Census Results! (Minneapolis, St. Paul, Duluth: foreclosures, townhomes, to live in)

[City Data Guy]

Originally Posted by kazoopilot

Do you guys think Rochester will eventually pass St. Paul in population? I know it won't happen any time soon, but with the way things are going it could happen in 40 or 50 years.

I suppose if Rochester keeps on growing at its rate and Saint Paul declines or stabilizes in population, yeah, it could happen.

[krillbee]

It is quite evident that our far our suburbs are growing dramatically. Suburbs like Rosemount, Blaine, Lino Lakes, Lakeville, Woodbury, and others are showing substantial increases. I haven't seen increases this substantial in our inner suburbs and cities. It'll be interesting to see what the next 10 years look like especially as gas prices get higher.

When I think about all the suburban growth it makes my head hurt thinking of how much infrastructure growth will be needed to support them. We don't need our freeways to get any wider and I don't think our commuter rail lines out to Lino Lakes are going to work very well.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by City Data Guy

Why did the non-Hispanic white population of Burnsville decline so much? Burnsville isn't a crappy suburb. Look where I live.

Non-Hispanic White Population of Burnsville in 2000: 51,952

Percentage: 86.3%

Non-Hispanic White Population of Burnsville in 2010: 44,563

Percentage: 73.9%

51,952-44,563=7,389

86.3-73.9=12.4

Why did Burnsville lose over 7,300 non-Hispanic white residents?

I know many people that lived in Burnsville over the past 10 or so years that have left because the schools are declining and crime is increasing in Burnsville. When you can move 5 miles away to better schools and a nicer area, it happens. Burnsville schools used to be among the best in the state, that is no longer the case. They aren't horrible, yet, though. Also, Burnsville "grew up" over 20 years ago so a lot of people have since retired and moved out. The combination of those two things probably led to that decline.

Originally Posted by kazoopilot

It's sad how the entire western and southwestern sections of Minnesota lost population, except for Lyon, Clay and Nobles counties. It just mirrors the growing trend of rural flight across the Great Plains. The only places in that part of the state that grew were Marshall, Moorhead and Worthington. The non-Plains rural areas of Minnesota mostly saw population increases. Why do people hate the prairie so much?

People don't "hate" the prairie-most places don't have employment opportunities for people. Marshall is a rare exception for Outstate MN because of the various large employers out there.

Originally Posted by krillbee

It is quite evident that our far our suburbs are growing dramatically. Suburbs like Rosemount, Blaine, Lino Lakes, Lakeville, Woodbury, and others are showing substantial increases. I haven't seen increases this substantial in our inner suburbs and cities. It'll be interesting to see what the next 10 years look like especially as gas prices get higher.

When I think about all the suburban growth it makes my head hurt thinking of how much infrastructure growth will be needed to support them. We don't need our freeways to get any wider and I don't think our commuter rail lines out to Lino Lakes are going to work very well.

You are assuming that everyone that lives in the suburbs commutes into downtown and that is just not my experience. MOST people I know do not work in either St. Paul or Minneapolis. Their commutes are VERY short, most of them either in the suburb where they live or the next town over. EVERYONE I know that lives in the cities, however, commutes to a suburb.

[uptown_urbanist]

One could still easily argue that endless sprawl doe indeed require significant infrastructure growth. How could it not? More people over more land means more roads, more businesses, more schools, more duplication of services to meet their needs, even if they aren't commuting into downtown. In some ways it would be better if they were mostly all working downtown; that would make public transportation much easier and take some pressure off the roads and get more people out of their cars.

Funny, most of the people I know in the city don't work in a suburb, while most of the people (not all, but most) of the people I know living in suburbs also work in the city. Presumably where we ourselves live and work plays a part in who we know.

I agree that people don't "hate" the prairie. People need work, and many of the counties in question simply don't have the jobs available.

As to suburban growth: this is an interesting decade. The early part of the decade was when things were really booming in the exurbs, but that had reportedly massively slowed down. Now that the economy seems to be settling down and isn't in such a free-fall, we'll eventually have a chance to see how things look in more stable times.

[BlackOut]

Originally Posted by kazoopilot

Do you guys think Rochester will eventually pass St. Paul in population? I know it won't happen any time soon, but with the way things are going it could happen in 40 or 50 years.

If St. Paul doesn't do anything to stop its decline, especially white flight, then yes, Rochester will surpass it within 50 years.

BTW, St. Paul's white population declined 21,097 from 2000 to 2010. Why are all these white people leaving? Does it have to do with high property taxes, suburban appeal, or because they are racist?

[Camden Northsider]

A lot of hubbub was made about racial demographics in Brooklyn Center with the 2010 data- it looks like Brooklyn Center is "officially" Minnesota's first majority non-white suburb with persons identifying as white now making up 49% of the population. A surprise to me is Brooklyn Park- their white population is now at 52%- not sure what it was in 2000, but I am assuming this represents some significant white flight. Wish I had more time to delve into the stats- hopefully some good studies are released showing some of the changes over time of demographics in both the cities and suburbs from 2000 to 2010. It's interesting and somewhat strange to see there are two large suburbs that are now (somewhat significantly) more diverse than Minneapolis.

[west336]

Racist, for sure! JK, probably because their kids are moving to the suburbs and they want to follow them or something. It's not so much "white flight", unless someone is specifically moving away because they don't want to live next to another person of color. Instead, if somebody decides to move because they don't like the crime or schools, or their kids have families in the suburbs, then I don't consider that "flight". Also, St. Paul is still a mecca for immigrants, so as older (white) people die or move on, younger immigrant families often take their places.

In a nutshell, I think it's empty-nesters and elderly leading the charge.

[west336]

Where is this suburb by suburb data? I only see the top 20 cities!!

[uptown_urbanist]

St. Paul didn't lose many people. I'd hardly say that there's any evidence of much "flight." A slight downsizing. And for what it's worth, I also know people who have moved into St. Paul in recent years (including empty-nesters) and people -- including a (white) family with young kids -- who are taking a closer look at moving in within the next year. I think the white population, anyway, is also aging there (same as with suburbs like Burnsville); their kids are grown up, so a house that might have had 5 people in 2000 now has 2.

[audadvnc]

As for St Paul's shrinkage, it's also likely a result of fewer jobs in town. Most the manufacturing concerns have closed down and moved either to the 'burbs or to China, and people go where the paychecks are.