minneapolis population (St. Paul, Burnsville, Apple Valley: house, school, to live in)

[Elle Coolio]

Ummmmm, if you want to live in a city where everyone is living on top of one another and you're paying $2,000/month for 400 sq. ft., why not move to one of the "big time cities" instead of wishing it upon some place where people are glad that they have a little space?

[Minnehahapolitan]

How do you know the entire population of Minneapolis wants a little space? Do I not live in this city? There are plenty of people who would love to live in a more dense area. It has little bearing on you if you do want to live in a more suburban, or even rural, area. In fact, having more people in the city center makes it easier to have suburban areas. Less people on suburban roads, et cetera.
Having more density does not necessairily imply more expensive prices. That is more regionally based. People pay to live in Manhattan because (while many wealthy people live there, making it desireable) it is in the New York region. There are also many modest (and dense) areas of the New York area. If an apartment ever goes for $2,000 in Minneapolis, they average suburban home will be $500,000. It will have had little to do with densification in the city proper other than that it makes the city core a more desireable area. A million people will move into the metropolitan area if we like it or not. We can put more of those people in the city proper, and have a more vibrant core (which alot of people in the core want) and better preservation of bucolic suburbs. We could house those people in sprawl on the fringes of the city and see how they get to work. The freeways would be congested and the schools overburdened. If they are in the city, they may not need a second (or first) car. Which would you prefer?

[K-Luv]

I never heard of anyone wanting a larger city to be larger. Is this some form of megalomania?

A more dense urban core would bring in more entertainment, better transportation, more housing options, etc. Some of this stuff would be organic and will just happen as a result of people living there, but other things would be forced to be created to deal with the larger number of people-which is not good. Just look at Southern California.

With the larger number of people might come a better quality of life, but with the growing number of people will also come more crime, poverty, drug use, homelessness, etc.

Another thing is that Minneapolis is almost incapable of growing, unless done in an upward fashion.

[Minnehahapolitan]

Minneapolis has the ability to densify in alot of ways without growing upwards. The city has a alot of single-family homes where they are no longer needed. Just like the Mansions that lined Hennepin Avenue transformed into a major commercial street, alot of rather suburbanesque city blocks could turn into thousands of condos, I still haven't left the ground. Take major intersections like Lake and Nicollet; it is a quasi-industrial area with half of the intersection filled by a suburban-style K-Mart. Even a three story building would bring hundreds of units to just that immediate area. Take some larger homes and duplex them. If the average family size is decreasing (and with the many single people in the city) it would be prudent to decrease the size of some of the homes. Then you can develop major industrial areas such as North Washington, et. al. Then you can leave the ground. While not ideal, Mpls. could also densify some aging suburbs. Look at the Hub in Richfield; 16 some acres of asphalt and strip-mall. It is the size of the core area of Uptown. It is already happening in Saint Louis Park.
Crime and poverty is not synominous with density. That stems from lack of education, opportunity, preexisting crime and diminsihed tax bases. Actually, if you doubled the population on the northside, crime there would plummet. (More people, more taxpayers, more police who patrol a smaller area) Plus, it is hardly as if suburbia took care of those problems (it just ran away from them). The instances of people in Eden Prairie needing the services of a food shelf has grown exponentially in the last couple years. If a drug addict moves to Mpls. they will be addicted if they live in Minneapolis or Lakeville. Some of the safest cities in the nation are also the most dense, New York did it.
Actually, the reason that Southern California is a **** hole is because it grew too fast and at the wrong time. Traffic was caused by suburbanization, smog was caused by traffic. It is expensive because the demand for relatively large houses means that alot of the developable land is already taken; it is a city trying to make cities from out-of-use suburbs. Some of the most desireable areas in Los Angeles have population densities higher than Mpls. The number of people isn't the problem; it is how they were put there. Atlanta has done the same thing with 5 million people. A metropolitan area needs a city to anchor it proportionally. Atlanta is not proportional to its metro region, it is why you have the worst traffic in the nation. If the metropolitan region is to comfortably grow, Minneapolis is going to need alot more people. It is perfectly allright if you choose not to live in the city; just realize that to continue to have suburbs that function as nicely as Minneapolis'; somebody needs to offset your geographic location.

[K-Luv]

Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan

Minneapolis has the ability to densify in alot of ways without growing upwards. The city has a alot of single-family homes where they are no longer needed. Just like the Mansions that lined Hennepin Avenue transformed into a major commercial street, alot of rather suburbanesque city blocks could turn into thousands of condos, I still haven't left the ground. Take major intersections like Lake and Nicollet; it is a quasi-industrial area with half of the intersection filled by a suburban-style K-Mart. Even a three story building would bring hundreds of units to just that immediate area.

Crime and poverty is not synominous with density. That stems from lack of education, opportunity, preexisting crime and diminsihed tax bases.

Actually, the reason that Southern California is a **** hole is because it grew too fast and at the wrong time.

Nicolet, Lake St. and Hennipen cannot be widened-which would have to happen to accommodate more people-without removing portions of buildings. That's not going to happen.

Crime and poverty are a consequence of density. There is only so much housing and jobs for so many people. There will always be poverty, and because of that, crime.

SoCal did grow too fast too soon, but my point is that a lot of it actually looks completely fabricated, unnatural and even plastic.

[Minnehahapolitan]

Why would you widen a street to accomodate people? There would be added bus service; perhaps a streetcar. The street would only be widened if we were silly enough to think that everyone there should have a car and drive it wherever they go. Following that, the island of Manhattan would spread well into Pennsylvania.
Of course there are only so many jobs; but as population grows so too do the number of jobs. If this were true, we would never grow. Crime and poverty are a consequence of a ****ty economy and large social underclasses of people. Why is Japan one of the safest nations on earth? Explain Europe.
Southern California is plastic because they took a pretty arid region and grew front lawns there. Because the cinderblock Bix-Box store tries to look like a Spanish mission. Because it is a city of 15 million people that has seen most of its growth in the suburban style. Only too late did it realize it actually had to be a city.

[K-Luv]

Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan

Why would you widen a street to accomodate people? There would be added bus service; perhaps a streetcar. The street would only be widened if we were silly enough to think that everyone there should have a car and drive it wherever they go. Following that, the island of Manhattan would spread well into Pennsylvania.
Of course there are only so many jobs; but as population grows so too do the number of jobs. If this were true, we would never grow. Crime and poverty are a consequence of a ****ty economy and large social underclasses of people. Why is Japan one of the safest nations on earth? Explain Europe.

Yes, to accommodate cars. Just as it is silly to think that every one will drive, it is just as silly to think that everyone will want to take public transportation. Even sillier to force them to. Manhattan works because of the enormous public transportation system that has remained in place for over a hundred years. People that live there not only rely on it, but have been conditioned to see it's purpose and use it. The city would not be able to move in any other fashion. Minneapolis is car culture.

Japan and Europe, I hate to say it, are more civilized then Americans. They wouldn't put up with half the sh*t that we consider normal. For example, German's are 'known' to be big drinkers, but getting completely sh*t faced and out of hand is socially unacceptable. Has been for centuries. Yes, it happens from time to time-that's just the nature of alcohol, but as a whole, the country wouldn't put up with such behavior. No one wants to lower themselves to the lowest common denominator. Europeans, and the Japanese, no matter where they fall on the social ladder, will never lower themselves any lower then they already may be. Americans do not seem to have a problem with lowering to any level as long as the other person 'got the point'. Two world wars were fought in Europe and one major one in Japan. Maybe that has something to do with it as well as I imagine that if major wars happened in your own front yard it might be sort of a humbling experience.

[Minnehahapolitan]

Upto 20% of people in the city do not have cars. It is perfectly plausible to have a combination of the two. It would hardly be forced. Public transportation works for local trips, or if going downtown. It is OK to drive also. Special or multiple-stop trips. A well developed Lake and Nicollet would work much the same way that Uptown does now. There is traffic and people get over it. There are various other options besides automobiles. Even though Manhattan has a developed public network does not mean that there are not thousands of drivers. People expect there to be traffic. Minneapolis is a major city. Suburbs are different; but a healthy city does not have people moving at high speeds on surface streets. To say that public transporation does not work in the Minneapolis core would disregard the city's history. The entire area was built on streetcar networks. It worked then; and they had more people. A dense Mpls. would not force anyone to use public transportation, but it would give them another option. Enough people are willing to use it that it calms traffic for people who choose not to. Only a handful of car-free cities exist on earth. Public transportation would not be some requirement or social experiment, you know very well that is not what was implied.
You are right, Japanese and Europeans are more refined. But they do show that density does not cause crime. Is there a magical density that causes crime? If so, many suburbs have passed it in this country. Crime is caused by the demographics of an area, not the built form of an area.
P.S.; While Manhattan may have a pedigreed and established public system, it still requires people to walk a few blocks. You still wait a couple minutes. The traditional Twin Cities Rapid Transit service was not particularly inferior to New York's system bar the fact that it was above ground.

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by K-Luv

Ugh! With all of those people moving in, I would think that it was high time for ME to move on out.

Perhaps. Mine is not a neighborhood to move to if you don't like kids!

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan

How do you know the entire population of Minneapolis wants a little space? Do I not live in this city? There are plenty of people who would love to live in a more dense area. It has little bearing on you if you do want to live in a more suburban, or even rural, area. In fact, having more people in the city center makes it easier to have suburban areas. Less people on suburban roads, et cetera.
Having more density does not necessairily imply more expensive prices. That is more regionally based. People pay to live in Manhattan because (while many wealthy people live there, making it desireable) it is in the New York region. There are also many modest (and dense) areas of the New York area. If an apartment ever goes for $2,000 in Minneapolis, they average suburban home will be $500,000. It will have had little to do with densification in the city proper other than that it makes the city core a more desireable area. A million people will move into the metropolitan area if we like it or not. We can put more of those people in the city proper, and have a more vibrant core (which alot of people in the core want) and better preservation of bucolic suburbs. We could house those people in sprawl on the fringes of the city and see how they get to work. The freeways would be congested and the schools overburdened. If they are in the city, they may not need a second (or first) car. Which would you prefer?

Exactly. We can certainly have both (though I don't know how ling the post-WWI burb patterns can be sustained). Something for everyone--Minneapolitan and I would have a vibrant urban neighborhood in which to live and Ell Coolio would have her space, all in the same metro area!