[LMich]

It looks as if Detroit will finally fight the Census like countless other cities have done with success. I happen to believe that the estimate probably isn't a full 7% off, but it certainly couldn't hurt the city to get the most accurate count possible.

Link (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070628/METRO/706280409)

Detroit balks at census tally, fights to be in top 10

June 28, 2007

Mike Wilkinson / The Detroit News

Detroit officials intend to fight the U.S. Census Bureau over its latest population figures, saying the perception of a never-ending downward spiral doesn't reflect the reality of new housing and new residents.

"We're absolutely going to challenge the census numbers," mayoral spokesman Matt Allen said. "We believe it is significantly off."

The Census Bureau estimates, to be released this morning, indicate Detroit lost another 12,000 people between July 2005 and July 2006, putting the city's population around 871,000. The Census Bureau estimates the city has lost nearly 77,000 since 2000.

But over the past several years, the city has led the region in housing starts and a number of buildings have been converted to lofts, and Allen said that adds up to between 5 percent and 10 percent more people than the Census Bureau estimates. If the city's challenge is successful and the city gained 7 percent, it could regain a spot in the Top 10, a lofty perch from which the city fell in 2004. With nearly 930,000 people, San Jose, Calif., is currently No. 10 in the list of biggest cities.

A Detroit victory might cause some hard feelings, however. The bureau would then adjust the population by removing people from other municipalities in Wayne County because the overall county number remains constant.

"I think they should challenge it," said Kurt Metzger, director of research for the United Way for Southeastern Michigan. "It's a strange process in many ways."

Metzger said Census Bureau methodology penalizes older cities by automatically assuming a loss of older housing stock, triggering statistical population drops. Detroit finds itself fighting the same pattern as many other Michigan and other Rust Belt cities. Warren, Lansing and Flint joined Detroit among the top 50 biggest losers in population. So, too, did Chicago, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Buffalo.

Only New Orleans, wracked by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, lost more people than Detroit.

Meanwhile, according to the U.N. Population Fund report released Wednesday, more than half the world's population, 3.3 billion people, will for the first time live in towns and cities by next year.

While census estimates for counties are based on birth, death and migration records, the estimates for cities, villages and townships are based on housing units.

Although they have no impact on funding, the estimates are used as barometers of success or failure. But they create an important perception -- and one that Detroit wants to contest. "Businesses may be less likely to choose a community that is losing population," Metzger said.

[AccraGhana]

Detroit’s rate of population decline should, in theory, slow down. Why? The reason being is that the primary demographic that was responsible for the decline is Caucasians and there is not a large percentage of Caucasians left in the city. The city had gained in black population up until early 2000 and with upwards of 80% of the population being African American, the population should stabilize at around 800,000. Also, poor people seem to drive population growth around the world and in America and unfortunately Detroit has a lot of poor people.

The only thing that could change this is if the region becomes less racially segregated and blacks start feeling more comfortable and accepting living in suburban areas. Many inner ring suburbs that blacks have not traditionally seen favorable to them could possibly see a large influx of black Detroiters seeking safer environs and better schools. If more “Southfields” are born then black flight from the city would continue the population hemorrhage of the city.

On a side note, I think city rankings are passé. They really serve no constructive purpose other than government appropriations. When it comes to economics, what matters is the Marketing area or metropolitan area. These comparisons are like the agrarian era based school system with summer vacation. They really are just holdover from bygone eras that really only amount to the force of habit. There was a time, back before suburbanization and exurbia that “the city”, represented well over half an areas population. Hence, comparing cities was then essentially the equivalent of comparing metro areas as the vast majority of people lived in the city. Today, only about 20 – 25% of metropolitan or consolidated metropolitan area population comes from principle cities proper. To note that Indianapolis is nearly twice as large as Atlanta means what when nearly half of metro Indianapolis population comes from its principle city while less than 20% of Metro Atlanta’s 5 million reside in the city proper.

[hudkina]

Finally. I know that Detroit is still losing population, but I highly doubt the city is going to lose 150,000 between 2000 and 2010...

[Evergrey]

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070628/METRO/706280393/1003

Thursday, June 28, 2007

http://cmsimg.detnews.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=C3&Date=20070628&Category=METRO&ArtNo=706280393&Ref=V2&Profile=1003Q=100&MaxW=500
Todd McInturf / The Detroit News

Kevin Dunn of Algonac works on a roof on a new house in December in Macomb Township. Townships continue to attract new residents.


Townships gain as cities lose people


Jim Lynch / The Detroit News

While the Great Lakes State has been leaking residents in recent years, townships -- not cities -- continue to fare best in attracting population in southeastern Michigan, according to new U.S. Census Bureau statistics released today.

The census figures reflect the period from July 2005 to July 2006. In that time, townships posted the largest gains in population, while most cities saw little to no growth or their numbers decreased. An exception is Novi, which led Oakland County in population growth.

The continued push into outer-ring suburbs, according to some experts, maintains a damaging pattern that could eventually come back to haunt Metro Detroit.

"It's a zero-sum game," said Kurt Metzger, director of research for the United Way for Southeastern Michigan. "Michigan has fewer people today than it had in 1970, yet the area being built on continues to grow into areas that aren't prepared to handle it in terms of infrastructure."

Livingston County recorded the highest percentage population increase, but Macomb County -- led by Macomb, Shelby, Washington and Chesterfield townships -- showed the largest total increase. From July 2005 to July 2006:


Macomb County's population grew by 3,911.


Livingston County's population grew by 3,107, led by Oceola, Marion, Handy and Brighton townships.


Oakland County's population grew by 586, led by Novi, then by Commerce, Oxford and Addison townships.


Wayne County's population decreased by 19,079; of those areas that did add population, the townships of Canton, Van Buren and Northville led the way.

The pattern in Michigan mirrored what has happened across the country, with the fastest growth occurring in the suburbs, according to census statistics. But while places such as North Las Vegas, Nev., had double-digit growth and an influx of tens of thousands of new residents, the gains in Michigan's largest suburbs have been more modest as the state's economy continues to sputter.

In southeast Michigan, Macomb Township led all municipalities with 1,585 new residents from July 2005 to July 2006 -- an increase of 2.3 percent. Shelby Township added more than 1,100 residents.

Yet even Macomb Township's showing is a far cry from its heyday. That 2.3 percent increase in growth is modest, considering its rate of growth since 2000 was 36.9 percent.

"We're down to about 30 percent of what our absolute peak was in terms of new homes built each year," said John Brennan, Macomb's supervisor. "This year we expect to see between 600 and 650 homes built. A few years ago, that number was between 2,300 and 2,400."

For long-time real estate professionals like Dan Nelson, the growth in townships like Macomb and Shelby continues a trend that has been under way for several years.

"It's all about the cost of dirt," said Nelson, of Coldwell Banker Schweitzer in Shelby Township. "Oakland County is still ranked as one of the richest counties in the country, and Macomb isn't. So a lot of professionals are seeing what their money can get over here in Macomb County."

That attitude is what worries Metzger. Metro Detroit is rife with communities that are built out and already have the water and sewer lines, the widened roads and the schools to handle traffic.

Michigan residents, however, continue to leave these communities behind for newer ones.

"These numbers represent sprawl migration," he said. "And there has to be some way to get people to understand this is not sustainable. It just isn't."

For many, the suburbs are simply too attractive to pass up.

Kim Bonsall and her husband, Jamie, returned to Michigan in 2006 after spending 2 1/2 years in Japan.

Jamie Bonsall, 26, works for Denso and wanted a comfortable commute to the company's offices in Southfield. In November, they moved into a home in Novi.

"It's about a 20-minute commute for him," Kim Bonsall said. "We also did some homework about the schools that are out here. Plus, there are a lot of good Japanese restaurants."

You can reach Jim Lynch at (586) 468-0520 or jlynch@detnews.com.

Michigan's overall population has dipped since 2005, but some communities in Metro Detroit have seen increases. The top gainers in each county were:
Macomb County

Macomb Township gained 1,585 residents.

Shelby Township gained 1,109 residents.

Washington Township gained 962.
Oakland County

Novi gained 1,008 residents.

Commerce Township gained 627 residents.

Oxford Township gained 537.
Wayne County

Canton Township gained 781 residents.

Van Buren Township gained 585 residents.

Northville Township gained 571 residents.
Livingston County

Oceola Township gained 404 residents.

Marion Township gained 335 residents.

Handy Township gained 328 residents.

[LMich]

Detroit’s rate of population decline should, in theory, slow down. Why? The reason being is that the primary demographic that was responsible for the decline is Caucasians and there is not a large percentage of Caucasians left in the city. The city had gained in black population up until early 2000 and with upwards of 80% of the population being African American, the population should stabilize at around 800,000. Also, poor people seem to drive population growth around the world and in America and unfortunately Detroit has a lot of poor people.

The only thing that could change this is if the region becomes less racially segregated and blacks start feeling more comfortable and accepting living in suburban areas. Many inner ring suburbs that blacks have not traditionally seen favorable to them could possibly see a large influx of black Detroiters seeking safer environs and better schools. If more “Southfields” are born then black flight from the city would continue the population hemorrhage of the city.

On a side note, I think city rankings are passé. They really serve no constructive purpose other than government appropriations. When it comes to economics, what matters is the Marketing area or metropolitan area. These comparisons are like the agrarian era based school system with summer vacation. They really are just holdover from bygone eras that really only amount to the force of habit. There was a time, back before suburbanization and exurbia that “the city”, represented well over half an areas population. Hence, comparing cities was then essentially the equivalent of comparing metro areas as the vast majority of people lived in the city. Today, only about 20 – 25% of metropolitan or consolidated metropolitan area population comes from principle cities proper. To note that Indianapolis is nearly twice as large as Atlanta means what when nearly half of metro Indianapolis population comes from its principle city while less than 20% of Metro Atlanta’s 5 million reside in the city proper.

Yes, in theory. But, you're premise is really kind of flawed. More and more inner-ring suburbs are becoming cheaper (i.e. Southfield's), and it's allowing increasingly poorer working class populations to move to the suburbs, all the while the white population is continuing to move to the edges of suburbia, and many Metro Detroits, in general, are moving on from the area, altogether. This is not even to mention Detroit's sizeable black middle class has been fleeing the city for years, now. Detroit is a very unique case where I don't necessarily see a clear bottom to the population loss. One can't apply any unique bottoming out scenarios to Detroit.

[hudkina]

Most of the inner-ring suburbs are already bottoming out. While the estimates don't necessarily show that, I think that when 2010 rolls around the actual numbers will be higher than what the Census Bureau estimates. I'm not saying that the inner-ring won't see a population loss when the numbers come out, however I think the losses won't be as pronounced.

For example, the Census Bureau thinks that Lincoln Park has lost nearly 2,500 people since 2000. If the supposed drop continues the city will have lost as much as 10% of its population between 2000 and 2010. I'm not saying that such a huge drop is not a possibility, but I think a drop of 2-3% is more likely.

The reason the population dropped so much between 1970 and 1990 is that the average household size dropped significantly. The population didn't drop as much between 1990 and 2000 because the average household size didn't fall nearly as much. I have a feeling that between 2000 and 2010 the average household size will only drop a tiny amount as I doubt it will drop below 2. People aren't abandoning their houses in Lincoln Park, so while families will probably continue to shrink, the city isn't going to lose population forever.

The same goes for the rest of the inner-ring. And 25 years from now when the current hotspots will have long been built-out and the kids go off to college, they'll too see the same population loss that the inner-ring experienced over the past 30 years.

[erasercut]

St. Louis has fought this battle many times and always wins.

[AccraGhana]

Yes, in theory. But, you're premise is really kind of flawed. More and more inner-ring suburbs are becoming cheaper (i.e. Southfield's), and it's allowing increasingly poorer working class populations to move to the suburbs, all the while the white population is continuing to move to the edges of suburbia, and many Metro Detroits, in general, are moving on from the area, altogether. This is not even to mention Detroit's sizeable black middle class has been fleeing the city for years, now. Detroit is a very unique case where I don't necessarily see a clear bottom to the population loss. One can't apply any unique bottoming out scenarios to Detroit.

I don’t think that price has been the traditional obstacle for inner ring suburbs being attractive to black Detroiters. I mean, there were a lot of poor or working class white folks who were able to flee the city to inner ring suburbs. For blacks, the obstacle has traditionally been race and perceptions…. not home prices. However, I, in my lifetime, have seen a big improvement, if nothing more than superficial, in race relations so I naturally expect the continuity of the black population to push the envelope of city limits soon. But then again, I know quite a few Detroiters who are inspired by the recent positive development emanating from the core. As I am sure you know, there are many die hard Detroiters who are conscious of staying in the city but they have been so discourage by few positives that many gave up and fled to the burbs. I think that the positive changes downtown will give many Detroiters enough hope to try and stick it out more so than before.

I kind of see Detroit like Mississippi. When I was growing up, nearly everyone’s parents I knew were from Mississippi. When I went to Chicago for the summers, the same thing was true there. I made me wonder how the heck anybody was left in Mississippi. But the population of Mississippi stabilized partly because the birth rate was high. I think the same will be true for Detroit. I am highly confident that 800,000 will be the bottoming out number before the city actually sees a rebound in its population. I think that PEAK OIL is going to force a shift in every major Metropolitan area back to the cities. America will become more like Europe in that the poor will be pushed to the outskirts as the middle class uses market forces to allow the gentry to return to the urban core. Detroit is rather unique in that the region is so segregated and polarized still that the transition will be slower.

[LMich]

I don’t think that price has been the traditional obstacle for inner ring suburbs being attractive to black Detroiters. I mean, there were a lot of poor or working class white folks who were able to flee the city to inner ring suburbs. For blacks, the obstacle has traditionally been race and perceptions…. not home prices. However, I, in my lifetime, have seen a big improvement, if nothing more than superficial, in race relations so I naturally expect the continuity of the black population to push the envelope of city limits soon. But then again, I know quite a few Detroiters who are inspired by the recent positive development emanating from the core. As I am sure you know, there are many die hard Detroiters who are conscious of staying in the city but they have been so discourage by few positives that many gave up and fled to the burbs. I think that the positive changes downtown will give many Detroiters enough hope to try and stick it out more so than before.

I kind of see Detroit like Mississippi. When I was growing up, nearly everyone’s parents I knew were from Mississippi. When I went to Chicago for the summers, the same thing was true there. I made me wonder how the heck anybody was left in Mississippi. But the population of Mississippi stabilized partly because the birth rate was high. I think the same will be true for Detroit. I am highly confident that 800,000 will be the bottoming out number before the city actually sees a rebound in its population. I think that PEAK OIL is going to force a shift in every major Metropolitan area back to the cities. America will become more like Europe in that the poor will be pushed to the outskirts as the middle class uses market forces to allow the gentry to return to the urban core. Detroit is rather unique in that the region is so segregated and polarized still that the transition will be slower.

The traditional obstacle has fallen in quite a few inner-ring suburbs, with the 'fortress-type' inner rings the exception, not the rule, anymore. I think, even to my surprise, how quickly diverse many of these places will become come the 2010 Census.

I'm really having a hard time reading your posts. On one hand, you say that you expect the city to bottom out at 800,000, but don't really give any good reasons why you believe this to be the case. Detroit is many years off from anywhere near the gentrification you predict.

[cabasse]

i don't want to butt into someone elses discussion, but i think detroit's really going to start to surprise people, even some of those on here who generally hold a pessimistic viewpoint.

all i can do to back up such a claim is to give a subjective list of opinions, nonetheless each is generally a true statement.
1) detroit is rapidly becoming the coolest, trendiest place in the metro for the current generation of people transitioning to adulthood, (and even some in their late 20s/early 30s) even surpassing places like royal oak and ferndale.
2) i'd really like to repeat what accraghana stated: "PEAK OIL is going to force a shift in every major Metropolitan area back to the cities...Detroit is rather unique in that the region is so segregated and polarized still that the transition will be slower." this is an obvious case. even in my short period of time living here, i've encountered a lot of people from an older generation who hold a definite racist grudge from their experiences with the riots and the general exodus from the city, for whatever reasons they think might justify it. it's really quite sad, but i also think that it's something that most of the current generation has a different view on; as well, a lot of this generation seem to have pride in the city, regardless of if the fact they didn't grow up inside its limits.
3) when transit finally takes hold, i'd hope (and even somewhat expect) that it can push growth back to the city even more. look at st. louis as an example of this. i realize the lou's turnaround is more complex, but detroit has many of the same ingredients brewing that could very easily create a similar situation. cities are finally coming back in this country, and detroit's got some of the best bones in the country.


i don't know if i should create a new thread or if asking here is otherwise fine, but what's you guys' opinion on new york's well-known strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window) for turning that city around, and the possibility that it might jump start a similar turnaround here? (such a proposal would of course be only part of a bigger solution, as detroit's situation is complex.) i think i stumbled across a similar discussion elsewhere recently, (perhaps it was on detroityes) but it's something that i've contemplated a little. help me understand the other side.

[LMich]

Butting in on someone elses discussion?! That's what this forum is all about, robust and thorough debate, where the best debates are those with the most thoughtful voices, and you are one of them.

I agree with most all of your three points to different extents, and they are all very good points, but I fail to see how they relate to the current population loss in the short-term. Detroit will, and kind of has to turn around. A metropolitan area of 5 million+ isn't ever just going to go away in one century, and unlike a few smaller industrial centers that have, IMO, become almost completely irrelevant in their current forms, Metro Detroit is far too economically diverse for even a total collapse of the entire American auto industry (which, BTW, isn't going to happen any time soon) to destroy it.

But, all that said, Detroit proper could very easily see a new wave of flight, and we're seeing the beginnings of that, already. The newfound interest in the inner-city is great, and all, but even if the trickle back into the innner-city were to speed up exponentially, it really won't ever have much effect on stopping the abandonment of middle and outer-ring city neighborhoods.

But, this goes back to a very central argument that many are starting to have, and that's if a smaller, more wealthy Detroit is infact better than a large, poorer Detroit? At what size and mix of incomes is Detroit at its most healthy? A truth that I think we already realize is that Detroit is not going to be flirting with 1.85-2.0 million, anytime soon, so what size and wealth is right for the city?

[AccraGhana]

The traditional obstacle has fallen in quite a few inner-ring suburbs, with the 'fortress-type' inner rings the exception, not the rule, anymore. I think, even to my surprise, how quickly diverse many of these places will become come the 2010 Census.

I'm really having a hard time reading your posts. On one hand, you say that you expect the city to bottom out at 800,000, but don't really give any good reasons why you believe this to be the case. Detroit is many years off from anywhere near the gentrification you predict.

I thought my reasoning was clear LMICH. Here are the factors that I believe will bottom out Detroit’s Decline.

1) The massive decline in Detroit’s population historically has been white flight and there is not that many more whites in the city left to flee.
2) The black population of Detroit has grown up until 2002, where it peaked at around 780,000. It has declined since then by moves to the burbs and “down South” but that decline rate will not be nearly as pronounced as “white flight”.
3) Development in the core is precipitating a changed “spirit” in the region which will draw people from the suburbs back into the city for culture, entertainment, work (corporate relocations to the city for burbs) and residence.
4) One of the big problems with the region has been self deprecation, which created a self-fulfilling prophecy. There have been economic fundamentals that have deteriorated Detroit, but another large portion of the negative image is self deprecation from the older polarized generation. The new generation is changing those paradigms.
5) Oil Prices are going to force a shift in region population distribution and those forces are manifesting now and will ramp up in about 5 years.

[UglymanCometh]

2050, the year Detroit's population starts increasing.

After hitting a low of 650k.

The gains of Midtown, Downtown, and SW Detroit cannot offset the losses of the rest of the city - and building low-density sprawl in the city (i.e., Jefferson Village) will spark a "resurgence", albeit Royal Oak-style (Royal Oak's lost about 1/3 of their population since the 1970s - yet their Downtown and adjacent neighbourhoods are doing very well)

The pitiful state of the schools and the overall stereotypical culture in the city will continue to drive people (black people, this time! *shock*) out, leaving islands of decency in a sea of despair.

[AccraGhana]

2050, the year Detroit's population starts increasing.

After hitting a low of 650k.

The gains of Midtown, Downtown, and SW Detroit cannot offset the losses of the rest of the city - and building low-density sprawl in the city (i.e., Jefferson Village) will spark a "resurgence", albeit Royal Oak-style (Royal Oak's lost about 1/3 of their population since the 1970s - yet their Downtown and adjacent neighbourhoods are doing very well)

The pitiful state of the schools and the overall stereotypical culture in the city will continue to drive people (black people, this time! *shock*) out, leaving islands of decency in a sea of despair.


I think you are simply extrapolating. What was then will be in the future so to speak. I see the Metro area as having turned the corner in its decades long “cut off the nose to spite the face attitude”. I think that the difference now is that MONEY, corporate regional monies are going to make a concerted effort to revitalize the city. I think when Quicken Loans makes its announcement it going to take things to another level in the city.

What Detroit needs and has not had for a long time is positive momentum. The kinetic energy of positive momentum should not be underestimated, as we can all note the consequences of negative energy and momentum. I remember when I was going to college in Atlanta in the 80’s. Nearly everything the media talked about down there about that area was either an embellishment or lie, but it was positive and in favor of the area. The crime and murder rate when I was there was on par with Detroit’s. There were terrible schools, huge areas of poverty ( abject poverty) and the like. Yet, that was never the focus of the media and the people who lived down there. Consequently, everyone down there seemed like they worked for the Atlanta Convention and Visitors Bureau and were paid to talk up that city and hence....through the power of suggestion ....it became a self fulfilling prophecy or embellishment. Atlanta was not “all that” but positive thinking and attitude made it that. Detroit on the other hand seemed to take pride in all its negative to the point of embellishing them and making each other feel like Detroit is the worst place in the world to live.

Don’t count Detroit out yet. The region will not boom for a long time, but it will shift back into the favor of Detroit.

[cabasse]

good post, accra. (and i actually moved here from atlanta. i still like the place, but just as you've said, it's very much built from hype.) detroit and atlanta aren't that much different, but as you've just stated, atlanta has built a positive momentum that has yet to really exist on the same scale up here.

i do see your point as well though, lmich - the dps issue only seems to be worsening, and that alone is enough to drive parents who want to do well by their children to seek options outside. the situation in atlanta with its school system isn't a difference of night and day, but it's definitely not as bad as it is up here; i think even a small improvement could do quite a bit to help the general situation.

[AccraGhana]

good post, accra. (and i actually moved here from atlanta. i still like the place, but just as you've said, it's very much built from hype.) detroit and atlanta aren't that much different, but as you've just stated, atlanta has built a positive momentum that has yet to really exist on the same scale up here.

i do see your point as well though, lmich - the dps issue only seems to be worsening, and that alone is enough to drive parents who want to do well by their children to seek options outside. the situation in atlanta with its school system isn't a difference of night and day, but it's definitely not as bad as it is up here; i think even a small improvement could do quite a bit to help the general situation.

I think the public schools are an issue in every urban (should I say minority) school district. It’s not unique to Detroit other than Detroit being more minority than others. I think that the money one can save on housing in the city as opposed to the suburbs can allow parents to put their kids in private schools. I think that the people who should primarily be concerned about the qualify of public schools are the poor who cannot afford private schools. If you are middle class you can move to the suburbs and pay 100k more for an equivalent house in Detroit. If Schools are your main problem, you can easily pay for your kids tuition with the savings.

That having been said, the demographic that is revitalizing many urban centers are SINGLES (with no children), EMPTY NESTERS (Kids are all grown and moved out), GAYS (likely no kids) and others. So the issue of public schools really does not effect this demographic, but this demographic might also be the least likely to support mileage increases due to not getting a direct benefit from it.

[LMich]

I thought my reasoning was clear LMICH. Here are the factors that I believe will bottom out Detroit’s Decline.

1) The massive decline in Detroit’s population historically has been white flight and there is not that many more whites in the city left to flee.
2) The black population of Detroit has grown up until 2002, where it peaked at around 780,000. It has declined since then by moves to the burbs and “down South” but that decline rate will not be nearly as pronounced as “white flight”.
3) Development in the core is precipitating a changed “spirit” in the region which will draw people from the suburbs back into the city for culture, entertainment, work (corporate relocations to the city for burbs) and residence.
4) One of the big problems with the region has been self deprecation, which created a self-fulfilling prophecy. There have been economic fundamentals that have deteriorated Detroit, but another large portion of the negative image is self deprecation from the older polarized generation. The new generation is changing those paradigms.
5) Oil Prices are going to force a shift in region population distribution and those forces are manifesting now and will ramp up in about 5 years.

Thanks for clarifying that a bit more. But...

1. Though the flight from the city has changed, and though this dictates, in theory, a slowdown in population loss, it would be naive to think that the population turnaround is going to happen by 2010, and maybe even by 2020. Civic pride amongst Detroiter's, and most Americans in general, these days, is an exception, not the rule. And, that kind of ties into my rebutal of your third point about the new 'spirit'. There is no doubt a new spirit in the region, but that only counts for so much, and at the end of the day, if a Detroiter can literally move across the border and receive a very simiilar existence but with much less crime and much better schools, the idea of civic pride gets thrown out the window.

2. Both the local statistics organization (SEMCOG) and the Census predict a speeding up of population loss since 2000. It would be naive to believe that nothing could resemble the extent of white flight. I think we see that economic flight, at least in the short term, may not only match up with white flight, but it could easily lead to an even greater exodus. Couple that, again, with society being more mobile than ever before, and having less civic pride than ever before, and it's not only not hard to imagine that the loss is probably speeding up, but it's probably likely, or at least remaining steady.

4. This kind of gets at the whole intangible 'spirit' concept, again, with the emphasis being on the intangible. Anectdotaly, I can tell you a lot of suburbanites with no wounds from the riots are definitely seeing a city in a new light, but those that really count for Detroit's population (i.e. Detroiters), those that have to live in increasingly unstable neighborhoods, are barely feeling this, and understandly so. IMO, I'd say that the newer generation of suburbanites have the luxury of looking from the outside at "big, bad Detroit" as cool and trendy. I've found that that doesn't translate like many think into Detroiter's believing in their city, once again.

5. As for this one, who knows?

I just don't see any real basis for a belief in a city-wide turnaround in spirit, economics, or socially, any time soon. The downtown and core city neighborhoods, no doubt, will take off like no other. It's going to be simply amazing. But, for the vast majority of Detroiters living in neighborhood after neighborhood that are increasingly on the brink of declining, I just don't see how, or why, the downtown revitalization will translate into a city-wide 'good mood.'

[AccraGhana]

Thanks for clarifying that a bit more. But...

1. Though the flight from the city has changed, and though this dictates, in theory, a slowdown in population loss, it would be naive to think that the population turnaround is going to happen by 2010, and maybe even by 2020. Civic pride amongst Detroiter's, and most Americans in general, these days, is an exception, not the rule. And, that kind of ties into my rebutal of your third point about the new 'spirit'. There is no doubt a new spirit in the region, but that only counts for so much, and at the end of the day, if a Detroiter can literally move across the border and receive a very simiilar existence but with much less crime and much better schools, the idea of civic pride gets thrown out the window.

2. Both the local statistics organization (SEMCOG) and the Census predict a speeding up of population loss since 2000. It would be naive to believe that nothing could resemble the extent of white flight. I think we see that economic flight, at least in the short term, may not only match up with white flight, but it could easily lead to an even greater exodus. Couple that, again, with society being more mobile than ever before, and having less civic pride than ever before, and it's not only not hard to imagine that the loss is probably speeding up, but it's probably likely, or at least remaining steady.

4. This kind of gets at the whole intangible 'spirit' concept, again, with the emphasis being on the intangible. Anectdotaly, I can tell you a lot of suburbanites with no wounds from the riots are definitely seeing a city in a new light, but those that really count for Detroit's population (i.e. Detroiters), those that have to live in increasingly unstable neighborhoods, are barely feeling this, and understandly so. IMO, I'd say that the newer generation of suburbanites have the luxury of looking from the outside at "big, bad Detroit" as cool and trendy. I've found that that doesn't translate like many think into Detroiter's believing in their city, once again.

5. As for this one, who knows?

I just don't see any real basis for a belief in a city-wide turnaround in spirit, economics, or socially, any time soon. The downtown and core city neighborhoods, no doubt, will take off like no other. It's going to be simply amazing. But, for the vast majority of Detroiters living in neighborhood after neighborhood that are increasingly on the brink of declining, I just don't see how, or why, the downtown revitalization will translate into a city-wide 'good mood.'

I guess we will have to wait and see then…. won’t we? Another thing to consider is that the Detroit region generally fares much better under a democratic administration in the White house as the policies are more favorable to working class and urban America. The only thing that throws snag or uncertainty in my prediction is that I feel that America is heading for an economic crash in the next 5 years at the most unless some prudent monetary and fiscal policy is enacted rapidly. However, I think politics will keep prudent behavior at bay. If there is a prolonged recession…. then that totally changes everything.

As a side note....I am old enough to remember reading all the population predictions about the state of Michigan after the recession of the early 80.s rocked the auto industry and the state. Based on the projections back then, Michigan was supposed to have only about 7 million people in 2010 in the worst case series projection. The best case theory suggested that there would be about 9 million by 2010. Today, there are over 10 million people living in Michigan. All the projections were WRONG and I believe that projections of Detroit will be wrong as well. Hell, after the suit....if the city wins, that will put the number up above 900,000 I am sure....which is probably right anyway as African Americans are one of the most under counted demographic.....and the city is mostly African American.

[Exodus]

So if San Hose has 930,000, and it is number 10, then for Detroit to regain the 10 spot would mean that it would have at least that much. Once you include other factors, Detroit would still have a million people regardless if people realize it or not. I've been saying for several years now that Detroit still has a million people give or take a few.