Population by the numbers

While the population of the Twin Cities stagnates, Rochester is growing rapidly.

The U.S. Census Bureau released its annual population estimates for cities over 100,000 people today, and it’s not hard to see why political power continues to shift to the south.

Only Elgin, Illinois; Sioux Falls, South Dakota; and Anchorage Alaska represented northern states in the Top 50 cities for population growth through June 2009.

Frisco, Texas (Population 102,412) not only had the biggest population increase in the nation in one year (6.23%) but it also topped the biggest population increase in the decade (190%). It’s a suburb of Dallas.

Flint, Michigan was the biggest one-year loser (-1.22%). New Orleans, not surprisingly, lost the biggest share of population in the decade (-26.63%), but it also was the fastest-growing big city in the country last year (5.41%).

Three cities in Minnesota — Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Rochester — make the list. Rochester showed the largest one-year population increase (1.63%) and the largest increase over the decade (15.79%). St. Paul is the only city of the three that lost population in the decade.

Minneapolis now ranks as the 48th most populous city in the country. St. Paul is #67 and Rochester is #256.

  • John P.

    ” Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Rochester — make the list”

    It’s not clear to me what list is being referered to. Apparently the “Top 50 for growth”, but then if St. Paul lost population, can it possibly have made the top 50 for growth? I’m confused.

    Also, I don’t see any change numbers for Minneapolis. It tells me the city grew, but not how much.

  • Bob Collins

    cities over 100,000.

    +.89% for Mpls.

  • Garrett

    It should be noted that the estimates are have nothing to do with the 2010 Census.

    These are annual estimates from the US Census, and the numbers realeased today are based off data from the census in 2000.