Will Minneapolis ever see 500,000 again? (St. Paul, Minnetonka: new home, purchase, school districts)

[prairiestate]

It's seems unlikely looking back at the past decade. The trends for both cities seem pretty negative.

MinnPost - Cityscape: Census 2010: Can a metro area so sharply divided by income, race and geography continue to thrive on the national stage?

[uptown_urbanist]

I think there's still hope; new development in the Uptown/Lyn-Lake area has really picked up recently (mostly upscale, but there's a proposal for lofts in the former Buzza/Lehmann Center building on Lake and Colfax), and a recent SW Journal article noted that upscale apartments at Blue were 96% occupied; the trend definitely seems to suggest that Uptown, anyway, has a market for the upscale housing and residents referenced in the MinnPost article.

[mnmike]

That study that Prairiestate posted is the first I have seen that shows an estimated decrease in population in Minneapolis from 2000 to 2010...most I have seen put the city around 385-390.

Here is my little rant on US census bureau estimates...
It should be pointed out that in 1999, the census bureau estimated the population of Minneapolis to be 353,000, which was down 15k from the 1990 census. When the 2000 numbers came out, the population of Mpls was 382,000, an error of nearly 30,000 people. When the first estimates after 2000 came out, the bureau had the population steadily declining again all the way back to 372,000 around 2006, then they reversed their trend and put the city back at 377,000 around 2008. I think their estimates are pretty flawed, and like to extrapolate inner city decline more than it is actually happening. I think their estimates of sharp decline right after census 2000 are incorrect, and either way you look at it, the (usually flawed, as I am saying) census bureau estimates show population gains the last few years of the decade. I don't think the city will grow as much as we would like when the 2010 numbers come out, or as we had hoped it would before the economy went sour, but I am fairly certain it will be up at least a little bit from the 382,000 in 2010. I am very interested to see actually.

Anyhow...it is disappointing that our central cities are not gaining population as fast as Denver and Seattle, which they seemed poised to do several years ago...but I do think the trend will still be up.

[mnmike]

For some reason, that Minnpost article used the 2006 estimates, or something, wherever they got their numbers, it wasn't from the US census 09' estimates. Here is an article describing the more recent trends...or how the US. Census bureau sees them anyway. I just really don't buy that the city dropped the 10,000(that is way too significant of a change for a few years where nothing special happened) that they say it did the first few years of the decade...which were fairly prosperous years at that....so really I think their estimates are off for the whole decade, just as they were last census. Like I say, I am very interested to see what the actual numbers show!



Minneapolis population grew slightly from 2000 to '09; St. Paul's fell

Minneapolis / St. Paul Business Journal - by Mark Reilly

Date: Friday, September 10, 2010, 12:25pm CDT - Last Modified: Friday, September 10, 2010, 2:06pm CDT


Read more: Minneapolis population grew slightly from 2000 to '09; St. Paul's fell | Minneapolis / St. Paul Business Journal

Minneapolis grew a smidgen between 2000 to 2009, adding just under 1 percent to its population base, according to revised population figures released Friday by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Meanwhile, population in St. Paul and Bloomington — Minnesota's next two-largest cities — dropped.
Minneapolis added 2,631 people over the 10 years, a 0.69 percent increase, resulting in a population of 385,378 people in 2009. The city actually lost people between the years of 2000 and 2004, after which population began to climb again as construction of condominiums and other high-density housing brought more people into Minneapolis; measured against its 2004 nadir, the 2009 population represents a 2.5 percent increase.

[Mason3000]

Originally Posted by Slig

Could you cite that please?

This is the internet, it's on you, not on the poster if you want a citation. Try Google.

[west336]

It's going to take a monumental effort to add over 100K residents to an already nearly 100% occupied city with no room to grow but up! I'm all for it, and I think there should be a 2050 plan or something that focuses re-development along the busiest corridors in the city. Essentially leveling minimally-used parcels along major thoroughfares like Lowry, Nicollet, Portland, etc. Anywhere where a bus, trolly or train can take you from point A to point B without the need for a car.

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by west336

It's going to take a monumental effort to add over 100K residents to an already nearly 100% occupied city with no room to grow but up! I'm all for it, and I think there should be a 2050 plan or something that focuses re-development along the busiest corridors in the city. Essentially leveling minimally-used parcels along major thoroughfares like Lowry, Nicollet, Portland, etc. Anywhere where a bus, trolly or train can take you from point A to point B without the need for a car.

Check out the Minneapolis Plan for Sustainable Development (not for 2050, but close enough):
The Minneapolis Plan for Sustainable Growth

I think there's actually a great deal of space for infill building. There are empty lots even now in Uptown (although the cranes are now filling the sky as work begins on some of them) and there's also a great deal of opportunities for alley-facing housing (granny flats, etc.) and other infill options. I agree that focusing larger development along major corridors makes a great deal of sense.

[west336]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

Check out the Minneapolis Plan for Sustainable Development (not for 2050, but close enough):
The Minneapolis Plan for Sustainable Growth

I think there's actually a great deal of space for infill building. There are empty lots even now in Uptown (although the cranes are now filling the sky as work begins on some of them) and there's also a great deal of opportunities for alley-facing housing (granny flats, etc.) and other infill options. I agree that focusing larger development along major corridors makes a great deal of sense.

Well and what I like most about that approach is that it preserves the character of the remaining 95% of the city. So while it's very urban along urban corridors and thoroughfares, its "classic" Minneapolis neighborhoods hardly feel the impact.

[Cruz Azul Guy]

The neighborhoods along Hiawatha have been growing in recent years and will continue to grow as the industrial buildings along the corridor are demolished and converted into mixed use commercial/residential. They just recently demolished one of the larger buildings a month ago or so.

If you drive around neighborhoods like Phillips there are actually a substantial number of empty lots where additional housing could be built.

Honestly, I think there is plenty of room in Minneapolis to increase the population well above 500,000.

[knke0204]

You all are missing out on a very important factor: Families and the size of them.

There are less and less families these days, and less and less people are in these families. LIke someone alluded to earlier "For every young hipster that moves into MPLS, there is a family of 4 that moves out" and this is true. For new families looking to have children, buy a home and put their kids through a nice school, MPLS and STP aren't the answer. The schools aren't that good, housing quality is pretty bad, and it's not very affordable (MPLS and Hennepin County). Why would a young family live in MPLS when they work in the 'burbs, grew up in the 'burbs and can purchase a new home for very cheap in the exurbs.

Places like Otsego, Elk River, Waconia, St. Michael, Monticello, Rogers, Albertville, Big Lake, etc. are more attractive A-because they can get into a new, cheap home, and B- the schools are 1000x better than anything in MPLS.

Sure, Minneapolis is great for 20-something urban professionals and hipsters in Uptown, or homey Nordeasters', colleged aged Dinkytowners and for big-money condo dwellers downtown, but not for a young family looking to live in a quite, affordable, new, clean and respectable community. That's just the way it is. Are there places in MPLS that can be affordable, clean, new safe and all that? Sure, but it just doesn't compare to the vast amoutn of options in the exurbs.