Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As far as the topic of the thread is concerned, Minneapolis isn't really a new cool affordable city. It is an old cool affordable city that has avoided the wholesale culture change and rampantly escalating cost of living of its cohort cities. It is probably because the weather deters transplants to a degree, so the growth that does occur isn't enough to change the fundamental nature of the city.
Even with the "weather" in Minneapolis it's still growing at a healthy clip. It being the coldest winter city in the midwest I think helps soften the cold weather theory.
I think it depends on the individual's perception of expensive. You can rent a decent 1br in one of the more interesting parts of the city for $700 a month. If you are coming from the coasts that sounds like a steal. If you are coming from the even cheaper parts of the Midwest it may sound like a bit much. The priciest apartments in the city are the new luxury apartments in Uptown and Downtown, and they are definitely expensive, but the pre war brick walkups are significantly cheaper. You can also still buy houses in NE Minneapolis for less than $100k, try that in Williamsburg.
To your point, I've lived in Minneapolis and Cleveland and their costs of living are very similar, yet Cleveland is considered a VERY affordable city. Where Mpls rents are slightly higher, the taxes in OH are higher still, and magnified even moreso if you live in a good school district like Shaker Heights.
If Minneapolis wasn't a truly affordable place to live, it would not be on our family's radar for potential relocation cities. Besides, 2nd most expensive in the Midwest would be #1 least expensive on either of the coasts -- same with Chicago, at #1 in the Midwest.
The idea that the Rust Belt is making a comeback, shows up everywhere except the Census Bureau's population statistics. There are plenty of large sun belt cities that are relatively inexpensive but none of them seem comparable or analogous to the aforementioned cities, or even within striking distance of someday being so.
Population growth isn't the most salient thing when considering how up-and-coming a city is in certain parts of the country, for a few reasons.
1. In the Northeast, and much of the Midwest, city limits are essentially fixed since they are surrounded by incorporated suburbs which will under no circumstances merge into the core city. In contrast, in much of the South/West cities can still hoover up unincorporated county land, which allows them to grow by capturing a good deal (or even the majority) of suburban/exurban sprawl.
2. The population of areas can often shrink due to gentrification. This is particularly the case when there are neighborhoods which were dominated by grand homes which were subdivided, or with a large number of low-income families. Homes are converted back into single-family residences, which shrinks population density. And the average household size falls as well, due to many of the homes being occupied by DINKs or even single people.
3. Related to this, there can be a lot of churn of population within largely stagnant numbers. Pittsburgh seems to have finally stopped decades of double-digit population loss, with numbers holding steady since roughly 2007. But within the stagnant numbers there are a number of different trends - most notably a rise in the number of younger transplants, and a fall in the number of older people and lower-income families within the city proper.
Regardless, if you want affordable and urban (meaning neighborhoods which are walkable and denser than detached single family housing), you aren't going to get very much of it in the South, except maybe in parts of New Orleans, and precious little of it in the West either, since the "urban" districts tend to be either tiny, expensive historic districts, or new construction, relatively expensive apartment districts. You can certainly buy cheaper suburban housing in much of the south or interior west, but people who want cool don't generally want new construction suburbia.
Affordable and cool mean different things to different people.
To my taste and budget, Louisville, Buffalo, and Minneapolis fit the description to a tee.
With a more loose definition of affordable, you could add Philadelphia.
With a more loose definition of cool, you could add Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Albany, Richmond, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Atlanta, Tucson, and Salt Lake City.
I've never been to Nashville, but I've heard great things.
Nashville is awesome! Such a fun city lots to offer and close to many weekend trips. Also, lexington KY, not as many options for nightlife and smaller in size but fun history, landscapes and a nice downtown. Still has lots to offer. Another would be columbus, great city with tons to offer including festivals, state fair, good food and nightlife. Plus shopping galore! If only the winters in ohio were more mild.
Richmond. I was there recently and was surprised by how cool & hip that city is. I expected the worse because of all the negative press it got a few years ago. But, I was pleasantly surprised by the vibe. Although I've relocated 2 hours north of the city, I definitely plan to keep my eyes on that area.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
