What ranks Seattle higher than Minneapolis/St. Paul? (live, state, better)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seattle and Minneapolis/St. Paul are often considered to be in the same tier, but there's something holding people back from placing them right next to eachother (as far as cities go).
Why is Mpls/SP always placed behind Seattle? I simply can only think of it being near the ocean and having better scenery. Otherwise, transit, density, attractions, Population and all the other amenities seem to be comparable.
I was going to to put San Diego, Phoenix and Denver in the thread, but Denver has about 1 million less people then Seattle and Minneapolis although it's still considered in the same tier. Phoenix somewhat lacks the urban fabric the others have. Also, San Diego has major competition (LA, SF). Those three things set the other three cities apart (and are somewhat excuses), where as Seattle and Minneapolis share similar metro population, Density and about the same isolation.
Seattle was not so long ago in the same tier as Minneapolis, Denver, Phoenix, or San Diego but its climbed higher because its economy is on the cusp of the big leagues and the metro has over 4 million people.
Seattle is West Coast (which will always be more "desirable" than the Mid-West for most people), has a much more milder weather (and less bugs) and definitely the scenery makes it stand out. We're also very linked to Vancouver BC, which is a pretty cool town.
Plus for people who like to be very active-- there's more to do in the state of WA than Minnesota (Alpine skiing to dune buggy to sailing out to the ocean, et.c). WA pretty much has everything (rainforest, mountains, deserts, plains, you name it) and Seattle isn't that far a drive from it.
Seattle has great scenery, location and downtown. i just prefer the Twin Cities because its home, love the weather, i love the people, chain of lakes, mall of america and many more
I didn’t vote because the poll is structured around a logical fallacy: namely, that Seattle does rank higher than MSP. Beyond that, I’m not even sure what “rank higher” means.
If we’re talking about some type of objective ranking, there are two rankings I’m aware of--- the rankings of “global cities” by GaWC, and the Ranally (Rand McNally) City Rating System.
GaWC ranks world cities based largely upon advanced consumer services, and the relationship of those services to other world cities. This would include law firms, ad agencies, accountants, etc. Needless to say, this is a very limited way of looking at cities. However, Minneapolis and Seattle rank at the same level…that of” Beta” world city.
The Ranally City Rating System looks at a city’s economic function. This index combines retail sales, corporate headquarters, the numbers of universities and hospitals, as well as other consumer functions within a city. Ranally ranks Minneapolis as a 1-AA city, while Seattle receives the lower 1-A designation (St Paul is ranked at 2-BB, while Tacoma is ranked at 2-B).
Demographically, Seattle has a slightly larger MSA and CSA population. MSP has a slightly larger Economic Area Population (EA). Commensurate with its larger MSA, Seattle has a larger GDP. However, MSP has a significantly greater number of corporations within the F500—both nationally and internationally, as well as the presence of a Federal Reserve Bank branch.
Essentially, we’re down to the question of subjective preference: which city do you like better? In this arena, Seattle has some advantages. Coastal cities always receive significantly more media coverage than do inland cities. While both cities have somewhat of an image problem related to weather, cold is a deal-killer for a great many people, rain not so much so. My personal opinion is that, if you’re heavily invested in pop culture, Seattle is the preferable city. If your tastes are more for fine arts: theater, museums, orchestras, etc.-- Minneapolis is the better choice. If you love mountains and oceans, Seattle is a no-brainer. If you value the constant change of seasons and more sunshine, Minneapolis makes more sense. Had the poll been balanced to begin with, I likely would have voted them as being equals. I think it’s hard to find two better-matched major cities in the country.
The Pacific Northwest as a region also seems to be preferred by many to the Upper Midwest.
For a short while in the 90s, Seattle was considered a cultural trendsetter. I suppose Prince did the same for MSP in the 80s, but not nearly to the same extent.
Seattle has mountains and the Puget Sound, it is also bigger. It has better marketing. Minneapolis is hurt by the fact that it is in the Midwest, a lot of people perceive it differently than it actually is.
Last edited by Drewcifer; 06-18-2012 at 09:22 AM..
Seattle and Minneapolis/St. Paul are often considered to be in the same tier, but there's something holding people back from placing them right next to eachother (as far as cities go).
Why is Mpls/SP always placed behind Seattle? I simply can only think of it being near the ocean and having better scenery. Otherwise, transit, density, attractions, Population and all the other amenities seem to be comparable.
I was going to to put San Diego, Phoenix and Denver in the thread, but Denver has about 1 million less people then Seattle and Minneapolis although it's still considered in the same tier. Phoenix somewhat lacks the urban fabric the others have. Also, San Diego has major competition (LA, SF). Those three things set the other three cities apart (and are somewhat excuses), where as Seattle and Minneapolis share similar metro population, Density and about the same isolation.
Any thoughts?
Seattle is still in the same tier as Minneapolis, San Diego, Denver, and Phoenix (one will argue that a few other metros belong with these 5) and will be for awhile. People on city-data.com, however, have mad love for Seattle and will place it ahead of all cities of similar size as well as those that are larger. I always had a positive view of Seattle even before I had the chance to actually visit the city. I still find it to be a great destination, but I don't know if I would want to live there. At times it has had a bigger city vibe than Minneapolis, but overall I don't see it as being a tier above.
The problem with Minneapolis is that it will always be held back by St. Paul and the Twin Cities moniker. When people throughout the region and even nationally have been programmed to refer to Minneapolis as the Twin Cities or the Cities, there's a problem. A city has to be identifiable if it wants to be recognized as a major city. There needs to be a push to merge Minneapolis and St. Paul (and perhaps a few inner-ring suburbs) into one city and just refer to it as Minneapolis - St. Paul or St. Paul - Minneapolis (depending on what city one lives in).
You're taking all the other "lets rank all the US cities" threads way too seriously.
Ben
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
