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

[Veridian]

City centers began to decline in large part due to increased automobile ownership as well as the infrastructure (such as the interstates) needed for the automobile. Once people could leave crowded cities, many did.

Secondly, there has been a significant migration of population to the south and west in the U.S. for decades. This was in large part spurred on by the proliferation of air conditioning.

In other words, St. Paul's population has declined due to cars and air conditioning.

If you compare states and cities impacted by the mass-migrations from city centers and from the northern and eastern parts of the country, you'll find that Minnesota and the Twin Cities hold up relatively well. In large part that is due to the fact that our infrastructure and quality of life are superior to those in most other parts of the country.

[Minnehahapolitan]

Originally Posted by Ben Around

Sorry, my typo! It was 14,000.

Scared the **** out of me!

[Minnehahapolitan]

Originally Posted by Ben Around

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.

Where in Northeast did you grow up? I never remember it being that bad.

[MplsTodd]

Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan

Where in Northeast did you grow up? I never remember it being that bad.

He said "the Northeast" (as in Massachusetts), not Northeast (as in Nordeast Mpls). Or at least that's how I interpretted it.

[Minnehahapolitan]

Originally Posted by MplsTodd

He said "the Northeast" (as in Massachusetts), not Northeast (as in Nordeast Mpls). Or at least that's how I interpretted it.

...like I ever needed reading comprehension.....

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan

Where in Northeast did you grow up? I never remember it being that bad.

No, the Northeast U.S. Speicifally, upstate NY.

[Slig]

I hope it wasn't Syracuse.

[pirate_lafitte]

Originally Posted by Veridian

City centers began to decline in large part due to increased automobile ownership as well as the infrastructure (such as the interstates) needed for the automobile. Once people could leave crowded cities, many did.

Secondly, there has been a significant migration of population to the south and west in the U.S. for decades. This was in large part spurred on by the proliferation of air conditioning.

In other words, St. Paul's population has declined due to cars and air conditioning.

If you compare states and cities impacted by the mass-migrations from city centers and from the northern and eastern parts of the country, you'll find that Minnesota and the Twin Cities hold up relatively well. In large part that is due to the fact that our infrastructure and quality of life are superior to those in most other parts of the country.

I figured the car would have something to do with it, but the population decrease has continued to now. I figured if a city has a continual population decrease, there must be something going badly with that city, but I could think of anything major in St. Paul, or Mpls. I know there may have been a few jobs losses during the 1970s, but the Twin Cities area isn't the Rust Belt either.

[Veridian]

Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte

I figured the car would have something to do with it, but the population decrease has continued to now. I figured if a city has a continual population decrease, there must be something going badly with that city, but I could think of anything major in St. Paul, or Mpls. I know there may have been a few jobs losses during the 1970s, but the Twin Cities area isn't the Rust Belt either.

Well, the decline has been steady since the 1950's until this past decade when there appeared to be signs of a levelling-off. I don't think there needs to be a reason other than the car- it shows a cultural trend leading people more away from a compressed development pattern and towards a more spread-out (sprawled) pattern. In other words, I don't think there's anything bad driving people out of St. Paul, but the overall trend for the past half-century has been out of cities and to suburbs and exurbs- a development based on cars and cheap gasoline. If gasoline is still cheap after our current severe recession, I suspect the trend will continue to show a trickling away from center cities. If, however, when the economy revives and is accompanied by a rise in demand and therefore higher gas prices, I believe the trickle will reverse.

[hammerhard]

For along time now both Minneapolis and St Paul have been experiencing some population decrease. Ive been hearing that a lot of people were moving out to the safer suburbs. Thats what happend after the 1950s