Is minneapolis sprawled? (St. Paul, Bloomington, Brooklyn Park: construction, subdivisions, live in)

[Slig]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Interesting observation, lets see:

Roseville, MN incorporated in 1948
Edina is 125 years old
Mendota Heights incorporated 1956

Rosemount--150 years old (Same year as Minneapolis)
Stillwater 1840's

Now, where exactly is the sprawl? South Minneapolis was considered sprawl not all that long ago.

The folks living in 19th century housing stock in Rosemount and Stillwater could make a strong argument that they aren't guilty of urban sprawl. However, I certainly doubt the majority of the homes there would fall into that category. If you think south Minneapolis should be considered urban sprawl you might want to take a closer look at the dictionary definition. I live 3 miles away from the city center, try to make a little more sense if you're going to diss me.

[moving123456]

I believe I saw the Twin Cities metro area ranked #10 on a list of the largest american "urban sprawl" areas sometime in recent years. I am pretty sure that Atlanta and Houston were #1 and #2. The Twin Cities sprawl was about half as many square miles as the #1 sprawl if I remember correctly.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by moving123456

I believe I saw the Twin Cities metro area ranked #10 on a list of the largest american "urban sprawl" areas sometime in recent years. I am pretty sure that Atlanta and Houston were #1 and #2. The Twin Cities sprawl was about half as many square miles as the #1 sprawl if I remember correctly.

Atlanta has more sprawl, but it also has a larger population (5.5 million compared to 3.5 million for the greater Twin Cities). At least the Twin Cities have two core cities instead of one! And the Twin Cities have fairly well-managed governments. The City of Atlanta is ... something else...

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by Slig

The folks living in 19th century housing stock in Rosemount and Stillwater could make a strong argument that they aren't guilty of urban sprawl. However, I certainly doubt the majority of the homes there would fall into that category. If you think south Minneapolis should be considered urban sprawl you might want to take a closer look at the dictionary definition. I live 3 miles away from the city center, try to make a little more sense if you're going to diss me.

Everyone in Rosemount lives less then a mile from it's city center--so sprawl or no sprawl. I am 6 blocks from most everything here? Point being, these cities were here LONG before your inner ring suburbs thus the 'sprawl' has only met up with these towns. They have not contributed to the sprawl.

[BillyB]

Try driving from Lakeville, all the way up through Blaine and Coon Rapids, or from Oakdale to Wayzata. It's pretty sprawly.

[BlackOut]

The problem with the Minneapolis-St. Paul area is that it doesn't have any natural boundaries or laws preventing sprawl so the metro area can continue to grow outward.

This is old, but the following ranking is that of U.S. urbanized areas by square miles of sprawl from 1970 to 1990.

1. Atlanta - 701.7
2. Houston - 638.7
3. New York City-N.E. New Jersey 541.3
4. Washington DC-MD-VA - 450.1
5. Philadelphia - 412.4
6. Los Angeles - 393.8
7. Dallas-Fort Worth - 372.4
8. Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater - 358.7
9. Phoenix - 353.6
10. Minneapolis-St. Paul - 341.6

[BlackOut]

Here is a US sprawl map:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ng...20010701.3.pdf

[K-Luv]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Point being, these cities were here LONG before your inner ring suburbs thus the 'sprawl' has only met up with these towns. They have not contributed to the sprawl.

I agree, that is why I said that the sprawl in the TC is not like the sprawl that you see elsewhere. But, given time, all of these outlaying townships are going to become connected to Minneapolis/St. Paul in one giant megalopolis.

Thirty or forty years from now the TC is going to be the size of present day Chicago (including all outlaying suburbs and cities).

[Slig]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Everyone in Rosemount lives less then a mile from it's city center--so sprawl or no sprawl. I am 6 blocks from most everything here? Point being, these cities were here LONG before your inner ring suburbs thus the 'sprawl' has only met up with these towns. They have not contributed to the sprawl.

right I forgot, because Rosemount is the center of the universe. You're 25.6 miles from Minneapolis city center and 20.1 miles from St. Paul city center. I don't feel I need to explain any further.

[moving123456]

Originally Posted by Slig

right I forgot, because Rosemount is the center of the universe. You're 25.6 miles from Minneapolis city center and 20.1 miles from St. Paul city center. I don't feel I need to explain any further.

Please explain further.

Two cities were founded in the year of 1856, about 25.6 miles away from each other. One was named Minneapolis and the other was named Rosemount. One of these cities happened to grow bigger and faster the other. Does that automatically make the smaller one "sprawl"?