KC/Indy/Columbus outgrowing Minneapolis? (Kansas City, Jackson: buy, organic, live in)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, makes sense. Is strange though that MSP had domestic pop losses even in the early/mid 2000s too while there was job increase going on by mid-200s. Like most metros, the big dump in jobs didn't hit til later 2008. Would agree though that MSP is better positioned than KC/Indy/Columbus/STL to somewhat take off again once economy recovers.
Yeah, I don't know. The only reason I can think of is since the boom slowed, we still have a lot of retired people moving to places like Arizona and even the lakes in Northern Minnesota attract a lot of retirees. I have seen this shift in demographic studies. I read that report you posted and it seems like Phoenix is one of the areas that attract people from MSP, I would wager that most of those people are not moving to Phoenix for a job.
Yeah, makes sense. Is strange though that MSP had domestic pop losses even in the early/mid 2000s too while there was job increase going on by mid-200s. Like most metros, the big dump in jobs didn't hit til later 2008. Would agree though that MSP is better positioned than KC/Indy/Columbus/STL to somewhat take off again once economy recovers.
MSP will take off because it has the best educational attainment as a whole compared to its competition. That has a lot to do with why median household income is the highest in the Midwest.
This is a good thread, because you are bringing data. I rep you a lot, but City-Data tells me it wants me to give your rep points to someone else.
Anyone can see in this link provided by Minnesota Spring (very good site by the way, really presents the historical data in an easy to see format), that the Kansas City metro area had its best recent decade of growth in the 2001-2010 era. The last ten years. You can see the percentage population growth every year from 2001 to 2009 was over 1% annually, with five years having growth 1.3% or higher. The 2006-2008 period was especially good, with growth averaging 1.5% annually.
The 90s also had fairly good growth, but not as good as the 2000s. There were four years in the 90s that had annual population growth 1.4% or higher, but no years that had annual growth 1.6% or higher like there were in the 2000s.
The 70s and 80s had lackluster growth, except for a few years from 1984-1988.
Then you look at the Minneapolis metro. They had their major recent growth in the late 1980s into the 90s. The 2000s has been slower for them.
Kansas City has grown faster than Minneapolis since 2002. Minneapolis also had negative net domestic migration every year since 2002, offset by a quite large international migration every year. I'm pretty sure a large part of this are Asian and African immigrants. Kansas City had positive net domestic migration every year since 1993, with international migration growth about 1/3 to 1/2 of what Minneapolis had.
The death rate is higher in KC also, so that slows KC's growth relative to Minneapolis. Minneapolis has a very low death rate. I think the death rate in Minneapolis is around 5-6%, whereas KC is around 9-10%. I'm not sure but this might have something to do with older people leaving Minnesota in the winter, not dying in the state. Minnesota just generally has healthier people, too, so that is also a factor in the lower death rate. Older people moving to warmer climates also probably influences the domestic migration number for Minneapolis. More retirees probably leave Minneapolis for warmer climates, as compared to KC, which has a slightly warmer winter climate. This would push the domestic migration number down for Minneapolis.
Indianapolis is growing faster than KC, Minneapolis, or Columbus. I don't know as much about Indianapolis. I like Indianapolis more than Columbus as far as which city will emerge to compete with the likes of Cincinnati, Cleveland, St. Louis, and Kansas City. Some would say Indianapolis is already there with KC and Cincinnati. I think it is close, but Indianapolis is still 100,000-200,000 smaller in metro population.
To me it seems like KC is the city that got a bit lost in the last 40 years. KC is not really a full blown rustbelt city like STL or Cincy or Pittsburgh or Cleveland is it? I would think KC would have seen more growth (like Minneapolis, Denver, and Dallas) over the past 40 years with its room for cheap sprawl and diverse economy. KC should be MUCH larger than Indy, Charlotte, San Antonio or Columbus today instead of barely keeping up with them and possibly getting passed by them soon. Maybe that's starting to change now and KC will see a higher rate of growth, but it really seems like KC as fallen a lot in the big city scale in the last 40 years. KC's peer cities seem to change every 10-20 years. Atlanta and Denver are long gone. Charlotte and Minneapolis have recently moved on and now KC is fighting off Indy, Columbus, Austin etc with OKC and Orlando knocking on the door. I get this for places like Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit and to a lesser degree St Louis, but Kansas City is more like Denver and Minneapolis and Dallas economically right? It's also easier and cheaper to build in wide open metro KC, especially with its huge highway system right? Something went wrong in KC.
I honestly think it has a lot to do with the state line. So much of the "growth" in KC is just migration outward (mostly from KCMO to JoCo). Things look great with that skyline of office parks along 435, but where did all that come from? Is it a coincidence that KC started slipping and losing so much ground to so many cities about the same time those office parks began springing up and syphoning companies from kcmo? Has KC mostly grown at the expense of itself while these other places actually grew more with new companies and the residents that come with them? Serious question. But can anybody take on such a serious question without just slamming me for bringing it up?
Actually the data doesn't indicate that this is the case at all. It seems like, as usual, you have constructed a vision in your mind for how things are that is completely divorced from statistics and data about what is happening.
This site indicates that KC was losing ground in the 70s and 80s, but began to recover in the 90s and 2000s. KC metro had negative growth in 1974 and 1975. I seem to recall there was a big political convention around that time at Kemper Arena. Also that's the same time when Kansas City had FOUR professional sports teams in all four major leagues (Chiefs, Royals, Scouts, and Kings). What happened that KC couldn't capitalize on that era and grow after that? 1976 was a huge year for KC. But after 1976, there were 7 straight years of sub-1% growth. This is METRO AREA growth. Let me repeat, this is metro area growth. You can't claim that the problem was Kansas siphoning off growth when the entire metro was struggling to grow.
You're claiming that because some jobs and residents started moving across an imaginary boundary that had been there for 100 years, a boundary that the city of Kansas City built itself up against and a part of the metro that had already been home to many of the richest families in the city (Mission Hills), that that caused the entire metro area to go through 7 years of sub-1% growth following what should have been a major growth period for the metro area? That's stupid. It doesn't even make sense.
Kansas City failed to capitalize on its moment, but it's not because of your "Kansas corporate welfare stole our jobs and stifled our growth" argument. That wasn't even a factor back then. The answer probably has more to do with the civic leaders in Kansas City, Missouri and what they did or didn't do to capitalize on that moment.
As the Kansas side of the metro has grown in stature (90s and 2000s), that's when the KC metro has started to rebound. Metro area growth through the 90s was moderate, and it has only increased in the 2000s. The 2000s was the best decade of growth since 1970. 2008 was the best year of growth in KC in the last 40 years.
Actually the data doesn't indicate that this is the case at all. It seems like, as usual, you have constructed a vision in your mind for how things are that is completely divorced from statistics and data about what is happening.
This site indicates that KC was losing ground in the 70s and 80s, but began to recover in the 90s and 2000s. KC metro had negative growth in 1974 and 1975. I seem to recall there was a big political convention around that time at Kemper Arena. Also that's the same time when Kansas City had FOUR professional sports teams in all four major leagues (Chiefs, Royals, Scouts, and Kings). What happened that KC couldn't capitalize on that era and grow after that? 1976 was a huge year for KC. But after 1976, there were 7 straight years of sub-1% growth. This is METRO AREA growth. Let me repeat, this is metro area growth. You can't claim that the problem was Kansas siphoning off growth when the entire metro was struggling to grow.
You're claiming that because some jobs and residents started moving across an imaginary boundary that had been there for 100 years, a boundary that the city of Kansas City built itself up against and a part of the metro that had already been home to many of the richest families in the city (Mission Hills), that that caused the entire metro area to go through 7 years of sub-1% growth following what should have been a major growth period for the metro area? That's stupid. It doesn't even make sense.
Kansas City failed to capitalize on its moment, but it's not because of your "Kansas corporate welfare stole our jobs and stifled our growth" argument. That wasn't even a factor back then. The answer probably has more to do with the civic leaders in Kansas City, Missouri and what they did or didn't do to capitalize on that moment.
As the Kansas side of the metro has grown in stature (90s and 2000s), that's when the KC metro has started to rebound. Metro area growth through the 90s was moderate, and it has only increased in the 2000s. The 2000s was the best decade of growth since 1970. 2008 was the best year of growth in KC in the last 40 years.
I have analyzed all of the data from the BLS, the link you provided, and the census data. The vast majority of all job growth in KC has occurred in JOCO. If you subtract out JOCO alone than the metro itself did not have very good job growth rates. Indy, by comparison, has had a much more dispersed job growth in many areas of its metro at very high rates. KC economic growth is very compartmentalized into particular sectors and segments that are stronger than some of its peers like IT, telecom, etc. I just don't quite understand how you can come to the conclusion that KC metro as a whole had stellar economic growth during the 2000s when Jackson county lost 11% of all employment during that same time period.
1970s? Probably the worst economic conditions that the US experienced since the depression followed by the recent great recession. Very few metros had great growth rates in the 1970s outside of the Sunbelt.
Yeah, I don't know. The only reason I can think of is since the boom slowed, we still have a lot of retired people moving.
Could be the case, MSP has 1.2% fewer than KC and same as Columbus. Fewer older people to die in MSP and Columbus if they are leaving.
ADULTS 65
AND OLDER
Percent of total, 2009
1Pittsburgh 17.3 highest
5 St. Louis 13.2
15 Kansas City 11.7
Average 11.5
20 Indianapolis 10.8
24 Columbus 10.5
27 Minneapolis 10.5
35 Austin 7.9 lowest
I wonder how they handle snowbirds. A friend of mine is a snowbird who lives in KC 7 months/yr yet his census form showed up in FL location. I could see some MSP seniors snowbirding more than 6 months to the south, so not counted as MSP resident.
Could be the case, MSP has 1.2% fewer than KC and same as Columbus. Fewer older people to die in MSP and Columbus if they are leaving.
ADULTS 65
AND OLDER
Percent of total, 2009
1Pittsburgh 17.3 highest
5 St. Louis 13.2
15 Kansas City 11.7
Average 11.5
20 Indianapolis 10.8
24 Columbus 10.5
27 Minneapolis 10.5
35 Austin 7.9 lowest
I wonder how they handle snowbirds. A friend of mine is a snowbird who lives in KC 7 months/yr yet his census form showed up in FL location. I could see some MSP seniors snowbirding more than 6 months to the south, so not counted as MSP resident.
The ones that "don't like cold" head further south, but many move to the Northwoods of MN. Look at census tract data for Crow Wing county, Aitkin county, Cass county, Hubbard county, Douglas county, etc. You have a large percentage of the population over age 65 in these counties. Very nice caliber lakes as well...
Actually the data doesn't indicate that this is the case at all. It seems like, as usual, you have constructed a vision in your mind for how things are that is completely divorced from statistics and data about what is happening.
This site indicates that KC was losing ground in the 70s and 80s, but began to recover in the 90s and 2000s. KC metro had negative growth in 1974 and 1975. I seem to recall there was a big political convention around that time at Kemper Arena. Also that's the same time when Kansas City had FOUR professional sports teams in all four major leagues (Chiefs, Royals, Scouts, and Kings). What happened that KC couldn't capitalize on that era and grow after that? 1976 was a huge year for KC. But after 1976, there were 7 straight years of sub-1% growth. This is METRO AREA growth. Let me repeat, this is metro area growth. You can't claim that the problem was Kansas siphoning off growth when the entire metro was struggling to grow.
You're claiming that because some jobs and residents started moving across an imaginary boundary that had been there for 100 years, a boundary that the city of Kansas City built itself up against and a part of the metro that had already been home to many of the richest families in the city (Mission Hills), that that caused the entire metro area to go through 7 years of sub-1% growth following what should have been a major growth period for the metro area? That's stupid. It doesn't even make sense.
Kansas City failed to capitalize on its moment, but it's not because of your "Kansas corporate welfare stole our jobs and stifled our growth" argument. That wasn't even a factor back then. The answer probably has more to do with the civic leaders in Kansas City, Missouri and what they did or didn't do to capitalize on that moment.
As the Kansas side of the metro has grown in stature (90s and 2000s), that's when the KC metro has started to rebound. Metro area growth through the 90s was moderate, and it has only increased in the 2000s. The 2000s was the best decade of growth since 1970. 2008 was the best year of growth in KC in the last 40 years.
You don't think the migration of KCMO's corporate economy to JoCo was happening in the 80's and 90's? really? So many times when I read a biz article about the history of some metro area company in KC that is moving or expanding, they seem to say that they originally moved from kcmo to wherever way back when and now are moving again or whatever.
And yea, KCMO's leadership is just as much at fault as area businesses taking the easy/cheap route (and often the cash) and jumping the state line. But the state line has made leaving the city a much more viable option in KC than in other cities and yea, I think that has contributed to KC loosing a lot of ground to its peer cities of the time.
While KC rebounded some in the 80's and 90's (like all cities did), it was not keeping up with similar type cities at all. While places like Cincy and Cleveland were shedding blue collar jobs and were loosing even more ground than KC, KC seemed to not only have a stable industrial job base but its white collar jobs were booming at the time with telecommunications, engineering and architecture firms etc.
KC has such a diverse economy, it's cheap to live there, land is cheap and there is plenty of easily developable land and lots of highway infrastructure in place with plenty of capacity. These are all the things that made other metros boom, while KC remained a bit stagnant comparatively speaking. I'm trying to compare KC to Denver, Dallas, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Phoenix etc than Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Detroit. Even though KC has a historic urban core, the metro as a whole leans more to those cities than rustbelt type cities, wouldn't you agree?
So my point is that if so much of KC's corporate economy had not settled or migrated to Johnson County, the city as a whole would have probably taken on a whole new identity as a place people and companies wanted to move to and chose to move to. So the metro would have seen a lot more growth in the city from outside the region.
I stand by my theory that a city of only 2 million having so much of its corporate community in the suburbs has been the primary thing keeping KC from taking off. The state line is what it is, but had Sprint, Black and Veatch, Garmin and many others located in the city rather than in far flung suburbs or the dozens of firms that left KCMO had stayed in the city, KC would have seen a lot more spin off economic development and interest from outside the metro. Downtown would have started to come back in late 80's rather than post 2005. Light rail would be in place, the baseball stadium downtown etc. There has not been a significant office building or hotel built in downtown kc since the late 80's. H&R Block's rather small building being about the only exception and they moved from another location in the core to a place where they now pay zero taxes, including kcmo etaxes. The other exception is the huge government offices that have brought most of the new jobs downtown (IRS for example).
So while downtown KC has come an amazingly long way in the past several years, it could have happened decades sooner if KC had more companies like Hallmark that truly had a vested interest in the city and jumping the state line was not such an easy and often profitable option for area companies.
I guess I wonder when the corporate economy of KC will step up and recognize that downtown is most important part of the region because when that does happen and if that ever happens, there is no stopping KC. The city (and metro area) will take off like never before. KCMO has set the table and has only seen a trickle of interest after 5-6 billion in investment downtown. The city can only do so much. It's time for the people of KC (those that make decisions such as where to locate a company) step up.
It's great that Downtown finally landed a company like DSI (150 high tech jobs moving from overland park), but they are passing hundreds of others leaving downtown at the same time (such as AMC and Fishnet). It's just crazy that KC's corporate community has such little interest in downtown, especially now. Downtown KC has probably seen the most dramatic transformation a downtown could possibly have over a period of 7 years. But just like in the early 70's, it doesn't seem to be enough to overcome the state line.
It's awesome to see YMCA stepping up and realizing that they should have a bigger presence there (as they are in most large city downtowns). So if they do open up a new large center, that will be yet another awesome amenity that SHOULD bring more companies back to downtown.
Actually the data doesn't indicate that this is the case at all. It seems like, as usual, you have constructed a vision in your mind for how things are that is completely divorced from statistics and data about what is happening.
This site indicates that KC was losing ground in the 70s and 80s, but began to recover in the 90s and 2000s. KC metro had negative growth in 1974 and 1975. I seem to recall there was a big political convention around that time at Kemper Arena. Also that's the same time when Kansas City had FOUR professional sports teams in all four major leagues (Chiefs, Royals, Scouts, and Kings). What happened that KC couldn't capitalize on that era and grow after that? 1976 was a huge year for KC. But after 1976, there were 7 straight years of sub-1% growth. This is METRO AREA growth. Let me repeat, this is metro area growth. You can't claim that the problem was Kansas siphoning off growth when the entire metro was struggling to grow.
You're claiming that because some jobs and residents started moving across an imaginary boundary that had been there for 100 years, a boundary that the city of Kansas City built itself up against and a part of the metro that had already been home to many of the richest families in the city (Mission Hills), that that caused the entire metro area to go through 7 years of sub-1% growth following what should have been a major growth period for the metro area? That's stupid. It doesn't even make sense.
Kansas City failed to capitalize on its moment, but it's not because of your "Kansas corporate welfare stole our jobs and stifled our growth" argument. That wasn't even a factor back then. The answer probably has more to do with the civic leaders in Kansas City, Missouri and what they did or didn't do to capitalize on that moment.
As the Kansas side of the metro has grown in stature (90s and 2000s), that's when the KC metro has started to rebound. Metro area growth through the 90s was moderate, and it has only increased in the 2000s. The 2000s was the best decade of growth since 1970. 2008 was the best year of growth in KC in the last 40 years.
+1
My gosh....it is so refreshing to read factual, unbiased big-picture commentary here that doesn't seethe with anger and resentment against all things Johnson County and the State of Kansas in general.
And thank you for that link - good information there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
