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.
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,875,397 times
Reputation: 2501
Quote:
Originally Posted by steel03
That's an interesting analysis. I 'd say that Uptown, Como, Falcon Heights, and Roseville (generally, the cities between Minneapolis and St. Paul) all feel pretty urban without being downtown Minneapolis or St. Paul. But I think you're right that it's a metro that's in the process of coming into its own. I'd still say it's pretty analogous to Seattle, Portland, and Denver.
People seem to think that just because the Twin Cities aren't Rust Belt that they aren't urban, even though they are as dense or moreso than just about every Midwestern city with the exception of Chicago and maybe Detroit. Even in their hey-days, the TC's were on the same level of density and urbanism (peak population per sq. mi.). There really aren't many pre-war suburbs though, which is a damn shame if you ask me! St. Louis Park, Edina, and some others are, but no true and through suburbs with pre-war housing stock, like Shaker Heights or Lakewood in the Cleveland area.
The notion that the Twin Cities is not urban is, quite frankly, absurd.
Density and urbanity are related concepts, but they're different. For example, Atlanta is not particularly dense, but it is urban because it has a large contiguous population and there are multiple, clearly defined city centers. Annapolis, Maryland is dense, but not particularly urban (other than being included in Baltimore's metro area). Cities just grow differently these days (still for cars, unfortunately).
here's what i would consider to be a "no contest":
which city under a million people in the north (new england, mid-atlantic, great lakes, great plains) would, if you were suddenly drop it into the Sun Belt literally explode in population.
What is the one city that has it all except for climate?
I won't give you the answer, but i will let you know that i would be mad if i didn't give you enough clues in order to answer,son.
hmmm... terre haute, in?? just kidding.
seriously though, that's an interesting point, and one that i happen to agree with. madison/dane county are already growing at a pretty healthy clip. if dropped into the sun belt, its population would explode.
a couple of other random comments: minneapolis-saint paul definitely feels urban to me. and while i've only been to des moines twice, it seems like a very nice city, and i can see some similarities between it and madison.
According to this Indianapolis IS the Fastest growing city/metro in the midwest.
There is no disputing this now lol.
Sure....0.02% ahead of Minneapolis, which grew by nearly 2X as many people, and 0.03% ahead of Columbus. Besides, these estimates are usually based on historic data, not surveys like censuses and such. It's a bad way to predict the future, especially considering the 2008 financial and real estate crisis.
Minneapolis needs to be at that 1.5% annual growth that places like Seattle are experiencing......that's the rate of growth that's fast enough to change drastically but not so fast that it's going to create a bubble or problematic infrastructure issues. Hell, Austin at 3.3% is screwed! They already can't handle their current population, let alone another 50K every year!!
Do you know who Aron is?
Pretty famous Urban Blogger i have to say.
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.