Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Minneapolis is my favorite city in the midwest and the only city in the midwest I would ever live in. Minnesota likewise is my favorite midwestern state and the only state I would ever live in the midwest, pretty, elegant, lush, and liberal. Unfortunately Detroit would still be the second city of the midwest, its a shame Minneapolis is a smaller than Chicago or Detroit because its much nicer, richer, safer, educated than those two.
My respects are for places where the QOL are superior and where dodging a bullet isn't a daily routine. Minneapolis delivers the midwest a great city. Always loved Minneapolis and its on my short 10 list of where I would live.
I love the twin cities, but I think you may be putting them on too high of a pedestal...I mean, dodging a bullet being a daily routine in Chicago and Detroit?! I can't speak for Detroit, but last time I visited Chicago it wasn't entirely covered by some sort of bombed-out ghetto...Also, I love Minnesota, but not all of MN is pretty, liberal or lush. In my opinion, I think Michigan is the prettiest state in the midwest.
Personally, I think the twin cities are lucky that they are relatively small. If the metro area were a lot bigger than it is, I imagine it wouldn't be able to maintain that "nicer, richer, safer, [more] educated" status.
Oh no, not this again. Don't you guys think it's time to give up on this topic. How many of these "Minneapolis vs Detroit" or "Best city in the midwest behind Chicago" threads are we going to have?
By the way, I'll admit that I was being an A-hole the last time I weighed in on this topic (on a different thread). I was envious of the Twin Cities, and I felt bitter that the Twin Cities were better than the major city in my home state (which would be Detroit). Actually, over the Summer, I went back to Michigan for the first time in years. I initially spent some time in Detroit before heading to Ann Arbor (I'm actually from Ann Arbor, born and raised). After hanging out and really exploring downtown Detroit and even Midtown, I have to concede with Minneapolis (and St. Paul) as being the 2nd best city in the mid-west. In that last debate, I was basing my argument on fairly distant memories I had of Detroit from 5 or 6 years ago, before I had began moving around the country and experiencing many different major cities. I guess the lack of familiarity with many of other big cities, is what made Detroit seem way more impressive than it actually was. After my recent visit, there were some things about downtown Detroit that did impress me (the theaters, the sports stadiums, Greek Town, the casinos, the river walk, the ambassador bridge), but there were many many things which indicated that Detroit is still very much a work in progress. I am a Michigan native, I do take pride in my state just like you Minnesotans take pride in your state, that's human nature. I also take pride and support the anchor city of my state (which is Detroit), just like I'm sure most Minnesotans support their anchor cities (Minneapolis and St. Paul). With all that, I'm still going to root for and support Detroit and Michigan all the way, even though I may not live there right now (I decided to head back to the Twin Cities), but I will be honest and say that Minneapolis and St. Paul, at this moment, are simply better than the city of Detroit. Now, metro to metro, it's a different story, and I think things, at the very least, tend to even out when looking at the overall metropolitan areas of the two cities. I did make it back up to Oakland couty, MI (where I finished college at), and it's really nice up there.
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,872,410 times
Reputation: 2501
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogead
As for Detroit and Minneapolis (My two favorite Midwestern cities), the two are close enough to make a legitimate argument for either. I'll be diplomatic and say they're tied. However, few would be likely to disagree that Detroit is in decline and Minneapolis is ascending. I don't know if they've passed each other yet, but they are in clear sight of one another.
Spin it another way:
Let's say Minneapolis-St. Paul was in DECLINE like Detroit was/is and Detroit was PROGRESSING like MSP currently is.....same population as both are now, respectively.....would the answer be the same? If not, then you have to consider Detroit #2 until you can say "yes".
That's my logic for Detroit maintaining its #2 status, and it has nothing to do with my personal preference at all, because it's Minneapolis then -- it's because it's easy to underestimate a down-trotten city and overestimate a city that has it "made in the shade".
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,872,410 times
Reputation: 2501
Quote:
Originally Posted by JmanAA
Oh no, not this again. Don't you guys think it's time to give up on this topic. How many of these "Minneapolis vs Detroit" or "Best city in the midwest behind Chicago" threads are we going to have?
By the way, I'll admit that I was being an A-hole the last time I weighed in on this topic (on a different thread). I was envious of the Twin Cities, and I felt bitter that the Twin Cities were better than the major city in my home state (which would be Detroit). Actually, over the Summer, I went back to Michigan for the first time in years. I initially spent some time in Detroit before heading to Ann Arbor (I'm actually from Ann Arbor, born and raised). After hanging out and really exploring downtown Detroit and even Midtown, I have to concede with Minneapolis (and St. Paul) as being the 2nd best city in the mid-west. In that last debate, I was basing my argument on fairly distant memories I had of Detroit from 5 or 6 years ago, before I had began moving around the country and experiencing many different major cities. I guess the lack of familiarity with many of other big cities, is what made Detroit seem way more impressive than it actually was. After my recent visit, there were some things about downtown Detroit that did impress me (the theaters, the sports stadiums, Greek Town, the casinos, the river walk, the ambassador bridge), but there were many many things which indicated that Detroit is still very much a work in progress. I am a Michigan native, I do take pride in my state just like you Minnesotans take pride in your state, that's human nature. I also take pride and support the anchor city of my state (which is Detroit), just like I'm sure most Minnesotans support their anchor cities (Minneapolis and St. Paul). With all that, I'm still going to root for and support Detroit and Michigan all the way, even though I may not live there right now (I decided to head back to the Twin Cities), but I will be honest and say that Minneapolis and St. Paul, at this moment, are simply better than the city of Detroit. Now, metro to metro, it's a different story, and I think things, at the very least, tend to even out when looking at the overall metropolitan areas of the two cities. I did make it back up to Oakland couty, MI (where I finished college at), and it's really nice up there.
I can't tell if you are schizophrenic or just this noble, but I'll err on the side of the latter.....+1 for manning up!
Let's say Minneapolis-St. Paul was in DECLINE like Detroit was/is and Detroit was PROGRESSING like MSP currently is.....same population as both are now, respectively.....would the answer be the same? If not, then you have to consider Detroit #2 until you can say "yes".
That's my logic for Detroit maintaining its #2 status, and it has nothing to do with my personal preference at all, because it's Minneapolis then -- it's because it's easy to underestimate a down-trotten city and overestimate a city that has it "made in the shade".
I'm not sure I understand the continuity of your question, but I'll address what I think you're asking this way:
Imagine the two cities plotted-out on a scale of 0-100, with the higher number representing a greater level of regional importance. When the auto industry was healthy, perhaps Detroit would have been at an "85", and Minneapolis at a "60". As Detroit's manufacturing industry entered economic decline, that "85" began to fall, as a result of unemployment, poverty, crime, and urban blight. In the meantime, Minneapolis' "60" began moving upward, as a result of lower unemployment, a more diversified economy, and a higher level of basic public services (schools, police, fire, sanitation, etc.).
The historical answer to the MSP v. DET debate is clearly Detroit. Therefore if Detroit was ascending(from 85) and Minneapolis was declining (from 60), then Detroit would move farther away from Minneapolis in it's regional role. In which case, Detroit would be the increasingly obvious "winner".
My point is that I simply don't know whether the combination of Detroit's decline and Minneapolis' rise has caused a change dramatic enough to realign the two cities on that 0-100 scale. You may very well be right in choosing Detroit, my argument is that the two cities are so close at this stage as to provide no clear advantage to one over the other.
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,872,410 times
Reputation: 2501
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogead
I'm not sure I understand the continuity of your question, but I'll address what I think you're asking this way:
Imagine the two cities plotted-out on a scale of 0-100, with the higher number representing a greater level of regional importance. When the auto industry was healthy, perhaps Detroit would have been at an "85", and Minneapolis at a "60". As Detroit's manufacturing industry entered economic decline, that "85" began to fall, as a result of unemployment, poverty, crime, and urban blight. In the meantime, Minneapolis' "60" began moving upward, as a result of lower unemployment, a more diversified economy, and a higher level of basic public services (schools, police, fire, sanitation, etc.).
The historical answer to the MSP v. DET debate is clearly Detroit. Therefore if Detroit was ascending(from 85) and Minneapolis was declining (from 60), then Detroit would move farther away from Minneapolis in it's regional role. In which case, Detroit would be the increasingly obvious "winner".
My point is that I simply don't know whether the combination of Detroit's decline and Minneapolis' rise has caused a change dramatic enough to realign the two cities on that 0-100 scale. You may very well be right in choosing Detroit, my argument is that the two cities are so close at this stage as to provide no clear advantage to one over the other.
I'm saying, if you give a 4.5-5.0 million pop. city a booming economy and a good national spotlight, and a 3.3-3.5 million pop. city a decaying, decrepid economy with a TERRIBLE national spotlight, would MSP still be even possibly considered better than Detroit -- all other things considered equal (like museums, density, schools, etc.)? And I don't think so. If you simply change their "image" or "momentum", the answer would be different, I think.
I also don't think your answer is wrong (it's probably the best/easiest answer), I just think the tie-breaker should go to Detroit until the lead is more substantial, simply because of its size, history, importance, etc.
P.S. I am born/raised in Minneapolis and plan to move back there when possible. I have no reason NOT to give the city its due props.
Detroit is still the 2nd city of the Midwest. Detroit still carries more regional pull and when you look at the broader economic pull of the CSA Detroit is still on top of Minneapolis. That is not to diminish tjr recent growth and prosperit of the Twin cities but I say the number two city in the Midwest is still Detroit. Maybe next decade the Twin Cities.
Detroit is a larger metro area than MSP. Feels bigger too, especially when you are driving from the city and the development is still very dense into Oakland County.
Although honestly, The eastern midwest (great lakes states) and the western midwest (almost great plains) are sort of two different animals.
Minneapolis has a different history and vibe all together, and feels more like Seattle or Denver without mountains.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
