What is the factor with St. Paul's population decrease? (Minneapolis: hotels, house)

[Minnehahapolitan]

I think there is more malice involved, but the point about immigrants is very true. The Met Council did a pretty comprehensive study. Peter Bell is generally a regressive a#$, but I think he is more capable of counting people than Washington.

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by K-Luv

St. Paul's population is decreasing because St. Paul is boring. Seriously! Tumbleweeds start blowing throw downtown at what, 5 pm? If it wasn't for the Turf Club, Big V's, Xcel Center, and museums St. Paul might as well be a rural town out in the middle of nowhere-because despite it's size, that is exactly how it feels. At least to me it does.

Seriously, though, I guess that it is easier for people to take the chicken route and escape-hoping to find better living elsewhere-instead of standing up and building communities, which like an oxy-moron, is one of St. Paul's strengths.

You may be onto something here. I've lived here about 11 years, so I'm not blinded by some kind of native mentality. I think I can judge the city more objectively.

The competition between Minneapolis and St Paul is idiotic and destructive. We are one city, not two. And that is what a lot of people around here have failed to grasp. Luckily Chris Coleman senses this and works with Rybak (although I haven't heard much about any joint projects lately).

The city could be much stronger if resources weren't divided between two major urban cores. Why do we need two police depts? Fire depts? Why two mayors and two city councils? School districts? WHY DO WE NEED TWO DOWNTOWNS?

The list goes on and on. But I think a lot of the gridlock in getting things done here is that St Paul tries to "compete" with Minneapolis and it simply cannot. Someone could write a PhD thesis on how the Twin Cities has missed opportunities because it's divided right down the middle.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan

The Met Council believes the city to be nearing 400,000. Mpls. is growing. (The Census Bureau doesn't know S***. They have miscalculated Saint Louis a couple censuses running. The City of St. L. calculates their own numbers simultaneously and contests the bureau the day after the census is released) Saint Paul is statistically stagnant. It grows a few thousand, then falls a few thousand. It is down by about 50,000 from its population height, but isn't actively declining. The inner suburbs are the same way. An old elderly couple will move out of the family home, and a single person will move in. That isn't bad, or a sign of something malicious. There are reasons that the two core cities are down from their height, and it isn't urban prairies or burned out houses. There are simply smaller families. It is a healthier city today than it was in 1960. Also, Northern cities don't annex. If Mpls. was in the south, it would include half of Hennepin County and have a population of 850,000.

Minnehaha, you're on to something. I have seen maps of MPLS and St. Paul. I don't see much of any annexation. For a while Atlanta had a shrinking population, but now it's going back up. Atlanta might have over 500,000 residents by 2010. With that said, that isn't the case for all northern cities. I wonder how Indy and Columbus do not have shrinking populations. They aren't bad areas, but I think there could have been some annexation according to some people. I just hope more persons have the idea to move to MPLS and St. Paul for work and a place to live(and not for welfare). The Twin Cities have something special rare in many northern cities. It isn't a Rust Belt city and it can be one of the greats. Lots of lakes. Your username coming from Lake Minnehaha.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan

I think there is more malice involved, but the point about immigrants is very true. The Met Council did a pretty comprehensive study. Peter Bell is generally a regressive a#$, but I think he is more capable of counting people than Washington.

There is a point of immigration. Perhaps the population of both cities hasn't shrank as quickly as I thought. That is a population count of persons who fill out the census. There might be more people in the Twin Cities than previously thought. I'm just looking at the statistics. I am not saying immigrants don't fill out the census. I just susepct that the largest group of persons who don't fill out the census are immigrants. There is also a transient population coming from other American cities who leave before any estimation, or persons who go to MPLS-St.Paul and never get counted in the census(many who are American citizens from other American cities).

[The Bigfoot]

Actually, according to what I heard from the Capitol River Council (District 17-downtown SP) St. Paul is just leveling off after 4 years of growth starting in 02. The population still isn't huge (estimated somewhere around 15,000) but it is definitely there. I can attest to that as being one of them for the past 3 years.

As to safety...there is a transient population and I don't know that I'd want my wife walking around in the middle of the night like I do but I have never felt uncomfortable.

All in all if you work in downtown its a great way to cut back on bills. My wife and I have easily lived on one car for the family saving us thousands of dollars every year in gas/insurance/maint/loans. Very little free or cheap parking which is a drag but only have to cross the river to DT Minneapolis to see those rates and come home feeling grateful.

Now if the Penfield building could really sign on Lunds to put a grocery store in once the building is complete/ The City would put the money into building Fitzgerald Park/ and the DOT would figure out (after twenty years) how to get light rail into Saint Paul...we could REALLY start growing!

[K-Luv]

Globe199-

I think that the fact that they are in separate counties has a lot to do with it.

[green_mariner]

Enough about which county is which. Whenever I see a considerable decrease in population, it looks like a bad sign. MPLS-St.Paul aren't that bad.

[What!]

Originally Posted by The Icy River Vagabond

Because people want to move farther and farther away, so they can develop and destroy more land, so they can drive farther to work, polluting the air and whining about their commute while growing fatter and fatter cuz they don't do anything else. I think the population in Minneapolis is increasing and I am pretty sure that St. Pauls population showed an increase of about 15,000 in the last census.

I know this is an old post but I think this thread is still relevant, and I certainly agree with the first sentence. I know people who live in places like Lakeville and drive to work in Coon Rapids. I also know people who live in St. Louis Park and work in St. Paul. And I know people who make commutes that are about the commutes I mentioned. It is ridiculous to say the least. I could understand if these people had gotten the jobs after moving there. But most of these people I know who make these long commute got a job in Maple Grove but then decided to move to Hastings (for example). None of that is practical. And yes, later on they complain about gas and commutes and traffic like a bunch of fools. Sorry, but that's just plain dumb.

[knke0402]

Many people fail to realize that the actualy land area of Mpls/STP combined is comparable to many large cities, as well as populations. With 100 square miles, and a pop. of 700,000, it is no different than one large city. Also the entire metro = 3.5 million people.

MSP is odd in that the land areas of the central cities is quite small compared to the entire metro. Some metros have the inner city being LARGE land areas, but almost NO suburbs. Like Las Vegas

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by knke0402

Many people fail to realize that the actualy land area of Mpls/STP combined is comparable to many large cities, as well as populations. With 100 square miles, and a pop. of 700,000, it is no different than one large city. Also the entire metro = 3.5 million people.

MSP is odd in that the land areas of the central cities is quite small compared to the entire metro. Some metros have the inner city being LARGE land areas, but almost NO suburbs. Like Las Vegas

That would make sense. I just thought the a decrease in population often meant either jobs were scarce or something else was going on.