 
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 527
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2008 - 2:59 pm: |    |
"I would say that Detroit is really the only city that has seen serious decline since the 1970's."
Try getting around town to places like Highland Park or Inkster and let us know if that's still your story.
To DTWFlyer, Troy shouldn't be seeing a drop at all. If you go to SEMCOG's data, you can see the reason for the drop-off. The percentage of vacant residential units has gone from 2.8% to 4.7% since 2000. In the same time, Troy added 1700 housing units. That means more homes, condos, apts. but also more of them that are vacant. I would bet that many suburban communities are seeing the same shift. |
Hudkina
Member
Username: Hudkina
Post Number: 199
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2008 - 5:52 pm: | |
I was going to mention Highland Park, but considering it might as well be Detroit, I didn't. Also, Inkster is just as bad as it ever was. It was created in the 1920's as an American-style "ghetto" and was never any better off than it is now.
I'm more referring to places like Royal Oak, Livonia, St. Clair Shores, etc. that lost a significant amount of people between the 70's and 90's, but are still relatively stable and healthy communities. Even places like Lincoln Park, Warren, and Redford that might have obsolete storefronts along their main corridors which make people think the places have gone downhill, still have relatively healthy residential neighborhoods. The only difference is that it is harder for small retail to survive when competing against the likes of Wal-Mart or The Home Depot. |
Hudkina
Member
Username: Hudkina
Post Number: 200
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2008 - 5:56 pm: | |
BTW, I'm not talking about the post-war housing boom. I'm talking about the post-70's inner-ring population slump. Some suburbs lost over 40% of their population, but did so under different circumstances than what occurred in Detroit during the same period. Granted, it is true that even if Detroit hadn't gone into wholesale decline in different areas, it's population still would only be around 1.5 million people... |
Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 2131
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2008 - 6:03 pm: | |
Hudkina, that's better than nothing.
If Detroit didn't loose all of its infrastructure during the riots (not trying to start a discussion) and during the 80s, we would simply be a twin Philadelphia.
Of course, look where they're at compared to us... |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 2307
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2008 - 6:06 pm: | |
Noted, Hud. Still, I think we can dig deeper. More of this narrative of Detroit passively "going into decline" isn't going to help us understand what we're dealing with here. And, I swear, that's what I'd like to see, even though I know I sound like a nag.  |
Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 2132
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2008 - 6:12 pm: | |
Well, we can't continue to dig for something that may not be there.  |
Spacemonkey
Member
Username: Spacemonkey
Post Number: 597
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2008 - 7:04 pm: | |
I went to the Detroit Zoo today. |
Atwater
Member
Username: Atwater
Post Number: 203
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2008 - 7:26 pm: | |
quote:oak park isnt declining interesting.
Steelworker-
Oak Park has a very strong religious Jewish community, one that actually attracts other religious Jews from elsewhere in metro Detroit and from elsewhere in the country. |
Hudkina
Member
Username: Hudkina
Post Number: 201
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2008 - 8:17 pm: | |
I don't think anyone is saying that it's a good thing that areas are declining, but stagnation isn't necessarily a bad thing. The idea that a city needs to grow by 3% a year to be "healthy" is ridiculous. Ultimately if a city is sustainable and prosperous, it's not that big of a deal if it added or lost 0.3% of its population in the last year.
Detroit is a different story, though, as it not only has a smaller population than it did before, but it also is poorer.
While I would love nothing more than to see a complete stop to sprawl on the edge of the metro and densification of the core and inner-ring, I'm certainly not lamenting over a loss of 257 people in Troy...
BTW, an interesting statistic, if every community in the Tri-County area had maintained its peak population, it would have a population of 5.41 million people compared to the 4.04 million people that lived in the area in 2000.
Here is a picture:
|
Hudkina
Member
Username: Hudkina
Post Number: 202
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2008 - 8:22 pm: | |
One thing I find interesting is that many people often cite Southfield as being the "worst" inner-ring suburb, yet it is the only inner-ring suburb that hasn't seen its population decline.
It just goes to show you that a loss or gain in population isn't the ultimate barometer of the health and stability of a community. |
Reddog289
Member
Username: Reddog289
Post Number: 292
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, May 17, 2008 - 4:10 am: | |
Who did the map? looks like Wayne the City i live in shows 1980 to 1990. from what i see most of the houses here are from 1960 on back. I grew up in Garden City, then Westland, also Detroit from the time spent at my Grandparents, since i have lived in Wayne i have seen many people just pack up and go. But working at 2 schools in my city i,d say the new kids coming in are from Detroit while the ones going out ain,t staying in Michigan.as it has been Detroits loss suburbs gain. I hate to see them orange stickers anywere, Detroit or The burbs. |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3120
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, May 17, 2008 - 9:22 am: | |
quote:I don't think anyone is saying that it's a good thing that areas are declining, but stagnation isn't necessarily a bad thing. The idea that a city needs to grow by 3% a year to be "healthy" is ridiculous. Ultimately if a city is sustainable and prosperous, it's not that big of a deal if it added or lost 0.3% of its population in the last year.
Stagnant populations are often indicative of stalled economies. You want an example? Cleveland... Pittsburgh... Detroit... Japan.
Metro Detroit has virtually not grown since the 1960s. That means the place is virtually the same size - population wise - as it was during the 1967 riots. The cause for concern is that of the top 5 largest metropolitan areas in 1950, 1960, 1970 and 1980, the list did not change in any of those decades, Detroit is the only metro that is no longer in the top 5. Not only is it not in the top 5, but it's not even in the top 10 anymore.
What does this mean? This means that something is very wrong. Metro Detroit has not grown at a rate to keep pace with comparable cities during a the exact same time period. That's a problem. All signs are saying that metropolitan Detroit is not healthy, but instead dying. What's so hard to acknowledge about that?
Keep up the complacency and Detroit will be a Youngstown, OH in 50 years. |
Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 2136
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, May 17, 2008 - 9:25 am: | |
Agreed Iheartthed. |
Mwilbert
Member
Username: Mwilbert
Post Number: 228
Registered: 11-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, May 17, 2008 - 9:35 am: | |
It is kind of obvious what is wrong. Detroit is the only one of those cities that was/is a one-industry manufacturing center. It was on the wrong side of history. It is actually kind of surprising the that metro area hasn't shrunk more in population before now.
But the bulk of the job losses have already occurred, and the question is what happens next. It is possible that everyone mobile leaves, and you end up with a region consisting pretty much of the poor and elderly, but that fact that is still has so many people left makes me somewhat optimistic that other people will want to stay. I am concerned that with rising energy costs, substantial heating requirements, and minimal transit, a lot of people are going to have to leave for financial reasons. I expect we will have a lot better idea what it happening in five years. |
Danny
Member
Username: Danny
Post Number: 7358
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, May 17, 2008 - 11:42 am: | |
All is not loss for some suburbs.
Macomb TWP. has experienced a sudden population boom from 50,000 in 2000 to 75,000 in 2008.
Sterling Heights population is over 126,000 people and growing.
Dearborn's population is now over 101,000
Canton TWP's population is over 90,000 people.
How come these cities booming while this state is going to self-recession and then later nationwide recession? Are they any jobs out there or just more middle class families want to get far away from Detroit as possible. |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3122
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, May 17, 2008 - 1:25 pm: | |
quote:It is kind of obvious what is wrong. Detroit is the only one of those cities that was/is a one-industry manufacturing center. It was on the wrong side of history. It is actually kind of surprising the that metro area hasn't shrunk more in population before now.
So why is it that a metro of Detroit's size couldn't attract other industry while other areas were able to do so? |
Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 2139
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, May 17, 2008 - 1:36 pm: | |
Well, we simply weren't using the right tactics like all the other regions. |
Mwilbert
Member
Username: Mwilbert
Post Number: 229
Registered: 11-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, May 17, 2008 - 2:58 pm: | |
"So why is it that a metro of Detroit's size couldn't attract other industry while other areas were able to do so?"
Because Detroit-area wage rates were so much higher than anywhere else. In the mid-70s, average manufacturing wages in the Detroit area were close to twice the national average, and probably 20% higher than the next highest area.
So other businesses went elsewhere. It is a good problem to have until industry supplying the jobs starts shrinking. There are certainly other reasons too, but this is a major one. |
Hudkina
Member
Username: Hudkina
Post Number: 206
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, May 17, 2008 - 5:14 pm: | |
Iheartted, Detroit just happened to be on the wrong border. A lot of the cities that "passed" Detroit over the last 30 years were aided by a large influx of hispanics from Latin America. In fact some of them would have otherwise seen a population decline. For example, the non-hispanic population of Los Angeles County is smaller today than it was in 1970. If it had been the other way around and Canadians were streaming into the U.S. at the rate Latin Americans have over the last 30 years, cities like Detroit, Seattle, Boston, etc. would be much higher than they are right now.
Also, you have to realize that Detroit's metropolitan footprint is tiny compared to some other metros. Dallas' MSA covers an area of nearly 9,000 sq. mi. In comparison Detroit's MSA footprint is less than 4,000 sq. mi. Even with Ann Arbor, Flint, and Monroe the footprint is still only about 5,800 sq. mi. Detroit could absorb Toledo and Lansing into its metro area and it would still have a smaller footprint than Dallas.
And again, how does having a few cities pass it in population have any affect on the well being of a particular metropolitan area? Boston is another metropolitan area that has been surpassed by cities like Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Miami, Washington, etc. over the last 30 years, but I wouldn't say that it is any better or worse because of that. |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3123
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, May 18, 2008 - 7:54 pm: | |
quote:Iheartted, Detroit just happened to be on the wrong border. A lot of the cities that "passed" Detroit over the last 30 years were aided by a large influx of hispanics from Latin America. In fact some of them would have otherwise seen a population decline. For example, the non-hispanic population of Los Angeles County is smaller today than it was in 1970. If it had been the other way around and Canadians were streaming into the U.S. at the rate Latin Americans have over the last 30 years, cities like Detroit, Seattle, Boston, etc. would be much higher than they are right now.
What about Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, etc., that also benefited from immigration? |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3124
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, May 18, 2008 - 7:57 pm: | |
quote:
Because Detroit-area wage rates were so much higher than anywhere else. In the mid-70s, average manufacturing wages in the Detroit area were close to twice the national average, and probably 20% higher than the next highest area.
So other businesses went elsewhere. It is a good problem to have until industry supplying the jobs starts shrinking. There are certainly other reasons too, but this is a major one.
Then how does a place like New York or San Francisco attract industry with a similar problem of high average wages/cost of living? |
Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 2149
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, May 18, 2008 - 8:18 pm: | |
"What about Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, etc., that also benefited from immigration?"
Those cities were able to keep their immigrants. |
Mwilbert
Member
Username: Mwilbert
Post Number: 230
Registered: 11-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, May 18, 2008 - 8:49 pm: | |
They don't. Both have lost industrial jobs. They just always have had more diversified economies, so losing manufacturing jobs isn't as big a problem. San Francisco never had that much industry. New York of course did, and still has a lot of manufacturing jobs, but they have lost a lot more.
They attract other businesses by being perhaps the two most atypical American cities, because New York has been the center of American business and finance (and a lot of other things) for nearly 200 years, and because San Francisco is the urban center of the country's most important technology and venture capital hub. Some people also think San Francisco is really pretty.
And wages for unskilled and semi-skilled labor in those cities still were not as high as in Detroit. Partly as a result of those high wages, there was less value placed on higher education, leaving the Detroit area one of the less educated regions of the country. It is hard to overestimate the extent to which the auto industry both built and warped the economy of southeastern Michigan. |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 2308
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 19, 2008 - 12:13 pm: | |
Dyes Strategy 101: Blame the Unions. ;) |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3126
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Monday, May 19, 2008 - 2:27 pm: | |
quote:They don't. Both have lost industrial jobs. They just always have had more diversified economies, so losing manufacturing jobs isn't as big a problem. San Francisco never had that much industry. New York of course did, and still has a lot of manufacturing jobs, but they have lost a lot more.
They attract other businesses by being perhaps the two most atypical American cities, because New York has been the center of American business and finance (and a lot of other things) for nearly 200 years, and because San Francisco is the urban center of the country's most important technology and venture capital hub. Some people also think San Francisco is really pretty.
You missed the point of what I said. Detroit being a major city, in the league of the most major of cities in this country, was not able to diversify it's industry base. This is what other cities did to survive. Industry does not strictly mean manufacturing; it can be technology, health care, entertainment, financial, etc.
Why wasn't Detroit flexible enough to adapt to a changing environment without nearly dying out?
Heck, if Detroit had even just embraced the foreign auto companies more than it did then it wouldn't be in the same situation economically speaking. |
Miketoronto
Member
Username: Miketoronto
Post Number: 868
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 19, 2008 - 3:52 pm: | |
Detroit's suburbs seem pretty well off and just fine to me whenever I visit.
I think people tend to forget that Detroit's suburbs have some of the highest family incomes in the nation, and that auto companies are not the major employers for sububanites. May have been in the past, but I would think that office jobs, etc are the bigger employer to suburbanites now. And not all those office jobs have to do with auto companies.
Suburban Detroiters are pretty well off.
All my family members in suburban Detroit seem to live life just like suburbanites in other parts of the country. They don't seem to have issues with jobs or paying mortages.
Is there need for regional ideas, and making the region more healthy? Yes there is. But at the end of the day the majority of Metro Detroiters live very well. |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 2313
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 19, 2008 - 3:53 pm: | |
Sure, suburban Detroit life is terrific, especially if you like living without seeing your children or grandchildren ever again. |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3127
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Monday, May 19, 2008 - 4:27 pm: | |
quote:Detroit's suburbs seem pretty well off and just fine to me whenever I visit.
I think people tend to forget that Detroit's suburbs have some of the highest family incomes in the nation, and that auto companies are not the major employers for sububanites. May have been in the past, but I would think that office jobs, etc are the bigger employer to suburbanites now. And not all those office jobs have to do with auto companies.
Suburban Detroiters are pretty well off.
All my family members in suburban Detroit seem to live life just like suburbanites in other parts of the country. They don't seem to have issues with jobs or paying mortages.
Is there need for regional ideas, and making the region more healthy? Yes there is. But at the end of the day the majority of Metro Detroiters live very well.
If the suburbs were doing just fine then the economy would not be the biggest issue in Michigan right now. |
Bragaboutme
Member
Username: Bragaboutme
Post Number: 240
Registered: 02-2008
| | Posted on Monday, May 19, 2008 - 5:10 pm: | |
I know for a fact that when you turn your back on the core city the world turns their nose up to you. The regional thinking comes off as divided and arrogant. It wasn't until recently, when business started moving back downtown, that industries in this area and leaders started receiving praises. The text message scandal aside this region was getting nothing but positive press.
In 2000 the talk was of new things to come, but just like the depression halted progress then, the War in Iraq halted many projects for detroit and other industries now.
The population loss has been going on since the late forties, early fifties so their is no surprise about that. The one thing that amazes me is the fact that our region no matter how good we are doing always harp on the bad, and that is the Main reason our region is the way it is. People that grow up here are taught to leave as soon as you get a chance when there is truly no problem going on in their life to start with. Be it from the suburbs or the city itself people are saying they want out of Michigan period, and if you have a regional mentality like that then we will always be held from achieving any type of real success. |
Retroit
Member
Username: Retroit
Post Number: 86
Registered: 04-2008
| | Posted on Monday, May 19, 2008 - 5:17 pm: | |
Tri-County Population by year (U.S. Census)
1930: 2,177,343
1940: 2,377,329
1950: 3,016,197
1960: 3,762,360
1970: 4,199,931
1980: 4,044,284
1990: 3,912,679
2000: 4,043,467
2007 Estimate: 4,022,267
Other than that, I agree with everything Hudkina said. |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 11783
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 19, 2008 - 5:20 pm: | |
Of course the next 10-20 years will show the impact of the retiring boomers and less births due to the younger crowd leaving.
This same chart with numbers for 2010 and 2020 will be nothing short of disturbing. Ignoring reality doesn't change it. |
Retroit
Member
Username: Retroit
Post Number: 87
Registered: 04-2008
| | Posted on Monday, May 19, 2008 - 5:38 pm: | |
Tri-County Population by year (DetroitYES Pessimist Club estimates)
2010: 1,659,398
2020: 598,389
2030: 128,895
2040: 28,875
2050: 4,783
2060: 690
2070: 39
2080: 0 |
Hudkina
Member
Username: Hudkina
Post Number: 207
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2008 - 2:30 am: | |
I know. I would bet anyone that the Tri-County area will indeed have more than 4,043,467 people in 2010. It might not be much more, but I honestly think the Census Bureau is underestimating the population of the area.
It certainly wouldn't be the first time. Chicago was underestimated by nearly 200,000 between the estimate in 1999 and the actual count 2000. |
Mwilbert
Member
Username: Mwilbert
Post Number: 231
Registered: 11-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2008 - 5:07 am: | |
"I would bet anyone that the Tri-County area will indeed have more than 4,043,467 people in 2010"
I would bet not. I don't think the region as a whole is gaining population and people are still moving into the outer counties.
We will see, eventually. |
Hpgrmln
Member
Username: Hpgrmln
Post Number: 469
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 20, 2008 - 8:22 am: | |
I think dtwflyer is on to something, but 1 small correction. Troy's population is well over 50k. Its even well past 75k now.
The Somerset Apartment complex has over 3000 units and is popular with foreigners either new to this country or only taking a US job for a few years (largely Indian). This is largely true of the apartments north of 75 and west of Rochester as well. Yet, new condos and infill developments keep popping up there. I would bet apartment vacancies have a lot to do with the 250-person loss, especially considering that apartments there are not priced very low and therefore are not very competitive.
People also hold on to their homes there. I grew up there and my parents are empty nesters still holding on to their house.
I would expect the population to fluctuate by a few hundred people annually. |
|
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.