Is minneapolis sprawled? (St. Paul, Warren, Clinton: apartment, condo, how much)

[Slig]

Originally Posted by moving123456

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"?

It became sprawl as soon as development reached out to Rosemount and it changed from a town to a suburb of the Twin Cities. The majority of the development in Rosemount in the last 30 years has not been the result of Rosemount's booming economy, it is because of Minneapolis/St. Paul and the metro area's booming economy. The majority of that development can directly trace back to urban sprawl.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by moving123456

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"?

I think the area in between the two cities might be considered that, at least if the two are joined together by typical suburban development.

[Slig]

Anoka is the same way, it was a historic town with a main street and lots of old buildings and history. However, with the rapid suburban development around it in Coon Rapids, Champlin, Andover and Ramsey it has gotten swallowed up by the metropolitan area. I now consider it nothing more than a northern Minneapolis suburb with a decorated past.

[knke0402]

Well, heres some food for thought. I live in the NW burbs. You know, the Elk River, Otsego, St. Michael, Albertville, Monticello, Rogers, Maple Grove area. Believe it or not, those are all suburbs of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro. Now I have relatives that live in Lakeville, another suburb. On a GOOD day it takes 45 minutes to get there, and with traffic, more like 1 1/2 hrs.

the metro here is odd in the sense that the core cities of Minneap/St Paul are relatively small. (pops. around 300,000)(300,000 is a normal size for a city in Cali.) But the suburbs in the Twin Cities are huge, and do fall into sprawl. There are areas of Brooklyn Park and Champlin and Maple Grove with VAST farmland, but there are subdivisions going up over night in places like Otsego, Lakeville, Farmington...I mean there are developable acres only a few miles from downtown MSP, but construciton contiues in the far out peripheries like the farmingtons, prior lakes, chaskas, andovers, otsegos.

Check out these rouned numbers of suburbs

Brooklyn Park - 70,000
Maple Grove - 65,000
Plymouth - 70,000
Eden Prairie - 60,000
Blaine - 50,000
Coon Rapids - 65,000
Bloomington- 80,000
Burnsville - 65,000
Edina - 50,000

[BlackOut]

Originally Posted by knke0402

the metro here is odd in the sense that the core cities of Minneap/St Paul are relatively small. (pops. around 300,000)(300,000 is a normal size for a city in Cali.)

You can't really compare the core cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul to cities in California due to the fact that most of the cities that have a population of 300,000 and over (even some with a smaller population) are a lot larger in total land size than Minneapolis and St. Paul combined.

Here is the land size for each city you listed:
Minneapolis 54.9 square miles
St. Paul 52.8 square miles
Brooklyn Park 26.1 square miles
Maple Grove 32.9 square miles
Plymouth 32.9 square miles
Eden Prairie 32.4 square miles
Blaine 33.9 square miles
Coon Rapids 22.7 square miles
Bloomington 35.5 square miles
Burnsville 24.9 square miles
Edina 15.7 square miles

This area combined is still much smaller than the land occupied by Los Angeles and San Diego.

[knke0402]

Originally Posted by BlackOut

You can't really compare the core cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul to cities in California due to the fact that most of the cities that have a population of 300,000 and over (even some with a smaller population) are a lot larger in total land size than Minneapolis and St. Paul combined.

Here is the land size for each city you listed:
Minneapolis 54.9 square miles
St. Paul 52.8 square miles
Brooklyn Park 26.1 square miles
Maple Grove 32.9 square miles
Plymouth 32.9 square miles
Eden Prairie 32.4 square miles
Blaine 33.9 square miles
Coon Rapids 22.7 square miles
Bloomington 35.5 square miles
Burnsville 24.9 square miles
Edina 15.7 square miles

This area combined is still much smaller than the land occupied by Los Angeles and San Diego.

I agree, but just to put into perspective Riverside, CA has 78 square miles, and a population of 310,000. Riverside is the 11th largest city in California.

Maybe there should be a limit on the amount of square miles is what makes a city...ha..Los Angeles city limits is over 200 square miles. Thats like Minneapolis, St. Paul, Bloomington, Blaine, and Plymouth all combined. Which would be about 1,000,000 residents

You're right. The square miles of Cali cities skews some numbers. the large land areas are due to terrain i would imagine.

[Clifford63]

Originally Posted by knke0402

I agree, but just to put into perspective Riverside, CA has 78 square miles, and a population of 310,000. Riverside is the 11th largest city in California.

Maybe there should be a limit on the amount of square miles is what makes a city...ha..Los Angeles city limits is over 200 square miles. Thats like Minneapolis, St. Paul, Bloomington, Blaine, and Plymouth all combined. Which would be about 1,000,000 residents

You're right. The square miles of Cali cities skews some numbers. the large land areas are due to terrain i would imagine.

Does it make more sense to talk about people per square mile? Should be easy to find stats at county level on area and population. We have a fair amount of rivers, wetlands and lakes that would skew numbers a well. Overall I would think metro MN and LA are fairly course compared to say New York, Boston, San Francisco or Chicago. I don't care enought to crunch the numbers though. Just guessing.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by Clifford63

Does it make more sense to talk about people per square mile? Should be easy to find stats at county level on area and population. We have a fair amount of rivers, wetlands and lakes that would skew numbers a well. Overall I would think metro MN and LA are fairly course compared to say New York, Boston, San Francisco or Chicago. I don't care enought to crunch the numbers though. Just guessing.

You have a good point. There are several areas that simply can't be developed so towns have grown up around them--the Wetland Reserve in Bloomington is one area that is a good example of that. I think if you travel to Boston or New York your impression of the 'sprawl' in the Twin Cities will change dramatically. Even New Jersey is worse then MN-well NJ is worse then everywhere else. You see no definition between cities, only a road sign stating you are in the next town. There is basically no undeveloped space there.

Boston and New York--their metro area stretches out for 60+ miles if you look at commutes. That would be the equivalent of nearly everyone driving from Owatonna or Gleneco and parts in between on a daily basis to work in Minneapolis or St. Paul. It is quite common to drive 50-60+ miles ONE WAY in many areas of the country. You see a little of this coming from St. Cloud but not all that much.

[marmac]

when I worked on construction in the metro in 1965, Hwy 100 was considered the "beltline"

Of course, that was 43 years ago

[knke0402]

Originally Posted by Clifford63

Does it make more sense to talk about people per square mile? Should be easy to find stats at county level on area and population. We have a fair amount of rivers, wetlands and lakes that would skew numbers a well. Overall I would think metro MN and LA are fairly course compared to say New York, Boston, San Francisco or Chicago. I don't care enought to crunch the numbers though. Just guessing.

Thats a good point. Population Density Numbers paint a much better picture. Density here in MSP is NOTHING compared to NYC, BOSTON, and PHILLY.


Golfgal, your right about Jersey, (well northern jersey) about how dense it is.. There is no open space between cities, it just keeps running. Unless you go south, then the state is pretty nice.