Detroit then and now: An infographic.

[animatedmartian]

My aunt and uncle sent their daughter to a private school in Royal Oak. But they also worked in Royal Oak too so it's not like it was out of their way or anything. The bigger factor is whether a family is willing to pay for private schooling. If they can pay for it, then they likely don't need transit.

Detroit also has a lot of charter schools and I think there was a proposal to make some percentage the school district into charter schools not too long ago.

Also, the downtown schools within DPS tend to be better than the ones farther out, imo.

[JonathanGRR]

Yeah, I forgot about the four magnet schools. Are there similarly good primary schools as well?

[hudkina]

The short-term goal is attracting young adults. Retaining them once they start having families is a completely different battle. Even then, most cities including places like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles tend to lose a large share of the young adults they attract. You don't have to keep the young adults around once they start having kids as long as you can attract the next generation of young adults.

[AccraGhana]

I think what people are forgetting is that families are on the wane and fertility rates are falling. Young professionals are waiting later and later to have children and many are choosing not to have Children at all. It is a problem in the Western world as fewer women are having children which threatens the future economy of many nations.

That having been said, its not JUST young adults who want the city life. Many empty nesters are attracted to central city living via condo high rises and such. Its a growing trend nationally. I honestly believe that the trend is back to the cities and this will especially kick in when petro prices start to stay above 5 and 6 dollars a gallon, notwithstanding oil shell.

Detroit is going to surprise the hell out of a lot of people in a decade or so.....assuming that the US economy does not impode.

[dc_denizen]

What do people tend to view as the core, innermost urban/suburban areas of Detroit? I've looked at google maps and it seems the densest suburbs (resembling, in most respects, much of Detroit from a land use perspective, ie single family homes on small lots) extend north (Southfield, Birmingham, Royal Oak, etc) and to the west (Livonia, Dearborn, etc). Detroit's UA population is around what, 4 million--how much of this total is on sustainable (grids, small lots, etc) as opposed to non-sustainable (mcMansions, loop-de-loop streets, etc)

It would be interesting to know:

* What is the total population of these areas?
* What are the major centers of activity? Are their active retail street/town centers ,or is it mostly big boxes on aterials and malls? How common are historic downtowns and newish suburban infill style development?
* How are these area doing economically compared to their north American peer group? Are they gaining or losing population? Are they nice places to live - more like Long Island, or Schaumburg, or the Main Line, or Bergen County?

[animatedmartian]

Originally Posted by hudkina

The short-term goal is attracting young adults. Retaining them once they start having families is a completely different battle. Even then, most cities including places like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles tend to lose a large share of the young adults they attract. You don't have to keep the young adults around once they start having kids as long as you can attract the next generation of young adults.

I don't know about Chicago, but Detroit at least has a good chunk of post-war suburban living mostly on the west and north sides of the city (yards, parks, SF subdivisions, etc). Unlike NYC where it's pretty much dense throughout the whole city, Detroit can hold families if the neighborhoods are preserved and improved like they should be.

[hudkina]

And that's why Detroit actually has a relatively young population, especially compared to many other rust belt cities. 31% of the residents of the city in 2010 were under the age of 20.

Detroit - 30.5%
Cleveland- 28.0%
Buffalo - 27.5%
Chicago - 25.9%
Pittsburgh - 21.4%

[JonathanGRR]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

What do people tend to view as the core, innermost urban/suburban areas of Detroit? I've looked at google maps and it seems the densest suburbs (resembling, in most respects, much of Detroit from a land use perspective, ie single family homes on small lots) extend north (Southfield, Birmingham, Royal Oak, etc) and to the west (Livonia, Dearborn, etc). Detroit's UA population is around what, 4 million--how much of this total is on sustainable (grids, small lots, etc) as opposed to non-sustainable (mcMansions, loop-de-loop streets, etc)

It would be interesting to know:

* What is the total population of these areas?
* What are the major centers of activity? Are their active retail street/town centers ,or is it mostly big boxes on aterials and malls? How common are historic downtowns and newish suburban infill style development?
* How are these area doing economically compared to their north American peer group? Are they gaining or losing population? Are they nice places to live - more like Long Island, or Schaumburg, or the Main Line, or Bergen County?

I don't know specifics, but generally the main arterial roads (Jefferson, Michigan, Grand River, Woodward, Gratiot) exhibit "dense suburbs" like you are describing. Many of Detroit's suburbs were/are nice town centers that got surrounded by post-war sprawl.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by hudkina

The short-term goal is attracting young adults. Retaining them once they start having families is a completely different battle. Even then, most cities including places like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles tend to lose a large share of the young adults they attract. You don't have to keep the young adults around once they start having kids as long as you can attract the next generation of young adults.

Very true, and although the recent census did illustrate the trend of families form city to suburb, I actually believe you'll see this trend start to slow. It's already happening in places like Chicago where SFH and 3-4 bedroom multi-family housing construction is up in places like Lincoln Park and some other brown line communities. Low crime and schools are important to parents, and not every family wants a yard when there's a big park nearby. If cities can keep crime down and have really great charter schools, it's more attractive for families to stick around.

[ssiguy]

Private schools are out of the financial question for all but a few wealthy parents. Charter schools are an option but again that raises a real issue of equity and fairness.

The new { mostly white, well educated} parents have a new chartered schoold to attend with public money while the poorer kids who have called the area home all their lives have to go to grossly under funded schools where drop out rates are sky high, drugs are easily accessible, and crime, guns, and gangs permeate the enviornment.

If I was an average Detroiter {ussually black and poor} I would be mad as hell if my child's school was rotting due to lack of funds while the {ussuallt wealthy, white} new residents get a brand spanking new school to send their kids to.

I am not trying to disparage Detroit's efforts to revitalize certain communities but it cannot do so at the expense of it's long term residents.

Getting people, even in Detroit, to move downtown is the easy part but holding on to them is much harder.

[animatedmartian]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

What do people tend to view as the core, innermost urban/suburban areas of Detroit? I've looked at google maps and it seems the densest suburbs (resembling, in most respects, much of Detroit from a land use perspective, ie single family homes on small lots) extend north (Southfield, Birmingham, Royal Oak, etc) and to the west (Livonia, Dearborn, etc). Detroit's UA population is around what, 4 million--how much of this total is on sustainable (grids, small lots, etc) as opposed to non-sustainable (mcMansions, loop-de-loop streets, etc)

It would be interesting to know:

* What is the total population of these areas?
* What are the major centers of activity? Are their active retail street/town centers ,or is it mostly big boxes on aterials and malls? How common are historic downtowns and newish suburban infill style development?
* How are these area doing economically compared to their north American peer group? Are they gaining or losing population? Are they nice places to live - more like Long Island, or Schaumburg, or the Main Line, or Bergen County?

Here's percent population change from 2000-2010 for all of SE Michigan. Generally, the mature suburbs have stagnated in growth while the exurban areas are rapidly growing and Detroit, of course, is rapidly losing population.

http://www.semcog.org/uploadedFiles/...centpopc10.pdf

Here's the exact population numbers for all municipalities in SE Michigan.

http://library.semcog.org/InmagicGen...2010Census.pdf

Poverty rates by census block.

http://www.semcog.org/uploadedFiles/...in_Poverty.pdf

Housing values.

http://www.semcog.org/uploadedFiles/...sing_Value.pdf

Household incomes.

http://www.semcog.org/uploadedFiles/...old_Income.pdf

And where the yuppies live!

http://www.semcog.org/uploadedFiles/..._Graduates.pdf

I'm kinda tired so I don't really know if this answered any of the info you're looking for but it's at least some information to digest and dissect.

[AccraGhana]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Private schools are out of the financial question for all but a few wealthy parents. Charter schools are an option but again that raises a real issue of equity and fairness.

The new { mostly white, well educated} parents have a new chartered schoold to attend with public money while the poorer kids who have called the area home all their lives have to go to grossly under funded schools where drop out rates are sky high, drugs are easily accessible, and crime, guns, and gangs permeate the enviornment.

If I was an average Detroiter {ussually black and poor} I would be mad as hell if my child's school was rotting due to lack of funds while the {ussuallt wealthy, white} new residents get a brand spanking new school to send their kids to.

I am not trying to disparage Detroit's efforts to revitalize certain communities but it cannot do so at the expense of it's long term residents.

Getting people, even in Detroit, to move downtown is the easy part but holding on to them is much harder.

I do not think that they have to stay forever. New young people will replace them. As long as the rate of inflow exceeds the rate of outflow...it will grow. People do not have to stay forever.

[hudkina]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

What do people tend to view as the core, innermost urban/suburban areas of Detroit? I've looked at google maps and it seems the densest suburbs (resembling, in most respects, much of Detroit from a land use perspective, ie single family homes on small lots) extend north (Southfield, Birmingham, Royal Oak, etc) and to the west (Livonia, Dearborn, etc).

I would say the simplest way to determine the "inner-ring" suburbs would be to list those whose populations peaked around 1970 or before. For the most part, these suburbs began to develop in the early 20th century along the interurban lines emanating from Detroit. Things really started picking up in the early post-war era, peaking just before the economic collapse of the late 1970's.

Cities include:
Center Line, Eastpointe, Roseville, St. Clair Shores, and Warren in Macomb County.

Berkley, Birmingham, Clawson, Ferndale, Hazel Park, Huntington Woods, Madison Heights, Oak Park, Pleasant Ridge, Royal Oak, and Royal Oak TWP in Oakland County.

Allen Park, Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, Ecorse, Garden City, Grosse Pointe, Grosse Pointe Farms, Grosse Pointe Park, Grosse Pointe Shores, Grosse Pointe Woods, Harper Woods, Inkster, Lincoln Park, Livonia, Melvindale, Redford TWP, River Rouge, Southgate, Wayne, Westland, and Wyandotte in Wayne County.

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

* What is the total population of these areas?

1930: 295,164 / 1,080 ppsm
1970: 1,534,716 / 5,616 ppsm
2010: 1,158,648 / 4,240 ppsm

The area of the inner-ring is 273 sq. mi. In comparison the city of Dallas has a population of 1,197,816 in an area of 340 sq. mi. meaning Detroit's inner-ring suburbs are denser than the entire city of Dallas. And Before anyone starts discussing population loss, virtually all of the loss is due to shrinking household sizes.

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

* What are the major centers of activity? Are their active retail street/town centers ,or is it mostly big boxes on aterials and malls? How common are historic downtowns and newish suburban infill style development?

Cities with relatively active and walkable downtowns are:

Birmingham (Old Woodward and Maple)
Royal Oak (Main and 4th)
Ferndale (Woodward and 9 Mile)
Berkley (12 Mile and Robina)
Clawson (14 Mile and Main)
Grosse Pointe Farms (Kercheval and McMillan)
Grosse Pointe (Kercheval and Notre Dame)
Grosse Pointe Park (Kercheval and Maryland)
Mt. Clemens (Main and Macomb)
Utica (Auburn and Cass)
Rochester (Main and 3rd)
Pontiac (Saginaw and Huron)
Farmington (Grand River and Farmington)
Northville (Center and Main)
Plymouth (Main and Ann Arbor Trail)
Wayne (Michigan and Wayne)
Dearborn (Michigan and Monroe)
Allen Park (Allen and Park)
Wyandotte (Biddle and Maple)
Trenton (West and West Jefferson)

There are other cities with "downtown" areas, but they trend to be smaller, less active, or less pedestrian-friendly.

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

* How are these area doing economically compared to their north American peer group? Are they gaining or losing population? Are they nice places to live - more like Long Island, or Schaumburg, or the Main Line, or Bergen County?

Like any metro area there are areas that are considered working-class and areas that have extreme wealth even within municipal boundaries. Granted, it is easy to say Birmingham or the Grosse Pointes are the wealthiest and Inkster and River Rouge are the poorest.

[AccraGhana]

I really do not get the school issue. Any private school in the metro area can work for a city resident if they have money. Many metro areas around the country have open enrollment and parents can send their kids to school in any city in those metros. I currently live in Minneapolis and many Minneapolis parents send their kids to school in the suburbs. I would have no problem finding a school for my kids if I moved back to Detroit and my income would allow it. Families are much smaller today and paying for private schooling for one or two kids is much cheaper than paying for a large family.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by hudkina

The short-term goal is attracting young adults. Retaining them once they start having families is a completely different battle. Even then, most cities including places like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles tend to lose a large share of the young adults they attract. You don't have to keep the young adults around once they start having kids as long as you can attract the next generation of young adults.

Disagree, any great city should focus on keeping a sizable percentage of families in the city. To do otherwise by making them just agist ghettos for the young you are allowing the suburban oligarcy to define cities and urbanism on it's terms. Cities before sprawl were about all age groups and good cities to this day still are. Cities like NYC, LA and Chicago still are pretty diverse in terms of age demographics, of course a sizable percentage of young people leave and we should try to get more of them to stay but the reality is that urbanism just isn't for everyone and city living will just naturally weed out the more weak willed who are simply not urbanists.

[hudkina]

Hence my calling it a short-term goal. The obvious long-term goal is to make urban living desirable to all demographics.

[j korzeniowski]

Originally Posted by uaarkson

Doesn't seem to be stopping developers in Chicago.

please, the murder rates in the 2 cities are not in the same ballpark; plus, the cities are not similar at all right now.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by j korzeniowski

please, the murder rates in the 2 cities are not in the same ballpark; plus, the cities are not similar at all right now.

Indeed it's quite different. But there is development in some of the struggling neighborhoods of Chicago. Much of it is new subsidized / affordable housing. The reason these get built so easily in Chicago is because of developer contributions. So a huge mega downtown tower gets built and that developer chips in a couple million into the affordable housing fund. So technically for every tower you see going up in downtown Chicago, there's about to be a small lowrise structure going up on the south and west sides. Since the affordable housing looks pretty decent, people mistake it for regular market rate growth in those neighborhoods, when it's not. That neighborhood could actually be having big vacancy problems. This isn't uncommon in Michigan cities. Ann Arbor had similar policies but I don't know about Detroit. Seemed like most CDC's were searching for funding sources as opposed to windfall contributions but I'm not sure. Maybe someone here can clarify that for me.

[iheartthed]

Here's a quick write up of what role the banks played in Detroit's latest population hemorrhage:

Numerous banks that held mortgages on Detroit homes have, in the past decade, forced the evictions of delinquent owners. Then, after evicting the owners, these banks have not taken the next step of actually foreclosing on the homes, instead leaving the Detroit properties in legal limbo, empty and decaying.

The banks have abandoned tens of thousands of these homes, all over the country, but according to a 2010 Government Accounting Office study, they walked away from more homes here in Detroit than anywhere else, costing the city millions of dollars a year in unpaid taxes. For a city cutting services like police, schoolteachers, firefighters, and where they’re shutting down parks, it’s not hard to explain how much that money matters.

Why wouldn’t the banks just take the logical step of foreclosing on the home? By doing so, the bank could resell the house, recouping some of their losses.

But in Detroit, the value of a home barely covers the cost of the bank’s lawyer appearing in court, and once they have foreclosed, the bank will be liable for the empty home’s taxes.

So, the bank walks away, the house becomes worthless, abandoned, a probable site for arson, making all the homes around it lose value, more clichés of urban blight scarring the landscape. Then people from the suburbs drive by and say, “Why can’t those people take care of themselves.”

http://www.theweeklings.com/tbarlow/...-neighborhood/

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by AccraGhana

I do not think that they have to stay forever. New young people will replace them. As long as the rate of inflow exceeds the rate of outflow...it will grow. People do not have to stay forever.

That is not how you build sustainable communities.

People are far, far less likely to become active participants in their community in terms of both time and money if they know it's only short-term accomodation. People will also not buy housing in that kind of mindset and Detroit definately needs a stabilized housing market.

People who move to different places in the long term are far more likely to actually care for their community and it's citizens as opposed to those who come for a good time but not a long time. Also hipsters who move to downtown/inner city areas to escape the banality of suburbia and ussually at amongst the lowest level of their earnings potential. As they age, like everyone, their income levels rise as they go up the government, business, corporate ladder.

You also want people not just to move there and still work in the suburbs but to also set up businesses which they are far less likely to do if they know that in 5 years it will mean a hour long commute every morning as they return to the suburbs they originally left.