Ville de Detroit... incroyable.

[Cataclaw]

Je tiens à préciser quelque chose:

 

Population de l'île de Montréal en 1950: 2 200 000

Population de l'île de Montréal en 2002: 1 800 000

 

 

De plus, je vais à detroit début janvier !!

 

Cataclaw, Cjb a raison, la population de l'île de Montréal en 1950 était plus élevé qu'aujourd'hui!

 

Non, la population de l'île de Montréal était 1,320,232 en 1951. La population de l'île est 1,861,900 aujourd'hui. C'est une augmentation!

 

L'île a frôlé le 2,000,000 en 1971. Selon les dernières projections, l'île devrait frôler encore une fois le 2,000,000 en 2012, et la grande région de Montréal devrait aussi être prêt du 4,000,000.

 

Je comprend que cjb veut souligner le fait que Montréal a connu une baisse il y a 20-30 ans, mais la ville est aujourd'hui en pleine croissance.

 

La différence avec Detroit reste très, très évidente. Au fait, presque toutes les villes conaissent un meilleur sort que Detroit en ce moment... malheureusement...

[Habsfan]

La différence avec Detroit reste très, très évidente. Au fait, presque toutes les villes conaissent un meilleur sort que Detroit en ce moment... malheureusement...

 

Tu devrais checker les stats spour des villes comme Cleveland, Buffalo, Syracuse, Albany, Pittsburgh etc... tous des villes du "rust-Belt".

[Cataclaw]

Tu devrais checker les stats spour des villes comme Cleveland, Buffalo, Syracuse, Albany, Pittsburgh etc... tous des villes du "rust-Belt".

 

Je suis très conscient du déclin du rust-belt!

 

Reste que, avec une perte de prêt de 1,000,000 habitans, Detroit est le roi du déclin :(

[GDS]

According to the US census, the Detroit metro region has been growing for the last 2 decades. From 06-07 it grew by nearly 30k people. Montreal grew by 26k. Our metro region is smaller by about a million people, but nonetheless if you want to see a city in decline, look at the numbers for Pittsburgh or Cleveland. Detoit is definately not king of the decline - far from it.

 

On the other hand, Montreal doesn't come anywhere near to claiming "pleine croissance." Look at the cities that are similar in size to us from 06-07: Minneapolis grew by 36k (smaller metro), Pheonix grew by 120k (smaller metro), Denver 53k (smaller metro), Tampa 31k (smaller metro), Atlanta 150k (larger metro).

 

Of the cities that are growing, we (with Detroit) are bottom of the barrel with Boston, Baltimore and Cincinnati.

 

*using CBSA

[Cataclaw]

According to the US census, the Detroit metro region has been growing for the last 2 decades. From 06-07 it grew by nearly 30k people. Montreal grew by 26k. Our metro region is smaller by about a million people, but nonetheless if you want to see a city in decline, look at the numbers for Pittsburgh or Cleveland. Detoit is definately not king of the decline - far from it.

 

On the other hand, Montreal doesn't come anywhere near to claiming "pleine croissance." Look at the cities that are similar in size to us from 06-07: Minneapolis grew by 36k (smaller metro), Pheonix grew by 120k (smaller metro), Denver 53k (smaller metro), Tampa 31k (smaller metro), Atlanta 150k (larger metro).

 

Of the cities that are growing, we (with Detroit) are bottom of the barrel with Boston, Baltimore and Cincinnati.

 

*using CBSA

 

Pleine croissance is a relative term. I'm not insinuating we're doing all that well, but we're definitely doing "ok". Certainly an order of magnitude or two better than Detroit!

 

I have to disagree GDS. When it comes to urban decay and overall decline, Detroit is the undisputable champion in north america, for a city it's size. Yes, as you point out, the Detroit metro area is growing, but a quick glance at population change choropleths clearly shows that the suburbs are experiencing nearly all of that growth, whereas nearly all of the decline is in Detroit proper. So if you want to compare metro areas to metro areas, sure Detroit is still larger than Montreal. That isn't the point i'm trying to make though.

 

When looking at the city itself, Detroit is showing catastrophic decline. Let me reiterate once more - it has lost half its population and is projected to lose another 200,000 people in the next 20 or so years.

 

I've looked at satelite imagery of Cleveland and Pittsburgh, i've even been to both of those cities myself, and neither of them comes close, close , to the decline of Detroit.

 

I mean this isn't a subjective issue here, it isn't a question of opinion.. it's a matter of fact. Detroit is a veritible tragedy, and you need only open up google maps and have a look for yourself to witness a city falling.

 

That being said, i see a future of continued decline for Detroit, followed by a stabilization and slow but substatial comeback in the next 50 years. Once you're at the bottom, there's no where to go but up!

[GDS]

Satellite imagery is a static figure. Detroit had about 38,000 vacant lots, but new development taking place within the city reconfigures it is much less dense way. Detroit is home to some of the largest redevelopment projects size the early 90s - projects like Circle Drive Commons, Campau Farms, Alberta King Village. Where a former post war neighbourhood with close to 175 lots, turns into a one with under 30. There are even extreme examples like Victoria Park where 600 lots turned into 100. Look at a satellite image of that area today and then realize that in 1975 it was 600 lots with close to 70% of them vacant. You are missing the morphological change.

[Cataclaw]

Satellite imagery is a static figure. Detroit had about 38,000 vacant lots, but new development taking place within the city reconfigures it is much less dense way. Detroit is home to some of the largest redevelopment projects size the early 90s - projects like Circle Drive Commons, Campau Farms, Alberta King Village. Where a former post war neighbourhood with close to 175 lots, turns into a one with under 30. There are even extreme examples like Victoria Park where 600 lots turned into 100. Look at a satellite image of that area today and then realize that in 1975 it was 600 lots with close to 70% of them vacant. You are missing the morphological change.

 

I am well aware of the morphological changes, and i have seen the new areas you speak of. However, the configuration of the lots and the roads doesn't change the fact that new development is being greatly outpaced by the exodus of people. The number and area of lots becoming vacant is growing faster than the number of new development projects, regardless of density.

 

I don't understand what the point you're trying to argue is. Do you disagree with my assessment? Are you a native of Detroit trying to defend his city? If so, please understand that i am in no way attacking or wishing harm upon Detroit, i'm just raising attention to this alarming problem. I also sincerely hope the city rebounds and prospers once more!

 

That being said, the unescapable truth remains - Detroit is one heck of a s!@#hole right now, unmatched by any north american city, and it's going to get worse before it gets better..

[GDS]

I am well aware of the morphological changes, and i have seen the new areas you speak of. However, the configuration of the lots and the roads doesn't change the fact that new development is being greatly outpaced by the exodus of people. The number and area of lots becoming vacant is growing faster than the number of new development projects, regardless of density.

 

I don't think you do understand. The point you are trying to make is that Detroit is the leading city of decline, which is completely false. It is in fact the one of the best examples of rebirth. What I think you are not considering is that people who leave Detroit proper stay within the metro. That there are huge urban renewal projects taking place within the city proper that have all been successful, several the size of the Griffintown project in Montreal. This compared to other cities where, when people leave, they just don't leave the metro, they completely leave the area. Where they can't even attempt any renewal project on a proportional scale to what is occurring in Detroit. That is a huge difference when making a judgment (not a fact) on the "life" of a city.

 

I don't understand what the point you're trying to argue is. Do you disagree with my assessment? Are you a native of Detroit trying to defend his city? If so, please understand that i am in no way attacking or wishing harm upon Detroit, i'm just raising attention to this alarming problem.

 

What are you trying to say here? I must have a vested interests because I disagree with you? I just think you are looking at a few indicators and a making a big leap in your conclusions.

 

 

That being said, the unescapable truth remains - Detroit is one heck of a s!@#hole right now, unmatched by any north american city, and it's going to get worse before it gets better..

 

With comments like this, you could work for FoxNews.

[Malek]

ease it up guys

[Cataclaw]

I don't think you do understand. The point you are trying to make is that Detroit is the leading city of decline, which is completely false. It is in fact the one of the best examples of rebirth. What I think you are not considering is that people who leave Detroit proper stay within the metro. That there are huge urban renewal projects taking place within the city proper that have all been successful, several the size of the Griffintown project in Montreal. This compared to other cities where, when people leave, they just don't leave the metro, they completely leave the area. Where they can't even attempt any renewal project on a proportional scale to what is occurring in Detroit. That is a huge difference when making a judgment (not a fact) on the "life" of a city.

 

I am well aware that people leaving Detroit stay in the metro. However i'm not talking about metropolitan areas... i'm talking about Detroit. The issue here isn't what's happening with the surburbanized areas on the outskirts of town, the issue here is what is going on in the city. What you are failing to consider is that the renewal projects, though impressive in scale, still fall short of compensating for the loss of population and the abandonement of existing dwellings and businesses.

 

We're both making a point, and we're both correct. Let's cease this argument and acknowledge each other's points, since they do not, in effect, conflict:

 

- You're arguing that Detroit metro is healthy and growing. You're absolutely right. Detroit metro is the 6th (if memory serves) largest metro in the USA and it is growing at a steady, albeit slow, pace. Good for that.

 

- I'm arguing that urban Detroit, the city of Detroit proper, population now 900,000 (down from nearly 2 million) is losing population (approximately 1 citizen every hour) as well as jobs. Crime is high, poverty is high, abandoned buildings number the thousands and the number continues to grow. The rate of abandonement and decay outpaces the rate of urban renewal within Detroit proper.

 

We're both right, but we're both arguing different things. I'm saying Detroit is the worst example of urban decay, it is. You're saying Detroit metro is alive and healthy, and yes, thanks to Detroit's rich suburbs, it is.

 

 

To fininish my point, let me put it to you this way. What is going on in Detroit is the Montreal equivalent of everyone abandoning the plateau, deserting downtown, leaving everything in a 5-15km radius around mount royal -- and having all those people move to Saint-Jean-Sur-Richelieu, Terrebonne, Mirabel, Vaudreuil, Repentigny and Sainte-Julie and farther still.

 

You apparently think this is fine, i do not. On that point, it's a matter of opinion.

 

What is not a matter of opinion, on the other hand, is that Detroit is losing population and its urban fabric decaying in a staggering way. If you insist on dumbing down my claim with petty insults, i suggest you consult a google near you. The truth is terrible, and i wish it were different...