An Urban Revival in the Rust Belt

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by hudkina

Detroit's loss between 2000 and 2010 may have more to do with the count from 2000. Chances are that the 2000 population was an over statement of the actual population within the city. The loss between 1990 and 2000 was only 7.5%. The reality is that Detroit probably had a much lower population in 2000 than the official numbers stated. That's not to say Detroit's loss between 2000 and 2010 wasn't astounding.

even if census 2000 was considerably off the mark for detroit, when we look at the overall 1990-2010 year trend, detroit's loss is still staggering.

great lakes cities 1990-2010 population gain/loss

1. Chicago: -3.2%
2. Milwaukee: -5.3%
3. Toledo: -13.7%
4. Buffalo: -20.4%
5. Cleveland: -21.5%
6. Detroit: -30.6%

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

even if census 2000 was considerably off the mark for detroit, when we look at the overall 1990-2010 year trend, detroit's loss is still staggering.

great lakes cities 1990-2010 population gain/loss

1. Chicago: -3.2%
2. Milwaukee: -5.3%
3. Toledo: -13.7%
4. Buffalo: -20.4%
5. Cleveland: -21.5%
6. Detroit: -30.6%

If Detroit was overestimated in the 2000 census then the rest of those cities likely were too.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Didn't the census bureau estimate Chicago to be growing before 2010 showed it to have lost significant population?

no, the census bureau had been estimating a loss for chicago last decade, but not as severe a loss as the actual census result showed.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

But the midwest in general is perceived to be a dying region, so I don't see the purpose of arguing over who's less dead.

no one is arguing over who's less dead, i'm just pointing out why detroit gets left out of articles like the one that started this thread: it's the massive and continuing population loss of the city. if and when detroit can finally bottom out on that front and the story of double digit population losses decade after decade finally comes to an end, then i think media and popular perceptions will begin to change.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

no, the census bureau had been estimating a loss for chicago last decade, but not as severe a loss as the actual census result showed.





no one is arguing over who's less dead, i'm just pointing out why detroit gets left out of articles like the one that started this thread: it's the massive and continuing population loss of the city. if and when detroit can finally bottom out on that front and the story of double digit population losses decade after decade finally comes to an end, then i think media and popular perceptions will begin to change.

But Hudkina's point was that Detroit wasn't left out of the article. The article used Detroit as a foil as if what is happening in Detroit is contrary to the rest of the Rust Belt. That's absurd and I don't know why we have 4 pages of this thread trying to deny that. What is happening in Detroit is the same thing that's happening in the rest of the Rust Belt, except to a different magnitude (both the decline and rebound).

[Steely Dan]

^ i'm not trying to deny that good things are happening in detroit's core, but the bankruptcy has given the city a black eye that will take some time to recover from, fair or not. if detroit can finally bottom-out population-wise by the end of the decade and come out of bankruptcy a healthier city with that unpleasantness several years in its rear view mirror, then i think you will see perceptions begin to catch up with the good stuff that's happening there.

until then.......

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ i'm not trying to deny that good things are happening in detroit's core, but the bankruptcy has given the city a black eye that will take some time to recover from, fair or not. if detroit can finally bottom-out population-wise by the end of the decade and come out of bankruptcy a healthier city with that unpleasantness several years in its rear view mirror, then i think you will see perceptions begin to catch up with the good stuff that's happening there.

until then.......

But we're supposed to be people having a more enlightened conversation here about urban affairs than does the general public, aren't we? I don't fault the TSA guy for saying something dumb about Detroit while I'm in the airport, but I expect a more informed level of conversation when I come to a place like here.

[Steely Dan]

^ i was relating back to the original article using detroit as a foil for the rest of the rust belt, not the SSP forum.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The water intake for the region is in Detroit, along the Detroit River. That will probably never change, since it is cost prohibitive for the suburbs to build out their own system. The only other alternative would be for northern suburbs to join to an intake being built in Flint, but that is very unlikely.

And you seem to be confusing shutting off water service with permanently disconnecting buildings from the water and sewage system. I don't think they ever disconnect a building from the sewage system.

But this was all just political posturing. This was a negotiation term in order to pacify the suburban counties that are being forced to lease control of the system from the city, which they have always refused to do. The bankruptcy judge and governor basically gave the suburban counties the option of negotiating a lease, or having a less favorably alternative forced onto them.

careful there re the water rights and access, it can change and change dramatically.

cleveland gave its great lakes water rights access away to the suburbs and it has been hamstrung for regional growth/control ever since. so if detroit still has control over the water, the lesson is don't ever let it go for any price. i would be more than nervous that given detroit's woes the burbs wont make a play for more water rights control and access.

[hudkina]

BTW, the bankruptcy is probably the least of Detroit's concerns. In fact it's probably the best thing to happen to the city. For one, the municipal bankruptcy has little effect on the economic development occurring in the city. In fact, since the city entered bankruptcy protection, the city has seen a ton of new development proposals. Also, contrary to what the media would like to portray, the artwork at the DIA was never in any real danger of being sold off. The vast majority of creditors have already agreed to various settlements, and the few holdouts are crafting deals as we speak. Once everyone is in agreement, the city will come out of this in the best shape it has been financially in decades. The city will be able to spend its general budget on public safety, infrastructure improvements, etc. instead of debt financing. I don't see how that can be anything but a good thing.

In any case, the fact that the city is going through bankruptcy procedures doesn't have any effect on the day to day life of what's going on in the city.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

careful there re the water rights and access, it can change and change dramatically.

cleveland gave its great lakes water rights access away to the suburbs and it has been hamstrung for regional growth/control ever since. so if detroit still has control over the water, the lesson is don't ever let it go for any price. i would be more than nervous that given detroit's woes the burbs wont make a play for more water rights control and access.

Detroit hasn't had absolute control over the system in 40 years. It had been under federal oversight since the 1970s and subject to a parade of lawsuits between the city and suburban counties. The city's hands were always tied on what to do with it, but was still obligated with running it. The only real benefit of it to the city is that it showed up on the books as a very valuable asset that they could leverage for financing (like the famous billion dollar art collection that the city also has little control over), but that rope obviously became a noose with which it hanged itself.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by hudkina

Yes, it's true that many people in the metro area did indeed move away entirely, but a change in population from 5.3 million to 5.2 million is not as statistically significant as many people on this forum might think, especially when you consider much of that loss has been reversed in the few short years since the recession ended.

Many of us have never lived anywhere that wasn't constantly growing. A 2% decline isn't much, but when our baseline mindset is 1-2% growth per year, even a +0.5 sounds like stagnation. That doesn't mean we're right, but it's a perception.

Parallel to that, we're used to being around a lot of new construction and renovations, whether in the suburbs or the inner city. The lack of that feels odd -- I don't mean whether you can list billions in projects, but what most blocks feel like.

[AccraGhana]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

even if census 2000 was considerably off the mark for detroit, when we look at the overall 1990-2010 year trend, detroit's loss is still staggering.

great lakes cities 1990-2010 population gain/loss

1. Chicago: -3.2%
2. Milwaukee: -5.3%
3. Toledo: -13.7%
4. Buffalo: -20.4%
5. Cleveland: -21.5%
6. Detroit: -30.6%

I think it would be more apropos to measure the decline of the African American population in cities like Cleveland, Detroit, Oakland, California, Buffalo and many other places. That would be apples to Apples. African Americans are moving to the suburbs nationally at rates that have never been seen before. Detroit being the largest black majority city in the nation.......it only makes sense that it would be a microcosm of this trend, meaning it has the most to lose. Cities with smaller percentage of African Americans will have a less pronounced population loss, as well as those with large immigrant influx, like Chicago, LA and East Coast cities.

This is the primary problem with juxtaposing Detroit with other cities. Detroit is a reflection of African American people in America, while most other cities in the US are not. Hence, the fact that African Americans are in much worse shape socioeconomically in this nation means that a city 85% African American is going to reflect the struggles of African American people. If you take nearly every major city in America and carve out a section of the city where it mirrors the demographics of Detroit.....I bet you find the same problems and issues of Detroit for the most part.....with the difference being that cities with large white populations have a better tax base to subsidize and offset the lack of tax base in the black areas. If those black areas had to survive on their own like Detroit.....they would struggle as well because African Americans income, wealth and employment levels are far lower than white America and governments need tax revenue for services, schools and such.

In light of that, when I read these debates I think most people miss the boat and hence do not understand the dynamics of Detroit. Its important to make a distinction with a difference between the problems of "Detroit" vs the problems of "African Americans". The problems and conditions of African Americans are NOT shared by non African Americans in the Detroit region, to the same degree. In other words, like ever other major city in America, the condition of blacks and whites are very different....but most other cities are not defined by their African American population as is Detroit. Detroit suburbs, where the vast majority of the people in the Detroit area live......are better than many in the nation.....but the problems of the city overshadows that fact.

[Dr Nevergold]

We can talk about race all day, but what destroyed Detroit isn't race, its economics. Capitalism built Detroit, capitalism destroyed Detroit. I laugh at the talk radio voices that say big government destroyed Detroit when its not a city built on government services and isn't even the capital city of Michigan.

Capitalism has a dirty side, and unless government comes in to fix things its hard to rebound when capitalism has huge failures. The water situation is one of those things where government can and should make a difference, but isn't so far. We don't have a problem of big government, we have broken government. Detroit residents - regardless of race - cannot combat against huge geopolitical and economic situations that a local community cannot control.

If we want to focus on race, why don't we focus on the white men in suits in Washington and worldwide that signed global trade agreements that made it impossible to compete with wages. The race argument can go both ways, from all angles. We need to move beyond race and start understanding this as a class issue. Our working and now middle class is under attack and we have cities with economic destruction to prove the case. The inequitable economic situation is blatantly clear, and it is the result of capitalism's magic of the market.

[hudkina]

Originally Posted by mhays

Many of us have never lived anywhere that wasn't constantly growing. A 2% decline isn't much, but when our baseline mindset is 1-2% growth per year, even a +0.5 sounds like stagnation. That doesn't mean we're right, but it's a perception.

And you can't blame people who actually live and experience the reality of the situation for pointing out the fallacy in your perception. Trust me, if you lived the life of 90% of the people in this region, you'd find out just how normal and like your own experience it is.

[CCs77]

Originally Posted by hudkina

Detroit's loss between 2000 and 2010 may have more to do with the count from 2000. Chances are that the 2000 population was an over statement of the actual population within the city. The loss between 1990 and 2000 was only 7.5%. The reality is that Detroit probably had a much lower population in 2000 than the official numbers stated. That's not to say Detroit's loss between 2000 and 2010 wasn't astounding. But keep in mind this is just a case of musical chairs. The vast majority of the people who moved out of the city during that time ended up in the suburbs. Yes, it's true that many people in the metro area did indeed move away entirely, but a change in population from 5.3 million to 5.2 million is not as statistically significant as many people on this forum might think, especially when you consider much of that loss has been reversed in the few short years since the recession ended.

If you look at it from a metropolitan view, Detroit has been in much better shape over the last 60 years compared to the rest of the Rust Belt cities. (i.e. Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, etc.)

I don't know, but I think that's unlikely. Usually census undercount population, either because some people are temporary out, or don't care, or purpusedly don't want to appear in the census, people like illegal inmigrants, etc. But overcount? so some people were counted twice?

[memph]

Originally Posted by AccraGhana

I think it would be more apropos to measure the decline of the African American population in cities like Cleveland, Detroit, Oakland, California, Buffalo and many other places. That would be apples to Apples. African Americans are moving to the suburbs nationally at rates that have never been seen before. Detroit being the largest black majority city in the nation.......it only makes sense that it would be a microcosm of this trend, meaning it has the most to lose. Cities with smaller percentage of African Americans will have a less pronounced population loss, as well as those with large immigrant influx, like Chicago, LA and East Coast cities.

This is the primary problem with juxtaposing Detroit with other cities. Detroit is a reflection of African American people in America, while most other cities in the US are not. Hence, the fact that African Americans are in much worse shape socioeconomically in this nation means that a city 85% African American is going to reflect the struggles of African American people. If you take nearly every major city in America and carve out a section of the city where it mirrors the demographics of Detroit.....I bet you find the same problems and issues of Detroit for the most part.....with the difference being that cities with large white populations have a better tax base to subsidize and offset the lack of tax base in the black areas. If those black areas had to survive on their own like Detroit.....they would struggle as well because African Americans income, wealth and employment levels are far lower than white America and governments need tax revenue for services, schools and such.

In light of that, when I read these debates I think most people miss the boat and hence do not understand the dynamics of Detroit. Its important to make a distinction with a difference between the problems of "Detroit" vs the problems of "African Americans". The problems and conditions of African Americans are NOT shared by non African Americans in the Detroit region, to the same degree. In other words, like ever other major city in America, the condition of blacks and whites are very different....but most other cities are not defined by their African American population as is Detroit. Detroit suburbs, where the vast majority of the people in the Detroit area live......are better than many in the nation.....but the problems of the city overshadows that fact.

There might be some truth to what you're saying, but even so Detroit lost a bigger percentage of its black population than most other cities in recent years.

Black Population Change 1990-2010

Center Township: -28.9% (Central Indianapolis)
Los Angeles: -25.4%
Detroit: -24.1%
D.C.: -23.9%
Chicago: -18.7%
Youngstown: -18.2%
Dayton: -17.8%
Pittsburgh: -16.7
St Louis: -16.7%
Flint: -14.4%
D.C.: -11.5%
Cleveland: -11.0%
Newark: -10.0%
Baltimore: -9.3%
Cincinnati: -3.3%
Buffalo: -1.4%
New York: -0.7%
Philadelphia: +3.3%
Rochester: +17.3%
Minneapolis: +48.5%

Black Population Change 2000-2010

Detroit: -23.9%
Center Township: -22.3% (Central Indianapolis)
Chicago: -17.2%
Youngstown: -16.8%
Dayton: -15.4%
Cleveland: -13.8%
Flint: -13.2%
Pittsburgh: -12.3%
St. Louis: -12.3%
Los Angeles: -11.5%
Buffalo: -8.8%
Cincinnati: -6.4%
Baltimore: -5.7%
Newark: -2.7%
New York: -1.9%
Philadelphia: -0.4%
Rochester: +1.4%
Minneapolis: +2.8%

Los Angeles has been losing its black population fairly steadily since at least 1990 (vs only around 2000 for Detroit), but at the county level too, so I don't think it's a matter of blacks moving to the suburbs as much as out of state.

D.C. has been losing blacks at a significant rate too, though I suspect that the push factor of gentrification is pretty significant vs Detroit where they're mostly leaving for greener pastures.

Chicago is pretty bad (smaller rust belt cities too) but not as bad as Detroit.

And then you have the blacks of Indianapolis which are mostly moving from older parts of the city (Center Twp) to newer parts of the city (outer Marion County townships). That's still noteworthy since it has big city limits that include some suburban areas, although at the same time, Center Township is much much smaller than Detroit (just a little over 100,000 residents).

While St Louis, Buffalo, Cleveland and Pittsburgh have seen their black population decrease significantly, it was still decreasing at a significantly lower rate. And then Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York, Rochester and Minneapolis have been losing blacks at a much much lower rate if not gaining.

Also it seems like among larger cities with a significant black majority, only Gary has been losing blacks at a comparable rate to Detroit while Pine Bluff has been losing blacks at a slower rate and Jackson, MS has been gaining.

[Centropolis]

boo hoo the fucking great lakes.

we always manage.

[AccraGhana]

Originally Posted by CCs77

I don't know, but I think that's unlikely. Usually census undercount population, either because some people are temporary out, or don't care, or purpusedly don't want to appear in the census, people like illegal inmigrants, etc. But overcount? so some people were counted twice?

I disagree totally. I heard it argued and researched the argument that I heard that corroborates what Hud said. Detroit's 2000 population was ADJUSTED UPWARD post the official enumeration. Cities, including Detroit, sued arguing a minority under count in 2000. The cities won and those cities population were adjusted upward from their official count, based upon some formula. In any case, Detroit being majority minority meant its population was adjusted upward about 55,000 or so. Its 2000 census count, before the adjustment, was around 900,000 people, which was then adjusted, as a result of the suit, to 955,000.

Here is an article not specifically about Detroit, but about what was happening in 2000.

In 2010, there was no after the fact adjustment for minority under count, even though some cities were suing for under count, they did not win in court and no cities had their counts adjusted upward as was the case in 2000. So if you do an apples to apples comparison between the 2000 and 2010 census of Detroit, one which uses the official count and not adjustments after the fact, Detroit went from 900,000 to 713,000, which is a loss of 187,000 and not 250,000.

I also heard it argued, and I agree here as well, that the squatter population in Detroit is more than in most cities because of the number of abandoned dwellings in the city. In previous enumerations, it was argued, former mayors embarked upon the task of getting as many people counted as possible in the city of Detroit, through advertisement and community activism. I personally can attest to this in the years that I lived in Detroit under Coleman Young and Dennis Archer. That had massive campaigns to get out the count. In 2010 the Mayor made no such efforts in Detroit, so I would imagine that many squatters were not counted, because many do not want to be exposed of fear of removal. That said, having massive campaigns and advertisement urging residents to be counted produce results of increased counts. Why Mayor Bing did not do that in 2010, then cries about an under count when the totals came so low, is baffling to me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/02/us...a-million.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/vacan...uatters-2011-8

I think that there are too many inconsistencies between 2000 and 2010 population counts of the city of Detroit to get a precise delta between the two decades. I think there is no question that the city lost a lot of people, but I seriously doubt that the city lost anywhere near 250,000 people in 10 years. In my mind, knowing Detroit, there is no way in hell that number is true. For the person on the outside looking in.......you do not know the nuances. You cannot take everything at face value. You cannot sit in California or Texas, look at statistics then think you are an expert on Detroit and its pulse and keep throwing up statistics....without understanding the statistics.

[AccraGhana]

Originally Posted by memph

There might be some truth to what you're saying, but even so Detroit lost a bigger percentage of its black population than most other cities in recent years.

Black Population Change 1990-2010

Center Township: -28.9% (Central Indianapolis)
Los Angeles: -25.4%
Detroit: -24.1%
D.C.: -23.9%
Chicago: -18.7%
Youngstown: -18.2%
Dayton: -17.8%
Pittsburgh: -16.7
St Louis: -16.7%
Flint: -14.4%
D.C.: -11.5%
Cleveland: -11.0%
Newark: -10.0%
Baltimore: -9.3%
Cincinnati: -3.3%
Buffalo: -1.4%
New York: -0.7%
Philadelphia: +3.3%
Rochester: +17.3%
Minneapolis: +48.5%

Black Population Change 2000-2010

Detroit: -23.9%
Center Township: -22.3% (Central Indianapolis)
Chicago: -17.2%
Youngstown: -16.8%
Dayton: -15.4%
Cleveland: -13.8%
Flint: -13.2%
Pittsburgh: -12.3%
St. Louis: -12.3%
Los Angeles: -11.5%
Buffalo: -8.8%
Cincinnati: -6.4%
Baltimore: -5.7%
Newark: -2.7%
New York: -1.9%
Philadelphia: -0.4%
Rochester: +1.4%
Minneapolis: +2.8%

Los Angeles has been losing its black population fairly steadily since at least 1990 (vs only around 2000 for Detroit), but at the county level too, so I don't think it's a matter of blacks moving to the suburbs as much as out of state.

D.C. has been losing blacks at a significant rate too, though I suspect that the push factor of gentrification is pretty significant vs Detroit where they're mostly leaving for greener pastures.

Chicago is pretty bad (smaller rust belt cities too) but not as bad as Detroit.

And then you have the blacks of Indianapolis which are mostly moving from older parts of the city (Center Twp) to newer parts of the city (outer Marion County townships). That's still noteworthy since it has big city limits that include some suburban areas, although at the same time, Center Township is much much smaller than Detroit (just a little over 100,000 residents).

While St Louis, Buffalo, Cleveland and Pittsburgh have seen their black population decrease significantly, it was still decreasing at a significantly lower rate. And then Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York, Rochester and Minneapolis have been losing blacks at a much much lower rate if not gaining.

Also it seems like among larger cities with a significant black majority, only Gary has been losing blacks at a comparable rate to Detroit while Pine Bluff has been losing blacks at a slower rate and Jackson, MS has been gaining.

You have to make a distinction with a difference between African Americans and Blacks. Like me....I am black...but not African American. Many cities have seen an influx of black immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean, which offsets the loss of African Americans. This is particularly true in east cost cities, Minneapolis and few others, although Minneapolis is not experiencing a decline in its African American pop.

There are two trends for African Americans. One trend is to the suburbs and the other trend is to the South. The cities that will be hardest hit by these trends are cities in the north with large black population concentrated in the city. No city represents that more than Detroit and so in my mind Detroit is kind of "normative" and not an outlier. The economy in Michigan has been a little worse over the past decade than most any state, which created a greater push out of the state, including the city of Detroit.

All that said, when you follow the dollars and investment, Detroit has turned around. What killed Detroit was divestment and the loss of its white population and their greater incomes and wealth......those things are returning now and confidence will snowball and perpetuate even more growth and investment in the core. I am on the cusp of buying some property in an area that I predict will boom in the next 10 years.

[memph]

Originally Posted by AccraGhana

You have to make a distinction with a difference between African Americans and Blacks. Like me....I am black...but not African American. Many cities have seen an influx of black immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean, which offsets the loss of African Americans. This is particularly true in east cost cities, Minneapolis and few others, although Minneapolis is not experiencing a decline in its African American pop.

There are two trends for African Americans. One trend is to the suburbs and the other trend is to the South. The cities that will be hardest hit by these trends are cities in the north with large black population concentrated in the city. No city represents that more than Detroit and so in my mind Detroit is kind of "normative" and not an outlier. The economy in Michigan has been a little worse over the past decade than most any state, which created a greater push out of the state, including the city of Detroit.

All that said, when you follow the dollars and investment, Detroit has turned around. What killed Detroit was divestment and the loss of its white population and their greater incomes and wealth......those things are returning now and confidence will snowball and perpetuate even more growth and investment in the core. I am on the cusp of buying some property in an area that I predict will boom in the next 10 years.

I know NYC and probably DC and Boston are getting black immigrants but are Baltimore and Philadelphia really getting that many? Or Rochester and Buffalo?

Anyways, even if you compare Detroit to the Great Lakes/Rust Belt area, while not as much of an outlier when looking at black population change as overall population change, it's still on the high end for black population loss. I guess that's probably related to the fact that the city was bankrupt from 2000-2010 (in the sense it couldn't provide basic services not the bankruptcy filing that will likely alleviate that).

Any theories as to why? I think compared to Buffalo, Cleveland, St Louis and Pittsburgh, Detroit had slightly higher median household incomes in 2000 despite having had more intense white flight. (by 2010 that reversed) You often hear about how bad corruption was in Detroit, was corruption and its impacts less severe in the 4 other cities?