Walk around downtown Bloomington on any given weekend and it’s easy to believe our community is in the middle of a remarkable growth spurt. New hotels line the streets. Dozens of modern apartment buildings have gone up in the last decade. Restaurants are packed, especially on IU game days. And with nearly 49,000 students enrolled at Indiana University this year, the energy on campus spills out into the city in a way that makes Bloomington feel vibrant and alive.
On the surface, it looks like a boom.
But the numbers tell a quieter and more concerning story.
Despite all the visible construction, Bloomington’s permanent population has been essentially flat for years, with a slight decline since 2021. Monroe County as a whole shows the same pattern: slow growth through 2020, then stagnation and then the beginning of a downward slide. At the same time, enrollment in our largest school system (MCCSC) has dropped roughly 8% since 2019–20, a trend that school officials project will continue. Yes, enrollment declines are a national trend, and homeschooling and private schools play a role, but other comparable communities are seeing school growth. Declining enrollment is not inevitable.
So how can a place with cranes swinging over downtown, record IU enrollment, thriving employers, and one of the busiest sports venues in the state be shrinking in the ways that matter most?
Because what we see doesn’t reflect who is actually putting down roots here.
The last decade of construction has overwhelmingly focused on two categories: student housing and hospitality. A major reason is Indiana University’s own growth. IU Bloomington now enrolls nearly 48,600 students, the largest in its history. Twenty years ago, that number was closer to 38,000, meaning we’ve added nearly 10,000 more students over two decades. That surge created enormous demand for apartments and dense, urban housing near campus. Developers simply built for the population that was expanding.
But this student-driven construction boom has little to do with Bloomington’s long-term residential base. It explains why the city looks busy and built-up while the number of permanent residents, the people who buy homes, raise kids, and anchor schools, has remained flat or declined. We are adding activity, not stability, density, not families.
This quiet demographic decline isn’t simply the result of market forces. It reflects a deeper political and planning divide within our community; one that both sides feel, but few talk about openly.
Inside Bloomington, growth is typically defined through a progressive, urban lens:
These principles have value. They make the urban core more livable and sustainable. But they do not create the kinds of neighborhoods that attract families who want a backyard, a driveway, and a sense of permanence.
Outside the city, Monroe County’s planning environment takes almost the opposite approach. Many county residents are historically more conservative, rural, and wary of annexation or urban influence. County decision-making has leaned heavily toward:
These positions come from real concerns about land protection and self-determination. But the net effect is a structural shortage of the single-family housing that healthy, growing communities rely on.
Put the two approaches together and we’ve created a trap:
Bloomington builds up and the county blocks out. Nowhere in the system are we building for families.
Population decline rarely announces itself loudly. It shows up in slow, compounding ways:
This is the downward spiral many mid-sized communities face when they lose their middle, the families, young workers, and long-term residents who sustain civic life.
We are not in crisis yet. But the early signs are unmistakable.
I don’t want to overstate this, but it’s worth noting: the one part of Monroe County that has grown consistently is Ellettsville.
Ellettsville has its own planning authority and has generally been more open to creating new neighborhoods and traditional housing. The result? While Bloomington and the county have flattened, Ellettsville has quietly grown from about 6,100 people in 2010 to around 6,800 today.
In a state where many counties are losing population, even modest growth is meaningful. With the assets we have, Bloomington and Monroe County should be positioned among the communities gaining people, not slipping behind them.
This doesn’t make Ellettsville right and the rest of the county wrong. It simply demonstrates a truth we should pay attention to:
When a community creates room for families, families choose it.
Right now, that room exists only in small pockets or outside Monroe County entirely.
A useful comparison comes from Tippecanoe County, a community similar in size and also home to a major university. Analysis of building-permit data shows that Tippecanoe built roughly twice as many single-family homes as Monroe County over the last fifteen years.
That difference, about 6,000 homes in Tippecanoe vs. 3,000 here, helped support population growth that outpaced Monroe by nearly 15,000 people during the same period.
The solution isn’t to copy one political ideology or abandon another. It’s to recognize that people, especially families, are the foundation of a sustainable community.
We can build a healthier future by focusing on four shifts:
Bloomington and Monroe County have every ingredient a thriving region could ask for: world-class employers, a flagship university, extraordinary natural assets, a vibrant downtown, and a culture of creativity and innovation.
But none of it will matter if we quietly allow the next generation to slip away.
If we want a community where schools are strong, families stay, and new residents choose to build their lives here, we have to grow on purpose. Not by building more towers or blocking more subdivisions, but by creating the kinds of neighborhoods where people actually want to put down roots.
The choice in front of us isn’t between liberal and conservative planning.
It’s between intentional growth and slow decline.
We still have time to choose wisely.
*About this collaboration
I wrote this piece with support from ChatGPT. I provided the verified local data, the ideas, and the direction, and then used ChatGPT to help gather additional context, organize the outline, and draft early versions. I revised and shaped the final Op-Ed myself. AI didn’t replace my thinking, it accelerated the parts that are usually slow, so I could focus on clarity, accuracy, and the points I wanted to make.