Metro Detroits Rank

[313Weather]

Originally Posted by Indentured Servant

I just had a lively discussion with a few debaters about the relative size and importance of the Detroit area compared to others. They were using metropolitan population rankings to argue that the Detroit area is not one of the top ten areas of the country, in any respect, not even population. However, the Detroit area or SE Michigan polarization actually works against it in the establishment of the metropolitan areas footprint.

Metropolitan Detroit’s population is listed at 4.2 million people and people just take that and run with it not knowing the formulas used to calculate population, which is not a pure population count. Areas like Houston, Dallas and Atlanta are all listed ahead of Detroit with Metro populations of over 5 million people. However, these areas are almost double the land area used to define metro Detroit and the primary reason that that these areas are given a larger geographical footprint is due commuting patterns.

In order for outlying areas or counties to be counted in as part of the metro area, there has to be at least a 25% commute from the outlying counties into the core or Principle County where the primary city is located, or something close to that. The bottom line is that commuting patterns and percentages determine the size of a metro areas footprint, to a large degree. Detroit has a small footprint partly because of its anemic core in regards to jobs. Places like Houston, Dallas and Atlanta have massive skylines many of which are office buildings that house thousands of workers and hence there is a strong job base in the core that creates the need to commute from far away to get to these jobs.

Detroit is also fringed by satellite cities that offer that have its own gravity the pulls people in outlying areas to those cities. There is Ann Arbor, Flint and Toledo Ohio. One might say that those areas are too far away to be considered part of the Detroit area, but keep in mind that about 20% of metropolitan Atlanta’s 5.2 million residents live 50 miles or more from the city center. That’s about a million people. Indeed, if one were to superimpose that land area of what is defined as metro Atlanta, over the Detroit area, there would be over 6 million people in the Detroit area compared to the 5.2 million that exists in the same area called metro Atlanta.

Hence, Detroit only falls out the top ten in national rankings, because of commuting patterns in the area. It’s not that many of these other areas down south are more populated than Detroit, it’s that those places are isolated areas, without other population centers nearby, with a strong core central business district that people commute to from afar. Detroit CBD is too week to create the type of gravity that pulls people in large numbers from far out exurban areas, which in turn creates high commute percentages to the core county and principle city. As a result of Detroit weak downtown and the decline of the core city, the whole area has lost stature and prominence in national rankings.

Actually, after re-reading your post, I agree with the basic premise.

That said, what's your solution to this problem? Should we force everyone else across the nation to adjust their measurements beacuse we did the backward thing here (or should we receive "special treatment" in comparison to everyone else)? I bet if one were to break down GDP in each individual city of a metropolitan area, the cities of Houston and Atlanta would also make up majority of the region's GDP. On the other hand, Detroit probably wouldn't even make 1/3 of this region's GDP (probably less than 25%). However, if Detroit were to inherit the land of every city along and within an Auburn Hills-West Bloomfield-Livonia-Romulus-Wyandotte line Detroit would easily then be 85% of the of the region's GDP. Thus, more people from further away would be commuting into "Detroit." I mean in Detroit, people who aren't otuside of the region know there isn't any particular center of employment (people commute to Farmignton Hills, Livonia, Mt. Clemens, Troy, Pontiac, Southfield, Birmingham, etc., thus the tacky term I can't stand comes along (it's like nails scratching a chalkboard), "SE Michigan"). However, you would be hard pressed (with the lone exception of maybe Marietta in Atlanta) to have the people of Atlanta or Houston consider any other place in their region as "the center" other than downtown Atlanta of Houston.

We shot ourselves in our own foot, and it's slowly cmoing back around to bite us now.

[Retroit]

Downtown Houston and Atlanta aren't right up against the water, so when those cities expanded, they were able to do so radially in all directions unlike Detroit that expanded lopsidedly. The "center" of metro Detroit is in Southfield.

[313Weather]

Originally Posted by Retroit

Downtown Houston and Atlanta aren't right up against the water, so when those cities expanded, they were able to do so radially in all directions unlike Detroit that expanded lopsidedly. The "center" of metro Detroit is in Southfield.

Chicago is built along the water jsut like Detroit, yet it's still the "center" of its region.

Same with New York, Boston, and even Houston actually.

Like Chicago, Detroit's infrastructure was built for Detroit to always be the center of the region, even with the population expected to grown outward (though by growing outward, that didn't mean shifting people who were already in the city outward, which is what ulitmately happened). The outcomes with places such as Southfield and Troy were not expected in 1950 (which is why it seems literally as if they were thrown together, where as Detroit actually has the teeth to be a dense, urban environment in place).

That doesn't argument doesn't really fly IMO.

[Sharks With Lasers]

Originally Posted by Indentured Servant

I say all that to make the point that MSA ranking are GOVERNMENT METRICS. Those government metrics don't tell the whole story and those rankings favor isolated areas where people all commute to one principle city for work, entertainment and the like. Those rankings are based upon commuting percentages. It does not mean that more people live in the those sothern regions than the Detroit region. It just means more people commute to one principle city in that region. The MSA borders extend outwards until less than 25% of commuters commute to the principle city or county in the area. Thus, in Atlanta, thats 8,300 square miles. In Houston that's 10,000 square miles. In Detroit......that's 3,900 square miles. Hence, the fact that people are not commuting to Detroit in high percentages, in outlaying areas means that Detroit MSA footprint is only 3,900 square miles. The formula does not care that there are more people beyond the 3,900 square miles. They don't exist for counting unless they drive into Detroit.

The Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint-Windsor-Toledo area covers about the same square miles as what is defined as metro Atlanta.

Since they are based on commuting patterns, it would make sense for an area where people far outside the city commute to a central area to be counted as one big area. Likewise, an area where people generally commute to a bunch of smaller cities close by will be considered a bunch of smaller areas. People in Ann Arbor, Flint, Toledo, and Windsor want to find jobs in their respective regions. There's nothing wrong with that or misleading. All it means that instead of having one big region within 90 miles of Detroit, you have several. Yeah, it makes the Detroit region seem smaller, but it accurately reflects the mindset of the citizenry there.

[Retroit]

Downtown Houston is 20 miles from the coastline.

[imaterry78259]

Detriot will come back, I still rank the city up there with the top metros of America. Other than NOLA what other city has went through what it has went through and still standing

[phamb]

Originally Posted by Indentured Servant

I just had a lively discussion with a few debaters about the relative size and importance of the Detroit area compared to others. They were using metropolitan population rankings to argue that the Detroit area is not one of the top ten areas of the country, in any respect, not even population. However, the Detroit area or SE Michigan polarization actually works against it in the establishment of the metropolitan areas footprint.

Metropolitan Detroit’s population is listed at 4.2 million people and people just take that and run with it not knowing the formulas used to calculate population, which is not a pure population count. Areas like Houston, Dallas and Atlanta are all listed ahead of Detroit with Metro populations of over 5 million people. However, these areas are almost double the land area used to define metro Detroit and the primary reason that that these areas are given a larger geographical footprint is due commuting patterns.

In order for outlying areas or counties to be counted in as part of the metro area, there has to be at least a 25% commute from the outlying counties into the core or Principle County where the primary city is located, or something close to that. The bottom line is that commuting patterns and percentages determine the size of a metro areas footprint, to a large degree. Detroit has a small footprint partly because of its anemic core in regards to jobs. Places like Houston, Dallas and Atlanta have massive skylines many of which are office buildings that house thousands of workers and hence there is a strong job base in the core that creates the need to commute from far away to get to these jobs.

Detroit is also fringed by satellite cities that offer that have its own gravity the pulls people in outlying areas to those cities. There is Ann Arbor, Flint and Toledo Ohio. One might say that those areas are too far away to be considered part of the Detroit area, but keep in mind that about 20% of metropolitan Atlanta’s 5.2 million residents live 50 miles or more from the city center. That’s about a million people. Indeed, if one were to superimpose that land area of what is defined as metro Atlanta, over the Detroit area, there would be over 6 million people in the Detroit area compared to the 5.2 million that exists in the same area called metro Atlanta.

Hence, Detroit only falls out the top ten in national rankings, because of commuting patterns in the area. It’s not that many of these other areas down south are more populated than Detroit, it’s that those places are isolated areas, without other population centers nearby, with a strong core central business district that people commute to from afar. Detroit CBD is too week to create the type of gravity that pulls people in large numbers from far out exurban areas, which in turn creates high commute percentages to the core county and principle city. As a result of Detroit weak downtown and the decline of the core city, the whole area has lost stature and prominence in national rankings.

A better way to compare population and land area is to use the Urbanized area data. Detroit urban area has 3,734,090 with 1,337 square miles compare to Houston 4,944,332 with 1,660 square miles. Metro Detroit with 3,913 square miles has the same population as just Harris County (Houston Core county) but with only 1,729 miles. 4.2 million people live within 65% of Harris county, rest of it is rural and undeveloped land. Detroit CSA with 5,218,852 and 5,814 sq. miles is comparable to Houston 5 core counties: Harris, Ft.Bend, Montgomery, Brazoria and Galveston which has 5.8 million in 5,766 sq. miles. The other 4200 square mile have only 300k population and 1k square mile of it is water. The 10k MSA sq. miles on paper is just the political land area. If you Add Windsor to Detroit CSA, it will only add up to 5.7 million, which is still less than Houston 5 core counties. Detroit however expand to 46 million in its 300 mile radius.

[Locutus of Board]

Toledo is not part of metro Detroit. There's a sizable gap of nothing between downriver Detroit and Monroe and then more nothing between Monroe and Toledo. Toledo is its own metro of 600,000 people.