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.
No, but they have similar GDPs metro-wide, which is true. But GDP per capita, crime rate per capita, parks per capita, museums per capita, etc. would all favor the TC's. But then again, the TC's aren't at their historical trough like Detroit is, so it's not exactly fair to compare a city like Detroit that has been beaten mercillously to the ground to a city like Minneapolis that has been growing at a steady clip for more than a century in one moment in time. I'd prefer to compare two cities at their respective peaks: or Detroit in the 40's to Minneapolis in the 50's maybe. That'd be fairer, and very interesting, and I think Detroit would be a very obvious #2 in that case.
I'd be interested to see those metrics. At the very least, museums per capita because there's quite a few museums around Metro Detroit.
And this map only includes the "historical small towns" though I'm pretty sure there's a lot more around often related to the history of various suburbs. Not that they're world-class museums or anything, but they still count.
you can argue that The CMA and The MIA cancel out one another
You can argue that, but you'd be wrong. CMA has an endowment over 4 times as large as MIA, and much more prestigious and famous works. It recently completed a $400 million expansion and renovation, and is comparable only to the best art museums in the country, such as the Met and Philadelphia Museum of Art.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogead
Guthrie Theater anchors a theater scene which is unsurpassed by any city other than NY and CHI
Ha! That's laughable (and speaks to the parochialism of Minnesotans). The Guthrie is an interesting building, but the plays there are no better than the plays in Cleveland. We have the 2nd largest performing arts complex in the country (Playhouse Square), and bring in a regular schedule of Broadway plays, many of which go to few cities besides Cleveland, along with numerous high quality local productions, and off-broadway traveling shows. The Guthrie has 3 theaters and 2,000 seats. Playhouse Square has 8 theaters and over 10,000 seats.
I might give you that MSP has more small theaters and small ensembles, and you probably beat us in dance, but we beat you in most of the big league categories.
I'm not sure of the context in which you're using the word "culture". If you mean fine arts, Cleveland is strong, but not on a par with Minneapolis. All you need to do is break down the fine arts organizations in the two metros. Minneapolis has a great orchestra (lockout status aside), but the advantage, comparing just these two ensembles, goes to Cleveland. The Cleveland Orchestra came to world prominence in the 1960s and has been there ever since. However, MSP also has the country's only full time professional chamber orchestra. MSP also has more prominent smaller-scaled ensembles than does Cleveland. In art museums, you can argue that The CMA and The MIA cancel out one another; but Cleveland has nothing to compare to The Walker Art Center, which is one of the most important modern art museums in the world. The Guthrie Theater anchors a theater scene which is unsurpassed by any city other than NY and CHI. Cleveland simply isn't in that conversation. It is the same story for dance ensembles and choral ensembles. So if fine arts is what is meant by culture, then CLE is a distant third in The Midwest behind CHI and MSP. If "culture" is being defined in a broader context, then the whole issue becomes highly-subjective.
This whole discussion is centering around what most anyone would consider to be the five most prominent cities in The Midwest. Chicago is largely out of the picture since no one is making a claim that it is anything other than number one.
This leaves Minneapolis, Detroit, Cleveland, and St Louis. Of these four cities; Detroit, Cleveland, and St Louis, have all declined in national prominence since the era of WWII. Minneapolis has increased in prominence over the last seventy years.
I think the difference in votes (between MSP and DET) is probably a bit inaccurate since Detroit receives so much negative publicity. However, it seems to be the strong impression of those participating in the voting that MSP has jumped DET for that second place spot. Putting hometown loyalties aside, I can't imagine anyone arguing against the statement these three cities (CHI, MSP, DET--regardless of which is second and which is third) are the top three in The Midwest. This leaves Cleveland and St Louis to fight it out for the fourth spot.
I would agree Cleveland as the fourth best Midwest metro would be more realistic (or maybe tie for 4th with St. Louis at worst).
You can argue that, but you'd be wrong. CMA has an endowment over 4 times as large as MIA, and much more prestigious and famous works. It recently completed a $400 million expansion and renovation, and is comparable only to the best art museums in the country, such as the Met and Philadelphia Museum of Art.
Ha! That's laughable (and speaks to the parochialism of Minnesotans). The Guthrie is an interesting building, but the plays there are no better than the plays in Cleveland. We have the 2nd largest performing arts complex in the country (Playhouse Square), and bring in a regular schedule of Broadway plays, many of which go to few cities besides Cleveland, along with numerous high quality local productions, and off-broadway traveling shows. The Guthrie has 3 theaters and 2,000 seats. Playhouse Square has 8 theaters and over 10,000 seats.
I might give you that MSP has more small theaters and small ensembles, and you probably beat us in dance, but we beat you in most of the big league categories.
I won't bother you with links or logic or lists, since they are seldom enough to overcome hometown hubris. The relative reputations of theses two cities in regards to cultural amenities are well represented to anyone who is dispassionately researching them.
I would point out that there are two cities in the country, each of which has had at least three different theaters which have won Regional Tony Awards. Those two cities are Chicago and Minneapolis. Number of times a Cleveland theater has won=0 (although Cincinnati's Playhouse in the Park has won one).
Cleveland's a great city, and its cultural institutions are often overlooked; but civic pride should always be tempered with objective reality.
I won't bother you with links or logic or lists, since they are seldom enough to overcome hometown hubris. The relative reputations of theses two cities in regards to cultural amenities are well represented to anyone who is dispassionately researching them.
I would point out that there are two cities in the country, each of which has had at least three different theaters which have won Regional Tony Awards. Those two cities are Chicago and Minneapolis. Number of times a Cleveland theater has won=0 (although Cincinnati's Playhouse in the Park has won one).
Cleveland's a great city, and its cultural institutions are often overlooked; but civic pride should always be tempered with objective reality.
Objective reality? What's more objective than facts and figures, like I gave you. Cleveland's Museum of Art, and Theater district are objectively superior to Minneapolis's. End of conversation. So is our orchestra, our rail transit, and our dining scene.
Minnesotans are far too often parochial, and believe that their state is the best thing since sliced bread, when if you're not into folksy things like Garrison Keillor, tater tot hot dish, and weekend retreats to a cabin by a mosquito infested lake (such as Leech Lake, no joke, that's a real place people "vacation to"), it's really not a very interesting or attractive place.
Last edited by Cleverfield; 12-11-2013 at 05:42 PM..
Cleveland does not feel like a city of 2 million....it feels very much like a city of 3 million, and feels about as large as St. Louis or Minneapolis (but Minny is starting to feel much larger nowadays). Cleveland has the feel and the architecture of a city 2-5 times its size, and that's probably because at one point it WAS a top 5 U.S. city!
I would could easily say the same about St. Louis.
Objective reality? What's more objective than facts and figures, like I gave you. Cleveland's Museum of Art, and Theater district are objectively superior to Minneapolis's. End of conversation. So is our orchestra, our rail transit, and our dining scene.
Minnesotans are far too often parochial, and believe that their state is the best thing since sliced bread, when if you're not into folksy things like Garrison Keillor, tater tot hot dish, and weekend retreats to a cabin by a mosquito infested lake (such as Leech Lake, no joke, that's a real place people "vacation to"), it's really not a very interesting or attractive place.
You are so severely misinformed it is hopeless to think you will ever grow out of it. We think our state is the best thing since sliced bread? You speak of Cleveland as if it is Paris or New York. And judging by your meaningless stereotypes about Minnesota, you clearly know absolutely nothing about the state.
You can't just place the word objective in front of something in order to make it a fact. All you proved was that Cleveland has a Museum of Art. In no way did you factually prove that it is superior. What you showed was your opinion, which is completely subjective. In no way did you prove that it's theater district was superior. All you proved was that it had one, and then said it was superior without proving anything. Your orchestra is superior, but that aside you still didn't prove anything. Your rail transit has less riders and wastes more money. How is that superior? Yet again, though, you proved nothing. I brought out the facts. you didn't. You also proved nothing about the dining scene. You only said that you like it better and you have good chefs (who knows if that is even true?). you haven't made any good arguments at all. You haven't even looked up what Minneapolis has in comparison to Cleveland. You simply look up Cleveland and then assume whatever Cleveland has is better than what Minneapolis has. Yet you act as if your misinformed opinion is the ultimate truth, and every else should accept that and end the conversation.
That is as bad as it is, but afterwards, to your own extreme disadvantage, you prove one thing. You prove the little amount of anything you know about Minnesota, and the great extent to which your mind is filled with stereotypes that aren't true and don't even apply to this conversation. Your points follow no logical sequence, and are completely baseless and meaningless. Unfortunately, you ended your already terrible first paragraph with a paragraph that makes you look, well... stupid.
BC and BP's crime rates are much higher than the US average, but nobody is (or should be) comparing them to East Cleveland or Gary. This whole "MN is white and lilly" nonsense seriously needs to stop at some point....it's making some of you sound very very naive! I live in Shaker Heights, OH, which is next to Warrensville and East Cleveland -- both nearly 100% black and poor suburbs and both have a lot of notoriety around these parts -- and neither city is leaps and bounds more dangerous than Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn Center, or Minneapolis and St. Paul. They may LOOK scarier, but they're not that different crime-wise.
If Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park were added to Minneapolis, the crime rate would also not jump a large amount, as stated. They were talked about as if they are dangerous enough to make the crime rate in Minneapolis equivalent to crime rates in larger (land wise) cities with more dangerous neighborhoods. The cities aren't extremely dangerous, as commonly believed throughout the state and metro. They have a violent crime rate above the national average, but they are nothing compared to the dangerous suburbs and neighborhoods in other U.S. cities. They are, by many standards, normal suburbs with somewhat of a crime problem caused by the proximity to Minneapolis. These are not dangerous cities where you shouldn't walk outside at night and have to have bars on your windows. They are mildly dangerous but mostly safe suburbs, and Minneapolis is a mildly dangerous but mostly safe city. Combined, the three cities would not suddenly jump to have crime on the level of Chicago, St. Louis, or Detroit. That simply would not happen.
Race wise, I never have said that "Minnesota is white and lilly." Trust me, I am acquainted with BC and BP. I grew up around there, and I went to school with kids from there. I am well aware of the racial makeup of the two cities. I have spent a lot of time there, and it hasn't been an extremely long time since then, either.
We were discussing crime, not race. I think the bigger problem is why high black population always seems to be made synonymous with high crime. As if the fact that there are black people in the city means that the city will have high crime. I never even mentioned race, but you assumed that because I said that the cities weren't that dangerous that I also meant that they weren't very black.
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.
