Minneapolis population loss (St. Paul, St. Louis Park, Windom: crimes, new home, construction)

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by Cruz Azul Guy

I thought it was a good theory but I think Glenfield is correct on this one. I found a website which will break down housing units built by decade in major US cities. In comparing St. Paul with Minneapolis I didn’t find much of a difference between housing units built (relatively speaking) between 1960-1980.

https://www.governing.com/gov-data/t...in-cities.html

That is a fun website and thanks for sharing. While not applicable to MPLS or St. Paul, for 2010 and later, the housing stock increases have not been updated. I've looked at towns that have had some MASSIVE growth and the bar is extremely low. To show what I mean, look at The Villages, FL. It's ranked No. 1 in percentage growth from 2010 to 2018 at a whopping 38% over that 8-year stretch. Yet the link shows small growth. Same-same on other high growth towns like Bend, OR etc.

[knke0204]

Originally Posted by Apparel

Minneapolis was a nice friendly place and affordable between 1950 and 1990. I lived in Minneapolis my entire life up until a few years ago. Minneapolis didn't have major crime issues or any other reason to have fled more the St.Paul. Minneapolis started to have a crime problems in the 90's when people from Chicago began to move there. And Minneapolis was always pretty affordable but not so much now that everyone seems to want to move there.. but whatever some people are a know it all.

This is a ridiculously bold claim and it's conjecture. This is also a very short-sighted analysis. It's a lazy take, but if that's the hill you're willing to die on, by all means.

[Apparel]

Originally Posted by knke0204

This is a ridiculously bold claim and it's conjecture. This is also a very short-sighted analysis. It's a lazy take, but if that's the hill you're willing to die on, by all means.

I don't know what you're talking about. You have any reason for even bothering to comment? Lazy take lol ok. Dont read it.

[Ghengis]

Originally Posted by Apparel

I don't know what you're talking about. You have any reason for even bothering to comment? Lazy take lol ok. Dont read it.

don't like your posts criticized, don't post

[Tyryztoll]

Originally Posted by Apparel

I don't know what you're talking about. You have any reason for even bothering to comment?

Could be they're bothering to comment because this is a public forum that exists for the sole purpose of participants bothering to comment. I dunno.....am I oversimplifying things here?

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Ghengis

don't like your posts criticized, don't post

Originally Posted by Tyryztoll

Could be they're bothering to comment because this is a public forum that exists for the sole purpose of participants bothering to comment. I dunno.....am I oversimplifying things here?

I did not take it that Apparel was objecting to any criticism, only to the lack of any substance.

Originally Posted by knke0204

This is a ridiculously bold claim and it's conjecture. This is also a very short-sighted analysis. It's a lazy take, but if that's the hill you're willing to die on, by all means.

There really isn’t much here. Why is it “ridiculously bold?” Conjecture is an opinion. What is his post if not conjecture? That’s about the only thing that gets posted in this forum! How is it “short-sighted” or a “lazy take?” And exactly where does Apparel suggest that he/she is willing to die for this opinion?

If it’s fair for knke0204 to post a string of unsubstantiated opinions about Apparel’s post— and I think it is— then it’s equally fair for Apparel to criticize knke0204’s post.

Just as I am sure someone will, fairly, chime in to criticize this one.

[Cruz Azul Guy]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

I did not take it that Apparel was objecting to any criticism, only to the lack of any substance.



There really isn’t much here. Why is it “ridiculously bold?” Conjecture is an opinion. What is his post if not conjecture? That’s about the only thing that gets posted in this forum! How is it “short-sighted” or a “lazy take?” And exactly where does Apparel suggest that he/she is willing to die for this opinion?

If it’s fair for knke0204 to post a string of unsubstantiated opinions about Apparel’s post— and I think it is— then it’s equally fair for Apparel to criticize knke0204’s post.

Just as I am sure someone will, fairly, chime in to criticize this one.

Your take, as ridiculously bold as it was, is also quite lazy.

[MrMinneapolis]

Compare the demographic changes in those time periods and you may have an answer

[2x3x29x41]

Originally Posted by MrMinneapolis

Compare the demographic changes in those time periods and you may have an answer

Why don't you explain what you're talking about, rather than just issuing a vague reference to 'demographic changes'?

[spectre000]

Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41

Why don't you explain what you're talking about, rather than just issuing a vague reference to 'demographic changes'?

In the 2010 census, the average household size was 2.22. It was 3.08 in 1950.