Does Minneapolis have what it takes to be a global city? (St. Paul: public transportation, education)

[knke0204]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

New York City, possibly. But are there any others?

Chicago does. But other than that... It's how we live now. cities the size of around 100,000 have a better chance of having a vibrant downtown than larger cities. Most downtowns are used to service those who work down there, and when work is over most people just want to get home-which is usually in the suburbs.

[BlackOut]

I thought of NYC too, but I struggled to come up with more. Whatever the case, Minneapolis still has one of the top ten downtown areas in the U.S. with the size of its workforce, number of residents, its shopping and dining options, cultural institutions, etc...

Does Minneapolis have what it takes to be a global city? I think it has everything in place to become a global city. The city has a descent, public transportation system; a large presence of universities and colleges; an educated population; a diversified economy; a growing number of multicultural businesses; growing number of ethnic restaurants and shops; a great park system; major league sports; a music scene that is recognized in most parts of the world; great public radio; a sense of identity; etc...

[BlackOut]

Originally Posted by knke0204

Chicago does. But other than that... It's how we live now. cities the size of around 100,000 have a better chance of having a vibrant downtown than larger cities. Most downtowns are used to service those who work down there, and when work is over most people just want to get home-which is usually in the suburbs.

Chicago does not have a 24-hour downtown.

[fashionguy]

It's not a logical question when someone says Minneapolis dies after 6pm then you ask which city has a 24-hour downtown. There is so much time between 6pm and 6am. Just take a look at how many people are in the subway of Boston even after 11pm. You'll know what he means. I like the "I don't care if Minneapolis is a global city" attitude, but this attitude, the "so our downtown dies after 6pm but their downtowns are not 24-hour anyway so we are the same" attitude just shows how backwards and defensive some people can be.

Originally Posted by BlackOut

Chicago does not have a 24-hour downtown.

[BlackOut]

Originally Posted by fashionguy

It's not a logical question when someone says Minneapolis dies after 6pm then you ask which city has a 24-hour downtown. There is so much time between 6pm and 6am. Just take a look at how many people are in the subway of Boston even after 11pm. You'll know what he means.

Stating one city is dead after 6pm and the other is dead 24/7 leads one to think the two are not 24-hour cities, which they aren't. The statement also implies that to be a global city, the city has to have a 24-hour downtown. So again, what U.S. cities have 24-hour downtown areas?

[fashionguy]

I don't think Minneapolis can claim it has one of the top ten downtowns. Many cities can claim so and you don't know which are the top ten exactly. Apart from NYC, Chicago, SF, Boston, Pilly and Seattle, Portland, downtowns of mid-sized cities are almost the same everywhere. And even among the cities I mentioned, Seattle and Portland can't be called global citie. And, Minneapolis has nowhere which can compare with the vibrant centers of some other cities, such as Beverly Hills of LA, downtown Miami Beach, the strip of Las Vegas, Buckhead of Atlanta, uptown Houston, etc. Uptown Minneapolis is vibrant but it has a much smaller scale. If Minneapolis can claim it has one of the top ten downtowns, so can Denver, San Diego, DC, Charlotte, Milwaukee, Cincinatti, St. Louis, Dallas, Miami, etc, etc. The list is endless.

Minneapolis does not have a decent public transportation system. Its rail transit has been left behind by many peers, and its bus system is not as extensive compared to others as you thought. Certainly not at a global city level. LA has the worst public transportation among the global cities, yet it has more public transportation options than Minneapolis. You can argue that this is partly because Minneapolis is smaller compared to most global cities. Well, to be a global city usually requires you to grow to a certain size. This is not another sort of number of theater seats PER CAPITA thread, just get over it.

Originally Posted by BlackOut

I thought of NYC too, but I struggled to come up with more. Whatever the case, Minneapolis still has one of the top ten downtown areas in the U.S. with the size of its workforce, number of residents, its shopping and dining options, cultural institutions, etc...

Does Minneapolis have what it takes to be a global city? I think it has everything in place to become a global city. The city has a descent, public transportation system; a large presence of universities and colleges; an educated population; a diversified economy; a growing number of multicultural businesses; growing number of ethnic restaurants and shops; a great park system; major league sports; a music scene that is recognized in most parts of the world; great public radio; a sense of identity; etc...

[fashionguy]

Come on.

The opposite of "dead after 6pm" is: not dead after 6pm. (maybe dead after 9pm, 11pm, 12am.) Not a 24-hour downtown.

The opposite of "dead 24/7" is: Just one hour in one day it is vibrant. Not a 24-hour downtown.

Originally Posted by BlackOut

Stating one city is dead after 6pm and the other is dead 24/7 leads one to think the two are not 24-hour cities, which they aren't. The statement also implies that to be a global city, the city has to have a 24-hour downtown. So again, what U.S. cities have 24-hour downtown areas?

[BlackOut]

Originally Posted by fashionguy

I don't think Minneapolis can claim it has one of the top ten downtowns. Many cities can claim so and you don't know which are the top ten exactly. Apart from NYC, Chicago, SF, Boston and Seattle, Portland, downtowns of mid-sized cities are almost the same everywhere. And even among the cities I mentioned, Seattle and Portland can't be called global citie. And, Minneapolis has nowhere which can compare with the vibrant centers of some other cities, such as Beverly Hills of LA, downtown Miami Beach, Buckhead of Atlanta, uptown Houston, etc. Uptown Minneapolis is vibrant but it has a much smaller scale. If Minneapolis can claim it has one of the top ten downtowns, so can Denver, San Diego, DC, Charlotte, Milwaukee, Cincinatti, St. Louis, Dallas, Miami, etc, etc. The list is endless.

When I think vibrant (or top) downtown areas, I think of workforce, number of residents, shopping options, dining, theaters, clubs, etc...
IMO, the top ten would be NYC, Chicago, San Fran., Boston Seattle D.C. Philadelphia, Portland, San Diego, and Minneapolis. Denver and Baltimore are also nice. Dallas, Miami and Cincinnati are fine. I don't agree with Milwaukee or St. Louis and as a former Charlotte resident I know downtown (uptown) Charlotte is not one of the nation's top downtown areas as there is next to nothing in terms of shopping.

As far as transit is concerned, the city of Minneapolis has a descent public transportation system. The Twin Cites area, on the other hand, is a different story. As far as rail transit is concerned, there are very few cities (~30 or so) with light rail and of those cities, how many are a peer city? There are several peer cities that don't have light rail or commuter rail as an option.

[BlackOut]

Originally Posted by fashionguy

Come on.

The opposite of "dead after 6pm" is: not dead after 6pm. (maybe dead after 9pm, 11pm, 12am.) Not a 24-hour downtown.

The opposite of "dead 24/7" is: Just one hour in one day it is vibrant. Not a 24-hour downtown.

[fashionguy]

Yes you yourself still have like 5 cities that is arguably the same or better than Minneapolis yet Minneapolis is at the bottom of your list of top 10 (I think we all agree with that, it is certainly not as vibrant as the other 9). That is a strong argument. BTW, people living in Milwaukee and Cincinnati will strongly disagree with you.


Again, we are talking about global cities here. For this title, all other cities are peers. This is not public transportaion options PER CAPITA. You have one guy in the city and he can take the one line of bus. Good for him. But if somebody else visits or transplants there (this is what global city means right?), he is doomed.

Originally Posted by BlackOut

When I think vibrant (or top) downtown areas, I think of workforce, number of residents, shopping options, dining, theaters, clubs, etc...
IMO, the top ten would be NYC, Chicago, San Fran., Boston Seattle D.C. Philadelphia, Portland, San Diego, and Minneapolis. Denver and Baltimore are also nice. Dallas, Miami and Cincinnati are fine. I don't agree with Milwaukee or St. Louis and as a former Charlotte resident I know downtown (uptown) Charlotte is not one of the nation's top downtown areas as there is next to nothing in terms of shopping.

As far as transit is concerned, the city of Minneapolis has a descent public transportation system. The Twin Cites area, on the other hand, is a different story. As far as rail transit is concerned, there are very few cities (~30 or so) with light rail and of those cities, how many are a peer city? There are several peer cities that don't have light rail or commuter rail as an option.