St. Paul, the dead city. Why? (Minneapolis, Rochester: real estate, credit, house)

[Globe199]

You're never going to have two vibrant downtowns. It just cannot economically happen. Idiotic struggles about where the theoretical high-speed Chicago connection will terminate (Minneapolis! No! Saint Paul! No!) only result in a further division of the city.

I still think someone could write a PhD thesis on how the Twin Cities have missed out on big opportunities because it is a divided city. We're the 15th largest metro area in the country, yet if you say "Twin Cities" outside the "Upper Midwest" (a loaded term which really means everything outside Chicago), no one has any clue what you're talking about. The TC are similar in population to Seattle and San Diego. Everyone in the country knows where those cities are. If I travel to either coast, I just tell people I'm from Minnesota. That usually suffices.

We're bigger than Denver, St Louis, Pittsburgh. Everyone knows where those are. Yet people are surprised when, in national surveys, pretty much the only thing anyone knows about the TC is how bad the winters are. There is very little national identity and I believe it is a direct result of being divided.

[krillbee]

Originally Posted by Globe199

You're never going to have two vibrant downtowns. It just cannot economically happen. Idiotic struggles about where the theoretical high-speed Chicago connection will terminate (Minneapolis! No! Saint Paul! No!) only result in a further division of the city.

I still think someone could write a PhD thesis on how the Twin Cities have missed out on big opportunities because it is a divided city. We're the 15th largest metro area in the country, yet if you say "Twin Cities" outside the "Upper Midwest" (a loaded term which really means everything outside Chicago), no one has any clue what you're talking about. The TC are similar in population to Seattle and San Diego. Everyone in the country knows where those cities are. If I travel to either coast, I just tell people I'm from Minnesota. That usually suffices.

We're bigger than Denver, St Louis, Pittsburgh. Everyone knows where those are. Yet people are surprised when, in national surveys, pretty much the only thing anyone knows about the TC is how bad the winters are. There is very little national identity and I believe it is a direct result of being divided.

Is it possible for two cities to merge and become one? It would be interesting to see that happen. It would sure make things less confusing!

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by krillbee

Is it possible for two cities to merge and become one? It would be interesting to see that happen. It would sure make things less confusing!

I think Hennepin/Ramsey counties should combine as well as the cities of Mpls and StP. It would save a lot of money and would end the destructive battles over identity.

[krillbee]

Originally Posted by Globe199

I think Hennepin/Ramsey counties should combine as well as the cities of Mpls and StP. It would save a lot of money and would end the destructive battles over identity.

Agreed. I'm just wondering if something like that has ever been done before.

[Slig]

Didn't Dallas and Fort Worth become Dallas/Ft. Worth? Just kidding, I think that's the name of the airport.

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by krillbee

Agreed. I'm just wondering if something like that has ever been done before.

Hard to say if it's ever been done on that scale. Norwood & Young America combined a while back. I think Crystal and New Hope have talked about it.

It would be horrendously expensive at first, and you'd need some big consulting company to organize it. But in the long run it would be better. The battles essentially boil down to Saint Paul having an inferiority complex. The argument over whether to terminate the Chicago line in Minneapolis or not is just so pointless. Maybe have a station in both cities, but for the love of god, don't argue over it. It's only going to delay (and maybe even cancel) the project.

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by krillbee

Agreed. I'm just wondering if something like that has ever been done before.

Yes, the city of St. Anthony was merged into Minneapolis in the 19th century. On a larger scale, the city of Allegheny, PA, the third largest in its state, merged with Pittsburgh, the second larget in its state. That was also back in the late 19th century.

[Clifford63]

Originally Posted by Ben Around

Yes, the city of St. Anthony was merged into Minneapolis in the 19th century. On a larger scale, the city of Allegheny, PA, the third largest in its state, merged with Pittsburgh, the second larget in its state. That was also back in the late 19th century.

Seems like you hear about more of these things getting denied than happening. Last one in the area that I know about is Long Lake and Wayzata.

At any rate, I doubt Minneapolis and St. Paul will ever seriously consider a merge. They are two cities is two different counties both with a lot of civic pride.

[MplsTodd]

Originally Posted by Globe199

You're never going to have two vibrant downtowns. It just cannot economically happen. Idiotic struggles about where the theoretical high-speed Chicago connection will terminate (Minneapolis! No! Saint Paul! No!) only result in a further division of the city.

I still think someone could write a PhD thesis on how the Twin Cities have missed out on big opportunities because it is a divided city. We're the 15th largest metro area in the country, yet if you say "Twin Cities" outside the "Upper Midwest" (a loaded term which really means everything outside Chicago), no one has any clue what you're talking about. The TC are similar in population to Seattle and San Diego. Everyone in the country knows where those cities are. If I travel to either coast, I just tell people I'm from Minnesota. That usually suffices.

We're bigger than Denver, St Louis, Pittsburgh. Everyone knows where those are. Yet people are surprised when, in national surveys, pretty much the only thing anyone knows about the TC is how bad the winters are. There is very little national identity and I believe it is a direct result of being divided.

Excellent Post!! One thing that works against the national identity of Minneapolis and St Paul is because all our teams are named Minnesota, rather than Minneapolis or Mpls-St Paul. Practically every other city with major sports is named after the city rather than the state (with a few exceptions like the Texas Rangers, New England Patriots etc... but even they have other temas named after the city--Dallas Cowboys, Dallas Stars, Boston Celtics etc...).

We've even extended this practice beyond sports teams to:

Orchestra: The Minnesota Orchestra
Newspaper: The Star Tribune (rather than the Minneapolis Tribune)

I do think that this practice does play a part in reducing the national identity for the Twin Cities.

Also: Regarding two cities which have merged into one, the best example I can think of is Port Arthur/Fort William Ontario, which merged together in the late 1960s/early 1970s to become Thunder Bay! Also, Buda & Pest were separate cities at one point, before becoming Budapest.

[greyduk]

I don't think you can just merge the cities... I think they would gradually have to develop a more merged infrastructure to do that. Build up Midway a bit and let it expand from there. Have the train terminate there then have fast shuttles to major stations in each city. Start having all major regional transportation terminate there. Otherwise, we'll have two stops, further reducing its efficiency, or we'll have one city favored over the other.

Personally, I like the fact that they're two separate cities. You might say that St. Paul has an inferiority complex, but that's trivial. Minnesotans in general are pretty good at inferiority complexes (me being one of course)

I also think that "economically" we CAN have two vibrant cities. The issues with St. Paul have been pretty well described already. I definitely agree it has more to do with the isolation of downtown from residential areas than competition from Minneapolis.