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.
Interesting, I would have always thought MSP would seem more urban.
I wonder how PDF is defining urban. Going by population density, it's not even close:
Minneapolis:7,287 people per square mile
Portland: 4,375 people per square mile.
To be fair, Portland does have Forest Park, which is massive (5,170 acres). So, I crunched some numbers, and even if you were remove Forest Park from Portland, the city's density would only tic up to 4,451 people per square mile.
However, there are other factors that might give a city with less density a more urban feel. I'm not sure what those are.
Last edited by Dawn.Davenport; 05-01-2015 at 07:57 AM..
If it were below freezing throughout the year, I wouldn't live in Minneapolis nor would the majority of the 3 million plus that live in the area. The cold sucks - just like extreme heat does. It gets cold in Minneapolis; it gets very dreary in Portland - one can go DAYS without seeing the sun. It's all about what you are willing to deal with.
I wonder how PDF is defining urban. Going by population density, it's not even close:
Minneapolis:7,287 people per square mile
Portland: 4,375 people per square mile.
To be fair, Portland does have Forest Park, which is massive (5,170 acres). So, I crunched some numbers, and even if you were remove Forest Park from Portland, the city's density would only tic up to 4,451 people per square mile.
However, there are other factors that might give a city with less density a more urban feel. I'm not sure what those are.
For Minneapolis you should split the density in half since at any given time about half of those people are on the street and the rest are in the skyways.
Outside of Nicollet Mall and maybe Loring Park you don't really get a sense of the higher density in most of the downtown. At least until you head over the river to the campus area.
Portland feels like its density is spread more evenly in most areas. Plus it's more compact so the Pearl, Oldtown Chinatown, downtown, and other end all blend together.
Whereas in Minneapolis you have to go over bridges to reach the other sections, which creates a feeling of separate sections.
That's my best guess on what PDF meant by more urban. Because when you're downtown Minneapolis you certainly know you're in a city with the skyscrapers.
One thing about Minneapolis is that you have St. Paul right down the river too(which is an interesting older city in it's own right)--Portland doesn't have a second city in the area, it's all sort of average suburbs and a few nicer small towns. The second biggest city in the Portland metro is Vancouver across the border in Washington, but the downtown is nice in a small-town sort of way but still underutilized.
As far as downtown areas between Minneapolis and Portland though, I think I prefer Portland--there's a lot going on in Portland between the downtown and adjacent neighborhoods north of Burnside and across 405. Seems livelier than downtown Minneapolis when I've been there, though I don't know, some US downtowns can seem different depending on what time you're there and things change so quickly in terms of development(and Minneapolis has all the pro sports downtown as well). But I like how Portland's downtown and the neighborhoods around it feel like a compact yet pretty vibrant and well-connected area these days, there's a lot going on if you walk from the river all the way to NW 23rd and likewise there's a lot of stuff just across the bridges on the other side of the river.
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.