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

[Minnehahapolitan]

Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte

That would make sense. I just thought the a decrease in population often meant either jobs were scarce or something else was going on.

Actually, that is just as much a problem between different parts of Mpls. as it is between Mpls. and its suburbs. Most of that has to do with class. Let me explain. If you are a lawyer, and you want to live and work downtown (or Uptown, or in Saint Anthony) you are almost guaranteed to be able to do so. Same if you work in finance, or in government. All those jobs, though, require degrees. If you are poor, you are most likely working for low wages in retail, services, et cetera. A greater proportion of those jobs are outside the city or in wealthy areas. Hotels in Bloomington, retail in Minnetonka or Roseville, services in Uptown. Now if you are living on the Northside, getting to Uptown every morning on bus can be fairly difficult. Getting to Ridgedale by bus is impossible. I think they may actually stop you at the Edina city line. The bottom line is, there are disturbingly few jobs for poor people where poor people live. It may not have much to do with population loss, but it compounds the effect of poverty on families.

[Ben Around]

I just read in the paper that in 2000, there were 9,000 people living in downtown St Paul. Today's estimate is something like 1,400. Overall, the city's pop is no where near where it was at its zenith in 1960, but I think more households are moving into the city than anytime since WWII. It's just that the households are much smaller than they were back in the 50s.

[knke0402]

It isn't anything out of the norm.

Most cities in the midwest and east coast have lost populations steadily since the 1950s and 1960s. Minneapolis had over 500,000 people in the 50s and 60s. Detroit once had nearly 2 million people. St. Louis was well over 1 million. Cleveland, Cincinatti, Nashville are all the same.

That is when Minneapolis had 500,000 people and Maple Grove, Plymouth, Blaine, and Burnsville were mere vast farm lands. Now those communites are home to 70,000 80,000 65,000 and 70,000 people respectfully, and MPLS is stuck at 360,000.

I do agree that more people than ever are moving back into big cities. People are realizing that suburbs,- although safe and clean and full of money, are basically monotonous, boring, ugly, uninteresing, uncharacteristic. Also, spending a crap load of money to get into the city for work isnt a trade off anymore. That used to be peoples reasoning- "Oh, Ill get a cheaper home further away..I'll have to pay more for fuel, but it all works itself out." Well gas isnt cheap-well, now it is- but hasnt been, just as everything else these days. People are willing to buy places in the inner cities, that now go for cheaper than many suburban places- and not pay as much for gas.

[Minnehahapolitan]

Minneapolis hasn't has 360,000 people in decades. Depending on who you ask, it is currently somewhere between 382,000 and 400,000.

[Minnehahapolitan]

Originally Posted by Ben Around

I just read in the paper that in 2000, there were 9,000 people living in downtown St Paul. Today's estimate is something like 1,400. Overall, the city's pop is no where near where it was at its zenith in 1960, but I think more households are moving into the city than anytime since WWII. It's just that the households are much smaller than they were back in the 50s.

Who said that there were only 1,400 people living in donwtown Saint Paul?

[mnduck]

Originally Posted by knke0402

It isn't anything out of the norm.

Most cities in the midwest and east coast have lost populations steadily since the 1950s and 1960s. Minneapolis had over 500,000 people in the 50s and 60s. Detroit once had nearly 2 million people. St. Louis was well over 1 million. Cleveland, Cincinatti, Nashville are all the same.

That is when Minneapolis had 500,000 people and Maple Grove, Plymouth, Blaine, and Burnsville were mere vast farm lands. Now those communites are home to 70,000 80,000 65,000 and 70,000 people respectfully, and MPLS is stuck at 360,000.

I do agree that more people than ever are moving back into big cities. People are realizing that suburbs,- although safe and clean and full of money, are basically monotonous, boring, ugly, uninteresing, uncharacteristic. Also, spending a crap load of money to get into the city for work isnt a trade off anymore. That used to be peoples reasoning- "Oh, Ill get a cheaper home further away..I'll have to pay more for fuel, but it all works itself out." Well gas isnt cheap-well, now it is- but hasnt been, just as everything else these days. People are willing to buy places in the inner cities, that now go for cheaper than many suburban places- and not pay as much for gas.

While your point is generally well-taken, I think it is important to recognize who the "people" are that you are talking about. Yes, (relatively affluent) white people are moving back into the cities... at least in certain parts of the country. Part of this is due to demographics. A large segment of this population is aging/retiring, and thus no longer has a need for the extra space in the suburbs. The younger segment of this population is also staying 'young' longer- meaning that they are delaying marriage/starting a family, or opting not to have kids at all, things that have historically correlated (on a large scale) with movement to the suburbs.

There is a flip side to this, however. Black populations in cities across the US are actually declining- fueled in part by outmigration to the suburbs- and suburbs now house a larger share of immigrants and individuals in poverty than central cities do. This is why Minnehahapolitan's point is particularly important- rich people can generally live wherever they want, but their presence generally raises rents and pushes poor people out. An interesting analysis of this can be found here:

The End of White Flight - WSJ.com

This is why I think when you are so quick to celebrate a 'return to urbanity', it is important to look at the big picture. As much as it sucks to be poor in the inner city, at least you have access to transit and can walk to stuff- in the suburbs, being poor becomes that much more difficult. This is why I think cities and suburbs need to work together in light of these demographic shifts so already-existing inequalities don't become exacerbated.

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan

Who said that there were only 1,400 people living in donwtown Saint Paul?

Sorry, my typo! It was 14,000.

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by knke0402

It isn't anything out of the norm.

Most cities in the midwest and east coast have lost populations steadily since the 1950s and 1960s. Minneapolis had over 500,000 people in the 50s and 60s. Detroit once had nearly 2 million people. St. Louis was well over 1 million. Cleveland, Cincinatti, Nashville are all the same.

That is when Minneapolis had 500,000 people and Maple Grove, Plymouth, Blaine, and Burnsville were mere vast farm lands. Now those communites are home to 70,000 80,000 65,000 and 70,000 people respectfully, and MPLS is stuck at 360,000.

I do agree that more people than ever are moving back into big cities. People are realizing that suburbs,- although safe and clean and full of money, are basically monotonous, boring, ugly, uninteresing, uncharacteristic. Also, spending a crap load of money to get into the city for work isnt a trade off anymore. That used to be peoples reasoning- "Oh, Ill get a cheaper home further away..I'll have to pay more for fuel, but it all works itself out." Well gas isnt cheap-well, now it is- but hasnt been, just as everything else these days. People are willing to buy places in the inner cities, that now go for cheaper than many suburban places- and not pay as much for gas.

In addition to gas prices, many don't want the lengthy commute times that swell when there is congestion. This bodes well for the central cities, but I wonder what effect the North Star Line will have on this. Also, if the pro-highway crowd ever gets their way, will more lanes lead to shorter commute times and ease up the demand for the city? (I know people say you can't build your way out of congestion. I'm not so sure I believe that. I wish it were true. I am a city dweller, Metro transit commuter, friend of the environment who, if I had my way, would actually REDUCE the number of freeways lanes. )

[MplsTodd]

Originally Posted by knke0402

Most cities in the midwest and east coast have lost populations steadily since the 1950s and 1960s. Minneapolis had over 500,000 people in the 50s and 60s.

Minneapolis did have about 521,000 in 1950, (reflecting an increase from 490,000 in 1940) but declined to 480,000 in 1960 and 434,000 in 1970.

I think the high population in 1950 is largely attributable to GI's and their brides still living with their moms and dads before they saved enough to move into their post-war rambler.

The loss in the '50s, '60s and '70s also was exacerbated by all the homes lost when I-35W was rammed through south Minneapolis (plus other freeways that were built).

I think there will continue to be increased interest in living in the central city and the inner ring suburbs (especially those with amenities).

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by mnduck

While your point is generally well-taken, I think it is important to recognize who the "people" are that you are talking about. Yes, (relatively affluent) white people are moving back into the cities... at least in certain parts of the country. Part of this is due to demographics. A large segment of this population is aging/retiring, and thus no longer has a need for the extra space in the suburbs. The younger segment of this population is also staying 'young' longer- meaning that they are delaying marriage/starting a family, or opting not to have kids at all, things that have historically correlated (on a large scale) with movement to the suburbs.

There is a flip side to this, however. Black populations in cities across the US are actually declining- fueled in part by outmigration to the suburbs- and suburbs now house a larger share of immigrants and individuals in poverty than central cities do. This is why Minnehahapolitan's point is particularly important- rich people can generally live wherever they want, but their presence generally raises rents and pushes poor people out. An interesting analysis of this can be found here:

The End of White Flight - WSJ.com

This is why I think when you are so quick to celebrate a 'return to urbanity', it is important to look at the big picture. As much as it sucks to be poor in the inner city, at least you have access to transit and can walk to stuff- in the suburbs, being poor becomes that much more difficult. This is why I think cities and suburbs need to work together in light of these demographic shifts so already-existing inequalities don't become exacerbated.

Good points.

This is a tough one for me, as I am both a a city-lover and a believer in social justice. Decades ago, when I was a child living in city in the Northeast, it was a prosperous place with a strong industrail/manufacturing base. Most of the neighborhoods were safe and relatively well-kept. The public schools were some of the best in the state. My neighborhood was fantastic, with great neighbors, lots of little mom & pop shops and recreational opportunities in walking distance. When we kids needed something not in the neighborhood (movies, swim lessons, scout meetings, library, etc.) we'd simply catch the bus to where we needed to go.

When I was about 12, huge numbers of poor folks began migrating to the city from the rural South, attracted by the industrial jobs. Neighborhoods began to change in their ethnic and racial make-ups. Unfortunately, many of the new migrants were from disfunctional families and didn't share some of the same values as thier new neighbors. Tension rose between the newcomers and the old timers. "White flight" began slowly, but one summer there was a riot when several people were killed, and the trickle turned to a flood.

The once-great schools began to decline because more students came from homes where education was not valued. People who otherwise would have stayed in the city felt they had to move because their neighborhood schools were disbanded by school busing to assure racial balance among the neighborhoods. The schools their kids were assigned to were sometimes chaotic, and houses in the suburbs were cheap and plentiful--it was a no-brainer for many.

Meanwhile, people like my grandmother who had little resources and didn't drive became isolated in their neighborhoods. She had lived within 1 mile of her birth place in the middle of the city all her life and had loved living there. She had no desire to move to the burbs. But when the neighborhood changed, she no longer felt safe as she had before the transition, as muggings, robberies and violence descended on the neighborhood. The last straw came when she was walking to the supermarket one day and the police picked her up and drove her back to her aprtment. They told her she was a walking target and warned her not to walk anymore, even in daylight.

So I am taking a long time to tell you a boring story to say there are 2 sides to every story. I don't think the city belongs to the people who live there now any more than it belonged to the people in my hometown who had built it.

I agree we need to work on solutions that assure access to jobs for everyone, while revitalizing city neighborhoods at the same time. Until we get an economically just society, I don't have lots of hope that the "have-nots" will all become "haves" in our lifetime. They have to live somewhere, and they have to have opportunites for gainful employment. But I am not ready to completely abandon the city to desolation and hopelessness.