 
Pgn421
Member
Username: Pgn421
Post Number: 561
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 3:35 pm: |    |
whaler- How have you been? |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3112
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 3:36 pm: | |
quote:Thanks, Wazooty. It couldn't be that things in the region actually ARE bad and that we're facing the music. Nope. It's all just negativity. Everything's fine. Nothing to see here. Let's start endless "happy talk" threads where we just focus on the positive. Much better ... :P
Haha... When SEMCOG projects Detroit proper to lose another 200,000 people it's because of "crime and services". When SEMCOG says the suburbs are losing population too it's because nobody is having sex anymore. Mmkay.
It couldn't possibly be because all of the kids who up in metro Detroit end up running full speed away from it. And all of the migrants who would otherwise be attractive to such a large, functioning metropolis... aren't attracted there because it's not a functioning metropolis? Mmkay. |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 11750
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 3:39 pm: | |
Kind of like the bakery closing in Livonia. A bakery closes in Livonia and they are victims of grain prices increasing. A bakery closes in Detroit and it's because you just can't do business in Detroit.
I was thinking the same thing but I didn't want to start the fight that would follow but since the pandora's box was opened..... |
Rushbuzz1013
Member
Username: Rushbuzz1013
Post Number: 26
Registered: 02-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 3:46 pm: | |
I live in a small enclave in the burbs. There are 3 families (of 11) that are saying goodbye to their college grad kids, who are moving to take up new grounds outside of Michigan. Small percentage, granted. Please excuse the cliche...but, we are losing our most valuable commodity. The Brain Drain will affect us long into the future. And, it affects all of Michigan, not just Dtown and subs. |
Whaler
Member
Username: Whaler
Post Number: 77
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 3:48 pm: | |
PGN are you going to Crabbies saturday???? |
Craig
Member
Username: Craig
Post Number: 794
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 3:50 pm: | |
I say take with a grain of salt the claim made by any small business which has gone under. Anyone else remember the wave of "store closing due to 9/11" sales in '02? As though 9/11 caused clothing and hardware stores to close just months later... |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 2293
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 3:50 pm: | |
I kind of get the idea that every other home in the suburbs could be vacant and some on this forum would still insist that it's not a regional problem and that their little slice of the suburbs is fine and dandy.
Never underestimate the power of denial.
That said, this isn't suburb-bashing, y'all. These disturbing statistics show that we are suffering as a region. That means Detroit AND the suburbs. Soon even the exurbs. And how do you fight regional problems? With regional organization, and an acknowledgment that our livelihoods are all interconnected. |
Sean_of_detroit
Member
Username: Sean_of_detroit
Post Number: 339
Registered: 03-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 4:23 pm: | |
Wazooty and others had it right for some suburbs. Empty nesters are not leaving their big empty homes. Most young people can't afford houses in many of our suburbs. The phenomena is actually a multiple headed dragon. You also have the housing crisis, increased border security/reduced alien immigration, the brain drain/young leaving, virtually no public transit, climate change awareness, increased costs of living (harder to make a down payment in a nicer area), poor economy, poor planning history, lack of jobs, lack of leadership (in some areas), and probably about a dozen other things that have been mentioned in the past on this site that I can't think of right now.
It's really the mix of a perfect storm going over a bunch of people who have built their homes along the sand. I am going to go out on a limb, and say that many here are just as bothered by the ignorance around here as I am. Just saying, many have been saying this was going to happen for years.
As to where all the people are going; it's one of four places. The first is they are dying faster than they are being born (as mentioned above). The generation after the boomers is the smallest. That transition is going to be a little rocky. Once that generation after the boomers is gone, things should become more stable (?). As to the other locations? They are either fueling the new construction in Detroit, or in the exurbs. Look at all the new construction/rehabs in both places STILL GOING ON as we speak (much more in the exurbs than Detroit). That is despite the declining population. The fourth location, is of course, out of state.
Detroitnerd, I like the happy talk threads. It's much easier to ignore what is happening around here...
...To bad it's not reality. 
Jt1's post above this one is interesting. Livonia and other's future is murky. I would cautiously say that they could be slowly becoming Detroit's past state. Detroit was once losing people that slowly too. If something is not done there, some big "storm" (with power even remotely close to the 1967 riots) will come and accelerate things. That is, unless they/we are lucky. I am just guessing, but the odds are probably for SOMETHING to happen that would fit that description.
Maybe Detroit can take advantage of this, if it happens. If we time it with even a small increase in quality of services, can we say that "all the criminals have moved to the suburbs"? 
Kidding. |
Fishtoes2000
Member
Username: Fishtoes2000
Post Number: 524
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 4:51 pm: | |
Royal Oak's population has dropped 33% (over 28,000 people!) since 1970. That drop is far more than those mentioned above.
Holy cow! What a crisis! Where are all the vacant houses? Can we blame it on ethanol?
In fact, since the 70's, Royal Oak as added a few thousands households and continues to do so through higher-density multi-family dwellings.
The answer is the household size has decreased dramatically. Royal Oak has roughly one fewer persons living in each household since 1970. It's a trend that's common across the Detroit's older suburbs.
The only problem we have an over supply of school facilities. Most of those people we lost were kids.
I'm not saying we shouldn't act regionally, but this ain't no crisis. |
Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 2124
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 4:59 pm: | |
Maybe the reason could be the lack of a magnet to keep our babies here.
Thousands of children are born daily across the metro area.
However, the parents either move because the lack of jobs, the child ends up in Jackson State, or the child simply leaves elsewhere for a better life.
And when the boomers here die off, there won't be too many people left. |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3113
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 5:01 pm: | |
quote:
I'm not saying we shouldn't act regionally, but this ain't no crisis.
It's no crisis that Metropolitan Detroit went from being the 5th largest metropolitan area in 1980 to the 11th in 2008?
For good measure, the other 4 metropolitan areas that made up the top 5 in 1980 are still in the top 5 in 2008. |
Wazootyman
Member
Username: Wazootyman
Post Number: 349
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 5:02 pm: | |
Detroitnerd - However absurd my statements may appear, multiply that by an order of magnitude in the opposite direction, and that's how I feel about your negative responses. I don't think anybody can ignore what is happening around here. Times are tough. But, it's not ALL bad.
Consider the recent announcement by The Economic Development Coalition of Southeast Michigan, announcing that in 2007, their efforts brought 16,000+ new jobs, retained almost 10,000 and encouraged over four billion dollars in investment. Unless I missed it, I don't recall that being a topic of discussion on this board.
I didn't imply that everything was just fine - yes, people are moving out. Less - but not none - are moving in. But why blanket the estimated population loss as a universal "decline" instead of considering both the positive and negative causes.
In the next few months, I have friends from Syracuse re-locating here to begin residency at Henry Ford, with standing offers for post-school employment. A friend of the girlfriend is moving from Virginia to begin work at a Troy accounting firm. A high school friend is moving from Grand Rapids to begin a new job in Detroit.
Cruise on over to the Grand Rapids forum on UrbanPlanet and get a feel for the discussions there. Obviously West Michigan isn't feeling the hurt quite as badly as we are (with their weaker automotive ties), but they're not exactly prospering, either. They suffer the same Michigan woes that we all do. Yet, the topics are positive and constructive, and in general fairly upbeat about their community.
You can say that I'm in a dream world where everything is "fine and dandy". I'm not. I work in the automotive industry. I see the pain daily. It's just counterproductive and downright unhealthy to constantly dwell on how "awful" everything is. |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 11757
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 5:03 pm: | |
quote:I'm not saying we shouldn't act regionally, but this ain't no crisis
That reminds me of Kevin Bacon in Animal House insisting all is well while the crowd tramples him. Everyone in this region needs to relaize that we are all in a very rough place, city, suburbs and exurbs. The Detroit boogeyman can't be blamed any longer as we are all feeling the crunch. |
Sean_of_detroit
Member
Username: Sean_of_detroit
Post Number: 340
Registered: 03-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 5:27 pm: | |
Royal Oak may be doing okay, but that might not matter. What matters is the region (and state) as a whole. If majority faults, we all feel it.
Wazootyman, don't feel bad. I've been accused of being in a dream world on here ever sense I started expressing positive views and defending a couple of the people on here. In reality I just try to look from different views, and try to control my attitude. Kind of like you implied about the Grand Rapids forum. It seems to be a common thing to be given that label around here. Nothing to worry about.
Then again, maybe it's better to be in a dream world. I like to see the city for it's potential, and try to work to make it happen. To me, it's just better than simply excepting the way things are. I guess I am dreaming... |
Umbound
Member
Username: Umbound
Post Number: 149
Registered: 02-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 5:47 pm: | |
Hey Whaler what street exactly? i and a friend might be interested. |
Fishtoes2000
Member
Username: Fishtoes2000
Post Number: 525
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 5:50 pm: | |
quote:It's no crisis that Metropolitan Detroit went from being the 5th largest metropolitan area in 1980 to the 11th in 2008?
No, it's not.
What is the crisis that Metro Detroit's population growth is just into the positive? Who cares what we rank within the U.S. or world? Rankings have no bearing on the quality of life or health of our region.
And we've been passed by regions experiencing non-sustainable growth rates. If you want to see a crisis, just watch them try to provide water for their population.
Oh, and San Francisco is getting passed as well. Are they in a crisis too? No, of course not. |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3114
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 10:04 pm: | |
quote:No, it's not.
What is the crisis that Metro Detroit's population growth is just into the positive? Who cares what we rank within the U.S. or world? Rankings have no bearing on the quality of life or health of our region.
And we've been passed by regions experiencing non-sustainable growth rates. If you want to see a crisis, just watch them try to provide water for their population.
Oh, and San Francisco is getting passed as well. Are they in a crisis too? No, of course not.
Metro Detroit is not growing. It's been stagnant at best for the past 30 years. Now it's very likely both shrinking and growing older quickly.
Also, the population of the Bay Area is not stagnant. It's actually grown at a good rate over the past 30 years unlike Detroit. |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 524
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 11:05 pm: | |
For the past 30 years at least, the population has simply been sprawling outward. Detroit emptied out into the suburbs and with a few exceptions, that population wave has finally reached its ebb. Now we're seeing the hollowing out of the suburbs. True, in places like Royal Oak, much of the population loss has been due to shrinking family sizes. But places like Troy should still be growing. I wouldn't be surprised if Novi's population in 2010 is actually less than the current projections. There's no new residential development taking place and a lot of evidence that people are leaving for other parts of the country. If gas prices continue to increase, it's going to be a lot more expensive for people to live here and work elsewhere and some people may move back to places like Royal Oak or Livonia to cut down on those costs. |
Hudkina
Member
Username: Hudkina
Post Number: 195
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2008 - 12:48 am: | |
It would actually be a good thing if Novi's population is lower than the estimates suggest. It would be a great thing if Livingston County's population is lower than the estimates suggest.
Also, I think a lot of people are going to be surprised at how many inner-ring suburbs might see an uptick (if only slightly) in their populations by 2010. It happened in Hamtramck between 1990 and 2000 (when its population rose by 25%) and it is likely to happen in some of the other inner-ring suburbs.
In fact I think that we might start seeing trends back into the inner-ring. Places like Macomb TWP and Brownstown TWP that were the fastest growing areas of the metro throughout much of the past decade will probably start seeing stagnation, while cities like Livonia, Royal Oak, St. Clair Shores, etc. will probably start seeing more and more newer families replace the aging empty-nesters.
BTW, why does it seem that people have to be entirely "doom and gloom"? Why can't we accept that, yes the region has some serious problems, but that it doesn't mean that the majority of the people here can't live a typical American lifestyle. Believe it or not, but most people in this region do get up and go to work every day! Yes, it is true that most people do actually pay their mortgage on time!
You'd be surprised how many people in supposed "meccas" such as Las Vegas or Charlotte bitch and moan about the state of their cities. The grass may certainly seem greener on the other side, but pound for pound, this side isn't too shabby either.
Sure, Metro Detroit's unemployment rate might be 7%, while much of the rest of the nation is at around 5%, but if you really think about it. Is 93 out of 100 people working really the end of the world compared to 95 out of 100?
And yes, Metro Detroit once topped the nation in foreclosures (though it isn't near the top anymore) but the actually difference between the highest city and the lowest city was only a couple of percentage points. That's like getting a 97% on a test and thinking you're a failure because everyone else in the class got closer to a 99%.
Sure the local news needs you to buy their papers and watch their newscasts, so yes they have to scare you, otherwise they won't make any money. Yes, many people do fall for it, because they don't know any better, but all in all, no city in the history of the world is or was perfect. Detroit just happens to be a little further away from perfection than some other ones... |
French777
Member
Username: French777
Post Number: 438
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2008 - 6:15 am: | |
The Roc is cutting down forest and building new subs all the time!
Maybe that is Oakland Township? |
Danny
Member
Username: Danny
Post Number: 7355
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2008 - 8:09 am: | |
Steelworker
Oak Park's population had been increasing for the past 2 years. This is due to growing black communities along 9 Mile and Coolidge area. Plus a handful of Hasidic Jews and Chaldeans rae hanging on to their areas despite an economic recession. These groups of ethnic people have families to feed and serve so they can't leave the Metro-Detroit area. |
Danny
Member
Username: Danny
Post Number: 7356
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2008 - 8:12 am: | |
Johnlodge
You can check the factual population data on Semcog.org. |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3115
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2008 - 8:19 am: | |
quote:Also, I think a lot of people are going to be surprised at how many inner-ring suburbs might see an uptick (if only slightly) in their populations by 2010. It happened in Hamtramck between 1990 and 2000 (when its population rose by 25%) and it is likely to happen in some of the other inner-ring suburbs.
I'm pretty sure that the Hamtramck population increase was due to foreign immigrants moving to the area. |
Kpm
Member
Username: Kpm
Post Number: 90
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2008 - 8:26 am: | |
Bsu -- we chose Berkley for many of the same reasons you list! It is a great community for so many reasons! There are SOOOO many young families... |
Dtwflyer
Member
Username: Dtwflyer
Post Number: 67
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2008 - 10:01 am: | |
I'm going to raise some opinions about what I have seen regarding the suburbs/sprawl/demographics.
Royal Oak/Berkley/Ferndale/Oak Park:
These suburbs appear to be shrinking mostly due to a change in demographics. There are a lot few families with children in these areas than there used to be 10,20,30 years ago. Evidence of this - just look at the school system. Royal Oak closed 3 elementaries - combined them into a single middle school building, closed another middle school and consolidated them in a high school and (Dondero) and mergered the districts two high schools into one. There are a lot fewer kids than there used to be. South of 12 mile in Royal Oak seems to be a majority of younger couples, rental properties, and recent college grads. Berkley is the same way too.
Two reasons:
1) Younger people drawn to be closer into the city and like the area
2) Obsolete housing stock for familes. A lot of homes from the 40's / 50's in the inner ring are not what families what these days. A lot of these are 3 bedroom / 1 (maybe 1.5) bath houses. They work great for a couple but as soon as they start popping out babies and they get bigger they always seem to run out to the Wixom's & Washington Twp's of the area.
Birmingham / Bloomfield Hills:
Same issue with a lot less families, although they aren't getting replaced as much with younger people. The people that had their families there are simply sticking around. Birmingham & Bloomfield Hills have gone through several arounds of school closings and more are pending as well.
Troy:
Statistically insignificant - a drop of 257 in a city of 50,000? Troy isn't going to keep growing, it is built-out. There is a sizable number of apartment complexes in Troy, that do attract a lot of transient residents. Heck that could be just 257 less people renting in Somerset Apts.
The point is there are economic issues that are driving people out of state. Areas in the South, Southeast, and West are atttracting a lot of people these days.
Another issue is changing demographics, and changing perferences. |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3116
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2008 - 11:28 am: | |
You people are not serious. |
Fareastsider
Member
Username: Fareastsider
Post Number: 887
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2008 - 11:33 am: | |
"You can check the factual population data on Semcog.org"
Factual? It is all estimates? The way they even collect those estimates is a ballpark figure at best. Census numbers are facts. estimations are not facts. |
Fareastsider
Member
Username: Fareastsider
Post Number: 888
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2008 - 11:35 am: | |
Could one argue that the region has been in decline since 1970 since our regional population more or less leveled since then and our built area has nearly doubled since then? |
Hudkina
Member
Username: Hudkina
Post Number: 197
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2008 - 1:15 pm: | |
I would say that Detroit is really the only city that has seen serious decline since the 1970's. For the most part the suburban "spread" occurred because less people demanded more housing. The divorce rate has increased, the number of people living alone has increased, etc. This happened all across the U.S. even in places like Houston. One exception is Los Angeles, where the hispanic population has kept average household sizes at a steady level.
In the 50's and 60's it wouldn't be uncommon for mom, dad, grandma, grandpa, billy, susie, aunt marie, and cousin joe to all live in the same house (in Royal Oak). Today grandpa is dead and grandma lives in a nursing home (in Sterling Heights), mom lives alone in the house, dad lives with his new wife in his own place (in Novi), aunt marie lives with her husband and kids in her own place (in Rochester), billy has his own place (in Canton), and susie and cousin joe moved to Phoenix and Atlanta, respectively.
So in 1970 you had 8 people living in a single housing unit. Today 5 of those people live in five separate housing units (in various corners of the metro), 1 is dead, and 2 moved out of state. |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 2301
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2008 - 2:16 pm: | |
To say that the housing bonanza of the 1945-1970 period happened because "people demanded more housing" misses much of the point. Certainly individual decisions and lifestyle trends played a part in it, but it was a transformation that couldn't have happened without the intervention of key players. Government subsidized it with freeways, gas taxes, GI Loans. Insurance companies controlled it, offering affordable coverage in affluent areas and denying insurance or gouging in poorer, older areas. Industry swallowed huge new parcels near key rail lines, encouraged by a national policy wary of nuclear attack. Builders, contractors, road lobbyists, developers and other businesses were able to make billions of dollars because of all these institutional decisions. They weren't planning sensibly at all: It was a feeding frenzy for big business.
And, now that all the possible profit has been taken out of that transformation, we're left holding the bag. We, as a region, as gas prices rise and home heating costs soar, are saddled with a region with huge, expensive-to-heat homes, separated by miles of freeways that need to be rebuilt every year. Though there are glimmers of hope like Ferndale and Hamtramck, cities and suburbs alike are dropping into vacancy. The region is struggling just to maintain what infrastructure it already has. We're in trouble, and doing the same old things and hoping for better results just seems insane.
Anyway, I'm back on my old talking points. (Sorry, folks.) But let's not forget that the suburban building boom was not just individual choices. In many ways, it was the most subsidized movement of people since "the opening of the frontier." |
|