What is the factor with St. Paul's population decrease? (Minneapolis: 2010, insurance)

[punkerdunker]

Originally Posted by K-Luv

Maybe white folks just like cookie-cutter neighborhoods and planned communities more?

Naw, some white folks just love to drive. I know I don't get enough "car time" living here in the city.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by punkerdunker

Naw, some white folks just love to drive. I know I don't get enough "car time" living here in the city.

While probably you meant it as a joke, some of us actually *do* enjoy driving; my wife and I do what quite a bit, actually, mainly exploring areas of town that we've never been before, or just driving around to see what might be new.

We did it in the Twin Cities, and we still do it here in Atlanta.

[Lillietta]

Minorities like cookie cutters and planned places as well as the next guy; might be a little expensive for them.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by K-Luv

Ah, I meant to say 'decreasing'.

Look at who is moving to the suburbs, and you will find that, in general, it is not minorities. Whether it is "white flight" or not, I couldn't tell you. Maybe white folks just like cookie-cutter neighborhoods and planned communities more?

Not that I can speak for all suburbs but I would have to say that our town is probably as racially diverse as the state averages. Why would you expect that to be different?

[K-Luv]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Why would you expect that to be different?

Your particular suburb?

[Minnehahapolitan]

What does that say about our state averages? We aren't the most diverse of states. It isn't a bad thing. According to Wikipedia, Rosemount is 93% White, Minnesota is 86%. About statistically even, IMO.

[pirate_lafitte]

Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan

What does that say about our state averages? We aren't the most diverse of states. It isn't a bad thing. According to Wikipedia, Rosemount is 93% White, Minnesota is 86%. About statistically even, IMO.

Maybe not a bad thing. What I am talking about is considering The Twin Cities state of affairs, a decreasing population seems very strange. Some of the suburbs are even having decreasing population. I know MPLS-St.Paul are not perfect, but they're much safer than Atlanta. Atlanta has had a large population increase over the last few years. Irony: Atlanta is a violent city, more so than the Twin Cities ever has been, even during the year of "murderapolis", Atlanta had more murders. This year I heard MPLS has 38 murders(as of 10/17/07). Enough about murders. Let's talk about the popualtion decrease. I see both cities(MPLS and St. Paul) as cities that are relatively better places to live in. Not perfect, but it does strike my curiosity to why St. Paul or Minneapolis would have decreasing populations. I could understand if this was St. Louis, Buffalo, or Cleveland.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte

Maybe not a bad thing. What I am talking about is considering The Twin Cities state of affairs, a decreasing population seems very strange. Some of the suburbs are even having decreasing population. I know MPLS-St.Paul are not perfect, but they're much safer than Atlanta. Atlanta has had a large population increase over the last few years. Irony: Atlanta is a violent city, more so than the Twin Cities ever has been, even during the year of "murderapolis", Atlanta had more murders. This year I heard MPLS has 38 murders(as of 10/17/07). Enough about murders. Let's talk about the popualtion decrease. I see both cities(MPLS and St. Paul) as cities that are relatively better places to live in. Not perfect, but it does strike my curiosity to why St. Paul or Minneapolis would have decreasing populations. I could understand if this was St. Louis, Buffalo, or Cleveland.

While the Atlanta metro area has been growing very quickly, the City of Atlanta itself hasn't grown much since the 1960's, and most of that population growth has been through the annexation of territory.

1960 - 487,000 (metro 1,312,474)

1970 - 497,000 (metro 1,763,626)

1980 - 425,000 (metro 2,233,324)

1990 - 394,017 (metro 2,959,950)

2000 - 416,474 (metro 4,112,198)

2005 - 470,688 (metro 5,103,766)

2006 - 487,463 (metro 5,240,531) saw the first significant annexations to the city since 1952, in the southwest area around Cascade Road, adding about 5,000 residents. The Sandtown community (population 17,000) has petitioned for annexation as well.

2007 - 498,109 (metro 5,314,283)

[Minnehahapolitan]

The Met Council believes the city to be nearing 400,000. Mpls. is growing. (The Census Bureau doesn't know S***. They have miscalculated Saint Louis a couple censuses running. The City of St. L. calculates their own numbers simultaneously and contests the bureau the day after the census is released) Saint Paul is statistically stagnant. It grows a few thousand, then falls a few thousand. It is down by about 50,000 from its population height, but isn't actively declining. The inner suburbs are the same way. An old elderly couple will move out of the family home, and a single person will move in. That isn't bad, or a sign of something malicious. There are reasons that the two core cities are down from their height, and it isn't urban prairies or burned out houses. There are simply smaller families. It is a healthier city today than it was in 1960. Also, Northern cities don't annex. If Mpls. was in the south, it would include half of Hennepin County and have a population of 850,000.

[golfgal]

The census counts are only as good as those that get returned. Historically lower income people and immigrants don't return their census forms and since St. Paul and Minneapolis have a higher concentration of those populations, their counts are going to be off always.