Growth shifting from the burbs to Mpls & St. Paul (Minneapolis: apartment, how much)

[Cruz Azul Guy]

Minneapolis, St. Paul gain as growth shifts from burbs | StarTribune.com

I found this artcile pretty interesting. People on here have kind of predicted a shift to the urban cores and it looks like the numbers are backing it up at least in the last year.

[golfgal]

Adding 1000 people in a town of almost 300,000 is no newsworthy, especially when they compare growth in towns like Woodbury, 50,000 having larger growth--that is more significant. The difference can be accounted by a few families having one more child, doesn't mean people actually moved to those areas.

[northsub]

The census numbers are based on no new data since the 2010 census. It's just an extrapolation. The formula has changed from past years. In the past these figures were based on hospital records and new building permits and such. Further, essentially the assumption is that each city within a county will grow at the same rate. So, Minneapolis' growth rate is basically a growth rate for Hennepin County. Minneapolis has a slightly lower growth rate than most other places in Hennepin county due to the institutionalized population being done differently than the non-institutionalized population, here "institutionalized" is going to include prisons, college dorms, etc.

The Met Council population estimate for Minneapolis is still below the Met Council population estimate for 2006, 2007, 2008 (and above the 2009 estimate, but much closer to that than the 2010 census count). Basically, there's little growth if you compare the same data source.

[pete6032]

Why wouldn't the Strib include an infographic with a map and population projections?

[Pisces69]

From the comments: "maybe people in belle plain are sick of applebees, mcdonalds, cookie-cutter homes, and streets that are unnecessarily winding and curved."

Lol!

[Min-Chi-Cbus]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Adding 1000 people in a town of almost 300,000 is no newsworthy, especially when they compare growth in towns like Woodbury, 50,000 having larger growth--that is more significant. The difference can be accounted by a few families having one more child, doesn't mean people actually moved to those areas.

It was 5,000+ people in one year. That's almost 1.5%, so if you extrapolate that for 10 years you could assume (1.015)^10, or somewhere between 16% and 17% decennial growth (approx. 55K to 65K people). That's not peanuts.....in fact, it's larger than Woodbury! If you don't think people are moving to the city then why are there about 10,000 apartment units in the project pipeline right now (just Minneapolis, not St. Paul)?

Why can't you be happy for the city instead of resentful? It benefits everyone if the cities prosper!

[Min-Chi-Cbus]

Originally Posted by northsub

The census numbers are based on no new data since the 2010 census. It's just an extrapolation. The formula has changed from past years. In the past these figures were based on hospital records and new building permits and such. Further, essentially the assumption is that each city within a county will grow at the same rate. So, Minneapolis' growth rate is basically a growth rate for Hennepin County. Minneapolis has a slightly lower growth rate than most other places in Hennepin county due to the institutionalized population being done differently than the non-institutionalized population, here "institutionalized" is going to include prisons, college dorms, etc.

The Met Council population estimate for Minneapolis is still below the Met Council population estimate for 2006, 2007, 2008 (and above the 2009 estimate, but much closer to that than the 2010 census count). Basically, there's little growth if you compare the same data source.

Seriously guys, check out this site and learn about the level of development that is going on right now and then tell me with a straight face that you don't think more people are moving into the city:

www.urbanmsp.com

The ONLY possibility that could inhibit Minneapolis city population growth would be the continuing decline and bleed-out of North Minneapolis, but the mayor has made it his mission to curb that loss and reinvest in the northside, so I think it's a long shot.

Embrace the positive change people! Not everybody wants to live in a quiet cul de sac far away from people, places and things!!

[Rhody2Mn]

I've lived in various states throughout the country but have been in the Twin Cities for the past 20 years. I've truly grown to love it here. The quality of life is unsurpassed anywhere else in my opinion.

That said, the one thing I've never understood is why there is such a "city vs. suburb" mentality here. People who live in one think it's better than the other and vice versa. I've never seen this mindset as prevalent as it is here. To me, the Twin Cities is a great metro area as a result of having two fantastic core cities PLUS a plethora of wonderful suburbs that contribute to its vitality. Both sectors have benefits and one being better than the other is simply a matter of personal lifestyle preference. Although I live in the suburbs and appreciate their convenience, I certainly also enjoy what the central cities offer.

I think for the Twin Cities to remain competitive in the future, we should focus on championing the area as a whole and not emphasize whether a particular suburb or city is "better". In the long run, it's not Apple Valley or Blaine vs. Minneapolis but the Twin Cities vs. other metro areas in the country. That's why I'm happy to see this article and that Minneapolis is growing again, and I hope that this trend, coupled with healthy suburban growth, continues well into the future. Minnesota has a great thing going with the whole Twin Cities area.

[rogead]

Originally Posted by Rhody2Mn

I've lived in various states throughout the country but have been in the Twin Cities for the past 20 years. I've truly grown to love it here. The quality of life is unsurpassed anywhere else in my opinion.

That said, the one thing I've never understood is why there is such a "city vs. suburb" mentality here. People who live in one think it's better than the other and vice versa. I've never seen this mindset as prevalent as it is here. To me, the Twin Cities is a great metro area as a result of having two fantastic core cities PLUS a plethora of wonderful suburbs that contribute to its vitality. Both sectors have benefits and one being better than the other is simply a matter of personal lifestyle preference. Although I live in the suburbs and appreciate their convenience, I certainly also enjoy what the central cities offer.

I think for the Twin Cities to remain competitive in the future, we should focus on championing the area as a whole and not emphasize whether a particular suburb or city is "better". In the long run, it's not Apple Valley or Blaine vs. Minneapolis but the Twin Cities vs. other metro areas in the country. That's why I'm happy to see this article and that Minneapolis is growing again, and I hope that this trend, coupled with healthy suburban growth, continues well into the future. Minnesota has a great thing going with the whole Twin Cities area.

I think one of the reasons for the strong urban vs. suburban mentality here, is that having two core cities throughout its history, this metro area has been somewhat lacking an urban identity. While the metro area is increasingly being referred to as "Minneapolis", at least nationally and internationally, we have locally identified as a state rather than as a city or metro area. I think the result is that suburbanites feel little connection to the urban core.

Many suburbanites fail to understand that their suburbs exist only because of the economic and cultural amenities provided by the city core(s). Conversely, many of those living in the city forget that suburban dwellers are necessary for those same economic and cultural amenities to flourish.

Ultimately, you're right. The entire metro area is competing with the likes of Seattle and Denver; not only for reputation and bragging rights, but for things such as conventions and federal infrastructure funding.

I do think we're somewhat hampered by use of the term "Twin Cities". It never was a very accurate term, and it's becoming increasingly less so. While Minneapolis has been pulling away from St Paul in prominence over the last several decades, the two cities have actually become increasingly similar in terms of demographics and urban issues.

Many business and civic leaders are promoting use of the term "MSP" as an identifier for the metro area, but using initials comes with its own set of problems. At any rate, it's great to see both residential and commercial construction taking place in both downtowns. Increasing core density and controlling sprawl always strengthens an entire metro area.

[uptown_urbanist]

It's an interesting question, but I've noticed that, too. In some ways it seems weird: why such a suburb/city split when there's so much overlap? So many city neighborhoods are more "suburban" in character, at least in terms of having decent local schools, quiet, safe streets, and mostly single family houses. On the other hand, the suburbs here are more "suburban" than are suburbs in many other cities in some ways (just as many of our city neighborhoods are more "suburban" than are many other urban neighborhoods).

There are very few Twin Cities suburbs that I can ever envision willingly living in, but can appreciate how they appeal to others. For that matter, most city neighborhoods are too quiet for my taste. But given that those quieter neighborhoods DO appeal to so many people, I don't really understand the antagonism. I know people who live in SW Minneapolis and who drive everywhere, do most of their shopping in the suburbs, and yet still rant about how much they hate the suburbs -- I don't understand that. They flow into each other, and there's really no real difference. There ARE big differences between, say, suburban Woodbury and Loring Park, and I can understand stronger feelings (for people who prefer either option) there, but I don't understand the suburban/urban split for the vast majority of people who prefer life somewhere in the middle.

What I understand even less are the people who profess with pride that they haven't been into Minneapolis for years! I haven't heard people in other cities do that. I'm sure they do, I just haven't encountered it. (there may be people in the city who say they never go to the suburbs, but I also have not heard that in the Twin Cities. Reality is, since so many people DO live in the suburbs city residents almost inevitably spend time in various parts of the metro area visiting friends or relatives or going to work)

I have noticed that the people who grew up in Twin Cities suburbs and now living in Minneapolis tend to be more hostile towards the suburbs than those who either grew up in Minneapolis or grew up in other areas. I've never lived in the Twin Cities suburbs, so have no idea if the opposite is also true (i.e. people who grew up in Minneapolis and moved to the 'burbs are hostile towards the city; I have Minneapolis-born-and-bred friends now living in the TC suburbs, but if they have strong feelings against the city then they have kept it to themselves. They mostly all chose suburbs not, as far as I know, because they hated the city, but because they could get more space for their money in the suburbs.).