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.
I put Seattle clearly ahead because they are not afraid of being a big city and get things done such as build towers in residential areas and are open to better transportation. minneapolis always takes for ever to get anything done and by the time they do its already behind. anytime some massive project is in the works for minneapolis residents complain and it just ends up like the nicollet tower or southwest light rail missing uptown or not building anything taller then the ids or building the northstar commuter rail and not having it go to stcloud and i cant imagine how bad traffic will be on university ave in stpaul with the central corridor light rail having the right of way, perhaps it should have been elevated in certain parts...
Hmm... I wouldn't put too much stock on that. The city as a whole can be really indecisive and would have no problem delaying a much needed crucial project due to the whole indecisiveness, meanwhile just wasting money on "studies" upon "studies".
Prime example being the Alaskan Viaduct-- the State had to step in and make the decision because it was a death trap waiting to happen.
The Light Rail is doing very well... but only because Metro Seattle isn't involved-- the 3 counties are. SoundTransit started off on a bad note. It took awhile for the 3 counties entity to get a hold of everything, but once it did, it's been smooth sailing. People are more likely to approve/accept anything from SoundTransit. But if MetroSeattle wants something, it ain't going to happen (The West Seattle-Ballard link for example); no one has the same confidence in the city.
Obviously their "proof" is their preference. Its ok if someone likes a city more than the other.
"Proof" might help me to understand better. It's not about personal bias. Tons of people like Seattle more then Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, LA, Philly, etc but that doesn't prove that it's of higher status.
No way! Both cities have different histories and cultures. Those in the burbs probably would be for this, but as a city person (St Paul), I say no.
I'm not originally from the Twin Cities area, but I've been here long enough (either living in MPLS or STPL) to state that this attitude is pretty obnoxious and plays a role in holding these two cities back from becoming a bigger and better city.
Obviously their "proof" is their preference. Its ok if someone likes a city more than the other.
No, preference does not equal proof. I guarantee you some of the people who have voted haven't even been to both cities. People may prefer Seattle's skyline and scenery to Minneapolis', but their preference does not prove anything, especially if all they are going off of are pictures or hearsay. If we were to start including actual statistics or numbers, one would see that Seattle is not clearly ahead of Minneapolis. Honestly, it's not like we comparing Minneapolis to Chicago.
"Proof" might help me to understand better. It's not about personal bias. Tons of people like Seattle more then Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, LA, Philly, etc but that doesn't prove that it's of higher status.
Except... Ultimately you asked a question that perception-based. And definitely personal bias does play a part.
I am a Seattle resident and can appreciate Minneapolis for what it is. I do not think of it as being lower ranked to Seattle. I did put Seattle as being "slightly ahead" because ultimately... Seattle is a "flagship city" of its region (as in... it's what will pop into most people's mind when you mention the Pacific Northwest). Minneapolis isn't in such position-- Chicago is that city for the Midwest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unity77
No, preference does not equal proof. I guarantee you some of the people who have voted haven't even been to both cities. People may prefer Seattle's skyline and scenery to Minneapolis', but their preference does not prove anything, especially if all they are going off of are pictures or hearsay. If we were to start including actual statistics or numbers, one would see that Seattle is not clearly ahead of Minneapolis. Honestly, it's not like we comparing Minneapolis to Chicago.
That's why I put the word proof in quotation marks.
As I told the OP, s/he asked a question that is essentially perception-based. S/he hasn't provided any evidence that apparently somehow Seattle is ranked higher than Minneapolis.
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,098,363 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobMarley_1LOVE
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
What also might place Seattle over Minneapolis are the winters...because Seattle is at sea level, it escapes the brutal winters that the rest of the U.S. at similar latitudes has. However, what causes me not to want to live in SEattle is also the thing that attracts me to it...topography. Mount Rainier is a ticking time bomb, but I guess given I'm not far from the New Madrid fault I don't know what I'm complaining about.
Except... Ultimately you asked a question that perception-based. And definitely personal bias does play a part.
I am a Seattle resident and can appreciate Minneapolis for what it is. I do not think of it as being lower ranked to Seattle. I did put Seattle as being "slightly ahead" because ultimately... Seattle is a "flagship city" of its region (as in... it's what will pop into most people's mind when you mention the Pacific Northwest). Minneapolis isn't in such position-- Chicago is that city for the Midwest.
That's why I put the word proof in quotation marks.
As I told the OP, s/he asked a question that is essentially perception-based. S/he hasn't provided any evidence that apparently somehow Seattle is ranked higher than Minneapolis.
I understand most of this. The reason I say people rank Seattle higher (as far as city amenities) is because Seattle is always the one city in it's group people say is far ahead. And I just thought to myself "Well MPLS has the same offerings, why don't people see it as being up there with Seattle?"
I did put Seattle as being "slightly ahead" because ultimately... Seattle is a "flagship city" of its region (as in... it's what will pop into most people's mind when you mention the Pacific Northwest). Minneapolis isn't in such position-- Chicago is that city for the Midwest.
The problem with this statement is that you are comparing an unofficial sub-region (PNW) to the entire Midwest. A completely different picture emerges if we look at the four official US Census Bureau Regions: The Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. Seattle is located in the West; and ranks fourth in regional population and third in regional GDP. Minneapolis is located in the Midwest; and ranks third in regional population and second in regional GDP.
If you look at the official divisions within those regions, you see that Minneapolis is actually more dominant. Seattle is located in the Pacific Division (Division 9) of the West; and ranks third in both population and GDP. Minneapolis is located in the West North Central Division (Division 4); and ranks first in both population and GDP.
We have two cities, which by any reasonable and objective criteria rank at the same level. The only real difference is that one receives a significant amount of pop-culture hype, while the other just quietly goes about doing its thing.
The problem with this statement is that you are comparing an unofficial sub-region (PNW) to the entire Midwest. A completely different picture emerges if we look at the four official US Census Bureau Regions: The Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. Seattle is located in the West; and ranks fourth in regional population and third in regional GDP. Minneapolis is located in the Midwest; and ranks third in regional population and second in regional GDP.
If you look at the official divisions within those regions, you see that Minneapolis is actually more dominant. Seattle is located in the Pacific Division (Division 9) of the West; and ranks third in both population and GDP. Minneapolis is located in the West North Central Division (Division 4); and ranks first in both population and GDP.
We have two cities, which by any reasonable and objective criteria rank at the same level. The only real difference is that one receives a significant amount of pop-culture hype, while the other just quietly goes about doing its thing.
That's all fine and dandy... but why go through the pretense that Seattle is somehow "higher ranked"? That's what I'm getting at. The OP her-/himself said that in people's mind that Seattle stands out more than Minneapolis. That's nothing to do with "ranking" itself. There's nothing official/unofficial about that... so what's the point of bringing up stats, density, GDP, et.c?
Seattle is just more highly regarded (and this isn't to say Minneapolis isn't highly regarded at all) in CD-people's perception for whatever reasons and that's what this thread is really asking about. Perception doesn't have to be based on logic or facts.
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.
