What is the factor with St. Paul's population decrease? (Minneapolis: real estate market, apartments)

[pirate_lafitte]

I have noticed the patterns with the Rust Belt cities and I understand why those cities are having major population decreases, but St. Paul is hardly Rust Belt. Sure there is a "working class" population, but all of those places have higher crime rates than St. Paul, even Atlanta, one of the most violent cities in the USA, is having a population increase. Please explain.

[GraniteStater]

I think the population decrease in the urban core areas of metro areas is happening in many places. The Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area is no exception to that fact. Also, the metro area is in the top 10 in terms of sprawl as well. The population growth is occuring fastest in outer-belt suburbs and exurban areas that are further removed from the city. For the most part the inner ring suburbs have stable or slow population growth because they are largely "built out." This is what I have noticed when I have visited the metro area.

[The Icy River Vagabond]

Because people want to move farther and farther away, so they can develop and destroy more land, so they can drive farther to work, polluting the air and whining about their commute while growing fatter and fatter cuz they don't do anything else. I think the population in Minneapolis is increasing and I am pretty sure that St. Pauls population showed an increase of about 15,000 in the last census.

[bigtallredhead]

Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte

I have noticed the patterns with the Rust Belt cities and I understand why those cities are having major population decreases, but St. Paul is hardly Rust Belt. Sure there is a "working class" population, but all of those places have higher crime rates than St. Paul, even Atlanta, one of the most violent cities in the USA, is having a population increase. Please explain.

I think probably an aging population/smaller household size in St. Paul is a likely answer+the city is largely built out, -no room to keep growing. I know the real estate market in the twin cities is also having some serious problems, like many parts of the country right now.

The city of Atlanta itself is not increasing much (and yes it has a very high crime rate), -the vast majority of the population is suburban and some of it's older suburbs are actualy decreasing. But gentrification in parts of the city has brought a lot of infill to reverse what would otherwise be a continued loss for the city. Atlanta did lose significant population between 1970-1990.

The only reason most southern and western plain-non rust belt Midwest cities are or were growing is do to annexation and or infill. Most would otherwise be losing population as indeed some are.

-New Orleans had already lost a great deal of population in it's pre 1970 area, -there was a big new development on reclaimed swampland called New Orleans east within the city limits. The city only lost 19% officially from 1970 to 2005 (before Katrina), but if you just look at the already developed part of the city in 1970 it was more like 40% and the peak was actualy believed to be in 1965 with a big loss in the latter half of the 1960's. Jackson, Miss. has been losing population since 1980, Birmingham, AL. (the city itself) since 1960, mobile Al. has gained intermittently from annexations but then went back to losing. Most of the central cities in Louisiana have at least intermittently lost people, -same with most cities in Georgia and Virginia as well. verious other mostly small cities in the south as well. Virginia has "independent cities" that cannot expand so it is a special case.

In the west immigration+rising household size do to high housing costs is a big factor as well. That is what is also happening in Florida and a lot of the coastal northeast also. -Emil.

[bigtallredhead]

Originally Posted by The Icy River Vagabond

Because people want to move farther and farther away, so they can develop and destroy more land, so they can drive farther to work, polluting the air and whining about their commute while growing fatter and fatter cuz they don't do anything else. I think the population in Minneapolis is increasing and I am pretty sure that St. Pauls population showed an increase of about 15,000 in the last census.

St. Paul is estimated to be declining since 2000. But inter census estimates are notoriously unreliable. -Emil.

[Minnehahapolitan]

First off, the US Census is usually LESS accurate than an estimate than the metcouncil. Ask anyone in Saint Louis, undercounted a decades running. Anyways, if the is population decrease (and it is debatable) it is because average family size is decreasing. Think, Minneapolis has more units than it did in 1950 (pop. 520,000), but even with the addition of scores of new units, they barely hit 400,000. It isn't nec. bad for the city, but people get a bad impression of a place with a declining population, even when that impression is ultimately unwarranted.

[Slig]

With the recent boom of condos in both Minneapolis/St. Paul I believe the populations are experiencing a little bit of growth. You can see this from current populations estimates.

[pirate_lafitte]

Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan

First off, the US Census is usually LESS accurate than an estimate than the metcouncil. Ask anyone in Saint Louis, undercounted a decades running. Anyways, if the is population decrease (and it is debatable) it is because average family size is decreasing. Think, Minneapolis has more units than it did in 1950 (pop. 520,000), but even with the addition of scores of new units, they barely hit 400,000. It isn't nec. bad for the city, but people get a bad impression of a place with a declining population, even when that impression is ultimately unwarranted.

The reason I ask is because of a few things. I have read the history of other midwestern cities and I can see why populations have shrank dramatically, but with Minneapolis, or St. Paul proper, I can't see why. They aren't Rust Belt cities, and even with the current crime rate, could be much worse(i.e. Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Gary, St. Louis, Milwaukee, etc.).

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan

Think, Minneapolis has more units than it did in 1950 (pop. 520,000), but even with the addition of scores of new units, they barely hit 400,000.

Minne--Are you sure? I have no staistics, but know that scores of dwelling units have been razed since 1950 in Minneapolis. Thnk of all the "slum clearance" projects in the Gateway area, in the Plymouth Avenue area, and probably more. Combine with that all the parking lots that have popped up all over the city where apartment houses and single family homes stood in 1950. And don't forget the wide swaths of housing destruction to make way for I-94, 394, 62 and 35W. My gut tells me that the new units (condos and apartments and a very few single family homes) have come nowhere near replacing the number of units that have been lost. (I agree with what you say about average # of residents per unit declining since 1950)

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte

The reason I ask is because of a few things. I have read the history of other midwestern cities and I can see why populations have shrank dramatically, but with Minneapolis, or St. Paul proper, I can't see why. They aren't Rust Belt cities, and even with the current crime rate, could be much worse(i.e. Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Gary, St. Louis, Milwaukee, etc.).

pirate--See reasons I cited above in post to Minne as to why the shrinkage: it's not just people leaving for the burbs (or leaving the region all together) that accounts for a city's population loss, it's that families are smaller than they were in the 40s and 50s, and the number of housing units has declined sharply.

RE: relationship of crime and depopulation, people began fleeing the city long before the crime rates soared. But as they did soar, others remaining started moving out, just to get away from the crime. I believe this holds for both Rust Belt and non-Rust Belt cities.