Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

snoogit

Predict the next census

Where will GR be in 2010?  

75 members have voted

  1. 1. Where will GR be in 2010?

    • 195 - 200,000 pop.
      19
    • 201 - 215,000 pop.
      31
    • 216 - 225,000 pop.
      9
    • 226 - 250,000 pop.
      6
    • 251 - 275,000 pop.
      2
    • 275 - 300,000 pop.
      0
    • 300,000 + pop.
      8


Recommended Posts


city: 205-210. if 210, right there on the nose. that of course would mean a larger increase in younger populations than initially appears. as can be seen in older cities around detroit (royal oak and pontiac) some places still shrink in population even as young residents move in - this is because the large families and original postwar residents are beginning to thin out. in GR this phenomenon is at least as prevalent, if more offset. consequently a grand rapids population increase of even 5,000 people would be a tremendous gain in light of the other variables

metro: kent co. 650k, can't say for the rest. numbers don't give away any details but I think the quality of the population growth has been very high across the county.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Think that such a prediction is dependant upon ones economic predictions. GM is having a hard time and there are many part supplier manufactures in the Area that will be adversely affected. I am not bullish on the economic future of manufacturing strong holds. GR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Freddy C. Having the Calder on a post card is sad for GR. To attract people to GR we need an image of something much more than the Calder. I think most people wouldn't even care if it was torn down. We need a skyline that sticks out in people's minds and shows strength and stability of the region. With an image like that more businesses will want to be located downtown and more people will want to live there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't that the Calder is bad. It IS an internationally known piece of artwork, and I think it would do the city good to encourage MORE public works of this kind. I do however think the monicker of "Calder City" is lame. Chicago has a Calder, so what? We need to be known for the regional hub that we are. I think GRCVB does a good job of marketing West Michigan as Michigan's West Coast (I don't think many outsiders realize how beautiful West Michigan is), but we need something that makes a strong statement. As it stands, I don't think we have one. We need to get something that makes Grand Rapids stand out and immediately identifiable to the world at large.

Maybe we could build an arch? Oh wait, that idea has been taken. :)

Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't that the Calder is bad. It IS an internationally known piece of artwork, and I think it would do the city good to encourage MORE public works of this kind. I do however think the monicker of "Calder City" is lame. Chicago has a Calder, so what? We need to be known for the regional hub that we are. I think GRCVB does a good job of marketing West Michigan as Michigan's West Coast (I don't think many outsiders realize how beautiful West Michigan is), but we need something that makes a strong statement. As it stands, I don't think we have one. We need to get something that makes Grand Rapids stand out and immediately identifiable to the world at large.

Maybe we could build an arch? Oh wait, that idea has been taken. :)

Joe

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Build a giant bowl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very large factor in guessing population is whether you city's school district is losing children or if schools have had to close because of this (with the latter, of course, being much more serious). This indicates entire families moving from the city.

How's Grand Rapids doing on this front?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The size of the GRPS declining does not mean whole families are moving out of the city. Kent County has school of choice for public school districts. You can attend any public school district in the County. Families aren't necessarily leaving the central city, but moving their kids to schools like Godwin Heights, Kentwood, Godfrey Lee, etc....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lansing has a similar school system, and it's definitely still losing people. For this very reason I think if Grand Rapids does indeed grow, it will only be a few thousand people. Also, though predictions and estimates can be wrong, every estimate I've seen of Grand Rapids population since 2000 has it dropping slightly.

This is happening all across Michigan. Downtown growth is usually not enough to offset overall population loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "downtown" sector which will probably see an increase in the 2010 census is 20-30 y/o people. This demographic, while leading the way to the new economy of the city, doesn't come pre-packaged with children or in flocks of thousands. The trends they bring - greater owner-occupation of homes, wealth (hence higher property values,) and demand for high-end services, tend to exert a stabilizing influence on population - not an augmenting influence. all the same, with economic growth and pressure to develop compactly, the city should see continued modest growth. I think many of the population gains of recent decades have been through large annexations anyway.

Lansing has a similar school system, and it's definitely still losing people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The size of the GRPS declining does not mean whole families are moving out of the city. Kent County has school of choice for public school districts. You can attend any public school district in the County. Families aren't necessarily leaving the central city, but moving their kids to schools like Godwin Heights, Kentwood, Godfrey Lee, etc....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The phenomenon of decreasing public school enrollment is born from the trend of decreasing fertility rate of American Women. This fertility crisis is already plaguing Europe and Japan and will constrain their economic growth in the future, via a population drop off in the next 30 years, unless offset by immigration. Women are simply not having enough children to maintain the school enrollment levels of the higher fertility past. This is the natural consequence of the changing role of women in the work place. As women compete more with men for career opportunities, many forgo child bearing in order to matriculate into college, graduate and start their careers. This period of "career" preparation is the prime fertility window for women...which leads to fewer children being born or the abdication of giving birth for career, freedom, or perceived cost of daycare and other expenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh, I think GR should just start annexing the surrounding core... that should jump us up to about 350,000 or so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's definitely a quick way to do it although I think other municipalities would frown on it. ;)

Maybe Grand Rapids should annex Gaines Township to recapture some of the tax base it is losing from Steelcase. :)

Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hows the forumers for this? Aneexation that is...anyone suport it? Any pitfalls that would follow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rizzo,

I think the hardest pill to swallow with annexation would be city taxes. Also, would they then be subject to GR's troubled school system. If the city were to annex a neighboring city/township, I'd think the most likely candidate would be either Wyoming or Walker. The problem is, most of Wyoming wouldn't give them much bang for the buck revenue wise, and I don't think Walker would see the benefit.

Maybe we could steal some property from Kentwood. :ph34r: Woodland mall would be a nice land grab. If you ever look at the city limit boundaries by the mall it is pretty carved up. Grand Rapids has almost everything (including Centrepointe), but Kentwood has Woodland. Who brokered that deal? Kind of reminds me of Manhattan being sold for a couple of beads. ;)

Joe

Hows the forumers for this? Aneexation that is...anyone suport it? Any pitfalls that would follow?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the benefits of regional government are enormous. The problem is that it is usually only those municipalities that stand to gain that propose consolidation. In the mean time, it is a race to the bottom to attract development, and everyone stands to lose out on economies of scale and the benefits of regional planning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support annexation, because it allows for a more regional government. Look at Detroit, with all its tiny little suburbs. Because Detroit was not able to annex any more land after the annexation laws in Michigan were changed in 1926, the city faces an uphill battle with sprawl and a lack of regional cooperation. The lack of cooperation amongst communities in metro Detroit has put the metro further behind others in the country, since every little debate turns the municipalities against each other The economy in the metro area is suffering, and partially because of the lack of regional cooperation.

Michigan has long prided itself on strong local governments. The reason annexation by cities in Michigan was ended in 1926 is because state leaders did not want Detroit to become any more politically powerful by taking control over the other towns in the area.

There are pros and cons to allowing annexation, although I feel that the pros outweigh the cons. Currently annexation in Michigan is rare because voters in both areas involved must approve the annexation before it can occur. Until the annexation laws are changed, don't look for any significant annexations to occur anywhere within the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would vote for anexation if given the chance. There are benefits of a city being 300-400,000 (federal dollars) I think that people of the urban core cities are to proud to join and would shoot it down... away if goes, down in flames. GR could take over the role as city manager and the core cities could act as bouroughs, they could pool resources especially dollars for a metro police and metro fire...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first thing GR needs to do before it seriously considers annexing any suburban territory is to have a full-time mayor. I was afraid of Heartwell being down on development when he was elected, but I'm starting to warm up to his urban planning ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah, I was going to mention that... Full-time, he juggles that between a preaching job and a teaching one... I think he owns a few business also. I knew the day he threw his hat in the ring that he would encourage developments. He has a solid plan for GR; start with the schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah, I was going to mention that... Full-time, he juggles that between a preaching job and a teaching one... I think he owns a few business also. I knew the day he threw his hat in the ring that he would encourage developments. He has a solid plan for GR; start with the schools.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

heh thats why I was afraid, hes a west michigan preacher and I hate to admit but some West Michigan preachers make jerry fallwell look liberal :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.