Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One
Detroit suburbs have never "existed without their central city" at any point.
|
i never said that detroit's burbs have ever existed without their central city, just that detroit is the closest example we have of a major US city to that situation.
but as i pointed out, it's still a long, LONG way away from that because, despite the massive losses in population over the decades, detroit still has 1/3 of its 1950 peak population left.
it's all a giant hypothetical exercise anyway, because, barring extreme calamities like global nuclear war or asteroid impact, i don't foresee any major US central city's population dropping to zero anytime soon.
there is always going to be some level of interplay between central cities and their burbs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One
Metro Detroit has also seen more growth than Chicagoland this last decade, so it's fared pretty decently.
|
yes, overall, metro detroit grew a tiny bit faster than chicagoland last decade, but it was all growth in the burbs, whereas chicagoland's growth was much more balanced between the city and the burbs.
and neither of them are close to what you'd call a "fast growth metro area": of the 56 1M+ MSA's in the nation, chicago and detroit were #49 and #48, respectively, for growth rate last decade.
the great lakes cities, collectively, did pretty bad on that score, with 6 of the 10 slowest growing 1M+ MSAs, 7 if you include nearby pittsburgh (hartford, memphis, & st. louis were the other 3).
pop. growth 2010 - 2020:
chicago MSA: +157,397 (+1.7%)
detroit MSA: +95,791(+2.2%)
city of chicago: +50,790 (+1.9%)
city of detroit:
-74,666 (-10.5%)
suburban chicago: +106,607 (+1.6%)
suburban detroit: +170,457 (+4.8%)
Threaded Mode