Although Minneapolis’ population has grown in the past 15 years, its current population sits far below its mid-20th century peak. With about 425,000 residents, the city has nearly 60,000 fewer people than in 1960, when its population was about 483,000. Despite strong population growth during the 2010s, Minneapolis has still not returned to its 1960s population levels. 

One might think that this long-term population decline means Minneapolis doesn’t need to build more housing. After all, if Minneapolis was able to house tens of thousands more people a few decades ago, shouldn’t the city already have enough housing for a considerably smaller population today? 

This isn’t true for one key reason: Today, Minneapolis has more households — that is, distinct groups of people who live in the same home — than ever before. In 1970, Minneapolis had 161,141 households, but by 2020 it had 187,670 households. This reflects a 16% increase in the city’s number of households, for reasons that we explain below.

Because households nowadays tend to have fewer people, Minneapolis’ household growth has outpaced recent population growth. This reflects a wider trend in the United States, where the average size of households is shrinking.

An important implication of this peak in the number of households is that Minneapolis needs to build more housing in order to accommodate its residents.

What Is Household Formation? 

In seeing household growth outpace population growth, Minneapolis is no outlier. In the United States at large, the number of households has grown by around 100%, while the population has grown 60% since 1970. 

A few factors have driven this change:

• Since the 1970s, the makeup of American households has changed significantly. For example, many more households have just one person: In 1970, around 18% of households were occupied by a single person. By 2020, that number had risen to nearly 28%.
• In that same time frame, the number of households headed by older adults (65 and older) nearly quadrupled, while the number of young adult (under 30) households only approximately doubled. This is significant because older adults tend to live in households with fewer people. 
• There are also relatively fewer married households than there were in 1970. From 1970 to 2024, the percentage of married households shrank by around 23%, while the percentage of non-family households (households with only one adult, or composed of non-related individuals) grew by 16%.

The graph below highlights another one of these trends in Minneapolis: Most of Minneapolis’ recent growth in its number of households has been driven by childless households. 

Lessons for Minneapolis Housing Policy

Despite long-term population loss, Minneapolis still needs to build more housing. That’s the only way to accommodate a higher number of households. And not only does the city need to build more housing, it needs to build more types of housing to accommodate different kinds of households.

Such changes have been the aim of many recent policy initiatives in Minneapolis. Minneapolis 2040, the comprehensive plan passed in 2018 and supported by Neighbors for More Neighbors, adjusted zoning rules to allow denser housing throughout the city, especially on neighborhood arterial streets — and the policy is showing positive results. 

In order to accommodate the city’s highest-ever number of households, Minneapolis should continue to address obstacles to providing more housing. 

For example, the city has seen relatively little development on many of its neighborhood side streets. That’s in part because restrictive limits on building size, including floor-area ratio and height, make triplex development unfeasible in some zoning districts. Easing these restrictions would help Minneapolis build more housing, and a wider variety of housing types. 

Furthermore, as the types of households have changed in Minneapolis, more flexibility is needed to accommodate different kinds of houses. Zoning regulations should allow many different kinds of homes, instead of favoring specific types (like single-family homes versus apartments).

For example, Minneapolis’ legalization of accessory dwelling units offers one flexible option for young singles or older people (which is why AARP supports them). Allowing all neighborhoods to have a mix of single-family homes and apartment buildings can offer families of different sizes a range of options that might work for them. Legalizing houses built on smaller lots by reducing minimum lot-size requirements are another way to let households access homeownership at a lower starting cost.

Many of Minneapolis’ neighboring municipalities, including St. Paul and nearby suburbs, also have record-high numbers of households today. This is true whether the cities have gained or lost population since 1970. 

Similar policy approaches are necessary for these places. This is particularly true in suburban municipalities, where zoning rules are typically far less flexible than in Minneapolis or St. Paul. Such widespread growth in households suggests a stronger role for the Minnesota Legislature in setting statewide zoning standards that allow for more homes to be built. Unfortunately, such reforms have once again been halted during this year’s legislative session due to opposition from suburban localities.

Denser housing comes with other benefits, too. More housing options help people use fewer resources to travel outside of their community, thus lowering carbon emissions. Because people travel outside of their neighborhood less, these options also foster more vibrant and complete neighborhoods, where people of all backgrounds have access to secure and affordable homes. These goals all complement one another.

Minneapolis’ boom in households means that it needs more houses to hold them. If it fails to build more housing, Minneapolis will struggle to remain affordable and to fit the needs of an increasingly large and diverse number of households.

Related

MINNEAPOLIS- Delta Air Lines (DL) on May 13, 2025, canceled a transatlantic flight from Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport (MSP) to Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (AMS) due to an unexpected food safety issue.

Passengers had already boarded the aircraft before the situation escalated into a protracted delay, culminating in a late-night cancellation.

Delta Cancels Flight Over Food Issue

The flight initially encountered a mechanical issue with the auxiliary power unit (APU), followed by extensive delays and ultimately a cancellation that passengers found both frustrating and confusing.

The airline cited compromised catering as the final reason, raising concerns about operational decision-making during late-night disruptions.

Passengers on the Delta Air Lines flight from Minneapolis (MSP) to Amsterdam (AMS) boarded as scheduled, only to be informed of an APU issue before departure.

The auxiliary power unit is critical for providing electricity and air conditioning while the aircraft is on the ground. Although the crew initially anticipated a brief delay to repair or replace the component, delays extended into the early morning hours.

By around 2:00 AM, after multiple gate changes and conflicting updates, Delta officially canceled the flight, citing a “food safety” concern. This decision left passengers frustrated, as many questioned why the flight couldn’t proceed without catering, particularly given the late hour and closed terminal amenities.

Why Catering Matters on Long-Haul Flights

Catering on transatlantic flights like MSP to AMS is not just about comfort—it’s a regulatory and safety requirement. Once meals are loaded onto an aircraft, they must be maintained under strict temperature conditions.

When a mechanical delay prevents the plane from departing, the onboard food can become unsafe for consumption after a certain period, often rendering it unusable.

Late-night operations complicate recovery. At hubs like Minneapolis, catering services may not run full-scale past midnight. With minimal staffing and limited access to replacement meals, Delta likely faced operational limits.

Furthermore, airline policy and contractual obligations require meal service not only for passengers but also for crew members, particularly on long-haul ETOPS flights where in-flight diversions are limited.

While passengers may have been willing to fly without meals, airlines must consider broader implications. Food and drink availability is essential for passengers with medical needs and is factored into flight planning. More critically, pilots and crew must be properly catered under FAA and union guidelines.

Delta’s decision also reflects network-wide implications. Launching a severely delayed international flight without catering could lead to crew timeouts, missed connections, and scheduling conflicts. With few overnight recovery options, pushing the flight might have caused a ripple effect across Delta’s operations. Canceling and rebooking may have been the only option to contain further disruptions.

Though Delta’s handling of the delay, including inconsistent communication and late cancellation, drew passenger ire, the decision reflects the complex logistics behind long-haul air travel. Airports like MSP, even as hubs, may not maintain full support services 24/7. Catering staff, aircraft technicians, and gate agents often work on staggered or reduced schedules overnight.

While passengers may interpret delays as poor management, behind-the-scenes limitations like expired catering, unavailable maintenance crews, or union rules can dictate outcomes. Transparency and clear communication could have mitigated frustrations, but the safety-first approach remains paramount in aviation operations.

Featured Image by Clément Alloing | Flickr

Stay tuned with us. Further, follow us on social media for the latest updates.

Join us on Telegram Group for the Latest Aviation Updates. Subsequently, follow us on Google News