[newengland17]

Metro Detroit posted population increases...

The city proper means nothing.

[newengland17]

Originally Posted by Magicalmoe

I really hope Detroit finds a way to stop the population hemorrhage. But its not just Detroit. The Midwest and Rust Belt is going through the same problems. Chicago is the next to fall.

Oh shut up with this bandwagon doom and gloom bull****, you likely have no idea what the situation in Chicago actually is.

Chicago is doing just fine.

[Indentured Servant]

Originally Posted by magellan

Well the city apparently went from 910,000 (?) in 2009 to 688,000 today (?). If the average family household is 4 let's say, then that means 55,500 households have left Detroit since 2009. 55,500 more vacant homes then in 2009... It seems unreal.

Even if you had 5000 houses a year being built or remodeled in Detroit, which would be a MASSIVE number (probably the largest housing development in the U.S. if it were really happening all at once), that'd still only be reclaiming 1/10th of the loss. And that's just the loss since 2009.

I do agree that you have to reinvigorate the core in order for people to want to move back into the surrounding neighborhoods.

Its going to be hard for Detroit to maintain its population with the national trend of African Americans towards increased levels of suburban living (plus moving south for those who live in the north). Unless the growth of the white population increases to keep pace with the decline of the black population, the city will continue to bleed residents.

The national phenomenon of suburban living for blacks hyper accelerated during the housing fiasco/crisis, because it opened up opportunities to move to suburban areas traditionally off limits to blacks due to the combination of race and cost. For example, inner ring suburbs of Macomb County. Prior to the housing free for all, blacks either could not get loans to move to those places and or they were not made to feel welcome in moving to those place. However, the housing free for all and or the decline of the metro economy resulted in many people in those suburbs needing or wanting to sell and the only people who found those areas desirable or a "step up" were city residents who were mostly black. Thus, the desire or need to sell trumped the traditional racial barrier and since banks were giving away loans it was not hard for many blacks to get mortgages to move to those suburbs and others.

Suburbs like, Harper Woods and East Pointe, for example, that border Detroit and are affordable, will become increasingly an extension of the contiguous black population rooted in Detroit, thus drawing blacks from Detroit to those places. Its not easy to get mortgages like in the past, so that will slow down the suburban exodus for blacks to a point, however, many houses in those suburbs have become rental properties and many city residents can still move in as renters, if not new owners. Overall, however, I see the suburban inflow of blacks, in metro Detroit, to be not as pronounced as it was the last census.

The city looks a lot emptier....but that is mainly because they have torn down so many properties. Keep in mind that the cities housing stock was built to accommodate nearly 2 million people (although family size was much larger in 1950). In any case, in 2010, there were way more housing units than was needed given the population. Housing was over supplied, which is why the value was so low and why so many properties went into ruin. The empty housing created the impression of a denser city, which created the impression of more people, in my opinion. Now that much of that excess housing is being torn down.....it creates the impression of a less dense and hence less populated city....but that may be somewhat deceptive.

Its really hard to know what Detroit's population is. As I always point out. The official count in 2000 was ~ 900,000. Cities sued for minority under count....and won. Detroit was one of those cities that sued and hence had their enumeration adjusted upward, resulting in a revised census total of ~954,000. Also, there was major efforts from the mayors office and city council to rally the people to be counted, because funds were tied to counts. Such efforts were started by Coleman Young in 1990 to ensure that the city count did not fall below 1 million because state funding gave special amounts to cities over 1 million. Thus, Coleman young started the tradition of making sure that everyone in the city made an effort to get counted. Dennis Archer continued this effort.....but for some unknown reason (maybe because it was obvious that the city would be below 1 million).....Dave Bing dropped the ball and made no effort to rally the city to get counted and given the number of squatters and people who might be in situation that make them averse to being counted, there were probably thousand of people who got missed relative to the previous census.

In light of that, I don't believe that Detroit lost 250,000 people the last census. I really do not. The real loss was less than 200,000 and probably around 170,000 - 180,000 (which is still a lot). If the mayor in 2020 rallies the city to be counted and if the numbers are adjusted upward as a result of a law suit by cities, Detroit's population will be around 700,000. If the same thing happens the way it did in the 2010 census, Detroit population will be about 620,000. However, a stronger local economy, and greater optimism about Detroit future (the result of downtown investment and growth) will make 2020 look a lot different than 2010.

Oh....and Mjlo......great presentation and analysis.

[magellan]

Originally Posted by newengland17

Oh shut up with this bandwagon doom and gloom bull****, you likely have no idea what the situation in Chicago actually is.

Chicago is doing just fine.

Are you insane?

The neighborhoods and the schools are falling apart. Have you not seen the articles about the massive budget crisis and the out-of-control crime spike? It might seem fine in hipster havens but the real "streets" are in bad shape.