Census Results! (Duluth, Rochester, Eagan: universities, live in, doctorate)

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by Camden Northsider

Neighborhoods like this would include most of the near-East side of Sioux Falls (e.g. directly to the east of DT areas), just about the entire north side of Sioux Falls (areas not far from the airport, penitentiary, etc.), and a lot of areas around West 12th Street heading west out of downtown. Even post-war neighborhoods on the eastside, although generally a little tidier, weren't what most would view as "well-kempt". I'm going to take a crack at guessing Golfgal that you either lived south of 229 (newer areas in the south, or if in the SE area, south of E 26th St), or west of 29 (maybe somewhere around Roosevelt HS like Kingswood?). And if not in one of these newer areas, I would guess that you lived either in the vicinity of Lincoln HS, McKennan Park, or the VA. I'd first guess one of the newer areas, however, as these are where the non-natives there for corporate jobs in the area tended to pick up homes.

How close am I?

Pretty far off, we lived in the Historic District about 2 blocks south of the Cathedral. Even that area has gone pretty far downhill since we lived there. The area around 12th, etc. was in pretty bad shape then though. For the most part though, SF is a pretty "well-kept" area, I think.

[Camden Northsider]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Pretty far off, we lived in the Historic District about 2 blocks south of the Cathedral. Even that area has gone pretty far downhill since we lived there. The area around 12th, etc. was in pretty bad shape then though. For the most part though, SF is a pretty "well-kept" area, I think.

I was far off, and now I'm remembering you having said that in the past (although McKennan Park and Historic District have some similarities). Historic District/Cathedral area did always seem to be a little bit of a mixed bag- a little rough around the edges but overall a beautiful area with beautiful homes, hopefully things haven't gone too far downhill there and people are still appreciating the area's (and homes') history. I think there are some big swaths of S.F. that fall into the category of rough-around-the-edges (with some big pockets of 'dilapidated'), but on the whole I would agree with you that S.F. is a relatively nice-looking city. I do think the comparison between SD and MN can still be made, however, and that equivalent size/density cities in MN (and even Minneapolis itself) are generally cleaner/better kept up in comparison.

[Joe3rdwash]

Originally Posted by kazoopilot

Do you guys think Rochester will eventually pass St. Paul in population? I know it won't happen any time soon, but with the way things are going it could happen in 40 or 50 years.

I see that happening in >10 years
St. Paul is not doing much too desify or attract more people
Rochester will soon end up like a New Austin of the North if it keeps it up

[knke0204]

Breaking the 100,000 mark is huge for Rochester. It is a benchmark used by many when deciding to relocate. Relocation is the only way Rochester is going to keep growing-from new jobs and industry. Companies, hqs, immigrants, migrants and students are attracted to attractive places- and Rochester is attractive..- Healthy business climate, healthy economy, healthy neighborhoods and communities... I think that Rochester is only going to keep getting bigger and better. The town reminds me so much of Sioux Falls, SD.

[uptown_urbanist]

I can see Rochester growing, but I don't think Rochester is set to become a major city anytime soon. I can see it being an attractive regional city for those looking for a smaller, more affordable city. I know people who have been torn by the prospect of Mayo positions, yet are not willing to live in Rochester. They go to the other major medical centers in more exciting places instead. Granted, a lot of people don't WANT a big city, or they want a more suburban lifestyle; if that's what one is looking for, then Rochester starts to look a lot more desirable than, say, living in an exurb of the Twin Cities. You can get that suburban home and lifestyle in Rochester yet at a cheaper price and in a much more compact setting (i.e. closer to things like theaters or whatever other cultural attractions Rochester has to offer.) And yes, I know Rochester is an actual city with some historic core and some good jobs, but at this point Rochester still seems to have a reputation as being a pretty sleepy place. I admit -- I haven't been IN Rochester for some time, and I know that they've been doing a lot to make it more exciting, and presumably the University campus will also help change things. It's on my list of cities I need to revisit this summer. Still, I don't think that there's enough in Rochester to appeal to people who prefer to live in a city. For those looking for a smaller city, though, I can see how it could be appealing.

[northstar22]

Rochester is incredibly bland. The whole place just feels so sterile and generic. It's my least favorite large city in Minnesota, aside from MSP.

[Camden Northsider]

Originally Posted by kazoopilot

Rochester is incredibly bland. The whole place just feels so sterile and generic. It's my least favorite large city in Minnesota, aside from MSP.

It's also a lot more conservative than what you would expect from an urban/semi-urban area with a very large demographic of young people/families, which is mainly what leaves a bad taste in my mouth about Rochester (and it does feel very suburban/sprawl-ish). I do, however, like some of the older/more historic parts, downtown area, and even some of the mid-century residential areas.

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by City Data Guy

Why did the non-Hispanic white population of Burnsville decline so much? Burnsville isn't a crappy suburb. Look where I live.

Non-Hispanic White Population of Burnsville in 2000: 51,952

Percentage: 86.3%

Non-Hispanic White Population of Burnsville in 2010: 44,563

Percentage: 73.9%

51,952-44,563=7,389

86.3-73.9=12.4

Why did Burnsville lose over 7,300 non-Hispanic white residents?

My guess: Much of Burnsville was developed within a relatively short period. Initially the city attracted many non-Hispanic white families. The kids in these families have aged up and moved out of the family homes--and often out of Burnsville, leaving many empty nesters behind.

[Kebinminn]

Originally Posted by Camden Northsider

It's also a lot more conservative than what you would expect from an urban/semi-urban area with a very large demographic of young people/families, which is mainly what leaves a bad taste in my mouth about Rochester

Funny, that just bumped it up on my list of places to move to in the state if we ever do.

[west336]

Originally Posted by Ben Around

My guess: Much of Burnsville was developed within a relatively short period. Initially the city attracted many non-Hispanic white families. The kids in these families have aged up and moved out of the family homes--and often out of Burnsville, leaving many empty nesters behind.

Did anyone take into consideration that the older white folks in Burnsville may have passed or moved to retirement villages? The non-white population has little/few elders in the city and that could also cause the drop. Not everything is racially motivated.