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.
So true! They must be considering anyone who drives across the border from Wisconsin or Iowa or from another nearby state to shop at the Mall of America a tourist. Technically you could consider them that, but in reality they are just going shopping. Seattle is a tourism destination- people book trips to fly here from across the country or the world to see all that it and its surrounding areas have to offer. MSP, not so much.
This is largely indicative of the different roles the two cities play, and the constituencies to which they market themselves. Minneapolis has never been, and as a result of climate and geographical location, is unlikely to ever be a primary tourist destination. It is however, one of the most important business destinations in the world. Orlando gets more tourism than does Seattle, yet it would be foolish to suggest that Orlando feels like a bigger city than does Seattle. Many of the world's biggest tourist attractions aren't even in highly-urbanized areas, yet the world's primary business destinations are patently found in big cities. Minneapolis is a city that has long understood its role in business. It is also a city that has prioritized its infrastructure development to meet the needs of those who live here, as opposed to those who may visit here, only to leave in a few days.
Having two major cities like Portland and Vancouver nearby is considered a pro, not a con, for most people.
And Seattle has always been, still is, and always will be the anchor of the PNW.
The problem with the closeness of other major cities, is that they detract from the potential regional dominance of each other. My example of major league sports teams is an obvious example of how that happens.
If one looks at The Ranally City Rating system (which excludes Canadian cities), Minneapolis is ranked as a 1AA city, while Portland and Seattle are each at the lower ranking of 1A. Undoubtedly, if either Seattle or portland wasn't there, the remaining city would receive the higher ranking. The point is that the two cities divide the share of regional amenities. Putting Vancouver into the equation makes for a starker yet example of this happening.
Then I guess you could say Bob Dillon is tied to Minneapolis, since he went to school there and started his career there (I think). Most people associate Bob Dillon with Duluth though, since that's where he was born (and to your point).
I think you can give Bob Dylan to Minneapolis as well, since that's where he got famous. Same for Nirvana with Seattle, who are from Aberdeen, WA (a couple hours from Seattle) but recorded their first album in Seattle and hit it big while living in Seattle and were associated with the Seattle scene. For both Dylan and Nirvana, I think both the smaller hometowns and the bigger cities where they made it big can claim them. With Jimi no city besides Seattle is even attempting to claim Jimi.
But the point is I think it's fair to give Jimi and Nirvana to Seattle, and Prince and Dylan to Minneapolis. YIMBY was trying nitpick in a ridiculous (and not even-handed) way.
I think you can give Bob Dylan to Minneapolis as well, since that's where he got famous. Same for Nirvana with Seattle, who are from Aberdeen, WA (a couple hours from Seattle) but recorded their first album in Seattle and hit it big while living in Seattle and were associated with the Seattle scene. For both Dylan and Nirvana, I think both the smaller hometowns and the bigger cities where they made it big can claim them. With Jimi no city besides Seattle is even attempting to claim Jimi.
But the point is I think it's fair to give Jimi and Nirvana to Seattle, and Prince and Dylan to Minneapolis. YIMBY was trying nitpick in a ridiculous (and not even-handed) way.
Okay Exlamatir - I will admit to nitpicking.
Prince shouldn't have even been brought into the conversation though since the comment about him becoming big after moving away from Minneapolis isn't true. I've read more than one of his biographies, including Dance Music Sex Romance and Prince: Chaos, Disorder, and Revolution. Yes, I'm a music junkie and a big fan of Prince. I've read hundreds of biographies-and-autobiographieson musicians so, hit me up if you want suggestions.
So true! They must be considering anyone who drives across the border from Wisconsin or Iowa or from another nearby state to shop at the Mall of America a tourist. Technically you could consider them that, but in reality they are just going shopping. Seattle is a tourism destination- people book trips to fly here from across the country or the world to see all that it and its surrounding areas have to offer. MSP, not so much.
Another vote for Seattle from a person who has never been to Minnesota.
And Jimi (who has been dead for 45 years) is buried in Seattle and his living immediate family still lives there (his Dad passed away in his Seattle home in 2002). Again, he was born and raised in Seattle, lived the vast majority of his life there, and learned to play guitar and started his career in Seattle. Yes, he recorded elsewhere (just like Prince) but he frequently returned home thoughout his career and even got the keys to the city in 1968. No one in their right mind would try and say Seattle is not Jimi's hometown (his anthology is called "West Coast Seattle Boy").
I was trying to apply the same flimsly logic to Prince, which is just as ridiculous, to make the point that that logic is absurd:
"Husney and Prince then left Minneapolis and moved to Sausalito, California where Prince's first album, For You, was recorded at Record Plant Studios. Subsequently, the album was mixed in Los Angeles and released in on April 7, 1978.[19] According to the For You album notes, Prince produced, arranged, composed and played all 27 instruments on the recording." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince...n)#cite_ref-19
No need to reply explaining why that link means nothing and Prince is from Minneapolis - I agree with you. In the same way that Jimi is from Seattle.
Prince is solidly a Minnesotan - no question. Dylan grew up in the Iron Range, not Minneapolis, went to school for one year in the Twin Cities, moved to NYC, and that's where he became famous. I find Dylan far more spurious than Seattle's claim on Hendrix, for example, or Nirvana.
None of this really addresses the "feel" of the two cities, of course. Both have a similar feel in terms of size. Hard to deny this fact. Unless you've never been to one or the other.
Also, let me add (back to the main point of the thread) that I also think the two metros are pretty similar in terms of feeling big. I'd give the edge to Seattle, since its core does feel a bit more urban and crowded. But to say Seattle blows Minneapolis out of the water is just false. The outer neighborhoods in both cities do feel somewhat similar, as does the density and level of development outside of the respective main cities.
And Jimi (who has been dead for 45 years) is buried in Seattle and his living immediate family still lives there (his Dad passed away in his Seattle home in 2002). Again, he was born and raised in Seattle, lived the vast majority of his life there, and learned to play guitar and started his career in Seattle. Yes, he recorded elsewhere (just like Prince) but he frequently returned home thoughout his career and even got the keys to the city in 1968. No one in their right mind would try and say Seattle is not Jimi's hometown (his anthology is called "West Coast Seattle Boy").
I was trying to apply the same flimsly logic to Prince, which is just as ridiculous, to make the point that that logic is absurd:
"Husney and Prince then left Minneapolis and moved to Sausalito, California where Prince's first album, For You, was recorded at Record Plant Studios. Subsequently, the album was mixed in Los Angeles and released in on April 7, 1978.[19] According to the For You album notes, Prince produced, arranged, composed and played all 27 instruments on the recording." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince...n)#cite_ref-19
No need to reply explaining why Prince is from Minneapolis - I agree with you. In the same way that Jimi is from Seattle.
Yes, Prince moved to CA to record an album because his record company (Warner) required him to do so. It is common for musicians / bands to move to the state where they are recording. For example, Nirvana set up shop in Minnesota while they recorded In Utero at Pachyderm Studio, which is outside the Twin Cities. You never hear Minnesotans, Twin Citians, or anyone else claiming Nirvana had to move to Minnesota for no other reason than to record an album. This holds true for Prince - he did not have to move away from Minneapolis to gain notoriety.
I never stated that Hendrix wasn't from Seattle or buried there. My point was that had Jimi not left Seattle and moved to NYC and then to London, things may have turned out very different for him. He became a star in Britain. That is where he gained his reputation as an amazing performer, released a number of singles, and released his debut album. And yes, Dylan was in a similar situation - had he not moved from the Iron Range, to Minneapolis, then to NYC - who knows what would have happened.
Another vote for Seattle from a person who has never been to Minnesota.
WHY HAS NO ONE BEEN TO MINNESOTA
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.
