Minneapolis vs Chicago (Rochester, Bloomington, Burnsville: apartment, attorneys, house)

[pirate_lafitte]

Originally Posted by Aylalou

This post is my personal favorite because it describes exactly why I LOVE the Twin Cities - so much lush foliage and green (acres and acres and acres) right in the city.

My niece attends the Dodge Nature Center in West Saint Paul (preschool) It's situated in a very woodsy, rural part of West Saint Paul almost hidden by all the trees around it. Everyday they trek outdoors where they learn all about plants and animals. I picked her up from school last week just after they had gone berrypicking.

This is just one example of the lush natural beauty that is so very easy to come by here.

Many people I know that hear Mpls or St. Paul don't think about the amount of nature in the cities, actually, most people I know don't know that about the TC.

[kuan]

Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte

Many people I know that hear Mpls or St. Paul don't think about the amount of nature in the cities, actually, most people I know don't know that about the TC.

No kidding. I wonder why that is.

[pirate_lafitte]

Originally Posted by kuan

No kidding. I wonder why that is.

Most people I know have never been to Minnesota, let alone Minneapolis or St. Paul. Whenever people envision a city, what Mpls actually has is not what many people image. The image that comes to mind is NY or LA.

[cdubs3201]

Chicago has a lot nice parks and it actually has the largest park district in the world. Lincoln Park Zoo is really nice, and free. Montrose park is very big, Grant park and Millenium park is right downtown with really nice museums and art centers, Hyde park is really nice as well.

And of course my favorite thing to do on Saturdays....THE BEACH on lake michigan. Lots of sailboats out there on the lake on a sunny day almost makes you think you're in florida some days.

I feel like some people who are doing comparisons of two areas haven't really been to one of the other locations.

I've spent a long time in both areas. Parks and scenery are pretty even-steven in my eyes.

[BarbaraMN]

Originally Posted by cdubs3201

Chicago has a lot nice parks and it actually has the largest park district in the world. Lincoln Park Zoo is really nice, and free. Montrose park is very big, Grant park and Millenium park is right downtown with really nice museums and art centers, Hyde park is really nice as well.

The difference between Chicago and Minneapolis in terms of parks and open space is that in Chicago it's almost all along the lakeshore--not 'centralized' but pretty much in one strip. In Minneapolis, the open space, parks, lakes and creeks are throughout the city and there are mature trees almost everywhere making a more lush overall environment. Everyone here has open space or a park with 6 blocks--I spent a lot of time at the beech in Chicago too..but from my last home there I had to drive or take the El. Here it's right out my back door...just went for a 10-mile bike ride this morning and was on streets for maybe a total of 10 blocks. Gotta love it!

[cdubs3201]

Originally Posted by BarbaraMN

The difference between Chicago and Minneapolis in terms of parks and open space is that in Chicago it's almost all along the lakeshore--not 'centralized' but pretty much in one strip. In Minneapolis, the open space, parks, lakes and creeks are throughout the city and there are mature trees almost everywhere making a more lush overall environment. Everyone here has open space or a park with 6 blocks--I spent a lot of time at the beech in Chicago too..but from my last home there I had to drive or take the El. Here it's right out my back door...just went for a 10-mile bike ride this morning and was on streets for maybe a total of 10 blocks. Gotta love it!

I walk 2 blocks to the beach. 1 block to the park. You kind of make the "strip" to sound small.

The strip a long the lake is no small area by any means. Chicago is a huge city, you can fit the entire twin cities metro area inside the city limits of Chicago. Most people who enjoy the outdoors or activities are living near downtown or along the lake. If you live on the west side you're gangbanger or a bum. If you do have to take the Train or Bus, it's 10 minutes.

[BarbaraMN]

Originally Posted by cdubs3201

I walk 2 blocks to the beach. 1 block to the park. You kind of make the "strip" to sound small.

The strip a long the lake is no small area by any means. Chicago is a huge city, you can fit the entire twin cities metro area inside the city limits of Chicago. Most people who enjoy the outdoors or activities are living near downtown or along the lake. If you live on the west side you're gangbanger or a bum. If you do have to take the Train or Bus, it's 10 minutes.

The park area in Chicago is a ton of acreage--it's not small at all. What I am saying is that natural areas aren't as readily accessible as they are in Minneapolis where they are integrated into the entire city.

I lived in East Village (now referred to as South Bucktown in real estate ads--which I think is pretty funny) and I can assure you I am not a gangbanger. It didn't take long to get to the beach or other parks in Chicago, but it wasn't steps from my front door. Even when I lived on Printer's Row, it still took some time to get to the park. When I lived at Belmont and Lakeshore I was obviously pretty close to the beach.

I love Chicago and it has tons going for it--the parks being one of them. When I moved to Minneapolis I was very pleasantly surprised by how lush it is within the city limits. I had a wild turkey in my yard a few weeks ago and a heron there this morning--that just wouldn't happen in Chicago. They are vastly different cities and one isn't inherently better than the other--but they are different when it comes to park (again, one isn't better, they're just different).

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by cdubs3201

The strip a long the lake is no small area by any means. Chicago is a huge city, you can fit the entire twin cities metro area inside the city limits of Chicago.

Populationwise, that's almost true. The population of the Twin Cities metro is only 3.5 million, while the City of Chicago is 2.8 million or so all by itself.

Areawise, though, it's not even close. The City of Chicago is roughly 237 square miles, while the Twin Cities MSA is 6,300 square miles. That's roughly 26 times larger than the city limits of Chicago.

To put things in perspective, the Twin Cities is roughly 2/3 the size of the Chicago metro in total size (6,364 sq miles versus 10,874 sq miles). For further comparison, the Atlanta metro is 5.3 million and 8,376 square miles, which puts it in between the two by both measures.

Chicago is certainly a large city, and it does dominate the midwest, but it's not THAT large...

[cdubs3201]

Originally Posted by Clifford63

Maybe it makes sense to look at what the poster has for a situation more than your specifics. It was expressed that they are considering Northbrook and they currently have two children. I highly doubt anybody in that situation is looking at entry level jobs or car free living.

Cars are expensive - this is true. 2K a year for insurance. I am paying $900 a year for two cars. I am mid forties with 20 years of engineering experiance, so that probably explains a lot of difference in perspective.

My step son has been in Minneapolis for 8 years. He has never had a drivers license or a car. He works, goes to school full time and gets by fine. He could not do that so easy in the burbs, but people can get by without a vehicle if they want to do that in MN. Probably more people do that in Chicago though.

15% higher cost of living is probably fair if you look at some reference material and more general circumstances than your own. Some jobs will pay more in chicago, some will not. Depends on the individual siutation.

It was an example for me to prove that cost of living is all relative, it's not the same for each person, so it's not fair to say necessarily that the cost of living is higher in one place than another.

Second, of the hundreds, maybe 1,000 people I know in Minneapolis and the Twin Cities, every single one of them owns a vehicle. I've never heard of anyone getting by there without one. But we obviously know different people.

[cdubs3201]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

Populationwise, that's almost true. The population of the Twin Cities metro is only 3.5 million, while the City of Chicago is 2.8 million or so all by itself.

Areawise, though, it's not even close. The City of Chicago is roughly 237 square miles, while the Twin Cities MSA is 6,300 square miles. That's roughly 26 times larger than the city limits of Chicago.

To put things in perspective, the Twin Cities is roughly 2/3 the size of the Chicago metro in total size (6,364 sq miles versus 10,874 sq miles). For further comparison, the Atlanta metro is 5.3 million and 8,376 square miles, which puts it in between the two by both measures.

Chicago is certainly a large city, and it does dominate the midwest, but it's not THAT large...

If you are including areas like Hastings, St. Cloud, and maybe even Rochester, then yeah, the twin cities metro is bigger than Chicago, but I was only factoring in what people consider 1st ring suburbs (real suburbs in my eyes).

If you go that route, you could include Chicagolands population of over 10 million.