Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Detroit is one third deserted. By your logic the drug addict who who hit rock bottom, got clean and move into a boarding house is doing better than the middle-class professional whose 401(k) took a hit.
We are comparing MSA to MSA. Detroit is doing better than Chicago apples-to-apples.
Of course, that doesn't mean it's a better city (it most certainly isn't). But it's performing better right now, both in terms of population and economy.
And re. the cities- they're more alike than different. Both are big, flat Midwest cities on endless grids with massive population decline and huge ghettos. The main difference is that Chicago has a world class downtown with real urban living, and Detroit doesn't. But the typical Detroit-area living is the same as the typical Chicago-area living. Schaumburg looks just like Troy.
The Detroit MSA is actually growing, while the Chicago MSA is declining.
So, yeah, they are on different growth trajectories, as surprising as it may be. Of course Detroit (the city) is still a gigantic mess, but metro-to-metro comparison indicates Detroit is doing better as of right now.
I don't think the population estimates from 2010 to now agree with your sentiment:
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Total Population Change April 2010 - July 2015:
The Detroit Metro is still down over 200,000 jobs from its peak employment in the 2000s. Chicago metro currently has the most jobs in its history. Detroit simply has further ground to make up.
Chicago (metro and city) lost population in the last year.
I used to live there. I left because of the weather. Chicago has a very diverse economy and that should be a boon to the city as opposed to a hindrance. I have to think high taxes and weather may have something to do with it.
This doesn't take into account that 2010-2012 Chicago MSA was estimated up in population, it has show 3 straight years of declines. While Detroit MSA was down 2010-2012 recovering from the recession, but has posted 3 straight years of gains. Current economic Data is behind what NOLA is saying regardless of where Detroit's job numbers were in the 2000's.
This is one explanation....181,000 fewer blacks out of a 200,000 population loss. Also, Chicago is the top city for corporate relocation, and Chicago leads the country in largest influx of downtown residents. I have links, if you must.
This is one explanation....181,000 fewer blacks out of a 200,000 population loss. Also, Chicago is the top city for corporate relocation, and Chicago leads the country in largest influx of downtown residents. I have links, if you must.
Also, gentrification without new construction diminishes city populations. Poor and middle-class families are displaced by more affluent singles and childless couples.
This doesn't take into account that 2010-2012 Chicago MSA was estimated up in population, it has show 3 straight years of declines. While Detroit MSA was down 2010-2012 recovering from the recession, but has posted 3 straight years of gains. Current economic Data is behind what NOLA is saying regardless of where Detroit's job numbers were in the 2000's.
Chicago MSA hasn't shown 3 straight years of population decline, and these aren't job numbers, they are merely population estimates that show Chicago MSA population growth, which is tepid at best, is still an order of magnitude higher than that of Detroit over the same period.
Chicago (metro and city) lost population in the last year.
I used to live there. I left because of the weather. Chicago has a very diverse economy and that should be a boon to the city as opposed to a hindrance. I have to think high taxes and weather may have something to do with it.
I really don't buy the taxes angle. Illinois has a flat state income tax rate that's under 4%. Let's rounded up to four. A household with an income of $200,000 would pay 8000 in state tax. I can't imagine relocating to Texas for $8000 a year. It's even more ridiculous to think of a household making 100,000 or less moving to a different state for savings of less than $4000.
I don't think the population estimates from 2010 to now agree with your sentiment:
Re-read my previous posts. I'm not talking about historical data.
I'm talking about the current population data, not that back in 2010 (when Detroit was in a horrible recession, and when Chicago was doing much better).
The current data clearly shows Detroit is outperforming Chicago, both in terms of population and economy. This is not really disputable, unless you have evidence the Census Bureau is engaged in some vast conspiracy or something.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
