Why does the Twin Cities area easily out perform all other midwest cities in population gains? (better, rates)

[BlueChicago]

Uh, in terms of relative population increase it's not significantly ahead. Since 2010, Minneapolis' metro population has grown by 8.37%.

Smaller metros like Des Moines have grown 15.06%, Madison 9.08%, and Grand rapids at 8.14%. Larger metros have also grown similarly with Indianapolis at 8.52% and Columbus at 10.76%.

Even outside of relative terms, Indianapolis and Columbus are still pretty close. Why has Minneapolis been able to stay competitive relative to others? I'd say a combination of young population, progressive policies, low crime, and growing tech / financial industries. Minneapolis also wasn't as much of a factory-based economy so they didn't have to deal with its decline.

[TheTimidBlueBars]

I think one factor is the markedly lower out-migration of black people compared to most Midwestern cities. Even with its hefty property taxes, terrible business climate, and falling immigration, Chicago would be growing right now if it weren't for the torrent of black people leaving every day. I know Minneapolis has taken steps to build affordable housing around the city and integrate neighborhoods, and I'd imagine that the lack of concentrated, desolate poverty lowers violent crime rates, which predominately affect blacks. I think Minneapolis may even be gaining black residents.

Originally Posted by marothisu

Net International Migration
Chicago MSA: +25,200 people
Detroit MSA: +12,280 people
Minneapolis: +8170 people
Columbus, OH MSA: +6597 people
Cleveland MSA: +5113 people
St. Louis MSA: +4242 people
Milwaukee MSA: +3664 people
Cincinnati MSA: +3590 people
Kansas City MSA: +1997 people

A bit off topic but out of curiosity, is there anywhere in the country with net negative international migration? Probably some sparsely populated counties near the Canadian border are like this just because statistics can be weird in small populations.

[sean1the1]

It's also argubly the most progressive of all the Midwesterner metros going back to the Scandinavian roots. It wasn't as rust belt as many other large Midwestern cities.

[sean1the1]

Originally Posted by TheTimidBlueBars

I think one factor is the markedly lower out-migration of black people compared to most Midwestern cities. Even with its hefty property taxes, terrible business climate, and falling immigration, Chicago would be growing right now if it weren't for the torrent of black people leaving every day. I know Minneapolis has taken steps to build affordable housing around the city and integrate neighborhoods, and I'd imagine that the lack of concentrated, desolate poverty lowers violent crime rates, which predominately affect blacks. I think Minneapolis may even be gaining black residents.


A bit off topic but out of curiosity, is there anywhere in the country with net negative international migration? Probably some sparsely populated counties near the Canadian border are like this just because statistics can be weird in small populations.

Also Minneapolis is the go to for many people of east African origin meaning technically they're probably growing in "black" population on paper as well.

[newgensandiego]

Originally Posted by kcmo

Ever been there? Quality of life and economy. It's a very active, very health conscious metropolitan area that works together as a region to build high quality transit, recreation and culture. They have a large well connected airport, two vibrant urban cores and nice suburbs not to mention a very large urban university.

Regardless of the cold weather, it's one of my personal favorite cities (top five in country) and I would live there in a heartbeat. For the record, the cold weather hardly slows anybody down there. A large amount of people continue to bike to work during the winter there.

Minneapolis also has the best park system in the U.S. Basically sets the gold standard for major American cities.

[Enean]

Originally Posted by newgensandiego

Minneapolis also has the best park system in the U.S. Basically sets the gold standard for major American cities.

That's probably not the reason. Influx of Black people, high birth rate, and people moving in from the countryside of Minnesota. Minnesota covers a lot of square miles, and if you look at statistics, most of the population is centered in the large MSA of the only large city in the state.

[SteelCityRising]

I’ve never even been to Minnesota and have always thought of Minneapolis/St. Paul as being one of the nation’s premier large metropolitan areas.

In 2009-2010 as I was planning my relocation out of the DC Metro Area I ended up torn between Pittsburgh and St. Paul. I chose Pittsburgh because I can’t handle long brutal winters. Otherwise I’d be living somewhere near Summit Avenue right now in St. Paul.

The metro area overall seems safe, healthy, vibrant, and seems to have a good earnings-to-cost-of-living ratio (especially compared to Pittsburgh where many of us pay $1,000/month+ in rent while earning <$50,000 salaries because our employers suck.

[Maintainschaos]

It certainly hasn’t always been this way.

[Progress 1]

Originally Posted by BlueChicago

Uh, in terms of relative population increase it's not significantly ahead. Since 2010, Minneapolis' metro population has grown by 8.37%.

Smaller metros like Des Moines have grown 15.06%, Madison 9.08%, and Grand rapids at 8.14%. Larger metros have also grown similarly with Indianapolis at 8.52% and Columbus at 10.76%.

Even outside of relative terms, Indianapolis and Columbus are still pretty close. Why has Minneapolis been able to stay competitive relative to others? I'd say a combination of young population, progressive policies, low crime, and growing tech / financial industries. Minneapolis also wasn't as much of a factory-based economy so they didn't have to deal with its decline.

I don't care about growth by percentage. I clearly said overall population gains.

[JoeP]

Percentage matters.