More walkable and vibrant urban core: Minneapolis vs Atlanta? (living, place, bigger)
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.
These two cities are often grouped into different camps. Minneapolis is generally considered a liberal, smart growth city like Seattle, Denver, Portland. These are generally considered as having really vibrant downtowns and lots of walkable vibrant neighborhoods, despite not being as dense as the old school cities.
While, Atlanta is groups with the sprawling sunbelt cities like Dallas and Houston. But, I have heard from many people in Atlanta that that is an unfair characterization of the central city. Sure, the MSA may sprawl all over the place, but the actual city is pretty comparable to a place like Minneapolis.
Is this true? Is central Atlanta just as vibrant and mixed use as central Minneapolis? I'm defining central as the downtown and the adjacent neighborhoods (Midtown, Atlantic Station, Little 5 points, Inman Park, North Loop, Uptown, Dinktown, etc).
As soon as I arrived in Minneapolis' downtown it somewhat reminded me of midtown in Atlanta. Except, Atlanta's midtown is bigger. Minneapolis has a rather small downtown. But it's walkable and blends into uptown, and if it weren't for the Mississippi river would blend into northeast and dinkytown.
It's similar. Most people have never been to both cities, but because Atlanta's a sunbelt city, they'll just vote Minneapolis. Both have similar vibes, similar urbanity. Minneapolis may be slightly more walkable, but vibrancy are about the same.
Are we talking downtowns or the cities overall, or metros? If downtowns, they're comparable: Atlanta may technically have more hi-rises but Minneapolis has much more dense layout. If we're talking population density -- without even looking it up -- I know Minneapolis is at least 50% more densely-populated than Atlanta, if not 75%-100%. If we're talking metro, then again, few cities are less densely-populated than metro Atlanta.
But if we're talking about "vibe" then I'm out of my league here, as I've never technically set foot in Atlanta outside its airport. I'll defer to native Atlantans and Minneapolitans to hash it out as objectively as possible.
Having lived in Minneapolis for 10+ years and Atlanta for 5+, I give the edge to Minneapolis if we're talking generally accepted downtown/midtown areas. Atlanta is far too linear, especially in Midtown. It is nice, but Minneapolis is more cohesively urban; the same with St. Paul.
Not to dismiss Atlanta by any means, but I'm a bit surprised it's even close, as I don't really associate Atlanta with walkable urbanity (even though I'm fully aware that the city has dense nodes, and current development is booming in the core of the city). Just goes to show how little I know about Atlanta!
Not to dismiss Atlanta by any means, but I'm a bit surprised it's even close, as I don't really associate Atlanta with walkable urbanity (even though I'm fully aware that the city has dense nodes, and current development is booming in the core of the city). Just goes to show how little I know about Atlanta!
I agree, it seems like half of Atlanta doesn't even have sidewalks.
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.
