  Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 915 Registered: 04-2008 |
I know a national one is calculated every so often, so I wonder where would Metro Detroit's be? The reason I pose this is because many believe that since downtown Detroit is the Center or Core or Heart, it must be given preferential treatment. But is this the case? Why should our "center" be off in the corner? Wouldn't a "center" in the center be more beneficial? My guess would be Southfield. Anyone else care to make an estimate? | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 2177 Registered: 12-2005 |
Given the existence of a physical and political barrier to development immediately to the south of downtown Detroit, there is no way it could ever become the "center of population" for the metro area. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3721 Registered: 04-2006 |
^It could be if you counted Windsor as part of Metro Detroit... | ||
Baselinepunk Member Username: Baselinepunk Post Number: 88 Registered: 03-2007 |
Warren is the third largest city in the state ... if that helps ya any. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 2178 Registered: 12-2005 |
quote: Are you serious? Are you trying to say that the river and international boundary have had no impact on the direction and location of growth in the tri-county area? How many people cross the tunnel or bridge each day for work or shopping as compared to the Detroit city limits elsewhere? | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3722 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: No, I'm saying that if you count Windsor as part of Metro Detroit then the population center of the region is not as far away from downtown Detroit as you all think. | ||
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox Post Number: 1190 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote:I don't think Detroit gets preferential treatment at all. I think we're the region's whipping boy, and the nation's, for that matter. quote:I don't see how it would be "beneficial" to move the "center" somewhere else. Most people seem to think nothing of living wherever they want to live, even if it means sitting in traffic for an hour to get to and from work, and that probably isn't going to change unless gas hits eight bucks a gallon. The historical center is where it is; any attempt to "move" it would be ludicrously expensive, obscenely wasteful, and ultimately pointless. | ||
Mrnittany Member Username: Mrnittany Post Number: 49 Registered: 10-2007 |
It all depends on the definition of "Metro Detroit" For simplicity's sake, I'll define it as Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb Counties. Macomb's population (2000 census) is 788K, Oakland's is 1206K, Wayne's is 2061K. (788K + 1206K) = (1994K), which is just slightly less than 2061K. So on a north-south basis, the "population center" would be somewhere JUST south of Wayne County's northern border. Determining where it is on an east-west basis is much more difficult ... you'd need some hard-core GIS software to know for sure. Eye-balling it, I'd guess near Schaefer/Coolidge Road. My best guess would be Schaefer and 7 1/2 mile (south of 8 Mile, north of Outer Drive). (Message edited by mrnittany on February 04, 2009) | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 2179 Registered: 12-2005 |
quote: Even if you include Windsor and Essex County in the Metro Detroit population, the population center is still skewed to the northwest of downtown Detroit as compared to if where it would be if there was either no Detroit River or International Boundary. | ||
Izzyindetroit Member Username: Izzyindetroit Post Number: 173 Registered: 07-2008 |
"Given the existence of a physical and political barrier to development immediately to the south of downtown Detroit, there is no way it could ever become the "center of population" for the metro area." That makes absolutely no sense. Been to East Chicago lately?? | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 918 Registered: 04-2008 |
Bearinabox, you mentioned the traffic issue, which I think is one of the most important benefits of having the commercial center at the population center. If people are traveling in from 360 degrees instead of 180, the traffic congestion would be reduced to half. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4292 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: So what do you do? Build a brand new downtown from scratch every 20 years as people continue to sprawl outward? I don't understand your point. People move to the sticks, and then they want everything (except traffic) to follow them. How does one rationalize this? | ||
Benfield Member Username: Benfield Post Number: 93 Registered: 06-2008 |
quote: Are you familiar with the New Center area here in Detroit? That was the idea, to create a new center due to the growth of the city. | ||
Townonenorth Member Username: Townonenorth Post Number: 766 Registered: 10-2007 |
Center of Southeastern Michigan's population, according to Laurence Tech's website, is: quote: http://www.ltu.edu/currentstud ents/campus_community.asp | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 919 Registered: 04-2008 |
Thanks Townonenorth. It sounds like someone either did some serious calculation, or else just knew how to make it sound impressive. | ||
Mrnittany Member Username: Mrnittany Post Number: 50 Registered: 10-2007 |
Gistok ... you're exactly right. Thanks for pointing out the error. I calculated a "median (unweighted) center of population" there. Actual center of population calcs. are weighted to incorporate distance. ********************************************** EDIT: There WAS a post (by Gistok) previous to this pointing out my mistake. But then I post and that post disappeared, LOL. To sum up his/her post: distance should be incorporated into computing the center of population ... which would effectively push it somewhat further north of where I estimated it. (Message edited by mrnittany on February 04, 2009) | ||
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox Post Number: 1191 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote:And my point is that people really don't seem to care that much. Otherwise they wouldn't move to Grand Blanc or Howell or Marine City when they work in Detroit or Southfield. | ||
Eastsideal Member Username: Eastsideal Post Number: 263 Registered: 10-2007 |
In what way does downtown get "preferential treatment" in metro Detroit? Perhaps this is true in the City of Detroit itself, but in the metro area as a whole its a place significant numbers of people are proud of not having gone to in several decades, if ever. And a place that leaders of surrounding counties feel perfectly OK about criticizing and refusing any funds for - because they feel it, and the people who use it, have nothing to do with their county. Also, some people here seem to be a little vague on the idea of "center of population." From Wikipedia: "the center of population of a region is the geographical point nearest to all the inhabitants of that region, on average." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C enter_of_population) Downtown Detroit has never been this, nor, given the geographic barriers mentioned elsewhere in this thread, could it be. But then neither are most central cities in the U.S., because they exist where they do for historical reasons, usually having to do with access to transportation (meaning water for older cities like Detroit). | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 920 Registered: 04-2008 |
I see, Bearinabox. If having a dense downtown is desirable, which seems to be the case for many DetroitYESers, then having that downtown at the center would also reduce automobile use, which also seems to be desirable. Eastsideal, I didn't say that it DOES get, I said that people believe it MUST get. In other words, people say "We must save downtown because it is the core of the city", even though it really may not be. | ||
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox Post Number: 1193 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote:For this DetroitYeser, anyway, that is outweighed by the fact that the downtown already is where it is, and has been for over 300 years. I don't know how you would even go about moving it, other than nuking the entire tri-county area and completely rebuilding it from scratch according to a new master plan, which would be incredibly wasteful. And one of the main advantages of things like density and reduced automobile use is reduced waste. If you're that serious about reducing automobile use, a European-style gas tax would be a lot less disruptive and more effective. All moving the downtown to the "center" would do is give people an incentive to move even further from the "center," since they are presumably willing to sit in traffic for the same length of time as they were before, and they can now move further out without making their commute any longer. | ||
Dcmorrison12 Member Username: Dcmorrison12 Post Number: 17 Registered: 02-2009 |
This is one of the dumbest posts Retroit has posted yet. Are you honestly trying to say that Downtown Detroit should not be considered the center of the Region simply because it isn't physically in the center of the region?!! Hello, does Chicago ring a bell? If i remember correctly, Chicago is bordered by a little lake called LAKE MICHIGAN. Either Chicagoans are really good swimmers or Chicago just isn't located in the center of the region. Now... since Chicago is NOT located physically in the center of Chicagoland, then are you saying that Downtown Chicago is not to be considered the center of Chicagoland?! | ||
Eastsideal Member Username: Eastsideal Post Number: 264 Registered: 10-2007 |
But it is the core, from the time Antoine de la Mothe Cadillac set foot there in 1701. It's the beginning and the heart, not only of the Detroit metro area, but of the entire state of Michigan. The place from where all of our region's history and what's left of its economy springs. It's just too bad that so many people outside of the city feel OK to crap on it for its present-day difficulties. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 2180 Registered: 12-2005 |
quote: I'll be polite and try to explain. The center of population is the point at which an imaginary, flat, weightless, and rigid map of the tri-county area would balance if weights of identical value were placed on it so that each weight represented the location of one person on census day. It can be somewhat visualized with the map below, which uses darker shades of color for more heavily populated census tracts. Eyeballing the map, I would have to say that Mrnittany's guess is pretty accurate. His estimate puts the tri-county center of population at about 9.5 miles northwest of downtown Detroit. Hopefully, you can see from the map that since downtown is almost on the river, the only way to move the calculated center of population towards downtown Detroit would be to include population living south and east of downtown outside of the tri-county area. Adding Essex County, Ontario into the equation places only 9% of the four-county population to the south and east of downtown, about half of which is located in Windsor within 3 miles of downtown Detroit. The net effect of including Essex County would be to move the calculated population center at most one mile closer to downtown Detroit.  | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4293 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: New Center was never intended to completely replace the existing downtown. | ||
Cmubryan Member Username: Cmubryan Post Number: 458 Registered: 11-2003 |
I remember having this discussion about nine years ago at an OCC class. My professor claimed that Southfield Road and Ten Mile was the population "center" of Metro Detroit | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 921 Registered: 04-2008 |
Dcmorrison12, Chicago is different from Detroit in that it has a massive full-developed downtown full of numerous multinational corporations. People want to live near downtown Chicago. A home that would sell for $50,000 in Detroit will sell for $500,000 in Chicago. Chicago already has an extensive rail mass transit system (a favorite topic on this forum). So, no, Chicago has no need to change anything. Detroit, ahhhh Detroit.... we've got some problems. A nominal downtown. A dysfunctional city government. A city that very few want to live in. A city that has been extensively abandoned. Let's face it, we need a redo. Let's think regionally. Let's think of our Metropolitan area as one "organism" and not the Detroit-NonDetroit polarized mutation that it has become. I really don't think it is necessary to re-locate downtown. But I think if people can change their mental perception of where the center of the city is, we will quit trying to turn downtown Detroit into something it is incapable of becoming. And please post you personal attacks on the appropriate thread.  | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4296 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: This begs two fundamental questions: 1. What constitutes the "center" of the city? 2. Why is downtown Detroit incapable of being that center? | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 4375 Registered: 02-2005 |
Well there's center in terms of psychological center (which has steadily been taken away from downtown Detroit starting somewhere in the 50s), there's center in terms of regional population spread (which may have been somewhere near midtown up through the 40s but is clearly now somewhere in NW Detroit because of the physical layout of the area and the hemorrage of population to the NW), and then there's center as defined by where the highest population density is (in most cities its some central neighborhood adjacent to downtown). Many cities in America easily satisfy the first test you could use, but certainly not Detroit; even if most metro Detroiters will say that downtown is the center of the region, their actions (such as where they do business and spend most of their time) do not suggest it. However, thanks to recent gains in terms of development and somewhat of an attitude shift, downtown Detroit is on the road back in terms of this, such that within 20 years we may function like most other cities. For the second criterion, we should realize that for most cities the downtown isn't the center of the regional population. Certainly not for downtown Chicago, lower Manhattan, downtown Boston, etc...only for certain modern cities without any fetters to development (i.e. mountains or water) can this happen. Perhaps Denver is an example of a downtown that's a center. I'm not sure. At any rate, this really isn't an important indicator, although you would probably want your regional population center to be somewhere in the City proper. Detroit is certainly on the brink of losing that. I like the last indicator-- it makes the most sense for most conventional cities. It works perfectly for places like Chicago and Boston. Obviously, for mega-cities like New York which have uniformly very-high densities, it's harder to pin down, and isn't neccesarily downtown (downtown has more of a purely geographic connotation in NY). It makes sense that most cities have their highest densities, which we could characterize as their "centers," near or adjacent to downtown. I'm looking forward to the 2010 census data, but Detroit may in fact have it's highest densities currently in midtown or downtown, or perhaps even downtown-adjacent in Lafayette Park (which, even though it's not dense by world standards, in fact is dense by Detroit standards because its a collection of high rise residential buildings and the rest of the city is low density). So most of this is semantics, and made unclear because there are three basic tests. Seems to me that Retroit was asking about my second test. The answer would probably be somewhere along the Detroit border with the SE corner of Southfield (not too far west because we should realize that Oakland county, beyond it's SE corner, has astoundingly low densities, even if the land coverage of development is quite high at this point). | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3723 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: Classic Detroit pessimist response. He made you eat your argument, and you try to change the question. Your argument was that the "downtown" of Metro Detroit should not be downtown Detroit because it is not the center of population. He rebutted that downtown Chicago is positioned even less to the center of population in Chicagoland, since they don't have any population to the east of their downtown to balance it out. You reply with the flawed reasoning that Detroit is not Chicago... Of course Detroit isn't Chicago! But that wasn't the question. The question was whether it made sense to have a downtown that was not at or near the center of population for the region. So to answer your question, yes. | ||
Pinewood73 Member Username: Pinewood73 Post Number: 73 Registered: 07-2006 |
If I had to guess, I would say somewhere along Woodward outside of the city of Detroit. If you assume that Woodward basically bisects the city of Detroit, plus the fact that a majority of metro Detroit's population lives outside of the city. |
