Neighbourhood dynamics in Detroit (Warren, Sterling Heights: real estate, crime rates, cheap home)
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.
Coming as someone interested in how neighbourhoods rise and fall, Detroit is a pretty good textbook example, but I'm not from there and I've never been so all I know is basically based on what's available on line.
I'm not so much interested at finding who/what to blame (urban renewal, freeways, corruption, industry, race riots, underfunded pensions and the other usual suspects) as how the process of decline took place, as well as the situation in the nearby suburbs.
One of the first things you notice when looking at the historical demographics of the city is that the decline was not uniform, at least not initially. Looking at population change from 1950 to 1970 (1960 census tract data is hard to find), it looks like people couldn't leave fast enough in the innermost core (Downtown/Midtown, Corktown, Poletown) with the population falling to less than half within those two decades. Was there already a lot of abandonment going on at that time in those areas or was a lot of that decreasing household sizes and urban renewal projects? It's just that I find it surprising that these areas lost so much population despite having actually gained population (albeit very slightly) from 1940 to 1950. The 1967 riots would only have been at the very end of this period, and the 1943 riots didn't cause the population to decline.
Most of the other areas inside Grand Boulevard, New Center/North End, and parts of the Southwest also had pretty intense population loss. The next ring experienced more moderate population loss from 1950 to 1970, moderate enough that it could just be changes in household sizes. The outermost parts of the city, especially the Northwest actually saw pretty substantial population gain, suggesting they actually built new housing (there is indeed housing that looks 1950s vintage in these areas). For that to happen, prices need to be high enough to cover development and construction costs, which means there was a certain level of optimism about these neighbourhoods and that the homes would still be worth something in a few decades, right? Was there a time period in the early 50s where things weren't looking so bad in the city as a whole (and was that when these homes were built, with the population loss in the core happening more late 50s/60s)? Or did the people buying these new homes just think that the problems of the core would remain contained in the core?
Forward to 1990 and now every neighbourhood is losing population. The innermost ones are still losing population fast, but the rapid rate of decline has spread to the next ring of neighbourhoods like Petosky-Otsego and most of the neighbourhoods between Poletown and the Pointes. The outermost neighbourhoods in the Northwest are still seeing relatively modest population loss (15% over two decades, give or take) that could just be due to declining household sizes. Of the neighbourhoods I looked at*, the area around Houston-Whittier and Gratiot lost the least, only 0.8% from 1970-1990, which is actually less than from 1950-1970 (10.5% loss). Does anyone know what was happening here? Because from 1990-2010 it lost 48%, worse than any other neighbourhood other than Delray. It looks like it was turning itself around and then suddenly crashed. Of course population change isn't everything. Maybe this area's 1950-1970 population loss was due to decrease in household size and was still fairly middle class? Then 1970-1990 had more poor people moving in, possibly even leading to increases in household sizes and masking the neighbourhood's decline followed by very rapid population loss in the next two decades? This is just a guess though, anyone know what was going on here?
Anyways, from 1990 to 2010, the rate of population decline has increased in most of the outer neighbourhoods, although it's still not as high as in some of the older neighbourhoods. It's actually gone down (just the rate, they still lost people) in the greater downtown/midtown area and Southwest, I guess the greater downtown area is starting to stabilize and the Southwest is being stabilized by immigrants.
What's it like in the core now? Obviously some people are finding it desirable, with the cultural amenities, jobs, university, relative walkability. What are crime rates like? Like on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is whatever one of the safest suburbs is (Bloomfield?) and 10 is the average Detroit neighbourhood. I'm guessing it's not a 10, but is it more like a 5? 8? 3? And how about the highly abandoned areas like Poletown and Core City? I mean crimes per square mile are presumably lower but how about per capita? Does spreading the criminal element further apart (lower density) have any positive effect?
*I defined their boundaries myself, since some areas of Detroit don't seem to belong to any named neighbourhood and the neighbourhoods are often pretty small so I looked at larger areas to save time
Another thing is you have these little pockets of wealth like Indian Village, Woodbridge, Boston Edison and Palmer Woods. How are they holding up? I can see why they'd hold up a little longer, the housing being of higher quality means criminals and crappy destructive tenants get kept out longer. Most of these are still pretty small pockets though. I would think break ins would be a major issue. Some of these are surrounded by neighbourhoods that look pretty bad, so I would be surprised if these little enclaves would keep out crime. Yet most of them have relatively little abandoned housing, if any. Then again some of the outer neighbourhoods with the little 40s/50s homes like Greenbriar have relatively little abandonment too (at least for now or as of street view) but that doesn't mean they're not beginning to go abandoned.
Are the houses in these enclaves still home to middle (or even upper) class families? Or are some of them converted into multi-family with lower income tenants? Do you think they would be going downhill now (or are they?) if not for the fact that many of them are close to the core which is seeing a revival? How does the situation compare to places like the Pointes which are close enough to the city to potential be affected by its problems but still have relatively high home prices (at least total, maybe less so per/sf).
Which bring me to another topic: home prices. Looking at real estate listings online, there certainly seem to be a lot of those cheap <$10,000 houses. They're generally not burned out shells though, they look in decent shape from the outside. Is the story different on the inside? Or are they just so cheap because of the neighbourhood? Is there much of a difference in cost between a run down house in a bad neighbourhood and a well maintained one?
edit: You also see a few little developments in Detroit, including places like this where older homes are being abandoned. http://goo.gl/maps/hGs8y
Are these built using government funding?
You have a pretty good basic understanding of the situation. And you are correct in pointing out that the decreasing household size played a part, something which is often not taken into account. Because of the high wages provided by the auto industry, there has always been a push outward from the city into newer and newer areas with many waves and ripples here and there. Also, how diligent the Census takers were could have played a part in the skewed numbers.
Another thing is you have these little pockets of wealth like Indian Village, Woodbridge, Boston Edison and Palmer Woods. How are they holding up? I can see why they'd hold up a little longer, the housing being of higher quality means criminals and crappy destructive tenants get kept out longer. Most of these are still pretty small pockets though. I would think break ins would be a major issue. Some of these are surrounded by neighbourhoods that look pretty bad, so I would be surprised if these little enclaves would keep out crime. Yet most of them have relatively little abandoned housing, if any. Then again some of the outer neighbourhoods with the little 40s/50s homes like Greenbriar have relatively little abandonment too (at least for now or as of street view) but that doesn't mean they're not beginning to go abandoned.
Are the houses in these enclaves still home to middle (or even upper) class families? Or are some of them converted into multi-family with lower income tenants? Do you think they would be going downhill now (or are they?)
These neighborhoods have associations which prevent/discourage multiple family dwellings and they have private security companies.
I've spent most of my life in different areas of Warren, only having just recently moved into the "core". It's really hard to quantify the crime risks here. My hunch is that I'm safer in the core than I was at 9 1/2 Mile/Stephens & Hayes. But I've never had any troubles anywhere I've lived, and the opinions of my neighbors have always varied wildly, so it's difficult to figure their perceptions in.
The big difference I've noticed is that Detroit has more bums, and their presence is in the core is magnified by the wide variety of social services offered in the area coupled with the general walkability of the street grid. You have to deal with a lot more begging, although that rarely poses a real problem, except maybe if you're alone at 3 AM. In Warren, bums mainly hang out near gas stations and convenience stores, but the car-centric lifestyle in Warren keeps pedestrian interactions to a minimum. Even if half the people using the sidewalk in South Warren (below I-696) are bums, you'd barely notice as you sped by in your car.
For the most part, life in the core is fun, with lots of restaurants, bars and events to attend. The atmosphere tends to be more social-oriented than in the suburbs. People are more relaxed, friendly, and outward-looking.
That said, for all the positive developments in the core, there's still a feeling of precariousness to it all. There are tons of neighborhoods that are in desperate need of attention, and if the economy gets hit hard again too soon, a lot of traction could be lost. But overall, I'm optimistic for the core (which, for me, includes Downtown, Midtown, Corktown, Woodbridge, Brush Park, and even New Center), as well Hamtramck and Southwest Detroit (the continued industrialization of the most remote southwestern corner of Detroit should continue to feed money into Mexicantown).
Which brings me to the next topic of conversation...
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph
Anyways, from 1990 to 2010, the rate of population decline has increased in most of the outer neighbourhoods, although it's still not as high as in some of the older neighbourhoods. It's actually gone down (just the rate, they still lost people) in the greater downtown/midtown area and Southwest, I guess the greater downtown area is starting to stabilize and the Southwest is being stabilized by immigrants.
I'm not nearly as optimistic for the rest of Detroit, outside of historic neighborhoods like the Indian Village and Rosedale Park. Most the rest of Detroit is like a giant South Warren mixed with a giant River Rouge/Ecorse. It's essentially suburban in nature, but falls short on almost all metrics when compared to newer suburbs: you have smaller lots, less services, less amenities, and more repair work to do. If you want a suburban neighborhood, there's virtually no reason to choose a neighborhood off of Chicago Street than something out in a modern suburban city, except out of economic desperation.
During the last economic downturn, I know someone that found a decent house in the suburb of Fraser for well under $20,000. With opportunities like that, why the hell would you pick up a suburban house in most areas of Detroit?
I think that's why so many Detroit neighborhoods finally fell apart in the '90s. The construction boom during that decade opened up the inner ring suburbs and outer neighborhoods to Detroiters, as inner ring suburbanites moved north for bigger homes with bigger lots. Troubled areas like Houston-Whitter and Gratiot were abandoned for communities on 7 Mile, while those on 7 Mile left for 8 Mile or 9 Mile.
I've spent most of my life in different areas of Warren, only having just recently moved into the "core". It's really hard to quantify the crime risks here. My hunch is that I'm safer in the core than I was at 9 1/2 Mile/Stephens & Hayes. But I've never had any troubles anywhere I've lived, and the opinions of my neighbors have always varied wildly, so it's difficult to figure their perceptions in.
The big difference I've noticed is that Detroit has more bums, and their presence is in the core is magnified by the wide variety of social services offered in the area coupled with the general walkability of the street grid. You have to deal with a lot more begging, although that rarely poses a real problem, except maybe if you're alone at 3 AM. In Warren, bums mainly hang out near gas stations and convenience stores, but the car-centric lifestyle in Warren keeps pedestrian interactions to a minimum. Even if half the people using the sidewalk in South Warren (below I-696) are bums, you'd barely notice as you sped by in your car.
For the most part, life in the core is fun, with lots of restaurants, bars and events to attend. The atmosphere tends to be more social-oriented than in the suburbs. People are more relaxed, friendly, and outward-looking.
That said, for all the positive developments in the core, there's still a feeling of precariousness to it all. There are tons of neighborhoods that are in desperate need of attention, and if the economy gets hit hard again too soon, a lot of traction could be lost. But overall, I'm optimistic for the core (which, for me, includes Downtown, Midtown, Corktown, Woodbridge, Brush Park, and even New Center), as well Hamtramck and Southwest Detroit (the continued industrialization of the most remote southwestern corner of Detroit should continue to feed money into Mexicantown).
Which brings me to the next topic of conversation...
I'm not nearly as optimistic for the rest of Detroit, outside of historic neighborhoods like the Indian Village and Rosedale Park. Most the rest of Detroit is like a giant South Warren mixed with a giant River Rouge/Ecorse. It's essentially suburban in nature, but falls short on almost all metrics when compared to newer suburbs: you have smaller lots, less services, less amenities, and more repair work to do. If you want a suburban neighborhood, there's virtually no reason to choose a neighborhood off of Chicago Street than something out in a modern suburban city, except out of economic desperation.
During the last economic downturn, I know someone that found a decent house in the suburb of Fraser for well under $20,000. With opportunities like that, why the hell would you pick up a suburban house in most areas of Detroit?
I think that's why so many Detroit neighborhoods finally fell apart in the '90s. The construction boom during that decade opened up the inner ring suburbs and outer neighborhoods to Detroiters, as inner ring suburbanites moved north for bigger homes with bigger lots. Troubled areas like Houston-Whitter and Gratiot were abandoned for communities on 7 Mile, while those on 7 Mile left for 8 Mile or 9 Mile.
So basically the core would probably make middle class families uneasy but is still safe enough for those without children, and being more fun it's relatively desirable.
Hamtramck comes off as having quite a bit of vitality and walkability, and even a relatively successful working class community. I was surprised when according to city-data's profile, it had a median household income lower than Detroit's (city proper) and decreasing relatively fast. Home values there are apparently also a bit lower than Detroit's according to city-data although I'm not sure how reliable that is.
I'm surprised you could get a decent house in Fraser for so little... that's definitely not a good sign for outer Detroit. I'm not sure how these areas could avoid going the way of Poletown and other more close in neighbourhoods.
I'm not sure how you'd avoid having the same issues spreading into inner ring suburbs either though. $20,000 is surprisingly low. In the more stagnant towns here in Ontario like Windsor, Wallaceburg or Chatham, or mining towns like Elliot Lake, the low end of the market is around $50,000. I don't think Metro Detroit's economy is any worse. I looked at listings in some of the inner ring suburbs of Detroit though and yeah, a lot of them have very cheap homes.
According to city-data, several suburbs and satellite towns have experienced decreases in average household incomes. These are the 20 with the biggest decreases (in % terms) ranked according to 2011 household income.
Changes from 2000 to 2011:
River Rouge: $29,214 to $23,555
Inkster: $35,950 to $26,711
Pontiac: $31,207 to $27,183
Mount Clemens: $37,856 to $30,407
Hazel Park: $37,045 to $32,633
Melvindale: $37,954 to $34,077
Lincoln Park: $42,515 to $38,533
Wayne: $46,397 to $38,715
Taylor: $42,944 to $38,926
Harper Woods: $46,769 to $40,449
Belleville: $44,196 to $40,551
Romulus: $45,088 to $40,695
Westland: $46,308 to $41,790
Oak Park: $48,697 to $41,815
South Gate: $46,927 to $42,150
Eastpointe: $46,261 to $42,155
Dearborn Heights: $48,222 to $43,398
Southfield: $51,802 to $46,842
Sterling Heights: $60,494 to $49,865
Lathrup Village: $89,303 to $75,119
For comparison purposes
Highland Park: $17,737 to $18,256
Hamtramck: $26,616 to $22,384
Detroit: $29,526 to $25,193
Ecorse: $27,142 to $26,516
Warren: $44,626 to $41,658
Fraser: $50,339 to $49,243
Much of these suburbs are older inner ring suburbs just beyond Detroit city limits, although there's also Inkster and some neighbouring communities, Pontiac and Mount Clemens.
While these communities aren't as bad as Detroit right now, it does seem like the problems of Detroit, which were initially localized to the core, then spread to the outer neighbourhoods, are now continuing to spread outwards into some of the suburbs. I think these income decreases are sufficiently beyond the metro average that it seems like it couldn't just be the incomes of existing residents decreasing, but also that their home values are decreasing and becoming affordable of lower income households. In the case of Lathrup Village it's probably going from upper middle class to middle class. Harper Woods is still outside Detroit territory, but it could be at a similar stage as Morningside a couple decades earlier.
But if you can get a $20,000 home in Fraser, which seems like it should be one of the better inner suburbs, maybe the households leaving Detroit will end up spread out across a larger area rather than select few inner suburbs?
Coming as someone interested in how neighbourhoods rise and fall, Detroit is a pretty good textbook example, but I'm not from there and I've never been so all I know is basically based on what's available on line.
I'm not so much interested at finding who/what to blame (urban renewal, freeways, corruption, industry, race riots, underfunded pensions and the other usual suspects) as how the process of decline took place, as well as the situation in the nearby suburbs.
One of the first things you notice when looking at the historical demographics of the city is that the decline was not uniform, at least not initially. Looking at population change from 1950 to 1970 (1960 census tract data is hard to find), it looks like people couldn't leave fast enough in the innermost core (Downtown/Midtown, Corktown, Poletown) with the population falling to less than half within those two decades. Was there already a lot of abandonment going on at that time in those areas or was a lot of that decreasing household sizes and urban renewal projects? It's just that I find it surprising that these areas lost so much population despite having actually gained population (albeit very slightly) from 1940 to 1950. The 1967 riots would only have been at the very end of this period, and the 1943 riots didn't cause the population to decline.
Most of the other areas inside Grand Boulevard, New Center/North End, and parts of the Southwest also had pretty intense population loss. The next ring experienced more moderate population loss from 1950 to 1970, moderate enough that it could just be changes in household sizes. The outermost parts of the city, especially the Northwest actually saw pretty substantial population gain, suggesting they actually built new housing (there is indeed housing that looks 1950s vintage in these areas). For that to happen, prices need to be high enough to cover development and construction costs, which means there was a certain level of optimism about these neighbourhoods and that the homes would still be worth something in a few decades, right? Was there a time period in the early 50s where things weren't looking so bad in the city as a whole (and was that when these homes were built, with the population loss in the core happening more late 50s/60s)? Or did the people buying these new homes just think that the problems of the core would remain contained in the core?
Forward to 1990 and now every neighbourhood is losing population. The innermost ones are still losing population fast, but the rapid rate of decline has spread to the next ring of neighbourhoods like Petosky-Otsego and most of the neighbourhoods between Poletown and the Pointes. The outermost neighbourhoods in the Northwest are still seeing relatively modest population loss (15% over two decades, give or take) that could just be due to declining household sizes. Of the neighbourhoods I looked at*, the area around Houston-Whittier and Gratiot lost the least, only 0.8% from 1970-1990, which is actually less than from 1950-1970 (10.5% loss). Does anyone know what was happening here? Because from 1990-2010 it lost 48%, worse than any other neighbourhood other than Delray. It looks like it was turning itself around and then suddenly crashed. Of course population change isn't everything. Maybe this area's 1950-1970 population loss was due to decrease in household size and was still fairly middle class? Then 1970-1990 had more poor people moving in, possibly even leading to increases in household sizes and masking the neighbourhood's decline followed by very rapid population loss in the next two decades? This is just a guess though, anyone know what was going on here?
Anyways, from 1990 to 2010, the rate of population decline has increased in most of the outer neighbourhoods, although it's still not as high as in some of the older neighbourhoods. It's actually gone down (just the rate, they still lost people) in the greater downtown/midtown area and Southwest, I guess the greater downtown area is starting to stabilize and the Southwest is being stabilized by immigrants.
What's it like in the core now? Obviously some people are finding it desirable, with the cultural amenities, jobs, university, relative walkability. What are crime rates like? Like on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is whatever one of the safest suburbs is (Bloomfield?) and 10 is the average Detroit neighbourhood. I'm guessing it's not a 10, but is it more like a 5? 8? 3? And how about the highly abandoned areas like Poletown and Core City? I mean crimes per square mile are presumably lower but how about per capita? Does spreading the criminal element further apart (lower density) have any positive effect?
*I defined their boundaries myself, since some areas of Detroit don't seem to belong to any named neighbourhood and the neighbourhoods are often pretty small so I looked at larger areas to save time
Poor people moved in?? This needs explaining.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zthatzmanz28
Pass the popcorn...even after a million discussions like this one, it is bound to be good...
Well not all of Detroit was a ghetto in 1950 was it? I assume Gratiot/Houston-Whittier was kind of blue collar middle class / working class at one point but I think the demographics went downhill since no? When did that happen? It just seems a bit surprising to have population go
How would you explain the fact that population was decreasing a bit, then stabilized, then plummeted in this neighbourhood?
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.
