U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Minnesota > Minneapolis - St. Paul
 [Register]
Minneapolis - St. Paul Twin Cities
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 04-05-2011, 07:33 PM
 
Location: Midwest
1,277 posts, read 1,865,577 times
Reputation: 965

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by queenswake View Post
The Twin Cities has a problem.
You might find this interesting:

Michigan CEO: Soul-Crushing Sprawl Killing Business | Rust Wire

It's about Michigan, but up your (and others) alley.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-05-2011, 07:41 PM
 
20,793 posts, read 54,932,834 times
Reputation: 10565
Queenswake: First, Minneapolis has the highest taxes in the metro area followed by St. Paul-the tax argument in the suburbs just doesn't fly. You are also discounting the fact that people don't want to live in the city, period. If they did, they would. Fine, great. People want to live where they have space, amenities and low crime. We have everything we need here within easy reach. The ONLY reason we go into Minneapolis is to take our son to the bus station to go back to college (which he could take from Burnsville but there is a 4 hour layover in Minneapolis so it is easier to drive) or to catch an occasional show or something at the dome. I would be trilled to death never to have to go into Minneapolis, ever. Most people that live in the suburbs feel the same way. The traffic is horrendous, paying to park your car is just silly, and there really isn't a good reason to go to Minneapolis for general entertainment when we can get that right here.

Companies set up shop in the suburbs because they can't find enough people that want to drive or even take a bus, into the city every day.

As far as "major" metro areas go, we have the easiest commutes and the shortest commutes around.

I don't see it changing, ever. Why does Minneapolis have to become New York or Boston? It doesn't. We have one of the most stable economies in the nation just as we are--that should be telling enough I would think.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2011, 07:53 PM
 
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,530 posts, read 10,355,483 times
Reputation: 2400
Traffic is worse in the suburbs than it is in Minneapolis.

Companies set up shop in the suburbs because it's cheaper -- that's it. Most employees would rather be in the city, by the EE surveys I've seen for a company that has $100 bln. revenue.....so I think it's a legit source.

The suburbs are mostly incredibly boring and dry, and are for people who like the simple life.

How do you feel about that?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2011, 08:01 PM
 
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,530 posts, read 10,355,483 times
Reputation: 2400
Quote:
Originally Posted by knke0204 View Post
Golfgal brings up some good points about inner city public transportation, especially light rail. There should be more of a concentration on alleviating suburb-suburb transportation. In a metro of nearly 3.5 million people, keep in mind that under 800,000 live in the actual cities of MPLS and STP. The majority of employment in the metro is not DT MPLS nor DT STP. I don't get what spending $70 million for a fancy rail line connecting the two DTs is going to do?

I just read that Woodbury is expecting to add another 20,000 in new residents in the near future... to the OPs Topic, the census, does anyone have any predictions as to which suburb will hit 100,000? Which one will be the first? I have it narrowed down to Lakeville, Woodbury and Brooklyn Park, since all are already pretty large
Brooklyn Park isn't going to do it unless the 610 extension really brings people in. I think Woodbury will probably hit 100K first. Its location is fantastic and it's not even 50% developed. Maple Grove could be right on its heels, but I think there is less developable land in MG b/c of the lakes, parks, etc. I see no reason why any suburb with 30+ sq. miles can't be well over 100K, considering that's hardly 3000 ppsm density. If trends continue AND demand picks UP some, I'd say Shakopee could reach 100K, and if not, it could have one of the higher densities for an exurb IFF it develops smart.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2011, 08:08 PM
 
10,630 posts, read 23,819,425 times
Reputation: 6710
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgal View Post
No, golfgal was saying that those of you that live in the city have a narrow minded view of what life is like for the REST of the metro area, the MAJORITY of whom do NOT want to live in an urban environment nor do they WORK in the urban environment. If they did, they would already. You also feel that there are zero options for public transport to the cities, which is TOTALLY false, as well as your opinion that there are not public transportation options in the suburbs, again, TOTALLY false. It's great that you are able to live the life you want, but stop putting the rest of the population down when we CHOOSE not to live on top of one another and enjoy having a yard, a quite neighborhood with zero traffic, noise or crime. Living in Uptown is NOT the be all/end all of the world.

I will also say that you are right, the majority of people in MN are NOT going to vote to support a mass transit system that only benefits the 500,000 people living in Minneapolis/St. Paul when the other 4.5 MILLION of us won't use it.
That's not what you were saying. It might be what you're thinking, but you're conveniently ignoring the evidence out there that your viewpoint is that of the older residents; things are changing, and the suburban sprawl model is not going to work out in the long-term.

As far as me EVER saying that there are "zero" public transportation options in the suburbs, could you please STOP with these sorts of statements? You know full well that I have never said such a thing. Any one reading my many posts on the subject would point out that there are some suburbs with better transit than others, and that almost all have commuter buses to downtown. Resorting to lies is not the way to go here. And if you think Rosemount has zero traffic, noise, or crime, you're living in a fantasy world. I'm all for people having choices of where to live (and as an aside, I think it's also very clear that you have spent very little time in Uptown; yards are the norm), but it's also true that I don't think that you and those of your viewpoint have the right to run our state into the ground just because you "want" to.

It's also incredibly short-sighted, and shows a lack of knowledge on the subject, to believe that a decent public transportation system is of use only to a small number of urban residents. A better public transportation system helps all of the Twin Cities, which in turn is the economic engine for the region. And go ahead and think that the Twin Cities will always have the same level of traffic and that the economy will always be humming along -- the world is changing, and eventually the Twin Cities is going to be left behind if the close-minded anti-transit, anti-city folks in suburbs like Rosemount convince themselves that their economy doesn't depend on having actual robust, attractive core cities.

You're also discounting the fact that growth patterns are changing. Young, educated people -- the workers we need for the economy of the future -- don't WANT to live in the far-out suburbs. They want to live in or near to the downtown core. If we ignore that, we risk losing those workers to other cities that DO understand that. The appeal of the stereotypical suburb is starting to fade, and it's time to adjust to the reality. It will take time for those changes to fully shake out, but you're sticking your head in the sand if you think things are just going to stay frozen as they are forever.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2011, 08:13 PM
 
10,630 posts, read 23,819,425 times
Reputation: 6710
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgal View Post
Queenswake: First, Minneapolis has the highest taxes in the metro area followed by St. Paul-the tax argument in the suburbs just doesn't fly. You are also discounting the fact that people don't want to live in the city, period. If they did, they would. Fine, great. People want to live where they have space, amenities and low crime. We have everything we need here within easy reach. The ONLY reason we go into Minneapolis is to take our son to the bus station to go back to college (which he could take from Burnsville but there is a 4 hour layover in Minneapolis so it is easier to drive) or to catch an occasional show or something at the dome. I would be trilled to death never to have to go into Minneapolis, ever. Most people that live in the suburbs feel the same way. The traffic is horrendous, paying to park your car is just silly, and there really isn't a good reason to go to Minneapolis for general entertainment when we can get that right here.

Companies set up shop in the suburbs because they can't find enough people that want to drive or even take a bus, into the city every day.

As far as "major" metro areas go, we have the easiest commutes and the shortest commutes around.

I don't see it changing, ever. Why does Minneapolis have to become New York or Boston? It doesn't. We have one of the most stable economies in the nation just as we are--that should be telling enough I would think.
Companies set up in the suburbs because they have cheap land.

Did you miss the recent reports on traffic congestion in the Twin Cities and how it's expected to grow significantly within the next decade?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2011, 08:16 PM
 
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,530 posts, read 10,355,483 times
Reputation: 2400
How many people in NYC WHO LIVE THERE use the trains? Maybe 10% of the population....20% max. Does that mean it's useless or a failure? Think outside of yourselves people. People use taxes to fund roads they will NEVER drive on, use sewers they will NEVER use, and build schools they will NEVER go to because they are part of a C-O-M-M-U-N-I-T-Y......a concept lost on so many!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2011, 08:33 PM
 
20,793 posts, read 54,932,834 times
Reputation: 10565
Quote:
Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist View Post
That's not what you were saying. It might be what you're thinking, but you're conveniently ignoring the evidence out there that your viewpoint is that of the older residents; things are changing, and the suburban sprawl model is not going to work out in the long-term.

As far as me EVER saying that there are "zero" public transportation options in the suburbs, could you please STOP with these sorts of statements? You know full well that I have never said such a thing. Any one reading my many posts on the subject would point out that there are some suburbs with better transit than others, and that almost all have commuter buses to downtown. Resorting to lies is not the way to go here. And if you think Rosemount has zero traffic, noise, or crime, you're living in a fantasy world. I'm all for people having choices of where to live (and as an aside, I think it's also very clear that you have spent very little time in Uptown; yards are the norm), but it's also true that I don't think that you and those of your viewpoint have the right to run our state into the ground just because you "want" to.

It's also incredibly short-sighted, and shows a lack of knowledge on the subject, to believe that a decent public transportation system is of use only to a small number of urban residents. A better public transportation system helps all of the Twin Cities, which in turn is the economic engine for the region. And go ahead and think that the Twin Cities will always have the same level of traffic and that the economy will always be humming along -- the world is changing, and eventually the Twin Cities is going to be left behind if the close-minded anti-transit, anti-city folks in suburbs like Rosemount convince themselves that their economy doesn't depend on having actual robust, attractive core cities.

You're also discounting the fact that growth patterns are changing. Young, educated people -- the workers we need for the economy of the future -- don't WANT to live in the far-out suburbs. They want to live in or near to the downtown core. If we ignore that, we risk losing those workers to other cities that DO understand that. The appeal of the stereotypical suburb is starting to fade, and it's time to adjust to the reality. It will take time for those changes to fully shake out, but you're sticking your head in the sand if you think things are just going to stay frozen as they are forever.
Actually, you do say that quite frequently-speaking of having transportation IN TOWN. When people have come looking for places to live that are easy to get around in, for example, you automatically discount suburbs because of the lack of transportation except in MOST suburbs for someone that is totally dependent on public transport is it much better as they pick you up at your door, drop you off at the door of where you are going on your schedule. I know people that use this daily and see it being used daily yet you claim it doesn't exist.

I suppose the 3 cars I see going to the grocery store constitutes traffic

I also don't think that there is the huge shift in people wanting to live in the city. Maybe for a year or two right out of college but when most people start families they head for the suburbs for better schools. Patterns are shifting from the OLD suburbs like Richfield, Roseville and Bloomington, not the "newer" suburbs like Woodbury, Rosemount, Apple Valley, etc. for the same reasons people are not flocking to the cities-too much traffic, too much noise, too much crime.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2011, 08:36 PM
 
Location: Victory Neighborhood Minneapolis
1,806 posts, read 5,093,608 times
Reputation: 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgal View Post
No, golfgal was saying that those of you that live in the city have a narrow minded view of what life is like for the REST of the metro area, the MAJORITY of whom do NOT want to live in an urban environment nor do they WORK in the urban environment. If they did, they would already. You also feel that there are zero options for public transport to the cities, which is TOTALLY false, as well as your opinion that there are not public transportation options in the suburbs, again, TOTALLY false. It's great that you are able to live the life you want, but stop putting the rest of the population down when we CHOOSE not to live on top of one another and enjoy having a yard, a quite neighborhood with zero traffic, noise or crime. Living in Uptown is NOT the be all/end all of the world.

I will also say that you are right, the majority of people in MN are NOT going to vote to support a mass transit system that only benefits the 500,000 people living in Minneapolis/St. Paul when the other 4.5 MILLION of us won't use it.
You don't know anyone living in the city that works in the city? But you know me Golfgal! You are correct that the suburbs as a whole have more job opportunities than the core cities, and I actually disagree with Uptown's belief that transportation is too focused on getting people to jobs (although to be fair, I think Uptown might have been saying that too much of the focus is getting suburban people to DT core jobs, which I agree with). I would actually like to see more of a focus on getting people living in the inner cities to jobs in the suburbs via public transit, as there are companies with openings they can't fill in the suburbs, and a good number of unemployed people living in the core cities. And I think there is somewhat of an irony that DT professionals are probably disproportionately living in the suburbs vs. the core cities (but boy do they have some great public transit options that are WELL utilized!).

Where I think you're failing to see the big picture Golfgal, is that public transit is not synonymous with "urban", and people that live (or work) in the suburbs may actually want more public transit options (esp. suburb to suburb), there just aren't any options available to them right now, or there aren't feasible options time-wise available to them. I think you have a very midwestern (or as Uptown referenced- provincial) mentality that public transit is reserved only for people of limited resources living in urban areas, which not only is not the case here, but it's definitely not the case in most other large urban environments in America (which is a threat to the Cities viability).

You also fail to take into account that the suburban baby boomer majority values that you represent are quickly on their way to becoming obselete and are NOTHING like the interests of most younger professionals today. If I was in your position, and actually cared about the future of my suburban city/town (or property values in 20 years), I would be doing EVERYTHING in my power to get legislation promoting city-suburban mass transit options pushed through as a way to ensure that the suburbs remain at least somewhat appealing for younger family buyers. Let's take a closer look at this:

WHY YOUNGER SINGLES, COUPLES, AND (SMALLER) FAMILIES DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN OUTER SUBURBS:
  • The houses and yards are too big for their needs (people aren't having families, or having much smaller families).
  • The houses are cheaply built, and homes built in the boom years will be rapidly approaching needs for updates/maintenance.
  • Gas prices are too high (I saw $3.79 a gallon today).
  • Traffic in and out of suburbs is not good.
  • Suburbs are viewed as their parents or grandparents' thing.
  • National chains, often dominant in suburbs, lack appeal for a huge multitude of reasons.
  • All of the above are concerns for persons that have a concern for the environment and their own personal carbon footprint.
WHY THE OUTER SUBURBS MIGHT STILL ATTRACT OR APPEAL TO SOME YOUNG PROFESSIONALS:
  • People want to have a big yard (but how crucial is this, when Minneapolis is known as the city of lakes and parks?)
  • Concerns about crime (but crime in the city is not a standard and can change dramatically from neighborhood to neighborhood and block to block).
  • Concerns about city school districts (but, like crime, schools can change dramatically in quality/rigor from neighborhood to neighborhood, plus there are plenty of other options- charters, magnets, private schools, etc., if this is really a concern).
  • Corporations are there, in part because they have received subsidies to set up shop there in the past (but these subsidies are soon going to be a thing of the past out of budget concerns, realization that suburban growth is unsustainable, etc.)
  • People get a kick out of feeling like they're being old-fashioned and kitschy- almost like moving to the 'burbs is a funny 'retro' thing that they can crack jokes about with all of their city-residing friends (I actually do have friends like this).
  • Housing values will likely continue to decline making it affordable for first-time buyers.
BUT WAIT, NO MASS TRANSIT ANYWHERE? THEN WHAT HAPPENS?
  • Already bad traffic/commutes become worse than they already are.
  • Roads continue to deteriorate and the resources needed to constantly maintain them add to the aforementioned traffic dillema, not to mention issues with available budget resources.
  • People have less options for getting to work (or other activities), and with either (a) instability in the job market, or (b) the tendency of younger people to job-hop much more frequently than in the past- why live/buy a house where you're not only confined to being car-bound, but may put you on the geographical opposite side of the metro from the job you're going to move up to 2 years down the road?
  • How are all of you baby boomers going to get around after we (read: younger generations) take your cars and driver's licenses away?
  • The above doesn't even go into the fact that, as alluded to in the post about Michigan above, if the city cores aren't viewed as vibrant/appealing to young professionals (of which transit is a big deal, as UU has said so often), the suburbs aren't going to be either.
But maybe you're right, maybe we shouldn't have mass transit in the Cities- I mean, the vast majority of baby boomers living in the suburbs rarely use what little is available right now, and that's never going to change. Plus, the inevitable significantly declining home values of most outer suburbs will probably be much more in line with their actual worth, considering the cheap, shotty methods employed to build them.

IMO, most suburbs would do well to follow the lead of inner suburbs like St. Louis Park, Richfield, Robbinsdale- these are all doing a great job appealing to a younger demographic right now, and it's because of their focus on new urbanist development, walkability, and transit (Columbia Heights, West St. Paul, and Edina seem to do fairly well in this regard as well)- the relative affordability (outside of Edina) and more-central locations don't hurt either.

Last edited by Camden Northsider; 04-05-2011 at 08:50 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2011, 09:01 PM
 
Location: Victory Neighborhood Minneapolis
1,806 posts, read 5,093,608 times
Reputation: 1226
Just wanted to note that I started writing my reply prior to Uptown's 8:08pm post, so I wasn't intentionally trying to restate or mimic all of the arguments made in Uptown's post, I was just writing a bunch of the same things simultaneously before I had a chance to read her post (although I of course agree).

Last edited by Camden Northsider; 04-05-2011 at 09:36 PM..
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Minnesota > Minneapolis - St. Paul
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top