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.
Typically, I agree. Looking at metro-wide numbers, it appears as though San Diego-Tijuana is about twice the density of the Greater Twin Cities area (~1,000 ppsm vs. ~500 ppsm). I wonder how much Tijuana affects that density, one way or the other...
Hennepin County (of which Minneapolis is the county seat) is about 2,000 ppsm. San Diego County is 680 ppsm. Does this have to do with large mountains and undevelopable land, as well?
But yeah, you're right. This is about the "cores" of each city. So how do we define that? Chicago would have a larger "core" geographically than either Minneapolis or San Diego. Is it fair to prescribe the same criteria in terms of geographic size to each core? Or, could one (probably San Diego) have a much larger geographic core than the other?
Yes, the majority of SD County is undeveloped and mountainous.
Core's can obviously vary by city but I basically just look at Downtown and the surrounding older neighborhoods (Bankers Hill, Golden Hill, Hillcrest, North Park, South Park, University Heights, etc..)
Typically, I agree. Looking at metro-wide numbers, it appears as though San Diego-Tijuana is about twice the density of the Greater Twin Cities area (~1,000 ppsm vs. ~500 ppsm). I wonder how much Tijuana affects that density, one way or the other...
Hennepin County (of which Minneapolis is the county seat) is about 2,000 ppsm. San Diego County is 680 ppsm. Does this have to do with large mountains and undevelopable land, as well?
But yeah, you're right. This is about the "cores" of each city. So how do we define that? Chicago would have a larger "core" geographically than either Minneapolis or San Diego. Is it fair to prescribe the same criteria in terms of geographic size to each core? Or, could one (probably San Diego) have a much larger geographic core than the other?
To have an apples to apples comparison it would be nice if someone compared the inner 5-10 sq mi for all three.
Denver's aerial could pass off as Dallas' 1980s aerial.
Well Denver is slightly smaller than DFW was in the 80s. They're actually pretty similar cities that are built similarly.
Denver's rapidly working on infill, so I hopefully Downtown starts to look more dense. The areas outside of downtown don't looks so much like that picture though
Well Denver is slightly smaller than DFW was in the 80s. They're actually pretty similar cities that are built similarly.
Denver's rapidly working on infill, so I hopefully Downtown starts to look more dense. The areas outside of downtown don't looks so much like that picture though
Are we reading the same graphic? It looks to me that within the top 20 zip codes or so, San Diego and Minneapolis pretty closely mirror one another's population density. After those top 20, it seems as though Minneapolis actually has the *slight* edge (what's the deal with your zip code with only 300 ppsm, by the way? Is that actually in the city?).
I also don't understand how zip codes vary so much in both geographic size, and in terms of population. I always figured that it was standardized (or close to standardized) in one way or the other. Interesting...
Your list of zip codes for Minneapolis includes suburbs, by the way. Hardly the core of the city.
Hmm.....Loring Park is probably the least interesting part of downtown Minneapolis, in my opinion, as it is primarily residential with little entertainment or nightlife options. I'm not sure how you qualify "nothing to write home about." Downtown Minneapolis is probably about average or above-average in terms of its structural density. Downtown East is a bombed out crater (but getting much better); the CBD itself is as structurally dense or more structurally dense than what you would find in pretty much any major city.
I agree with your point that San Diego has taller residential buildings (well, it's not so much a point as a fact). Minneapolis does not have any beaches or anything similar to drive up the demand for high-rise residential development.
I also agree with your other assessment that if one takes the city as a whole, Minneapolis is the most structurally dense, no doubt. If you look just at population densities, Minneapolis crushes both San Diego and Denver (Minneapolis ~7,500 ppsm, San Diego and Denver both ~4,000 ppsm). That's not the best metric, however. Minneapolis is also almost 100% flat land. There are no steep grades to break up development.
As far as just having "big buildings" downtown, San Diego has 31 buildings over 300 feet, Minneapolis has 35, and Denver has 34 over 300 (all of this is from Wikipedia). It's close, but Denver wins it. St. Paul, for the record, has 15 buildings above 300 feet, but the downtowns of Minneapolis and St. Paul are about 10 miles apart.
Downtown Minneapolis is approximately 3 square miles. It has nearly 40,000 residents and employs somewhere around 150,000. St. Anthony Main and the near northeast neighborhoods add residents to that total, but the same could be said about the core residential neighborhoods next to downtown Denver or San Diego.
I'm not sure where Denver and San Diego rank in terms of office and residential populations downtown. Probably pretty close to Minneapolis.
Denver and San Diego certainly have more large projects in the pipeline as of right now.
Really, these three cities get compared a lot because they are right next to each other in terms of metro populations. They really are very different in a lot of ways, but I think in terms of the raw numbers (SF of office space, for instance, or downtown daytime population) they are probably pretty close. San Diego and Denver probably both have larger tourism industries than Minneapolis and their downtown's probably reflect that. All in all, though, if Minneapolis's downtown isn't much to write home about, I can't imagine what San Diego or Denver does that significantly outperforms it...
Denver has a metro full of sprawl and won't blow anyone away with density, but it's absolutely worth noting that Denver annexed 54 miles of (virtually) uninhabited land to build Denver International Airport, which now takes up 54 of the 154 square miles that make up the city limits. To put it in perspective, that's an area so big that it could fit 50 San Diego airports, 10 Minneapolis-St. Paul airports, and 2.5 Manhattans! Take a look at Denver's oddly shaped city borders and you'll see what I mean. In effect, Denver literally lowered it's density by a third when creating DIA. Without the airport, the number would be closer 6,500+/sq. mi.
Last edited by bartonizer; 10-26-2015 at 12:04 PM..
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.
