Seattle to Minneapolis (St. Paul: live, cabins, airports)

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by skihikeclimb

LOL you are joking right? Seattle is far more isolated from the rest of the United States compared to Minneapolis. I have driven across most of the United States, and in fact I have drive from Minneapolis to Seattle.

The only two major large cities next to the Seattle metro area are Portland Oregon, and Vancouver British Columbia. Even though Seattle is bigger than Minneapolis, it pretty much stands alone as the major metro of the Pacific Northwest. Even Vancouver B.C. by Canadian standards is pretty isolated from the rest of Canada. Vancouver B.C. is one of the last major cities in North America at its latitude. I'm not counting Alaska, because even in Alaska many medical emergencies require urgent flights to harbor view in Seattle, that just shows you how big of an area Seattle influences.

In comparison Milwaukee is only 336 miles from Minneapolis, and Chicago (one of the largest cities in the United States) is a mere 408 miles from Minneapolis. Seattle is nearly 800 miles from San Fransisco and over a 1000 miles from LA. Even the closer cities to Seattle, like Boise and Salt Lake City are 500, and 800 miles away. And I would hardly call those large cities. Minneapolis far closer to larger metro areas than Seattle (I.E. Indianapolis, Detroit, Des Monies, etc. etc.)

In terms of isolation, Seattle is far more isolated from the major population centers of the United States than Minneapolis. Not to mention Seattle is pretty geographically isolated by Puget Sound, and the Olympic Mountains to the west, and Cascade mountains to the east, and the Columbia basin and Northern Rockies behind that. As far as MAJOR cities in the lower 48, Seattle is by far the most isolated.

I have been to Minnesota and I have traveled extensively through the northwestern corner of the United States. And Seattle is pretty much surrounded by real wilderness, whereas Minneapolis is not. Minneapolis is pretty much surrounded by farmland dotted with small cities. I realize that northern Minnesota becomes more wilderness like, but it does not even begin to compare with the vastness of the American states out west. The Cascade mountains are pretty much snow covered most of the year, and there are only two mountain passes that remain open during the winter, the rest are closed due to heavy snow until late spring. Going south from Seattle the only major city you pass through is Portland, and after that you have to go through the Willamette Valley and Siskiyou mountains of southern Oregon and Northern California.

Just look at the map below. You can't realistically look at that map and tell me that Seattle is not isolated compared to Minneapolis.

Something else to add about Seattle's isolate location. Seattle is the northernmost major city in the USA, even further north than Minneapolis, further north than DULUTH,MN. This anomaly adds to an interesting situation. Most people I know don't think about this, but Seattle is closer to a Canadian metropolitan area than it is to any American metropolitan area. It is a shorter distance to drive from Seattle to Victoria(British Columbia's provincial capital, and this includes taking the ferry) or to drive from Seattle to Vancouver than it is to drive from Seattle to Portland, and as you say, Portland is the closest American major city to Seattle.

[ManBearPig1]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

Something else to add about Seattle's isolate location. Seattle is the northernmost major city in the USA, even further north than Minneapolis, further north than DULUTH,MN. This anomaly adds to an interesting situation. Most people I know don't think about this, but Seattle is closer to a Canadian metropolitan area than it is to any American metropolitan area. It is a shorter distance to drive from Seattle to Victoria(British Columbia's provincial capital, and this includes taking the ferry) or to drive from Seattle to Vancouver than it is to drive from Seattle to Portland, and as you say, Portland is the closest American major city to Seattle.

Right but you can still hop on the train to Portland OR to Vancouver and be in a different major city in half the time it takes to get to Chicago from Minneapolis. And that's the ONLY city you can get to from Minneapolis without flying. (Milwaukee doesn't count for anything ). Seattle might be more topographically ensconced, but there are more and easier options to go to different major cities from Seattle than from Minneapolis.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by ManBearPig1

Right but you can still hop on the train to Portland OR to Vancouver and be in a different major city in half the time it takes to get to Chicago from Minneapolis. And that's the ONLY city you can get to from Minneapolis without flying. (Milwaukee doesn't count for anything ). Seattle might be more topographically ensconced, but there are more and easier options to go to different major cities from Seattle than from Minneapolis.

How does Milwaukee not count? It's almost as big as Seattle and Portland.

Seattle's geographic isolation comes from being far away from other major cities. While it might be a further drive from Minneapolis to Chicago, there is Milwaukee nearby. As a regional city, it is on the periphery, but it's in company with other Midwestern cities. Seattle is basically isolated from the rest of the USA.

[ManBearPig1]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

How does Milwaukee not count? It's almost as big as Seattle and Portland.

Boring, ugly city, with nothing to offer that you can't get in Minneapolis in the first place. Besides, it's really just a suburb of Chicago, anyway.

Originally Posted by green_mariner

Seattle is basically isolated from the rest of the USA.

And so is Minneapolis. The difference between a four hour and 8 hour drive / train ride is bigger than the difference between a 2 hour and 6 hour plane, IMO. Once you have to go deal with airports, TSA, etc. your travel experience became work instead of leisure no matter how long you're actually in the air.

[uptown_urbanist]

I think of Seattle and Minneapolis as equally "isolated." Seattle is closer driving distance to some other cities, but it's also a longer plane ride from most of the United States. Flying out of MSP is remarkably easy for a big city, and since it's fairly central it's a shorter ride. For me, once the actual travel time starts taking a half day or longer it's fairly irrelevant whether or not it's via car or airplane. (I would say train, but don't think that train connections in either Seattle or Minneapolis are good enough make a huge difference.) I doubt anyone really moves to either Minneapolis or Seattle for proximity to other big cities, anyway.

[phlinak]

Originally Posted by cl4

We moved here after living in Seattle for almost 6 years and like it. In Seattle we lived in Fremont with 2 toddlers. In Minneapolis, we have lived in East Isles near Lake of the Isles and in Seward near the river. Both are great. The Uptown area resembles Fremont or Ballard. Seward is more like Greenwood or the nicer areas of Columbia city.

As far as similarities or differences:

-both cities are progressive but Seattle is more liberal. Also the Twin Cities overall feel more dominated by their suburbs than Seattle.

-both cities have good bike commuting infrastructure and good bus service. Traffic overall is comparable but there aren't horrible choke points like the 520 bridge.

-both cities have a good art/culture scene but Seattle feels younger and more educated overall.

-Schools are better in Minneapolis. We have neighborhood schools so you can live in some charming close in neighborhoods and have a guaranteed world class school. At least when we left this wasn't true in Seattle.

-Minneapolis is substantially less entrepreneurial and tech dominated. There aren't many startups and tech people are more likely to work in corporate jobs than pure play tech jobs.

-Seattle is a national talent magnet while Minneapolis pulls in talent from mostly the upper midwest.

-Seattle has better dining options and is less chain dominated. Minneapolis has great mid to high range dining but the low end is weaker overall. There are plenty of good places but the vibe is different. It always saddens me to go to Chipotle in Uptown instead of a local Mission burrito place.

-Minneapolis is beautiful with the lakes and river but can't really compare to Seattle with the lakes, sound and Cascades.

-Housing is way cheaper in Minneapolis.

Overall I think Seattle is a world class city and Minneapolis is a great regional city. For us, Minneapolis had MUCH better professional opportunities so that made it an easy decision. Minneapolis is a great place but there are tradeoffs.

Let me know if you have other questions.

-chris

Question:

If your professional opportunities were not in the equation, would you choose Minneapolis or Seattle and why?

[phlinak]

Originally Posted by SeattleGuy98121

Regarding location, living in Seattle for me feels like I am living in Alaska. Living in Seattle feels very isolated where as living in Minneapolis I think would not feel so isolated because you are closer to Chicago, New York, and many other places. Although Seattle is close to Vancouver and not too far from San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Trust me nothing feels like living in Alaska but actually living in Alaska.

The loneliness..... The isolation.... The horror....... The horror.......

[phlinak]

Originally Posted by orzo

You're way off-base about culture, arts, independant shops, etc. Seattle has tons and tons of all that (IMO more than Minneapolis), not to mention a larger, more dense and more bustling center, with more urban inner neighborhoods:



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...r_2011_-_2.jpg

IMHO, most people don't view the above boldfaced attributes as good things and are trying to get away from them, which is why MSP is a far better choice.

[phlinak]

Originally Posted by west336

Not very much more dense, so I wouldn't tout that as some amazing attribute Seattle has over Minneapolis. You're talking about the #14 and #15 sized metros in the country, with EXTREMELY similar economic and built forms. You're "way off base" if you think Seattle has anything leaps and bounds on Minneapolis, especially arts, density, population, or GDP (or GDP per capita).

Some of you guys have your heads so far up your [butt] it's truly amazing!

Now children, play nice.

[ManBearPig1]

Originally Posted by phlinak

IMHO, most people don't view the above boldfaced attributes as good things and are trying to get away from them, which is why MSP is a far better choice.

Most people who prefer Seattle to Minneapolis, or simply who just live actually IN the city would though -- the type of people commenting here, for the most part.