Metro Detroit has a small growth spurt, census finds (2012-2013)

[LMich]

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

The only city in Wayne county to register positive was Northville with 41 additional residents.

And this is why I'm totally off these numbers, now. This is simply impossible. I'm scanning them, right now, and this just proves to me their method is seriously flawed in how they dole out population within a county. What they are still doing is taking the overall population gain or decline in a county, applying it to each sub-county entity in such a way that they are blatantly drowing oout the other variables they use to calculate sub-county entities.

It's why you can take communities you know are still in population decline - if even greatly reduced from the recession - in Oakland and Macomb counties, your typical laggards like Pontiac and the stuff in southeast corner of the county, and not one of them shows a population decline. All you have to do is go back to the 2000-2010 period and know that places like Ferndale and Southfield and such are probably still in poplation decline, yet they are showing these mature suburbs growing, while they have places like Livonia and Westland etc. cratering. It seems to me that Census Bureau is still making the same mistakes they made, last decade, and are actually making new mistakes.

SEMCOG is the only one I trust, anymore, though even their formula has flaws (they seem to put a bit too much weight on housing construction and demolitions). The only thing the Census Bureau is picking up on in a very general sense is the return of sprawl, but I'd put money down on them being way off on the actual numbers in most communities. They seem to have a particularly hard time estimating changes within Michigan. Just the last decade, they significantly under-estimated the loss of Grand Rapids, over-estimated the loss in Kalamazoo, over-estimated Ann Arbor, completely missed the sprawl north of Lansing (Clinton County ended up being the fastest-growing county in the state over the decade)...they just missed everything, really.

Even these recent Detroit numbers strike me as weird. Not necessarily the number - it might actually be even lower than what they have - but the trend that they have for each year since 2010 which shows the loss accelerating over the 2012-2013 period from the 2011-2012 period and the 2010-2011 period. That is just insane. They can't even get the speed of the loss right.

[animatedmartian]

Yea, if Detroit is going to speed up the rate of demolition and the Census puts so much weight on it, Detroit is going to seem like it has faster increasing loss.

[LMich]

Yep, very good point. Home demolition is only accelerating and we're talking thousands of homes a year. They will be way close on Detroit proper's number by the end of the decade, but the accelerating home demolitions will most definitely throw off their estimates of the speed of decline each year. I think something noteworthy that was only given passing mention in the media, yesterday, is that they have Detroit more than halving its annual population decline over the years of the previous decade. Even if the estimates apportion too much population for Detroit within the county, you're still talking a substational slowdown annual slowdown in population decline.

Just to reiterate, though, my big concern is how this is throwing off the suburban estimates. It feels like they are making the same mistakes they did, last decade. Given that everything is returning to normal - by Metro Detroit standards, anyway - since the recession, it gets me worried they are providing false hope in some cases and feeding false negative narratives in others.

I mean, that they have a place like Canton declining from both 2010 and 2012 is enough to put every single sub-county estimate in the tri-county area in question. And, the reason they have Canton declining is really just because it happens to be in Wayne County. There is simply no way Canton is losing population. More generally, there is simply no scenario in which every municipality in Wayne County save for one is losing population, while every community in Macomb and Oakland County is growing. It's just not possible. It's possible that you've got cities like Pontiac, Mt. Clemens, Warren, Southfield, etc...slowing declines, maybe even posting very, very modest growths, but there is no way that they are growing and you have a place like Canton and Dearborn losing population, or Livonia's declining accelerating.

Just to drive home the point, of the 714 cities found to have a population of over 50,000 in 2013, Dearborn had ranked 709 in growth (in this case decline) since 2010, a city the Census Bureau had found to be growing over the tough 2000-2010 period. They have this obviously growing city having lost 2,262 since the 2010 Census. And, for cities in Wayne County that may or may not be growing, but definitely aren't cratering, they have Taylor over this same period ranked 706 (-1,314), Dearborn Heights ranked 703 (-1,154), Westland ranked 699 (-1,519), and Livonia ranked 698 (-1,734). Whether these cities are growing or not, they obviously haven't lost this much population since 2010 in an improving economy, even if they aren't the growth areas they once were.

Anyone interested in seeing SEMCOG's more realistic estimates can go to:

http://semcog.org/Data/bycommunity.cfm

Closer to home, while they are much kinder to my city, they still have Lansing having lost 325 (-0.28%) people since the Census in a city that's probably added nearly as many housing units in these three years as the city did during the seven or eight years prior to the recession. And, they even have East Lansing having lost (they made the same mistake last decade when the city was found to have actually grown at the 2010 Census) despite adding even more housing units than Lansing. Neither of these cities have experienced mass demolitions, nor is there any reason to believe the age/family demographics of either city would account for any additional loss.

[Steely Dan]

^ SEMCOG and the census bureau are pretty far apart on their detroit city proper estimates.

Agency      2010 Base     2013 est.     Num. decline

US Census    713,862       688,701       -25,161

SEMCOG       713,862       661,267       -52,595

the SEMCOG number is for december 31st, 2013 and the census bureau figure is for july 1st, 2013, but still, that's a pretty big difference. is the general feeling in michigan that the SEMCOG numbers are more accurate?

if that's the case, i fear for where detroit might find its rock bottom. will detroit end up dropping below 600,000 by Census 2020?


.

[animatedmartian]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ SEMCOG and the census bureau are pretty far apart on their detroit city proper estimates.

Agency      2010 Base     2013 est.     Num. decline

US Census    713,862       688,701       -25,161

SEMCOG       713,862       661,267       -52,595

the SEMCOG number is for december 31st, 2013 and the census bureau figure is for july 1st, 2013, but still, that's a pretty big difference. is the general feeling in michigan that the SEMCOG numbers are more accurate?

if that's the case, i fear for where detroit might find its rock bottom. will detroit end up dropping below 600,000 by Census 2020?

It's hard to say really. I don't think it'll go that low. Even SEMCOG estimates that it'll bottom out at 609,000 by 2030 so they at least think that the rate of decline will slow. It'll probably have more to do with the aging population rather than any systematic problems.

SEMCOG is also assuming that Detroit's economy will remain relatively unchanged from its current state. They're only forecasting a net increase of 7,000 jobs between now and 2040.

Obviously, if Detroit has more job growth sooner rather than later, the bottoming out will come quicker. There's definitely a lot of effort going on to make Detroit grow a non-manufacturing base economy and certainly if the effort is successful, it'll payoff with jobs and population growth. What's uncertain is by how much. Would it be roughly the same as other Rust Belt cities or would it be slightly larger because of Detroit's suburb factor? (a continuing migration of suburban businesses to downtown in addition to newly created jobs). I'm not sure it's something either estimates take into account or even try to.

[LMich]

A little nugget of demographic information was found in the city's recent bankruptcy exit plan drawn up by city's operational restructing advisor. The city expects population to bottom out in 2025 at around 610,000 (SEMCOG is predicting a population of around 625,000 for the 2020 Census). From now until the end of the decade, they are predicting an annual percentage loss of about 1.3%. The implication of this prediction seems to be that the first three years of this decade were probably the "it gets worse before it gets better" period of things. Looks like the city and SEMCOG are each predicting a loss of less than 100,000 over the decade, which would be a considerable slow down in the population decline from the previous decade.

So, I guess the good news is that no one seems to be predicting the population to fall below 600,000. I'm actually rather hopeful, particularly given the mayor's massive concentration on blight like no mayor before him. You can already see things changing on the ground with residents even feeling the change, which is as important as a factor as any. It's great to finally have a number of different scenarios that finally point to a light at the end of the tunnel as population loss is concerned. Who knows? The massive tackling of blight might actually be more successful than even Duggan imagines as it concerns stablizing the city's population. You staunch the bleeding in the out-city neighborhoods and blow the top off supplying the demand in the inner-city, and we might be surprised even in just the next five years.

[Steely Dan]

^ that's great to hear, it's reassuring that another agency is predicting the bottom will be north of 600,000. if these forecasts pan out, it will be an important psychological victory if nothing else.

[hudkina]

The outer neighbors may continue to lose population long after the city starts "growing" again, as most of any population gain will be concentrated in the greater downtown area. While many outer neighborhoods will likely stabilize over the coming decades, there are plenty that will continue to empty out, particularly the working-class neighborhoods built in the 1920's.

[LMich]

I see miles and miles of contiguous, modern areas on the northwest side stablizing and maybe showing some very modest growth. The historic, upper-class areas in between will probably grow even faster. I'm honestly not that familiar with the eastside, but I see the more historic and border areas stablizing, but much more of its will continue to be lost. The southwest is going to be an absolute patchwork and that's mostly because of industry and the low-quality housing stock. You'll get anything close to Vernor surviving, but the stuff divided by rivers or railyards or freeways will go to pot. This has basically already happened with Delray and Oakwood Heights. A lot of these neighborhoods wouldn't have even been built in more modern times given their location and what we know about pollution.

I think some major transit projects along the spokes could be a gamechanger creating some (narrow) contiguous healthy corridors from downtown all the way to the edges of the city, but I ain't banking on it.

BTW, if I had to imagine a psychological number for Detroit, it wouldn't be 600,000 but a nice, round 500,000. So long as you can say a city above "half-a-million residents", I think local urban planners' egos could handle it. lol

[animatedmartian]

Ugh, 700,000 already sounds too small to me. 600,000 might as well be a small town in my view.

But then it's not so much the number as it is that you can still feel the dearth of people in many areas, particularly around Downtown. The west and border east sides of the city still feel pretty populated. Anything below a 5,000 ppsm density is too lonely for me. A good psychological goal for me is if the greater downtown area reaches at least 10,000 ppsm (right now it's around 5,000).

[hudkina]

I bet Midtown would be just around the 10,000 ppsm mark by 2020. It would need a population of roughly 20,000 for that to happen. The population was already at about 15,000 for 2010, so another 5,000 people this decade is all that is needed.

[memph]

Originally Posted by LMich

I see miles and miles of contiguous, modern areas on the northwest side stablizing and maybe showing some very modest growth. The historic, upper-class areas in between will probably grow even faster. I'm honestly not that familiar with the eastside, but I see the more historic and border areas stablizing, but much more of its will continue to be lost. The southwest is going to be an absolute patchwork and that's mostly because of industry and the low-quality housing stock. You'll get anything close to Vernor surviving, but the stuff divided by rivers or railyards or freeways will go to pot. This has basically already happened with Delray and Oakwood Heights. A lot of these neighborhoods wouldn't have even been built in more modern times given their location and what we know about pollution.

I think some major transit projects along the spokes could be a gamechanger creating some (narrow) contiguous healthy corridors from downtown all the way to the edges of the city, but I ain't banking on it.

BTW, if I had to imagine a psychological number for Detroit, it wouldn't be 600,000 but a nice, round 500,000. So long as you can say a city above "half-a-million residents", I think local urban planners' egos could handle it. lol

The worst areas of Detroit in terms of population loss are on the East Side. Mainly around Gratiot and Coleman Young Airport.

Anyways, I think the main thing is the balance between "what's keeping people there" and "is there any hope of people moving there". You do have people wanting to moving into Downtown/Midtown, so it will probably continue to do well. Even if you have some people leaving (ex when they start families) it can people balanced out by newcomers.

So who would want to move into the average Detroit neighbourhood? Especially when inner ring suburbs are cheaper and only seem to be getting cheaper.

Meanwhile, existing residents will occasionally choose to leave their neighbourhoods, whether it's because the inner suburbs are getting more affordable, because they've managed to rise out of poverty, or because they're deciding to leave the region altogether. Plus you'll have some passing away and maybe even a few moving to the core.

I'd like to think some border areas will stabilize. Maybe areas near Dearborn and The Pointes will. Otherwise though, I'm not sure. If an inner suburb is declining, I think adjacent areas of the city probably will too. Hazel Park, Oak Park, Eastpointe, Harper Woods, Redford, Lincoln Park, Ecorse all seem to be declining.

[animatedmartian]

Originally Posted by memph

I'd like to think some border areas will stabilize. Maybe areas near Dearborn and The Pointes will. Otherwise though, I'm not sure. If an inner suburb is declining, I think adjacent areas of the city probably will too. Hazel Park, Oak Park, Eastpointe, Harper Woods, Redford, Lincoln Park, Ecorse all seem to be declining.

Depends on what metric you use to define a decline. Real estate-wise, all of Metro Detroit has seen double digit gains in the price of real estate since 2011. The inner-ring suburbs slightly slower than the more desirable suburbs, as expected, but from where I'm standing the worst of the decline is long past.

I think instead is what is going to happen is that a lot of these inner-ring suburbs are going to have a hard time attracting young families. Specifically middle class families. A lot of the housing in these suburbs is small and outdated. It wouldn't really cost a lot to update them, but many are built without the amenities that today's often buyers want in a house, like open floor plans and multiple bathrooms.

In suburbs like Royal Oak, tear downs are becoming more common while they're already rampart in Dearborn. But for other inner-ring suburbs like Hazel Park or Ecorse, Detroit overall would have to become incredibly more desirable before it becomes more economical to do tear downs.

[EuphoricOctopus]

I hope things stabilize far quicker than what they are projecting. They said Detroit won't start growing until 2050? I mean 36 years is quite a lot of time to just stagnate and decline.