minneapolis population (Edina, Richfield, Ramsey: condos, houses, schools)

[nick is rulz]

We dont want any of the suburbs anyway....maybe Golden Valley, St Louis Park and Robbinsdale but the rest of em you can keep.

[moving123456]

Originally Posted by michael31681

i was reading about how cities annex some of there suburbs to increase in size. minneapolis is barely in the top fifty in terms of most populated cities in the usa. minneapolis covers only 55 square miles with in the city limits. how can we compete. i was looking at chicago and that city covers over 200 square miles in the city limits. omaha nebraska has more people then minneapolis. will minneapolis ever do this to increase in population? im from minneapolis and im proud of its sucess but i would like to see it hang with the big time cities.

Most cities annex unincorporated areas around them, not incorporated city suburbs like the ones surrounding Minneapolis. This was a big issue when I was living in Charlotte. The city of Charlotte would annex land as soon as it was developed to keep new areas from incorporating into their own cities around it. Not everybody saw this as a good thing. Having just one huge school district for 280 square miles seemed to be a big local problem. I think they were finally in the process of splitting the schools into 4 smaller districts around the time that I left.

[michael31681]

i was looking for the site that shows minneapolis with a population over 400,000. where can i find that site?

[Minnehahapolitan]

Maybe I imagined the 400,000 figure, I can't find my source. Here is the Met Council sheet from 2006. Mpls. has a gain of 5223, for a total of 387,970. Saint Paul lost 220 for a total 286,620.
http://www.metrocouncil.org/metroarea/2006PopulationEstimates.pdf (broken link)

[BreaOC]

When you look at many large cities in the nation you very rarely look at the core cities population. City limits are, for the most part, only invisible lines. For most official uses you would consider the cities Metropolitan Statistical Area. As of 2006 Minneapolis' MSA is at 3,175,041. Minneapolis ranks as the 16th largest metro in the country. Omaha is only at 822,549, ranking it as 60th. As for the largest cities in area, I'm sure everyone will be surprised to know that Sitka, Alaska is actually the largest with a land area of 2,874 sq m!!! I love Minneapolis just the way it is!!!

[Steve_W]

Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan

Minneapolis is land-locked. It can't forcibly annex, and I don't think Edina is going to submit anytime soon. The city will (and is) growing within its current limits. The Metropolitan Council estimates that it is currently over 400,000 and will reach 430,000 by 2030. While Minneapolis may be attractive for its current size regionally; on a city level it leaves alot to be desired. The ideal urban core has much more density than Minneapolis currently does. It works well now; but it would work best with more people within The City. More support of retail, more transit use, et cetera.
Omaha has annexed land that is undeveloped. While its raw population is larger, everybody will see that for what it is. If Mpls. did the same its population would top 1 million. Kansas City is even worse.
Chicago is physically larger because its historical population is larger. It is bound by the same annexation issues as Minneapolis. Like Minneapolis; Chicago's core is growing and making it a more desireable place to live. The same cannot be said for the growth on either of these cities' periphery.
Saint Paul does get the shaft. The problem lies in downtown and the industrial areas and freeways surrounding it. In Minneapolis; the CBD is surrounded by the city's most dense neighborhoods. You have a strong downtown and people who live in walking distance to it. Saint Paul has a depressed downtown (hardly a new phenomenon in the city, it has been for 70 years). That is only compounded by the fact that it is basically an island. 35E cutoff Summit Avenue. The east side is industrial, I can't even remember what is north. For a large city, Saint Paul is alot more suburban. It is the same geographic size. Give it time. Once Minneapolis fills up, people will spill into Saint Paul. Think San Francisco-Oakland (if Oakland was safe).

Omaha has VERY little undeveloped land annexed. Some bits and pieces due to the Elkhorn annexation but their annexation target s are usually large commercial developments.

There are many residential developments outside Omaha city limits They could annex and choose not too. Local tax bases probably wouldn’t outweigh the cost of city services I'm guessing.

Minneapolis's problem is non-aggressive annexation policies from earlier decades and now they are landlocked.

[Minnehahapolitan]

Minneapolis was very agressive in its anneation, but state laws favored outlaying cities that incorporated. Once Richfield incorporated, there was nowhere else for the streetcar to push into. It was the end of annexation for anything south of the City. You really couldn't go west (the lakes were actually a barrier), Saint Paul met at the River.
The point about Omaha is that they have areas of the city proper that have been developed since the War, even in the last couple decades. I was using the fact that there is at least a little undeveloped land to illustrate a point. Not pointing out its ubiquity, but its existence. It would force people in Mpls. to realize how limited our city proper is; you would have to go deep into Dakota County to find something similar.

[Steve_W]

Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan

Minneapolis was very agressive in its anneation, but state laws favored outlaying cities that incorporated. Once Richfield incorporated, there was nowhere else for the streetcar to push into. It was the end of annexation for anything south of the City. You really couldn't go west (the lakes were actually a barrier), Saint Paul met at the River.
The point about Omaha is that they have areas of the city proper that have been developed since the War, even in the last couple decades. I was using the fact that there is at least a little undeveloped land to illustrate a point. Not pointing out its ubiquity, but its existence. It would force people in Mpls. to realize how limited our city proper is; you would have to go deep into Dakota County to find something similar.

Those were very harsh annexation laws. My understanding is to incorporate a town all it has to do is establish a post office. (At least that is how it is here in Nebraska)

Minneapolis was screw from the beginning if that is the case.

[Minnehahapolitan]

I don't think it wasn't that easy in Minn., if my memory serves me it took the establishment of a village/city government. Still not particularly hard. I am not dissatisified with the size of Mpls. (I would like to see Richfield incorporated into the city, ideally). Most of the great cities limit themselves geographically. San Francisco, Boston, Chicago, Saint Louis. It means that people who live in Minneapolis want to live in something that looks like an urban city; there aren't alot of suburbanites who are forced to live within city limits. I can't say for sure, but I would bet a place like Indianapolis or Louisville has a big urban/suburban split in their consolidated-city governments. Mpls. is well taxed; but it never had bankruptcy crises like Detroit. It never hit bottom hard like alot of other cities either. Even at its low, Minneapolis was still pretty decent. It did so within its limited area. We have seen our worst days and survived, I don't see it as a threat to the well being of the City.

[michael31681]

I Saw On Wikipedia That The Twin Cities Metro Has 3,502,891 Is That True? I Didnt Think The Twin Cities Had That Many People.