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.
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.
All you people are dillusional.
Sure, MPLS is great, but it's going to get swallowed whole by real growing places that are attractiving innovation, jobs, research and manufacturing. If you're content with MPLS having a steady 360,000 -385,000 people from the 80s forward, that's great. Personally, I'd like to see the city grow to around 500,000 people. Its not going to happen without new jobs and dense development, and attracting families.
Typical Minnesotans, just content with their sleepy 385,000 town in the midwest.
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 dont get it? Are you saying the census was wrong? Again, look at the data. MPLS and it's residents act like MPLS is the next big up and coming midwestern metropolis, but it's sat stagnantly at about 385,000 people for the past 30 years. Nobody is moving to MPLS, nobody wants to live in MPLS. People would rather send their kids to good schools and live in clean new suburbs, the data speaks for itself.
I don't get how you can say "the era of let's move to the suburbs when we have kids" is pretty much over. Everyone I know is moving to suburbs and buying homes A) because it's affordable B) it's nice C) the city is too much to deal with ie crime, etc.
Maybe we roll in different circles like you have suggested before. But I'm not buying the whole "MPLS has growing areas, and it has nice schools and people are going to stop moving to the suburbs and start moving to MPLS"...
Even the immigrants from the late 80s and througout the 90s (hmong and somali) are starting to move to the suburbs.
Why would you buy a 60 year old pile of junk house in some old deterriorating neighborhood in MPLS when you can buy something brand new in a clean nice neighborhood in Plymouth? or Woodbury?
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!
Minnetonka, Edina and Wayzata aren't huge regional anchor cities like MPLS, so you can't compare.
Growth and quality are perfectly correlated. New residents means new development. New Development means new taxes. New taxes means better public service provision. Better public services are schools, sidewalks, streets, water/sewer, police, fire.
Idk, but better schools, streets, sidewalks, and police protection are all nice qualities I look for in moving to a place.
I dont get it? Are you saying the census was wrong? Again, look at the data. MPLS and it's residents act like MPLS is the next big up and coming midwestern metropolis, but it's sat stagnantly at about 385,000 people for the past 30 years. Nobody is moving to MPLS, nobody wants to live in MPLS. People would rather send their kids to good schools and live in clean new suburbs, the data speaks for itself.
I don't get how you can say "the era of let's move to the suburbs when we have kids" is pretty much over. Everyone I know is moving to suburbs and buying homes A) because it's affordable B) it's nice C) the city is too much to deal with ie crime, etc.
Maybe we roll in different circles like you have suggested before. But I'm not buying the whole "MPLS has growing areas, and it has nice schools and people are going to stop moving to the suburbs and start moving to MPLS"...
Even the immigrants from the late 80s and througout the 90s (hmong and somali) are starting to move to the suburbs.
Why would you buy a 60 year old pile of junk house in some old deterriorating neighborhood in MPLS when you can buy something brand new in a clean nice neighborhood in Plymouth? or Woodbury?
What are you talking about? No, I'm not saying the census was wrong, I'm just saying that losing 40 people is statistically insignificant. I'm also saying that those 40 people are not necessary reflective of people with families leaving the city, or people leaving the city to have families. If anything, people with kids seem to be making a return to the city, and are perhaps counteracting some of the general aging trends and the resulting population through things like death.
And yes, people are moving to the suburbs (and in more recent years, immigrants have definitely contributed to the numbers of suburbs like Richfield and other inner-ring suburbs). They're also moving to the city. Obviously you don't want to buy a nice older house (way older than 60 years) in the city, but walk around a city neighborhood and you'll find plenty of people who think the idea of living in Woodbury to be horrific. To each his own, but it's pretty clear that there are a LOT of younger people, including those starting families, who DO prefer urban living. Maybe your view is skewed because you live in a suburb and are around people who have chosen that lifestyle, but if you look at some of the actual numbers -- NOT overall numbers (because you don't know who those lost 40 people are), there's no proof that young people with kids are leaving the city. If anything, they seem to be returning.
And yes, I would like to see those numbers increase. Just because I think that saying "no one wants to live in the city! Everyone is leaving!" because there was a grand total loss of 40 people doesn't mean that I wouldn't like to see the city actually see more growth.
If you look around Minneapolis today you'll see plenty of examples of development. You'll also see many families moving IN. Meanwhile, the era of nonstop growth in the suburbs came to a screeching halt. The census numbers reflect the boom in the early 2000s, not the end of the decade.
Last edited by uptown_urbanist; 03-26-2011 at 02:05 PM..
What are you talking about? No, I'm not saying the census was wrong, I'm just saying that losing 40 people is statistically insignificant. I'm also saying that those 40 people are not necessary reflective of people with families leaving the city, or people leaving the city to have families. If anything, people with kids seem to be making a return to the city, and are perhaps counteracting some of the general aging trends and the resulting population through things like death.
And yes, people are moving to the suburbs. They're also moving to the city. Obviously you don't want to buy a nice older house (way older than 60 years) in the city, but walk around a city neighborhood and you'll find plenty of people who think the idea of living in Woodbury to be horrific. To each his own, but it's pretty clear that there are a LOT of younger people, including those starting families, who DO prefer urban living. Maybe your view is skewed because you live in a suburb and are around people who have chosen that lifestyle, but if you look at some of the actual numbers -- NOT overall numbers (because you don't know who those lost 40 people are), there's no proof that young people with kids are leaving the city. If anything, they seem to be returning.
And yes, I would like to see those numbers increase. Just because I think that saying "no one wants to live in the city! Everyone is leaving!" because there was a grand total loss of 40 people doesn't mean that I wouldn't like to see the city actually see more growth.
If you look around Minneapolis today you'll see plenty of examples of development. You'll also see many families moving IN. Meanwhile, the era of nonstop growth in the suburbs came to a screeching halt. The census numbers reflect the boom in the early 2000s, not the end of the decade.
Lol, I just realized that 60 yrs ago is only 1950. Wow. Actually was having a conversation the other day and someone was saying how it's been almost 70 years since the end of WWII.
Now back to topic. I guess the silver lining for me is that while plenty of midwest cities lost #'s, MPLS held tight, especially when the later half of the decade was ruined by a recession.
I think 20 years from now, or whenever in the future they'll look back and see the time from late 90's to 2006 as a huge boom and 2006/7 to about 2014 (when I think this stuff will be over) as this sloth of a time period. We live in a weird time right now, everything is so messed up and it's definitely playing a role in how we relocate and where we relocate.
I grew up in a sleepy exurb (now an exurb, was the country) during a time when MANY folks moved out of the 'city'. I know @slig feels the same way, but I think that many from our generation don't want that - slow, sleepy exurban town, they'd rather be closer to the city.
I'd love to live in MPLS like I've said before, it's not in the cards. Not for a young, single male. I want to own a home in a nice neighborhood and my fear is that I could only afford something in MPLS that's in a sketchy neighborhood at best. I could see myself settling down in an inner ring suburb like Golden Valley, Fridley, St. Louis Park, Hopkins but then I'm stuck somewhat in the same predicament... Older homes, $$, and sketchy neighborhoods.
I heard recently that a large percentage (can't remember what it was, unfortunately, but it was significant) of Richfield's newest residents -- or at least those buying first houses in recent years -- were moving there after renting in Minneapolis. They are presumably people who are in a similar predicament; they don't want to live in an exurb, but they can't afford to buy where they'd like to buy in Minneapolis. They can't afford, say, Southwest Minneapolis, but they can get an affordable house in a safe neighborhood in a convenient location. I agree (I think we're in agreement on this?) that the inner-ring suburbs are going to be a popular destination for younger people and families who are looking for a more urban environment at a relatively affordable price. I think city neighborhoods will remain desirable for many families, but it's also true that neighborhoods like Uptown remain relatively affordable for many young families who want to own a house. There are still a lot of families living there, but my impression is that the demographics might veer a bit towards the slightly older parents; not sure if that's true, but it would make sense. The 30-something career couple starting a family has had more years to save money and build careers and income than, say, the average 25-year-old buying a house. I prefer Uptown myself, but I can certainly see the appeal of parts of Richfield, St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Robbinsdale, etc.
I heard recently that a large percentage (can't remember what it was, unfortunately, but it was significant) of Richfield's newest residents -- or at least those buying first houses in recent years -- were moving there after renting in Minneapolis. They are presumably people who are in a similar predicament; they don't want to live in an exurb, but they can't afford to buy where they'd like to buy in Minneapolis. They can't afford, say, Southwest Minneapolis, but they can get an affordable house in a safe neighborhood in a convenient location. I agree (I think we're in agreement on this?) that the inner-ring suburbs are going to be a popular destination for younger people and families who are looking for a more urban environment at a relatively affordable price. I think city neighborhoods will remain desirable for many families, but it's also true that neighborhoods like Uptown remain relatively affordable for many young families who want to own a house. There are still a lot of families living there, but my impression is that the demographics might veer a bit towards the slightly older parents; not sure if that's true, but it would make sense. The 30-something career couple starting a family has had more years to save money and build careers and income than, say, the average 25-year-old buying a house. I prefer Uptown myself, but I can certainly see the appeal of parts of Richfield, St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Robbinsdale, etc.
Cities themselves are becomming quite expensive places to live. Living in the city has its good points. Relatively nice access to places. Unfortunately, cost of living plays a big factor.
Cities themselves are becoming quite expensive places to live. Living in the city has its good points. Relatively nice access to places. Unfortunately, cost of living plays a big factor.
OTOH, suburbia has been able to disguise their initial costs through highway subsidies and purchase of cheap farmland. Those great land deals were one-time events, and suburban govt's are always on the lookout for new revenue sources.
OTOH, suburbia has been able to disguise their initial costs through highway subsidies and purchase of cheap farmland. Those great land deals were one-time events, and suburban govt's are always on the lookout for new revenue sources.
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,870,451 times
Reputation: 2501
Quote:
Originally Posted by knke0204
Minnetonka, Edina and Wayzata aren't huge regional anchor cities like MPLS, so you can't compare.
Growth and quality are perfectly correlated. New residents means new development. New Development means new taxes. New taxes means better public service provision. Better public services are schools, sidewalks, streets, water/sewer, police, fire.
Idk, but better schools, streets, sidewalks, and police protection are all nice qualities I look for in moving to a place.
Growth and quality are NOT strongly correlated....again, do you think Las Vegas is the best metro in the country? Do you think New York City or Boston are among the worst (slower growing)? Growth means this: an imbalance in supply and demand. Since it's so cheap to live in the South, people are moving in droves to offset the incredible expense of living in "world class" cities. To me this doesn't equate to greatness, more of a market adjustment.
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.
