. . . Equipping local government leaders for the future

SEMCOG’s mission is solving regional planning problems — improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the region’s local governments as well as the quality of life in Southeast . Essential functions are: providing a forum for addressing issues which extend beyond individual governmental boundaries by fostering collaborative regional planning, and facilitating intergovernmental relations among local governments and state and federal agencies.

As a regional planning partnership in , SEMCOG is accountable to local governments who join as members. Membership is open to all counties, cities, villages, townships, intermediate school districts, community colleges and public universities in Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties.

SEMCOG’s primary activities support local planning through use of SEMCOG’s technical, data, and intergovernmental resources. In collaboration with local governments, SEMCOG has responsibility for adopting region wide plans and policies for community and economic development, water and air quality, land use, and transportation, including approval of state and federal transportation projects. Funding for SEMCOG is provided by federal and state grants, contracts, and membership fees.

All SEMCOG policy decisions are made by local elected officials, ensuring that regional policies reflect the interests of member communities. Participants serve on one or both of the policymaking bodies — the General Assembly and the Executive Committee.

Prior to policy adoption, technical advisory councils provide the structure for gaining input on transportation, environment, community and economic development, data analysis, and education. This deliberative process includes broad-based representation from local governments, the business community, environmental organizations, and other special interest and citizen groups.

SEMCOG 2008

SEMCOG’s analysis of redevelopment capacity in the City of provides detail on the demographic and socio-economic impacts of redevelopment. This report explains the methodology used to calculate redevelopment capacity and summarizes the changes that redevelopment can bring to Detroit by small area.

Preparation of this document may be financed in part through grants from and in cooperation with the Michigan Department of Transportation with the assistance of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration; the Michigan Department of Natural Resources with the assistance of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; the Michigan State Police Office of Highway Safety Planning; and local membership contributions.

Permission is granted to cite portions of this publication, with proper attribution. The first source attribution must be “SEMCOG, the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments.” Subsequently, “SEMCOG” is sufficient. Reprinting in any form must include the publication’s full title page. SEMCOG documents and information are available in a variety of formats. Contact SEMCOG Information Services to discuss your format needs.

Southeast Michigan Council of Governments Information Center 535 Griswold Street, Suite 300 Detroit, MI 48226-3602 313-961-4266 fax 313-961-4869 www.semcog.org [email protected]

This report was written by Jeff Nutting. Special thanks to Steve Perry for his assistance in finding and classifying land use data.

We also thank the City of Detroit Planning and Development Department for providing data and analysis for this report.

Data for this report was based in large part on information supplied by the City of Detroit. The redevelopment capacity summarized in this report was based on a division of parcels in the city into one of six redevelopment types explained below, the last four of which represent parcels which have significant capacity to redevelop.

No Need to Redevelop – Parcels which have sufficient improvement value that they do not represent additional development capacity.

Not Able to Redevelop – Parcels which are considered undevelopable or the land use is extremely unlikely to change. These include uses such as cemeteries and recreation areas.

Vacant Developable – These are parcels that are currently vacant, regardless of whether a structure ever existed on the property, and have the capacity to redevelop.

Building Has No Value – These parcels contain structures or other significant physical infrastructure that is in such poor condition it must be demolished, and therefore have redevelopment capacity.

High Residential Capacity – Parcels which currently have a residential use and the existing structure can be improved, regardless of whether the structure is occupied. These are ideal candidates for redevelopment.

High Nonresidential Capacity – Parcels which currently have a commercial, industrial, or institutional use and the existing structure can be improved, regardless of whether the structure is currently in use. These parcels are also ideal candidates for redevelopment.

ii - Redevelopment Capacity in the City of Detroit

Table of Contents ...... iii List of Data Displays ...... iv Executive Summary ...... 1 Introduction ...... 2 Redevelopment Capacity ...... 3 Build-Out Analysis ...... 4 Changes Redevelopment Could Bring ...... 5 Historical Perspective ...... 6 Population, Households, and Jobs...... 7 Neighborhood Impacts ...... 9 Appendix ...... 12

iii - Redevelopment Capacity in the City of Detroit Table 1 Additional Capacity based on Redevelopment ...... 5 Table 2 Comparing a Fully Redeveloped Detroit with the Past and Present ...... 6 Table 3 Largest Gains in Capacity by Neighborhood ...... 11 Table 4 Redevelopment Capacity by Number of Parcels by Neighborhood, 2005 ...... 13 Table 5 Additional Capacity by Neighborhood (monetary values in millions) ...... 15 Table 6 Population by Neighborhood, 1950-2030 and Capacity ...... 16 Table 7 Households by Neighborhood, 1950-2030 and Capacity ...... 18 Table 8 Housing Units by Neighborhood, 1950-2030 and Capacity ...... 20 Table 9 Jobs by Neighborhood, 1950-2030 and Capacity ...... 21 Table 10 Peak (1950) and Capacity Population and Jobs by Neighborhood ...... 23 Table 11 Impact of Declining Household Size over Time by Neighborhood ...... 26

Figure 1 Number of Parcels by Redevelopment Capacity, City of Detroit, 2005 ...... 3 Figure 2 Population, Households, and Jobs, City of Detroit, 1950-2030 and Capacity ...... 7 Figure 3 Loss of Multi-family Housing from 1950 to 2000 in ...... 8 Figure 4 Average Household Size in the City of Detroit, 1950-2000 ...... 9 Figure 5 Neighborhoods, City of Detroit...... 10 Figure 6 Parcel Redevelopment Capacity, City of Detroit, 2005 ...... 14 Figure 7 Change in Population from Redevelopment, by Neighborhood, City of Detroit ...... 17 Figure 8 Change in Households from Redevelopment, by Neighborhood, City of Detroit ...... 19 Figure 9 Change in Jobs from Redevelopment, by Neighborhood, City of Detroit ...... 22 Figure 10 Land Use, City of Detroit, 1955 ...... 24 Figure 11 Land Use, City of Detroit, 2000 ...... 25

iv - Redevelopment Capacity in the City of Detroit The redevelopment analysis presented in this report shows that there is tremendous capacity in the vacant and underdeveloped parcels in the City of Detroit. As redevelopment accelerates in the city, we are beginning to see the realization of this capacity. Since 2005, there has been 5.2 million square feet of nonresidential square footage added to the city, with an additional 4.5 million square feet of space completely renovated. Many of the long vacant monuments to the city’s past, such as the Book-Cadillac and Pick-Fort Shelby hotels, are being redeveloped and will soon reopen to the public. And neighborhood identity is starting to reemerge in certain parts of the city, such as the booming Hispanic population of Southwest Detroit, which has more than doubled in the last 20 years, from 12,500 to more than 25,000 persons.

The redevelopment and build-out analysis presented in this report shows what could happen to the city and its neighborhoods given the amount of redevelopment capacity present. It also highlights just how successful a redeveloped Detroit of 1.16 million people could be, and that this city, like many others in the Northeast and Midwest United States, should not be judged by the standards of the past, which are no longer attainable given the demographic changes in our society.

While the City of Detroit is unlikely to house the number of people and jobs it did in 1950, there is significant capacity for growth. There is total capacity to add more than 250,000 persons and 200,000 jobs to the city, reaching levels not seen since 1980. In addition, redevelopment can add $20 billion in value to Detroit property, worth an estimated additional $700 million in annual property tax revenue, nearly three times the $246 million in property taxes the city collected in 2005 or 20061. It should be noted that this estimate of additional property taxes does not include the value of any tax abatements, which would lower the estimate given here.

The information presented in this report represents the maximum capacity for redevelopment as of 2005, and is not an absolute indicator of potential growth. It is intended to serve as a reference for local decision makers, and is best used in addition to the many other factors, such as the location and quality of schools, infrastructure, parks, and public transportation, that go into the process of converting redevelopment capacity into redevelopment potential. It is often the case that the reality of what can be developed in a given area is less than the total capacity that area can hold.

______1 City of Detroit. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2006.

1 - Redevelopment Capacity in the City of Detroit The City of Detroit reached its development peak in the early 1950s, riding a wave of post-war industrialization that pushed the city’s population close to two million, fourth largest in the country. High demand for automobiles led to job growth in the auto industry, as the city eclipsed 800,000 jobs by 1955. And the advent of tract housing fueled a building explosion that consumed the last remaining undeveloped land in the city.

It was also the start of a slow, steady decline that saw the exodus of nearly half the people and jobs in the city by the 1990s. The housing boom that filled the city also stretched into the suburbs, and as more people settled there so too did new auto plants. By the time of the 1958 recession, Chrysler alone had 80,000 fewer employees in the city than it had in 19502. The recessions of the early and late 1970s further weakened an already struggling auto industry, leading to even larger population and job losses in the city.

Since 1990, the rate of decline in both people and jobs has slowed tremendously, as the City of Detroit has quietly begun the process of redevelopment. The rate of population loss, 14.5 percent from 1980 to 1990, dropped in half to 7.4 percent between 1990 and 2000. Employment losses also declined, from 26.6 percent during the 1980s to 16.2 percent during the 1990s3. In housing, Detroit has led Southeast Michigan in new residential units permitted in each of the last three years (2005-2007) and has been among the top 10 communities in residential construction each year since 20014. Clearly, the redevelopment of the city has begun.

______2 ―Decline in Detroit.‖ Time Magazine (Online) October 27, 1961. June 26, 2008. www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,873465,00.html 3 SEMCOG. Historical Population and Employment by Minor Civil Division, Southeast Michigan, 2002. 4 SEMCOG. Residential Construction in Southeast Michigan, 2007, 2008.

2 - Redevelopment Capacity in the City of Detroit This report examines the impact that redevelopment can have in the City of Detroit in terms of demographic, socio-economic, and land use changes. A parcel based method using 2005 data was developed to determine exactly which properties (i.e., parcels of land) in the city have significant capacity to redevelop by measuring the ratio of the value of improvements (typically buildings and other types of physical infrastructure) on a property to the value of the land itself. For the purpose of this analysis, if the ratio of improvement value to the value of the land was less than 0.75, then the property is thought to have significant capacity to redevelop. Properties were then grouped into one of six categories, four of which represent parcels with different types of capacity to redevelop, along with parcels that are considered undevelopable (the current land use is very unlikely to change, such as a cemetery) and parcels that have enough improvement value that there is no current need to redevelop them. The results of this analysis showed that one in four parcels (or 24 percent) in Detroit have significant capacity to redevelop (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Source: SEMCOG.

When measured in acres, 18.3 percent of acreage in the city is in need of redevelopment. Since the vast majority of parcels lacking value are smaller parcels used for residential purposes, the percentage of acres to redevelop is smaller than the percentage of parcels. However, a parcel is the preferred unit of measure as development activity is centered on developing one or more parcels of land.

3 - Redevelopment Capacity in the City of Detroit Once those properties that have capacity to redevelop were indentified, the next step in determining the impact of redevelopment is to perform a build-out analysis. This type of analysis determines what is expected to happen in a community if all parcels of land are completely developed according to the current growth policies in a community’s master plan5. The future land use of each redevelopable parcel was taken from the City of Detroit’s 2004 Master Plan6, along with the maximum allowed density for residential parcels and mixed-use parcels which can contain some residential units.

To measure the demographic impact of the total redevelopment capacity in the city, the number of housing units, households, and persons that each redeveloped parcel would generate was calculated using a series of simple formulas. The occupancy rate and persons per household constants were derived from SEMCOG’s 2005 population and occupied housing unit estimates. The difference between the current and built-out numbers for redevelopable parcels represents the change caused by redevelopment.

For each parcel:

Housing Units = Parcel Size in Acres * Maximum Allowed Units per Acre,

Households = Housing Units * Occupancy Rate for that Housing Type,

Persons = Households * Persons per Household for that Housing Type.

Socio-economic measures were calculated using a different set of formulas for nonresidential property, and the nonresidential portion of mixed-use properties.

For each parcel:

Net Acres = Parcel Size in Acres * Floor Area Ratio for that Development Type,

Net Square Feet = Net Acres * 43,560 Square Feet per Acre,

Jobs = Net Square Feet / Square Feet per Job for that Development Type,

Improvement Value = Net Square Feet * Improvement Value per Square Foot for that Development Type,

Land Value = Gross Acres * Land Value per Acre for that Development Type,

Taxable Value = (Improvement Value + Land Value) / 2,

Property Taxes = (Taxable Value / 1000) * (53.7011 for Res or 71.7011 for Nonres).

The constants for floor area ratio (the total floor area of all buildings on a parcel relative to the size of the parcel), square feet per job, improvement value per square foot, and land value per acre are all based on observations from local parcel and assessment data.

______5 Godschalk, David R. ―Buildout Analysis: A Valuable Planning and Hazard Mitigation Tool.‖ Zoning Practice 3.06 (2006): 2. 6 City of Detroit. City of Detroit 2004 Master Plan of Policies Draft. www.detroitmi.gov/Departments/PlanningDevelopmentDepartment/Planning/LongRangeandCommunit yPlanning/2004MasterPlanDraft/tabid/2055/Default.aspx

4 - Redevelopment Capacity in the City of Detroit The build-out analysis of redevelopable parcels in the City of Detroit indicates that there is the capacity to accommodate a substantial number of persons and jobs in the city, as well as significantly increase the city’s tax base. There is total redevelopment capacity to add 93,206 households in the affected parcels, resulting in an increase of 269,975 persons. An additional 229,774 jobs could be created by a net increase of 68 million square feet of nonresidential floor space, which takes into account space in older downtown buildings being converted from commercial to residential uses. The estimated taxable value of this total new development in the city is over $10 billion, with a resulting increase in annual property tax revenue of $702 million, absent any tax abatements on the redeveloped property. Table 1 shows a summary of the changes that development of all redevelopable parcels in the city would be expected to generate.

Table 1

Measure Change Population 269,975 Households 93,206 Housing Units 102,192 Jobs 229,774 Nonresidential Square Feet 68,406,846 Improvement Value $18.862 Billion Land Value $1.578 Billion

Taxable Value $10.220 Billion Property Taxes $702 Million

Source: SEMCOG.

In 2006, the City of Detroit reported $9.4 billion in taxable value and $245 million in property tax revenue7. While redevelopment would double the city’s tax base, it could nearly quadruple the amount of property tax revenue. The discrepancy between redeveloped and current property tax revenue, despite being based on similar taxable value of $10 billion, is due to a higher proportion of nonresidential value in redeveloped parcels, and the inability to forecast the amount and duration of tax abatements on individual parcels of land.

______7 City of Detroit. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2006.

5 - Redevelopment Capacity in the City of Detroit How does a redeveloped City of Detroit compare to the past? With a projected population of 1.16 million persons, a redeveloped Detroit holds considerably less people than it did in 1950. However, it is 30 percent more people than SEMCOG is currently projecting for the year 2030 (715,601)8. And a projected housing unit count of 474,018 in a redeveloped Detroit is only 48,000 fewer than the city had in 1950, and more than 100,000 more units than it has today. The number of jobs in the city would rise an impressive 67 percent over 2005, as the employment base switches from manufacturing to services. Without redevelopment, the city is projected to likely lose an additional 32,000 jobs between 2005 and 2030. Table 2 shows how Detroit in our redevelopment scenario compares to its peak of 1950 and to 2005.

Table 2

1950 2005 Potential

Population

1,849,568 890,963 1,160,938

Housing Units 522,429 371,826 474,018

Jobs

758,774 342,241 572,015

Residential Land

36,600 Acres 43,280 Acres 46,193 Acres Property Taxes

(inflation adjusted to 2005 dollars) $611 Million $245 Million $947 Million Source: Detroit City Plan Commission, Official Master Plan Technical Report 1950; SEMCOG; U.S. Bureau of Census, Census 1950, County and City Data Book 1952.

______8 SEMCOG. 2035 Forecast for Southeast Michigan, Population Households, and Jobs for Counties, Cities, Villages, and Townships 2005-2035, 2008.

6 - Redevelopment Capacity in the City of Detroit The results of the build-out analysis indicate that Detroit has the capacity to be larger than at any time since 1980 and, as noted previously, considerably larger than in 2005. A redeveloped population of 1.16 million is very close to the 1980 population of 1.20 million, while the projected 572,000 jobs in a redeveloped Detroit is slightly more than the 562,000 jobs in the city in 1980. However, population, households, and jobs are not projected to reach anywhere near the peak numbers of 1950 (Figure 2).

Figure 2

Source: SEMCOG; U.S. Bureau of Census, Census 1950, Census 1970, Census 1990.

In a city that once held nearly two million persons, why is there only the capacity to hold 1.16 million, especially considering that the amount of land used for residential purposes actually increases from 41 percent in 1950 to 52 percent in our redevelopment scenario. There are two primary reasons for the difference in population residential density and household size. In 1950, there was an average of 14.27 housing units per acre of residential land, which declined to 8.59 units in 20059. In our redevelopment scenario that measure increases to 10.26 units, but at that density it would require an additional 4,726 acres of residential land to reach the 1950 total of 522,429 housing units in the city. The drop in housing density is best explained by a shift from renting multi-family units to private home ownership. In 1950, only 47.4 percent of housing units in Detroit were single-family detached structures, compared with 63.2 percent in 2000.

______9 City of Detroit. General Development Plan September 1966.

7 - Redevelopment Capacity in the City of Detroit The loss of residential land used for multi-family housing is best illustrated by comparing land use over time. The image in Figure 3 below is an aerial photo taken of downtown Detroit in 1949 by Detroit Edison. Land used for multi-family residential housing in 1955 that was no longer used for residential purposes in 2000 is colored in orange. The loss of multi-family housing to the north and east of downtown is clearly visible; particularly land now used for the Comerica Park and Ford Field stadium complexes. In total, 3,037 acres of multi-family housing have been lost over the last 50 years, much of it due to the freeway design and urban renewal policies of the Detroit City Plan Commission and Detroit Housing Commission after World War II10.

Figure 3

Source: Detroit Edison Aerial Photography, 1949; Detroit Metropolitan Area Regional Planning Commission, 1954; SEMCOG, 2000 Land Use.

______10 Babson, Steve. Working Detroit: The Making of a Union Town. Detroit: Press, 1986.

8 - Redevelopment Capacity in the City of Detroit In addition to the change in housing density, a drop in average household size also impacts the size of a future Detroit. The average household size in the city in 1950 was 3.43 persons (Figure 4). This declined steadily over the next 30 years, reaching 2.72 persons per household in 1980. While household size has rebounded quite well since then, increasing to 2.77 persons per household in 2000, it is still 0.66 persons smaller today than it was in 1950. It should be noted that household size in Southeast Michigan outside Detroit has fallen by a much larger margin, from 4.37 in 1950 to 2.57 in 2000, a drop of 1.80 persons per household. Given the limiting impacts of housing density and household size, a population of 1.16 million in a redeveloped Detroit is a dramatic increase. In fact, if there had been no changes in household size since 1950, the city would have the capacity for 1.46 million people after redevelopment.

Figure 4

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, Census 1950, Census 1960, Census 1970, Census 1980, Census 1990, Census 2000.

Since redevelopment tends to occur at the neighborhood level, the effects of redeveloping Detroit needs to be analyzed by small area as well. The City of Detroit has subdivided the city into 54 small areas termed ―Neighborhoods‖ in its current master plan11. As our redevelopment scenario was conducted at the parcel level, it is possible to aggregate the changes caused by redevelopment to these neighborhoods. The map in Figure 5 presents the boundaries of each neighborhood in the city.

______11 City of Detroit. City of Detroit 2004 Master Plan of Policies Draft. www.detroitmi.gov/Departments/PlanningDevelopmentDepartment/Planning/LongRangeandCommunit yPlanning/2004MasterPlanDraft/tabid/2055/Default.aspx

9 - Redevelopment Capacity in the City of Detroit Figure 5

gwells 37. Olivet Mt. 38. Riverfront Near East 39. Nolan 40. Palmer Park 41. Pembroke 42. Pershing 43. Redford 44. Parks Rosa 45. Rosedale 46. Rouge 47. Sprin 48.Jean St. 49. Fair State 50. Tireman 51. East Central Upper 52. Vernor/Junction 53. West Riverfront 54. Winterhalter

Village

19. Riverside East 20. Evergreen 21. Finney 22. Foch 23. Grant 24. Greenfield 25. Village Harmony 26. Hubbard Richard 27. Indian 28. Jefferson/Mack 29. Jeffries 30. Kettering 31. East Central Lower 32. Woodward Lower 33. Mackenzie 34. McNichols 35. East Middle Central 36. Woodward Middle

tzel 1. Airport 2. Bagley 3. Boynton 4. Brightmoor 5. Brooks 6. Burbank 7. Bu 8. District Central Business 9. Cerveny/Grandmont 10. Chadsey 11. Park Chandler 12. Cody 13. Condon 14. Conner 15. Corktown 16. Davison 17. Denby 18. Durfee

10 - Redevelopment Capacity in the City of Detroit One neighborhood stood out as the largest beneficiary of redevelopment in the city. The Airport neighborhood on the city’s east side would add the most jobs (26,045) and square feet of nonresidential floor space (over 12 million), as well as register the largest increase in value at $2.66 billion. It would also add the sixth most housing units and the fourth highest population gain. Airport was the only neighborhood to experience among the highest gains in both population and jobs in the redevelopment scenario.

Three of the five highest gains in population based on redevelopment capacity were on the city’s east side. In addition to Airport (fourth highest), Foch registered the third highest gain and Kettering the fifth highest. The largest population gain was in the Middle Woodward neighborhood north of I-94 and south of Highland Park, followed by the Brightmoor neighborhood on the city’s west side border with Redford Township. Both the Airport and Brightmoor neighborhoods have more than 2,000 residential properties that can be redeveloped without the need of demolition. Neighborhoods that register little change in population after redevelopment are those that have few residential parcels in need of redevelopment. The Cody, Denby, Indian Village, and Bagley areas have less than 400 total parcels in need of redevelopment, while the Upper East Central neighborhood is almost entirely nonresidential.

Neighborhoods that gained the most jobs due to redevelopment are mainly located in or near downtown Detroit. Four of the top six areas in job growth due to redevelopment are located here: Central Business District (21,521 jobs); Lower Woodward (8,719 jobs); Upper East Central (8,662 jobs); and Middle East Central (7,918). Only Airport and West Riverfront (18,491 jobs) are outside of downtown. Three neighborhoods would add more than $1 billion in value from redevelopment, with West Riverfront at $1.89 billion and Central Business District at $1 billion joining Airport in this distinction.

Table 3

Pop Rank Neighborhood Population Jobs Rank Neighborhood Jobs 1. Middle Woodward 13,333 1. Airport 26,045 2. Brightmoor 12,528 2. Central Business District 21,521 3. Foch 11,185 3. West Riverfront 18,491 4. Airport 10,788 4. Lower Woodward 8,719 5. Kettering 10,235 5. Upper East Central 8,662 6. Condon 9,816 6. Middle East Central 7,918 7. Jefferson/Mack 9,350 7. Boynton 7,157 8. Middle East Central 9,166 8. Mackenzie 6,760 9. Davison 8,791 9. Tireman 6,657 10. Rosa Parks 8,505 10. Grant 6,175 Source: SEMCOG.

11 - Redevelopment Capacity in the City of Detroit The maps and tables on the pages that follow present a host of demographic and socio-economic data summarizing redevelopment capacity in the City of Detroit at the Neighborhood level.

12 - Redevelopment Capacity in the City of Detroit Table 4

No Need to Land Vacant Building High High # Neighborhood Redevelop Cannot Be Developable Has No Residential Nonresidential Total Developed Value Capacity Capacity 1 Airport 4,726 78 2,805 2,005 2,101 115 11,830 2 Bagley 6,935 18 90 9 68 19 7,139 3 Boynton 4,233 34 365 70 568 50 5,320 4 Brightmoor 6,757 77 644 562 2,278 42 10,360 5 Brooks 11,024 45 534 391 982 52 13,028 6 Burbank 8,202 8 77 234 1,279 53 9,853 7 Butzel 2,329 5 789 317 754 52 4,246 8 Central Business District 311 109 57 30 2 340 849 9 Cerveny/Grandmont 13,622 36 228 204 764 65 14,919 10 Chadsey 6,739 75 302 216 1,246 49 8,627 11 Chandler Park 2,857 9 471 894 574 23 4,828 12 Cody 6,222 59 122 26 176 22 6,627 13 Condon 2,983 94 1,113 799 1,658 44 6,691 14 Conner 8,826 26 211 509 1,519 61 11,152 15 Corktown 518 98 173 8 46 91 934 16 Davison 6,123 49 838 636 1,750 60 9,456 17 Denby 8,097 30 62 21 150 37 8,397 18 Durfee 6,558 37 352 336 955 48 8,286 19 East Riverside 2,524 48 1,132 672 667 19 5,062 20 Evergreen 11,180 23 149 103 468 34 11,957 21 Finney 10,827 14 219 303 464 51 11,878 22 Foch 2,132 4 1,394 461 845 16 4,852 23 Grant 4,407 19 152 62 396 58 5,094 24 Greenfield 9,459 25 219 109 390 33 10,235 25 Harmony Village 10,947 53 774 369 1,510 79 13,732 26 Hubbard Richard 563 28 163 117 268 100 1,239 27 Indian Village 954 8 65 7 69 3 1,106 28 Jefferson/Mack 1,585 27 1,207 1,186 915 11 4,931 29 Jeffries 1,551 105 1,262 671 634 79 4,302 30 Kettering 5,023 33 1,442 625 1,515 51 8,689 31 Lower East Central 1,052 55 443 349 275 18 2,192 32 Lower Woodward 1,059 60 548 299 144 215 2,325 33 Mackenzie 12,426 81 789 578 1,601 126 15,601 34 McNichols 3,985 17 393 163 632 27 5,217 35 Middle East Central 2,599 237 1,587 975 1,544 64 7,006 36 Middle Woodward 4,431 91 750 713 1,160 185 7,330 37 Mt. Olivet 9,931 16 129 72 560 66 10,774 38 Near East Riverfront 147 28 30 3 2 101 311 39 Nolan 7,957 42 529 382 1,711 29 10,650 40 Palmer Park 3,337 49 53 36 139 21 3,635 41 Pembroke 7,900 20 205 36 166 41 8,368 42 Pershing 7,958 18 377 102 769 30 9,254 43 Redford 7,181 233 196 64 662 42 8,378 44 Rosa Parks 5,807 107 1,019 559 1,417 52 8,961 45 Rosedale 6,981 4 55 12 248 27 7,327 46 Rouge 9,875 25 129 24 425 19 10,497 47 Springwells 4,267 40 95 109 705 52 5,268 48 St. Jean 2,995 25 875 525 1,078 24 5,522 49 State Fair 2,701 24 378 752 1,318 47 5,220 50 Tireman 7,285 96 653 616 1,682 133 10,465 51 Upper East Central 113 14 298 32 14 23 494 52 Vernor/Junction 4,103 63 190 318 857 47 5,578 53 West Riverfront 1,548 172 570 477 564 116 3,447 54 Winterhalter 5,392 43 545 356 1,046 68 7,450

City of Detroit 289,244 2,834 28,247 19,504 43,730 3,330 386,889 Source: SEMCOG.

13 - Redevelopment Capacity in the City of Detroit Figure 6

14 - Redevelopment Capacity in the City of Detroit Table 5 (monetary values in millions) # Neighborhood Population Households Housing Jobs Nonres Added Property Units Square Feet Value Taxes 1 Airport 10,788 3,521 3,784 26,045 12,775,209 $2,667.8 $95.5 2 Bagley 401 131 141 1,556 404,397 $122.6 $4.3 3 Boynton 2,153 703 755 7,157 3,518,327 $653.1 $23.1 4 Brightmoor 12,528 4,089 4,394 3,755 1,423,654 $446.7 $14.8 5 Brooks 5,037 1,644 1,767 5,319 1,871,553 $433.2 $14.7 6 Burbank 4,458 1,460 1,571 1,165 98,168 $161.8 $5.0 7 Butzel 6,929 2,533 2,831 3,024 1,016,349 $291.5 $9.9 8 Central Business District 2,434 1,168 1,404 21,521 -2,913,347 $1,000.8 $35.9 9 Cerveny/Grandmont 3,773 1,285 1,402 2,393 718,392 $223.3 $7.3 10 Chadsey 4,744 1,548 1,664 2,705 821,140 $229.8 $7.6 11 Chandler Park 6,140 2,004 2,154 756 226,945 $119.1 $3.7 12 Cody 1,029 336 361 1,548 107,597 $41.5 $1.3 13 Condon 9,816 3,260 3,526 1,631 484,587 $253.2 $7.9 14 Conner 6,222 2,074 2,246 1,626 595,942 $250.7 $8.0 15 Corktown 2,165 998 1,189 1,851 34,382 $151.2 $5.4 16 Davison 8,791 3,003 3,281 4,525 1,885,375 $396.4 $13.7 17 Denby 582 200 219 921 301,767 $81.6 $2.8 18 Durfee 6,349 2,108 2,280 2,045 738,032 $262.5 $8.4 19 East Riverside 5,800 1,923 2,078 4,981 2,564,935 $654.1 $21.8 20 Evergreen 2,484 849 927 1,121 123,025 $95.2 $3.0 21 Finney 2,559 835 897 3,244 469,209 $173.5 $5.6 22 Foch 11,185 3,651 3,923 1,852 238,320 $109.9 $3.5 23 Grant 1,251 408 439 6,175 2,351,209 $447.0 $15.8 24 Greenfield 2,112 729 799 2,156 289,130 $128.1 $4.1 25 Harmony Village 7,974 2,639 2,850 2,594 670,538 $292.3 $9.2 26 Hubbard Richard 1,384 559 644 3,029 1,369,102 $389.0 $13.8 27 Indian Village 508 167 180 275 -4,300 $28.5 $0.8 28 Jefferson/Mack 9,350 3,074 3,312 2,606 1,209,546 $357.9 $12.0 29 Jeffries 5,951 1,981 2,144 5,840 2,168,100 $496.1 $17.0 30 Kettering 10,235 3,587 3,953 2,590 725,353 $320.0 $10.4 31 Lower East Central 3,096 1,214 1,385 994 4,666 $79.1 $2.4 32 Lower Woodward 7,424 3,565 4,286 8,719 -586,925 $257.1 $8.6 33 Mackenzie 7,861 2,636 2,860 6,760 2,499,136 $620.1 $21.0 34 McNichols 4,083 1,333 1,432 3,625 1,602,588 $316.8 $10.9 35 Middle East Central 9,166 3,000 3,227 7,918 3,199,819 $857.6 $30.1 36 Middle Woodward 13,333 4,900 5,485 6,079 431,987 $505.2 $17.1 37 Mt. Olivet 1,959 641 690 2,339 731,725 $199.1 $6.8 38 Near East Riverfront 4,813 2,311 2,779 581 -1,412,806 $109.1 $3.9 39 Nolan 6,580 2,148 2,308 2,575 981,137 $273.3 $8.9 40 Palmer Park 1,183 405 443 620 145,666 $82.1 $2.5 41 Pembroke 1,586 575 641 1,247 384,005 $120.1 $4.0 42 Pershing 2,948 962 1,034 1,793 523,865 $164.3 $5.4 43 Redford 4,200 1,449 1,589 1,445 323,684 $133.3 $4.3 44 Rosa Parks 8,505 2,863 3,112 5,343 1,347,729 $426.0 $14.0 45 Rosedale 1,148 395 433 711 48,690 $56.5 $1.7 46 Rouge 1,712 559 600 736 85,983 $57.5 $1.7 47 Springwells 2,705 929 1,016 4,359 1,889,681 $400.1 $14.1 48 St. Jean 6,391 2,086 2,242 3,243 1,420,143 $307.1 $10.6 49 State Fair 6,425 2,097 2,254 2,905 1,364,330 $346.3 $11.7 50 Tireman 8,129 2,786 3,047 6,657 2,475,069 $662.1 $22.8 51 Upper East Central 0 0 0 8,662 3,479,756 $563.8 $20.2 52 Vernor/Junction 3,909 1,343 1,470 5,098 949,817 $424.0 $14.8 53 West Riverfront 2,483 811 871 18,491 9,072,426 $1,892.1 $67.5 54 Winterhalter 5,204 1,731 1,873 2,868 1,162,039 $308.9 $10.2

City of Detroit 269,975 93,206 102,192 229,774 68,406,846 $20,440 $702 Source: SEMCOG.

15 - Redevelopment Capacity in the City of Detroit Table 6

Population Percent Change # Neighborhood 1950 1990 2005 2030 Capacity 1950 - 1990 1990 - 2030 2005 - Cap 1 Airport 49,531 18,347 11,939 9,007 22,727 -63.0% -50.9% 90.4% 2 Bagley 22,331 21,047 19,142 16,384 19,543 -5.7% -22.2% 2.1% 3 Boynton 17,102 11,634 9,922 8,193 12,075 -32.0% -29.6% 21.7% 4 Brightmoor 22,093 23,703 18,524 14,190 31,052 7.3% -40.1% 67.6% 5 Brooks 42,256 36,085 29,778 21,505 34,815 -14.6% -40.4% 16.9% 6 Burbank 32,643 27,522 24,340 15,610 28,798 -15.7% -43.3% 18.3% 7 Butzel 29,180 11,275 9,303 9,109 16,232 -61.4% -19.2% 74.5% 8 Central Business District 25,288 5,679 6,150 8,901 8,584 -77.5% 56.7% 39.6% 9 Cerveny/Grandmont 44,785 45,892 39,713 32,562 43,486 2.5% -29.0% 9.5% 10 Chadsey 37,697 22,232 22,151 12,272 26,895 -41.0% -44.8% 21.4% 11 Chandler Park 24,343 14,169 10,157 8,647 16,297 -41.8% -39.0% 60.5% 12 Cody 16,196 19,888 18,430 14,143 19,459 22.8% -28.9% 5.6% 13 Condon 42,912 11,942 9,274 7,099 19,090 -72.2% -40.6% 105.8% 14 Conner 39,279 36,761 29,124 21,051 35,346 -6.4% -42.7% 21.4% 15 Corktown 12,589 1,836 1,446 1,342 3,611 -85.4% -26.9% 149.7% 16 Davison 46,421 19,733 18,865 13,905 27,656 -57.5% -29.5% 46.6% 17 Denby 26,903 22,351 22,851 16,078 23,433 -16.9% -28.1% 2.5% 18 Durfee 59,734 29,472 24,176 23,226 30,525 -50.7% -21.2% 26.3% 19 East Riverside 34,241 10,449 8,111 7,119 13,911 -69.5% -31.9% 71.5% 20 Evergreen 25,936 35,473 31,686 25,313 34,170 36.8% -28.6% 7.8% 21 Finney 39,227 31,198 30,149 21,032 32,708 -20.5% -32.6% 8.5% 22 Foch 36,291 11,483 8,208 7,051 19,393 -68.4% -38.6% 136.3% 23 Grant 16,405 12,428 12,150 8,722 13,401 -24.2% -29.8% 10.3% 24 Greenfield 26,840 28,803 24,765 20,585 26,877 7.3% -28.5% 8.5% 25 Harmony Village 46,815 35,196 30,751 25,567 38,725 -24.8% -27.4% 25.9% 26 Hubbard Richard 9,502 2,610 1,936 1,604 3,320 -72.5% -38.5% 71.5% 27 Indian Village 9,272 5,439 5,912 6,421 6,420 -41.3% 18.1% 8.6% 28 Jefferson/Mack 26,419 8,436 5,380 4,636 14,730 -68.1% -45.0% 173.8% 29 Jeffries 50,473 9,017 6,530 7,533 12,481 -82.1% -16.5% 91.1% 30 Kettering 50,333 19,989 15,357 13,029 25,592 -60.3% -34.8% 66.6% 31 Lower East Central 42,804 12,356 12,565 12,712 15,661 -71.1% 2.9% 24.6% 32 Lower Woodward 82,255 16,752 16,272 18,967 23,696 -79.6% 13.2% 45.6% 33 Mackenzie 53,250 42,059 34,986 28,906 42,847 -21.0% -31.3% 22.5% 34 McNichols 25,900 12,778 11,647 10,302 15,730 -50.7% -19.4% 35.1% 35 Middle East Central 69,575 12,514 8,271 7,264 17,437 -82.0% -42.0% 110.8% 36 Middle Woodward 75,330 20,793 16,385 16,195 29,718 -72.4% -22.1% 81.4% 37 Mt. Olivet 35,406 29,652 29,786 19,704 31,745 -16.3% -33.5% 6.6% 38 Near East Riverfront 10,162 634 1,413 1,805 6,226 -93.8% 184.7% 340.6% 39 Nolan 33,882 23,843 20,127 16,063 26,707 -29.6% -32.6% 32.7% 40 Palmer Park 12,998 12,185 11,783 10,023 12,966 -6.3% -17.7% 10.0% 41 Pembroke 25,515 21,872 19,607 17,355 21,193 -14.3% -20.7% 8.1% 42 Pershing 24,092 22,478 20,179 15,503 23,127 -6.7% -31.0% 14.6% 43 Redford 12,340 23,445 21,675 16,162 25,875 90.0% -31.1% 19.4% 44 Rosa Parks 80,711 28,827 24,150 22,863 32,655 -64.3% -20.7% 35.2% 45 Rosedale 18,009 20,054 18,401 14,095 19,549 11.4% -29.7% 6.2% 46 Rouge 25,064 24,733 24,038 15,093 25,750 -1.3% -39.0% 7.1% 47 Springwells 24,761 16,074 15,973 9,027 18,678 -35.1% -43.8% 16.9% 48 St. Jean 29,735 11,784 9,121 7,854 15,512 -60.4% -33.4% 70.1% 49 State Fair 20,549 11,866 7,995 5,816 14,420 -42.3% -51.0% 80.4% 50 Tireman 57,863 26,334 21,247 18,265 29,376 -54.5% -30.6% 38.3% 51 Upper East Central 24,219 240 61 65 61 -99.0% -72.9% 0.0% 52 Vernor/Junction 36,474 18,987 16,914 10,229 20,823 -47.9% -46.1% 23.1% 53 West Riverfront 27,131 5,637 3,971 2,671 6,454 -79.2% -52.6% 62.5% 54 Winterhalter 38,506 21,988 18,176 16,826 23,380 -42.9% -23.5% 28.6%

City of Detroit 1,849,568 1,027,974 890,963 715,601 1,160,938 -44.4% -30.4% 30.3% Source: SEMCOG; U.S. Bureau of Census, Census 1950, Census 1990.

16 - Redevelopment Capacity in the City of Detroit Figure 7

17 - Redevelopment Capacity in the City of Detroit Table 7

Households Percent Change # Neighborhood 1950 1990 2005 2030 Capacity 1950 - 1990 1990 - 2030 2005 - Cap 1 Airport 13,488 5,746 3,971 3,349 7,492 -57.4% -41.7% 88.7% 2 Bagley 6,332 7,152 7,035 5,803 7,166 13.0% -18.9% 1.9% 3 Boynton 4,276 4,210 3,794 3,151 4,497 -1.5% -25.2% 18.5% 4 Brightmoor 6,041 8,555 6,533 5,180 10,622 41.6% -39.5% 62.6% 5 Brooks 11,332 12,501 10,353 7,862 11,997 10.3% -37.1% 15.9% 6 Burbank 8,968 9,365 7,736 5,753 9,196 4.4% -38.6% 18.9% 7 Butzel 8,029 4,025 3,474 3,161 6,007 -49.9% -21.5% 72.9% 8 Central Business District 3,749 2,912 2,598 3,256 3,766 -22.3% 11.8% 45.0% 9 Cerveny/Grandmont 13,199 14,764 14,013 11,556 15,298 11.9% -21.7% 9.2% 10 Chadsey 9,971 8,122 7,260 4,926 8,808 -18.5% -39.3% 21.3% 11 Chandler Park 7,379 4,705 3,382 3,128 5,386 -36.2% -33.5% 59.3% 12 Cody 4,311 7,077 6,558 5,163 6,894 64.2% -27.0% 5.1% 13 Condon 10,561 4,424 3,293 2,876 6,553 -58.1% -35.0% 99.0% 14 Conner 11,518 10,889 9,155 7,613 11,229 -5.5% -30.1% 22.7% 15 Corktown 3,311 942 560 443 1,558 -71.5% -53.0% 178.2% 16 Davison 11,261 6,872 5,751 4,604 8,754 -39.0% -33.0% 52.2% 17 Denby 7,480 8,312 7,844 5,834 8,044 11.1% -29.8% 2.5% 18 Durfee 19,186 11,839 9,339 8,992 11,447 -38.3% -24.0% 22.6% 19 East Riverside 10,206 3,617 3,056 2,628 4,979 -64.6% -27.3% 62.9% 20 Evergreen 7,150 11,640 10,931 8,851 11,780 62.8% -24.0% 7.8% 21 Finney 11,663 11,391 10,577 7,590 11,412 -2.3% -33.4% 7.9% 22 Foch 11,166 4,363 2,873 2,603 6,524 -60.9% -40.3% 127.1% 23 Grant 4,276 4,341 4,063 3,209 4,471 1.5% -26.1% 10.0% 24 Greenfield 7,512 9,699 9,226 7,508 9,955 29.1% -22.6% 7.9% 25 Harmony Village 13,530 11,552 10,821 9,336 13,460 -14.6% -19.2% 24.4% 26 Hubbard Richard 2,613 894 663 566 1,222 -65.8% -36.7% 84.3% 27 Indian Village 3,291 3,241 3,499 3,054 3,666 -1.5% -5.8% 4.8% 28 Jefferson/Mack 8,297 2,949 1,872 1,742 4,946 -64.5% -40.9% 164.2% 29 Jeffries 14,509 4,236 2,708 3,044 4,689 -70.8% -28.1% 73.2% 30 Kettering 13,971 6,912 5,399 4,937 8,986 -50.5% -28.6% 66.4% 31 Lower East Central 8,746 6,775 6,842 5,558 8,056 -22.5% -18.0% 17.7% 32 Lower Woodward 23,563 9,596 7,969 8,163 11,534 -59.3% -14.9% 44.7% 33 Mackenzie 16,217 14,243 12,665 10,727 15,301 -12.2% -24.7% 20.8% 34 McNichols 7,344 4,722 4,101 3,658 5,434 -35.7% -22.5% 32.5% 35 Middle East Central 16,660 4,294 2,974 2,779 5,974 -74.2% -35.3% 100.9% 36 Middle Woodward 20,117 9,094 6,675 6,526 11,575 -54.8% -28.2% 73.4% 37 Mt. Olivet 9,314 10,471 9,425 7,236 10,066 12.4% -30.9% 6.8% 38 Near East Riverfront 2,212 384 846 754 3,157 -82.6% 96.4% 273.2% 39 Nolan 8,935 8,163 7,213 6,016 9,361 -8.6% -26.3% 29.8% 40 Palmer Park 4,332 4,984 4,753 3,791 5,158 15.1% -23.9% 8.5% 41 Pembroke 6,648 8,121 7,844 6,445 8,419 22.2% -20.6% 7.3% 42 Pershing 6,051 7,807 7,204 5,747 8,166 29.0% -26.4% 13.4% 43 Redford 3,435 9,523 8,596 6,097 10,045 177.2% -36.0% 16.9% 44 Rosa Parks 25,728 11,626 9,162 8,882 12,025 -54.8% -23.6% 31.2% 45 Rosedale 5,370 6,567 6,342 4,925 6,737 22.3% -25.0% 6.2% 46 Rouge 6,266 9,587 8,830 5,934 9,389 53.0% -38.1% 6.3% 47 Springwells 7,370 5,961 5,325 3,683 6,254 -19.1% -38.2% 17.4% 48 St. Jean 8,179 3,917 3,233 2,990 5,319 -52.1% -23.7% 64.5% 49 State Fair 6,115 3,877 2,751 2,349 4,848 -36.6% -39.4% 76.2% 50 Tireman 16,369 9,712 7,824 7,104 10,610 -40.7% -26.9% 35.6% 51 Upper East Central 5,829 109 25 27 25 -98.1% -75.2% 0.0% 52 Vernor/Junction 10,255 6,273 5,273 4,029 6,616 -38.8% -35.8% 25.5% 53 West Riverfront 7,323 2,134 1,369 1,039 2,180 -70.9% -51.3% 59.2% 54 Winterhalter 12,174 8,870 7,149 6,591 8,880 -27.1% -25.7% 24.2%

City of Detroit 513,128 374,057 322,727 268,768 415,933 -27.1% -28.1% 28.9% Source: SEMCOG; U.S. Bureau of Census, Census 1950, Census 1990.

18 - Redevelopment Capacity in the City of Detroit Figure 8

19 - Redevelopment Capacity in the City of Detroit Table 8

Housing Units Percent Change # Neighborhood 1950 1990 2005 2030 Capacity 1950 - 1990 1990 - 2030 2005 - Cap 1 Airport 13,632 6,310 4,672 3,973 8,456 -53.7% -37.0% 81.0% 2 Bagley 6,322 7,381 7,507 6,287 7,648 16.8% -14.8% 1.9% 3 Boynton 4,359 4,432 4,270 3,418 5,025 1.7% -22.9% 17.7% 4 Brightmoor 6,054 9,284 7,420 6,250 11,814 53.4% -32.7% 59.2% 5 Brooks 11,650 13,957 11,639 9,455 13,406 19.8% -32.3% 15.2% 6 Burbank 9,097 9,936 8,707 7,067 10,278 9.2% -28.9% 18.0% 7 Butzel 8,172 4,583 4,192 3,413 7,023 -43.9% -25.5% 67.5% 8 Central Business District 3,886 4,174 4,409 3,856 5,813 7.4% -7.6% 31.8% 9 Cerveny/Grandmont 13,356 15,552 15,526 12,853 16,928 16.4% -17.4% 9.0% 10 Chadsey 10,109 9,085 8,569 7,098 10,233 -10.1% -21.9% 19.4% 11 Chandler Park 7,456 5,748 4,217 3,271 6,371 -22.9% -43.1% 51.1% 12 Cody 4,717 7,458 7,130 6,006 7,491 58.1% -19.5% 5.1% 13 Condon 10,780 5,010 3,915 3,231 7,441 -53.5% -35.5% 90.1% 14 Conner 11,725 11,735 10,463 8,464 12,709 0.1% -27.9% 21.5% 15 Corktown 3,419 1,230 699 696 1,888 -64.0% -43.4% 170.1% 16 Davison 11,271 7,413 6,642 5,425 9,923 -34.2% -26.8% 49.4% 17 Denby 7,543 8,708 8,607 7,226 8,826 15.4% -17.0% 2.5% 18 Durfee 19,416 13,197 11,358 9,457 13,638 -32.0% -28.3% 20.1% 19 East Riverside 10,258 4,238 3,612 2,954 5,690 -58.7% -30.3% 57.5% 20 Evergreen 7,422 12,185 11,863 9,722 12,790 64.2% -20.2% 7.8% 21 Finney 11,823 11,986 11,796 9,773 12,693 1.4% -18.5% 7.6% 22 Foch 11,371 4,943 3,527 2,734 7,450 -56.5% -44.7% 111.2% 23 Grant 4,373 4,590 4,569 3,887 5,008 5.0% -15.3% 9.6% 24 Greenfield 7,883 10,128 9,985 8,220 10,784 28.5% -18.8% 8.0% 25 Harmony Village 13,593 12,400 12,220 10,065 15,070 -8.8% -18.8% 23.3% 26 Hubbard Richard 2,682 1,041 781 760 1,425 -61.2% -27.0% 82.5% 27 Indian Village 3,358 3,539 3,958 3,778 4,138 5.4% 6.8% 4.5% 28 Jefferson/Mack 8,399 3,449 2,501 1,901 5,813 -58.9% -44.9% 132.4% 29 Jeffries 14,853 5,957 3,939 3,452 6,083 -59.9% -42.1% 54.4% 30 Kettering 14,187 7,476 6,254 5,032 10,207 -47.3% -32.7% 63.2% 31 Lower East Central 8,837 7,442 7,607 6,246 8,992 -15.8% -16.1% 18.2% 32 Lower Woodward 24,369 12,443 10,248 8,585 14,534 -48.9% -31.0% 41.8% 33 Mackenzie 16,394 15,188 14,360 11,657 17,220 -7.4% -23.2% 19.9% 34 McNichols 7,442 5,168 4,705 3,830 6,137 -30.6% -25.9% 30.4% 35 Middle East Central 16,908 4,869 3,690 3,026 6,917 -71.2% -37.9% 87.5% 36 Middle Woodward 20,558 10,621 8,500 6,957 14,008 -48.3% -34.5% 64.8% 37 Mt. Olivet 9,492 11,082 10,468 8,601 11,158 16.8% -22.4% 6.6% 38 Near East Riverfront 2,262 559 1,111 902 3,890 -75.3% 61.4% 250.1% 39 Nolan 9,106 8,673 8,225 6,694 10,533 -4.8% -22.8% 28.1% 40 Palmer Park 4,459 5,300 5,227 4,392 5,670 18.9% -17.1% 8.5% 41 Pembroke 6,903 8,365 8,371 6,908 9,012 21.2% -17.4% 7.7% 42 Pershing 6,267 8,109 7,996 6,514 9,030 29.4% -19.7% 12.9% 43 Redford 3,540 10,015 9,750 7,842 11,339 182.9% -21.7% 16.3% 44 Rosa Parks 26,082 13,022 11,292 9,571 14,404 -50.1% -26.5% 27.6% 45 Rosedale 5,462 6,823 6,821 5,509 7,254 24.9% -19.3% 6.3% 46 Rouge 6,637 9,928 9,875 8,185 10,475 49.6% -17.6% 6.1% 47 Springwells 7,419 6,499 5,986 4,982 7,002 -12.4% -23.3% 17.0% 48 St. Jean 8,254 4,278 3,609 3,042 5,851 -48.2% -28.9% 62.1% 49 State Fair 6,166 4,377 3,357 2,700 5,611 -29.0% -38.3% 67.1% 50 Tireman 16,596 10,768 9,166 7,661 12,213 -35.1% -28.9% 33.2% 51 Upper East Central 5,900 127 29 39 6 -97.8% -69.3% -79.3% 52 Vernor/Junction 10,424 6,911 6,209 4,979 7,679 -33.7% -28.0% 23.7% 53 West Riverfront 7,488 2,471 1,596 1,238 2,467 -67.0% -49.9% 54.6% 54 Winterhalter 12,298 9,864 8,681 7,399 10,554 -19.8% -25.0% 21.6%

City of Detroit 522,429 410,027 371,826 307,183 474,018 -21.5% -25.1% 27.5% Source: SEMCOG; U.S. Bureau of Census, Census 1950, Census 1990.

20 - Redevelopment Capacity in the City of Detroit Table 9

Jobs Percent Change # Neighborhood 1950 1990 2005 2030 Capacity 1950 - 1990 1990 - 2030 2005 - Cap 1 Airport 36,221 8,502 10,044 6,761 36,089 -76.5% -20.5% 259.3% 2 Bagley 5,985 5,670 2,573 2,588 4,129 -5.3% -54.4% 60.5% 3 Boynton 3,438 2,766 2,536 2,270 9,693 -19.5% -17.9% 282.2% 4 Brightmoor 5,212 4,652 4,147 3,154 7,902 -10.7% -32.2% 90.5% 5 Brooks 10,105 8,045 7,722 6,786 13,041 -20.4% -15.6% 68.9% 6 Burbank 4,625 4,619 2,544 2,455 3,709 -0.1% -46.8% 45.8% 7 Butzel 8,292 6,285 4,535 3,065 7,559 -24.2% -51.2% 66.7% 8 Central Business District 112,101 97,228 74,761 73,813 96,282 -13.3% -24.1% 28.8% 9 Cerveny/Grandmont 8,843 5,153 4,134 3,948 6,527 -41.7% -23.4% 57.9% 10 Chadsey 13,031 5,147 4,327 3,307 7,032 -60.5% -35.7% 62.5% 11 Chandler Park 4,019 904 1,155 1,150 1,911 -77.5% 27.2% 65.5% 12 Cody 5,453 8,376 5,805 4,035 7,353 53.6% -51.8% 26.7% 13 Condon 9,104 3,842 2,354 1,945 3,985 -57.8% -49.4% 69.3% 14 Conner 5,780 2,903 2,163 2,053 3,789 -49.8% -29.3% 75.2% 15 Corktown 16,188 6,642 2,966 2,754 4,817 -59.0% -58.5% 62.4% 16 Davison 7,606 6,093 4,372 3,679 8,897 -19.9% -39.6% 103.5% 17 Denby 3,453 2,561 1,637 1,450 2,558 -25.8% -43.4% 56.3% 18 Durfee 14,223 3,432 3,110 3,041 5,155 -75.9% -11.4% 65.8% 19 East Riverside 14,848 2,015 1,508 1,379 6,489 -86.4% -31.6% 330.3% 20 Evergreen 4,977 5,833 3,521 3,290 4,642 17.2% -43.6% 31.8% 21 Finney 7,704 11,300 10,332 9,879 13,576 46.7% -12.6% 31.4% 22 Foch 17,653 3,142 5,985 3,479 7,837 -82.2% 10.7% 30.9% 23 Grant 11,037 6,886 5,886 4,397 12,061 -37.6% -36.1% 104.9% 24 Greenfield 5,885 7,842 6,900 6,933 9,056 33.3% -11.6% 31.2% 25 Harmony Village 14,621 6,447 5,239 4,961 7,833 -55.9% -23.0% 49.5% 26 Hubbard Richard 6,699 2,007 2,637 2,038 5,666 -70.0% 1.5% 114.9% 27 Indian Village 2,928 2,359 1,221 1,613 1,496 -19.4% -31.6% 22.5% 28 Jefferson/Mack 12,261 917 1,168 1,176 3,774 -92.5% 28.2% 223.1% 29 Jeffries 14,404 6,466 8,242 7,897 14,082 -55.1% 22.1% 70.9% 30 Kettering 18,968 4,734 3,877 3,698 6,467 -75.0% -21.9% 66.8% 31 Lower East Central 14,653 4,390 3,627 3,645 4,621 -70.0% -17.0% 27.4% 32 Lower Woodward 35,698 40,475 35,633 35,472 44,352 13.4% -12.4% 24.5% 33 Mackenzie 19,703 8,100 7,085 6,189 13,845 -58.9% -23.6% 95.4% 34 McNichols 7,719 4,850 3,032 2,907 6,657 -37.2% -40.1% 119.6% 35 Middle East Central 18,627 7,026 7,380 5,978 15,298 -62.3% -14.9% 107.3% 36 Middle Woodward 43,582 25,324 14,753 13,169 20,832 -41.9% -48.0% 41.2% 37 Mt. Olivet 7,443 4,856 4,121 3,468 6,460 -34.8% -28.6% 56.8% 38 Near East Riverfront 16,069 3,852 2,578 2,973 3,159 -76.0% -22.8% 22.5% 39 Nolan 5,633 2,451 3,455 3,003 6,030 -56.5% 22.5% 74.5% 40 Palmer Park 4,650 2,040 1,528 1,575 2,148 -56.1% -22.8% 40.6% 41 Pembroke 5,230 2,756 2,537 2,470 3,784 -47.3% -10.4% 49.2% 42 Pershing 9,464 5,318 3,692 2,825 5,485 -43.8% -46.9% 48.6% 43 Redford 4,009 5,094 3,537 3,165 4,982 27.1% -37.9% 40.9% 44 Rosa Parks 25,379 8,561 12,843 13,503 18,186 -66.3% 57.7% 41.6% 45 Rosedale 3,439 2,486 2,479 2,195 3,190 -27.7% -11.7% 28.7% 46 Rouge 2,104 2,491 2,484 1,974 3,220 18.4% -20.8% 29.6% 47 Springwells 6,041 3,584 3,328 2,906 7,687 -40.7% -18.9% 131.0% 48 St. Jean 22,969 2,813 3,141 2,289 6,384 -87.8% -18.6% 103.2% 49 State Fair 5,351 3,156 1,625 2,208 4,530 -41.0% -30.0% 178.8% 50 Tireman 18,739 5,461 3,612 3,011 10,269 -70.9% -44.9% 184.3% 51 Upper East Central 24,784 9,014 9,792 5,447 18,454 -63.6% -39.6% 88.5% 52 Vernor/Junction 17,770 6,262 4,205 3,463 9,303 -64.8% -44.7% 121.2% 53 West Riverfront 25,629 6,271 5,573 4,487 24,064 -75.5% -28.4% 331.8% 54 Winterhalter 8,425 3,091 2,800 2,610 5,668 -63.3% -15.6% 102.4%

City of Detroit 758,774 412,490 342,241 309,926 572,015 -45.6% -24.9% 67.1% Source: SEMCOG; U.S. Bureau of Census, Census 1950, Census 1990.

21 - Redevelopment Capacity in the City of Detroit Figure 9

22 - Redevelopment Capacity in the City of Detroit Table 10

Population Change % Change Jobs Change % Change # Neighborhood 1950 Capacity 1950 - Cap 1950 - Cap 1950 Capacity 1950 - Cap 1950 - Cap 1 Airport 49,531 22,727 -26,804 -54.1% 36,221 36,089 -132 -0.4% 2 Bagley 22,331 19,543 -2,788 -12.5% 5,985 4,129 -1,856 -31.0% 3 Boynton 17,102 12,075 -5,027 -29.4% 3,438 9,693 6,255 181.9% 4 Brightmoor 22,093 31,052 8,959 40.6% 5,212 7,902 2,690 51.6% 5 Brooks 42,256 34,815 -7,441 -17.6% 10,105 13,041 2,936 29.1% 6 Burbank 32,643 28,798 -3,845 -11.8% 4,625 3,709 -916 -19.8% 7 Butzel 29,180 16,232 -12,948 -44.4% 8,292 7,559 -733 -8.8% 8 Central Business District 25,288 8,584 -16,704 -66.1% 112,101 96,282 -15,819 -14.1% 9 Cerveny/Grandmont 44,785 43,486 -1,299 -2.9% 8,843 6,527 -2,316 -26.2% 10 Chadsey 37,697 26,895 -10,802 -28.7% 13,031 7,032 -5,999 -46.0% 11 Chandler Park 24,343 16,297 -8,046 -33.1% 4,019 1,911 -2,108 -52.5% 12 Cody 16,196 19,459 3,263 20.1% 5,453 7,353 1,900 34.8% 13 Condon 42,912 19,090 -23,822 -55.5% 9,104 3,985 -5,119 -56.2% 14 Conner 39,279 35,346 -3,933 -10.0% 5,780 3,789 -1,991 -34.4% 15 Corktown 12,589 3,611 -8,978 -71.3% 16,188 4,817 -11,371 -70.2% 16 Davison 46,421 27,656 -18,765 -40.4% 7,606 8,897 1,291 17.0% 17 Denby 26,903 23,433 -3,470 -12.9% 3,453 2,558 -895 -25.9% 18 Durfee 59,734 30,525 -29,209 -48.9% 14,223 5,155 -9,068 -63.8% 19 East Riverside 34,241 13,911 -20,330 -59.4% 14,848 6,489 -8,359 -56.3% 20 Evergreen 25,936 34,170 8,234 31.7% 4,977 4,642 -335 -6.7% 21 Finney 39,227 32,708 -6,519 -16.6% 7,704 13,576 5,872 76.2% 22 Foch 36,291 19,393 -16,898 -46.6% 17,653 7,837 -9,816 -55.6% 23 Grant 16,405 13,401 -3,004 -18.3% 11,037 12,061 1,024 9.3% 24 Greenfield 26,840 26,877 37 0.1% 5,885 9,056 3,171 53.9% 25 Harmony Village 46,815 38,725 -8,090 -17.3% 14,621 7,833 -6,788 -46.4% 26 Hubbard Richard 9,502 3,320 -6,182 -65.1% 6,699 5,666 -1,033 -15.4% 27 Indian Village 9,272 6,420 -2,852 -30.8% 2,928 1,496 -1,432 -48.9% 28 Jefferson/Mack 26,419 14,730 -11,689 -44.2% 12,261 3,774 -8,487 -69.2% 29 Jeffries 50,473 12,481 -37,992 -75.3% 14,404 14,082 -322 -2.2% 30 Kettering 50,333 25,592 -24,741 -49.2% 18,968 6,467 -12,501 -65.9% 31 Lower East Central 42,804 15,661 -27,143 -63.4% 14,653 4,621 -10,032 -68.5% 32 Lower Woodward 82,255 23,696 -58,559 -71.2% 35,698 44,352 8,654 24.2% 33 Mackenzie 53,250 42,847 -10,403 -19.5% 19,703 13,845 -5,858 -29.7% 34 McNichols 25,900 15,730 -10,170 -39.3% 7,719 6,657 -1,062 -13.8% 35 Middle East Central 69,575 17,437 -52,138 -74.9% 18,627 15,298 -3,329 -17.9% 36 Middle Woodward 75,330 29,718 -45,612 -60.5% 43,582 20,832 -22,750 -52.2% 37 Mt. Olivet 35,406 31,745 -3,661 -10.3% 7,443 6,460 -983 -13.2% 38 Near East Riverfront 10,162 6,226 -3,936 -38.7% 16,069 3,159 -12,910 -80.3% 39 Nolan 33,882 26,707 -7,175 -21.2% 5,633 6,030 397 7.0% 40 Palmer Park 12,998 12,966 -32 -0.2% 4,650 2,148 -2,502 -53.8% 41 Pembroke 25,515 21,193 -4,322 -16.9% 5,230 3,784 -1,446 -27.6% 42 Pershing 24,092 23,127 -965 -4.0% 9,464 5,485 -3,979 -42.0% 43 Redford 12,340 25,875 13,535 109.7% 4,009 4,982 973 24.3% 44 Rosa Parks 80,711 32,655 -48,056 -59.5% 25,379 18,186 -7,193 -28.3% 45 Rosedale 18,009 19,549 1,540 8.6% 3,439 3,190 -249 -7.2% 46 Rouge 25,064 25,750 686 2.7% 2,104 3,220 1,116 53.0% 47 Springwells 24,761 18,678 -6,083 -24.6% 6,041 7,687 1,646 27.2% 48 St. Jean 29,735 15,512 -14,223 -47.8% 22,969 6,384 -16,585 -72.2% 49 State Fair 20,549 14,420 -6,129 -29.8% 5,351 4,530 -821 -15.3% 50 Tireman 57,863 29,376 -28,487 -49.2% 18,739 10,269 -8,470 -45.2% 51 Upper East Central 24,219 61 -24,158 -99.7% 24,784 18,454 -6,330 -25.5% 52 Vernor/Junction 36,474 20,823 -15,651 -42.9% 17,770 9,303 -8,467 -47.6% 53 West Riverfront 27,131 6,454 -20,677 -76.2% 25,629 24,064 -1,565 -6.1% 54 Winterhalter 38,506 23,380 -15,126 -39.3% 8,425 5,668 -2,757 -32.7%

City of Detroit 1,849,568 1,160,938 -688,630 -37.2% 758,774 572,015 -186,759 -24.6% Source: SEMCOG; U.S. Bureau of Census, Census 1950.

23 - Redevelopment Capacity in the City of Detroit Figure 10

24 - Redevelopment Capacity in the City of Detroit Figure 11

25 - Redevelopment Capacity in the City of Detroit Table 11

Population % Chg Households % Chg PPHH Chg. Cap Pop at # Neighborhood 1950 Capacity 1950 1950 Capacity 1950 1950 Cap 1950 1950 PPHH - Cap 1 Airport 49,531 22,727 -54.1% - Pot 13,488 7,492 -44.5%- Pot 3.64 3.03 -0.61 27,475 2 Bagley 22,331 19,543 -12.5% 6,332 7,166 13.2% 3.50 2.73 -0.78 25,322 3 Boynton 17,102 12,075 -29.4% 4,276 4,497 5.2% 3.97 2.69 -1.29 17,867 4 Brightmoor 22,093 31,052 40.6% 6,041 10,622 75.8% 3.65 2.92 -0.72 38,910 5 Brooks 42,256 34,815 -17.6% 11,332 11,997 5.9% 3.73 2.90 -0.82 45,000 6 Burbank 32,643 28,798 -11.8% 8,968 9,196 2.5% 3.63 3.13 -0.50 33,449 7 Butzel 29,180 16,232 -44.4% 8,029 6,007 -25.2% 3.36 2.70 -0.66 21,635 8 Central Business District 25,288 8,584 -66.1% 3,749 3,766 0.5% 3.08 2.28 -0.80 13,815 9 Cerveny/Grandmont 44,785 43,486 -2.9% 13,199 15,298 15.9% 3.39 2.84 -0.55 52,027 10 Chadsey 37,697 26,895 -28.7% 9,971 8,808 -11.7% 3.75 3.05 -0.70 33,214 11 Chandler Park 24,343 16,297 -33.1% 7,379 5,386 -27.0% 3.29 3.03 -0.27 17,988 12 Cody 16,196 19,459 20.1% 4,311 6,894 59.9% 3.75 2.82 -0.93 25,885 13 Condon 42,912 19,090 -55.5% 10,561 6,553 -38.0% 3.86 2.91 -0.95 25,332 14 Conner 39,279 35,346 -10.0% 11,518 11,229 -2.5% 3.41 3.15 -0.26 38,445 15 Corktown 12,589 3,611 -71.3% 3,311 1,558 -52.9% 3.54 2.32 -1.22 5,721 16 Davison 46,421 27,656 -40.4% 11,261 8,754 -22.3% 4.01 3.16 -0.86 37,276 17 Denby 26,903 23,433 -12.9% 7,480 8,044 7.5% 3.59 2.91 -0.68 28,885 18 Durfee 59,734 30,525 -48.9% 19,186 11,447 -40.3% 3.07 2.67 -0.40 35,513 19 East Riverside 34,241 13,911 -59.4% 10,206 4,979 -51.2% 3.26 2.79 -0.47 16,361 20 Evergreen 25,936 34,170 31.7% 7,150 11,780 64.8% 3.54 2.90 -0.64 42,333 21 Finney 39,227 32,708 -16.6% 11,663 11,412 -2.2% 3.35 2.87 -0.49 38,694 22 Foch 36,291 19,393 -46.6% 11,166 6,524 -41.6% 3.15 2.97 -0.18 21,128 23 Grant 16,405 13,401 -18.3% 4,276 4,471 4.6% 3.78 3.00 -0.79 17,016 24 Greenfield 26,840 26,877 0.1% 7,512 9,955 32.5% 3.50 2.70 -0.80 34,866 25 Harmony Village 46,815 38,725 -17.3% 13,530 13,460 -0.5% 3.43 2.88 -0.55 46,522 26 Hubbard Richard 9,502 3,320 -65.1% 2,613 1,222 -53.2% 3.46 2.72 -0.74 4,326 27 Indian Village 9,272 6,420 -30.8% 3,291 3,666 11.4% 2.68 1.75 -0.92 9,937 28 Jefferson/Mack 26,419 14,730 -44.2% 8,297 4,946 -40.4% 3.11 2.98 -0.14 15,587 29 Jeffries 50,473 12,481 -75.3% 14,509 4,689 -67.7% 3.27 2.66 -0.61 15,713 30 Kettering 50,333 25,592 -49.2% 13,971 8,986 -35.7% 3.52 2.85 -0.67 32,092 31 Lower East Central 42,804 15,661 -63.4% 8,746 8,056 -7.9% 4.12 1.94 -2.18 33,433 32 Lower Woodward 82,255 23,696 -71.2% 23,563 11,534 -51.1% 2.69 2.05 -0.63 32,927 33 Mackenzie 53,250 42,847 -19.5% 16,217 15,301 -5.6% 3.28 2.80 -0.48 50,412 34 McNichols 25,900 15,730 -39.3% 7,344 5,434 -26.0% 3.42 2.89 -0.53 19,372 35 Middle East Central 69,575 17,437 -74.9% 16,660 5,974 -64.1% 3.86 2.92 -0.94 23,589 36 Middle Woodward 75,330 29,718 -60.5% 20,117 11,575 -42.5% 3.23 2.57 -0.66 38,002 37 Mt. Olivet 35,406 31,745 -10.3% 9,314 10,066 8.1% 3.79 3.15 -0.64 38,359 38 Near East Riverfront 10,162 6,226 -38.7% 2,212 3,157 42.7% 3.63 1.97 -1.66 11,482 39 Nolan 33,882 26,707 -21.2% 8,935 9,361 4.8% 3.76 2.85 -0.91 35,479 40 Palmer Park 12,998 12,966 -0.2% 4,332 5,158 19.1% 2.97 2.51 -0.46 15,401 41 Pembroke 25,515 21,193 -16.9% 6,648 8,419 26.6% 3.80 2.52 -1.29 32,043 42 Pershing 24,092 23,127 -4.0% 6,051 8,166 35.0% 3.97 2.83 -1.14 32,495 43 Redford 12,340 25,875 109.7% 3,435 10,045 192.4% 3.58 2.58 -1.00 36,344 44 Rosa Parks 80,711 32,655 -59.5% 25,728 12,025 -53.3% 3.02 2.72 -0.30 37,524 45 Rosedale 18,009 19,549 8.6% 5,370 6,737 25.5% 3.35 2.90 -0.45 22,599 46 Rouge 25,064 25,750 2.7% 6,266 9,389 49.8% 4.00 2.74 -1.25 37,528 47 Springwells 24,761 18,678 -24.6% 7,370 6,254 -15.1% 3.33 2.99 -0.34 20,926 48 St. Jean 29,735 15,512 -47.8% 8,179 5,319 -35.0% 3.56 2.92 -0.65 19,253 49 State Fair 20,549 14,420 -29.8% 6,115 4,848 -20.7% 3.34 2.97 -0.36 16,195 50 Tireman 57,863 29,376 -49.2% 16,369 10,610 -35.2% 3.43 2.77 -0.66 36,575 51 Upper East Central 24,219 61 -99.7% 5,829 25 -99.6% 3.79 2.44 -1.35 95 52 Vernor/Junction 36,474 20,823 -42.9% 10,255 6,616 -35.5% 3.43 3.15 -0.28 22,756 53 West Riverfront 27,131 6,454 -76.2% 7,323 2,180 -70.2% 3.60 2.96 -0.64 7,936 54 Winterhalter 38,506 23,380 -39.3% 12,174 8,880 -27.1% 3.14 2.63 -0.50 28,153

City of Detroit 1,849,568 1,160,938 -37.2% 513,128 415,933 -18.9% 3.43 2.79 -0.64 1,467,215 Source: SEMCOG; U.S. Bureau of Census, Census 1950.

26 - Redevelopment Capacity in the City of Detroit SEMCOG Officers 2008-2009

Mary Blackmon Chairperson Treasurer, Wayne County Regional Education Service Agency

Robert Hison First Vice Chair Mayor, City of St. Clair Shores

Robert J. Cannon Vice Chairperson Supervisor, Clinton Township

Philip Cavanagh Vice Chairperson Commissioner, Wayne County Board of Commissioners

Gretchen Driskell Vice Chairperson Mayor, City of Saline

Michael Sedlak Vice Chairperson Clerk, Green Oak Township

William T. Roberts Immediate Past Chair Mayor, City of Walled Lake

Paul E. Tait Executive Director