The empty lands immediately surrounding downtown will be easy to redevelop once the Greater Downtown area achieves a certain level of success. They will likely be replaced by the type of development normally reserved for "greenfields" along the urban fringe of other metropolitan areas. They will also be home to the types of largescale parkland that was missing from much of the central city at its peak.
|
Quote:
The Detroit area has a serious land usage problem that is way out of line with the regional population growth over the past half century. Detroit City gets all of the attention since it's the big elephant, but this is really endemic to all urban areas in Michigan. It's evident in the inner ring suburbs surrounding Detroit and also evident in other Michigan cities like Saginaw and Flint. Here is something that I posted on another thread showing Detroit's population losses versus suburban Detroit's population gains since 1960: Detroit loss/Suburban gain per decade 1960 - 1970: (156,081)/634,376 1970 - 1980: (310,695)/207,576 1980 - 1990: (175,394)/54,265 1990 - 2000: (76,704)/251,601 2000 - 2010: (237,493)/92,192 Total: (965,367)/1,240,010 Only twice since 1960 has the US census showed the suburban population increase more than the city's population declined. However, the consumption of land has continued steadily during the same period. What happens when you continue to develop land without population growth to absorb it? Detroit. Below is a map of Metro Detroit's footprint in 1900 (top), 1950 (middle) and 2000 (bottom). The region has grown by only 30% since 1950 -- all of that growth taking place between 1950 and 1970 -- but has roughly tripled in area: http://streetsblog.net/wp-content/up...06/detroit.jpg source: http://streetsblog.net/2011/06/10/ri...wling-suburbs/ The link puts Detroit's problem into much better perspective than I can explain. There's also a serious disconnect/denial still prevalent among Michiganders (see upthread) about what exactly is going on to cause the failure of one of America's most major cities. |
Quote:
Of course some haters use it for some kind of propaganda of theirs, brainwashing people by saying - this is America. Or some media use it to entertain their dull audience. I swear I saw a whole boring set of reports in France, like 90 minutes long on a private media network showing the city like it'd be in a state of civil war. It was all laughable, quite pathetic and detestable, was much more a stupid show to feed the rednecks than anything you could call actual news/information. I don't like it. So the city proper must be redeveloped and social issues over there have to be solved so they can't use it and bother us any more. |
Quote:
These are generally stronger population trends than every other major Eastern Great Lakes Metro. Doesn't mean the area doesn't have a huge problem, but it isn't an outlier in the region. This is why it's annoying when people point out Detroit as some giant demographic wasteland, when it has roughly the same, or better, demographic reality than everywhere else within hundreds of miles. Detroit generally has greater population gain, more immigrants, and similar economic vitality, when compared to the other major Eastern Great Lakes cities, like Pittsburgh and Cleveland. |
Quote:
I assume these folks are able to make a distinction between the 80%-90% of the region that is basically the same as anywhere else in the U.S. They aren't hanging out in the ghettos of Detroit, which have no relevance to their daily lifestyle. |
Quote:
Census Detroit MSA CSA 1960 1,670,144 4,012,607 4,660,480 1970 1,514,063 4,490,902 5,289,766 1980 1,203,368 4,387,783 5,203,269 1990 1,027,974 4,266,654 5,095,695 2000 951,270 4,441,551 5,357,538 2010 713,777 4,296,250 5,218,852 |
Quote:
1950: 3,219,256 -- 3,700,490 1960: 4,012,607 -- 4,660,480 1970: 4,490,902 -- 5,289,766 1980: 4,387,783 -- 5,203,269 1990: 4,266,654 -- 5,095,695 2000: 4,441,551 -- 5,357,538 2010: 4,296,250 -- 5,218,852 Wikipedia The Detroit MSA has not only declined since its peak in 1970, but also saw decline in three of the five census counts since. The Detroit CSA is also less populous than it was in 1970, and has declined from its 2000 peak by 138,686 people. The Detroit CSA also saw decline in three of the last five censuses. All that in a nation that has grown 54.8% since 1970--it's worse than stagnation. It's decline. And it stands out more than Cleveland or Pittsburgh because of the raw numbers, because of the sheer size of the city and metro in question. Detroit is the first and only US city to have a population grow beyond 1 million and then fall below 1 million. The other cities you mention are also mired in population decline as well--but that's neither here nor there in a discussion about Detroit. Neither Cleveland nor Pittsburgh grew to be as populous as Detroit, nor did their respective metropolitan areas. Indeed, Detroit city alone has lost more residents since its peak than all the people who lived in either Cleveland or Pittsburgh at their respective population peaks: Detroit, 1950: 1,849,568* Detroit, 2010: 713,777 Detroit Loss---1,135,791 Cleveland, 1950: 914,808* Pittsburgh, 1950: 676,806* *Peak population Wikipedia This is why people won't just ignore, downplay, or deny the latest census figures showing further decline in the city and metro of Detroit. Something's wrong. Still. |
Ah, I see iheartthed beat me to it.
|
^ The cold data that Crawford cherry picks to critique places he seethingly hates (like Chicago) have no meaning when you're discussing Detroit.
|
Quote:
But the larger point stands. The overall trends show that Detroit has the same or higher population growth than all the other major cities in the region. I was wrong in the decennial trends, but the overall patterns stand. Quote:
If you want to point out cities on the basis of population loss, why wouldn't you point out those metros that have the worst population loss? Why would you instead point out those which have very bad, but not the worst loss? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Detroit had (has?) a certain gilded brand and identity that none of the other cities you mention (Cleveland/Pittsburgh) did |
Quote:
In stark population terms, the "gap" between Detroit and Cleveland/Pittsburgh has grown, not shrunk, in the intervening years. I don't know how to measure "brand/identity" gaps, and you may be right that that hasn't followed the relative population trends. And I have no problem with ripping Detroit, or any area, for that matter. I actually have no faith in that area in terms of a turnaround. But it's tiring hearing all the apocalyptic comments, I do wonder why it's always Detroit that is singled out. By 1970, all three were declining. Here are the population trends from 1970-2010: Pittsburgh- 15% decrease Cleveland- 7% decrease Detroit- 0.2% decrease To me, the data show that to single out Metro Detroit on the basis of relative population trends, is pretty myopic. Now if you want to single out the city proper, on on other, less quantifiable metrics, be my guest. Certainly the City of Detroit is much shittier than the City of Pittsburgh. |
I know there's the Olympic Promotional bid of the city that was made. I believe it's called "City on the Move".
Ford made a promotional video and called it "Portrait of a city" in 1961. The audio is a bit wonky but it gets better in time. It has much butter shots of street life than the Olympic video. Try not to get too caught up in the romance of the past... |
I'd like to see a Plan of Detroit created if there isn't already one. This country need another 'City Beautiful Movement' like there was a century ago. There seems to be no more ambition or pride.
|
Quote:
guess which america city spearheaded the movement to construct that brave new world? karma perhaps at work here? |
Quote:
Quote:
Detroit is second only to St. Louis in percentage of population decline from peak, according to Wikipedia: City, State -- Percent population decline since peak St. Louis, Missouri -- 62.7% Detroit, Michigan -- 61.4% Youngstown, Ohio -- 60.6% Cleveland, Ohio -- 56.6% Gary, Indiana -- 55% Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania -- 54.8% Buffalo, New York -- 53.4% Niagara Falls, New York -- 51% Scranton, Pennsylvania -- 46.9% Dayton, Ohio -- 46.1% New Orleans, Louisiana -- 45.2% Flint, Michigan -- 43.4% Cincinnati, Ohio -- 41.1% Utica, New York -- 38.8% * Camden, New Jersey -- 37.9% Birmingham, Alabama -- 37.7% Canton, Ohio -- 37.6% Newark, New Jersey -- 37.3% * Rochester, New York -- 36.7% Baltimore, Maryland -- 34.6% Akron, Ohio -- 34.5% Syracuse, New York -- 34.2% Trenton, New Jersey -- 33.7% Hartford, Connecticut -- 30.1% * Providence, Rhode Island -- 29.6% * Hammond, Indiana -- 27.6% Albany, New York -- 27.5% * Minneapolis, Minnesota -- 26.7% Erie, Pennsylvania -- 26.5% Philadelphia, Pennsylvania -- 26.3% * Chicago, Illinois -- 25.6% Toledo, Ohio -- 25.2% Washington, D.C. -- 25% * South Bend, Indiana -- 23.6% Boston, Massachusetts -- 22.9% * Jersey City, New Jersey -- 21.8% * New Haven, Connecticut -- 21.1% * Reading, Pennsylvania -- 20.8% * * Grew between 2000 and 2010 I've said what I care to regarding Detroit's metropolitan decline, but I did try to find a similar chart for metro areas. I couldn't find one. Anybody? |
Since 1970, Metro Detroit's average population has been 5,220,733. At its peak (2000) the population was 137,000 above that average. At its lowest point (1990) the population was (125,000) below that point. In 1970, the population was 8,000 above that point and in 2010, the population was 2,000 below that point. What's interesting is that if the economic collapse had waited another year or two, 2010 would have probably seen a slight increase from 2000, and the effects of the collapse wouldn't have been as severely "recorded" because by the 2020 Census, the region would have offset much of the loss in the early part of the decade with growth in the later part.
It's almost what happened in the late 70's and early 80's. Metro Detroit's population probably peaked sometime in the mid-late 70's with a number probably higher than what was recorded in 2000. However, by the late 70's the economy collapsed and the 1980 Census showed a decline of 17,000. The collapse continued into the early 80's with probably another few hundred thousand lost. I would bet that between the mid 1970's and the mid 1980's, the region lost close to 500,000 people. That was a "ghost" loss, as by the time the 1980 Census was recorded, the loss from the end of the 70's was only enough to wipe out the growth of the early part of the decade, and by the time the 1990 Census was recorded, the growth of the late 80's helped to mask the larger loss earlier in the decade. |
Quote:
Quote:
And really??? Quote:
but whatever... |
Edit:
I earlier posted historic Detroit metro populations sourced from the Wikipedia entry called 'Metro Detroit' that are completely at odds with the numbers given for the same metro and same years in this Wikipedia entry entitled 'Detroit.' As another forumer found stats identical to the ones I posted from the 'Detroit' Wikipedia entry, I am going to assume they are the correct ones. I rely on Wikipedia for stats like these. While the relevent Wikipedia contributors are responsible for the discrepancy, I should have noticed something was off. Sorry for the confusion. hudkina, I'm actually glad you pointed that out. I hadn't noticed the discrepancy until you did. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:49 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.