Grand Rapids 2010 Census numbers released

[mpchicago]

http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn106.html

Grand Rapids, 188,040; a decrease of 4.9 percent since 2000. Detroit, 713,777. a decrease of 25.0 percent since the 2000 Census!!!!

[suydam]

These numbers sting on multiple levels.

Kent County grew at a slower rate than Macomb or Livingston (by percentage... which adjusts for overall population).

GR loses population after many months of people (including census estimates) predicting increases.

[joeDowntown]

I'm kind of confused by the census as it's not like their has been a mass exodus. In fact, the core city has to have a net gain in population (simply from the additional apartments/housing built in the last ten years). I don't know if it is indicative of anything "bad" happening in GR, would have been nice to see a solid increase though.

Joe

[GRDadof3]

I'm kind of confused by the census as it's not like their has been a mass exodus. In fact, the core city has to have a net gain in population (simply from the additional apartments/housing built in the last ten years). I don't know if it is indicative of anything "bad" happening in GR, would have been nice to see a solid increase though.

Joe

I don't know. How many homes are vacant/in foreclosure right now in the city? I've heard a lot. Plus, if families are moving out to the suburbs for schools, they're taking an entire household with them. I think too that people just did not have as many kids in the last 10 years. Add it all up and it's easy to come up with -10,000 people.

[Jippy]

Census results for Grand Rapids are indicative of results for many urban communities outside of Michigan (including Chicago) - where a revitalized urban core suggests net population growth. The reality is the urban core is a small fraction of the overall city, and many neighborhoods have hollowed out. School enrollment numbers at both public and private schools were an early warning that G.R. was in for a lower total population. Most northern Cities outside of Washington D.C. and New York experienced population loss over the last decade.

[suydam]

Census results for Grand Rapids are indicative of results for many urban communities outside of Michigan (including Chicago) - where a revitalized urban core suggests net population growth. The reality is the urban core is a small fraction of the overall city, and many neighborhoods have hollowed out. School enrollment numbers at both public and private schools were an early warning that G.R. was in for a lower total population. Most northern Cities outside of Washington D.C. and New York experienced population loss over the last decade.

Yes, the population decline in GR is not unique.... I say this hurts because I think many of the people on this board (myself included) hoped to see growth here to buck trends.

[arcturus]

Any bet the stats will be used by opponents against the bus millage increase?

[joeDowntown]

Good explanation. Makes sense!

Joe

Census results for Grand Rapids are indicative of results for many urban communities outside of Michigan (including Chicago) - where a revitalized urban core suggests net population growth. The reality is the urban core is a small fraction of the overall city, and many neighborhoods have hollowed out. School enrollment numbers at both public and private schools were an early warning that G.R. was in for a lower total population. Most northern Cities outside of Washington D.C. and New York experienced population loss over the last decade.

[fotoman311]

Any bet the stats will be used by opponents against the bus millage increase?

To me, the numbers argue in favor of the bus millage increase. We need MORE options for people to get into the downtown core from areas where the population increased, not less.

[arcturus]

Kent County and Ottawa county ranked #2 and #3 respectively for increase in population. #1 was Macomb.

[GRDadof3]

Any bet the stats will be used by opponents against the bus millage increase?

Of course they will.

[arcturus]

To me, the numbers argue in favor of the bus millage increase. We need MORE options for people to get into the downtown core from areas where the population increased, not less.

Here's where the population increased: http://www.grbj.com/GRBJ/ArticleArchive/2011/March/March+21/WEB+EXCLUSIVE+Wednesday+12+12+pm.htm

Most of the millage would go to the Silver Line down Division, not exactly where the growth is.

[x99]

Not unexpectedly, it looks like the growth was primarily in the townships. What with their low tax bases and no added city income taxes, this shouldn't exactly come as a shocker. With that formula, combined with its undesirable schools, GR has basically guaranteed that most middle class people will look elsewhere. Oh, wait, let's just pop up another RenZone and maybe people will come flocking back (at least until it expires). Hate to say it, but I'm looking forward to leaving someday as well, even if its just a few steps over the line to EGR. While cheap housing prices may ultimately have some positive impact in GR, it's simply not a financially prudent decision to live in GR, long term. Turning this around is going to take someone with a lot more vision than the joker's currently running the show have (see: trash millage and the new "dump fee" coupled with mailed paper bills that will "save" on the cost of printing up tags and bags).

As for more transit into the city, why in the world would anyone ever want that? Seriously--who takes the bus and why would I want to subsidize their bus riding? Uh, no thanks.

Here's where the population increased: http://www.grbj.com/...ay+12+12+pm.htm

Most of the millage would go to the Silver Line down Division, not exactly where the growth is.

[gvsusean]

Not unexpectedly, it looks like the growth was primarily in the townships. What with their low tax bases and no added city income taxes, this shouldn't exactly come as a shocker. With that formula, combined with its undesirable schools, GR has basically guaranteed that most middle class people will look elsewhere. Oh, wait, let's just pop up another RenZone and maybe people will come flocking back (at least until it expires). Hate to say it, but I'm looking forward to leaving someday as well, even if its just a few steps over the line to EGR. While cheap housing prices may ultimately have some positive impact in GR, it's simply not a financially prudent decision to live in GR, long term. Turning this around is going to take someone with a lot more vision than the joker's currently running the show have (see: trash millage and the new "dump fee" coupled with mailed paper bills that will "save" on the cost of printing up tags and bags).

As for more transit into the city, why in the world would anyone ever want that? Seriously--who takes the bus and why would I want to subsidize their bus riding? Uh, no thanks.

I took the bus.... pollutions concerns and reduced traffic should be the reasons you want it....

[RegalTDP]

Not unexpectedly, it looks like the growth was primarily in the townships. What with their low tax bases and no added city income taxes, this shouldn't exactly come as a shocker. With that formula, combined with its undesirable schools, GR has basically guaranteed that most middle class people will look elsewhere. Oh, wait, let's just pop up another RenZone and maybe people will come flocking back (at least until it expires). Hate to say it, but I'm looking forward to leaving someday as well, even if its just a few steps over the line to EGR. While cheap housing prices may ultimately have some positive impact in GR, it's simply not a financially prudent decision to live in GR, long term. Turning this around is going to take someone with a lot more vision than the joker's currently running the show have (see: trash millage and the new "dump fee" coupled with mailed paper bills that will "save" on the cost of printing up tags and bags).

As for more transit into the city, why in the world would anyone ever want that? Seriously--who takes the bus and why would I want to subsidize their bus riding? Uh, no thanks.

Why do you even live in the city now? I get the sense you'd be a happier person if you'd left a long time ago. You probably don't wanna move to EGR though - they always come out in overwhelming support of bus millages. Scary.

[jas49503]

Not unexpectedly, it looks like the growth was primarily in the townships. What with their low tax bases and no added city income taxes, this shouldn't exactly come as a shocker. With that formula, combined with its undesirable schools, GR has basically guaranteed that most middle class people will look elsewhere. Oh, wait, let's just pop up another RenZone and maybe people will come flocking back (at least until it expires). Hate to say it, but I'm looking forward to leaving someday as well, even if its just a few steps over the line to EGR. While cheap housing prices may ultimately have some positive impact in GR, it's simply not a financially prudent decision to live in GR, long term. Turning this around is going to take someone with a lot more vision than the joker's currently running the show have (see: trash millage and the new "dump fee" coupled with mailed paper bills that will "save" on the cost of printing up tags and bags).

As for more transit into the city, why in the world would anyone ever want that? Seriously--who takes the bus and why would I want to subsidize their bus riding? Uh, no thanks.

it's a lot more financially prudent than living in EGR. If I moved into a house like mine in EGR I would pay more in taxes even taking into account the income tax and all the other associated fees that the city has. not to mention it would be a lot more inconvenient. I think that the GRPS system suffers from undeservedly bad reputation. the good schools are some of the best in the state and by any objective measure far superior to EGR or forest hills. what people forget is that you don't send your kids to all the schools, only one of them so you can't look at the overall rating. if your kid cant get into city high then I'm sure central or union or one of the others can prepare him/her to become a janitor just as well as EGR or forest hills.

[Mark Miller]

Not unexpectedly, it looks like the growth was primarily in the townships. What with their low tax bases and no added city income taxes, this shouldn't exactly come as a shocker. With that formula, combined with its undesirable schools, GR has basically guaranteed that most middle class people will look elsewhere. Oh, wait, let's just pop up another RenZone and maybe people will come flocking back (at least until it expires). Hate to say it, but I'm looking forward to leaving someday as well, even if its just a few steps over the line to EGR. While cheap housing prices may ultimately have some positive impact in GR, it's simply not a financially prudent decision to live in GR, long term. Turning this around is going to take someone with a lot more vision than the joker's currently running the show have (see: trash millage and the new "dump fee" coupled with mailed paper bills that will "save" on the cost of printing up tags and bags).

As for more transit into the city, why in the world would anyone ever want that? Seriously--who takes the bus and why would I want to subsidize their bus riding? Uh, no thanks.

It's not financially prudent to live in GR!? You would be hard pressed to find a house like any in Heritage Hill, Cherry Hill or Fairmount Square, within the proximity to a functional downtown at the current prices...anywhere else. If that is not what your looking for, then move...but I can tell you that EGR will be more expensive in housing costs AND significantly more expensive in property taxes and you will not have the depth of choices in terms of things to do, unless you want to hang out at Grandma Roses, the Derby or Starbucks.

I am a middle class person, with three kids, who does not live in a renzone. There are plenty more, just like me, that live in the city...by choice.

I will agree with you that some of the "jokers currently running the show" are going to have to get a clue or step aside, but that is a whole different issue.

And finally, why would you want to "subsidize" transit? I don't know, maybe for.... clean air, more transportation choices, a better future, more sustainability, economic development, a more vibrant city, a better positioned region. Without fully INVESTING in transit, we all might as well close up shop right now and move away.

I don't hear you complaining about SUBSIDIZING MDOT and their highway and road building projects. Why should I be subsidizing that? Oh wait, that's an investment.

[RegalTDP]

And finally, why would you want to "subsidize" transit? I don't know, maybe for.... clean air, more transportation choices, a better future, more sustainability, economic development, a more vibrant city, a better positioned region. Without fully INVESTING in transit, we all might as well close up shop right now and move away.

I don't hear you complaining about SUBSIDIZING MDOT and their highway and road building projects. Why should I be subsidizing that? Oh wait, that's an investment.

Don't forget the obvious reason: a lot of people just can't afford cars or don't have licenses, either.

[x99]

It's not financially prudent to live in GR!? You would be hard pressed to find a house like any in Heritage Hill, Cherry Hill or Fairmount Square, within the proximity to a functional downtown at the current prices...anywhere else.

I don't hear you complaining about SUBSIDIZING MDOT and their highway and road building projects. Why should I be subsidizing that? Oh wait, that's an investment.

This came out too long, but here we go ...

While I also like cities, statistics bear out the unfortunate reality: While some middle class people do live here, by and large, they are choosing to live somewhere else other than here. Cheering from the sidelines that "Grand Rapids is a great place for middle class people and they should live here and ride the bus and be socially responsible" will not solve the problem. If we want to draw people back into the City, we need to realistically assess the problems which are making the city undesirable, and address them. While there are many factors, one of these is clearly economic, which is driven significantly by the tax structure and school systems.

Ultimately, choosing to live in the City is an expensive proposition when you can afford to go elsewhere. When you've got two kids in school and a $100k+ income, GR is not cheap by any means, even with low housing costs. Let's say husband and wife have a combined income of $120,000.00. This will result in (at least) ~$900 per year in income tax (at .75%) that is not paid in a township. If you wanted to pay the same equivalent tax in the suburbs in property tax instead of income tax, how much extra house would you have to build? Assuming a millage rate of 30 mills (or 1.50%), this equates to ~$60,000.00 in extra house just to hit the same tax bill (900/.015). Granted, this does not actually devalue the houses to that extent--the actual devaluation is closer to about $10,000.00 on a present-value opportunity-cost basis assuming a 10% return.

Of course, the true picture should also include actual millages, which are usually a couple of mills lower in townships, on average. Including "administration fees", Caledonia's homestead rate is about 28.20. Grand Rapids is about 29.46. Assuming this couple wants a nice $300,000 house, that's another $190 annually for the "privilege" of living in GR. All told, it costs this couple about $1,100.00 more to live in GR. Now, that might all be well and good if they're getting something for that money. But they're not. What they're getting is GR city schools which, other than City High, are a mess. But what if the kids don't get into City High? Now you've got to put two kids through private high school, not to mention grade school and middle. Let's put the cost of that at $10,000.00 per year (which is far, far too cheap). Adding in that cost devalues the house by a whopping $100,000.00. Three kids? You must be joking.

So let's factor all of this together. how much is our $300,000.00 Caledonia house worth if we move it into the City? First, let's adjust the taxes to the GR rate. $298,100.00. Now, let's add in the City income tax bill at .75%. $289,100.00. Now, tack in $100,000.00 for schools. $189,100.00. And what about that insurance that will also cost a little more? Let's say that's just another $300 (probably too low). $186,100.00. Ah--but don't forget car insurance which also goes up because of theft risk! Another $300 a year. $183,100.00. Now let's have our happy couple get a job that isn't in the City. Another $900 savings. And the house is now worth $174,100.00. Ouch. (Of course, this is calculated over the long-term. The $10,000.00 per year for school buys a $160,000.00 house...) Savings from living in the city? Other than the cost of the house, probably not much. But is the savings on the house enough to justify it? Generally, no. Not unless you're sending the kids to private school regardless of where you live.

You can get a pretty deluxe spread on the Thornapple River for $500k. To be on an equal footing (assuming the tuition bill), you could purchase a house in the Hill for $300k. That will get you a fairly decent house, but certainly no better than a nice $500k pad on the River or over in Railside. EGR? Not so much. Their taxes are nuts. But GR Twp, you're back in business. Further, while the old houses can be nice, there's also something to be said for functional, modern wiring, good insulation, and windows that keep out the cold, not to mention attached garages and houses that don't need tremendous amounts of expensive regular maintenance. For some of us, that's a fun hobby. For most, it's just a chore.

But perhaps $300k is too rich. What if you can get a decent house for, say, $70k in the City, and make $60k combined? Does it work then? Using the 60% discount factor we established, that leaves enough cash (if you have it) to buy a $141,660.00 house in the 'burbs on a decently-sized lot instead of a postage stamp. Or so you might assume. Let's cut the income down to 60k. Income taxes fall, some, but the problem is that everything else stays pretty much the same. To come out even, you would have to buy a house for $25,000.00. Now, that's not really fair since our City house will presumably have less taxes on it. So let's assume the taxes were based on $70,000.00. Problem is, with two kids in school, you would still have to manage to get the house for $35,000.00 to come out even with the $144,000.00 house in the suburbs. Granted, this doesn't really factor in that the kids will get out of school some day, but still ... For those 20 years, this is the ugly reality of GR's city school system.

But what if you've only got $70k for a house? Well, then you're not exactly middle class anymore, are you? I don't mean that as an insult, merely a statement of reality. If you can only afford a $70,000.00 house, the middle class is not yet within your reach. And that, quite frankly, is a big chunk of who still lives in GR (other than old people, young people, and old house junkies). Single family houses for sale over $140k in GR? 116. Under that? More than 250. Over 140k in Forest Hills? More than 250. Less than 140k in Forest Hills? 27. The tables are worse than turned, particularly when population size is taken into account.

I'm a big fan of the cities as well, but there are very good financial reasons to live elsewhere, and why people are continuing to make that choice. For people with kids, Grand Rapids simply cannot compete on a cost basis with the surrounding suburbs, and really isn't making much of an effort. It is incredibly expensive to live here if you have kids (unless they're not very smart anyway, and/or you just don't care). If you really want to help out the cities, go hold a picket sign on the corner for allowing school vouchers, busting up the unions and dumping the retiree costs in bankruptcy, and then dumping the city income tax and dropping the property taxes through the floor. If someone has the nerve to do that, I suspect they could turn things around for GR, and quite quickly. That's much more of an incentive to move here than streetcars or buses.

I will admit to the one upside: City High was a positively brilliant idea. I believe it probably does manage to improve things significantly. If you can manage to funnel your kids through charters and then into City High, it's almost nothing short of winning the lottery.

EDIT: I edited this from the original version. In my haste, I used the 60% discount factor derived from the "expensive house" scenario. I then realized it obviously doesn't work because the expenses do not decrease along with the house size. Private school tuition stays fixed. With three kids (at $5k/ea/yr), the $144k house in the suburbs example now is actually worth a negative $13,000.00 if moved into the city with private schooling. If you're going to send the kids to private schools anyway, then by all means, move to the City. If you have no kids, then by all means, move to the City. If you've got kids in public school, you would have to be almost out of your mind to stick around unless they make City High.

[GRDadof3]

This came out too long, but here we go ...

While I also like cities, statistics bear out the unfortunate reality: While some middle class people do live here, by and large, they are choosing to live somewhere else other than here. Cheering from the sidelines that "Grand Rapids is a great place for middle class people and they should live here and ride the bus and be socially responsible" will not solve the problem. If we want to draw people back into the City, we need to realistically assess the problems which are making the city undesirable, and address them. While there are many factors, one of these is clearly economic, which is driven significantly by the tax structure and school systems.

Ultimately, choosing to live in the City is an expensive proposition when you can afford to go elsewhere. When you've got two kids in school and a $100k+ income, GR is not cheap by any means, even with low housing costs. Let's say husband and wife have a combined income of $120,000.00. This will result in (at least) ~$900 per year in income tax (at .75%) that is not paid in a township. If you wanted to pay the same equivalent tax in the suburbs in property tax instead of income tax, how much extra house would you have to build? Assuming a millage rate of 30 mills (or 1.50%), this equates to ~$60,000.00 in extra house just to hit the same tax bill (900/.0175). Granted, this does not actually devalue the houses to that extent--the actual devaluation is closer to about $10,000.00 on a present-value opportunity-cost basis assuming a 10% return.

Of course, the true picture should also include actual millages, which are usually a couple of mills lower in townships, on average. Including "administration fees", Caledonia's homestead rate is about 28.20. Grand Rapids is about 29.46. Assuming this couple wants a nice $300,000 house, that's another $190 annually for the "privilege" of living in GR. All told, it costs this couple about $1,100.00 more to live in GR. Now, that might all be well and good if they're getting something for that money. But they're not. What they're getting is GR city schools which, other than City High, are a mess. But what if the kids don't get into City High? Now you've got to put two kids through private high school, not to mention grade school and middle. Let's put the cost of that at $10,000.00 per year (which is far, far too cheap). Adding in that cost devalues the house by a whopping $100,000.00. Three kids? You must be joking.

So let's factor all of this together. how much is our $300,000.00 Caledonia house worth if we move it into the City? First, let's adjust the taxes to the GR rate. $298,100.00. Now, let's add in the City income tax bill at .75%. $289,100.00. Now, tack in $100,000.00 for schools. $189,100.00. And what about that insurance that will also cost a little more? Let's say that's just another $300 (probably too low). $186,100.00. Ah--but don't forget car insurance which also goes up because of theft risk! Another $300 a year. $183,100.00. Now let's have our happy couple get a job that isn't in the City. Another $900 savings. And the house is now worth $174,100.00. Ouch. (Of course, this is calculated over the long-term. The $10,000.00 per year for school buys a $160,000.00 house...) Savings from living in the city? Other than the cost of the house, probably not much. But is the savings on the house enough to justify it? Generally, no. Not unless you're sending the kids to private school regardless of where you live.

You can get a pretty deluxe spread on the Thornapple River for $500k. To be on an equal footing (assuming the tuition bill), you could purchase a house in the Hill for $300k. That will get you a fairly decent house, but certainly no better than a nice $500k pad on the River or over in Railside. EGR? Not so much. Their taxes are nuts. But GR Twp, you're back in business. Further, while the old houses can be nice, there's also something to be said for functional, modern wiring, good insulation, and windows that keep out the cold, not to mention attached garages and houses that don't need tremendous amounts of expensive regular maintenance. For some of us, that's a fun hobby. For most, it's just a chore.

But perhaps $300k is too rich. What if you can get a decent house for, say, $85k in the City? Using the 60% discount factor we established, that leaves enough cash (if you have it) to buy a $141,660.00 house in the 'burbs on a decently-sized lot instead of a postage stamp. But what if you've only got $85k? Well, then you're not exactly middle class anymore, are you? I don't mean that as an insult, merely a statement of reality. If you can only afford an $85,000.00 house, the middle class is not yet within your reach. And that, quite frankly, is a big chunk of who still lives in GR (other than old people, young people, and old house junkies). Single family houses for sale over $140k in GR? 116. Under that? More than 250. Over 140k in Forest Hills? More than 250. Less than 140k in Forest Hills? 27. The tables are worse than turned, particularly when population size is taken into account.

I'm a big fan of the cities as well, but there are very good financial reasons to live elsewhere, and why people are continuing to make that choice. For people with kids, Grand Rapids simply cannot compete on a cost basis with the surrounding suburbs, and really isn't making much of an effort. It is incredibly expensive to live here if you have kids. If you really want to help out the cities, go hold a picket sign on the corner for allowing school vouchers, busting up the unions and dumping the retiree costs in bankruptcy, and then dumping the city income tax and dropping the property taxes through the floor. If someone has the nerve to do that, I suspect they could turn things around for GR, and quite quickly. That's much more of an incentive to move here than streetcars or buses.

I will admit to the one upside: City High was a positively brilliant idea. I believe it probably does manage to improve things significantly. If you can manage to funnel your kids through charters and then into City High, it's almost nothing short of winning the lottery.

One thing you missed in all this is that the majority of households in Kent County do not have children living in them anymore, maybe only 30%. I think with the demographic shifts, people having children later, and low birth rates, it might even be the lowest in decades.

But you're right, if you're middle class with 2 kids and a dog and are looking for a $300,000 home, and work in the burbs, there are pretty compelling reasons to not choose Grand Rapids.

That's also why suburbs are growing at a faster clip. It's not just one or two people, but 4.5 people per household moving in.

You also forgot that there's about what 50 - 60,000 people who work in the city of GR already (?) and pay income tax. So where they live doesn't effect that.

[x99]

You also forgot that there's about what 50 - 60,000 people who work in the city of GR already (?) and pay income tax. So where they live doesn't effect that.

I tossed in the tax just as an added issue, because living here will always cost another .75% because it's a split rate.

I also updated this to show that you can't just buy an $80k house in GR and think it works. It doesn't. It almost never works on the low end. People without kids, those who can send them to City High, EGR, and those who use private school are the only reason houses in GR are worth anything, other than those who can't afford to leave.

It is somewhat interesting to bring EGR into the equation, which along with FHE is another USNews silver-ranked school as good for college prep. Their tax millage at 44 mills is the worst around, and helps level things out and hold some GR property values up. With a $10k private school expense, a $112,000.00 house in the City would be the rough equivalent of a $200k EGR house. That's a little closer to making sense (but not there yet). With a $500k EGR house, you're looking at about $430k in the City to hit parity. That surprised me. Financially, GR actually makes sense for those who would otherwise buy some overpriced $500k 1920s mega-house in EGR. It even works for these $300k EGR houses on Rosewood in Eastown. The places across the street should be worth $230k with 10k per year in school tuition. They aren't. By the time you hit about $250k EGR, it's a close toss up over Wilcox Park area at about $160k.

Your point about kids is also well taken. Living in EGR without kids is nuts. Move already (and convert a two-unit with 8 people, further decreasing GR's population count! ).

[jas49503]

It's not financially prudent to live in GR!? You would be hard pressed to find a house like any in Heritage Hill, Cherry Hill or Fairmount Square, within the proximity to a functional downtown at the current prices...anywhere else.

I keep reading comparisons between GR and GR township or Caledonia or some other suburb. a 300k house in GR township is not like a 300k house in GR. not even close. replacement value on my house is almost 3 times what I paid for it. my house is a 140 years old but is solid without a lot of upkeep costs. certainly no more than a house built in the suburbs 15 or 20 years ago. I looked at houses out in the suburbs and while you might "save" in taxes what you are giving up is worth far more than the difference. that is before you put a price on having the inconvenience of living in the suburbs where your only choices are chiles and outback steakhouse. The statments about requiring private school tuition are wrong also. there are other choices besides City high. the Montessori school, while not scoring that well, is highly rated by parents. there are also many specialty schools or charter schools in the city. the only schools that you really need to avoid are the ones that students end up at by default.

the only people who are really hurt by living in the city are those with an astronomical salary who chose to live in a inexpensive house. pretty much everyone else is better served in the City than in the suburbs.

[Gorath]

Maps of Grand Rapids by census tract.

Change in population.

Blue = increase in population while orange = decrease.

Population density.

Light purple = 50-250 per sq. mile.

-------------- = 250-1000 per sq. mile.

-------------- = 1000-5000 per sq. mile.

Dark purple = 5000+ per sq. mile.

Vacant housing.

Light Orange = less then 10%

--------------- = 10%-20%

Dark Orange = 20%-30%

Here is an interactive version of the map courtousy of the New York Times.

[RegalTDP]

MLive had an article about the influence of the South Beltline and you can sure see it here. It's hard to imagine that it wasn't built yet as of the 2000 Census. A lot of those blue boxes down in Dutton and Byron were just woods and farms. That was only 10 years ago!

I'm looking forward to MSA/CSA numbers. I hope they find a more logical method than lumping counties together. If GR loses out on Ottawa County again, count ourselves screwed for another ten years.

[GRDadof3]

Maps of Grand Rapids by census tract.

Change in population.

Blue = increase in population while orange = decrease.

Population density.

Light purple = 50-250 per sq. mile.

-------------- = 250-1000 per sq. mile.

-------------- = 1000-5000 per sq. mile.

Dark purple = 5000+ per sq. mile.

Vacant housing.

Light Orange = less then 10%

--------------- = 10%-20%

Dark Orange = 20%-30%

Here is an interactive version of the map courtousy of the New York Times.

What's interesting too is the growth downtown and near downtown on the North side. It makes sense, with new projects since 2000 like the Boardwalk, Union Square, Icon, etc..