OTish - Detroit loses 25% of its population

[Mwd711]

I guess the real question is whether or not local sponsors are still spending on the Wings. I know there have been changes in the STH base and the waiting list has diminished since the lockout. Last I heard, there were 12,000 STH's, down from about a peak of 17,000 pre-lockout.

Suite sales took a bit of hit when the recession hit. Not sure how much that has rebounded.

From what I've heard, 95% of the suites are sold for every game. They have rebounded quite well in that department. I haven't heard any firm STH numbers but I get the feeling that they are still struggling a little bit in that department. Not that 12,000 is bad, but it is a far cry to the days when it was nearly impossible to get Wings tix of any kind, let alone season tickets.

So when looking at the Red Wings, it is important to look at the southern Ontario's region too as that has a large affect on STH's and corporate sponsorships.

Would the Red Wings benefit from building a new rink in the suburbs where it seems the population is relocating?

Downtown Detroit is the most central location to the suburbs, for the most part and is the easiest to travel to and from. All the major freeways lead there which you certainly can't say for The Palace. Most Metro Detroiters would rather go downtown then the burbs just because of the access issue, not just the economic issues. It works better for the region on a whole.

Back to the topic at hand, I find it interesting that the OP doesn't mention Pittsburgh too or Buffalo or any other numerous Midwestern cities. Does the OP realize that Metropolitan Pittsburgh lost nearly as much population as Metro Detroit did? And Metro Pittsburgh has been declining for decades unlike Metro Detroit which has only shown declines over this past census.

Detroit's region lost 4 percent. Pittsburgh lost 3. Over the last four census periods, Metro Pittsburgh has lost population every time. This was the first time that Detroit has even had a decline. Pittsburgh's metro area has the second oldest population in the U.S. - only Palm Beach, FL is older.

Im not trying to pick on Pittsburgh, but my point is that the City of Detroit's population losses do not reflect the region as a whole and certainly doesn't effect the Red Wings much any more than Pittsburgh's decades of declines and aging population have hurt the Pens. Nobody would post that the Penguins are in dire shape, yet their metropolitan area has been declining for 40 years, at a rate much worse than Detroit which has only recently started to show declines. Population isn't necessarily reflective of a area's strengths since many people consider Pittsburgh an area on the rise, yet the population fails to show that. Certainly Metro Detroit has it's share of problems but that is quite common throughout the Midwest and Great Lakes.

 

[Bryan574]

I find it interesting that the OP doesn't mention Pittsburgh too or Buffalo

Census shows Buffalo continuing population decline

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP3119bbc4133e450cab2ef0e0834e21e6.html

In fact, every census since 1960 has shown Buffalo losing people. The 2010 results ? which put the population at 261,310, down from a 1950s peak of about 580,000.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Mwd Detroit despite its fall off is still a large tier 2 city simply because of the big 3 and corporations. Detroit, Miami, Atlanta, Houston, Philly, Boston, Dallas, etc. are what I call tier 2 world cities. Not famous like NY, LA, Chi, Tor, DC, SF but still (smaller) major international destinations.

Pittsburgh and Buffalo were never in this group.

 

[Mwd711]

Mwd Detroit despite its fall off is still a large tier 2 city simply because of the big 3 and corporations. Detroit, Miami, Atlanta, Houston, Philly, Boston, Dallas, etc. are what I call tier 2 world cities. Not famous like NY, LA, Chi, Tor, DC, SF but still (smaller) major international destinations.

Pittsburgh and Buffalo were never in this group.

I agree with you on that but as of 1950, Pittsburgh had nearly 700,000 people. It was the 12th largest city. Buffalo had nearly 600,000. They never got to the level of a Detroit, but they were certainly influential cities. Places like Cleveland, Baltimore and St. Louis had nearly a million people. That population is all in the burbs today. Some of those cities you mention like Dallas, were relatively small then. In 1950, SF had a similar population as Pittsburgh. SF and Houston continued to thrive, while the rust-belt cities lost momentum.

The city of Toledo, OH is larger than Buffalo and is nearly as large as Pittsburgh today. Chicago lost over 200,000 people in the last 10 years but nobody is writing their swan song. That's a massive decline but we know that the regions are much healthier than the cities themselves. That was my only point. Much of that is strictly due to image. Detroit has a terrible image while Pittsburgh has been able to change theirs over the last 20 years even though the region is still getting older and losing people. Obviously losing people is never a good thing, but in many American cities, this has been going on for decades, and in some regional cases, at a worse pace than Detroit which has largely been growing outside of this past census.

 

[Evil Doctor]

Census shows Buffalo continuing population decline

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP3119bbc4133e450cab2ef0e0834e21e6.html

In fact, every census since 1960 has shown Buffalo losing people. The 2010 results — which put the population at 261,310, down from a 1950s peak of about 580,000

At this rate, Buffalo will soon have to downgrade from city to town. Buffalo, the Green Bay of the NHL...

 

[Melrose Munch]

I agree with you on that but as of 1950, Pittsburgh had nearly 700,000 people. It was the 12th largest city. Buffalo had nearly 600,000. They never got to the level of a Detroit, but they were certainly influential cities. Places like Cleveland, Baltimore and St. Louis had nearly a million people. That population is all in the burbs today. Some of those cities you mention like Dallas, were relatively small then. In 1950, SF had a similar population as Pittsburgh. SF and Houston continued to thrive, while the rust-belt cities lost momentum.

The city of Toledo, OH is larger than Buffalo and is nearly as large as Pittsburgh today. Chicago lost over 200,000 people in the last 10 years but nobody is writing their swan song. That's a massive decline but we know that the regions are much healthier than the cities themselves. That was my only point. Much of that is strictly due to image. Detroit has a terrible image while Pittsburgh has been able to change theirs over the last 20 years even though the region is still getting older and losing people. Obviously losing people is never a good thing, but in many American cities, this has been going on for decades, and in some regional cases, at a worse pace than Detroit which has largely been growing outside of this past census.

Agree. But Detroit had 3.5 million people in the area in 1950, while those areas had 1.1 - 1.4 million. SF at 2.2 million. Detroit was(is?) one of the central cities of the US. It's decline is something to marvel at and be sad for at the same time. IMO Buffalo has been replaced by Rochester(they grew) and Toronto. Pittsburgh is dying off and if not for the teams they would be a nothing more than most.

 

[Dooman]

To the person asking why I didn't include Pittsburgh in the OP, despite their steady decline in population:

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/news/1003/gallery.Census_winners_losers/9.html

a 3% population loss in the last decade is not even remotely comparable to a 25% population loss.

 

[danishh]

To the person asking why I didn't include Pittsburgh in the OP, despite their steady decline in population:

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/news/1003/gallery.Census_winners_losers/9.html

a 3% population loss in the last decade is not even remotely comparable to a 25% population loss.

notice how detroit isnt on that list?

those numbers look like MSA/CSA data to me, in line with the numbers here: http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=31537037&postcount=6

you're comparing apples and oranges.

 

[AllByDesign]

Census shows Buffalo continuing population decline

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP3119bbc4133e450cab2ef0e0834e21e6.html

However, the Niagara region in Ontario has grown exponentially over the same time period.

 

[Brodie]

I wonder how many people from Buffalo have moved cross border in the past decade? I know of several who have made the move from Detroit to Windsor in that time.

 

[Melrose Munch]

notice how detroit isnt on that list?

those numbers look like MSA/CSA data to me, in line with the numbers here: http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=31537037&postcount=6

you're comparing apples and oranges.

IMO Not his fault. The web never specifies anything.

 

[Dooman]

notice how detroit isnt on that list?

those numbers look like MSA/CSA data to me, in line with the numbers here: http://hfboards.So com/showpost.php?p=31537037&postcount=6

you're comparing apples and oranges.

Okay, straight from the census bureau then :
http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn74.html

Pittsburgh, 305,704
from 334,563 in 2000

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42/4261000.html

So thats what... an 8.6? % population loss.

Either way. Its still much, much smaller. Especially when considering the sheer size of the populations to start off with.

 

[Evil Doctor]

However, the Niagara region in Ontario has grown exponentially over the same time period.

It is so strange to think that Niagara Falls NY used to be about three times the size of Niagara Falls ON. Now it's the Ontario side that's about two times larger...

 

[KillerKampfer*]

Buffalo region is holding steady, the City itself used to be #5 in all of America at the turn of the 20th century. That was not sustainable and they were lucky to grow into the 50s. The Bills and Sabres are well supported and nothing will change that even bad teams, real fans there. The thing is anyone who is employed in any facet in Detroit or Buffalo can afford to move into a suburb which would have been too expensive for them 10-20 years ago.

Pittsburgh is the same thing but to a lesser extent. Go on Stubhub and see how much first round is going for. More than the Bruins. Pittsburgh is smaller than both too so it can benefit from reurbanization. Buffalo and Detroit were two of the biggest cities on the planet and that just will not ever happen. Particularly given the thriving cities and towns near them.

 

[Mwd711]

Okay, straight from the census bureau then :
http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn74.html

Pittsburgh, 305,704
from 334,563 in 2000

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42/4261000.html

So thats what... an 8.6? % population loss.

Either way. Its still much, much smaller. Especially when considering the sheer size of the populations to start off with.

You're comparing city to city populations. I'm comparing metropolitan populations. The Red Wings fan base hasn't been in the city of Detroit for the past 30-50 years. The fact that Detroit lost 25% of it's population has little impact on the team. The Detroit metro area lost 4% of it's population. That's virtually the same amount that Metro Pittsburgh lost. That's why I used them as a comparison.

Nobody would say that the Pens fanbase is only in the city of Pittsburgh and the same can definitely be said for Detroit where most of the population moved to the burbs decades ago. My suburban home county of Macomb has now grown to be larger than the city of Detroit. Oakland County has been larger than Detroit for decades. The burbs are the base for the Red Wings, not the city and the burbs aren't fairing that badly since it was a relatively small number that moved out of the area. Metro Detroit has 5 million people, the city itself makes up a very small part of that. So, to answer your OP, no, it doesn't effect the Wings one bit if Detroit drops 25% of it's people as long as the metro area has millions of residents. If the suburbs dropped 25%, then it would be a massive issue.

 

[barneyg]

Agree. But Detroit had 3.5 million people in the area in 1950, while those areas had 1.1 - 1.4 million. SF at 2.2 million. Detroit was(is?) one of the central cities of the US. It's decline is something to marvel at and be sad for at the same time. IMO Buffalo has been replaced by Rochester(they grew) and Toronto. Pittsburgh is dying off and if not for the teams they would be a nothing more than most.

On the matter of population decline (and growth), the devil is in the details:

Population in 2000
+/- Natural increases/decreases (births/deaths) 2000-2010
+/- Domestic net migration 2000-2010
+/- Immigration/emigration 2000-2010
= Population in 2010

I don't know Metro Detroit well enough to know the source of its decline. But I do know about Pittsburgh and to say it's "dying off" is way too simplistic, especially as it pertains to its viability as a sports market.

There are two reasons why the Pittsburgh MSA has seen a population decline in the past 20 years:
1) very low immigration
2) more deaths than births (IIRC, until recently the only large MSA in the US to experience this) because of an older population. Basically, from 1975-1985 a huge chunk of the 15-40 population left (= negative domestic net migration) with the collapse of the steel industry. These people had their kids elsewhere and those kids didn't come back so they're not having their own kids in the region. So we're left with a lower birth rate AND higher mortality rate than elsewhere in the US.

Not going into a thesis here but the main point is that even though raw population numbers for the Pittsburgh MSA keep declining, the details show the area is becoming much healthier economically: the people contributing to the population decline are mostly older, less educated and with much lower disposable income. On the other hand, the (fewer) people coming in are more often college-educated and thus more likely to contribute to the financial viability of the Penguins in the future.

 

[Mwd711]

On the matter of population decline (and growth), the devil is in the details:

Population in 2000
+/- Natural increases/decreases (births/deaths) 2000-2010
+/- Domestic net migration 2000-2010
+/- Immigration/emigration 2000-2010
= Population in 2010

I don't know Metro Detroit well enough to know the source of its decline. But I do know about Pittsburgh and to say it's "dying off" is way too simplistic, especially as it pertains to its viability as a sports market.

There are two reasons why the Pittsburgh MSA has seen a population decline in the past 20 years:
1) very low immigration
2) more deaths than births (IIRC, until recently the only large MSA in the US to experience this) because of an older population. Basically, from 1975-1985 a huge chunk of the 15-40 population left (= negative domestic net migration) with the collapse of the steel industry. These people had their kids elsewhere and those kids didn't come back so they're not having their own kids in the region. So we're left with a lower birth rate AND higher mortality rate than elsewhere in the US.

Not going into a thesis here but the main point is that even though raw population numbers for the Pittsburgh MSA keep declining, the details show the area is becoming much healthier economically: the people contributing to the population decline are mostly older, less educated and with much lower disposable income. On the other hand, the (fewer) people coming in are more often college-educated and thus more likely to contribute to the financial viability of the Penguins in the future.

That's a great analysis of the Pittsburgh region. I live about an hour and 45 minutes from Pittsburgh so I do have ties to the city. It's a great place to visit and in general is a nice community although you certainly see aging communities as part of the region (McKees Rocks, Braddock just to name a few). The area has been declining since 1960. It peaked at 2.8 million and has slowly declined every 10 years since then. I would agree with everything else that you wrote.

I was trying to show that city population trends aren't a good judge of how a region is performing or the feasibility of a sports team in the future. The media likes to sensationalize population numbers, when in many cases, they mean very little to a region's well being. While most people believe that Detroit is a bottomless pit, the truth is that the metro area has largely prospered and kept growing while the city itself fell apart. Only in these last 10 years, has the area shown any trends of decline. The region's population had continued to grow up until the 2010 census even though the city has been hemorrhaging people for 60 years. I have lots of issues with Detroit and watching urban sprawl take over while the cities and older burbs were left behind but the region isn't as bad as most outsiders and the media think that it is.

 

[Brodie]

Metro Detroit has 5 million people, the city itself makes up a very small part of that. So, to answer your OP, no, it doesn't effect the Wings one bit if Detroit drops 25% of it's people as long as the metro area has millions of residents.

And even if it did... like, the VAST majority of the people who left the city moved to the suburbs. Every county around Wayne County grew in 2010 and even Wayne County managed to retain half the people who left Detroit.