Will Minneapolis ever see 500,000 again? (St. Paul, Windom: restaurants, zip code, floor)

[Beenhere4ever]

Sorry, but for the life of me, I can't imagine why we should WANT to see 500,000 again? If you go back and really look at why that figure existed, I think you'll find it was that people were lacking the choices they have today. They have better choices and fewer make the choice of living in Minneapolis. So? I think we should look nostalgically at the number of crimes that happened back then. It seems to me we've attracted TOO MANY of the wrong kind of people. Be very careful what you wish for.

[ManBearPig1]

Originally Posted by Beenhere4ever

Sorry, but for the life of me, I can't imagine why we should WANT to see 500,000 again?

Higher populations and densities more easily support the amenities and infrastructure that help make city living great.

Also, there's tons of empty space and surface parking lots to fill in. People > asphalt.

[Beenhere4ever]

Originally Posted by ManBearPig1

Higher populations and densities more easily support the amenities and infrastructure that help make city living great.

Also, there's tons of empty space and surface parking lots to fill in. People > asphalt.

That's pretty funny. Should we expect a great outrush of people who pine for 500,000 to places with higher population densities? I mean, there are plenty available. Mexico City, Tokyo, New Delhi, Atlanta, Houston, Detroit.
I think there's a fallacy in thinking here. Jam more people in and nothing that is good will change. Only good things will be added. That's nice ivory tower wish-fulfillment, but I don't think human experience will support it.

[trip_shakespeare]

Originally Posted by Beenhere4ever

That's pretty funny. Should we expect a great outrush of people who pine for 500,000 to places with higher population densities? I mean, there are plenty available. Mexico City, Tokyo, New Delhi, Atlanta, Houston, Detroit.
I think there's a fallacy in thinking here. Jam more people in and nothing that is good will change. Only good things will be added. That's nice ivory tower wish-fulfillment, but I don't think human experience will support it.

Detroit, Houston, and Atlanta all have population densities that are less than Minneapolis. Houston and Atlanta have populations densities that are far less than Minneapolis. That said, whatever problems these cities may be experiencing, that prompt you to cite them, a high population density isn't one of them.

As for Mexico City, Delhi, and Tokyo. Their populations far exceed 500,000, rendering their inclusion of no practical value to this discussion.

[Min-Chi-Cbus]

Originally Posted by trip_shakespeare

Detroit, Houston, and Atlanta all have population densities that are less than Minneapolis. Houston and Atlanta have populations densities that are far less than Minneapolis. That said, whatever problems these cities may be experiencing, that prompt you to cite them, a high population density isn't one of them.

As for Mexico City, Delhi, and Tokyo. Their populations far exceed 500,000, rendering their inclusion of no practical value to this discussion.

Not to mention Tokyo is one of the safest cities in the world....AND the most densely populated!

[Minnesota Spring]

I actually feel safer walking the streets of Manhattan with all of the shops and people on ground level than sparsly populated areas of the Twin Cities. I would not equate population density to increased crime per capita or feeling unsafe.

[ManBearPig1]

Originally Posted by Beenhere4ever

That's pretty funny. Should we expect a great outrush of people who pine for 500,000 to places with higher population densities? I mean, there are plenty available. Mexico City, Tokyo, New Delhi, Atlanta, Houston, Detroit.
I think there's a fallacy in thinking here. Jam more people in and nothing that is good will change. Only good things will be added. That's nice ivory tower wish-fulfillment, but I don't think human experience will support it.

I know it's easier to reflexively parrot your talking point, but take a moment to consider what was actually said before responding. You don't have to "jam more people in." There's plenty of EMPTY space for them to fill. You could not build a single building taller than 10 stories and still get to 500,000 in Minneapolis just by filling in all the surface parking lots and other vacant spaces.

For every Mexico City you throw out there, I can throw out a New York or Chicago. But I'd include Tokyo with the New Yorks and Chicagos worth emulating, so not sure where you're coming from. Nonetheless, anecdotes do not a statistic make. And it's generally accepted that economies of scale and other efficiencies make large cities greener, safer, and more well off. See Edward Glaeser's work if you don't know what I'm talking about.

[uptown_urbanist]

There's certainly plenty of space in Minneapolis to fit more people and more buildings. It would take a LOT more people, far, far more than just 500,000, to bring any kind of Tokyo density to town. Minneapolis is fairly low-density in most areas. Even in areas like Uptown, one of the denser portions of the city, you could add a lot of units and still not feel crowded (replace garages behind single-family homes with either one or two-unit houses/duplexes, for example), and there's a lot of empty former industrial land that is now being developed. And downtown still has lots of surface parking lots that could be put to better uses. In any case, Minneapolis could easily absorb a lot more residents without having to build blocks of high-rises (although it would be nice to have some more of those where appropriate, too.)

I'd be perfectly happy if Minneapolis were to become the next NYC, but it's not going to happen. (for that matter, wouldn't mind a stint in Tokyo, but there's the little matter of visas....)

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by Beenhere4ever

That's pretty funny. Should we expect a great outrush of people who pine for 500,000 to places with higher population densities? I mean, there are plenty available. Mexico City, Tokyo, New Delhi, Atlanta, Houston, Detroit.
I think there's a fallacy in thinking here. Jam more people in and nothing that is good will change. Only good things will be added. That's nice ivory tower wish-fulfillment, but I don't think human experience will support it.

There is density and there is density... Do you really think that people were "jammed" into Mpls when the population exceeded 500k?

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by Minnesota Spring

I actually feel safer walking the streets of Manhattan with all of the shops and people on ground level than sparsly populated areas of the Twin Cities. I would not equate population density to increased crime per capita or feeling unsafe.

I recall reading in Criminology class back when I was in college that in pre-urban renewal Boston, the n'hood with the lowest crime rate was one of the densest (and poorest!).