Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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.
I don't think that is true. Our ECFE class was filled with primarily families who had moved into the city from the suburbs, and our neighborhood has a lot of suburb-to-city transplants with children. My own childhood neighborhood in Uptown is filled with young kids (elementary age and younger)
It's true that those looking for "new" communities aren't going to be moving to the city (although some are moving to the new buildings downtown), but many young families don't dream of life in a new subdivision. I certainly don't. Obviously some people do, but Minneapolis is definitely still very, very desirable for families looking for city living (and there are a lot of them.).
And you know my opinions on MPS, but I think my old high school (Southwest) can take on any school in the outer 'burbs, at least when it comes to academics.
I don't think that is true. Our ECFE class was filled with primarily families who had moved into the city from the suburbs, and our neighborhood has a lot of suburb-to-city transplants with children. My own childhood neighborhood in Uptown is filled with young kids (elementary age and younger)
It's true that those looking for "new" communities aren't going to be moving to the city (although some are moving to the new buildings downtown), but many young families don't dream of life in a new subdivision. I certainly don't. Obviously some people do, but Minneapolis is definitely still very, very desirable for families looking for city living (and there are a lot of them.).
And you know my opinions on MPS, but I think my old high school (Southwest) can take on any school in the outer 'burbs, at least when it comes to academics.
While I don't doubt anything you're saying, all I can say is numbers speak for themselves. MPLS lost population, and if there was such a great demand for inner-city living, that would be represented by growth in the school districts, new housing development and influx of immigrant populations and new familes. This is represented in areas that did see large growth like the Waconia's and Elk River's of the world, as detailed in the STAR TRIB.
I was also going to say that Southwest has a strong academic and athletic presence for an inner city school (athletics I'm not so sure about anymore)
Minneapolis lost a grand total of 40 people. I don't think that's enough to suggest a movement out of the city. If anything, it might suggest some level of growth, as presumably it demonstrates that there are enough new people coming in to replace older people dying off or moving. There have been many new housing developments in Minneapolis in the past 10 years, significant entry of immigrants, and although traditionally family-oriented neighborhoods like Linden Hills have always been filled with kids, you can see the growth of families in areas like downtown. I'm not sure what the current numbers are, but there's enough that there was demand for the creation of a new downtown playground. I haven't read as much of the analysis of the recent census numbers as I'd like, but I don't think the small loss of residents in Minneapolis is due to families leaving. 2009 numbers actually showed the percentage of families with children in Minneapolis rising, not falling, a direct contrast to the second-ring and exurbs, where the numbers ARE falling as their residents age (those suburbs still have a higher percentage of families with children, but that percentage is dropping). Minneapolis Public Schools has reported a recent increase in kindergartner students in recent years, as well as an increase in ECFE participants. It's pretty interesting stuff -- high school numbers are decreasing (in part due to charters, etc.), but overall elementary student levels are stable in some areas, increasing in others. I think the era of "let's move to the suburbs when we have kids" is pretty much over.
I know a lot of families with kids in South Minneapolis and various neighborhoods of St. Paul, granted many of their kids attend the private catholic schools.
Minneapolis lost a grand total of 40 people. I don't think that's enough to suggest a movement out of the city. If anything, it might suggest some level of growth, as presumably it demonstrates that there are enough new people coming in to replace older people dying off or moving. There have been many new housing developments in Minneapolis in the past 10 years, significant entry of immigrants, and although traditionally family-oriented neighborhoods like Linden Hills have always been filled with kids, you can see the growth of families in areas like downtown. I'm not sure what the current numbers are, but there's enough that there was demand for the creation of a new downtown playground. I haven't read as much of the analysis of the recent census numbers as I'd like, but I don't think the small loss of residents in Minneapolis is due to families leaving. 2009 numbers actually showed the percentage of families with children in Minneapolis rising, not falling, a direct contrast to the second-ring and exurbs, where the numbers ARE falling as their residents age (those suburbs still have a higher percentage of families with children, but that percentage is dropping). Minneapolis Public Schools has reported a recent increase in kindergartner students in recent years, as well as an increase in ECFE participants. It's pretty interesting stuff -- high school numbers are decreasing (in part due to charters, etc.), but overall elementary student levels are stable in some areas, increasing in others. I think the era of "let's move to the suburbs when we have kids" is pretty much over.
Do you know of any data on neighborhoods in Minneapolis that saw growth, versus neighborhoods that saw loss?
Philly saw their first population increase in a long long time, for example. And data showed great gains in the "inner city" and losses in some of the neighborhoods on the outskirts of the city that are experiencing decline. And although these neighborhoods that had loss are part of the city, they actually do show a "back to the city" movement of sorts - in that people want to live in denser, more walkable environments.
So, even if Minneapolis lost 40 people, is there any sort of data about which parts of the city that loss took place in? There's obviously a lot of new construction around Uptown, NE, campus, Downtowns, if you get where I'm going.
The thing that I notice about the twin cities is that they tend to run about ten years behind national trends. The star tribs article about these exurbs like Waconia and Ostego growing reminds me of the second ring growth in Chicago. Eventually it will return to city living again, its just a natural cycle.
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,870,451 times
Reputation: 2501
Quote:
Originally Posted by City eYes
The thing that I notice about the twin cities is that they tend to run about ten years behind national trends. The star tribs article about these exurbs like Waconia and Ostego growing reminds me of the second ring growth in Chicago. Eventually it will return to city living again, its just a natural cycle.
Ah yes, the revitalization of Chicago is impressive indeed -- 200,000+ people left the city in the past 10 years, while the exurbs like Elgin, Aurora, Joliet, etc. saw SUBSTANTIAL growth (they are 50 miles away from the city too).
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,870,451 times
Reputation: 2501
Quote:
Originally Posted by knke0204
While I don't doubt anything you're saying, all I can say is numbers speak for themselves. MPLS lost population, and if there was such a great demand for inner-city living, that would be represented by growth in the school districts, new housing development and influx of immigrant populations and new familes. This is represented in areas that did see large growth like the Waconia's and Elk River's of the world, as detailed in the STAR TRIB.
I was also going to say that Southwest has a strong academic and athletic presence for an inner city school (athletics I'm not so sure about anymore)
Um, Minnetonka, Edina and Wayzata also lost population or have stable population growth......does this mean that these school districts are not in strong demand? No. Growth and quality are not strongly correlated. Does anyone really think Dallas, Atlanta or Las Vegas are the best places to live in this country, since they grew the fastest? I hope not!
Do you know of any data on neighborhoods in Minneapolis that saw growth, versus neighborhoods that saw loss?
Philly saw their first population increase in a long long time, for example. And data showed great gains in the "inner city" and losses in some of the neighborhoods on the outskirts of the city that are experiencing decline. And although these neighborhoods that had loss are part of the city, they actually do show a "back to the city" movement of sorts - in that people want to live in denser, more walkable environments.
So, even if Minneapolis lost 40 people, is there any sort of data about which parts of the city that loss took place in? There's obviously a lot of new construction around Uptown, NE, campus, Downtowns, if you get where I'm going.
I can't find details now, but I'll see what I can dig up; it would be interesting to see if the city mirrors some of the larger trends on a smaller level.
For the school district (which may be a bit different, since kids in some areas may be more likely to go private or charter) the latest MPS information notes that growth in the north/northeast/south/southeast parts of the city is now stabilizing (after some years of growth), while it's still increasing in Zone 3 (which is Southwest and South Minneapolis west of Chicago, as well as downtown and Uptown)
At an ultra-micro level in Uptown (and I will run these numbers later!) my guess would be that the neighborhoods right by the lake (ECCO and East Isles) lost some kids (although not necessarily population) while the Wedge and CARAG have probably seen more growth. ECCO and East Isles are more expensive and have a lot more houses filled with empty nesters, while CARAG in particular is filled with young families these days. Near Uptown, Kingfield has probably seen an increase; those houses are now again filled with larger families, in part because it's been a more affordable option for families who wanted to buy a house but couldn't afford Uptown. I don't know what it's like in neighborhoods like Kenny or Armatage; they might have already had time to go through the aging cycle that's hitting the middle-ring suburbs. There are certainly plenty of older people living in the homes in these neighborhoods, but there are also plenty of younger families moving in, too. I know of multiple people with young kids who have purchased homes from their older parents, so perhaps those numbers are also on the increase as the number of residents in a given house moves from one or two to three, four, five.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
