Minneapolis vs. St. Paul: which one do you prefer? (Duluth: college, living in)

[knke0204]

How do I have to explain that living with 2,654 people per sq mile as disgusting? I don't like being crammed around people. People produce waste, cause congestion and stress, and promote pollution. That to me is disgusting. Generally speaking, the more people there are that usually means more crime and other 'pests' to society. It's just a numbers game. In my honest opinion, the amount of people in CA is disgusting. I have been to SD County, LA county and orange county and the amount of people is just crazy coming from a mid-sized midwestern metropolis.

Well, I know you didn't argue land area, but the land area you are talking about doesn't really do your argument any justice.
Your reference is LA County, which DOESN'T include parts of Orange County, which I would argue are part of the LA 'area'. That also DOESN'T include Riverside and San Bernardino counties, which are also have parts of the LA 'area'. So, I guess if you include the 'LA' area, you would add the areas of LA, Orange, Riverside, and San Berardino counties, but that's just me. Palm Springs is in Riverside, and I would consider Palm Springs 'the LA area'. Now compare that to the 'Twin Cities area'. I would HARDLY consider anything south of Lakeville as being 'Metro'. I also would hardly consider Carver and Scott Counties as 'metro' either. The true 'Metro' counties in terms of sprawl and density are Hennepin, Ramsey, Washington (maaaybe) and Anoka.

Maybe you should experience places before you act like you know all about them. For all I know you do live in LA. But, from what it sounds, is that you aren't taking into consideration parts of Southern California into the 'LA' equation. Taking the drive from a densly populated San Diego to parts of West LA is about the same drive from Twin Cities to Duluth but there is hardly any 'middle of nowhere'-ness that you see in the MPLS to Duluth drive. The cities just keep coming, and keep stretching. And so, that's pretty much a continuation of sprawl for over 150 miles, which you just DO NOT SEE in the Midwest, unless it's from MKE to CHI and that doesn't even compare.

Again, I'm not 'putting down' or 'saying CA is worse than MN', I'm saying that the amount of people there just disgusts me.

Now, I'm to the point where I don't even know what I'm arguing. Sprawl is bad. And Sun Belt cities are a perfect example of why.

[northstar22]

How did this thread turn from "Minneapolis vs. St. Paul" to "Twin Cities vs. California?!?!"

[ColdRedRain]

How did this thread turn from "Minneapolis vs. St. Paul" to "Twin Cities vs. California?!?!"

I happened to make a passing reference to the TC being somewhat like the Bay Area in terms of how both areas are multipolar metro areas.

[Radical_Car]

I think this thread is finished and should be locked

Originally Posted by knke0204

Again, I'm not 'putting down' or 'saying CA is worse than MN', I'm saying that the amount of people there just disgusts me.

What about Japan?

California is 163,696 square miles and has 36,961,664 according to Wikipedia which has that listed as a 2009 estimate

Japan is 145,925 square miles, slightly smaller, AND it has a WHOPPING 127,380,000 people according to Wikipedia which has that listed as a 2010 estimate.

Japans density is 873.1/sq mi versus California's 234.4/sq mi

Makes California seem empty

[uptown_urbanist]

It doesn't need to be locked, but let's try to get back to focusing on local issues, please.

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by ColdRedRain

I happened to make a passing reference to the TC being somewhat like the Bay Area in terms of how both areas are multipolar metro areas.

Which I still think is a valid comparison in terms of culture. I've been to the Bay Area once. San Francisco is the more urban, hipper of the two cities. Like Minneapolis.

Oakland is just...I don't know, what is it? It's like St Paul. I saw downtown Oakland from the freeway. There was no reason to go there. Nobody ever says, "Let's go to Oakland!" They say, "Let's go to San Fran!"

[knke0204]

Originally Posted by Radical_Car

I think this thread is finished and should be locked


What about Japan?

California is 163,696 square miles and has 36,961,664 according to Wikipedia which has that listed as a 2009 estimate

Japan is 145,925 square miles, slightly smaller, AND it has a WHOPPING 127,380,000 people according to Wikipedia which has that listed as a 2010 estimate.

Japans density is 873.1/sq mi versus California's 234.4/sq mi

Makes California seem empty

Wow, that is incredible.


Back to topic, MPLS vs STP, I think it's kind of unique how Minneapolis seems to be home to the area's musicians, and St. Paul seems to be home to the athletes.

Mpls-
Prince
Replacements
Husker Du
Motion City Soundtrack
Atmosphere
Brother Ali
POS
Soul Asylum
Semisonic

St. Paul-
Joe Mauer
Paul Molitor
Dave Winfield
Matt Birk
Steve Walsh
Chris Weinke
Ryan Harris

[knke0204]

Originally Posted by Globe199

Which I still think is a valid comparison in terms of culture. I've been to the Bay Area once. San Francisco is the more urban, hipper of the two cities. Like Minneapolis.

Oakland is just...I don't know, what is it? It's like St Paul. I saw downtown Oakland from the freeway. There was no reason to go there. Nobody ever says, "Let's go to Oakland!" They say, "Let's go to San Fran!"

What about San Jose, did you check out that city?

I've never been there.

[Globe199]

I did not go to San Jose. What's there? My impression is that it's a bunch of corporate campuses.

[northstar22]

If we must compare the Twin Cities to the Bay Area:

Mpls = San Francisco
St. Paul = Oakland
San Jose = Bloomington