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.
Location: Pittsburgh (via Chicago, via Pittsburgh)
3,887 posts, read 5,519,366 times
Reputation: 3107
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaboyd1
Depends on which metric you use. 200k larger at the MSA level and 600k larger at the CSA level. Both are quite a bit bigger than Pittsburgh at this point.
Yep. None are unreasonably different though. And Pittsburgh punches well above it's weight, so the comparison is valid. Population is probably the biggest difference between the metrics in the thread.
Location: Pittsburgh (via Chicago, via Pittsburgh)
3,887 posts, read 5,519,366 times
Reputation: 3107
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaboyd1
COL/QOL: Seattle is expensive, but the QOL is definitely high for those that can afford it. Pittsburgh is the cheapest, albeit with a relatively high QOL as well. Minneapolis sits pretty in the middle.
Urban amenities: Seattle, Pittsburgh/Minneapolis
Education (higher): Pittsburgh, Seattle/Minneapolis
Skyline: Seattle, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh (This one's close)
Architecture: Pittsburgh, Seattle/Minneapolis
Public Transit: Seattle, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh
Food: Seattle, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh
Music: Seattle, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh
Nightlife/Entertainment: Seattle, Minneapolis/Pittsburgh
Where you'd want to live overall: Any of them honestly
I like all of these cities. Pittsburgh has that old world charm (relatively speaking, it is the US) like many of the older Eastern cities, while Seattle is an "it" city currently. Minneapolis, like Seattle, is well educated and affluent. With the mountains and water in Seattle, the lakes in Minneapolis, and the hills in Pittsburgh, you can't lose really. If I had to rank them, I'd put Seattle in front, with a slight edge to Minneapolis over Pittsburgh.
I agree with pretty much all of this...with only the living preference being Pittsburgh over Minneapolis and Seattle (but that is mostly familiarity/family oriented)
Public Transit: Seattle (especially in 10 years once our subway is more developed), Minneapolis, Pittsburgh
Is it? Minneapolis actually has more miles of light rail coverage than Seattle (22 miles compared to 17). Once the South Link and University Link are done, Seattle will have 22 miles, though by that time, the Minneapolis Green Line Extension should hopefully be open, and Minneapolis will have 38 miles of coverage. Their ridership is currently about equal, but Minneapolis should easily gain several hundred thousand now that the Green Line is open.
Both cities have one commuter rail line and extensive bus systems. Seattle has a streetcar network and Minneapolis is likely building one. Minneapolis also has a growing BRT network.
From what I've seen, they're essentially on the same level, which is to say Portland beats the crap out of them both.
Is it? Minneapolis actually has more miles of light rail coverage than Seattle (22 miles compared to 17). Once the South Link and University Link are done, Seattle will have 22 miles, though by that time, the Minneapolis Green Line Extension should hopefully be open, and Minneapolis will have 38 miles of coverage. Their ridership is currently about equal, but Minneapolis should easily gain several hundred thousand now that the Green Line is open.
Both cities have one commuter rail line and extensive bus systems. Seattle has a streetcar network and Minneapolis is likely building one. Minneapolis also has a growing BRT network.
From what I've seen, they're essentially on the same level, which is to say Portland beats the crap out of them both.
Unless that light rail is grade separated by underground or elevated rail (like Seattle's will be), then I don't see how Seattle's current bus system isn't just as effective. It's not like light rail travels any faster than a bus when traffic lights still inhibit both. Opponents of streetcars think they're glorified buses that cost 10 times more to build and operate.
You think rail coverage alone is all that matters, but that isn't so. Honestly, buses are superior to rail unless it's grade separated. Minne has more miles, Seattle's will be uninhibited by traffic and therefore will travel far faster with more consistent frequency times.
I don't think rail coverage alone is all that matters, I don't know how that's the takeaway you got from that post. Seattle and Minneapolis have very similar bus networks too. I went in depth about light rail because of your specific comment about subway development. I'm not trying to say Minneapolis has better transit, I'm trying to say they're similar. That's all. No need to have an argument.
(Incidentally, many light rail - and increasingly traditional bus - systems, including MSP's, are coordinated with their city's traffic signals, which can reduce travel times exponentially).
I don't think rail coverage alone is all that matters, I don't know how that's the takeaway you got from that post. Seattle and Minneapolis have very similar bus networks too. I went in depth about light rail because of your specific comment about subway development. I'm not trying to say Minneapolis has better transit, I'm trying to say they're similar. That's all. No need to have an argument.
(Incidentally, many light rail - and increasingly traditional bus - systems, including MSP's, are coordinated with their city's traffic signals, which can reduce travel times exponentially).
Yeah, I didn't intend to start some long argument. I'm sure Minne is way better to get around. Due to Seattle's geography, bottlenecking is a terror. Traffic congestion is a massive issue due to the fact that Downtown is a major center for employment. Due to our limited space, bottlenecking, and traffic, that's why Seattle stresses grade-separation so much. Seattle ranks in the top 10 worst traffic cities. I'm sure Minne, although having at-grade light rail, still manages to allow for pretty good transit speed due to not having Seattle's problems of water and hills.
Music: Seattle, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis
Nightlife/Entertainment: Seattle, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis
Where you'd want to live overall: Seattle
Pittsburgh over Minneapolis for music? I don't know of any Pittsburgh musicians or bands that have had an impact on music like some from Minneapolis have. Minneapolis was all over the map during the 80s and 90s and a lot decent acts are still coming from the Twin Cities. Heck, the Minneapolis scene influenced the bands that made Seattle so famous. Furthermore, pretty much every up-and-coming band stops in Minneapolis on their first tour and most national and international bands have Minneapolis on their tour. I don't know if the same can be said for Pittsburgh. Finally, Minneapolis also has decent stations that introduce music that isn't played on mainstream radio and they do a great job in regards to supporting local musicians and bands. Radio K, the Current, and KFAI are pretty hard to beat.
As far as nightlife / entertainment is concerned, neither of these three really stand out. Seattle doesn't really offer anything that Minneapolis or Pittsburgh have.
Yea Pittsburgh is an easy 3rd when it comes to music.
Yup. Not even close.
This, and ranking Minneapolis below Pitt for public trans (it's about even with Seattle I think) are the main inconsistencies I'm seeing here. Otherwise, as everyone's stated, there's much to like in all 3 of these cities.
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.
