Most of the midwestern cities declined in terms of population during the 1980's and 90's due to white flight. Now, out of all these midwestern cities, which are improving the most?

Definately Chicago. Milwaukee and St.Louis are either losing population or are holding steady.

Chicago actually gained population in the '90s.

If Chicago is losing population it is mostly due to Mexicans moving up the economic ladder. 10 years ago, a lot of Mexican families lived in pretty crowded conditions, now they can afford more space and many more younger Mexican-Americans are renting their own apartments at a younger age.

I had one Mexican friend whose family crowded into a 2 flat 15 years ago, a total of 11 people. Now, just 3 live in the same house. That has happened in many Mexican neighborhoods.

DP

If Chicago is losing population it is mostly due to Mexicans moving up the economic ladder. 10 years ago, a lot of Mexican families lived in pretty crowded conditions, now they can afford more space and many more younger Mexican-Americans are renting their own apartments at a younger age.

I had one Mexican friend whose family crowded into a 2 flat 15 years ago, a total of 11 people. Now, just 3 live in the same house. That has happened in many Mexican neighborhoods.

This is true to an extent... Sure many Mexicans have progressed enough to the point where they can afford a house, but it's where they decide to buy their property where the problem is. You can find the same issue of overcrowding in the suburbs that still exists in the city today, it's just unfortunate that many immigrants are bypassing the city for the suburbs.

There are definately a lot of Hispanics moving to Dupage and Will Counties especially and around Chicago Heights in southern Cook County. As Hispanics move up the economic ladder they are moving to the suburbs to get away from the crime and crowded conditions.

There are definately a lot of Hispanics moving to Dupage and Will Counties especially and around Chicago Heights in southern Cook County. As Hispanics move up the economic ladder they are moving to the suburbs to get away from the crime and crowded conditions.

You think moving to Chicago Heights is moving up the ladder? Chicago Heights is a dump. Its 2004 crime rate was higher than Chicago and the income was lower. Chicago Heights is not a step up from very many places.

Definately Chicago. Milwaukee and St.Louis are either losing population or are holding steady.

St. Louis is gaining population again.

I think you'll have to wait until 2010 to say whether or not that is for certain, though.

On the other hand, Detroit is definitely still losing population. White Flight has all but erased the white population, but now Black Flight is occuring.

Yes, the analytical, systematic, left brained, will have to wait until 2010. The perceptive, visually intelligent, are able to see the difference now, at this moment. And the census estimates were challenged and won.

There's a huge difference between revitalization and population gain. In fact, in many cases gentrification brings population density down. I'm not saying St. Louis is gaining or losing population. I'm just saying there's no way of telling whether or not estimates are correct until the actual count. We all know Chicago was estimated to lose population between 1990 and 2000, yet it gained. The reverse could happen to a city that is believed to be gaining population.

Sure. Those- to the point, cliché American thinkers, can wait till 2010. Fine, so be it. I don't care. I'm pretty sure it'll show a gain, and I'm talking more than just rehabilitation. Is there a reason you want to downplay our excitement? Don't people often downplay Detroit? Doesn't it piss you off? Are you trying to do the same?

Hudkina you bring up an excellent point about gentrification bringing down density. For instance it has been very popular to convert rundown 2 family flats Example (http://www.realtor.com/FindHome/HomeListing.asp?snum=140&locallnk=yes&frm=byzip&mnbed=0&mnbath=0&mnprice=0&mxprice=99999999&js=off&pgnum=14&fid=so&mnsqft=&mls=xmls&areaid=63118&typ=1%2C+2%2C+4&poe=realtor&zp=63118&sbint=&vtsort=&sid=05E58EDE2B03C&snumxlid=1050003468&lnksrc=00002) into single family homes Example (http://www.realtor.com/FindHome/HomeListing.asp?snum=326&locallnk=yes&frm=byzip&mnbed=0&mnbath=0&mnprice=0&mxprice=99999999&js=off&fid=so&mnsqft=&mls=xmls&areaid=63116&typ=1%2C+2%2C+4&poe=realtor&zp=63116&sbint=&vtsort=&sid=05E591273459C&pgnum=33&snumxlid=1053661480&lnksrc=00002) as well as 4 family flats into two families. These properties however are usually underutilized or vacant before being converted. Of course you also have buildings that have never had residents in them before being made into lofts and other residential uses plus several new residential projects being built from the ground up. I think the 2010 census will be really be interesting

Chicago... new condos in the downtown area...

the old industrial factories are turning into housing...

For example, Bridgeport, the same neighborhood that I live in are building housing like crazy, because of the mass amount of land that used to be factories. Plus, the land is on the Chicago River, meaning good location and etc.

Here is a model...
http://pwsimages.com/pws_gallery/model_snitz_1.jpg

http://pwsimages.com/pws_gallery/model_snitz_2.jpg



http://www.bridgeportvillage.com/htmlsite/images/map_neighborhood.gif

Legend: http://www.bridgeportvillage.com/index2.html

http://www.bridgeportvillage.com/htmlsite/images/cityview.jpg

The Chicago River. http://www.bridgeportvillage.com/htmlsite/images/riverwalknew.jpg

more info : http://www.bridgeportvillage.com/

Minneapolis gained population in the last census and has built a lot of housing since. Not sure it is the top, but between 2000 and 2010 I would guess there will be at 10,000 new housing units built.

Sure. Those- to the point, cliché American thinkers, can wait till 2010. Fine, so be it. I don't care. I'm pretty sure it'll show a gain, and I'm talking more than just rehabilitation. Is there a reason you want to downplay our excitement? Don't people often downplay Detroit? Doesn't it piss you off? Are you trying to do the same?

Hudinka brings up an excellent point regarding population density and gentrification. No one can discount the obvious revitalization efforts and population gain in downtown St. Louis, but who is to say that those gains are not offset by the continued fleeing of other St. Louis community areas outside of downtown that have been struggling for decades?

Personally, I think you will see a slight increase in the population of St. Louis in 2010. Either way, there is no reason that defensive (as most St. Louisans seem to do).

Milwaukee's population never went into a precipitous decline like Detroit, Cleveland or St. Louis. We've steadily but slowly lost population since the 1970s.

A recent State projection said that Milwaukee would grow in population largely due to Hispanic and Hmong immigration. Indeed, these two groups are growing like crazy, and unlike in Chicagoland they are almost entirely locating in the City. The social services and schools that serve Spanish speakers in Milwaukee are getting overburdened with the tide of new immigrants. Unlike the yuppies moving Downtown, these groups tend to have large families, so if Milwaukee is to gain population by 2010, it will be due to these folks.

There's nothing more I'd like than to hear that St. Louis finally ended its population loss. In fact, I'm rooting for a net gain in 2010, however I'm just saying I wouldn't count my chickens before they hatched.

it's important to remember that population is only one factor by which to measure the health of a city. it is entirely possible for a city to "lose" population while at the same time become more healthy (aka increased tax base) and stable. population trends alone do not dictate the overall trend for the health of a city a city.

Hudinka brings up an excellent point regarding population density and gentrification. No one can discount the obvious revitalization efforts and population gain in downtown St. Louis, but who is to say that those gains are not offset by the continued fleeing of other St. Louis community areas outside of downtown that have been struggling for decades?

Personally, I think you will see a slight increase in the population of St. Louis in 2010. Either way, there is no reason that defensive (as most St. Louisans seem to do).

Exactly. A luxury condo tower loaded with high end units looks impressive and of course is a good addition to any city's Downtown. But it's really not that many people comparitively speaking. A 35 story condo tower might have 3 units per floor. So that's 115 units. The people living in these places typically don't have kids. So that's only about 230 people. I live in a neighborhood with a lot of families with about maybe 30 houses on the block. That right there could be 100 to 150 people just on one block. The neighborhoods with families are the ones experiencing population loss as parents move their kids to better school districts. So for every empty nester or young professional moving Downtown there are probably two people leaving the city. The only thing that's going to stop this is new families with kids coming in, which at the moment comes in the form of immigration.

Hudinka brings up an excellent point regarding population density and gentrification. No one can discount the obvious revitalization efforts and population gain in downtown St. Louis, but who is to say that those gains are not offset by the continued fleeing of other St. Louis community areas outside of downtown that have been struggling for decades?


Actually, downtown St Louis is not where all of this so called, "population gain" is coming from. These are other portions of the city seeing growth.

The Big Ones-

-The Central West End- Several High Rise Proposals, and 2 under construction. Several more approved.
-Lafayette Square- Victorian Beauty of St Louis. It's currently passed rehabilitation, and is now going through major infill development, and commercial growth. A commercial district downtown is expanding.
-Soulard- St Louis' French Quarter. This is St Louis in all its glory. It's the home of the Anheiser Busch Brewery, St Louis Mardi Gras, and beautiful red brick homes and cobblestone roads. Rehab has pretty much passed, and like L-Square, it's building infill, and new homes.
Midtown/Grand Center- We can thank St Louis university for the progress here. It's a bit slower than the Central West End, Downtown, and various other places, but its proven that it's location between Downtown and the Central West End, has their wealth spilling over.
Tower Grove- A family neighborhood, centered around Tower Grove Park, and a very international, and gay friendly location. It's home to St. Louis' Gay Pride Festival.
Downtown- The more known hood of growth, it's probably 2nd to the Central West End, or 3rd. I am not sure, but that will probably change soon. Washington Avenue is the more known area of development, but several high rises are planned, and major attractions as well. Metrolink has done it well, as have other major improvements.
Benton Park- More like an extension of Soulard. It sits west of it. This neighborhood is amazing. You love row houses? You can see quite a few here. Love red brick? It's here.

Coming Soon- Neighborhoods that may soon show growth.

Old North St Louis- It's called the next Soulard by some. It's fairly similar to the French District of St Louis in housing stock, but on the opposite end of Downtown. Many risk takers are coming in this neighborhood and investing- rehabbing beautiful homes.

Forest Park South East- Near the Central West End, this neighborhood is in line for some major investment.

Laclede's Landing- Currently, it's more of a tourist destination, and has fallen on some somewhat difficult times. It's obviously nothing compared to some places in the city, but it's not the BIG destination it use to be. Most blame the neighborhoods lack of residential units, but that will change with several projects underway. It sits just north of the Arch, and has its own Metrolink station. It may be home to the first riverfront residential property, and many more.

There's more, but you'll have to ask the others for those places. I was just trying to imply that the growth is not just downtown.

Lafayette Square

http://www.pbase.com/stlouis_314/image/48838727.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v200/Chrome979/DSC08625b.jpg

Soulard
http://photos-431.facebook.com/n3/31/04/n82100407_30000431_5538.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/jivecity/image/21518650.jpg

The Central West End
http://i.pbase.com/v3/53/366053/1/51060934.millstw.jpg

http://www.urbanstlouis.com/images/renderings/modirend005.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/jivecity/image/32148246.jpg

I wish all midwest cities could prosper, yet the cities that look healthy on the development side include milw/chic/stl. Lets just hope all these renovations and populated towers will be filled. An arguable problem with milwaukee is that some residents are still flying into the outer suburbs, so for the most part "white flight" isnt over, but im sure the rate has decreased. But with the improving of inner cities homes which st louis and MKE show to be doing, the flight out of the city limits could decrease due to the flourishing neighborhoods. so, even if you lay the chickens and they dont hatch, it still encourages better city living, and its better improved and unattended then just left to rot and die.

Chicago always wins lol

I wish all midwest cities could prosper, yet the cities that look healthy on the development side include milw/chic/stl. Lets just hope all these renovations and populated towers will be filled. An arguable problem with milwaukee is that some residents are still flying into the outer suburbs, so for the most part "white flight" isnt over, but im sure the rate has decreased. But with the improving of inner cities homes which st louis and MKE show to be doing, the flight out of the city limits could decrease due to the flourishing neighborhoods. so, even if you lay the chickens and they dont hatch, it still encourages better city living, and its better improved and unattended then just left to rot and die.

White flight is happening in most cities. A better term for it is middle class flight, for it's not all white people. Black, Hispanic and Asian residents also tend to move to the suburbs as part of the whole American dream thing. So far most of the redevelopment of Milwaukee's Downtown and central city neighborhoods has been upper income. There's still more middle class folks leaving than upper income folks coming in. What will make up the difference is the immigration of Hispanics and Asians. I predict Milwaukee will show a modest gain in population by 2010, and that will be due both to immigration and the Downtown boom. The Downtown condo boom alone won't do it.

Chicago always wins lol

Damn right! ;)

If you are talking only of the city proper - and not the metropolitan area - these are the figures supplied by the US Census. The first number is the 2004 population. The 2nd number is the peak population and the 3rd number is the date of the peak population of the city. The last number is the 2004 percentage of the peak population. Cities indicated with a star have had annexations that have influenced the figures.

St. Louis, Detroit and Cleveland have lost the most population.

From these figures, only Wichita, Omaha, Indianapolis and Columbus have not lost population and are in fact at their peak today:

Chicago.......2,862,244...3,620,962.....1950.....79.05%
Detroit...........900,198....1,849,568....1950.....48.67%
Minneapolis.....373,943.....521,718.....1950.....71.68%
Cleveland.......458,684.......914,808....1950.....50.14%
St. Louis........343,279.......856,796....1950.....40.07%
Cincinnati.......314,154.......503,998....1950.....62.33%
Milwaukee.......583,624......741,324.....1960.....78.73%
Indianapolis*...784,242.......784,242.....2004....100.00%
Columbus........730,008.......730,008....2004.....100.00%
Kansas City*....444,387......507,087....1970......87.64%
Omaha............408,416......408,416....2004.....100.00%
Toledo............304,973......383,818....1970......79.46%
Wichita...........353,823......353,823....2004......100.00%

Detroit's population loss is staggering. Mind-boggling levels of white flight. I thought things were pretty bad here in Chicago. Jeez...

Detroit's population loss is staggering. Mind-boggling levels of white flight. I thought things were pretty bad here in Chicago. Jeez...

I edited the post above to reflect the 2004 population rather than the 1990 census estimates. So actually St. Louis is the city that has lost the most population among the 13 largest midwest cities.

But, again, this does not reflect the metropolitan population! Just the core cities.

Yes, St. Louis lost the highest percentage, but not the highest number. But the city is now considered to be growing again, albeit very, very slowly.

The Brookings Insititute did a couple of reports on this recently.

This one talks about the demographics of various downtowns around the country:
http://www.brookings.edu/metro/pubs/20051115_birch.htm

If you look at page 15, they categorize downtowns based on the growth stage they think that each is in. The midwest cities are as follows:

Fully-Developed: Chicago
Emerging: Cleveland
On the Edge of Takeoff: Milwaukee
Slow-Growing: Columbus, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh
Declining: Cincinnati, Des Moines, Detriot, Minneapolis, St. Louis

This report did most of the major cities, but not all obviously. I'm not sure if Omaha, K.C. or Okl. City were studied.

This one projects 2010 downtown population:
http://www.brookings.edu/metro/publications/livingdowntown.htm

...although for both of these, it kinda depends on how a city defines its downtown. For instance, does Milwaukee's count the Beerline, Third Ward or Fifth Ward?

^^Shocking! I just visited Detroit and its downtown in my eyes seemed to have improved over three years ago! Just my observation.

^It is, those rankings are pure bunk. Almost every downtown in America is getting better.

From these figures, only Wichita, Omaha, Indianapolis and Columbus have not lost population and are in fact at their peak today:

Chicago.......2,862,244...3,620,962.....1950.....79.05%
Detroit...........900,198....1,849,568....1950.....48.67%
Minneapolis.....373,943.....521,718.....1950.....71.68%
Cleveland.......458,684.......914,808....1950.....50.14%
St. Louis........343,279.......856,796....1950.....40.07%
Cincinnati.......314,154.......503,998....1950.....62.33%
Milwaukee.......583,624......741,324.....1960.....78.73%
Indianapolis*...784,242.......784,242.....2004....100.00%
Columbus........730,008.......730,008....2004.....100.00%
Kansas City*....444,387......507,087....1970......87.64%
Omaha............408,416......408,416....2004.....100.00%
Toledo............304,973......383,818....1970......79.46%
Wichita...........353,823......353,823....2004......100.00%
You forgot OKC which is also gaining population. I am assuming that is partly due to a collossal amount of recently annexed land however.

^It is, those rankings are pure bunk. Almost every downtown in America is getting better.

Haha, a little hometown bias perhaps?

It is important to note that the stats in the recent Brookings report about downtowns only include decennial Census data up until 2000 (because the yearly Census estimates are merely estimates, as opposed to actual population counts, which are more accurate overall). So the results and rankings do not reflect any changes in downtowns that have occurred in the six years since then. And the authors of the report even make a point of mentioning that, so at least they're honest.

Minneapolis and St Paul proper are both in the process of a residential boom like I have never seen here before. In Minneapolis it is more than St Paul but it is in both. I think the Twin Cities are the most "sun belt" of the major metros in the Midwest and Northeast in the sense that they are growing the fastest for large 1 million+ metros; that growth is starting to head into the cities proper...

I don't need statistics to see it though that is what proves it to others. I have lived in one or the other for the last 18 years and honestly I have never seen so much residential construction in either as I have seen in the last 3 years, new 3-5 story midrises are everywhere and are being built in almost every neighborhood. In mine the big ones are on the edge of downtown St Paul, townhouses by the capital and a new large rental and library building at University and Dale; the Aberdeen lofts (kick ass) and a new one on Western near Summit are the big ones just to the south on St Paul's Cathedral Hill.

Neither city experienced middle class flight to anywhere near the degree of many others in the midwest and as a result they bounced back decades ago. The old, embattled middleclass neighborhoods are no longer embattled and are getting denser as the weeks go by. Most of the projects are so mundane in the local view that they never merit a mention here but if they were happening in a lot of other places in the midwest it would be otherwise. Parking lots are sprouting condos and new mixed use neighborhoods everywhere. Our growth rate allows us to grow but at a slower rate than the Atlantas, Phoenixs and Las Vegases of the world which means that we can grow but at a slow enough rate that we can learn from the mistakes of those sun-belt cities that had to add at double or triple a rate as we have had to. Midspeed growth is the best for building a city intelligently in a way that will contiune to work for decades to come.

Lots of people moved to the Twin Cities in the 90's with the booming economy and it drove up housing costs which was too bad because cheap housing was part of what attracted workers (along with high wages and low unemployment). In 2000 rents were at an all time high and vacancies were at an all time low. That worked its way into the ownership market and brought that to an all time high for condos and cheap houses in ok neighborhoods. Rents are starting to fall as prices for relatively cheap owner occupied housing stagnates due to increasing supply. Fewer people have moved here in the last five years and it is a good thing, it has allowed the housing market to catch up to the demand, laying the groundwork for our next boom. I forsee a small condo glut in the near term driving down the cost of rent and owner occupied condo housing in the short to mid-term. The economic boom will in the long run make property a good investment though as the Twin Cities make their run from 3 million to 4 million in the next decade or two.

Haha, a little hometown bias perhaps?
I may be biased, but I also have eyes. Come on, the Brookings Institution says even MINNEAPOLIS is in decline. Does anyone really believe that considering all you've read and heard about that particular city?

Downtowns in general are back in vogue. They are being built up across the country, and a visit to just about any city will prove it. Just because one source says something based on flawed criteria (all criteria is flawed IMO) doesn't make it fact.

Any population gain/loss between 1950 and 2000 is completely irrelevent, considering any city that gained population during that era also added quite a bit of land to their boundaries.

Look at Kansas City. It lost 15,000 people, despite adding 233 sq. mi. of land to its boundaries. If Detroit or St. Louis had been able to annex 230 sq. mi. of land, their population would have seen a net gain, not a net loss.

Detroit - 2,063,416 in 370.41 sq. mi. (139.6 + 232.9 = 372.5) +11.6%
St. Louis - 1,083,481 in 289.81 sq. mi. (61.0 + 232.9 = 293.9) +26.5%
Kansas City - 441,545 in 313.5 sq. mi. (80.6 + 232.9 = 313.5) -3.3%

I may be biased, but I also have eyes. Come on, the Brookings Institution says even MINNEAPOLIS is in decline. Does anyone really believe that considering all you've read and heard about that particular city?

Downtowns in general are back in vogue. They are being built up across the country, and a visit to just about any city will prove it. Just because one source says something based on flawed criteria (all criteria is flawed IMO) doesn't make it fact.

You have to take that study with a serious grain of salt. They only really considered one criteria, Downtown housing starts between 1990 and 2000. Not only does this leave out the last six years, it also ignores other factors such as the quality of the housing, other development like retail or office, and mass transit. It also ambigiously defines "Downtown." What if, for instance, they had not included River North as part of "Downtown Chicago?" Would that have changed the result? As for Milwaukee, did they include the Lower East Side and Beerline area, Brewer's Hill or Walker's Point? The same can be asked for any city in their study. "Downtown" is different things to different people.

another thing to consider though, is that the report is strictly talking about downtown, not the entire city or the metro area as a whole. somnifor, you talked about a lot of development happening in the neighborhoods of Minneapolis, and no one can argue that the Twin Cities are growing as a metro area (mostly sprawl though), but this report is specifically about downtown.

Like you stated, Minneapolis is the most "sunbelt" of all the midwestern cities, but I don't really consider that a good thing. It's the birthplace of the suburban mall, the current home of the largest mall in the nation, you are building a suburban football stadium and Target recently announced it is going to build a giant surburban mized-use development to house at least half of its employees, instead of putting them downtown. Are the Twin Cities growing? Yeah, but I don't think it is the best growth.

Oh, you can all let me have it now.

i agree with you milwaukeeD...outside of minneapolis the population and development growth is overlooked. The metro is all the way into wisconsin now, last time i was coming into minneapolis it was all open land....

Actually it was Detroit that built the first suburban mall. Northland Center was built in 1954 in the city of Southfield about nine miles north of Downtown Detroit. Though, Minneapolis built the first fully enclosed mall.

I presume this thread only includes patrons living within the city limits, and not metro area.

If metro is included, by percentage growth, it would be Minneapolis (I think). By total number, it would be Chicago.

Any population gain/loss between 1950 and 2000 is completely irrelevent, considering any city that gained population during that era also added quite a bit of land to their boundaries.

Look at Kansas City. It lost 15,000 people, despite adding 233 sq. mi. of land to its boundaries. If Detroit or St. Louis had been able to annex 230 sq. mi. of land, their population would have seen a net gain, not a net loss.

Detroit - 2,063,416 in 370.41 sq. mi. (139.6 + 232.9 = 372.5) +11.6%
St. Louis - 1,083,481 in 289.81 sq. mi. (61.0 + 232.9 = 293.9) +26.5%
Kansas City - 441,545 in 313.5 sq. mi. (80.6 + 232.9 = 313.5) -3.3%


Pardon me, but if you are arguing that "Any population loss/gain between 1950 and 200 is completely irrelevant," then what is the point of this thread?

Of course if Detroit or St. Louis annexed land in that time they would have grown. Your point is completely irrelevant.

Note that only Indianapolis and Kansas City annexed land between those dates. And I agree with you that it skews the comparison. That's why those cities are noted with a star in the list above. The facts remain that Columbus, Wichita and Omaha have not lost population and in fact are larger today than at any other point in time.

One other major factor has only briefly been mentioned but is worth reiterating here. To quote another forumer: "The US was still recovering from WWII and lots of families were living with multiple generations in one house. It was in the 1950s that the great suburban construction boom intensified. Then in the '60s, the freeways cut through many neighborhoods removing thousands of homes..."

I would add that the freeways, like a removed stopper in a drain, allowed people to flow out of the central cities much more easily. But it's important to know that "suburban" living was not invented by America. It dates back several hundred years as a concept. "Country" houses in England since the early 1800's had attracted people away from the central cities so they could get away from the grime and crowds. Not a lot of downtowns were pretty places in post-war America.

It is completely relevent. Every single city on that list annexed land, except Detroit. A few only annexed a few square miles (St. Louis), but most went as far as adding over 100 sq. mi. to their boundaries. Also, it's unfair to say cities like Indianapolis or Wichita were spared of the population loss that hit Detroit and St. Louis", when in reality the population of their 1950's boundaries probably fell just as low. The only difference is that they were able to annex quite a bit of their suburbs, while St. Louis and Detroit basically maintained their boundaries.

another thing to consider though, is that the report is strictly talking about downtown, not the entire city or the metro area as a whole. somnifor, you talked about a lot of development happening in the neighborhoods of Minneapolis, and no one can argue that the Twin Cities are growing as a metro area (mostly sprawl though), but this report is specifically about downtown.

This report is already totally outdated being it doesn't include the progress most downtowns have made over the past 5 years. Since 2000 both Minneapolis and St. Paul have seen thousands of units built. Minneapolis now has LRT and several new cultural projects are underway.

Like you stated, Minneapolis is the most "sunbelt" of all the midwestern cities, but I don't really consider that a good thing. It's the birthplace of the suburban mall, the current home of the largest mall in the nation, you are building a suburban football stadium and Target recently announced it is going to build a giant surburban mized-use development to house at least half of its employees, instead of putting them downtown. Are the Twin Cities growing? Yeah, but I don't think it is the best growth.

Oh, you can all let me have it now.

He stated the Twin Cities metro area, not the city of Minneapolis, is the most "sunbelt" of all midwestern cities. Also, Target's headquarters isn't leaving downtown nor is it reducing the size of its downtown workforce so, I guess there is no reason to worry about them building a suburban campus. Finally, who the hell wants a football stadium and a sea of parking lots downtown? Let the Vikings move to the northern burbs. The move will free up plenty of lots for development. BTW, I'm sure Milwaukee area leaders would hate to have the nation's largest mall, which is huge for the local economy, in the area.

i think that one thing that people dont like to look at is the continuing drain of people from the worst areas of town. kansas city and st. louis are still suffering due to this in light of the population gains elsewhere in the city. its still happening.

people on the east side of urban kc are still fleeing south to south kc and southern suburbs and people in north stl city are still going west and northwest. until these areas are reborn, i wont be satisfied even in the light of booming condo sales.

thats weird that the brookings document doesnt include kansas city, when it did include des moines, columbus, and cinci.

If you are talking only of the city proper - and not the metropolitan area - these are the figures supplied by the US Census. The first number is the 2004 population. The 2nd number is the peak population and the 3rd number is the date of the peak population of the city. The last number is the 2004 percentage of the peak population. Cities indicated with a star have had annexations that have influenced the figures.

St. Louis, Detroit and Cleveland have lost the most population.

From these figures, only Wichita, Omaha, Indianapolis and Columbus have not lost population and are in fact at their peak today:

Chicago.......2,862,244...3,620,962.....1950.....79.05%
Detroit...........900,198....1,849,568....1950.....48.67%
Minneapolis.....373,943.....521,718.....1950.....71.68%
Cleveland.......458,684.......914,808....1950.....50.14%
St. Louis........343,279.......856,796....1950.....40.07%
Cincinnati.......314,154.......503,998....1950.....62.33%
Milwaukee.......583,624......741,324.....1960.....78.73%
Indianapolis*...784,242.......784,242.....2004....100.00%
Columbus........730,008.......730,008....2004.....100.00%
Kansas City*....444,387......507,087....1970......87.64%
Omaha............408,416......408,416....2004.....100.00%
Toledo............304,973......383,818....1970......79.46%
Wichita...........353,823......353,823....2004......100.00%


And only Wichita, Omaha, Indianapolis and Columbus are preposterous bogus numbers! they are EXACTLY THE SAME!!!