Delusion is a river running through St. Paul

Amazingly, someone was able to look at this picture from the 2010 census:

...and conclude that Minnesota suburbs and exurbs are dead and will never return.  The map, put together by the U.S. Census Bureau, shows 2000-2010 population growth, by county.  The dark green areas represent the fastest growth, and are all suburban and exurban counties ringing the Twin Cities metro area.  The green counties, next fastest growth group, are all suburban or exurban counties near the Twin Cities, Rochester, or Fargo, North Dakota.

Somehow, the usually reliable St. Paul Pioneer Press published an article this weekend under the headline  "Suburban growth in Twin Cities loses steam.  It could be gone for good." 

The PP focuses on this graphic, showing population growth trends in the east metro area.  As a St. Paul newspaper, this makes some sense.  A more interesting question may be, "Why has the west metro grown faster than the east metro?".

But how to explain this howler, "In the east metro, most suburbs showed steep drops in population growth rates, while St. Paul's rate slipped only slightly."?  According to the U.S. Census, the population in St. Paul actually fell by 0.7 percent, reversing the growth trend from the previous two decades.  So we are to believe that shifting from population growth to population decline represents a better performance than a drop in population growth.

The PP gives away the real agenda in the first sentence of the article, "Maybe sprawl wasn't such a great idea after all."

Further down, the PP makes this claim, "The suburbs' growth also is declining because demand for their specialty — the single-family house — is falling."  Or rather, the anti-sprawl advocacy group Strong Towns makes the claim.  No figures are given to back up the assertion, only a narrative about high gas prices, etc.  I look forward to the PP dissection of St. Paul's actual decline.  Shouldn't high gas prices have people be flocking to the central city, home of mass transit?