Center for Urban Studies Population Briefs August 2001 · Center for Urban Studies Population Briefs August 2001 Center for Urban Studies Michigan’s 2000 Population Center for Urban

Center for Urban Studies

Population Briefs August 2001

Center for Urban Studies

Michigan’s 2000PopulationCenter for UrbanStudies PopulationBriefs––Census2000, No. 3

Center for Urban Studies656 West Kirby, 3040 F/ABDetroit, Michigan 48202

Phone: 313-577-2208FAX: 313-577-1274Email: [email protected]: www.cus.wayne.edu

Kurt MetzgerResearch Director

Jason BoozaGeographic InformationSpecialist

Population and Population Density Trends:A Case Study of Detroit, Michigan

Introduction

According to Robert Wilson, population size and population density are two complementaryconcepts. A city cannot be densely populated without having a sufficient population base, but acity can have a large population base without being densely populated. While the vast majority ofcities in the United States lie somewhere between, there are a number of larger cities that fall atboth extremes. In this paper, we will look at the city of Detroit during the 20th century and chartits path in this population and population density continuum.

National Perspective

Nationally, the most densely populated cities are located in the Northeast. The Midwest and Westregions follow a distant second and third, with the South coming in last, at a density less than one-fourth that of the Northeast (see Table 1). An analysis of the 100 largest cities, according to the2000 census1, produces an overall average density of 4,684 persons per square mile. However, whilethe Midwest and West regions fall close to this average (4,886 and 4,714, respectively), theNortheast far exceeds it at 12,906 persons per/sq. mi., while the South averages only 3,112.

There at least two reasons why cities in the Northeast and Midwest are more densely populated thanwestern and southern cities. First, northeastern and midwestern cities have historically been theindustrial centers of the United States. Their high densities can be traced back to their industrialbeginnings, when means of communication and mass transportation were quite limited. These citiesnot only housed the numerous factories that supplied this country with durable goods, but also theworkers who needed to live in close proximity to their jobs. Comparatively, manufacturing facilities

Table 1Average Population and Density of the 100 Largest Cities, by Region: 1990 and2000

Population Average Density

Low Hi Population Average Density

Low Hi

All Cities 56,590,581 4,684 153 26,403 51,576,135 4,492 133 23,705Northeast 9,819,527 12,906 6,133 26,403 9,148,446 12,488 6,470 23,705Midwest 12,359,732 4,886 1,408 12,750 12,235,973 5,023 1,397 12,252West 16,954,159 4,714 153 16,634 14,621,208 4,253 133 15,502South 17,457,163 3,112 585 11,767 15,570,508 2,987 446 10,072

Region2000 1990

2

were few in the older cities in the South and West, as the economy was more agrarian in nature. As a result, much of thepopulation lived outside of central cities. However, the advent of freeways and mass communication, coupled with federalhousing policies, led to the beginning of population declines and urban sprawl in many midwestern and northeasterncentral cities, and major growth spurts in many of our newer southern and western cities.

Second, cities in the Northeast and Midwest have continued to lose population or, at best, shown no or slight growth, duein large part to outmigration of residents to the South and West. As a result, there has been a general trend toward lowerdensities.2 Cities in the South and West, while growing in population, are experiencing nominal growth in their density.This is due to that fact that as their populations grow, many are able to annex land outside of the city limits. Suchannexations are made to both accommodate growth and to capture the growth occurring outside present city limits.Phoenix, for example, went from 17 square miles in 1950 to 475 square miles in 2000. It also went from being ranked 99thin total population to sixth in the same 50-year span. This trend of “elastic,” or growing, cities (in land area as well aspopulation) is illustrated in Table 1 by the fact that there is an inverse relationship between the regions’ shares ofpopulation and their densities. Southern and western cities account for more of the population, but are far less dense.

The American City and Metropolitan Development

The previous section discussed two reasons for changing population distributions and densities across the United Statesand alluded to others. It would be helpful to briefly look at factors that have affected the American city, as we know it.To do this, we turn to research done by the Fannie Mae Foundation.3

In an effort to better understand the most significant influences on the American city and metropolitan developmentduring the past 50 years and into the next millennium, the Fannie Mae Foundation commissioned a survey that asked urbanscholars to rank the key influences shaping the American metropolis.

They developed a list of 25 possible influences on the American metropolis in the past century, and a list of 19 likelyinfluences on the future. They surveyed 149 urban and regional historians, planners, and practitioners and asked them torank the 10 most powerful influences, looking back 50 years and forward through the next century.

While we will leave the future forecast for a later paper, a listing of the 10 most powerful influences over the last 50years—years during most of which Detroit has seen its population and density decline—is quite relevant. Here they are.

1. The most frequently selected influence on the metropolis in the past 50 years was the interstate highway system.Proclaimed the “largest public works program since the Pyramids,” the 41,000 miles of asphalt radicallytransformed the American city. Designed to move tanks and troops quickly in case of war, the interstate systemwas also a grand scheme to relieve cities of automobile congestion. But new “beltways” designed for long-distance travelers to bypass crowded cities soon became the main streets of postwar suburbia. Cheap rural landalong the beltways became the favored sites for suburban housing, shopping malls, and industrial parks. It drewpeople and businesses out of central cities. Ultimately, the new urban highways became snarled in ever-growingcongestion. Their construction had the unanticipated impact of devastating many urban neighborhoods. Becausethe federal government picked up most of the tab for these highways, localities had a powerful incentive toneglect mass transit. Under the 1956 act, federal gas tax revenue paid the majority of the cost of new highways,the localities only a small part. By contrast, local governments paid a much higher percentage of any investmentin mass transit. More than any other single measure, the 1956 act created the decentralized, automobile-dependent metropolis we know today.

2. The Federal Housing Administration was created in the 1930s in response to the financial crisis of the GreatDepression. Post-1945 suburbia was literally built on the financial foundation of the FHA. It made the dream ofowning a home a reality for a majority of Americans. It also had a devastating effect on cities. FHA-insuredmortgages during the two decades following World War II were limited to new housing on the suburban fringe. TheFHA refused to insure mortgages on older houses in most urban neighborhoods. This hidden subsidy to suburbanhousing came at the expense of downtown communities. The FHA’s original underwriting criteria also explicitlydiscriminated against blacks and other minorities by cautioning lenders against integrating races inneighborhoods.

3. Levittown-Type Tract Housing built on potato fields on Long Island between 1947 and 1951 has become theenduring symbol of postwar suburbia. These simple-looking structures finally put the single-family detached housewithin the reach of middle-income and working-class families. The Levitts pioneered the “industrialization” ofsuburban tract housing. But their techniques were soon widely used by medium and small builders who built thebulk of postwar suburbia.

4. The rise of the Sunbelt would have been impossible without the technology of air conditioning. Invented earlierin the century, air conditioning became widespread in the 1950s and ’60s. It transformed some of the hottest,most inhospitable environments in the South and West into our fastest-growing metropolitan areas.

5. Enclosed Shopping Malls—While the Detroit area’s own Northland Mall, opened in 1954, is thought to be the firstregional shopping center, the first enclosed, climate-controlled shopping mall opened in the Minnesota suburb ofEdina in 1956. Enclosed shopping centers gave shoppers what downtown lacked: a variety of stores with easyhighway access, ample parking, and climate control. Enclosed shopping malls soon overwhelmed downtownshopping districts and emptied urban storefronts

6. When a Northern or Midwestern city expanded, it tended to radiate out from a well-established central city. ButSunbelt-style sprawl was a different thing entirely. It mushroomed with no identifiable pattern or form. Theseregions grew into centerless, borderless agglomerations connected to the nearest city only by a highway. Theycontained massive housing developments, shopping malls, industrial parks, office parks, and strip developments.

7. De-industrialization of Central Cities—American industry after World War II was concentrated in the great citiesof the Northeast and Midwest. Prosperous factory districts had state-of-the-art production facilities, railroad links,and access to skilled labor. But these advantages were lost as employers were increasingly tempted by cheaperlabor outside the older centers and by tax breaks and other subsidies offered in the suburbs. Urban factory districtslost again as industry shifted from rail to truck transportation. Technology advances soon found the crampedmulti-story urban plants much less efficient than single-story structures that required the kind of space found onlyin the suburbs. This de-industrialization devastated urban economies and municipal budgets. It also destabilizedurban neighborhoods that had depended on a close relationship between work and residence.

8. Urban Renewal: Downtown Redevelopment and Public Housing Projects—Urban renewal legislation paid forlarge-scale clearances of “blighted” urban areas that were purchased by local redevelopment agencies and thenleveled. A lot of what gave downtown its special character was destroyed. Historic structures and the smallbusinesses that occupied them were often wiped out in an effort to upgrade downtown business districts. Whileurban renewal succeeded in ridding cities of some of their worst slums, it also destroyed many close-knitneighborhoods. Urban renewal programs, along with the impact of urban highways and competition from suburbanmalls, turned many downtowns into pedestrian-unfriendly patchworks of highway ramps, empty lots, parkingstructures and isolated buildings.

9. Racial Segregation and Job Discrimination—The nearly three million blacks who migrated from the rural Southto northern industrial cities after the second World War encountered an urban world already defined by a “colorline” and “job ceiling.” Inner cities were no longer the places of opportunity they had been for Europeanimmigrants. Instead, blacks were trapped in segregated inner cities where there was a concentration of poverty,crime, joblessness, and other social dysfunction. They experienced virtually total exclusion from white urban andsuburban America.

10. Urban Riots of the 1960s—The full impact of the postwar urban racial crisis remained hidden from most of whiteAmerica until the urban riots of the 1960s. They were fueled by persistent unemployment, poor housing andeducation opportunities, and unremitting racial discrimination. The riots marked downtown’s transition from theovercrowded ghettos of the postwar period to today’s inner cities plagued by depopulation, de-industrialization,housing abandonment, and social disorder.

3

Detroit

According to the 2000 U.S. Census, Detroit ranks 10th in total population among the 100 largest cities, but ranks only 19thin population density (see table 2). Historically, Detroit has always ranked lower in population density than totalpopulation. Even though Detroit was nationally ranked fourth in total population from 1920 to 1940, and reached itspopulation and population density peak in 1950, it did not reach its peak rank in population density until 1960 through1980 (see table 3). It was the loss of population in other “rust belt” cities like St. Louis, Cleveland, Buffalo and Newarkthat propelled Detroit upward in the density rankings.

According to Oliver Zunz, “A major factor whichaccounts for the generally low population densityis that Detroit is a city of single family homes.”He describes Detroit before the turn of the 20thcentury as an “open city,” in that most of thecity’s population lived near the center and landbecame less populated as one moved out from thatcenter. Similar patterns can still be seen in themid- to late-20th century (see Appendix A).Detroit’s post-World War II housing boom producedmany low-density Levittown-type tract houses inthe outer fringes of the city. As Detroit’spopulation decentralized, moving further awayfrom the center of the city, people moved into theabundant low-density housing that was availableat the edges and the suburban fringe communities.As mentioned earlier, this population shift wasassisted by the advent of freeways and masscommunication, making it easier for people to livefurther from the central city. As can be seen inthe 1960 through 2000 maps, the center of thecity has become increasingly less dense over time.Now, as Detroit officials seek to bring retaildevelopment to the downtown area, they arestymied by the lack of a residential base.

While historically low in population density,Detroit has experienced the issue of overcrowding.During the migration of blacks from the south inthe early- to mid-1900s, many were forced to livein small, crowded all black communities such as“Black Bottom” (Sugrue). It was not uncommonfor several families to live in a single-family housethat had been subdivided. Living conditions weredeplorable, but racial discrimination kept blacksconfined to such communities. Many of theearliest and largest black communities in Detroitwere located near the center of the city. As canbe seen in the 1960 population density map ofDetroit, these areas were also some of the mostdensely populated in the city.

Urban renewal and the freeway system destroyedmany of the strongest black neighborhoods, andthe urban sprawl that followed has left Detroit

4

Census Year

Total Population

Population Rank

Population Density*

Density Rank**

1910 465,766 9 11,416 291920 993,078 4 12,748 231930 1,568,662 4 11,375 251940 1,623,452 4 11,773 201950 1,849,568 5 13,249 151960 1,670,144 5 11,964 121970 1,511,482 5 10,953 131980 1,203,339 6 8,874 121990 1,027,974 7 7,411 172000 951,270 10 6,855 19

*Persons per square mile

**Ranking based on the top 100 most populated cities

Source: MIMIC analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.

Table 3How Detroit Ranks Nationally in Population and Density1910-2000

Table 2Population and Density of the 25 Largest Cities, 2000

City Name Population Rank

Total Population

Density Rank

Density (per sq. mi)

New York 1 8,008,278 1 26,402.88Los Angeles 2 3,694,820 15 7,876.83Chicago 3 2,896,016 4 12,750.33Houston 4 1,953,631 52 3,371.72Philadelphia 5 1,517,550 9 11,233.61Phoenix 6 1,321,045 64 2,781.94San Diego 7 1,223,400 45 3,771.93Dallas 8 1,188,580 49 3,469.86San Antonio 9 1,144,646 63 2,808.54Detroit 10 951,270 19 6,855.06San Jose 11 894,943 29 5,117.95Indianapolis 12 781,870 79 2,162.97San Francisco 13 776,733 2 16,634.37Jacksonville 14 735,617 95 970.88Columbus 15 711,470 51 3,383.63Austin 16 656,562 69 2,610.38Baltimore 17 651,154 14 8,058.40Memphis 18 650,100 75 2,327.44Milwaukee 19 596,974 23 6,214.33Boston 20 589,141 6 12,165.76Washington 21 572,059 12 9,316.43El Paso 22 563,662 76 2,263.01Seattle 23 563,374 20 6,717.02Denver 24 554,636 46 3,616.78Nashville-Davidson 25 545,524 93 1,152.55

Source: MIMIC analysis of U.S. Census data.

5

with half the population of the 1950s and a vastly different pattern of density. The first decade of the 21st century willbe an important one for Detroit, and cities across the Midwest and Northeast.

Tri-County Detroit Area

Detroit ranks third in population density among cities in the tri-county area. Only Hamtramck and Lincoln Park rankhigher (see table 4). While Lincoln Park ranks second, its population density is quite close to a number of those citiesranked below. The 19 cities (not including Detroit) are primarily older residential suburbs of Detroit with single-family

housing units. With theexception of Detroit, all 19cities are less than 12 squaremiles in area, and 17 of the19 are less than six squaremiles. However, there is onecity that stands out from therest. Hamtramck has apopulation density of 10,941persons per square mile in2000, which is more than4,000 persons per square milehigher than its nearestcompetitor. Among thereasons for Hamtramck’s highpopulation density are: 1)40% of its housing units areduplexes, and 2) Hamtramckhas an extremely high averagehousehold size, a result of itslong history as an immigrantcommunity. In the early1900s, it was Irishimmigrants, followed by Polishimmigrants that madeHamtramck home. In recentyears the immigrants havecome from Bangladesh,Pakistan, Bosnia, Yemen and

many others. Overall, population density within the tri-county area is increasing as the population increases, but it is thesmall, older residential suburbs where density remains highest (see Appendix B).

Conclusion

Detroit has experienced all the factors that have affected the American city. Freeways have allowed sprawl to develop thefarmlands and empty out the core cities. The loss of farmland, increasing development of green space, and theabandonment of the urban infrastructure have recently become public issues. We hear the terms “smart growth” and“new urbanism” more often. The next decade will see the debate heat up on the future of cities, and the Detroit area willmost certainly be at the center of these discussions.

Rank Name Total Population

(1990)

Total Population

(2000)

Population Density* (1990)

Population Density* (2000)

Size (Square Miles)

1 Hamtramck 18,372 22,976 8,717 10,941 2.1 2 Lincoln Park 41,832 40,008 7,153 6,898 5.8 3 Detroit 1,027,974 951,270 7,410 6,858 138.7 4 Hazel Park 20,051 18,963 7,115 6,773 2.8 5 Eastpointe 35,283 34,077 6,909 6,682 5.1 6 Berkley 16,960 15,531 6,460 5,973 2.6 7 Oak Park 30,462 29,793 6,079 5,959 5.0 8 Clawson 13,874 12,732 6,304 5,787 2.2 9 Ferndale 25,084 22,105 6,473 5,668 3.9 10 Grosse Pointe Park 12,857 12,443 5,966 5,656 2.2 11 Highland Park 20,121 16,746 6,759 5,582 3.0 12 Keego Harbor 2,932 2,769 5,731 5,538 0.5 13 St. Clair Shores 68,107 63,096 5,906 5,487 11.5 14 Harper Woods 14,903 14,254 5,765 5,482 2.6 15 Wyandotte 30,938 28,006 5,829 5,284 5.3 16 Grosse Pointe Woods 17,715 17,080 5,432 5,176 3.3 17 Grosse Pointe City 5,681 5,670 5,302 5,155 1.1 18 Garden City 31,846 30,047 5,434 5,093 5.9 19 Royal Oak 65,410 60,062 5,532 5,090 11.8 20 Center Line 9,026 8,531 5,195 5,018 1.7

*Persons per square mile

Source: MIMIC analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.

Table 4Population and Density Rankings in Tri-County Cities, 1990 and 2000

6

References

Sugrue, Thomas J. The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit. Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress, 1996.

Wilson, Robert A. Urban Sociology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1978.

Zunz, Oliver. The Changing Face of Inequality: Urbanization, Industrial Development and Immigrants in Detroit, 1880-1920.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982. The Interstate Highway System and the Dominance of the Automobile

1 Historical data for the 100 largest cities in the United States were obtained from Working Paper No. 27 of the U.S. Census Bureau’s Population Division.A copy of this paper can be found at www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027.html. The 2000 data were analyzed by Wayne StateUniversity’s Center for Urban Studies using Census 2000 PL94-171 data.

2 This trend was reversed in a number of cities, such as New York and Chicago, between 1990 and 2000, as increasing numbers of immigrants andminorities brought population growth.

3 The “American Metropolis at Century’s End: Past and Future Influences,” by Dr. Robert Fishman, can be found on the Fannie Mae website atwww.fanniemaefoundation.org/programs/metropolis1/index.html.

HighlandHighlandHighlandHighlandHighlandHighlandHighlandHighlandHighlandParkParkParkParkParkParkParkParkPark

HamtramckHamtramckHamtramckHamtramckHamtramckHamtramckHamtramckHamtramckHamtramck

Belle Isle

Detroit River

Te

leg

rap

hT

ele

gra

ph

Te

leg

rap

hT

ele

gra

ph

Te

leg

rap

hT

ele

gra

ph

Te

leg

rap

hT

ele

gra

ph

Te

leg

rap

h

96

1039

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

75

39

96

10

9694

75MichiganMichiganMichiganMichiganMichiganMichiganMichiganMichiganMichigan

75

75

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard375

10

75

Va

n D

yk

eV

an

Dy

ke

Va

n D

yk

eV

an

Dy

ke

Va

n D

yk

eV

an

Dy

ke

Va

n D

yk

eV

an

Dy

ke

Va

n D

yk

e

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

75

94

94

Persons Per Square Mile

40,000 to 56,363 (3)30,000 to 39,999 (11)20,000 to 29,999 (88)10,000 to 19,999 (210)5,000 to 9,999 (93)

8 to 4,999 (30)

Population Density1960 Census Tracts

Source: US Census Bureau, 1960

Detroit, Michigan

CULMA/Center for Urban Studies/jcb 2001 Wayne State University

Appendix A

7



Belle Isle

Detroit River

Te

leg

rap

hT

ele

gra

ph

Te

leg

rap

hT

ele

gra

ph

Te

leg

rap

hT

ele

gra

ph

Te

leg

rap

hT

ele

gra

ph

Te

leg

rap

h

96

1039

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

75

39

96

10

9694


75

75

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard375

10

75

Va

n D

yk

eV

an

Dy

ke

Va

n D

yk

eV

an

Dy

ke

Va

n D

yk

eV

an

Dy

ke

Va

n D

yk

eV

an

Dy

ke

Va

n D

yk

e

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

75

94

94


30,000 to 39,641 (7)20,000 to 29,999 (52)10,000 to 19,999 (212)5,000 to 9,999 (108)

402 to 4,999 (42) Population Density1970 Census TractsSource: US Census Bureau, 1970

Detroit, Michigan


Appendix A

8



Belle Isle

Detroit River

Te

leg

rap

hT

ele

gra

ph

Te

leg

rap

hT

ele

gra

ph

Te

leg

rap

hT

ele

gra

ph

Te

leg

rap

hT

ele

gra

ph

Te

leg

rap

h

96

1039

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

75

39

96

10

9694


75

75

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard375

10

75

Va

n D

yk

eV

an

Dy

ke

Va

n D

yk

eV

an

Dy

ke

Va

n D

yk

eV

an

Dy

ke

Va

n D

yk

eV

an

Dy

ke

Va

n D

yk

e

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

75

94

94


32,719 (1)20,000 to 24,488 (4)10,000 to 19,999 (153)5,000 to 9,999 (142)

31 to 4,999 (43)No Population (1)

Population Density1980 Census Tracts


Detroit, Michigan


Appendix A

9



Belle Isle

Detroit River

Te

leg

rap

hT

ele

gra

ph

Te

leg

rap

hT

ele

gra

ph

Te

leg

rap

hT

ele

gra

ph

Te

leg

rap

hT

ele

gra

ph

Te

leg

rap

h

96

1039

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

75

39

96

10

9694


75

75

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard375

10

75

Va

n D

yk

eV

an

Dy

ke

Va

n D

yk

eV

an

Dy

ke

Va

n D

yk

eV

an

Dy

ke

Va

n D

yk

eV

an

Dy

ke

Va

n D

yk

e

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

75

94

94


10,000 to 16,927 (92)5,000 to 9,999 (168)

115 to 4,999 (60)No Population (1) Population Density

1990 Census TractsSource: US Census Bureau, 1990

Detroit, Michigan


Appendix A

10



Belle Isle

Detroit River

Te

leg

rap

hT

ele

gra

ph

Te

leg

rap

hT

ele

gra

ph

Te

leg

rap

hT

ele

gra

ph

Te

leg

rap

hT

ele

gra

ph

Te

leg

rap

h

96

1039

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

Grand River

75

39

96

10

9694


75

75

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard

Woodw

ard375

10

75

Va

n D

yk

eV

an

Dy

ke

Va

n D

yk

eV

an

Dy

ke

Va

n D

yk

eV

an

Dy

ke

Va

n D

yk

eV

an

Dy

ke

Va

n D

yk

e

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

Gra

tiot

75

94

94


10,000 to 17,115 (73)5,000 to 9,999 (176)

7 to 4,999 (64)No Population (1) Population Density

2000 Census TractsSource: US Census Bureau, 2000

Detroit, Michigan


Appendix A

11

SouthLyon

Rose Twp

Holly Twp

Highland Twp

Lyon Twp

Milford Twp

Walled

Wixom

Springfield Twp

Novi

Northvil le

White Lake Twp

Groveland Twp

Commerce Twp

Novi Twp

Northville Twp

PlymouthTwp

Van Buren Twp

Belleville

Canton Twp.

Plymouth

Sumpter Twp

Westland

Wayne

Romulus

Huron Twp

GardenCity

LivoniaRedford Twp

Brownstown Twp

Flat Rock

DearbornHeights

Inkster

Taylor

Rockwood

Dearborn

Woodhaven

Gibraltar

Trenton

Detroit

Riverview

Southgate

Melv inda le

Allen Park

Lincoln Park

Wyandotte

Ecorse

Grosse Ile Twp

Waterford Twp

Independence Twp

Clarkston

Farmington Hills

Farmington

WestBloomfield

Twp

OrchardLake Village

Keego Harbor

LakeAngelus

Sylvan Lake

Pontiac

Orion Twp

Southfield

Oxford TwpBrandon Twp

Southfield Twp

BloomfieldTwp

BloomfieldHills

LathrupVi l lage

Birmingham

Oak ParkRoyal OakTwp

Auburn Hills

Berkley

Royal Oak

HuntingtonWoods

PleasantRidge

Clawson

River

Rouge

Ferndale

MadisonHeights

HazelPark

HighlandPark Ham

tramck

L ine

WarrenRoseville

Eastpointe

Harper Woods

GrossePointe

GrossePointeShores

St. ClairShores

GrossePointeFarms

GrossePointeWoods

GrossePointePark

Addison Twp

Oakland Twp

Troy

Rochester

Rochester Hills

Bruce Twp

Washington Twp

Sterling Heights

Shelby Twp

Utica

Fraser

Clinton Twp

Ray Twp

Armada Twp

Macomb Twp

MountClemens

HarrisonTwp

ChesterfieldTwp

Richmond Twp

Memph is

Lenox Twp

Richmond

NewBaltimore

C a n a d aCanada

LakeSt. Clair

LakeErie


5,400 to 10,9003,600 to 5,3992,000 to 3,599

700 to 1,9990 to 699

Population Density, 2000 Census

CULMA/Center for Urban Studies/jcb

OaklandOaklandOaklandOaklandOaklandOaklandOaklandOaklandOakland

MacombMacombMacombMacombMacombMacombMacombMacombMacomb

WayneWayneWayneWayneWayneWayneWayneWayneWayne

2001 Wayne State University

Tri-County Area


Appendix B

12

Lake

Line

Center

Documents

Center for Urban Studies Population Briefs August 2001 · Center for Urban Studies Population Briefs August 2001 Center for Urban Studies Michigan’s 2000 Population Center for Urban