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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-29-2011, 11:33 AM
 
Location: KC Area
345 posts, read 722,435 times
Reputation: 221

Advertisements

Do you think the Cities are sprawling or are sprawled like other U.S. metros?

I don't think so. Plymouth has very nice, new houses that are a 15 minute drive to Minneapolis. Same goes for Maple Grove. Same thing to be said for Woodbury to St. Paul. These are quick drives! Or at least compared to Atlanta, KC, St. Louis, and of course LA.

The best part is is that Twin Cities still have lots of land that can be developed for residential that is still under 20 minutes! New housing developments can be created along I-94 in Woodbury and there is so much space along Highway 52 between Rosemount and Hastings. Those roads will take you directly into the Cities. And about under 20 minutes, and to the airport in less than 15! I understand that this may cause more sprawl but it would easily add 200,000+ to the area.

Maybe its just me...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-29-2011, 11:43 AM
 
1,551 posts, read 1,177,757 times
Reputation: 2232
Yes, they are sprawled. Your question was not how far do the suburbs extend, your question was really one of population density. Any metro, sprawled or not will have suburban houses within 15 minutes of the downtown, they are called 1st tier surburbs. Minneapolis and St. Paul have densities of roughly 6,000 people/sq mi. This number drops to roughly 1,000 in many of the suburbs. I would call that sprawl. In other words, the city core is 6X denser than it's suburbs. Is it more than other cities of the same size??? No, it's probably pretty similar I would imagine. Is this a bad thing? No, not necessarily, I like my suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2011, 01:05 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis, MN
7,024 posts, read 12,972,350 times
Reputation: 3288
This has been discussed here in past:

Is minneapolis sprawled?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2011, 01:38 PM
 
Location: Columbus OH
1,592 posts, read 2,875,191 times
Reputation: 1763
The Twin Cities are definitely sprawled. Your examples of Atlanta, KC and St. Louis are (along with probably Dallas-Ft. Worth and Houston) the only large MSA's that sprawl more than the Twin Cities.

LA is just huge, it really doesn't sprawl.

We sprawl because we're an affluent MSA with no major barriers to growth in any direction, other than rivers. No Mountains, no Oceans or Great lakes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2011, 06:56 PM
 
Location: South Minneapolis
4,992 posts, read 5,646,278 times
Reputation: 7284
This is not a question of opinion. "Sprawl" is a question of population density and can be measured. Of the 250 largest cities in the world in terms of area, Minneapolis/St. Paul ranks 162nd in terms of population density (data as of 2007.) So, yes, it is sprawled but since we're not really very large in terms of the number of people you still don't have to go very far to get from point A to point B.
City Mayors: Largest cities in the world by population density (1 to 125)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2011, 09:19 PM
 
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,530 posts, read 10,289,288 times
Reputation: 2388
I think so, but not the worst, by far! One positive about the way the TC's are built is that if there were a "flight to density", the Twin Cities seem like they aren't "infrastructurally-screwed" like I feel a lot of other cities are in terms of being able to rebuild. Much of the Cities are on a grid or grid-like street pattern, which allows transit such as busses or streetcars to be most efficient, and high-density corridors can easily be built on the straightest, most important lines. There are obviously some exceptions, notably Minnetonka, Burnsville, Lakeville, etc.....but I still think up to 50% of the city's infrastructure follows relatively efficient street patterns. Also, the average lot width in Minneapolis and St. Paul is roughly 40'-50' wide, which I think could POTENTIALLY be rezoned to half that width and still be habitable (Chicago, NYC, DC, etc have many many many residential areas with 20'-25' wide lots). Nearly all blocks in both cities have alleys, which can be (and maybe are) zoned to allow carriage housing along the alley-way. I've seen this work in Chicago, for instance.

I personally wish that the Twin Cities area would come together and STRONGLY encourage developers to build much more sustainably and efficiently. That means having homes closer together, not 2' apart, but maybe 10'-15' seems reasonable. That also means not have huge front or backyards, but having numberous parks instead. Streets should be mostly cohesive, ESPECIALLY major thoroughfares, and they should be connectable between suburbs to create fluidity. They do this so much better in SW cities like Phoenix, LA and Vegas.....even though they are always smacked for being so sprawly (I think that's because a lot of them have no real solid cores).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2011, 09:28 PM
 
Location: Portland, OR
858 posts, read 2,227,533 times
Reputation: 677
Minneapolis/St Paul: not really IMHO. The Twin Cities metro area? Definitely!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2011, 10:36 AM
 
Location: Mableton, GA USA (NW Atlanta suburb, 4 miles OTP)
11,319 posts, read 22,742,843 times
Reputation: 3896
Quote:
Originally Posted by west336 View Post
I personally wish that the Twin Cities area would come together and STRONGLY encourage developers to build much more sustainably and efficiently. That means having homes closer together, not 2' apart, but maybe 10'-15' seems reasonable. That also means not have huge front or backyards, but having numberous parks instead. Streets should be mostly cohesive, ESPECIALLY major thoroughfares, and they should be connectable between suburbs to create fluidity. They do this so much better in SW cities like Phoenix, LA and Vegas.....even though they are always smacked for being so sprawly (I think that's because a lot of them have no real solid cores).
10-15' apart? Yuck. That's why we avoided many of the newer subdivisions down here. And a park isn't as convenient for an impromptu touch football or soccer game or whatever. My parents' place in Minnetonka is on a 1/3 acre, I think, and before they built their huge deck the backyard was PERFECT for that sort of thing. Not a lot of room, but enough...

Maybe kids these days are more interest in their Wii or PS2 than going outside, I don't know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2011, 02:28 PM
 
Location: Chicago
409 posts, read 1,102,262 times
Reputation: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaxontwinz View Post

Plymouth has very nice, new houses that are a 15 minute drive to Minneapolis. Same goes for Maple Grove.
I'm not sure where you're getting your facts, but this really isn't true. Just putting "plymouth" and "maple grove" to Minneapolis in Google Maps yields 19 and 24 minutes, respectively, but I really doubt that is an achievable time on a regular basis during rush periods, which is when most people drive. Certainly not from the parts of these suburbs where new construction is located.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2011, 04:53 PM
 
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,530 posts, read 10,289,288 times
Reputation: 2388
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcsteiner View Post
10-15' apart? Yuck. That's why we avoided many of the newer subdivisions down here. And a park isn't as convenient for an impromptu touch football or soccer game or whatever. My parents' place in Minnetonka is on a 1/3 acre, I think, and before they built their huge deck the backyard was PERFECT for that sort of thing. Not a lot of room, but enough...

Maybe kids these days are more interest in their Wii or PS2 than going outside, I don't know.
A park is the BEST place for an impromptu football or soccer game.....IDK how some of you guys grew up, but WE played ball at the park, where we could find 15-20 guys. I don't get the notion of having a baseball diamond in your own backyard -- I really don't. For SUSTAINABLE city living, this is how it's done. Atlanta is not sustainable in this regard.
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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.

© 2005-2019, 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