Minneapolis getting closer to the 400K Mark (St. Paul, Brooklyn Park: real estate, leasing)

[northsub]

More context for talking about changes in the 20-29 year old population here. It turns out that each of the counties in the 7-county metro gained 20-29 year old population from 2000 to 2010. Here are the %'s:
Anoka: +8%
Carver: +27%
Dakota: +10%
Hennepin: +8%
Ramsey: +9%
Scott: +35%
Washington: +29%

That really seems to indicate that in the 2000's that 20-somethings shifted more toward suburban counties (and maybe new development) than established areas.

[ijamez]

Minneapolis will continue swelling with African/Latino immigrants and younger people who grew up and hated the burbs will continue to redevelop downtown/Uptown...Will it ever reach 600-800-1 million? Nope...With 3.5+ million in the metro as is, people just move outwards in all directions...I'd bet the population peak of 550Kish back in the 50s will likely remain the historical high for the foreseeable future...

[Chain of Lakes]

Originally Posted by northsub

More context for talking about changes in the 20-29 year old population here. It turns out that each of the counties in the 7-county metro gained 20-29 year old population from 2000 to 2010. Here are the %'s:
Anoka: +8%
Carver: +27%
Dakota: +10%
Hennepin: +8%
Ramsey: +9%
Scott: +35%
Washington: +29%

That really seems to indicate that in the 2000's that 20-somethings shifted more toward suburban counties (and maybe new development) than established areas.

You make a good point regarding the difference between actual data and feelings.

However, I'm not sure that the 2010 census data will reflect the new residents in Uptown area or North Loop as most of the thousands of rental units built were built in the past few years (I can provide backup data on the number of residential units built if you need it). Minneapolis hit $1 billion in construction last year and the year before and the 5 largest projects in 2013 are all apartment buildings.

These are targeted towards mid twenties to mid-thirties as the price point is higher than most kids younger than this could afford.

I suspect that these new residents will show up in future census data as these apartments are not empty.......and I know the buildings along the greenway are full of young people.

I do think a lot of younger folks do move to places like Scott and carver counties because the housing is a lot cheaper.

[northsub]

Originally Posted by Chain of Lakes

You make a good point regarding the difference between actual data and feelings.

However, I'm not sure that the 2010 census data will reflect the new residents in Uptown area or North Loop as most of the thousands of rental units built were built in the past few years (I can provide backup data on the number of residential units built if you need it). Minneapolis hit $1 billion in construction last year and the year before and the 5 largest projects in 2013 are all apartment buildings.

These are targeted towards mid twenties to mid-thirties as the price point is higher than most kids younger than this could afford.

I suspect that these new residents will show up in future census data as these apartments are not empty.......and I know the buildings along the greenway are full of young people.

I do think a lot of younger folks do move to places like Scott and carver counties because the housing is a lot cheaper.

I'm looking at residential building permits at metrocouncil.org. Those figures show that in Minneapolis that the number of permitted units in 2010 and 2011 were both below the average number of permitted units in Minneapolis from 2000-2009. Yes, the 2012 and 2013 numbers are a lot bigger than any of the others, but I'm guessing that not a lot of units permitted in 2012 have been completed. So, any projections about how well the large number of new units will do is speculation at this point.

[ocsid]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Most people don't choose to live in an apartment...for most it's their only option. You don't live in an apartment, you rent a house....and if I moved every 6 months like you seem to, no, I

I'm far from a flag-waver for so-called urban living, but I would disagree with this statement.

I know a surprising number of people (30's and early 40's) who have sold their houses and gone back to apartment living by choice, or have the income to purchase a house, and instead have chosen to move to a nicer apartment.

The main reasoning is that they don't want to have to deal with the upkeep and maintenance of a house (mowing, snow removal, repairs) and that they'd rather spend their time doing other things. Some have considered town houses, but feel that most are of poor quality and that they'd never get any equity, and possibly end up underwater, so it's not worth the risk - I know several who would love to get out of their townhouses but can't sell them, or have sold them at a huge loss.

Personally, if I ended up single for some reason, I would never move back to an apartment unless I had no other choice. I have a lot of hobbies that don't translate well to apartment living (I would need a full garage etc.) but I understand why many of my friends have gone that route.

As far as Target goes (despite the recent credit breach, they'll be fine), it will be interesting to see where their employment is in a few years. They're almost doubling their space in Brooklyn Park, and I suspect a lot of downtown jobs will be moving there and out of the urban core. Look at the major companies in the Twin Cities, and most of those jobs are in the suburbs. General Mills, Cargill, Best Buy, 3M, Medtronic are all suburban based and most of their expansion (including Target) is to the suburbs.

[emcee squared]

To hit 521,718, the population after the 1950 Census, Minneapolis's density would have to increase to 9,500 ppsm. That is about 2,350 ppsm more than the current density. 9,500 ppsm is equal to the density of Washington, D.C. as of the 2010 Census.

For a fun perspective, the densest city proper in the world is Manila at 111,000 ppsm. Nearly 1.7 million people in 15 square miles.

[Min-Chi-Cbus]

Originally Posted by northsub

I'm looking at residential building permits at metrocouncil.org. Those figures show that in Minneapolis that the number of permitted units in 2010 and 2011 were both below the average number of permitted units in Minneapolis from 2000-2009. Yes, the 2012 and 2013 numbers are a lot bigger than any of the others, but I'm guessing that not a lot of units permitted in 2012 have been completed. So, any projections about how well the large number of new units will do is speculation at this point.

Everything I've seen has shown that the core cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul are leading the metro by a LONG shot in terms of new permits issued, and account for well over 50% of all new housing for the entire metro.

Also, you don't have to necessarily build housing to support higher population growth, especially if there is an existing supply of vacant housing (which there is, especially in the suburbs where there was overbuilding and lots of foreclosures).

[Min-Chi-Cbus]

Originally Posted by ocsid

As far as Target goes (despite the recent credit breach, they'll be fine), it will be interesting to see where their employment is in a few years. They're almost doubling their space in Brooklyn Park, and I suspect a lot of downtown jobs will be moving there and out of the urban core. Look at the major companies in the Twin Cities, and most of those jobs are in the suburbs. General Mills, Cargill, Best Buy, 3M, Medtronic are all suburban based and most of their expansion (including Target) is to the suburbs.

Target is only moving certain IT functions out of downtown, but it's not leaving the city whatsoever and actually has plans for future expansion downtown. If you don't hear about another Target office tower being proposed downtown in the next 3-5 years, I'll personally be shocked! Some think it may be the next "tallest" in the city. If that's the case, it could be 10 years out.

[Min-Chi-Cbus]

Originally Posted by emcee squared

To hit 521,718, the population after the 1950 Census, Minneapolis's density would have to increase to 9,500 ppsm. That is about 2,350 ppsm more than the current density. 9,500 ppsm is equal to the density of Washington, D.C. as of the 2010 Census.

For a fun perspective, the densest city proper in the world is Manila at 111,000 ppsm. Nearly 1.7 million people in 15 square miles.

A population density of 9,500 ppsm isn't that unfathomable at all though. In the 1950's there was LESS infrastructure to support those people -- larger families of 5 or more lived in the same homes that 2-3 people reside in today. And once again, we're seeing the average home size in this country begin to drop from historic highs (somewhere at or above 2,500 SF). If, according to some projections, downtown could support 50K of the 100K or so needed to reach 500K+ (in 2-3 square miles, no less), I can see the rest of the city (50 or so square miles) -- especially along major transit corridors -- pick up the rest of the population, especially in places like Uptown and Northeast.

Add the ability to have "Granny Flats" widespread in the city and not that much has to change to hold 500K or more residents.

[QuietBlue]

Originally Posted by ocsid

As far as Target goes (despite the recent credit breach, they'll be fine), it will be interesting to see where their employment is in a few years. They're almost doubling their space in Brooklyn Park, and I suspect a lot of downtown jobs will be moving there and out of the urban core. Look at the major companies in the Twin Cities, and most of those jobs are in the suburbs. General Mills, Cargill, Best Buy, 3M, Medtronic are all suburban based and most of their expansion (including Target) is to the suburbs.

I agree that they'll be fine in the short term; I was wondering about the long term. Best Buy was fine ten years ago too -- I was contracting there at the time and the future of the company seemed quite bright. But now, things are a lot different, and there are plenty of other companies that have found themselves in similar situations. Look at BlackBerry for an even more dramatic example. I think Target will be around in a decade, but they may not be as big as they are now, and/or they may not be considered as prestigious a company at which to work. Or maybe the opposite will be true; it's hard to say.

As Min-Chi-Cbus noted, the Brooklyn Park campus is only intended to house certain departments -- IT, back end HR functions such as payroll and benefits, logistics, and similar support functions. I know AP used to have some people there too, but towards the end of my time at HQ (I worked there for several years), they started moving some AP teams back to downtown. Part of the reason for shifting IT to BP, as I understood it, was to make room in City Center for Target.com's expansion, since they're in that building. Plus, I would be very surprised if they ever move Merchandising, Marketing, or the front-end HR teams out of Target Plaza, since they are quite entrenched there (they are also the most stereotypically "Targetron" parts of the company, FWIW). Operations, maybe, though they work so closely with the other departments that I could see it being too much of a pain to do it. Now, it's been a couple of years since I've been there, so maybe things have changed, but the company does still seem to be investing a lot of resources in their downtown presence.