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.
Wow you ok someone mentioned St Paul and I said Seattle has Bellevue because its downtown is about same size as St Paul we should keep feelings out of this and stick to facts if were going to rank cities.
Are you sure Bellevue and St. Paul are the same size? St. Paul just looks to have more buildings to me.
Are you sure Bellevue and St. Paul are the same size? St. Paul just looks to have more buildings to me.
Bellevue does have 27 highrise buildings downtown, St Paul has 20 there pretty close except one is government the other is a upscale retail center. Bellevue even beat Seattle and has the only nieman Marcus in the state in its downtown.
Yes... 15 years ago. Bellevue DT core is now the 2nd most urban area in WA, after Seattle and has a strong MS presence. It has grown a lot in the last 10 years and is much more effectively/efficiently run than Seattle. And still growing as well.
I checked on Emporis, and out of the 36 skyscraper or high rise buildings in Bellevue, 16 were residential or hotel. That is 44.4% of its downtown buildings.
For St. Paul, out of the 65 skyscraper or high rise buildings, 18 were residential or hotel. That is only 28% of its buildings.
Recap
Total Skyscrapers/Highrises, % Residential, %Office
Bellevue, WA. 36. 44%. 56%
St.Paul, MN 65. 28%. 72%
In my opinion, based on these facts, Bellevue is not the same size or close to St. Paul. The facts aren't biased either, I haven't skewed them in any way. If you find a mistake, fix it, I'll gladly accept.
Wow you ok someone mentioned St Paul and I said Seattle has Bellevue because its downtown is about same size as St Paul we should keep feelings out of this and stick to facts if were going to rank cities.
I probably should have quoted InkPoe instead of you, but it was the accumulated reading to that point that I was commenting on.
In my opinion, based on these facts, Bellevue is not the same size or close to St. Paul. The facts aren't biased either, I haven't skewed them in any way. If you find a mistake, fix it, I'll gladly accept.
Whether the buildings are residential or office (if it's unoccupied by either, does it mean it's not there? Or doesn't count? NO, it's still a building) doesn't change its urbanity. Quite frankly (by your calculations) 44% is still less than half... IMO doesn't qualify as largely "residential".
No... I wasn't even talking about sizes (or office spaces) of both these cities-- only that your comparison is flawed. I was addressing the fact that you pointedly said Tacoma is smaller than St. Paul. It doesn't make sense to compare a #3 city to a #2 city. The only reason why you would've done that (I presumed) was because you didn't realize that Bellevue is the #2 city for Seattle Metro. Unless you're trying to say St. Paul is #3 (and Bloomington is #2)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Min-Chi-Cbus
I probably should have quoted InkPoe instead of you, but it was the accumulated reading to that point that I was commenting on.
Except I made no mention of "15 million sqft of office" or of Amazon-- or even talk/refer to how "superior" Seattle is (which... pleeeeeeeaaaaase, its not. ). Your little meltdown/outburst if directed at me would've made sense if I actually been thoroughly (or even a smidge) smug about Seattle... which I haven't been at all. I'm looking to move out of Seattle and Minneapolis is one of the contenders.
Whether the buildings are residential or office (if it's unoccupied by either, does it mean it's not there? Or doesn't count? NO, it's still a building) doesn't change its urbanity. Quite frankly (by your calculations) 44% is still less than half... IMO doesn't qualify as largely "residential".
No... I wasn't even talking about sizes (or office spaces) of both these cities-- only that your comparison is flawed. I was addressing the fact that you pointedly said Tacoma is smaller than St. Paul. It doesn't make sense to compare a #3 city to a #2 city. The only reason why you would've done that (I presumed) was because you didn't realize that Bellevue is the #2 city for Seattle Metro. Unless you're trying to say St. Paul is #3 (and Bloomington is #2)?
I originally compared St. Paul to Tacoma because Tacoma is the #2 city. Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue metropolitan area. Seattle-Tacoma international airport. Sea Tac. If Bellevue was #2, the city around the airport would be Sea Belle, which sounds like the name of some animated horse in a Disney movie. Tacoma is fairly larger than Bellevue. And St Paul is fairly larger than Tacoma. I only comapared St. Paul to Bellevue because everyone else was. And I said to you that there is a large amount of residential space in Bellevues core, and that it isn't more office oriented than St Paul.
I originally compared St. Paul to Tacoma because Tacoma is the #2 city. Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue metropolitan area. Seattle-Tacoma international airport. Sea Tac. If Bellevue was #2, the city around the airport would be Sea Belle, which sounds like the name of some animated horse in a Disney movie. Tacoma is fairly larger than Bellevue. And St Paul is fairly larger than Tacoma. I only comapared St. Paul to Bellevue because everyone else was. And I said to you that there is a large amount of residential space in Bellevues core, and that it isn't more office oriented than St Paul.
The city of Tacoma paid big bucks a long time ago to have their name attached to the airport, that's why it's called SeaTac airport.
While Tacoma overall may have more people than Bellevue, it is not more urban than Bellevue. Which was my point. Bellevue has been growing and doing very well economically speaking. That's why its now known as Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue metro area. Tacoma's trying to revive and restore its standing... and wishes that it has Bellevue's economy.
The city of Tacoma paid big bucks a long time ago to have their name attached to the airport, that's why it's called SeaTac airport.
While Tacoma overall may have more people than Bellevue, it is not more urban than Bellevue. Which was my point. Bellevue has been growing and doing very well economically speaking. That's why its now known as Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue metro area. Tacoma's trying to revive and restore its standing... and wishes that it has Bellevue's economy.
Ok, but as I said, Tacoma is still technically the #2 city in the metro, thus I originally compared it to st. Paul.
Geography (mountains and ocean) and lack of harsh winters what put Seattle ahead, IMO. Apart from that, these cities are very similarly nice. The "flyover country" argument is meaningless unless you want to argue that Newark and Riverside are nicer than Chicago, Austin, and Denver.
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.
). Your little meltdown/outburst if directed at me would've made sense if I actually been thoroughly (or even a smidge) smug about Seattle... which I haven't been at all. I'm looking to move out of Seattle and Minneapolis is one of the contenders. 
