Even with the population loss, why all the vacant land? (Detroit: apartment, high crime)

[paiste13]

I was looking at Google Maps this morning and really took a look at how much of Detroit proper is vacant. This made me wonder why, if other cities have lost so much population from their 1950's peak, do some cities not go vacant. I am most familiar with the Twin Cities and the percentage of "city" population vs "suburb" population is about the same as Detroit, why has Detroit lost so many homes when the Twin Cities has not? The answer isn't just "the suburbs" because percentage wise the populations are the same.

Saint Paul MN (peak 313,000 current 285,000 - 10% loss)
Minneapolis MN (peak 521,000 current 385,000 - 27% loss)

[zthatzmanz28]

Some land is being held "hostage" by speculators waiting to turn a huge profit---one day.

Other land is just worthless...what would it be good for besides gardening?

[313Weather]

Yes, Detroit lost a much larger percentage of its peak population than any other city. It's very rare to see a city going from having nearly 2 million people and being the 4th/5th largest city in the country to possibly less than 500,000 in less than a century and not even cracking the top 20 largest cities.

That said, comparing Detroit to Minneapolis isn't fair to Detroit from a historical perspective. I think a better comparison is Philadelphia and Detroit, since both of their land areas and peak population numbers are/were just about identical. While Philadelphia has stopped shrinking at 1.5 million from its peak of 2 million (25% less than its peak population), Detroit's probably well on its way to falling below 500,000 by 2020 (65%-70%).

Same with Chicago. Although Chicago has lost 1 million people since 1950, that only accounts for 25% of their population.

[kettlepot]

Another thing to consider is in what manner has the population declined. For many cities, population declined because families of 5 or 6 people moved out, and a single person or couple with no kids moved in to take their place. We don't really think about it, but Manhattan's population has declined substantially from its peak population. 2.5m in 1900 to 1.8m today (from memory - haven't fact checked that), and we still consider Manhattan to be a healthy center city.

This will sound harsh, but in Detroit's situation, families of 5 and 6 moved out, but even singles and childless couples couldn't be persuaded to take their places. Because of that, a lot more properties went vacant.

[313Weather]

Originally Posted by kettlepot

Another thing to consider is in what manner has the population declined. For many cities, population declined because families of 5 or 6 people moved out, and a single person or couple with no kids moved in to take their place. We don't really think about it, but Manhattan's population has declined substantially from its peak population. 2.5m in 1900 to 1.8m today (from memory - haven't fact checked that), and we still consider Manhattan to be a healthy center city.

This will sound harsh, but in Detroit's situation, families of 5 and 6 moved out, but even singles and childless couples couldn't be persuaded to take their places. Because of that, a lot more properties went vacant.

That's true as well.

A lot of Detroit's homes were either two-family flats or single family. As a result, when one or both families moved out, there was no one left behind to occupy the property and it eventually had to be demolished.

That's unlike the situation cities such as Philadelphia where, even with its population decline, it has/had multi-family units where people still reside in them after some of the families left.

[fmax]

Basically, Detroit is vacant because the smart people left and modern War Lords moved in.


Black mob hijacks store: 'We own this'

Cops respond 9 hours after clerk attacked, say 'hire security'



EDITOR’S NOTE: The links in the following report may contain offensive language.
Even the old-timers in Detroit never have seen anything like this: A mob of 40 black people moved into a convenience store and will not leave.


They say they now own it. They eat. Smoke. Cuss.Threaten. Spit. Rob. Sell drugs. All on video.


Police, ministers, neighbors, the store owner and just about everyone else seems powerless to stop them.
“It’s a Bad Crew gas station,” said one of the mob to the local Fox affiliate. “If you don’t know what that is, I can’t even tell you.”


The owner calls police, but nothing happens. The police “come here and then they leave. Two minutes later they (the mob) are back.”


Black mob hijacks store: ‘We own this’

[animatedmartian]

A lot of what Detroit lost in some areas were apartment buildings.



Estimated population density in 1950 (image is from 1952) was 60,000+ ppsm.



Today, I don't even think it breaks 6,000 ppsm. It basically was suburbanfication because people were moving out of the apartment buildings and in single family homes. Detroit's west side has primarily SFH and has not experienced the same decay that the core has. Also much of what is left in Detroit is SFH.

[313 TUxedo]

Originally Posted by paiste13

I was looking at Google Maps this morning and really took a look at how much of Detroit proper is vacant. This made me wonder why, if other cities have lost so much population from their 1950's peak, do some cities not go vacant. I am most familiar with the Twin Cities and the percentage of "city" population vs "suburb" population is about the same as Detroit, why has Detroit lost so many homes when the Twin Cities has not? The answer isn't just "the suburbs" because percentage wise the populations are the same.

Saint Paul MN (peak 313,000 current 285,000 - 10% loss)
Minneapolis MN (peak 521,000 current 385,000 - 27% loss)

I've mentioned this effect in many posts here on City-Data before.

A drop in population does not necessarily equal urban blight or abandonment. Loss of occupied households is usually caused by blight, but the population within those households is linked to aging families (adult children leaving their parents' homes) and changes in family lifestyles (families having fewer children).

In Detroit's case, the peak of about 1.9 M was not sustainable. Detroit would have fallen to about 1.3 M under the best of circumstances. All the problems of the past 50 years have made it about .55 M (not a typo - the city has lost a lot of people since the 2010 census).

[Retroit]

Detroit has gotten to be such a bad place to live that people don't want to live there even if very inexpensive homes are available. So the homes are either condemned and torn down or become subject to arson.

The reason that Detroit became such a bad place to live is mostly due to social factors, including high crime rate, poor schools, lack of pride in home-ownership, etc. All of this is aggravated by poor race relations, decline in the auto industry's presence in the city, government and cultural encouragement of suburbanization, etc.