urbanMSP

I agree, the Hopkins forecast is ... a really low low bar.

Hopkins is high on my/our radar for places to locate to if we decide to move back to the Twin Cities. It's in the same group as SLP, Minneapolis and St. Paul: all have areas with semi-urban, walkable layouts and pockets with good schools AND diversity (in all its forms).

I'd bet that Hopkins would be high on most people's radar who relocate to the region. It has an awesome combination of location (proximity to DT, Lake Minnetonka and the airport), urbanesque neighborhoods, easy commuting (esp. if the SW Corridor is finally put together), somewhat affordable housing, great schools (Hopkins district, I assume), and some diversity. What I like about it as well is that it's progressing -- ever changing and redefining itself, like new development.

Is anybody really taking these numbers seriously? How can you predict something 25 years into the future?

Yep, the Hopkins projection is way low.

Hopkins doesn't seem to have the reservations about multi-family housing and density that some other suburbs do. I think of all the western suburbs, Hopkins is perhaps the most urban-like in form and attitude, followed closely by St. Louis Park. That obviously stems from its history as a railroad town in its own right.

The southern bits of Hopkins are pretty suburbany but its core area is top-notch for those who want walkable living with convenient access to lots of amenities.

I think the fact that Hopkins is rather urbany is the reason why I keep hearing that it's some awful hellhole from suburban dwellers I know who probably never/rarely go to Hopkins. It's a nice town.

Could they phase in SWLRT somehow, starting the first construction phase to Hopkins?

I think the "hellhole" comments are less about its built form and more about its diversity, both in ethnicity/race and income.

I think most people in this country associate both of those things with cities, in general. Enough so that, except a select few super-posh examples (like 50th/France), most people have a negative reaction to the very idea of visiting (let alone living in) a walkable, urban place.

I'm not so sure. I know quite a few very libertarian and/or conservative people who hate the idea of visiting, say, St. Louis but love visiting European cities.

I think there really is a tipping point where there are enough amenities where cities attract all kinds of people. Not necessarily to live there but at least to visit regularly. People hate most U.S. cities because frankly, it sucks to be in one without a car and even with a car it's incredibly painful due to parking issues. If it's possible to visit a city without a car a lot more people do so.

As for Hopkins, I want to emphasize that I really do mean income diversity. There are some very rich people who live there as well as some very poor people. It's got to rival Minneapolis is terms of income spread. I'm curious to see if future development will convince some of those very rich to move downtown or closer to it. There certainly is the potential to create posh districts like 50th & France in the city.

I think the "hellhole" comments are less about its built form and more about its diversity, both in ethnicity/race and income.

I think it's mostly to do with the Blake Rd corridor, and some of the lower-income (pretty much market-rate, but I'm paraphrasing) mid-rises near the town center. This is what I've heard, anyways. I don't agree, but I've heard the angle and agree that the people who say these things are not used to the lifestyle -- and by that I mean the urban lifestyle.

I think the "hellhole" comments are less about its built form and more about its diversity, both in ethnicity/race and income.

I think it's mostly to do with the Blake Rd corridor, and some of the lower-income (pretty much market-rate, but I'm paraphrasing) mid-rises near the town center.

Yes, those are the places driving the stereotype but there are quite a few affordable/subsidized units in the southern part of town too. But it feels more suburban so maybe people overlook it.

New 2014 estimates are up. Minneapolis population at 411,286.

http://www.metrocouncil.org/METC/files/ ... 6fbf1c.pdf

That's over 11,000 added in ONE YEAR.

28,708 people added since 2010 total. Which is half of Hennepin County's total growth and 22 percent of the entire region's during that time. Not bad.

Looks like current estimates show St. Paul fell just short of 300,000 in that time: 299,641.

I know it's not an apples to apples comparison, but Minneapolis' 2010 to 2014 growth rate of 7.5% is higher than any county including the collar counties.

The core cities accounted for 1/3 of the growth of the entire region.

I don't have time to copy this all into a spreadsheet at the moment but has anyone done that and figured the growth rates for each city? Eyeballing it it seems like Minneapolis outgrew most suburbs but I'd like to know exactly how that looks.

I was surprised thought that in total population the collar counties outgrew the core cities but only just barely. I wish they had included 2013 totals as well so we could get an idea of year-over-year change.

At the very least, by the time the next census and redistricting rolls around, the core cities won't lose any more seats in the legislature, which they haven't been able to say for probably 60 years. Whether or not Mpls and/or St. Paul could gain a seat back remains to be seen.

I don't have time to copy this all into a spreadsheet at the moment but has anyone done that and figured the growth rates for each city? Eyeballing it it seems like Minneapolis outgrew most suburbs but I'd like to know exactly how that looks.

There's an XLS file on this page: http://www.metrocouncil.org/Data-and-Ma ... mates.aspx

Glad I'll be adding -1 to Minneapolis population this year