make a difference with the number. No thanks. As for the number, well it is time for reality. There is no money. If the money is gone, the people will be gone. The rest of the region is on life support. When industry leaves those areas, they will be in the same boat.

[JohnnyFreddy]

Spot on, in my opinion. Consider the whole picture, not just Midtown and some neighborhoods that have people in them. I guess that if there is an undercount, I would blame the citizens of Detroit for not being cooperative with the census takers.

I agree. I personally know at least four different households which refused to cooperate
with the census, either for 'privacy' reasons, or, 'mistrust', or,'laziness'.......
....not realizing, or caring, that representation in Washington is at stake here, as well as
potential grants or other monies to be had. Civic responsibility has taken a HUGE hit in
our modern times. People don't bother to vote. Census disinterest. Won't shovel their walks,
or mow their lawns, or pick-up litter surrounding their home or neighborhood.
Want to know WHY Detroit is taking such drastic hits. Look around you, the reasons are obvious.

[rid0617]

I could not believe my ears this morning on Fox 2 when I heard a city councilman say thousands of Detroiter's are in jail and should be counted. Now that really put a feather in Detroit's hat.

[Novine]

This graphic by the Free Press shows population change by census tract. It's a much more nuanced view of what's going on in some cities. Some Detroit tracts, especially in downtown and Midtown, did see growth. These are percentages but they do show improvement. In some outlying communities that were growing, you had pockets of population loss even as the overall community population increased.

http://www.freep.com/assets/freep/pdf/C4172086323.PDF

[R8RBOB]

I could not believe my ears this morning on Fox 2 when I heard a city councilman say thousands of Detroiter's are in jail and should be counted. Now that really put a feather in Detroit's hat.

Believe it. The City Council President wants them counted. Some poster wondered if the City Council should shrink. I concur. If the number stands at 713,000 then the Council should lose at least two seats based on the soon-to-be voting by district plan.

[Bham1982]

Compared to the other rust belt cities aside from Cleveland, Detroit never really got a second chance for revival. I distinctly remember thinking “in time,” two specific periods over the past 30 years, that Detroit missed two key economic booms. During these economic booms, many cities made big, big comebacks. Of course the two biggest being the rebirths of New York and Chicago.

The losses in Pittsburgh, Cleveland and St. Louis are all comparable to Detroit, and I think these cities are probably the best overall comparisons. For some reason Pittsburgh is touted as revitalized when it continues to lose big chunks of population [[faster than even Metro Detroit).

As for NYC and Chicago, they really are quite different cities from one another, and from Detroit. Both cities have revitalized, but NYC has had a much stronger and more sustained revitalization. Really all of NYC has revitalized, while only the downtown/yuppie portions of Chicago have revitalized.

This can be seen in NYC's strong population growth and low unemployment, while Chicago has severe population loss [[numerically almost as bad as Detroit) and high unemployment.

IMO, if Detroit is one end of the spectrum, and NYC is the other end, then Chicago is probably somewhere in the middle, with characteristics of both cities.

As for Detroit, I am surprised at the Hispanic population numbers. I have heard anecdotally that they are moving Downriver, but SW Detroit sure seems more Mexican to me than in years past.

[iheartthed]

Amen. The Detroit area hitched its wagon to the auto industry a century ago, rode the wagon to prosperity, and now has ridden it back down the hill again. The metropolitan population numbers are a reflection of this fact. It's time to recognize we can't re-create the Detroit [[or the Detroit area) of the 50's and 60's; the auto companies will never again be the drivers of prosperity in the area [[and I say that as one who retired from Ford and who depends on Ford for my pension and my health coverage, at least until I reach 65).

As far as Detroit itself goes, we have to ask why Detroit was uniquely unattractive among the largest cities in the U.S. in 1950 that it has fallen so far. I've only looked at population trends for Detroit and Philadelphia [[I grew up in the Philly area), so that's what I'll concentrate on here. In 1950, Detroit had 1.85 million people, while Philadelphia had 2.07 million. The Philly metro area [[eight counties in Pennsylvania and South Jersey) had 3.67 million, while the Detroit metro area [[I'm defining it as the three counties plus Lapeer, Livingston, St Clair, and Washtenaw) had 3.3 million. By 1960 [[pre-riots), the Detroit area had grown by 25% [[good decade for the auto companies) vs. 18% for the Philadelphia area, but Detroit had lost 10% of its population, while Philadelphia proper had only lost 3%. In every succeeding decade, the metro populations pretty much kept pace with each other, so that by 2000 the Detroit area was 44% larger than in 1950, while the Philadelphia area was 37% larger. At the same time, Detroit lost a larger part of its population than did Philadelphia every single decade, and in 2000 Detroit was at 51% of its 1950 population, while Philly was at 73%. Now, in the first decade of the 2000's, Detroit has lost a further 22%, while Philadelphia actually gained a few thousand people, so that Detroit now is less than half the size of Philly.

To me the question is what did Philly do relatively right over the last 60 years that allowed it to avoid becoming a basket case, and what does that tell us about what Detroit has to do to stop the decay and perhaps begin a recovery.

This is exactly the discussion that Detroit needs to be having. The top 5 largest cities in the United States in 1950:

1. New York
2. Chicago
3. Philadelphia
4. Los Angeles
5. Detroit

Los Angeles is the only city in the list that did not have a density above 10,000 persons per square mile at that time. As of today, Detroit and Los Angeles are the only two cities on that list that do not currently have population densities above 10,000 persons per square mile.

The top 5 largest cities in the United States as of 2010:

1. New York
2. Los Angeles
3. Chicago
4. Houston
5. Philadelphia

This list has almost not changed in 60 years except for one notable exception, which should be pretty evident to us all.

I like to compare and contrast Philadelphia and Detroit because those two cities have nearly the exact same land area and the populations peaked very close to each other: Philly is 135 square miles and Detroit 139 square miles. So that means the population density of the two cities also peaked very close to each other. Both cities also had to deal with urban disinvestment and de-industrialization. But really the difference between Detroit and Philadelphia is the same as it is between Detroit and Chicago, Detroit and New York, Detroit and Boston, or Detroit and Washington.

Detroit took some ill-advised steps decades ago that places like Philadelphia, New York and Chicago didn't. First of all, it's just really uncomfortable to live in a city with a density of 10,000 persons per square mile if every resident needs a car to live. Detroit was a 10,000 person per square mile city for most of its pre-1980 existence. The city of Detroit did away with its transit system to relieve surface street congestion, while those other cities were building subway systems to achieve the same result. The folly of that decision is evident. Even Los Angeles, which is still a bit below that 10,000 person per square mile density, is rapidly trying to play catch up on the subway building today.

Detroit, having almost always been a very densely populated city, was of course built to be a physically dense city. So when the city gets rid of the tools that allows it to exist as a big dense city then guess what happens? It declines! Severely. With no apparent stop gap. While stupid politicians scratch their heads for decades wondering what happened. Why is it that nondescript buildings built 100 years ago in New York, 150 years ago in Philadelphia and 200 years ago in Boston still have purpose today? But Detroit can't re-purpose the old Cass Tech, which has to be one of the most famous buildings in the entire state of Michigan.

So Detroit and Michigan needs to take this as the opportunity to sit and review its post-war history. Contrast it with its pre-war history and compare it against the histories of its peer cities. That's really the only way to figure out what went wrong.

[bartock]

So just because it's believeable in Brighmoor means it's belielveable citywide?

I assume you typed this before seeing Hamtragedy's excellent description of a number of neighborhoods. Being on the border and driving through east side neighborhoods daily, the number does not surprise me in the least, though I do hope for the purposes of federal dollars, the City finds a way to tick above 750,000.

[R8RBOB]

I assume you typed this before seeing Hamtragedy's excellent description of a number of neighborhoods. Being on the border and driving through east side neighborhoods daily, the number does not surprise me in the least, though I do hope for the purposes of federal dollars, the City finds a way to tick above 750,000.

I went to a funeral recently and the person in question was to be buried at Trinity Cemetery on Mt. Elliot. To get to Trinity the procession drove down on 6Mile, through Highland Park, turned on Oakland went through Hamtramck, made our way to Mt. Elliott until went reached Trinity. The drive there was so depressing because all you saw was decay. It was as if someone dropped a bomb in the area and destroyed all traces of life. How could any realistically would want to move back to a decaying shell slowly rotting away? I love Detroit like the next guy but Detroit's number is a fair number because there is no way hundreds of thousands of people could really still be here.

[Buy American]

With idiots like Puke in office, it's any wonder the City is in dire straits. He didn't cause the decline but it is airheads like him and corrupt politicians, ie., thug KK, Conyers, Young and many others who lead Detroit down the path of destruction. Using the taxpayers money as if it were their own personal ATM did a lot of damage to the infrastructure of City government. Of course, Detroiters have no one else to blame but themselves for continuously voting a known liar and thief into office time after time.

I see an even bleaker future for Detroit when GM and Chrysler chooses to pack up and leave the City. They are two of the biggest taxpayers in Detroit. Without them, it will be as if the City fell into the Detroit River and it will become a ghost town.

[Islandman]

While I agree with your sentiments regarding most of the elected officials in Detroit, GM and Chrysler have essentially packed up and left the city decades ago. I think you may have noticed.

[iheartthed]

While I agree with your sentiments regarding most of the elected officials in Detroit, GM and Chrysler have essentially packed up and left the city decades ago. I think you may have noticed.

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.

[Buy American]

While I agree with your sentiments regarding most of the elected officials in Detroit, GM and Chrysler have essentially packed up and left the city decades ago. I think you may have noticed.

I don't think so....I see the GM logo on the RenCen and I see a huge Chrysler plant on St. Jean and Jefferson.

[MikeM]

713,000? So now can they reduce the size of the city council?

And the size of the font on maps and atlases.

[English]

Why don't people get it? It's not corporate divestment OR NAFTA and outsourcing OR white and black flight OR racial hostility and division OR the lack of public transportation OR redlining mid-20th century OR political corruption OR crime OR decayed, neglected buildings OR bad schools OR an undereducated, apathetic, and poor majority... etc. ad nauseam.

It is ALL of these factors. Detroit was and is the perfect storm. Until we try something that is radically different, our results will remain the same.

Perhaps in a century, Detroit will be famous as the largest ghost town on the face of the earth... but I doubt it. We're not in the desert or remote wilderness. The main thing holding metro Detroit and Detroiters back is US -- and "us" doesn't just mean those with a city address. We are all in this together.

[R8RBOB]

Perhaps in a century, Detroit will be famous as the largest ghost town on the face of the earth... but I doubt it. We're not in the desert or remote wilderness. The main thing holding metro Detroit and Detroiters back is US -- and "us" doesn't just mean those with a city address. We are all in this together.

You know it is amazing that people would actually would think of abandoned a city which sits on a strait connecting two lakes. We have cities like Los Angeles and Las Vegas dying of thirst yet people flock to those areas looking for a good life yet Detroit is deemed toxic. It's crazy.

[Buy American]

You know it is amazing that people would actually would think of abandoned a city which sits on a strait connecting two lakes. We have cities like Los Angeles and Las Vegas dying of thirst yet people flock to those areas looking for a good life yet Detroit is deemed toxic. It's crazy.

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?

[Crumbled_pavement]

Why don't people get it? It's not corporate divestment OR NAFTA and outsourcing OR white and black flight OR racial hostility and division OR the lack of public transportation OR redlining mid-20th century OR political corruption OR crime OR decayed, neglected buildings OR bad schools OR an undereducated, apathetic, and poor majority... etc. ad nauseam.

It is ALL of these factors. Detroit was and is the perfect storm. Until we try something that is radically different, our results will remain the same.

Perhaps in a century, Detroit will be famous as the largest ghost town on the face of the earth... but I doubt it. We're not in the desert or remote wilderness. The main thing holding metro Detroit and Detroiters back is US -- and "us" doesn't just mean those with a city address. We are all in this together.

Great post English. I hope we never lose people like you. Some of these people in the metro area [[INCLUDING RESIDENTS OF DETROIT) would make horrible cooks. They'd bake a cake and think the only ingredient is the sugar or the frosting. Not realizing the cake needs flour too, it also needs eggs and milk. The batter needs to be mixed, the oven preheated, and the cake needs to be baked, preferably in a cake pan. They just think the cake is one thing and focus on one thing only. God help us if we continue to elect politicians that seek to address only one issue hoping it is the band aid fix for every conceivable problem.

In your opinion, what is the most important problem in Detroit that makes people want to leave?

All of them.

[Crumbled_pavement]

I'm not surprised. Maybe there is an undercount, but I don't think there are anywhere near 800,000. Perhaps counting all the suburban addresses and those hiding out from immigration/the law/other situations, the true number is 750K.

In my opinion, we're not done with population loss -- unless something changes radically within the next 5 years, we are going to lose elderly and other holdouts. Without major incentives for other groups to move into the city of Detroit, or other unforeseen developments, the number in 2020 will likely be near 500K.

I agree. I think Detroit will eventually become a stable city with a low crime rate and good schools and a place that people enjoy living in, but it will have to do it with about 450K people. Detroit [[we mostly already agree to this) will never see 1.8M residents again, in fact, I doubt Detroit will ever see 1M residents again.

Small and functional >>>> large and dysfunctional

This is worse than even SEMCOG's estimate, which wasn't generous to the city to begin with, so I don't mind if Bing calls bullshit on the numbers. Losing a quarter of the population in one decade seems a bit much, even for as bad as we all know things have been in the region.

I think this just shows how bad the count was that even Bing is getting involved, now. He'd said very early on that he wouldn't challenge the numbers, but even he knows this is just plain ridiculous. I could see a 20% loss, but there isn't anyway that this is an accurate count.

Every city bitches about being undercounted, but this is just ridiculous. The real number is 750,000 at the lowest.

I could believe 713K. There are blocks after blocks of neighborhoods that were viable back in 2000 that are completely vacant now. Just about EVERY neighborhood has plenty of vacant houses. Some neighborhoods have your random mixture of stripped and gutted houses mixed with some boarded up houses. Other neighborhoods are just a few inhabited houses with half the neighborhood LITERALLY burned down. Any, AND I MEAN ANY, area of the city that has wood frame houses has at least 2 or three stripped/gutted and/or burnt up houses on BOTH sides of the street.

I'm in total shock. Not over these numbers, I expected this. I just remember growing up in the 80s in the northwest corner of Detroit after everyone said the city was already hollowed out and a shell of its former self and the neighborhoods that I lived in were almost always fully occupied. Today, the vacancies in the denser neighborhoods are staggering. Scores of people are just walking away from their homes because they just can't be sold. Look at the real estate ads for Detroit. Prices are dirt cheap but houses stay on the market for YEARS. The houses just get gutted then burnt down. There is about 713K left in the city, if even that much.

What no one is talking about and maybe no one wants to face is that the city of Detroit is a deficit NOW. What happens when all of the former tax payers are no longer figured in the estimated revenue for Detroit. It's going to be a seriously rough ride to the bottom. And as English pointed out in her post, I see NOTHING that will turn the population numbers around in the next 10 years.

Someone on this thread, it doesn't matter who, wrote: "At some point Detroit will bounce back but a population between 750k and 1 million is probably about right long-term."

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Detroit will turn around. Haven't we been waiting for a "turnaround" since about 1970?

I love Detroit, but my optimism decreases in proportion to the population loss.

I truly believe Detroit will turn around. Some of the seeds for that turnaround have already been planted. However, that turnaround won't happen in the next 10 years and it will not produce a population of 750K people. By about 2025 - 2030, Detroit will be a different city, much better in many regards but with a population of about 400 - 450K.

[Mr. Houdini]

WSJ article about the numbers:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...editorsPicks_2

[iheartthed]

I agree. I think Detroit will eventually become a stable city with a low crime rate and good schools and a place that people enjoy living in, but it will have to do it with about 450K people. Detroit [[we mostly already agree to this) will never see 1.8M residents again, in fact, I doubt Detroit will ever see 1M residents again.

Small and functional >>>> large and dysfunctional



I could believe 713K. There are blocks after blocks of neighborhoods that were viable back in 2000 that are completely vacant now. Just about EVERY neighborhood has plenty of vacant houses. Some neighborhoods have your random mixture of stripped and gutted houses mixed with some boarded up houses. Other neighborhoods are just a few inhabited houses with half the neighborhood LITERALLY burned down. Any, AND I MEAN ANY, area of the city that has wood frame houses has at least 2 or three stripped/gutted and/or burnt up houses on BOTH sides of the street.

I'm in total shock. Not over these numbers, I expected this. I just remember growing up in the 80s in the northwest corner of Detroit after everyone said the city was already hollowed out and a shell of its former self and the neighborhoods that I lived in were almost always fully occupied. Today, the vacancies in the denser neighborhoods are staggering. Scores of people are just walking away from their homes because they just can't be sold. Look at the real estate ads for Detroit. Prices are dirt cheap but houses stay on the market for YEARS. The houses just get gutted then burnt down. There is about 713K left in the city, if even that much.

What no one is talking about and maybe no one wants to face is that the city of Detroit is a deficit NOW. What happens when all of the former tax payers are no longer figured in the estimated revenue for Detroit. It's going to be a seriously rough ride to the bottom. And as English pointed out in her post, I see NOTHING that will turn the population numbers around in the next 10 years.



I truly believe Detroit will turn around. Some of the seeds for that turnaround have already been planted. However, that turnaround won't happen in the next 10 years and it will not produce a population of 750K people. By about 2025 - 2030, Detroit will be a different city, much better in many regards but with a population of about 400 - 450K.

With all due respect, this is nonsense. Detroit cannot be a functional city with 400,000 residents unless it shaves off the 70 or so square miles that it annexed since 1915. We're talking about a central city of a major metropolitan area, not a half rural half suburban edge county.

[Crumbled_pavement]

With all due respect, this is nonsense. Detroit cannot be a functional city with 400,000 residents unless it shaves off the 70 or so square miles that it annexed since 1915. We're talking about a central city of a major metropolitan area, not a half rural half suburban edge county.

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?

[bartock]

With all due respect, this is nonsense. Detroit cannot be a functional city with 400,000 residents unless it shaves off the 70 or so square miles that it annexed since 1915. We're talking about a central city of a major metropolitan area, not a half rural half suburban edge county.

Atlanta comes to mind.