Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


Minneapolis leads Twin Cities population growth as metro area tops 2.9 million

MinnPost photo by Corey Anderson
Minneapolis' estimated population is now 392,008.

New census information shows that Minneapolis’ population grew by 9,430 between 2010 and 2012, bringing the city’s estimated population to 392,008.

Overall, the Twin Cities metro area has gained about 59,000 people since 2010, up to 2.9 million, says the Metropolitan Council.

St. Paul, the state’s second largest city, grew by 4,202 over the two years to 289,270.

The Met Council says it’s cyclical, and that “the Twin Cities area’s economic resilience and quality of life are again attracting new residents from outside the region.”

That’s also part of a national trend of movement into major metro areas.

Met Council demographer Todd Graham said much of the Minneapolis growth is attributable to a building boom of apartment buildings.

“We’re seeing a greater interest in both urban living and rental housing,” Graham said. “Some of this may be due to homebuyers’ cautiousness. But longer-term, there is a real shift in residential preferences. Both Baby Boomers and newly independent Millennials are placing greater value on central locations and urban amenities.”

Met Council Chair Susan Haigh said:

“I’m pleased to see growth occurring primarily where there’s infrastructure to support it. Growth that occurs where infrastructure already exists creates economies of scale and promotes efficiency, which improves the region’s ability to focus energy and resources on economic development.”

The Met Council website has PDFs with the new metro population estimates.

Comments (3)

  1. Submitted by John Reinan on 07/11/2013 - 01:14 pm.

    This is great news

    And I wish every elected official in the Twin Cities region could have Susan Haigh’s comment branded somewhere on their anatomy as a constant reminder.

    Mayor Rybak has said Minneapolis needs to return to the population level it had in 1950, and mayoral candidate Mark Andrew speaks of adding 100,000 city residents in the next X many years (can’t remember exactly how many he says). I wholeheartedly embrace those notions.

  2. Submitted by jody rooney on 07/11/2013 - 02:43 pm.

    I pulled the census data for Minneapolis and St. Paul for

    every decade from 1900 to 2010.

    If you have short memories it looks like Minneapolis is growing and it is but it is still only at 75% of it’s peak 1950 population of 521,718. St. Paul on the other hand is at 92% of 313,411.

    St. Paul has done a much better job of retaining population and being reasonably stable from the1930’s on.

    It would be interesting to see what factors were the determinants of that stability.

    Although those of us whose families grew up on this side of town were told that while Minneapolis had style it didn’t have much substance. Clearly it didn’t have a lot of population stability.

    • Submitted by Bruce Bruemmer on 07/11/2013 - 04:57 pm.

      Retention or replacement

      If you are just looking a total population figures, that does not tell you if the population is being retained or replaced, an important distinction if you are planning for urban growth. In other words, do people in St. Paul just stay put, or did they have the same suburban flight as Minneapolis but St. Paul was able to replenish its population by having more immigration to the city (such as Minneapolitans who mistakenly crossed the border and realized it was easier to buy a house in St. Paul than figure out how to get out of that city)?

Leave a Reply