Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One
You seem to know nothing, Detroit is one of the only metro regions actually gaining population in the rustbelt. Urban blight doesn't expose anything unknown, all those cities have that as well, how is this unique evidence? Cleveland, Buffalo, and Chicago have substantial blight, what are you even saying? Blight is mostly evidence of suburban sprawl not metro population loss. The Detroit region has a higher population than it did in 1960 and mostly remained stable since the 70's. City proper numbers get chopped in weird ways, Hemmtrmack and Highland Park are technically their own cities so they don't get counted, there's also Windsor to consider (but that's a totally different can of warms) so the population is much larger than raw census numbers suggest. You keep going back and forth between city proper and metro numbers, your post doesn't even make a slick of sense.
|
City limits do complicate one's definition of what a city actually is, there always seems to be a debate as to whether the legal but rather arbitrarily defined city proper, urban area or metro area constitutes a "city". Measuring the urban and metro population of Detroit, then no, it is not a declining region, but those neighborhoods like the area by the airport off of Van Dyke are certainly not an indication of a stable metro area. Many cities have their fair share of blight, even booming cities, but Detroit seems to have the most proportionally, as
the urban politician said.
That being said, the legally defined city does seem to be turning around, albeit slowly, and the increasingly thriving Downtown and Midtown areas are evidence of this.