  Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 6781 Registered: 02-2004 |
Revise census figures shot that Detroit's population is back above 900,000. The 2006 census estimated the city's population at 871,121. A challenge by the mayor's office has been upheld, putting the new number at 918,849. Source Channel 4 THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE! Is black flight from Detroit to the suburbs slow down or increasing. Is the hip cool skinny jean white folks coming back to Detroit? Is the Mexican Hispanic communities in Southwest Detroit also increasing? Are we getting a new Bengladeshi community in Conant Gardens. I do know that we a have 3 fast growing Arab-Islamic communities in Warrendale, near west side along McGraw and Lonyo St. and Mt. Elliot anc Conant Street's. What can say about this sudden change? Source: Channel 4 | ||
Granmontrules Member Username: Granmontrules Post Number: 250 Registered: 01-2007 |
Interesting with all the foreclosures. But then again even the foreclosures are starting to sell in our neighborhood...maybe we are going up? It seems like when ever I go to SW Detroit the population seems like it is really booming there compared to when I was younger. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 2128 Registered: 04-2006 |
The population is "increasing" because the city didn't challenge the '05 estimate, only the '06. So that one won't change: quote: http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll /article?AID=/20071109/NEWS01/ 711090319/1001 | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 373 Registered: 12-2006 |
If the new number is accurate, that is great. An additional 52 thousand residents is no small number. Who knows how that changes the equations businesses use to select new locations. | ||
Bobj Member Username: Bobj Post Number: 2715 Registered: 11-2003 |
Mildly good news | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 3493 Registered: 10-2003 |
Businesses elsewhere who don't know the caveats may look through such data, see the population increase, and make decisions that are positive for Detroit based on them. Hey, whatever it takes.  | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 10728 Registered: 10-2003 |
Great news but that does not mean the population is truly increasing, just that the current census numbers are more accurate. The found people have probably been undercounted all along so the outbound trend is still there but the total population was shifted down. Still good news but to say that the population is increasing is pure manipulation of the facts. | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 374 Registered: 12-2006 |
We are almost back in the top ten! San Jose has only 12,000 more. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 1996 Registered: 10-2006 |
DetroitYES! | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 1997 Registered: 10-2006 |
More so than the specific numbers of the population +/-, the real issue is that this shows that Detroit is fighting hard to keep up its status,image, etc. Detroit should be applauded for this alone regardless of what the specific population is. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 10731 Registered: 10-2003 |
One interesting point about the census that I read. The census bureau uses a variety of numbers and factors but there are some strange ones. I read that they assume that homes over X years old (40, 50 - can't recall) are taken off the market and no longer used so they make decreases based upon older housing stock. It is up to the cities to prove that the homes weren't replaces, demo'ed, abandoned so it puts a much larger burden of proof on older cities as it does on newer cities. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 1998 Registered: 10-2006 |
More so than the specific numbers of the population +/-, the real issue is that this shows that Detroit is fighting hard to keep up its status,image, etc. Detroit should be applauded for this alone regardless of what the specific population is. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 4566 Registered: 10-2004 |
It's possible that SW Detroit has gained in population but there are signs that it isn't happening: an increase in boarded-up or burned-out apartments, an increase in vacant storefronts, fewer people walking in commercial districts, etc. This is somewhat anecdotal, but the Secretary of State office on Vernor typically has a waiting queue that takes 30 minutes or so. Yesterday, all of the clerks there had absolutely no waiting when I was there. A first for me being the only person there instead of several dozens... | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 6783 Registered: 02-2004 |
Some folks from the Census bureau are messing up the factual population data. Most of them are not looking at the statistics very well when it comes to home ownership. In a matter of fact Detroit's population could be over a 1,000,000 people. Look at the homeless folks that are living beneath the freeway overpasses, housing shelters and garbage cans. | ||
Mind_field Member Username: Mind_field Post Number: 804 Registered: 10-2003 |
^Garbage cans are counted in the census? | ||
Zulu_warrior Member Username: Zulu_warrior Post Number: 3243 Registered: 10-2003 |
Danny: It is as Zulu has said all along. While people discuss the decreases in Detroit's population, they ignore the fact the the balance of the population loss comes from white residents who have left, coupled with the whites here that are not reproducing themselves. This has been a standard fact since 1950. The Black population in Detroit has expereinced migration to the burbs, but the birth rate is still high enough to nearly replace the migration losses, making the physical numbers hover in the 800,000 range. Add to this the fact that there is an instate Black migration to the Detroit area from Saginaw, Benton Harbor, Flint, etc...and a West African Migration here, and still a trickle of Blacks people who move here from other states, keeps the numbers higher than anticipated. You also have people moving back to the city, Blacks in particular, because of the foreclosure deal. People are moving back home with momma. | ||
Fjw718 Member Username: Fjw718 Post Number: 159 Registered: 11-2005 |
lol@ mind_field | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 542 Registered: 09-2007 |
Detroit has always deserved to be in the Top 10. San Jose is nowhere near the actual size and has the same permanent infrastructure as Detroit. Instead (like LA), it's just another Low-Density Sprawlsburg. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 10734 Registered: 10-2003 |
Here is a comparison of density (people/sq mile) for the 11 most populated cities. The land area is from city-data.com and the population is from the census 2005 estimate (Detroit at 886,671). Sorted from most dense to least dense: 26849 New York, N.Y. 12517 Chicago, Ill. 10831 Philadelphia, Pa. 8196 Los Angeles, Calif. 6379 Detroit, Mich. 5216 San Jose, Calif. 3872 San Diego, Calif. 3544 Dallas, Tex. 3480 Houston, Tex. 3083 San Antonio, Tex. 3078 Phoenix, Ariz. I'm surprised at how much more dense Detroit is than some others. I guess the 'nobody lives there' stuff is even more non-sensical than I previously thought. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 2136 Registered: 04-2006 |
^And that's at half the peak population. At it's peak, Detroit's density was greater than Chicago's, I believe. IMO, it's next to impossible to sustain that type of density without a mass transit system. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 10736 Registered: 10-2003 |
Here is the square miles used for the info: Land Area 303.3 New York, N.Y. 227.1 Chicago, Ill. 135.1 Philadelphia, Pa. 469.1 Los Angeles, Calif. 139 Detroit, Mich. 174.9 San Jose, Calif. 324.3 San Diego, Calif. 342.5 Dallas, Tex. 579.4 Houston, Tex. 407.6 San Antonio, Tex. 474.9 Phoenix, Ariz. | ||
Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1979 Registered: 11-2003 |
quote: Agreed on that. | ||
Hans57 Member Username: Hans57 Post Number: 224 Registered: 05-2006 |
If you want to talk about dense cities, you can't forget about Boston, San Francisco, and Seattle. I really think density is the most important factor when comparing cities. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 2138 Registered: 04-2006 |
^He's just citing the top 11 cities in terms of population. Btw, Seattle has nearly the same density as Detroit. DC would be a good example of a another dense city. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 10739 Registered: 10-2003 |
11550 Boston 15833 San Fran 6840 Seattle What surprised me was how small by land area boston and san fran are. I had no idea. Land area (sq. miles) 48.4 Boston 46.7 San Fran 83.9 Seattle | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 239 Registered: 07-2007 |
Because SanFran is on a peninsula and is approx. 7 miles x 7 miles in size, it's naturally restricted in size. It's also a county and its consolidated city-county government is unique in California: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S an_Francisco#Government Also, I don't think California cities can cross county lines although counties can own property in another county (as SanFran does). Boston is the original example of a city that was totally hemmed in by its suburbs. Places like Brookline are almost as dense as Boston proper and although most people think of them as part of Boston, they are independent cities and towns like Highland Park and Hamtramck. As far as places like San Diego and Phoenix, they are definitely sprawling. But they also includes large areas of unbuildable land (mountains) in their borders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P hoenix%2C_Arizona#Geography | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 5595 Registered: 11-2003 |
Yes, Boston is a small place, surrounded by very old towns. They are part of the city mix, on regular transit lines, and not suburbs like in Detroit. (Cambridge, Sommerville, Brookline, etc.) Mass transit is a key to keeping neighborhoods intact. Detroit chose expressways and the automobile. jjaba. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 241 Registered: 07-2007 |
"Mass transit is a key to keeping neighborhoods intact. Detroit chose expressways and the automobile." Very true in Boston. Once when I visited Boston, I had to stay in Newton and still was able to get into the city via the T. A car was more of a hassle than help in Boston proper. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 242 Registered: 07-2007 |
"Mass transit is a key to keeping neighborhoods intact. Detroit chose expressways and the automobile." Very true in Boston. Once when I visited Boston, I had to stay in Newton and still was able to get into the city via the T. A car was more of a hassle than help in Boston proper. | ||
Kslice Member Username: Kslice Post Number: 209 Registered: 04-2007 |
Mass transit for commuters/ visitors is a must to grow the region. I bet people who come to this city should sure like to get to metro from downtown without a car. When we get over 1 million people again, that will be something to cheer for. | ||
Viziondetroit Member Username: Viziondetroit Post Number: 1289 Registered: 11-2003 |
Foreclosures does not mean people are leaving the city, it means they are loosing their homes... which means they have to move somewhere else such as rental properties and/or apartments or with family. I think a study should be done on occupancy rates for rental properties to determine if people are really leaving or if they are simply moving next door so to speak. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 4569 Registered: 10-2004 |
I think that Detroit got what it paid for. It cherry-picked a private company through the Social Compact that produced the results they sought. [Writing fiction appears to be the MO for the Social Compact.] So, is Detroit going to continue taking the Kool-Aid or 'roids so that they can cook the stats again the next time? In fewer than three years, Detroit will have to endure another Census enumeration--one whose results they won't be able to jack up. The local job losses from the past couple years and those expected during the next couple will surely be felt much more than at present. It'll probably mirror what occurred during the late 1920s, when Detroit's population took a severe hit before the 1930 census, bringing it below the probable two million peak when the recessions of the late 1920s took their toll prior to the Great Depression. (Message edited by LivernoisYard on November 09, 2007) | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 10744 Registered: 10-2003 |
The US census bureau approved of these numbers. Are they drinking the Kool Aid as well? | ||
Hudkina Member Username: Hudkina Post Number: 77 Registered: 12-2004 |
The Census Bureau estimates have been wrong all along, so I don't see how anyone is drinking Kool Aid. Social Compact has studied cities all across the country and has found that America's urban population isn't as small or poor as the government likes to think it is. The only people drinking Kool-Aid are the developers building sprawling subdivisions on 30 Mile Rd thinking that they will sell them. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 3967 Registered: 02-2005 |
Well you notice how those density numbers follow an east to west gradient. If you look at all cities (not just major ones), you see the same gradient, with the exception of San Fran (the second densest city in America). As we all know, if Detroit lived up to potential, it would be about even with Chicago, solidly in the second tier of density behind east coast cities. It's amazing that Detroit's density, scarcely more than the density of Grosse Pointe Park (5600/sq. mile I believe) stacks up so well against other large cities, and equally amazing that there are major cities who have overall densities similar to Sterling Heights. So the implication of all this is that we can now say that the 2006 census estimate puts Detroit's population over 900,000? | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 733 Registered: 07-2004 |
That is good news. I have always found it a little weird how fast the Census has counted Detroit's pop drop. It just seems like it went from one million to under 900,000 in not that many years. So I can see where they probably did undercount. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 6786 Registered: 02-2004 |
Zulu_warrior, Detroit's population may be 918,849 but the black flight still continues thus making the population decreasing slowly. Fewer Mexican/Hispanics, Begladeshis and Arab Muslims are making a quick growth in their oasis Detroit ghettohoods. Fewer hip cool skinny jean white kids are making their way to occupy some of the lofts, condos and apts. from Downtown Detroit to midtown areas. These groups could contribute to population growth. | ||
Gsgeorge Member Username: Gsgeorge Post Number: 318 Registered: 08-2006 |
quote: Hudkina, please cite? | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 559 Registered: 09-2007 |
My question is, whree are all these people? It's just too many prairies, abandoned homes and not enough people in our CBD for that number. Are many of the numbers including the homeless, land/slumlords and nursing home folks (seniors)? | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 560 Registered: 09-2007 |
By the way, when I say land/slumlords, that includes the people that own and pay taxes on a home, but don't occupy it (not necessarily renting it out). | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 2147 Registered: 04-2006 |
>Hudkina, please cite? http://www.socialcompact.org/h arlem.htm | ||
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2 Post Number: 653 Registered: 07-2007 |
wow 900,000 people and still downtown detroit is dead during the day. I guess there all working. (Message edited by lefty2 on November 09, 2007) | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 563 Registered: 09-2007 |
"wow 900,000 people and still downtown detroit is dead during the day. I guess there all working." No, they're all in Southfield, Dearborn, Troy, Pontiac, Warren and Auburn Hills (our de facto centers). You know those wealthy bank workers are a bit too stuffy to do a lot of walking that's further than the parking structure. Instead, they have places for lunch and leisure inside the buildings. (Message edited by DetroitRise on November 09, 2007) | ||
Eric_c Member Username: Eric_c Post Number: 1095 Registered: 11-2003 |
I'm never disappointed with the amount of activity I see Downtown Monday through Friday before six. Evenings during the week are slow, but Thursday through Sunday nights seem busy. I'm most disappointed in the Saturday/Sunday daytime crowds. Granted, there are some ballgames, festivals and other events thrown in, but nobody's really "out", particularly when it's colder. The ice rink at Campus Martius helps, but think about what it would be like if we had some decent retail along Woodward. This would be the beginning of the holiday shopping season! | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 3973 Registered: 02-2005 |
Yeah lefty, do you go downtown during the day? | ||
Andylinn Member Username: Andylinn Post Number: 632 Registered: 04-2006 |
the census DID NOT SAY detroit grew... they simply admitted that they had made a mistake... maybe the social compact was not so wrong afterall? | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 565 Registered: 04-2006 |
Detroit has nearly the highest mass transit taxes in the entire World and not just in the U.S.A. based on per passenger costs. Detroit will never really grow much if at all and many even shrink more. Unless it can offer good city services including safe, clean, reliable public bus services. |
