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'd also put the Twin Cities Metro ahead of the Detroit Metro, having lived in both. It's still slightly behind in population, though catching up quickly, likely within 10-20 years. From an economic standpoint, MSP passed Detroit, and that gap is likely to widen the next few years post-COVID. Detroit is still an industrial heavy economy, and when car-buying slows down, the local economy tanks. The Twin Cities are more coporate heavy. It has some exposed sectors like retail (Best Buy and Target HQ), but others like Biotech that will likely do well (3M, Medtronic).
The Twin Cities MSA is younger than the Detroit MSA by 3 years, which is pretty significant from a demographic standpoint and means it will continue to have greater natural increase.
Median household income is already about $20K/yr higher in the Twin Cities MSA than in the Detroit MSA ($80K vs $60K). The economy in MSP is more knowledge based. Educational attainment- MSP 42.6% with bachelor's degree or higher (15% graduate degree) vs Detroit MSA 31.8% bachelor's or higher (13% graduate degree).
Detroit has done a good job in the last decade stopping the hemorrhaging. If you would have asked me 20 years ago, I would've picked Detroit to be in even worse shape than it is now. MSP isn't growing like the sunbelt, but it is the top growth metro in the Midwest.
Good points on the economics both on the macro level and personal level!
Twin Cities metro is actually a decent distance from the Detroit metro in terms of population. They're estimated at about 500K person difference for MSA and 1.3 million difference for CSA. Even with Detroit's currently low population growth and the Twin Cities relatively high population growth, 2030 wouldn't be enough time to make up difference. One thing is that sometimes it seems like Detroit's suburbs have it in for Detroit the city and there doesn't seem to be coherent regional planning which maybe accounts for why things like trying to get a regional commuter rail line up and running has proven so difficult. Meanwhile, the Twin Cities have their Metropolitan Council that seems to have helped it run a tighter ship without too much sniping at each other, and I wonder if that had anything to do with the area relative prosperity.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 05-16-2020 at 09:30 PM..
To me, for now, I have a hard time putting Indy above Cleveland and St. Louis. Don't know why but Cleveland and St. Louis seem like they are still on a different tier than Indianapolis. Historical reasons probably, but more widely known, larger metro areas, etc.
Good points on the economics both on the macro level and personal level!
Twin Cities metro is actually a decent distance from the Detroit metro in terms of population. They're estimated at about 500K person difference for MSA and 1.3 million difference for CSA. Even with Detroit's currently low population growth and the Twin Cities relatively high population growth, 2030 wouldn't be enough time to make up difference. One thing is that sometimes it seems like Detroit's suburbs have it in for Detroit the city and there doesn't seem to be coherent regional planning which maybe accounts for why things like trying to get a regional commuter rail line up and running has proven so difficult. Meanwhile, the Twin Cities have their Metropolitan Council that seems to have helped it run a tighter ship without too much sniping at each other, and I wonder if that had anything to do with the area relative prosperity.
I hate to believe the MSP area can be more cohesive because it's more racially similar, but I'd be naive to assume there isn't some racial bias in the Detroit MSA for a Detroit v. suburbs battle. MSP also seems quite focused on its urban areas for just about everything like culture, jobs, sports, universities, etc. Is Detroit as heavily city-focused as MSP? Also, more people live in the urban centers in MSP than in Detroit as a proportion of the region's population and even the state. I believe MSP urban area has over half the entire population of MN. The Detroit urban area doesn't contain as much percentage of the state of MI, plus the region, AFAIK, is not as centered around the urban footprint of Detroit the MSP region is. Correct me if I'm wrong though. I'm not claiming to be an absolute expert on either.
Good points on the economics both on the macro level and personal level!
Twin Cities metro is actually a decent distance from the Detroit metro in terms of population. They're estimated at about 500K person difference for MSA and 1.3 million difference for CSA. Even with Detroit's currently low population growth and the Twin Cities relatively high population growth, 2030 wouldn't be enough time to make up difference. One thing is that sometimes it seems like Detroit's suburbs have it in for Detroit the city and there doesn't seem to be coherent regional planning which maybe accounts for why things like trying to get a regional commuter rail line up and running has proven so difficult. Meanwhile, the Twin Cities have their Metropolitan Council that seems to have helped it run a tighter ship without too much sniping at each other, and I wonder if that had anything to do with the area relative prosperity.
I agree completely. The Met Council definitely does a lot better job coordinating between all the local governments than the Detroit MSA, which for a long time has had an antagonistic relationship between Detroit and its suburbs. As jessemh431 points out, there was a racial component, but there were other reasons the city and suburbs didn't get along. That's not to say you don't see any of the city vs suburb dynamic in the Twin Cities, but it is much more muted and overall there is good regional cooperation.
Ultimately, having a struggling central city has major effects on the suburbs, as no one is willing to pay that much money to live in a suburb of a central city who lacks amenities compared to other major cities. There is a reason homes in Detroit suburbs are cheaper than similar homes in similar sized metros. The Detroit MSA just isn't an area that many people want to move to, and a lot of college grads leave for greener pastures. When your central city declines, your whole metro takes a big hit.
One interesting list- the number of local governments (cities, chater townships, villages, etc-every state has different definitions of these) by metro, showing that the Midwest Metros are especially fragmented into multiple, often small, local governments, with the number of local governments per 10,000 population in parentheses:
1. Pittsburgh 463 (2.0)
2. Louisville, KY 193 (1.5)
3. St. Louis 393 (1.4)
4. Columbus, OH 266 (1.3)
5. Omaha, NE 115 (1.2)
6. Kansas City 252 (1.2)
7. Minneapolis 412 (1.1)
8. Cincinnati 243 (1.1)
9. Indianapolis 215 (1.1)
10. Cleveland 167 (0.8)
11. Philadelphia 385 (0.6)
12. Oklahoma City 84 (0.6)
13. Chicago 571 (0.6)
14. Milwaukee 94 (0.6)
15. Buffalo, NY 65 (0.6)
16. Detroit 213 (0.5)
17. Memphis 60 (0.4)
18. Boston 201 (0.4)
19. Nashville 67 (0.4)
20. NYC 659 (0.3)
The 3 least fragmented metros are Honolulu (0.0 per 10,000 pop, since there is only 1 local government), Las Vegas (also 0.0, since their are only 6 local governments in the metro), and San Diego (0.1, there are 19 local governments in the metro).
I hate to believe the MSP area can be more cohesive because it's more racially similar, but I'd be naive to assume there isn't some racial bias in the Detroit MSA for a Detroit v. suburbs battle. MSP also seems quite focused on its urban areas for just about everything like culture, jobs, sports, universities, etc. Is Detroit as heavily city-focused as MSP? Also, more people live in the urban centers in MSP than in Detroit as a proportion of the region's population and even the state. I believe MSP urban area has over half the entire population of MN. The Detroit urban area doesn't contain as much percentage of the state of MI, plus the region, AFAIK, is not as centered around the urban footprint of Detroit the MSP region is. Correct me if I'm wrong though. I'm not claiming to be an absolute expert on either.
I'm sure Detroit's poor black city-white suburbs dynamic has had an impact on its growth.
I think the Twins benefit to some extent from being a polycentric metro- one of the two is the capital on top of that. This is a unique feature that no other Midwest metro has on a large enough scale. If Minneapolis city is not quite to your liking, you have St Paul next door, or vice versa.
Also, the Twin cities has an attraction that at least can draw people in to see what else the area has to offer. Mall of America. That alone draws 42 million annually, mostly people from other Midwest states and Canada.
I hate to believe the MSP area can be more cohesive because it's more racially similar, but I'd be naive to assume there isn't some racial bias in the Detroit MSA for a Detroit v. suburbs battle. MSP also seems quite focused on its urban areas for just about everything like culture, jobs, sports, universities, etc. Is Detroit as heavily city-focused as MSP? Also, more people live in the urban centers in MSP than in Detroit as a proportion of the region's population and even the state. I believe MSP urban area has over half the entire population of MN. The Detroit urban area doesn't contain as much percentage of the state of MI, plus the region, AFAIK, is not as centered around the urban footprint of Detroit the MSP region is. Correct me if I'm wrong though. I'm not claiming to be an absolute expert on either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texamichiforniasota
I agree completely. The Met Council definitely does a lot better job coordinating between all the local governments than the Detroit MSA, which for a long time has had an antagonistic relationship between Detroit and its suburbs. As jessemh431 points out, there was a racial component, but there were other reasons the city and suburbs didn't get along. That's not to say you don't see any of the city vs suburb dynamic in the Twin Cities, but it is much more muted and overall there is good regional cooperation.
Ultimately, having a struggling central city has major effects on the suburbs, as no one is willing to pay that much money to live in a suburb of a central city who lacks amenities compared to other major cities. There is a reason homes in Detroit suburbs are cheaper than similar homes in similar sized metros. The Detroit MSA just isn't an area that many people want to move to, and a lot of college grads leave for greener pastures. When your central city declines, your whole metro takes a big hit.
One interesting list- the number of local governments (cities, chater townships, villages, etc-every state has different definitions of these) by metro, showing that the Midwest Metros are especially fragmented into multiple, often small, local governments, with the number of local governments per 10,000 population in parentheses:
1. Pittsburgh 463 (2.0)
2. Louisville, KY 193 (1.5)
3. St. Louis 393 (1.4)
4. Columbus, OH 266 (1.3)
5. Omaha, NE 115 (1.2)
6. Kansas City 252 (1.2)
7. Minneapolis 412 (1.1)
8. Cincinnati 243 (1.1)
9. Indianapolis 215 (1.1)
10. Cleveland 167 (0.8)
11. Philadelphia 385 (0.6)
12. Oklahoma City 84 (0.6)
13. Chicago 571 (0.6)
14. Milwaukee 94 (0.6)
15. Buffalo, NY 65 (0.6)
16. Detroit 213 (0.5)
17. Memphis 60 (0.4)
18. Boston 201 (0.4)
19. Nashville 67 (0.4)
20. NYC 659 (0.3)
The 3 least fragmented metros are Honolulu (0.0 per 10,000 pop, since there is only 1 local government), Las Vegas (also 0.0, since their are only 6 local governments in the metro), and San Diego (0.1, there are 19 local governments in the metro).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicagoland60426
I'm sure Detroit's poor black city-white suburbs dynamic has had an impact on its growth.
I think the Twins benefit to some extent from being a polycentric metro- one of the two is the capital on top of that. This is a unique feature that no other Midwest metro has on a large enough scale. If Minneapolis city is not quite to your liking, you have St Paul next door, or vice versa.
Also, the Twin cities has an attraction that at least can draw people in to see what else the area has to offer. Mall of America. That alone draws 42 million annually, mostly people from other Midwest states and Canada.
I'm definitely not saying that having a more organized regional planning and cooperation such as what's allowed via the Metropolitan Council is the only reason for the Twin Cities relative success or that there aren't other factors precluded the ability to have that regional planning and cooperation. It's more me wondering aloud how much of a role and what role that planning played in the different outcomes.
The Twin Cities are sort of blessed in essentially having the region and state's commercial, educational, and governmental center all in one general area. That seems to be a formulae that usually works out pretty well in the US. Its interesting that with so many states in the region, it appears that the Twin Cities is the only major metropolitan area that has that.
The Twin Cities are sort of blessed in essentially having the region and state's commercial, educational, and governmental center all in one general area. That seems to be a formulae that usually works out pretty well in the US. Its interesting that with so many states in the region, it appears that the Twin Cities is the only major metropolitan area that has that.
That's an interesting point you make.
And expanding your observation to the country as a whole, I don't think any other US state has the trifecta in a single metropolitan area.
Ohio comes close: Columbus is home to both the state government and the flagship state university, but Columbus is now sort of one among equals as a commercial center, and Cleveland really hasn't surrendered its historic leading role.
Usually, if the state capital is also the state's commercial center, said capital is also the state's largest city. In the Midwest, that's the case for Iowa and Indiana but none of the others besides Minnesota (and now Ohio, but Columbus isn't the state's largest metro; that honor too still belongs to Cleveland).
Maryland also comes close thanks to the overlapping of metro Baltimore and Greater Washington. The flagship state university is in a suburb of the latter; the state capital, a suburb of the former; and Baltimore is the state's commercial capital, though the Washington suburbs bid to dominate its politics.
In terms of having the government and education yoked together, a situation found in Texas and Louisiana, to name two: Wisconsin joins Minnesota in having its flagship state university in its state capital, but that's it.
However: None of the metropolitan regions ticked off above have the level of city-suburb distrust Metro Detroit has.
Detroit feels way more like a small Chicago; and Minneapolis is basically a big Des Moines.
Well, except the Twin Cities are two large cities of 3.6 million people vs. Des Moines 600K and the topographies and built environments are quite different, but ok.
I'm definitely not saying that having a more organized regional planning and cooperation such as what's allowed via the Metropolitan Council is the only reason for the Twin Cities relative success or that there aren't other factors precluded the ability to have that regional planning and cooperation. It's more me wondering aloud how much of a role and what role that planning played in the different outcomes.
The Twin Cities are sort of blessed in essentially having the region and state's commercial, educational, and governmental center all in one general area. That seems to be a formulae that usually works out pretty well in the US. Its interesting that with so many states in the region, it appears that the Twin Cities is the only major metropolitan area that has that.
It's true. The Twin Cities are the center of Minnesota. In the core seven county metro (the area covered by the Met Council covering about 3,000 square miles) you have most of the states population, the State Capitol, most of the major businesses, the transportation center, the states flagship university, most of the states private colleges, the states major institutions and attractions (zoo, museums, amusement parks, sports teams, etc.), heck even the big state fair and the state penitentiary.
Minneapolis also serves as the defacto "big city" for the Dakotas, northern Iowa, western Wisconsin and to some extent Manitoba. A huge area. That gives it an advantage to many other Midwest metros.
It's true. The Twin Cities are the center of Minnesota. In the core seven county metro (the area covered by the Met Council covering about 3,000 square miles) you have most of the states population, the State Capitol, most of the major businesses, the transportation center, the states flagship university, most of the states private colleges, the states major institutions and attractions (zoo, museums, amusement parks, sports teams, etc.), heck even the big state fair and the state penitentiary.
Minneapolis also serves as the defacto "big city" for the Dakotas, northern Iowa, western Wisconsin and to some extent Manitoba. A huge area. That gives it an advantage to many other Midwest metros.
Outside of the Twin Cities, Minnesota is fairly rural. Being a stand-alone city in an area far away from another city of size, it's where people choose to go, for the "big city" experience, with more opportunities. A big draw from those states mentioned.
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.
