St. Louis Park - any undesirable areas? (Minneapolis: housing, golf)

[ebonn]

I live in S Oak Hill neighborhood and it is a GREAT place to live. ( south of 7 across from Knollwood) Any one who says this area is rough is out of their mind. Plus a developer just bought the mall to make it into a Westend sorta deal! There are a few unsightly apartment buildings on Blake that aren't white as snow so I guess if that sorta thing scares you stay away. OTHER WISE this area is awesome ... there are some bigger lots, new construction, TONS of young families and the cedar lake bike path is literally in the back of the neighborhood which my hubby takes to work in the summer making it a 8 mile/30 min commute to city center. Sorry to resurrect an ancient thread, I just felt compelled to defend my hood!

[ocsid]

Originally Posted by ebonn

I live in S Oak Hill neighborhood and it is a GREAT place to live. ( south of 7 across from Knollwood) Any one who says this area is rough is out of their mind. Plus a developer just bought the mall to make it into a Westend sorta deal! There are a few unsightly apartment buildings on Blake that aren't white as snow so I guess if that sorta thing scares you stay away. OTHER WISE this area is awesome ... there are some bigger lots, new construction, TONS of young families and the cedar lake bike path is literally in the back of the neighborhood which my hubby takes to work in the summer making it a 8 mile/30 min commute to city center. Sorry to resurrect an ancient thread, I just felt compelled to defend my hood!

Defend all you want, but that's not a great area. The area around Blake Road is pretty run down for the most part, and you're close to the Ramsgate apartments which are really sketchy.

[MNTwins]

^ Ridiculous claim. Have you ever lived in this area? I spent 6 months in Meadowbrook (referred to by many as "ghettobrook"), 1 1/2 years living in the Knollwood Towers (right off Blake!) and I now live about a mile north of there in Aquila Park. Seriously, neither one of these communities were even remotely "sketchy" or undesirable. Sure, it's not the West End, but it's traditional working class renting surrounded by neighborhoods of young families, middle class workers, and elderly folks. I can't count how many times I've walked to Target from Knollwood Towers after dark - and never once did I feel vulnerable, uneasy, or hesitant. It's just a typical suburban neighborhood. For what it's worth, my landlord at the Towers told ne that the beighborhood ysed to be "transitional" but that it's become very glorified. I hear far more police sirens in the Aquila Park area than I ever did around Blake.

[ebonn]

Thanks MN twins!

Yep about the only thing happening in this hood today is sledding, and folks walking the dog!
Just because looks run down doesn't make it dangerous. It just needs a face lift, which will happen soon. The demo for the inside of Knollwood starts in Feb. and they are totally changing that shopping center. I'm sure the apartments will follow soon after. A nice strip mall just went up in front of those "sketchy" apartments.

Oh and when I sell in the spring to move to actually sketchy area (Houston) I will make 50k on a house I bought 1.5 yrs ago. Not too bad for an undesirable area .

Just wish I could be here another few years after Louisiana is done and so is Knollwood, then my property would really make me a good bit.

As they say "haters gonna hate" BUT I actually live here, and use the area to its fullest potential, walking to Target, biking with kids to the Oak Hill splash pad and library and for miles either way on the cedar lake bike path ... NEVER ONCE have I seen anything remotely sketchy.

[ocsid]

Originally Posted by MNTwins

^ Ridiculous claim. Have you ever lived in this area? I spent 6 months in Meadowbrook (referred to by many as "ghettobrook"), 1 1/2 years living in the Knollwood Towers (right off Blake!) and I now live about a mile north of there in Aquila Park. Seriously, neither one of these communities were even remotely "sketchy" or undesirable. Sure, it's not the West End, but it's traditional working class renting surrounded by neighborhoods of young families, middle class workers, and elderly folks. I can't count how many times I've walked to Target from Knollwood Towers after dark - and never once did I feel vulnerable, uneasy, or hesitant. It's just a typical suburban neighborhood. For what it's worth, my landlord at the Towers told ne that the beighborhood ysed to be "transitional" but that it's become very glorified. I hear far more police sirens in the Aquila Park area than I ever did around Blake.

Have I lived in the area? Yes, and I work in the area and have for years. I've had a number of friends as well who have lived in the apartments in that area too, including Ramsgate, and not one of us has anything good to say about the area.

And I went with some friends to look at a place in Meadowbrook. To say it was a dump would be an insult to dumps.

[Cruz Azul Guy]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Being incorporated and being developed are not the same thing. They could have incorporated with 10 people living in town. The real growth there took place post WWII, just like Richfield and most inner-ring suburbs along with a large portion of Minneapolis and St. Paul.

I disagree with this statement. The fact is that both Minneapolis and St. Paul proper were almost completely developed by that time, which is supported by U.S. census data. Minneapolis only grew 6% from 1940 to 1950 (from 492,370 to 521,718) and St. Paul only grew 8.2% from 1940 to 1950 (from 287,736 to 311,349) and both cities tapered off and declined in population after 1950. Although some of this had to do with the building of the freeway system, it is a stretch to say that a "large portion" of both Minneapolis and St. Paul experienced growth post WWII.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by Cruz Azul Guy

I disagree with this statement. The fact is that both Minneapolis and St. Paul proper were almost completely developed by that time, which is supported by U.S. census data. Minneapolis only grew 6% from 1940 to 1950 (from 492,370 to 521,718) and St. Paul only grew 8.2% from 1940 to 1950 (from 287,736 to 311,349) and both cities tapered off and declined in population after 1950. Although some of this had to do with the building of the freeway system, it is a stretch to say that a "large portion" of both Minneapolis and St. Paul experienced growth post WWII.

Drive around and look at the housing stock....

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Drive around and look at the housing stock....

What's with the "rolls eyes"? The reality is that most of Minneapolis, anyway (don't know the statistics for St. Paul) WAS developed pre-war. There are some neighborhoods on the edges of the city -- in SW Minneapolis south of 54th St., for example -- where the majority of houses were built immediately post-war, but most of the city is either older -- or in the case of apartment buildings, statistically more likely to be younger. You can think about the city a bit like a tree, with age rings moving outwards; the oldest housing tends to be in the closer-in neighborhoods, and then with each mile out you find the housing another decade or so younger.

17% of the city's housing stock was built during the years 1940-1959. Also interesting to note: Minneapolis is home to 14% of the region's housing, but to 44% of the region's housing built prior to 1940.

When you look at percentage of housing units -- and not buildings -- then things get a bit more skewed, as there were several periods when there were big bursts of new apartment building. When you look at units, and not buildings, then yes, a significant percentage (47%) was built after 1940, which brings the median date built up to 1940. (although not post-war era, generally; the big growth was more in the '60s and '70s with big apartment towers as well as those medium-density apartments in neighborhoods like the Wedge and Whittier that replaced grand old single family housing)

These numbers are a bit outdated -- with all the new apartments going up recently, that median date could have gone up, for example -- but still useful when looking at the city's housing age.

From the "drive around and guess at average age" technique, my guess would be that the 1920s was the era of greatest significance in Minneapolis, at least in terms of covering the most land.

[golfgal]

Drive around and look at the housing stock...

Most of South Minneapolis is post 1940, all of the east side of St. Paul, a good portion of the west side, Highland Park, the north side of St. Paul were all built up post 1940...

you said it yourself--almost 1/2 of Minneapolis was built post 1940....

[Cruz Azul Guy]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Drive around and look at the housing stock...

Most of South Minneapolis is post 1940

Before I call this out as being ridiculously inaccurate I suppose I should ask you to define "most" and "South Minneapolis." I just looked at the housing data for my neighborhood and 70.7% of the housing units were built prior to 1939.