The 1950-2012 table is interesting. While the city was losing 1,100,000 people, the metro area (which *includes* the city) was gaining 1,100,000. That means that, if 1,100,000 moved from the city to its suburbs, *a second* 1,100,000 were moving into the metro area from other parts of the state / country. This place is actually *growing*! (Admittedly, the compound growth rate is small -- just over half a percentage point per year -- but it's still growth.)
I dislike consolidation, and it looks like Detroit's suburbs will have the votes to stop that. And well they should -- all it does is stick them with the political bills somebody else ran up 30 years ago. Why should they have to pay off someone else's profligate debts?