Will Minneapolis ever see 500,000 again? (St. Paul, Houston: golf, areas, cities)

[northsub]

Originally Posted by knke0204

I think most of you have hit it on the head. What it all comes down to is density. And without housing, you cannot have density. Density eventually establishes the need for jobs, thus increasing office space. One of the few things that will lead to an increased population is families. Minneapolis doesn't have enough of an outside draw to grow in population dramatically. Minneapolis needs to market itself to MSP-Metropolitans as a safe, affordable and clean community. I know as of recently the City of Minneapolis has added many families. Driving around the metro I have noticed the new population signage where places like EP, MG, Plymouth, and BP all over 60,000 residents.


My two cents for MLPS to ever reach 500,000: Increased Density and More Families.

Can you cite a reference? This seems to be repeated a lot on this forum, but I don't think I've ever seen data to back it up.

Census data states that the average family size in Minneapolis went down from 2000 to 2010. Also, the number of families with children decreased by 5% or so.

[uptown_urbanist]

I think it's more accurate to say that some areas of Minneapolis have seen increases in families. Other areas have seen losses. There was a slight increase in the number of children under five, but some of the other age categories shrank slightly, and the census does show that overall family numbers have gone down in the past decade.

I don't think there's been any massive movement into the city by families, but certain areas have either continued in popularity of have seen their youth population grow dramatically. Downtown has had its family population rise dramatically (that's based on census numbers), although overall numbers are still fairly small. MPS has projected student growth in south and southwest (and very slightly in NE), and while I don't know where they're getting their numbers, I assume they're basing their projections on census data. The schools in those areas are filled to capacity. I would guess that perhaps perceptions of increasing families in the city are based on the trends in some (but certainly not all) parts of the city.

[xandrex]

Another thing to consider when talking about families living closer to the city is that Minneapolis is not a perfect circle radiating from downtown. Instead, it's a rectangular-shaped city. So someone who lives in St. Louis Park could be considerably closer to downtown and the core than someone living in the Kenny neighborhood of Minneapolis, for instance. In terms of more families moving closer in, it would be interesting to see if there is a resurgence of families living closer to the core. That would be a better indicator of future growth in the city for families. After all, city boundaries are politically-drawn lines and nothing else.

[northsub]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

I think it's more accurate to say that some areas of Minneapolis have seen increases in families. Other areas have seen losses. There was a slight increase in the number of children under five, but some of the other age categories shrank slightly, and the census does show that overall family numbers have gone down in the past decade.

I don't think there's been any massive movement into the city by families, but certain areas have either continued in popularity of have seen their youth population grow dramatically. Downtown has had its family population rise dramatically (that's based on census numbers), although overall numbers are still fairly small. MPS has projected student growth in south and southwest (and very slightly in NE), and while I don't know where they're getting their numbers, I assume they're basing their projections on census data. The schools in those areas are filled to capacity. I would guess that perhaps perceptions of increasing families in the city are based on the trends in some (but certainly not all) parts of the city.

Isn't the entirety of that increase based on 2 shelters? In census tracts 1261 and 1262 (which are the main part of downtown where people live), 60% of the children under 18 live on 2 blocks: the population on both of these blocks is most likely all in 1 shelter per block (I forget their names, but there's one kind of by the Metrodome and the other by Target Field).

That's hardly the same thing as being discussed with downtown as a choice amongst families with options.

[uptown_urbanist]

No, it wasn't the shelters. It was the area around where they built (building? not sure if it's done -- haven't been to that part of DT recently) the new playground, and reflects all the new condos built along the river. In other words, families with options.

In downtown, new kids on the block | StarTribune.com

I see they also have a North Loop family group now, for those who are interested. Here's their helpful guide to downtown with kids:
http://www.northloop.org/NorthLoopGuide_June2010.pdf (broken link)

We wrote the area off because there aren't yet enough amenities, but it's a great location for anyone with one or both parents working downtown. And while I suppose one could argue that some families are staying put because they had a baby and now can't sell their bachelor pad condo (or can't sell without a loss), but for others it's a definite choice. And once a few families have paved the way it starts to become appealing to other families out there who like the idea of downtown living, but still want their kid to have at least a few other kids in their neighborhood.

[northsub]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

No, it wasn't the shelters. It was the area around where they built (building? not sure if it's done -- haven't been to that part of DT recently) the new playground, and reflects all the new condos built along the river. In other words, families with options.

In downtown, new kids on the block | StarTribune.com

There are 3 census tracts (1261, 1262, and 1044) in the strib article that account for the 444 kids under the age of 5.

Block 1007 in tract 1261 has 107 kids under the age of 5. That block has People Serving People on it.

Block 2047 in tract 1262 has 102 kids under the age of 5. That block has Mary's Place on it.

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

We wrote the area off because there aren't yet enough amenities, but it's a great location for anyone with one or both parents working downtown. And while I suppose one could argue that some families are staying put because they had a baby and now can't sell their bachelor pad condo (or can't sell without a loss), but for others it's a definite choice. And once a few families have paved the way it starts to become appealing to other families out there who like the idea of downtown living, but still want their kid to have at least a few other kids in their neighborhood.

Exactly what we need urban pioneers for.

I can't see living in downtown right now or living without a car (whether that be having my own like I do now or using HourCar), despite my public transit use, but I think downtown could become a VERY great place to live. If I could ever afford a condo right by the St. Anthony Falls, I would be happy to live there, family or not.

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by northsub

There are 3 census tracts (1261, 1262, and 1044) in the strib article that account for the 444 kids under the age of 5.

Block 1007 in tract 1261 has 107 kids under the age of 5. That block has People Serving People on it.

Block 2047 in tract 1262 has 102 kids under the age of 5. That block has Mary's Place on it.

As I said, the numbers are still small. And yes, there are a lot of kids in shelters. That still leaves 200+ young kids who are NOT living in shelters. I can't find the numbers for those specific blocks in 2000 to do a side-by-side comparison, but given that almost 5,000 new homes were added to the city within the past decade and that the overall population in those tracts has grown (and not all from people staying in shelters), I think it's a safe assumption that many of those other children represent the families who DO have options. No one is suggesting that downtown is a family magnet (yet!), but I think it is now registering as on option for more and more families (and couples thinking long-term).

When people talk about families returning to the city, they are generally not talking primarily about downtown, anyway (at least I assume not, as to me, anyway, the "back" refers more to urban neighborhoods once more heavily populated with kids). But however you want to look at it, there are more families with money who are actively choosing to live in condos downtown. And no, the numbers are not large (which I acknowledged) but they are growing, and as downtown overall continues to grow as a place where people live, not just work, it seems reasonable to expect that families will be among those who continue to rent and buy in the new housing options.

[knke0204]

Originally Posted by northsub

Can you cite a reference? This seems to be repeated a lot on this forum, but I don't think I've ever seen data to back it up.

Census data states that the average family size in Minneapolis went down from 2000 to 2010. Also, the number of families with children decreased by 5% or so.

Uptown Urbanist made a good point.

I meant that areas of MPLS have seen an increase in families, others have seen losss. I put that in there to save face I guess. I know if I didn't include that there has been an increase in families there would be a handful of people screaming "Southwest Has seen an increase!!!" arg!

[knke0204]

Future MPLS