KC/Indy/Columbus outgrowing Minneapolis? (Kansas City, St. Louis: real estate, condos, university)

[xenokc]

In a way.

Columbus, Indy and KC are the big net migration gainers of the Midwest - the difference of people moving in/out of metro. MSP has more people actually leaving for other US cities than coming in, but has decent international moving in. The net difference is lower growth than KC and the others outside birthrate.


Found this 2009 estimate of migration data. Not sure how accurate it is given that 2010 final census ended up lower than 2009 estimates for nearly every metro, but is most recent migration data out so far. Actual 'total change' might be a few % lower for each metro...

KC Metro
births | +30018 people/yr
deaths | -15665 people/yr
net domestic migration | +3929 people/yr
net international migration | +3404 people/yr
residual mismatch | -184 people/yr
total population change | +21502 people/yr
(2009 estimates)

Kansas City metro area - Wolfram|Alpha


Minneapolis actually has domestic loss but higher international gains. Net gain is lower than KC though.

MSP Metro
births | +46181 people/yr
deaths | -19554 people/yr
net domestic migration | -2503 people/yr
net international migration | +8234 people/yr
residual mismatch | -156 people/yr
total population change | +32202 people/yr
(2009 estimates)

MSP
minneapolis metro area - Wolfram|Alpha

Here are other Midwest cities... Chicago has an actual total migration loss but is passed up by birth rate. Technically Col/Indy/KC are outgrowing Chicago too outside birthrate, some NE cities too.


STL
st. louis metro area - Wolfram|Alpha

Chicago
chicago metro area - Wolfram|Alpha

Columbus
columbus metro area - Wolfram|Alpha

Cincy
cincinnati metro area - Wolfram|Alpha

Indy
indianapolis metro area - Wolfram|Alpha

[jaxontwinz]

Interesting. I bet the Twin Cities will grow much more this decade than they did last. I wouldn't be surprised if they reach 4 million. The Twin Cities probably are the best place for a lot of stuff (as proven by polls and surveys) but people get turned off by the cold, and either move or refuse to move to the area because f the cold. I think this will be a big decade because of all the out-of-college kids will grow up and start their families. As well as many more people moving there because of the 19 Fortune 500's.

Kansas City will steadily grow, but I think the Twin Cities will explode.

Indy will grow pretty fast, but won't become of national importance (i.e. Seattle, Denver, Vegas, TC)

Columbus will start to be more prominent outside of the Midwest, but no Twin Cities.

My point is that when you already have double the population and a booming economy, other cities will have a lot of catching up to do. Those cities will probably never reach the level of theTwin Cities for another 50 years... at least. Just because they are outgrowing the Cities, doesn't mean they will become more or less important. The Twin Cities have of only lately been booming, so this decade will be very very good for them.

[xenokc]

There are many cities that are losing domestic migration with more international to offset but I would've expected MSP to be more like KC/Indy with domestic gains. MSP comes across as 'new economy city' like KC/Indy/Col. Looks like MSP are breeders compared to other metros.

Looks like MSP was gaining in the late 90s but KC and Indy passed MSP up in the last decade. Indy has more domestic growth than KC but KC has more international growth than Indy.

Note the years on image. KC and Indy passed MSP and the trend is continuing per the first post (2009 estimate).

[RadioSilence]

Originally Posted by xenokc

Looks like MSP are breeders compared to other metros.

When you're stuck inside for six months, what else can you do?

Having lived up there, I can't imagine a second population explosion or expansion. The MSP suburbs already seem endless.

[Minnesota Spring]

To be fair, the Twin Cities are still growing faster in absolute numbers, so for KC and Indy to attempt to pass them, they need to attract even more people than they already are (or have a ton of babies). Also, for some reason migration to the Twin Cities region seems to go in spurts. It seems the late 70's and 80's there was not much growth and their was probably a net negative migration, but in the 90's things were booming. Places like Woodbury and Eden Prairie were exploding with growth and alot of those new residents were from out of state. I am not sure with migration is negative now (maybe its the cold winters), but it could swing positive any year as it is close now.

I for one hope that the Twin Cities don't see the rapid growth that we did in the 90's as there seemed to be a spike in traffic congestion and the sprawl just went on more. I think in the future more growth will be in closer (ie. Downtown populations are growing and inner suburbs like St. Louis Park and Richfield are growing with new families and condos/ The City-Older suburbs seem to be the place to be now days for both single people and families.)

[xenokc]

Yeah, does MSP really need much more growth as long as it doesn't shrink. If the 90s growth continued, could be as awful as Atlanta. It is surprising though there is a net loss for domestic. At least international increase offsets it.

BTW, check out Pittsburgh. Strange stats...
pittsuburgh metro area - Wolfram|Alpha

births | +24170 people/yr
deaths | -27286 people/yr
net domestic migration | +1144 people/yr
net international migration | +1901 people/yr

births and deaths | -3116 people/yr
net migration | +3045 people/yr
total population change | -434 people/yr

Pitt death rate is higher than the birth rate. I knew they were one of oldest cities but didn't realize they aren't breeding at all. And yet they have positive net migration.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by xenokc

Yeah, does MSP really need much more growth as long as it doesn't shrink. If the 90s growth continued, could be as awful as Atlanta. It is surprising though there is a net loss for domestic. At least international increase offsets it.

BTW, check out Pittsburgh. Strange stats...
pittsuburgh metro area - Wolfram|Alpha

births | +24170 people/yr
deaths | -27286 people/yr
net domestic migration | +1144 people/yr
net international migration | +1901 people/yr

births and deaths | -3116 people/yr
net migration | +3045 people/yr
total population change | -434 people/yr

Pitt death rate is higher than the birth rate. I knew they were one of oldest cities but didn't realize they aren't breeding at all. And yet they have positive net migration.

The birth/death numbers in Pittsburgh is the direct relationship between the out-migration of younger people during the economic decline of steel and ancillary industries in the 70s and 80s. Pittsburgh's large elderly population remained in the metro until the present day while the metro has diversified itself economically to attract newcomers over the past decade or two.

[Minnesota Spring]

Originally Posted by xenokc

Yeah, does MSP really need much more growth as long as it doesn't shrink. If the 90s growth continued, could be as awful as Atlanta. It is surprising though there is a net loss for domestic. At least international increase offsets it.

BTW, check out Pittsburgh. Strange stats...
pittsuburgh metro area - Wolfram|Alpha

births | +24170 people/yr
deaths | -27286 people/yr
net domestic migration | +1144 people/yr
net international migration | +1901 people/yr

births and deaths | -3116 people/yr
net migration | +3045 people/yr
total population change | -434 people/yr

Pitt death rate is higher than the birth rate. I knew they were one of oldest cities but didn't realize they aren't breeding at all. And yet they have positive net migration.

Exactly, if we ended up like Atlanta, that would be a negative thing IMO. Slow, steady growth is nice and as long as some of the growth is concentrated in the central metro instead of all in the suburbs, all the better. I think the lightrail expansions in the inner areas are/will attract more people. I plan on living in Minneapolis along a lightrail line when I retire (no need to drive).

Pittsburgh and I belive Buffalo, NY is close to facing the higher death rate than birth rate issue as well, which is too bad because it will take alot of new residents moving in to offset their metro's population declines.

What is with the St. Louis metro? There seems to be quite a large number of domestic people leaving and thus fickle growth. I mean Des Moines and Omaha are growing in numbers as fast as St. Louis

Here is an interesting link for metro populations by year: http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/pop/

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by Minnesota Spring

Exactly, if we ended up like Atlanta, that would be a negative thing IMO. Slow, steady growth is nice and as long as some of the growth is concentrated in the central metro instead of all in the suburbs, all the better. I think the lightrail expansions in the inner areas are/will attract more people. I plan on living in Minneapolis along a lightrail line when I retire (no need to drive).

Pittsburgh and I belive Buffalo, NY is close to facing the higher death rate than birth rate issue as well, which is too bad because it will take alot of new residents moving in to offset their metro's population declines.

What is with the St. Louis metro? There seems to be quite a large number of domestic people leaving and thus fickle growth. I mean Des Moines and Omaha are growing in numbers as fast as St. Louis

Here is an interesting link for metro populations by year: Population -- Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University Home

I have never really thought about this, but I checked out that link and StLouis has only added 300k in 40 years? Wow. KC has gained quite a bit of ground on StL, but then you look at the twin cities and they added over 1.3 million in the last 40 years. That kinda puts it in a different league than both KC and STL as far as overall growth.

Denver is not really a super fast growing metro (like vegas, phoenix, houston, atlanta, dfw etc), but wow, they were 200k smaller than metro KC in 1970 and now have 1.4 million more than KC. Good lord.

To me it seems like KC is the city that got a bit lost in the last 40 years. KC is not really a full blown rustbelt city like STL or Cincy or Pittsburgh or Cleveland is it? I would think KC would have seen more growth (like Minneapolis, Denver, and Dallas) over the past 40 years with its room for cheap sprawl and diverse economy. KC should be MUCH larger than Indy, Charlotte, San Antonio or Columbus today instead of barely keeping up with them and possibly getting passed by them soon. Maybe that's starting to change now and KC will see a higher rate of growth, but it really seems like KC as fallen a lot in the big city scale in the last 40 years. KC's peer cities seem to change every 10-20 years. Atlanta and Denver are long gone. Charlotte and Minneapolis have recently moved on and now KC is fighting off Indy, Columbus, Austin etc with OKC and Orlando knocking on the door. I get this for places like Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit and to a lesser degree St Louis, but Kansas City is more like Denver and Minneapolis and Dallas economically right? It's also easier and cheaper to build in wide open metro KC, especially with its huge highway system right? Something went wrong in KC.

I honestly think it has a lot to do with the state line. So much of the "growth" in KC is just migration outward (mostly from KCMO to JoCo). Things look great with that skyline of office parks along 435, but where did all that come from? Is it a coincidence that KC started slipping and losing so much ground to so many cities about the same time those office parks began springing up and syphoning companies from kcmo? Has KC mostly grown at the expense of itself while these other places actually grew more with new companies and the residents that come with them? Serious question. But can anybody take on such a serious question without just slamming me for bringing it up?

[TabulaRasa]

I went to college near the Twin Cities, and 4 winters there was more than enough for me.