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.
The one that gets me is the "more shoreline than Florida, California, Hawaii combined", which I've heard spouted as a point of pride by many a Minnesotan. Okay, first of all, that statistic is so misleading, because it includes every podunk little pond in the state. Secondly I don't really think you can compare the shoreline around a pond/small lake, that's mosquito infested half the year and frozen the other half, to the ocean shorelines of Hawaii or California. Sorry.
It's supposed to be an interesting fact, not a reason it's better.
Minnesota has well over 10,000 lakes of more than 10 acres in size (about 7 football fields).
What is actually happening in this thread is people are defining "Midwest" as "Rust Belt." Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis, and Cincinnati are all part of the Rust Belt. Sooooooooooooooooooooo many people just assume that the Midwest is made up of exactly two parts: the Rust Belt and the Christian Right. Meaning cities that don't fit either, like Minneapolis, Kansas City, Omaha, Iowa City, Des Moines, and Madison, are routinely excluded from every conversation about the region. The reason you think of St. Louis and Cleveland before Minneapolis isn't because those cities are better, it's because people talk about them more.
And ONCE AGAIN we see the stunning lack of awareness in the rest of the country of the actual cultural, economic, and demographic weight of Minneapolis. Would any of you who are protesting have any issue comparing Detroit and Seattle? Seattle and Minneapolis are virtually the same city in nearly every figure (MSA, CSA, GDP, demographics, recreation, culture, music, even similar skylines), yet I doubt very much that any of you would argue that Detroit is just naturally oh so much better than Seattle because it just is, that's all.
Minnesota has well over 10,000 lakes of more than 10 acres in size (about 7 football fields).
What is actually happening in this thread is people are defining "Midwest" as "Rust Belt." Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis, and Cincinnati are all part of the Rust Belt. Sooooooooooooooooooooo many people just assume that the Midwest is made up of exactly two parts: the Rust Belt and the Christian Right. Meaning cities that don't fit either, like Minneapolis, Kansas City, Omaha, Iowa City, Des Moines, and Madison, are routinely excluded from every conversation about the region. The reason you think of St. Louis and Cleveland before Minneapolis isn't because those cities are better, it's because people talk about them more.
And ONCE AGAIN we see the stunning lack of awareness in the rest of the country of the actual cultural, economic, and demographic weight of Minneapolis. Would any of you who are protesting have any issue comparing Detroit and Seattle? Seattle and Minneapolis are virtually the same city in nearly every figure (MSA, CSA, GDP, demographics, recreation, culture, music, even similar skylines), yet I doubt very much that any of you would argue that Detroit is just naturally oh so much better than Seattle because it just is, that's all.
Having lived in some of these other Midwestern cities it doesn't shock me one bit that people seem to have no bearing about places beyond the micro-region, but particularly west of Chicago. The response that I get from others about Minneapolis is usually blank stares . Maybe that's because there are locational advantages to being in the eastern half of the Midwest -- being around so many other cities, there is little reason to venture outside of your zone?
Minnesota has well over 10,000 lakes of more than 10 acres in size (about 7 football fields).
What is actually happening in this thread is people are defining "Midwest" as "Rust Belt." Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis, and Cincinnati are all part of the Rust Belt. Sooooooooooooooooooooo many people just assume that the Midwest is made up of exactly two parts: the Rust Belt and the Christian Right. Meaning cities that don't fit either, like Minneapolis, Kansas City, Omaha, Iowa City, Des Moines, and Madison, are routinely excluded from every conversation about the region. The reason you think of St. Louis and Cleveland before Minneapolis isn't because those cities are better, it's because people talk about them more.
And ONCE AGAIN we see the stunning lack of awareness in the rest of the country of the actual cultural, economic, and demographic weight of Minneapolis. Would any of you who are protesting have any issue comparing Detroit and Seattle? Seattle and Minneapolis are virtually the same city in nearly every figure (MSA, CSA, GDP, demographics, recreation, culture, music, even similar skylines), yet I doubt very much that any of you would argue that Detroit is just naturally oh so much better than Seattle because it just is, that's all.
I kind of see what you're saying, but then at the same time you're coming across as a bit guilty of the same thing you are criticizing. I definitely agree that people from other regions, especially coastal areas, are often very ignorant of the twin cities and really underrate them, but... I tend to find this to be overwhelmingly true about the Midwest in general (we even have a mountain of threads on "where is the Midwest???")... I mean you mentioned St. Louis (in particular) and Cleveland, talk about misunderstood! I don't agree that they're necessarily talked about more and your "Rust Belt or forgotten" mold while an interesting idea it kind of losses a lot of steam in the sense that it seems to imply rust belt cities are all the same to you which definitely isn't the case.
Minnesota has well over 10,000 lakes of more than 10 acres in size (about 7 football fields).
What is actually happening in this thread is people are defining "Midwest" as "Rust Belt." Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis, and Cincinnati are all part of the Rust Belt. Sooooooooooooooooooooo many people just assume that the Midwest is made up of exactly two parts: the Rust Belt and the Christian Right. Meaning cities that don't fit either, like Minneapolis, Kansas City, Omaha, Iowa City, Des Moines, and Madison, are routinely excluded from every conversation about the region. The reason you think of St. Louis and Cleveland before Minneapolis isn't because those cities are better, it's because people talk about them more.
And ONCE AGAIN we see the stunning lack of awareness in the rest of the country of the actual cultural, economic, and demographic weight of Minneapolis. Would any of you who are protesting have any issue comparing Detroit and Seattle? Seattle and Minneapolis are virtually the same city in nearly every figure (MSA, CSA, GDP, demographics, recreation, culture, music, even similar skylines), yet I doubt very much that any of you would argue that Detroit is just naturally oh so much better than Seattle because it just is, that's all.
Btw, protesting??? There have been threads on Detroit vs. Seattle, Twin Cities vs. Seattle, Cincy vs. Seattle, Cleveland vs. Seattle, every random place vs. every other random place etc. etc. etc. on here... Seattle is one of the posterchild cities on here, but comparisons have been made between almost every city imaginable with every other city... Furthermore, I haven't been keeping up with the thread lately, but uh, have you noticed that the Twin Cities is winning???
I'm talking about the most recent discussion of the issue. The last several pages of this forum have included a lotttt of people saying silly things about Minneapolis that just aren't based in any kind of fact.
Totally totally agree that many of those Rust Belt cities are way underrated, especially St. Louis, but I'm talking more about notoriety here. People are generally at least aware that St. Louis and Cleveland are big cities, but Minneapolis routinely gets people who literally think it's a small town. Minneapolis was excluded from that bikeability survey from walkscore.com just because the city limit population is under 500k. A band I like recently did a poll asking where people would like to see them come, including cities ranging in size from Omaha and Albuquerque on up to New York. They accidentally left Minneapolis off the list, and when people protested, many of the comments said things like "well it's just not a very big city, so you can't be upset if they don't go there." People honestly do not even realize Minneapolis exists, and even those who do tend to think of it as an unlivable tundra.
Yet remarkably the Twin Cities are leading the region in black/African American population growth, by percentage AND raw numbers. The people moving in are from Chicago, Gary, Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis and Milwaukee, primarily.
You are right about one thing: the atmosphere in the black community is different, and it's nothing like Cleveland or St. Louis (which I actually think isn't such a bad thing, but who am I to judge?).
For one, blacks are not moving to the Twin Cities in droves. Blacks from the Midwest that leave are moving to Atlanta, Texas, the Carolinas etc. Of course, the Twin Cities are growing percentage wise, because when your numbers are that low any growth will seem explosive. Also, half of the blacks up there are not even Americans, they're from East African and I don't half to explain that is a totally different culture. As far as different atmosphere, what do you mean? If you mean somewhat culturally disconnected and scattered I would agree. Many of the American Blacks up there are not doing so well anyway, you definitely wont find many stable, middle class Black communities up there, something that can be found in Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago and St. Louis despite the media propaganda.
People definitely spout that shoreline statistic as a point of pride, not just an interesting tidbit.
yeah, because this has a lot to do with TC vs Detroit, I think it's even written in Latin on the state flag...L'étoile du nord (French for "lots of shore")
(from wiki)
IBTimes UK is naturally a UK publication. Sounds like you have nothing to add to this discussion.
Either way, I wasn't impressed.
People have asked me why I think Detroit is #2, and I have answered. So your comment about me adding "nothing", isn't true.
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.
. Maybe that's because there are locational advantages to being in the eastern half of the Midwest -- being around so many other cities, there is little reason to venture outside of your zone?
