With all the chatter about apartment construction in the last couple months, I wanted to see whether the current level of activity is really an aberration or just a way to sell newspapers. There certainly are a lot of proposals floating about, but after the severe downturn of the last few years, it’s hard to know what’s normal. Besides, is it a coincidence that the paper that says the most about the new construction just happens to have a subscribers only online map of it?
But what exactly is the current level of activity? If 8500 units were under construction or proposed as of September, what does that mean in terms of eventual places to live? Presumably almost all of what is under construction will be finished, but much of what is proposed will never see the light of day. I thought it safe to compare the number proposed to building permit data, although probably a bit more is proposed than actually gets permitted. From F&C’s 8500, I thought it safe to subtract 2000 considering my count of 1,732 units that were under construction in 2011 just in Minneapolis (most of which would have been permitted in 2010).
So how rare is it for 6500 multifamily units to be permitted in the metro area? Met Council data going back to 1970 gives us a hint:
Well, not very rare. 10 of the last 40 years saw 6500 units permitted.* In fact, in the 70s the average year saw 6100 multifamily units permitted, helped out by the massive years 1970-1972 that permitted over 10,000 multifamily units each.
I think the story here is more likely that not nearly enough rental units were constructed in the last 20 years. As I’ve noted before, the 90s were a disastrous decade for dense development. When multifamily heated up again, it was the condo craze, leaving little room for renters. But while the ownership housing stock was increased, sometimes at the expense of rental housing, the number of renter households was increasing faster than the number of owner households.
In other words, it’s true that there is more multifamily rental units being proposed and built than in recent years, but don’t think of it like a speculator-driven bubble. Instead it is more likely to be a “new normal,” where the market is providing a supply in reaction to demand. That’s good news for people who want an energy-efficient, walkable, low-maintenance place to live.
Zooming In
There’s more news buried in this building permit data, and I’m going to finish up with a long digression on it. Check out this table of the top 10 metro area cities for total residential building permits issued between 1970 and 2010:
City | DTQ | DUP | MF3 | MF5 | SFD | TH | Total |
Minneapolis | 98 | 854 | 21507 | 6543 | 4238 | 2807 | 36047 |
Plymouth | 44 | 118 | 9172 | 240 | 13925 | 3273 | 26772 |
St. Paul | 146 | 652 | 16033 | 3234 | 4537 | 1172 | 25774 |
Eden Prairie | 32 | 1112 | 6498 | 95 | 12132 | 4430 | 24299 |
Eagan | 75 | 704 | 6886 | 68 | 12430 | 3710 | 23873 |
Woodbury | 107 | 442 | 4836 | 1127 | 12490 | 4123 | 23125 |
Maple Grove | 157 | 565 | 3646 | 692 | 14496 | 3473 | 23029 |
Brooklyn Park | 16 | 834 | 2750 | 475 | 12820 | 3504 | 20399 |
Burnsville | 0 | 366 | 8431 | 394 | 7472 | 3305 | 19968 |
Coon Rapids | 2 | 736 | 4760 | 48 | 9106 | 3462 | 18114 |
DTQ=Duplex, Triplex, Fourplex
DUP=Duplex
MF3=Multifamily (3 units or more)
MF5=Multifamily (5 units or more)
SFD=Single-Family Detached
TH=Townhome
Minneapolis has a comfortable lead, appearing to have added more housing units in the 40-year period than any other municipality (assuming the same rate of actual construction resulting from permits across all the municipalities and years). This lead seems to have primarily resulted from the 70s and 00s, in the latter of which Minneapolis added significantly more housing units than anywhere else in the Twin Cities.
So how could Minneapolis add tens of thousands of housing units in the last 40 years, while simultaneously losing more than 50,000 residents? Some of the reasons for a similar effect in the 60s are also valid for later decades; the entirety of the drop occurred in the 70s, when a great deal of (edit: Froggie points out in the comments that most of the clearance for freeway construction had been wrapped up by the 70s) freeway construction and some slum clearance was still underway.
Later decades fared better. The 90s saw a population increase; looking at population by sector makes it clear that the mediocre performance of the 00s was almost entirely a product of the foreclosure crisis:
Sector | 1980 | 1990 | 2000 | 2010 |
Downtown | 19155 | 21824 | 24977 | 31034 |
North | 61278 | 64001 | 67674 | 59970 |
Northeast | 37507 | 36515 | 36913 | 36255 |
South | 137551 | 136333 | 142150 | 139854 |
Southwest | 83728 | 79912 | 78292 | 77989 |
University | 29615 | 29798 | 32612 | 37476 |
Citywide | 368834 | 368383 | 382618 | 382578 |
The two sectors with the most foreclosure activities were also the only two with significant population decline. In the case of North, two decades of steady growth were wiped out.
The 80s are the mystery for me. Seven or eight thousand units were constructed in Minneapolis, which should have resulted in some population growth. Instead the most population growth occurred in North, not in the Downtown and University neighborhoods that saw the most units added. I don’t have demolition permit data, so I don’t know if an unusually high number of units were demolished. Household size may also have been a factor, since many of the units added were likely smaller than any units lost.
Regardless of what happened in the 80s, the census data seems to suggest that, barring any new freeway construction or popular predatory lending practices, Minneapolis should see steady population growth in this decade. Wandering back to the main topic of this post, the return to historic levels of multifamily rental construction, a greater proportion of which tends to occur in central cities, is another indicator that the chatter may soon be about how Minneapolis and St Paul are leading the metro in population growth.
*Until 2004, semi-detached units with more than two units were counted in the multifamily category. In 2004, they were moved into the Duplex category.
My hunch is in the details of who moves in an out. A young family of four moves out in the 80’s to a bigger house in Burnsville. In their place moves in a 22 year old single renter. Net result is a -3 population change. This is a drastic oversimplification, of course. But, I would guess if you looked at demographics, Minneapolis in 2000 had less families and more singles than Minneapolis in 1960 (by percentage of total population, anyway). I think now we are seeing a lot of those 22 years olds are 32 year olds who want to stay, but that’s a whole other topic.
The average household size reported in the censuses since 1970 is really interesting because it correlates very closely with the total population. I’m sure that household size played a role in population change but I’m just as sure that it isn’t a smoking gun because similar household size changes affected other developed Hennepin County municipalities but their population wasn’t affected in the same way. Thanks for bringing it up because I may do a mini-post just on this issue.
This analysis underlines my sense that I’ve almost exclusively lived in areas that are on the upswing. My hometown has grown a lot since I was born (though the density has been dropping off as it has completed its transformation from small railroad town to suburb). After that, I lived on the UMN campus and in that area, which has been densifying noticeably. I’m not quite sure what the deal is in my current neighborhood in Saint Paul, but there has been some considerable turnover with 20- and 30-somethings slowly filtering in as the older generation around here moves on to nursing homes and the like.
So, for the most part, I don’t really know what it’s like to be in a neighborhood that’s deteriorating. I wouldn’t really want to, either, but I feel it gives me a bit of a blind spot when it comes to dealing with the pitfalls of a de-populating area.
(Hmm, just kind of a random comment, I guess…)
I always encourage random!
Not so sure you can pin the ’70s drop on freeway construction, at least not within the city of Minneapolis. The bulk of the freeways were already cleared out and/or constructed by 1970. The only exceptions were 94 through North Minneapolis and 394…and the latter resulted in minimal right-of-way acquisition within the city.
You’re right – I was thinking 35W in NE was cleared in the 70s but it looks like it had mostly been cleared by 1969. Reviewing the aerials I’m surprised to see that much of the route for 94 had been cleared by late 60s also – what a bummer for the Northside.
It’s not quite as much of a bummer as you think, at least taken in the historical context. Yeah, some housing was taken out for 94, but remember that at the time, the river was HUGELY industrial and I-94 was seen as a buffer between that industrial land and the neighborhoods to the west.
Sure, but I-94 wasn’t built for another 20 years. Not sure if they would prefer dirty industry or huge crime-hiding desolate blocks to border their neighborhood.
12 years, if one wants to be technical. I-94 was completed in 1982.
Continuing on this technical path- if historicaerials.com is to be believed, much of the clearance had been done by 1966. So the land was cleared at least 16 years before the freeway was complete, although maybe a better measure would be date of commencement of construction.
Construction began no later than 1979…that was clear from aerial imagery at the time. Since the Final EIS wasn’t completed until ca. 1977, construction likely began in 1978.
I took a look at the 1966 aerials…some of that might have been I-94 related, given the brief window of opportunity before the Park Board went from in favor to opposed up near Camden Bridge. Here’s a couple webpages showing some more history. The first is my own page on I-94 in North Minneapolis, while the second is copied from a 1975 report I found (which goes into more detail on the stretch near Camden Bridge):
http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/minnesota/interstate/i94nmpls.htm
http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/minnesota/rant/1975study/i094n-1975.htm
[…] all started a few weeks ago, when in a post about apartment construction that rambled into Minneapolis population change, I mentioned that the massive drop in population in the 70s was probably due to an after-dinner […]
[…] for urban places exceed the supply. The fringe still seems to be freckled with vacancy while apartments rise in the central city, which indicates a lot taller bars in the charts of downtown growth after the 2020 […]
[…] housing, but that is also a nationwide trend, and isn’t anything that hasn’t been seen in previous decades. Cool, new bike lanes, but should Rybak be lauded for not rejecting free money from the Federal […]