Can someone identify what is the picture of in Minnepolis?

[Minnehahapolitan]

Originally Posted by MplsTodd

It's just a function of land area and density. Minneapolis stopped annexing extra land back in the 1930s or 1940s. In contrast, Omaha has aggressively annexed land, so it really only has a few true suburbs. Mesa and VA Beach are really just huge suburbs of Phoenix and Norfolk and both also have large land areas. I am surprised that Louisville has more people than Mpls though!

Louisville merged with Jefferson County. The old city was only the size of Saint Paul when it merged, but was over 300,000 at its peak.

[MplsTodd]

Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan

Then the mayor of Albuquerque doesn't have much foresight. Minneapolis will have (at the very least) its current population to pay for and support what really isn't a whole lot of infrastructure. 54 square miles isn't alot. Abq. may benefit from uncontrolled annexation now, but think of the low-density development they are annexing. In 50 years, all those roads will need replacing. The core city will be stuck paying for it, and the low density doesn't create an environment where that is an easy proposition.
Furthermore, if he thinks that Albuquerque's sprawl is better controlled simply because it is the city limits, he is delusional.
Good luck.

While I agree that the low density model of development will prove costly in the long run, I disagree that a city's decision to annex its surrounding area is a bad idea. If the city uses its zoning, sewer extension and transportation powers wisely, it could reduce the sprawl and could help maintain the vibrancy of the central city. Calgary is a good example of this--they have had significant growth, but it has been orderly, and you don't see endless suburbs.

I can't comment on how Albuquerque's sprawl versus other cities as I've never been there.

[knke0204]

Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan

Then the mayor of Albuquerque doesn't have much foresight. Minneapolis will have (at the very least) its current population to pay for and support what really isn't a whole lot of infrastructure. 54 square miles isn't alot. Abq. may benefit from uncontrolled annexation now, but think of the low-density development they are annexing. In 50 years, all those roads will need replacing. The core city will be stuck paying for it, and the low density doesn't create an environment where that is an easy proposition.
Furthermore, if he thinks that Albuquerque's sprawl is better controlled simply because it is the city limits, he is delusional.
Good luck.

Very correct. I work in small government, city goverment, city planning, etc. From a professional standpoint, the Cities of MPLS and STP are going to be much better off than the HUGE sprawling cities like the ones mentioned. Property Taxes in adjacent suburbs such as Brooklyn Center, Robbinsdale, Maplewood, Ect, are higher than if they were still considered MPLS. Road maintainence, neighborhood issues, and police/fire are better off to be solved on a micro scale, where issues can be pinpointed and not generalized.

[knke0204]

i found this interesting, Plymouth MN, 70,000 people, 35 sq miles + Maple Grove Mn, 60,000, 35 sq miles...

So if you combined those two cities you would have a 70 sq mile city with 130,000 people.
throw in Brooklyn Park, which borders MG, and you would have a 200,000 city with 100 sq miles...

I think that population numbers dont mean much until you take a look at sq miles. Density doesnt even really paint the best picture since places develop so different.

[Thegonagle]

Originally Posted by MplsTodd

The photo was taken from Marquette Place, a 35+/- story apartment building at Marquette Ave and Grant Street.

I was going to say exactly that; the photo must have been taken from Marquette Place apartments, probably from about the 23rd-24th-25th floor. The camera is actually looking more northeast than north.

It was taken from the building directly to the left of the "A" arrow in this Google Maps image:1314 Marquette Ave, Minneapolis, Hennepin, Minnesota 55403 - Google Maps

The green space in the lower right is located across the street from the front doors of the convention center. There's actually a large underground parking garage under that space (in other words, it's not a park, it's a carpark).

Yes, the dome is on the roof of the Millennium Hotel, located next door to the apartment tower that the photo was taken from. (It was a very wide angle lens.)

It's a nice picture.

[Minnehahapolitan]

Originally Posted by MplsTodd

While I agree that the low density model of development will prove costly in the long run, I disagree that a city's decision to annex its surrounding area is a bad idea. If the city uses its zoning, sewer extension and transportation powers wisely, it could reduce the sprawl and could help maintain the vibrancy of the central city. Calgary is a good example of this--they have had significant growth, but it has been orderly, and you don't see endless suburbs.

I can't comment on how Albuquerque's sprawl versus other cities as I've never been there.

I can't think of any large city, though, where that is the case. Most zoning codes run contrary to what a true urban city should try to be doing -- Minneapolis could not be rebuilt in its current form on account of its very own zoning laws. Boulder and Burlington work to quell sprawl through their local governments, but both have fewer than 100,000 people. Portland's growth boundary is run through the equivalent of the Met Council.