HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2013, 8:00 PM
hudkina hudkina is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,445
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2013, 9:17 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by uaarkson View Post
Current MSA pop for the region is only slightly below its historical peak.
That's considered dying. The population is not even increasing at the natural rate of reproduction...

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:



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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2013, 9:22 PM
mousquet's Avatar
mousquet mousquet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Greater Paris, France
Posts: 4,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by uaarkson View Post
That's not true, really. When people talk about the strength of the suburbs it's usually to highlight the fact that Detroit hasn't "died" but has rather shifted its weight from central city to surrounding metro (well some people would still consider that dying lol). Current MSA pop for the region is only slightly below its historical peak.
My guess is people in MI need to realize that no one in the world knows the suburbs exist. Who has ever heard of, say even Ann Arbor? worldwide, very few. The world only sees Detroit proper, and what do they get to see in their local media? wide empty streets, a huge amount of abandoned buildings falling into decay, some crime reports, stuff like that, then they say - well, that's it.

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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2013, 9:25 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
That's considered dying. The population is not even increasing at the natural rate of reproduction...
This isn't true. In four of the last five decades, Metro Detroit (the MSA and the CSA) showed net population growth. And, again, the only Census that showed population loss was concurrent with the auto industry near-death.

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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2013, 9:32 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by mousquet View Post
My guess is people in MI need to realize that no one in the world knows the suburbs exist. Who has ever heard of, say even Ann Arbor? worldwide, very few.
There are thousands of very well educated, very well compensated Germans, Italians, and Japanese working in Metro Detroit, by choice. Detroit is still the global hub of the auto industry, and the presence of high level auto executives, engineers and designers, especially from these three countries, is quite noticable. In fact, apartment rental ads are sometimes in Italian or German.

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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2013, 9:56 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
This isn't true. In four of the last five decades, Metro Detroit (the MSA and the CSA) showed net population growth.
A quick Google search could've told you that you are wrong. In three of the last five decades Detroit has declined in population:

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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2013, 10:23 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
This isn't true. In four of the last five decades, Metro Detroit (the MSA and the CSA) showed net population growth. And, again, the only Census that showed population loss was concurrent with the auto industry near-death.
That is not true. Let's take a look at the numbers for Detroit's MSA (the first figure) and CSA (the second). Declines are in red:

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.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2013, 10:27 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Ah, I see iheartthed beat me to it.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2013, 10:31 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
^ The cold data that Crawford cherry picks to critique places he seethingly hates (like Chicago) have no meaning when you're discussing Detroit.
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2013, 10:35 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
That is not true. Let's take a look at the numbers for Detroit's MSA (the first figure) and CSA (the second). Declines are in red:

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.
I stand corrected. We were both wrong. Detroit gained in three, and lost in three. I didn't know there was net decline during the 70's and 80's.

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:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
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.
There's no reason to ignore, downplay, or deny. But there's also no reason to single out. Why is Detroit singled out when other major cities have worse population decline?

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?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2013, 10:38 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ The cold data that Crawford cherry picks to critique places he seethingly hates (like Chicago) have no meaning when you're discussing Detroit.
Ah yes, Census data means nothing, right? Decennial data is obviously "cherry-picking". It must be a grand conspiracy...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2013, 10:42 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
There's no reason to ignore, downplay, or deny. But there's also no reason to single out. Why is Detroit singled out when other major cities have worse population decline?

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?
^ Because Detroit fell from a higher pedestal than pretty much all of these other cities. It was once in a league close to Chicago, and suburbanization & deindustrialization ripped its soul apart so dramatically.

Detroit had (has?) a certain gilded brand and identity that none of the other cities you mention (Cleveland/Pittsburgh) did
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2013, 10:56 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ Because Detroit fell from a higher pedestal than pretty much all of these other cities. It was once in a league close to Chicago, and suburbanization & deindustrialization ripped its soul apart so dramatically.

Detroit had (has?) a certain gilded brand and identity that none of the other cities you mention (Cleveland/Pittsburgh) did
This is true, in that Detroit was larger and more prominent than those cities. But, if we were to judge a region based on population trends, the relative loss has been less.

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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2013, 11:07 PM
animatedmartian's Avatar
animatedmartian animatedmartian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,945
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...

Video Link
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2013, 11:13 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,401
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.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2013, 11:19 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
There seems to be no more ambition or pride.
there's plenty of ambition left, but these days it's mostly applied to turning cornfields into cul-de-sacs and office parks. american society didn't get complacent in the postwar era, just stupid. we traded in everything good that thousands of years of civilization taught us about city building all in an effort to ensure that every single person would have the "luxury" (necessity) to lug 2 tons of steel around with them every single place they went.

guess which america city spearheaded the movement to construct that brave new world? karma perhaps at work here?
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2013, 11:24 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
I stand corrected....I didn't know there was net decline during the 70's and 80's.
I appreciate this acknowledgment. I know you never intended to misinform, but it has been very frustrating to see incorrect assertions spread and get repeated so often over the years. Hopefully we can just point forumers to this thread in the future, if need be. Anyway, moving on.

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.

There's no reason to ignore, downplay, or deny. But there's also no reason to single out. Why is Detroit singled out when other major cities have worse population decline?

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?
Detroit city is the actual subject of this thread. The metro stuff is always introduced by hudkina as a means to divert attention from Detroit's decline--not that the metro is growing, but whatever.

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?
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2013, 11:32 PM
hudkina hudkina is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,445
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2013, 11:33 PM
hudkina hudkina is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
I appreciate this acknowledgment. I know you never intended to misinform, but it has been very frustrating to see incorrect assertions spread and get repeated so often over the years. Hopefully we can just point forumers to this thread in the future, if need be. Anyway, moving on.
Like yourself only earlier in this thread? You were trying to make a point that the loss of population between 2000 and 2010 was a first in an attempt to note that Detroit was in decline as opposed to long-term stagnation...

Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
Detroit MSA:

1950 - 3,016,197
1960 - 3,762,360 - 24.7% growth
1970 - 4,307,470 - 14.5% growth
1980 - 4,353,365 - 1.1% growth
1990 - 4,382,299 - 0.7% growth
2000 - 4,452,557 - 1.6% growth
2010 - 4,296,250 - 3.5% decline
2011 - 4,285,832 - 0.2% decline (est.)
And I had already pointed out in the other thread the economic collapse the region experienced in the late 70's and early 80's.


And really???
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
Detroit city is the actual subject of this thread. The metro stuff is always introduced by hudkina as a means to divert attention from Detroit's decline--not that the metro is growing
Uh... go through this thread again. YOU are the first one to bring metro data into discussion when you posted your errant metro population data above. My one contribution to the thread up to that point was in response to someone asking for pictures of urban areas in the region. Up to now, every other post I made was specific to the city.

but whatever...

Last edited by hudkina; Feb 4, 2013 at 11:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2013, 12:27 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
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.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013

Last edited by fflint; Feb 5, 2013 at 12:54 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:37 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.