detroit region - university of minnesota law school · detroit region . detroit is a region with no...

DETROIT REGION

Detroit is a region with no gentrification and staggering levels of poverty concentration and neighborhood abandonment. Nearly 55 percent of the region’s residents live in a strongly declining neighborhood, including 74 percent of low-income residents and 80 percent of black residents. In Detroit proper, 86 percent of all residents live in a strongly declining area.

In the city of Detroit, decline has been so severe that virtually no new poverty concentration is taking place. Instead, huge numbers of former residents are leaving as neighborhoods are abandoned. Declining areas lost 217,000 residents on net since 2000, including 180,000 black residents. Tens of thousands of housing units in these areas have also been converted to vacant units.

In Detroit suburbs, poverty concentration is much more common. Nearly half suburban residents, and 67 percent of low-income suburban residents, live in a strongly declining area. Even while the overall population of these areas has dropped by 110,000, the low-income population has increased by 266,000. Racial transition is also taking place in these suburban neighborhoods, as, on net, 261,000 white residents have departed, and 115,000 black residents have arrived.

Regional Total Population: 4,296,731

Regional Low-Income Population: 1,393,039

Regional Nonwhite Population: 1,414,997

Central City Population: 683,155

Central City Low-Income Population: 432,291

Central City Nonwhite Population: 617,950

NET DISPLACEMENT (Low-Income Change in Tracts with Strong Expansion, 2000-2016)

Central City: No net displacement (+288)

Suburbs: No net displacement (+787)

NET CONCENTRATION (Low-Income Change in Tracts with Strong Decline, 2000-2016)

Central City: 11,301

Suburbs: 265,910

1

DETAILS ON TABLES

The following tables depict aggregated population and housing change in two categories of neighborhoods across the metropolitan area, its central cities, and its suburbs. The categories are:

• Economically expanding neighborhoods, which are those experiencing the kind of population changesassociated with growth and displacement. These are neighborhoods where the low-income* share ofpopulation has fallen since 2000 (indicating that an area has grown less poor overall) and the absolutenumber of non-low-income residents has grown since 2000 (indicating that middle-income residents seethe area as an attractive place to live).

• Economically declining neighborhoods, which are those experiencing the kind of population changesassociated with abandonment and poverty concentration. These are neighborhoods where the low-income share of population has grown since 2000 (indicating that an area has more less poor overall) andthe absolute number of non-low-income residents has fallen since 2000 (indicating that middle-incomeresidents do not see the area as an attractive place to live).

Two variants of this measure exist, and a separate table is provided for each. They are:

• In the upper set of tables, a strong, narrow measure, which only includes census tracts that have achange of +/-5 percent or greater in low-income population share, and a change of +/-10 percent for non-low-income population. This approach classifies fewer neighborhoods overall, excluding areas with onlysmall changes in their income profile. This is the more robust and preferred measure. It is also themeasure used in the accompanying maps.

• In the lower set of tables, a weak, broad measure, which includes all census tracts with any change thatmeet the criteria for the two categories above, with no cutoffs for scale. This approach classifies moreneighborhoods overall, but is noisier, because it includes tracts with very small population changes. Inaddition, because this report relies on American Community Survey sampling data with margins of error,this measure is more likely to include erroneously classified tracts. However, this broad measure canprovide a useful outer estimate of the scale of neighborhood economic expansion and decline.

Three sets of tables are provided. They are:

• Figures for the entire metropolitan region, aggregating central cities and suburbs into one set of tables.• Figures for central cities.• Figures for suburban areas, defined as any area in the metropolitan region not included in a central city.

This includes incorporated and unincorporated communities.

Each table depicts the number of people in each of the two neighborhood categories, both overall and in various population subsets. It also shows the number of housing units of various types in each neighborhood category.

• 2016 Share indicates what share of the regional, city, or suburban population of a given group live inexpanding or declining tracts. The box is shaded in accordance with the size of the share.

• 2016 Total indicates the absolute number of individuals in a given group that live in expanding ordeclining census tracts.

• Net Change since 2000 indicates the change of population of a subgroup in expanding or declining tractssince 2000, both in percentage and in absolute terms. These have been colored to indicate the type ofchange. In economically expanding tracts, green indicates net growth while blue indicates netdisplacement. In economically declining tracts, red indicates net poverty concentration while purpleindicates net abandonment. Darker shades indicate larger percentage changes.

* For the purposes of this report, “low-income” is classified as individuals at 200 percent of poverty line or less.

2

DETAILS ON MAPS

Neighborhood change has also been mapped by individual census tracts, incorporating the same data used to create the tables above.

The map incorporates the strong measure of neighborhood change used to create the tables. In the maps, tracts have been subdivided into four categories:

• Economically expanding areas with low-income displacement, indicated in blue, where a neighborhood’s income profile is improving while low-income population declines on net. These are typically places undergoing changes traditionally associated with gentrification, in which economic pressures push out lower incomes while higher income residents arrive.

• Economically expanding areas with overall growth, indicated in green, where a neighborhood’s income profile is improving while low-income population increases on net. These are typically places with significant new housing construction, where residents across the income spectrum are arriving.

• Economically declining areas with abandonment, indicated in purple, where a neighborhood’s income profile is worsening while low-income population declines on net. These are typically places experiencing the worst neighborhood economic decline, with people across the income spectrum leaving and outright depopulation occurring.

• Economically declining areas with poverty concentration, indicated in red, where a neighborhood’s income profile is worsening while low-income population increases on net. These are typically places where higher-income flight and eroding housing stocks are causing rapid demographic and economic transition, contributing to the impoverishment of the area.

The categories are also shaded to indicate the scale of low-income population change within the census tracts.

The maps allow intra-regional comparisons of observed neighborhood change. However, because these classifications have been made using American Community Survey data with margins of error, precise measures are not possible and it is likely that some individual tracts are erroneously classified. As a consequence, readers are advised to focus more on clusters of tracts undergoing similar changes rather than individual outliers, particularly outliers with smaller-scale changes.

3

0.9% 37,821 91.4% +18,064 54.8% 2,352,545 -12.2% -327,4300.4% 5,605 23.7% +1,075 73.5% 1,023,675 37.1% +277,2110.4% 2,748 34.6% +707 77.1% 531,859 54.3% +187,2670.5% 1,535 80.0% +682 77.3% 242,944 45.0% +75,3860.8% 86 59.3% +32 65.1% 6,592 -30.7% -2,9152.4% 4,001 905.3% +3,603 36.8% 61,067 19.9% +10,1320.4% 3,938 47.9% +1,276 79.2% 757,772 -7.7% -63,1480.7% 1,210 308.8% +914 66.7% 120,364 31.4% +28,7291.0% 27,742 73.6% +11,762 46.7% 1,345,553 -18.1% -296,4461.3% 11,334 289.4% +8,423 38.8% 335,439 10.5% +31,7380.7% 13,620 36.4% +3,638 60.2% 1,242,704 -13.2% -189,4431.0% 5,180 85.3% +2,384 53.9% 274,412 -25.6% -94,5710.4% 370 -5.6% -22 80.0% 80,667 46.9% +25,7701.2% 4,810 100.1% +2,406 47.5% 193,745 -38.3% -120,3410.4% 280 -9.7% -30 80.7% 51,598 35.5% +13,5131.1% 10,509 87.0% +4,890 55.6% 548,478 -23.2% -165,9490.7% 6,310 36.5% +1,687 58.7% 535,811 -15.7% -99,8090.9% 16,649 103.2% +8,457 52.9% 933,355 -6.2% -61,5010.7% 4,353 160.2% +2,680 53.0% 334,901 0.1% +2810.8% 32,631 72.0% +13,661 55.0% 2,141,538 -13.5% -334,5051.3% 5,190 552.0% +4,394 52.7% 211,007 3.5% +7,0810.9% 10,550 98.7% +5,240 50.2% 576,247 -18.9% -134,5060.5% 2,662 63.8% +1,037 65.7% 344,876 9.2% +29,1630.4% 820 110.3% +430 70.1% 155,125 155.4% +94,394

5.5% 235,089 34.3% +60,013 73.6% 3,160,919 -9.9% -346,4762.1% 28,990 12.3% +3,174 85.7% 1,194,050 36.3% +317,9872.0% 13,484 28.1% +2,959 87.7% 605,226 52.4% +208,1422.0% 6,394 42.7% +1,912 87.5% 275,061 42.4% +81,8914.4% 449 -21.8% -125 80.4% 8,138 -32.8% -3,9718.2% 13,627 163.5% +8,456 58.9% 97,868 31.4% +23,3931.8% 17,709 51.3% +6,003 88.0% 842,532 -6.2% -55,7354.0% 7,144 116.6% +3,845 81.3% 146,694 34.7% +37,8056.7% 191,767 26.6% +40,300 68.9% 1,986,949 -14.9% -347,2748.8% 76,155 78.1% +33,404 62.9% 543,672 14.5% +68,8114.1% 84,240 13.5% +10,038 77.6% 1,600,124 -11.7% -212,2805.9% 30,170 22.2% +5,482 72.7% 369,913 -23.2% -111,9441.5% 1,532 7.7% +109 89.9% 90,645 44.6% +27,9617.0% 28,638 23.1% +5,373 68.4% 279,268 -33.4% -139,9051.6% 1,019 15.5% +137 90.4% 57,838 34.2% +14,7375.8% 57,379 22.2% +10,439 73.5% 724,964 -22.1% -205,6514.6% 42,230 16.8% +6,068 76.1% 693,935 -13.7% -109,8545.9% 103,684 36.2% +27,537 72.4% 1,278,534 -4.6% -61,7305.0% 31,796 94.9% +15,481 73.4% 463,486 7.1% +30,8865.4% 212,310 30.4% +49,543 73.9% 2,877,604 -11.2% -362,0195.7% 22,779 84.9% +10,462 70.8% 283,315 5.8% +15,5416.1% 70,090 35.7% +18,425 71.4% 819,174 -14.8% -142,3703.4% 17,922 38.5% +4,985 79.5% 417,513 10.5% +39,7252.7% 5,955 19.2% +961 83.0% 183,720 141.2% +107,566

*The figures in the lower set of tables may include many neighborhoods with very sl ight demographic changes, and are especially sensitive to sampling error. These tables are best understood as depicting an aggressive outer estimate of population shifts, as compared to the estimates in the upper set of tables, which are more robustly observed.

Data: U.S. Census.

Owner Units Owner UnitsRenter Units Renter UnitsVacant Units Vacant Units

Seniors (65 and up) Seniors (65 and up)U.S.-Born U.S.-Born

Foreign-Born Foreign-Born

Children (Under 18) Children (Under 18)Young Adults (18-34) Young Adults (18-34)

Adults (35 to 64) Adults (35 to 64)

Families in Poverty Families in PovertyNon-Poor Families Non-Poor Families

Single Mothers Single Mothers

College-Educated College-EducatedNon-College Non-College

Families Families

Black BlackHispanic Hispanic

White White

Extreme Poverty Extreme PovertyAmerican Indian American Indian

Asian Asian

TOTAL TOTALLow-Income Low-Income

Poverty Poverty

Population Change by Subgroup in Neighborhoods with Any Indicators of Economic Expansion*

Population Change by Subgroup in Neighborhoods with Any Indicators of Economic Decline*

(Detroit Metro) (Detroit Metro)

2016 Share 2016 Total Net Change Since 2000 2016 Share 2016 Total Net Change Since 2000









Families Families


White White


Asian Asian


Poverty Poverty


TABLES FOR METROPOLITAN AREA - Detroit Region

ECONOMICALLY EXPANDING NEIGHBORHOODS ECONOMICALLY DECLINING NEIGHBORHOODS

Population Change by Subgroup in Neighborhoods Experiencing Strong Economic Expansion

Population Change by Subgroup in Neighborhoods Experiencing Strong Economic Decline

(Detroit Metro) (Detroit Metro)

4

0.3% 2,122 9.9% +192 86.0% 587,196 -27.0% -217,3230.4% 1,696 20.5% +288 87.9% 380,134 3.1% +11,3010.5% 1,316 52.1% +451 87.4% 231,515 18.9% +36,8700.6% 825 135.0% +474 87.1% 114,102 13.4% +13,5170.0% 0 -100.0% -1 70.7% 1,306 -46.4% -1,1300.0% 0 -100.0% -2 81.5% 7,858 -0.3% -250.4% 2,029 9.9% +183 86.1% 467,102 -27.7% -178,5240.0% 5 66.7% +2 92.1% 47,153 9.0% +3,8850.1% 83 16.9% +12 80.6% 52,552 -40.0% -35,0710.2% 120 90.5% +57 75.9% 45,321 -11.1% -5,6340.3% 1,107 23.3% +209 86.1% 320,272 -24.8% -105,6840.3% 260 -10.7% -31 89.2% 69,886 -41.7% -50,0250.5% 181 15.3% +24 89.9% 34,977 8.4% +2,7120.2% 79 -41.0% -55 88.4% 34,909 -60.2% -52,7370.5% 153 6.3% +9 88.9% 25,047 2.7% +6510.4% 676 -20.7% -176 89.5% 154,187 -38.5% -96,5400.3% 525 7.1% +35 83.8% 143,133 -27.7% -54,7660.2% 601 34.5% +154 85.6% 217,487 -20.3% -55,2570.4% 320 23.1% +60 84.3% 72,389 -12.7% -10,5010.3% 2,108 12.1% +227 85.7% 553,371 -27.6% -211,1050.0% 14 -73.1% -38 90.2% 33,825 -15.5% -6,2120.0% 6 -25.0% -2 87.4% 108,224 -33.7% -55,0120.6% 837 22.4% +153 80.3% 106,786 -10.4% -12,3340.1% 110 129.2% +62 81.6% 88,780 209.3% +60,081

2.0% 13,443 18.5% +2,095 90.4% 617,830 -27.7% -236,5911.6% 7,075 30.2% +1,642 91.9% 397,301 0.3% +1,0791.8% 4,761 35.4% +1,246 91.7% 242,672 15.2% +31,9482.0% 2,636 73.1% +1,113 91.3% 119,646 9.7% +10,5512.4% 44 29.4% +10 85.4% 1,578 -38.4% -9834.5% 436 300.0% +327 83.3% 8,023 -3.7% -3111.6% 8,820 2.9% +249 91.1% 494,169 -28.3% -195,5091.3% 680 2.7% +18 93.1% 47,667 9.1% +3,9705.0% 3,250 87.1% +1,513 84.0% 54,773 -40.1% -36,6425.4% 3,223 131.5% +1,831 81.2% 48,449 -11.2% -6,1021.7% 6,413 0.7% +43 90.8% 337,602 -25.1% -112,9811.1% 901 -9.2% -91 93.2% 73,023 -42.6% -54,2721.2% 465 12.3% +51 94.1% 36,604 4.4% +1,5501.1% 436 -24.6% -142 92.3% 36,419 -60.5% -55,8221.5% 415 8.9% +34 93.8% 26,427 -0.6% -1611.2% 2,080 -4.8% -104 93.4% 160,960 -39.8% -106,6212.9% 4,925 38.4% +1,367 88.3% 150,772 -28.1% -58,9961.8% 4,564 3.3% +147 90.3% 229,399 -20.5% -59,1602.2% 1,874 45.0% +582 89.3% 76,699 -13.1% -11,5832.0% 12,669 15.9% +1,736 90.3% 583,335 -28.2% -229,0702.1% 774 84.3% +354 92.0% 34,495 -17.9% -7,5140.8% 969 287.6% +719 91.9% 113,751 -33.7% -57,7784.7% 6,241 29.0% +1,403 84.8% 112,825 -11.7% -14,8961.4% 1,471 -16.2% -284 87.3% 95,029 204.3% +63,796


Data: U.S. Census.









Families Families


White White


Asian Asian


Poverty Poverty



(Detroit) (Detroit)










Families Families


White White


Asian Asian


Poverty Poverty


TABLES FOR CENTRAL CITY ONLY - Detroit




(Detroit) (Detroit)

5

1.0% 35,699 100.3% +17,872 48.9% 1,765,349 -5.9% -110,1070.4% 3,909 25.2% +787 67.0% 643,541 70.4% +265,9100.3% 1,432 21.8% +256 70.6% 300,344 100.3% +150,3970.4% 710 41.4% +208 70.2% 128,842 92.4% +61,8691.0% 86 62.3% +33 63.9% 5,286 -25.2% -1,7852.6% 4,001 910.4% +3,605 34.0% 53,209 23.6% +10,1570.5% 1,909 133.9% +1,093 70.0% 290,670 65.8% +115,3760.9% 1,205 311.3% +912 56.7% 73,211 51.4% +24,8441.0% 27,659 73.9% +11,750 45.9% 1,293,001 -16.8% -261,3751.4% 11,214 293.8% +8,366 36.0% 290,118 14.8% +37,3720.7% 12,513 37.7% +3,429 54.5% 922,432 -8.3% -83,7591.1% 4,920 96.4% +2,415 47.5% 204,526 -17.9% -44,5460.3% 189 -19.6% -46 73.8% 45,690 101.9% +23,0581.3% 4,731 108.4% +2,461 43.1% 158,836 -29.9% -67,6040.4% 127 -23.5% -39 74.2% 26,551 94.0% +12,8621.2% 9,833 106.3% +5,066 48.4% 394,291 -15.0% -69,4090.8% 5,785 40.0% +1,652 53.0% 392,678 -10.3% -45,0431.1% 16,048 107.2% +8,303 47.4% 715,868 -0.9% -6,2440.7% 4,033 185.4% +2,620 48.1% 262,512 4.3% +10,7820.9% 30,523 78.6% +13,434 48.9% 1,588,167 -7.2% -123,4001.4% 5,176 595.7% +4,432 48.8% 177,182 8.1% +13,2931.0% 10,544 98.9% +5,242 45.7% 468,023 -14.5% -79,4940.5% 1,825 93.9% +884 60.7% 238,090 21.1% +41,4970.6% 710 107.6% +368 59.0% 66,345 107.1% +34,313

6.1% 221,646 35.4% +57,918 70.4% 2,543,089 -4.1% -109,8852.3% 21,915 7.5% +1,532 82.9% 796,749 66.0% +316,9082.1% 8,723 24.4% +1,713 85.3% 362,554 94.5% +176,1942.0% 3,758 27.0% +799 84.7% 155,415 84.9% +71,3404.9% 405 -25.0% -135 79.3% 6,560 -31.3% -2,9888.4% 13,191 160.6% +8,129 57.4% 89,845 35.8% +23,7042.1% 8,889 183.5% +5,754 83.9% 348,363 67.0% +139,7745.0% 6,464 145.1% +3,827 76.6% 99,027 51.9% +33,8356.7% 188,517 25.9% +38,787 68.6% 1,932,176 -13.9% -310,6329.1% 72,932 76.3% +31,573 61.5% 495,223 17.8% +74,9134.6% 77,827 14.7% +9,995 74.6% 1,262,522 -7.3% -99,2996.8% 29,269 23.5% +5,573 68.9% 296,890 -16.3% -57,6721.7% 1,067 5.7% +58 87.3% 54,041 95.6% +26,4117.6% 28,202 24.3% +5,515 65.9% 242,849 -25.7% -84,0831.7% 604 20.6% +103 87.8% 31,411 90.2% +14,8986.8% 55,299 23.6% +10,543 69.2% 564,004 -14.9% -99,0305.0% 37,305 14.4% +4,701 73.3% 543,163 -8.6% -50,8586.6% 99,120 38.2% +27,390 69.4% 1,049,135 -0.2% -2,5705.5% 29,922 99.2% +14,899 70.9% 386,787 12.3% +42,4696.1% 199,641 31.5% +47,807 70.6% 2,294,269 -5.5% -132,9496.1% 22,005 85.0% +10,108 68.6% 248,820 10.2% +23,0556.8% 69,121 34.4% +17,706 69.0% 705,423 -10.7% -84,5923.0% 11,681 44.2% +3,582 77.7% 304,688 21.8% +54,6214.0% 4,484 38.4% +1,245 78.8% 88,691 97.4% +43,770


Data: U.S. Census.









Families Families


White White


Asian Asian


Poverty Poverty



(Detroit Suburbs) (Detroit Suburbs)










Families Families


White White


Asian Asian

TABLES FOR REGIONAL SUBURBS - Detroit Region


Poverty Poverty





(Detroit Suburbs) (Detroit Suburbs)

6

Detroit

Ray

Troy

Orion

Bruce

Lenox

Huron

Shelby

Canton

Livonia

Warren

Oakland

Macomb

Sumpter

Brandon

Romulus

Clinton

Novi (c)

Taylor

Van Buren

GrovelandOxford (t)

Waterford

Addison (t)

Springfield

White Lake

Armada (t)

Washington

Richmond (t)

Harrison

Pontiac

Commerce

Dearborn

Independence

Chesterfield

Bloomfield SterlingHeights

Rochester Hills

Westland

Farmington Hills

Southfield (c)

West Bloomfield

Grosse Ile

Redford

Plymouth (t)

Wixom

Auburn Hills

Northville (t)

Brownstown

Roseville

Trenton

Wayne

RoyalOak (c)

Inkster

Flat Rock

Southgate

Fraser

Wyandotte

Oak Park

Ecorse

Garden City

Eastpointe

Riverview

Ferndale

Rochester

Berkley

Romeo

St. ClairShores

AllenPark

Dearborn Heights

Village ofGrosse PointeShores

Grosse Pointe Farms

Woodhaven

LincolnPark

MadisonHeights

Birmingham

Utica

Franklin

Bloom-fieldHills

BeverlyHills

MountClemens

RiverRouge

HazelPark

Clawson

Melvindale

Farmington

New Haven

HighlandPark

Orchard Lake Village

Grosse Pointe Park

Walled Lake

HarperWoods

HamtramckPlymouth (c)

Grosse Pointe

Northville (c) GrossePointeWoods

Windsor

Oxford (v)

Belleville

Lake Angelus

Lake Orion

Wolverine Lake

Leonard (v)Ortonville

LathrupVillage

HuntingtonWoods

Bingham Farms

Sylvan Lake

Armada (v)

Royal Oak (t)

Keego Harbor

Pleasant Ridge

Village of Clarkston

Novi (t)

Southfield (t)

OAKLAND

WAYNE

MACOMB

DETROIT (CENTRAL) REGION:Gentrification and Economic Decline by Census Tractwith Net Change in Low Income Population, 2000-2016

Data Sources: Geolytics, U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 SF3; U.S. Census Bureau, 2016 American Community Survey (5-year data).

Miles

0 5

94

94

75275

96

96

696

75

59

53

1039

14

3

75

401

C A N A D A

LakeSaintClair

Abandonment:(35)< -700 Low Income

Economic Decline:

(87)-1 to -699 Low IncomeLow Income Concentration:

(461)1 to 699 Low Income(167)> 700 Low Income

Low Income Displacement:(0)< -700 Low Income

Economic Expansion:

(4)-1 to -699 Low IncomeOverall Growth:

(6)1 to 699 Low Income(1)> 700 Low Income

Economic expansion/decline is definedif a tract has a +/- 10% change in middle-high-income population and a -/+ 5%change in low-income population share, respectively.

7

detroit region - university of minnesota law school · detroit region . detroit is a region with no...

Documents