What would the 'Twin Cities' be like if it were one City?? (Minneapolis: construction, live)

[Dr.drew]

The area between the downtowns feels like one big city. It's hard to tell where St. Paul turns into Minneapolis. It's pretty easy to get from one area to the other, even if you aren't driving, which is nice in that you don't have to worry about your car for a while.

[glendog]

Originally Posted by Astron1000

I created this image sometime ago. It shows what the skyline would be if the two downtowns were combined into one. It's pretty cool:

That's neat but I miss the river bluffs and the Cathedral overlooking Saint Paul. If they were merged let's do it in hilly Saint Paul! Or even better, plop em both in Duluth!

[glendog]

Originally Posted by Ghengis

St Paul looks so cute, I could just reach out and pinch it's little cheeks.

It is cute, but very classy at the same time. "It's like a toy city", I say that all the time I look over onto it from the big river bluffs. I think it's the old stone skyscrapers, older colors, Landmark Centre which is Cindarellish and the Cathedral.

[glendog]

Originally Posted by golfgal

If you live in MN or western WI, they are just called "The Cities" and that encompasses the entire metro. If you live outside of the area, the entire metro area is just called "Minneapolis".

That is very very true. Shhhhh, don't tell anybody about Saint Paul though, let them stay in Minneapolis.

[glendog]

Originally Posted by rogead

As a Minneapolis resident, I really do sympathize with the frustrations of St Paulites in having their city constantly overshadowed and overlooked. The general tendency is to identify a metro area by its largest city. Unfortunately, it's a plight that is visited on several other wonderful cities (Oakland, Ft Worth, etc.).

People who have spent some time here realize that, even though Minneapolis has become the dominant city of the region...and for understandable reasons, St Paul provides a wonderfully contrasting vibe.

I once read that William McKinley actually suggested in the 1890s, that the two cities merge and call the new city "Twin City". Today, I imagine that a combination of pride and pragmatism make it highly unlikely that that would ever happen.

I laugh at the ignorance or oversight all the time here in Saint Paul. They show a picture of the Cathedral or Xcel centre or Rice park or even the Capitol and say Minneapolis!? It's hilarious. After 15 years in Seattle I love Saint Paul. It's like a sleepy old world city, always overlooked which I think is good, it keeps things on the down low over here, quiet Euro neighborhoods, sweet old houses for 50k, more parks than anywhere else on the Mississippi river, plenty of empty cycling roads and ski trails. Yet Minneapolis is just a couple miles away so if I ever want I can be there in 10 minutes max. I can see both skylines from my place on the bluff in Saint Paul!

[glendog]

Originally Posted by BobMarley_1LOVE

Very true! I wonder what the people in the Lakeville - Apple Valley area consider themselves. I suppose they just side with Minneapolis because Minneapolis is the big dog lol

Yeah probably. In terms of "big dog", I always thought population wise it was skewed especially to outsiders. Minneapolis has about 100k more people on the population signs but Saint Paul never went on an annexing binge like Minneapolis did so now a lot of the cities right in the city aren't a part of Saint Paul!? I always thought that was odd (another oddity about Saint Paul). Saint Paul having never annexed a lot of the cites around it like Minneapolis and other cities did makes it seem smaller than it is. Especially, look at West Saint Paul or South Saint Paul which are right near downtown, 2-3 miles away and technically not included as Saint Paul. There's 50k people right there. For example, my brother in law lives in the suburbs, but it is considered South MPLS and he is miles and miles out of downtown but he is still technically in Minneapolis. My aunt lives in West Saint Paul and it is downright urban, and only about a miles out of downtown Saint Paul and her place overlooks the buildings. But she is technically not in Saint Paul!? This shows how easily statistics can be skewed. It'd be like if Uptown in Minneapolis weren't part of Minneapolis or Queen Anne in Seattle weren't part of Seattle!? It's interesting how and why cities grow the way they do...

[glendog]

Originally Posted by Ben Around

Well, you wouldn't have both the Basilica and the Cathedral if this were only one city. The Basilica was built for political reasons (so Mpls wouldn't feel "left out"). Did you know that until the 1960s, The name of the archdiocese was "Archdiocese of St Paul?") Again, they added the name Mpls with a hyphen for political reasons.

That's interesting. My grandparents always talked about Saint Paul and not Minneapolis. My ancestors were French Canadiens that moved to Saint Paul in the 1860's. The French/Irish definitely settled more in Saint Paul perhaps because of Catholicism as the German/Swedes went more to Minneapolis. Perhaps that is also why so many Hispanics have lived in Saint Paul for so long as well? I know I find rosaries laying on the ground in Saint Paul all the time. I love the Cathedral of Saint Paul! I didn't know the basilica in Mpls was built for political reasons. Mark my words, there is a serious renaissance taking hold again in Saint Paul!

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by glendog

Yeah probably. In terms of "big dog", I always thought population wise it was skewed especially to outsiders. Minneapolis has about 100k more people on the population signs but Saint Paul never went on an annexing binge like Minneapolis did so now a lot of the cities right in the city aren't a part of Saint Paul!? I always thought that was odd (another oddity about Saint Paul). Saint Paul having never annexed a lot of the cites around it like Minneapolis and other cities did makes it seem smaller than it is. Especially, look at West Saint Paul or South Saint Paul which are right near downtown, 2-3 miles away and technically not included as Saint Paul. There's 50k people right there. For example, my brother in law lives in the suburbs, but it is considered South MPLS and he is miles and miles out of downtown but he is still technically in Minneapolis. My aunt lives in West Saint Paul and it is downright urban, and only about a miles out of downtown Saint Paul and her place overlooks the buildings. But she is technically not in Saint Paul!? This shows how easily statistics can be skewed. It'd be like if Uptown in Minneapolis weren't part of Minneapolis or Queen Anne in Seattle weren't part of Seattle!? It's interesting how and why cities grow the way they do...

I assume when you say that your brother-in-law lives in the "suburbs, but it is consider South MPLS", you really mean that he's in a suburban area of Minneapolis? He isn't in the suburbs, though...he's very much in the city.

From what I've heard, Minneapolis may have annexed some, but it really wasn't much compared to most major cities, thanks in part to Minnesota law. Minneapolis is actually quite small in area compared to other large cities.

[Dr.drew]

I wondered also about why Saint Paul didn't try to annex some of the next door suburbs into the city. There may be the issue of West and South Saint Paul being in Dakota county. Probably not big issues though. If they were annexed into the city, they could possibly become part of Ramsey county.

Crime would be one of the issues that would be more complex if the city was part of more than one county. St. Cloud is like this, as most of that city is in Sherburne county, but has parts of the city in both Benton and Stearns counties. If someone is arrested in St Cloud, but on the east side of the river, they have to go to court in either Foley (benton county), or Elk River (Stearns county.)

Maplewood also feels very urban and like part of St. Paul, also. Annexing Maplewood into St. Paul would make as much sense as annexing West and South St. Paul. The layout of Maplewood is funny, as there is one narrow strip between St. paul and Woodbury.

[ETN612]

Originally Posted by Joe3rdwash

We could group Minneapolis and St Paul as boroughs like NYC

Originally Posted by west336

That's what I want us to do, and rename the city(ies) "Minneapolis-St. Paul", officially. Or maybe "Twin City".

Originally Posted by FamousBlueRaincoat

Public transit would be easier to implement efficiently. The way it stands now, you have routes that act as cross towns in Minneapolis that act as buses that feed into Downtown in Saint Paul (which I suppose might date back to the actual consolidation of two separate systems).

You have to spend a lot of energy and money on a light rail line connecting downtown to downtown which, if there was only one CBD, could be running from the extreme western end of the city to the extreme eastern end of the city.

Originally Posted by Dr.drew

I can see the area between the two downtowns along University Avenue becoming more urban, with more mid sized multi use buildings.

Hey guys, new member here. First off, sorry to revive a two year old thread, but I was just reading through this read and seeing these comments together on the same thread on this subject really struck me and got me thinking.

As a current junior at the University of Minnesota, i've been watching the construction of the Green Line LRT for some time now, and now that it's less than 100 days from becoming operational, i'm becoming very excited to be able to finally use it. I enjoy the idea of being able to get from downtown to downtown in around 30 minutes,even during the busiest rush hour periods. Considering that it mostly runs along University Avenue, I think it is now even easier to imagine that University Avenue could see a lot of high-density multi-use development both on and branching outwards from the Avenue. As a bicycle commuter and enthusiast who has many friends in both St. Paul and Minneapolis (I myself live in Marcy-Holmes, SE Minneapolis), I often notice how fluid the transition is between Minneapolis and St. Paul is and how, in most instances, it's not till you're deep in one or the other where the distinctions become really noticeable (IMHO).

I have always been a supporter of the idea of the two cities merging into one city with two distinct boroughs, and I think the Green Line LRT could be a spark that sets off a lot of development and integration between the two cities. It would make it so much easier for people who live in one city but work in another to get back and forth, and the two cities have just never really been connected in such a sophisticated manner before.

On that note, what are everyone else's thoughts on the possible effects the Green Line LRT and development along the central corridor project could have on the prospects of Minneapolis and St. Paul merging to become one city? On an interesting sidenote, what would it be called if they became one entity? My vote would be for something that reflects the fact that they were once separate, like Twin City, Gemini, Minneapolis-St. Paul; and it would have two boroughs, Minneapolis & St. Paul.