Tell me why I'll love MN!

[Aylalou]

Originally Posted by MplsTodd

I agree with your post, but I can't help but say that there is plenty of urban sprawl in the Twin Cities. As you enter the Twin Cities from virtually any freeway or major highway (but especially I-94 from the northwest and I-35 from the south), development sprawls along for mile after mile... The Twin Cities are unique in that the central cities are relatively compact and have a high quality of life -- due in large part to the high amenity value of living near the city lakes, the rivers or the creeks and the excellent network of parks and parkways. But outside the I-494/I-694 ringroad, we sprawl as much as any (and more than most) metro area

I still disagree after having driven through Chicago, New York, and San Francisco. For instance, from Saint Paul you can get to Wisconsin in 20 minutes. That, to me is not urban sprawl. Urban sprawl to me is large, long suburb after suburb to get to another state or the countryside. The Twin Cities is small in that regard. Heck I can be in Delano (small town) in 40 minutes. With the traffic in the other cities I mentioned it takes at LEAST an hour or an hour and and a half to get away from suburbs. I can get to Northfield in 40. These aren't suburbs. In the other cities, you're still in the 'burbs at 40 minutes.

[MplsTodd]

Originally Posted by Aylalou

I still disagree after having driven through Chicago, New York, and San Francisco. For instance, from Saint Paul you can get to Wisconsin in 20 minutes. That, to me is not urban sprawl. Urban sprawl to me is large, long suburb after suburb to get to another state or the countryside. The Twin Cities is small in that regard. Heck I can be in Delano (small town) in 40 minutes. With the traffic in the other cities I mentioned it takes at LEAST an hour or an hour and and a half to get away from suburbs. I can get to Northfield in 40. These aren't suburbs. In the other cities, you're still in the 'burbs at 40 minutes.

I see your point, and don't mean to belabor this, but shouldn't you consider the scale of the metro area.
I mean metro New York has about 18-20 million people, metro Chicago has over 10 million and San Fran/Oakland/San Jose is about 8 million? The Twin Cities are around 3.1 million. Completely different scale! If you pro rate distances based on populations you'd find that the Twin Cities have significant sprawl issues.

[roneb]

I think I tend to go along with MplsTodd here. As you drive from one side of the Twin Cities metro area to the other, you're traveling a long ways for the population comparitively speaking. The TC area does have the advantage that many of the towns contained in the suburban sprawl do retain more of their individual feel than in places like, say Houston (yuck!). But the suburban sprawl problem exists none the less. It's part of the US and its love affair with cars and big oversized homes. Even here in Portland, with our famous Urban Growth Boundary, you see that sprawl exists to some extent, once you realize that outlying communities like Gresham and Hillsboro are outside the UGB and not governed by it!

[knke0402]

As a professional in the Urban Planning trade, I can tell you that the Twin Cities faces some of the worst sprawl in the United States. For a place of its size, it sees too much sprawl, convenienly located along major Cooridors. WHy do you think places like St Michael, Lakeville, Farmington, Chaska, Forest Lake, Woodbury, Otsego grew so fast. Take all the development in these cities and plug them into open areas closer to teh centr cities and there would be nothing but farmland south of Burnsville, East of St Paul, NW of Maple Grove and North of Arden HIlls.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by knke0402

As a professional in the Urban Planning trade, I can tell you that the Twin Cities faces some of the worst sprawl in the United States. For a place of its size, it sees too much sprawl, convenienly located along major Cooridors. WHy do you think places like St Michael, Lakeville, Farmington, Chaska, Forest Lake, Woodbury, Otsego grew so fast. Take all the development in these cities and plug them into open areas closer to teh centr cities and there would be nothing but farmland south of Burnsville, East of St Paul, NW of Maple Grove and North of Arden HIlls.

Keep in mind that much of the metro area had to grow up around large rivers and lakes contributing to the 'sprawl. The distance from Eagan to Bloomington across the Cedar Ave bridge is one example.

[knke0402]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Keep in mind that much of the metro area had to grow up around large rivers and lakes contributing to the 'sprawl. The distance from Eagan to Bloomington across the Cedar Ave bridge is one example.

Good Point.


This is what I have noticed about places like Duluth. The city is huge (land-wise), but just because there are parts due to topography that cannot be developed. The city is 27 miles wide!

Same for San Diego. With the Hills, its hard to keep tight, compact dense development.