"Minneapolis' growth in households is running 20 years ahead of schedule"

[The anti-cheesehead]

I ran across this article in our local paper, the Star Tribune. I remember hearing something about Minneapolis continuing to lose people, but this seems to contradict that:

"Minneapolis is growing quite a lot faster than the Metropolitan Council had expected, according to estimates released last week by the city's Community Planning and Economic Development agency. That's good economic news for Minnesota, and it strengthens the case for greater investments in transit and other urban services.
Back in 2002, using the 2000 census as its base, the Met Council projected that the city, after having lost a third of its population over five decades, would again rise above 400,000 people by 2010 and exceed 435,000 by 2030.
But now, based on a close examination of housing trends, city officials say that Minneapolis' growth in households is running 20 years ahead of schedule. The city expects to surpass the Met Council's projections for 2030 within the next five years. Depending on the size of those new households, the city expects a population of somewhere between 417,000 and 435,000 by 2010, and expects to surpass 465,000 by 2030.
Affluent empty-nesters, young white-collar singles and immigrant families are all part of the picture. While the housing market has cooled lately, demographic trends (aging boomers, young up-starts) are favorable for the next two decades. Similar trends may be afoot in St. Paul, although that city has not made a mid-decade household/population check.
In Minneapolis, officials are particularly pleased that redevelopment is happening where it makes most sense: downtown, where large gaps of underused land are being filled with condos, and along transit corridors, including the Hiawatha line.
While faster growth is mostly good, it also brings challenges. If Minneapolis hopes to sustain downtown growth, for example, it must dramatically improve its sidewalk atmosphere. Thousands of trees must be planted, lighting added and many streets narrowed. Retail must be revived and quality-of-life issues (loitering, panhandling, etc.) controlled.
Other problems loom. New jobs are needed. Rising crime must be reversed, schools reformed and transit improved. Mayor R.T. Rybak's streetcar initiative is a good start, as is a new study which may adjust street patterns.
There are state implications, too. Many policies, especially on transportation and development, are biased toward the suburban form. New efforts to subvert the eminent domain laws and the Livable Communities Act could, if passed, impede progress in both cities and exacerbate suburban sprawl.
Still, the Minneapolis numbers are encouraging, mostly because metro regions with growing, thriving central cities tend to be healthier and more successful than those where central cities are declining."

[The anti-cheesehead]

Here's the link:

http://www.startribune.com/561/story/175562.html

[eweezerinc]

remember hearing something about Minneapolis continuing to lose people

I always get the impression that Minny is becoming a vibrant growing city. Never heard that it is losing any population.

[AtlantaGA]

Minneapolis, like most major cities, has lost population in the last few decades due to many reasons, including white flight to the suburbs, smaller families, etc.

I have lived in Minneapolis now for five years. I grew up in the Kansas City area and lived in Atlanta for seven years, until I moved to MPLS. Let me just say that Minneapolis is an amazing city. I saw the article in the paper regarding the core city population increase and I am not surprised. What some people do not realize about Minneapolis is that the physical area of the city is relatively small compared to other major cities. With this said, the population density is quite high. Minneapolis has not annexed any of it's first ring suburbs like other cities have, including KC and Atlanta.

It's a great time to live in Minneapolis, to witness first hand its incredible growth, evolution and changing skyline. Minnneapolis is not growing as fast as Atlanta, but few cities are. Nevertheless, it's a sight to see!

[Somnifor]

Originally Posted by eweezerinc

I always get the impression that Minny is becoming a vibrant growing city. Never heard that it is losing any population.

I think it comes from the Brookings report that downtown Minneapolis is/was losing population.

[Badgers77]

I'd move to Minneapolis to live once I graduate college, but it's just too damn... "Alone" for me. There's nothing else around it. Chicago, Milwaukee are all very long drives.

[gaviidae]

Saint Paul is only nine miles away.

[cmj2k2]

milwaukee, chicago, madison, des moines(probably doesnt count), kansas city, st paul are all within 8 hours or less.

[Minneapolitan]

Add Winnipeg and Omaha to that list.

BTW, why wouldnt Des Moines count? IMO if MADISON counts, then Des Moines definetely does. It's metro is creeping on 600,000.

[milwaukeeunseen]

Originally Posted by Minneapolitan

Add Winnipeg and Omaha to that list.

BTW, why wouldnt Des Moines count? IMO if MADISON counts, then Des Moines definetely does. It's metro is creeping on 600,000.

Actually, Madison and Des Moines are almost the same size with about 500,000 in the metro. This is also the around the same size as Fort Wayne, Indiana.

[prongz]

I don't think Minneapolis is losing people.