TheReview_Nov_Dec_2021_FlipBook

Nearly a third of our members have seen their populations shrink both over the past 50 years and since 2010.

Down—But Up? The last third of our communities are split into places that have grown since 1970 but lost population in the last decade, and places that have lost population on the 50-year timeframe but grown since 2010. These categories can both be found across the state, but one group jumps out clearly. The inner-ring suburbs of metro Detroit are the most significant cluster of communities seeing growth since 2010 after decades of previous population declines. In some cases, these are large changes that have seen headlines: Dearborn gained more people than any other city in the state, and Hamtramck had one of the largest percent gains, both besting their 50-year marks; Melvindale, Farmington, and Dearborn Heights all added at least 10 percent to their 2010 populations, and several other communities added over 1,000 residents. Even where these inner-ring suburbs added only a percent or so, though, the change in direction at such scale seems significant. This shift is likely a combination of the regional economy growing even as Michigan has yet to address the needs of our largest city’s residents. Anecdotally, the inner-ring communities are gaining both residents moving out of Detroit neighborhoods and those moving into the region, including through international migration, in tandem with generational shifts as younger residents re-inhabit homes vacated by aging long-time owners. These demographic shifts pose interesting challenges for local leaders who hope to remain engaged with their residents. Richard Murphy is a policy research labs program manager for the League. You may contact him at 734.669.6329 or rmurphy@mml.org.

Newer suburbs make up much of the numbers in metro areas across the state, including the second-ring suburbs of Detroit. These communities’ growth reflects the housing and highway construction patterns of the late-20th century—the other side of the public policy actions that pulled people out of traditional cities. In many cases, these cities were still seeing vacant land subdivided and built on in the 1990s and 2000s, with homes still occupied by the original owners. These communities should plan to address the challenges that mid-century neighborhoods in central cities and first-ring suburbs have faced: when kids leave home, residents age, and homes and infrastructure reach the end of their initial life and require major capital reinvestment, will there be new residents moving in and ready to pay for that reinvestment? Some of the growth reflects regional economic patterns. Nearly every city and village in Kent County and Washtenaw County, for example, show population growth. Grand Rapids itself has recovered from earlier population declines to best its previous peak population, and Ypsilanti is growing from a 2010 low, both having suffered from earlier deindustrialization. High public-investment “eds & meds” (education and health care) economies in these regions have set the stage for local efforts in placemaking and growth to be successful. These communities face a different set of growth challenges, such as allowing for new housing options in existing neighborhoods to avoid displacement, and modify- ing streets to support transit, biking, and walking as safe and effective transportation options. The corridors between and radiating out from major economic centers have also seen a lot of growth in smaller cities and villages. These places offer attractive traditional main streets and neighborhoods as well as the convenient car commutes of nearby highway investments. These communities may struggle to maintain a local identity while growing as a bedroom community: the League’s place- making toolkit and the “belonging” aspect of community wealth building can both be useful approaches for this challenge.

36 THE REVIEW

NOVEMBER / DECEMBER 2021