  Leannam1989 Member Username: Leannam1989 Post Number: 32 Registered: 06-2008 |
Detroit, U.S.A. Cause: Population flight Detroit's population has decreased by a third since 1950 to about 950,000, and it is expected to shrink slowly but steadily until at least 2030--unemployment inside the city is currently more than 10%. (The suburbs around Detroit, meanwhile, are growing.) If trends hold, Detroit will be altered beyond recognition by 2100. http://tinyurl.com/6ntzwq Kind of interesting. I'm sure you're all tired of these lists, though. They don't generally mean anything. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 8114 Registered: 10-2003 |
I'm losing track of all the Forbes lists. I hope they put out a Forbes list of Forbes' Best Lists to make it easier for me. Or maybe a Forbes List of Lists Where Forbes Bashed Detroit Again. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4710 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Since when does stating valid figures constitute as "bashing"? Has Detroit, or the State of Michigan for that matter, done a single thing to address population decrease in Detroit? Johnlodge, you're usually a pretty rational guy, but you blowing off something so blatantly factual doesn't make it trivial. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 8116 Registered: 10-2003 |
I'm being irrational, but Forbes can predict 100 years into the future and make a list about it. Good thing they weren't around in 1700, or we might have made the Forbes List of Colonies That Will Revolt By 1800, and then the Brits would have known what we were up to. | ||
Izzyindetroit Member Username: Izzyindetroit Post Number: 29 Registered: 07-2008 |
Dan, I'm sorry but I don't see anything "factual" in a prediction of population trends. Especially when you take Detroit and rank it with cities that will be underwater, blown up, or wiped out by drought. | ||
Waymooreland Member Username: Waymooreland Post Number: 88 Registered: 11-2007 |
Of course, the key phrase here is "if trends hold." I'm not sure what extrapolating data nearly 100 years into the future proves, but okay. I mean, a few things might happen within that amount of time... "Has Detroit, or the State of Michigan for that matter, done a single thing to address population decrease in Detroit?" Umm...excuse me? Have you forgotten everything that the Cool Cities initiative did for this city???  | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 8117 Registered: 10-2003 |
OK I see now that this list is over a year old. My "Detroit bashing" comment came from the fact there was just a list in the last issue "Fastest Dying Cities", so it just seemed like they were on a marathon there. I guess once a year is a little better. No, Dan you are right about addressing the problems. Don't think I am defending that. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1543 Registered: 12-2006 |
If you watch tonight's "future fourcast" on WDIV, then note the actual weather a week from now, you will gain some understanding about how accurately a trained forecaster, with the latest in equipment and decades of data at his disposal, can predict a fairly controlled phenomenon seven days in advance. Now take a magazine reporter, give him fifty years of population decline, and let him make a wild-ass guess about what will happen decades from now, in a massively entropic environment with literally millions of variables and no physics to fall back on. Is that going to be more or less accurate than what Chuck Gaidica tried to do? Look at it this way: what would that same kind of article have looked like in 1830, or 1880, or 1950? | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 7608 Registered: 02-2004 |
By 2100 Detroit would in these numbers: 7,567,899 52.9% Centurians 20.2% Tau Cetis 10% white 6% Hispanic 1% black 1.1% Asian 1% Other | ||
Cman710 Member Username: Cman710 Post Number: 451 Registered: 07-2006 |
While perhaps fun, predicting populations 100 years in advance is going to be pretty inaccurate. I would contend there are several reasons for this, including but not limited to: (1) The only way to predict the future is by looking at the past. As a result, people's predictions must use past trends as a basis. In the short term, this can be pretty accurate. For example, I predict that Detroit's population will be lower in five years than it is now. That is a prediction that will almost certainly be true. Predicting the same fifty years from now becomes much more difficult. (2) Technology is difficult to predict, not to mention its impact on population growth. In the future, not only will there be life-extending advances in medicine, but there will be technological advances of all sorts. What kinds? I cannot say for certain, just as few in 1950 could have predicted the world wide web and the existence of a Forum about Detroit containing members from all over the world. But these technological advances could alter people's perceptions of where it is desirable to live. (3) Socio-political changes. Over time, there will be changes in society and politics that could affect where people choose to live. There is nothing to say that the trend will continue towards sprawl. For example, some people argue that the death of suburbs is in our future with higher energy costs. I do not think that the suburbs are going to die anytime soon, but how can one predict what might happen 50 years from now, no less 100. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3384 Registered: 04-2006 |
LOL, Detroiters around in 1908 would probably be amazed that Detroit has over 900,000 residents today in 2008. On the other hand, Detroiters from 1958 probably wouldn't be so impressed... | ||
Bragaboutme Member Username: Bragaboutme Post Number: 440 Registered: 02-2008 |
Detroiters from 1958 had already saw a decrease of about 300,000 people. | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 3359 Registered: 09-2007 |
I must add my 2 cents. Although Detroit is dying a slow death (not dead yet), the final nail won't be in place by 2010. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3385 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: More like the 100K range. Even still, the nearly 1.7 million population figure of 1960 Detroit is a far cry from the 900K figure of today. If it had 1.7 million people today, Detroit would still be the 5th largest city in the U.S. | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 3360 Registered: 09-2007 |
Realistically, we would still had 1.5 million people (considering the 1967 riots), a centralized downtown & a middle class tax base if it weren't for the Young administration. Even then we would still be the 6th largest city in the U.S.A. (tied with Philadelphia). (Message edited by DetroitRise on August 11, 2008) | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3386 Registered: 04-2006 |
Coleman Young is not responsible for Detroit losing 1 million people. | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 3361 Registered: 09-2007 |
^Yes, but he is responsible for the city losing 500,000 people (white middle class). | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3387 Registered: 04-2006 |
No... he isn't. | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 3362 Registered: 09-2007 |
Well just take a look at the Census count between 1974 - 1992. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3388 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: Was he also responsible for the 600,000 people who left New York, the 600,000 people who left Chicago, and the 400,000 people who left Philadelphia while he was mayor of Detroit? | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1544 Registered: 12-2006 |
My friend Dave the statistician did, in the early 1980s, a demographic map of the future showing who would live where and in what quantities within the metro area. He broke it down demographically by the major demographic groups that had significant population centers in metro Detroit at the time: black, middle eastern, hispanic, Jewish, white non-arabic. The map, over the years, has proven to be spookily accurate. He never published it and he doesn't share it publicly because of the kind of backlash he'd get. The map only went out to the early part of this decade; it no longer predicts anything, and he isn't going to make a new one. He based it on studies of demographic shifting in other parts of the world; it had nothing whatsoever to do with who the mayor was. It did have to do with where the City and region had built highways, water lines and sewer lines, and racially bias-based real estate trends in the United States. (Redlining, "flipping", etc.) I don't think it's credible that you can blame Coleman Young for massive demographic shifts. The City's population was declining before he took office and has declined since he left office, and since he died. Populations move with infrastructure, and here as everywhere, wealthy people are attracted to new things which poor people can't afford. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1545 Registered: 12-2006 |
Detroitrise, that logical fallacy is so common there is a Latin phrase for it: Post hoc ergo propter hoc. It means "after this, therefore because of this". Just because two things happened in a sequence does not mean there is a causal link between the two. I went camping this weekend with the wife and kids, and Bernie Mac and Isaac Hayes died. Please don't blame my camping trip for their deaths. | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 3363 Registered: 09-2007 |
I don't disagree. However, can you prove to me the largest mass abandonment that occurred in Young's administration had nothing to do with him. Yet somehow, the population stabilized between 1970 -1974? | ||
Bragaboutme Member Username: Bragaboutme Post Number: 441 Registered: 02-2008 |
More like 1.6 Ihearted. Detroit went from 1.85 million to 1.6 million appox., from 1950-1960. 1960-1970, they only lost 100,000. Then the big jump of 300,000 from 1970-1980. So I was off by 50,000, but still. Even in the 80's there where 1.2 million. I don't understand why people don't talk about how the decrease is slowing to a crawl. Just think if all the cities in the top ten at that time where still at the same level. Philly was above 2 million so now they're either 6th or maybe 7th now at 1.4, 1950 they were third. Chicago has lost more than 600,000 people I don't understand these predictions. There are no facts to just Forbes Sh#tting on Detroit. I could see them tracking all us Cities, but all I see is Detroit on every worst list with no facts. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3389 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: Detroit was 1.67 million in 1960, hence my rounding up to 1.7 million. | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 3364 Registered: 09-2007 |
^by 1990, Detroit was at exactly 1 million, so yes, 500,000 people left Detroit (along with the economic base) in Young's adminstration. Of course unlike Detroit, Chicago & Philadelphia never did lose their tax base like Detroit, half of those cities aren't abandoned nor did the economic base flee for Joliet or Wilmington. | ||
Tayllik Member Username: Tayllik Post Number: 17 Registered: 11-2007 |
Forbes like many in the national media that just loves to pick on Detroit. They like use Detroit as some kind of symbol of the worst of urban America. Its so clear these people no nothing about this area because by there logic in the year 2100 southeast Michigan will be and empty city of Detroit surrounded by former suburbs it really make no sense. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1546 Registered: 12-2006 |
Nobody knows what the population was in 1974. The population count in 1970 was done by an actual census, so is (arguably) fairly accurate. Anything done between census years is an estimate, based on something other than a count, so there is no reason to take any stock in it. There have been many discussions on other threads about the value of mid-decade population estimates. I'm on a planning commission in my community, and we don't pay any attention whatever to those numbers. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3390 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: Nobody disputed that. You said that those 500,000 people left because of Coleman Young. While it is possible that 500,000 people left because of him, it's highly unlikely. There were other major American cities that had similar population declines during the same time period. Did Coleman Young cause those other cities to shrink as well? | ||
Sludgedaddy Member Username: Sludgedaddy Post Number: 99 Registered: 01-2008 |
The population of workers will tend to the machines in underground caverns under what was the city of Detroit. Those on the surface, who have declined due to decadence, will be preyed upon by the degenerated under ground populace during the hours of darkness due to their having adapted to a subterranean habitat. | ||
Wolverine Member Username: Wolverine Post Number: 566 Registered: 04-2004 |
I'm not very fond of predictions. I don't think people in the 40's would have predicted Detroit's losses. Similarly it's difficult to predict if there will be a gain or not. Eventually something will change for the better or worse. | ||
Iseries840 Member Username: Iseries840 Post Number: 796 Registered: 08-2005 |
So they will be Morlocks? | ||
Sludgedaddy Member Username: Sludgedaddy Post Number: 101 Registered: 01-2008 |
Yes, devolved Polacks. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 7609 Registered: 02-2004 |
Segregation, xenophobia, urban disinvestment, suburbs, freeways, riots, blockbusting, white flight, economic flight, growing black communities, poor public school district, poor police protection and political corruption is responsible for Detroit losing 1 million people. Detroit's image is what it is today. We live it, we breathe in it and we talk about it. However we can't even solve its urban problems. So here we are, the new millenium, still talking about Detroit's problems and playing race cards at the same time. Blacks this and whites that, is it going to end? I would say in about 1,000 years. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2923 Registered: 07-2004 |
Detroit was a great American city filled with people. Then there were riots and Coleman Young was elected. White people left Detroit and bad, bad black people destroyed it. How freakin' long is this crazy-ass myth going to survive?  | ||
Zrx_doug Member Username: Zrx_doug Post Number: 490 Registered: 03-2008 |
It's all moot..in order for trends starting in the 1950's to hold, particularly in regard to personal commuting, other variables (can we say "the price of gasoline") need to remain constant. My personal prediction is that urban areas are gonna see an influx as the cost of getting to/from work continues to rise. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 7611 Registered: 02-2004 |
Detroitnerd, Not all black people are bad bad. That includes not all white people are bad bad. Black folks want to come to Detroit not only to escape from segregated south, but to find good decent jobs and nice home. It's mostly white folks who put their blood, sweat and tears of building their Detroit neighborhoods. They would do anything to protect it. Detroit just like any other U.S. cities back in the early 20th Century Boomtown Era was designed to all the ethnic folks in one basket. Any ethnic folks who step out to the a white urban community is going to recieve threats. Now the housing and economic has changed and civil rights kill racial discrimination blacks and any other ethnic folks to can anywhere they want. No thanks to those who kept on playing race cards, Detroit is what it is in the new millenium. You all see the urban problems in every corner and the suburbanites are crying boo hoo about Detroit's troubles. So don't blame big bad black folks are turning Detroit into mush, blame white folks for leaving Detroit and not living in racial harmony with blacks. Word from the Street Prophet Looks like I have royal flush in this race card game. | ||
Russix Member Username: Russix Post Number: 110 Registered: 11-2006 |
Detroit did not lose any population. It spread out a bit. Compare Detroit to LA and New York. LA 498.3 Square Miles 3.8 Million People New York 304.8 Square Miles 8.2 Million Detroit 138 Square Miles, 920,000 By these figures the population density is higher in Detroit than it is LA!! The inner ring suburbs should have been added to the city as they were developing, but that is another thread altogether. | ||
Roadmaster49 Member Username: Roadmaster49 Post Number: 84 Registered: 01-2008 |
Ouch, no way can you predict what might happen that far in the future. Thing is, this is America, a basically Capitalistic greed based environment. Once Detroit reaches bottom, it will be seen as a way to make money. Investors don't pray on those without money, they market to those with money. Also, has anybody ever thought that maybe Detroit was TOO BIG in 1960? Maybe it being 750,000 to 900,000 for it's square mileage isn't so bad. I don't like the idea of being large for largess sake. Of course, infrastructure and taxes need to reflect population density. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1552 Registered: 12-2006 |
Russix, you've become a demographer! You have unearthed something which demographers know but the public does not - Detroit is a fairly dense American city, right in the same place as Boston, and more dense than the City of Angels. I warn you, though, people don't want to believe it. | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 3367 Registered: 09-2007 |
Roadmaster49, not at all. Downtown detroit wasn't filled with surface lots & the neighborhoods weren't filled with prairies in 1960. If anything, our size, density & occupancy was just perfect. If someone wanted to, they can always aloow some parts of the city to be annexed to be suburb (like Delray or the far out-lying areas). | ||
Viziondetroit Member Username: Viziondetroit Post Number: 1986 Registered: 11-2003 |
^ Hell Detroit wasn't so bad in 70s..the riot didn't ruin it all. | ||
Mwilbert Member Username: Mwilbert Post Number: 329 Registered: 11-2007 |
"Detroit is a fairly dense American city, right in the same place as Boston" Detroit may be denser than people think (it is exactly as dense as I think!) but it is not in the same place as Boston. Boston's density is about 12000/sq mi, which is almost twice as dense as Detroit if you take the 920,000 population figure as correct. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4716 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Detroit: 920,000 persons / 139 sq mi = 6620 psm Los Angeles: 3,800,000 persons / 498 sq mi = 7630 psm Boston: 600,000 persons / 48 sq mi = 12,500 psm Now, a city exactly the same size area as Detroit: Philadelphia: 1.5 million persons / 139 sq mi = 10790 psm Detroit's population density is about exactly on par with that of Cleveland. Not sure if you guys ever noticed the fields full of phesants or anything, but I fail to see that as a sign that Detroit was once "too crowded". | ||
Lombaowski Member Username: Lombaowski Post Number: 111 Registered: 11-2004 |
Coleman Young wasn't around when real estate speculators ravaged the city in the 60s selling low to whites and then selling high to blacks moving into areas on the west side. Young was just the last straw (losing all the auto jobs could be considered the last straw but the exodus was pretty much over by then anyway) for the white tax base in the city. Most of those people weren't afraid of blacks, they just didn't like crime and they really loved the city. Once the crime encroached on them (like it did to my family) the love of Detroit became an afterthought. Young did little to prevent crime (nor ease fears/concerns from residents of all color about crime in the late 70s and early 80s) and when the crack epidemic hit Detroit became a war zone. When you get stuff stolen out of your garage and call the police and they don’t come out for three days because they are busy with 500+ murders, it’s time to move. Those blaming Coleman Young are wrong, those defending him on the exodus topic are wrong but Young certainly didn’t help Detroit at a time where it was still possible to keep it afloat. My Dad always said that the day Mayor Cavanagh stepped down was the day the city was doomed for good. That, the fair housing act, fear, speculation, hate, the riots, crime, crack, and renters mentality took the city from one of the best places to live in America to one of the worst in about 20 years. It's actually quite extraordinary in a city that didn't experience the ravages of war but Sarajevo is in much better shape in 2008 than Detroit is. And I'm not saying that to be dramatic, I'm saying it because it's the truth. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 7612 Registered: 02-2004 |
You got that right, THE BIG Lombaowski. | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 3370 Registered: 09-2007 |
Well let's see, at he ends of Young's Terms... -Businesses were practically frightened to locate anywhere in Detroit (except at that time the outer fringes). -Unemployment rates were at their lowest during his term. -He steepened the city/suburb divide (mainly racial divide) even further "Hit 8 Mile Road!". This in fact may have ruined our chances of a large scale subway system back in the 80s. -Many of his policies only favored blacks. -Crime rates peaked under his administration. -As Lombaowski stated, Crack-Cocaine did wipe out the lower east side & Cass Corridor (areas not affected by the 1967 riots). However, Young didn't do enough to prevent this. Why? Because the tax base was rapidly decreasing. I'm sure all of those ingredients alone caused many people to leave. (Message edited by DetroitRise on August 12, 2008) | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 7618 Registered: 02-2004 |
Russix, Detroit lose over 800,000 people in the last 50 years. That includes 1,500,000 white folks leaving about 686,000 poor low-income blacks, under 90,000 whites, 51,000 hispanics 9,800 Asians and 40,000 Arabs and Chaldeans combined That's is why Detroit's population That would be about 900,000 mark. Word from the Street Prophet #174 Danny, The Ghettoman's assistant VP The American ghetto is a internment camp for the minorities. |
