Which feels bigger, Sea-Tac or Twin Cities? (moving, NYC, living)
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.
You're completely missing the point. YIMBY argued that Seattle couldn't claim Jimi Hendrix because he didn't live in Seattle at the time he blew up. Jimi Hendrix was born and raised in Seattle, he learned guitar by watching bands play shows while attending high school in Seattle, he started his musical career and played his first shows in Seattle, in 1968 Seattle gave him the keys to the city, the name of his anthology is "West Coast Seattle Boy: The Jimi Hendrix Anthology", he is buried in Seattle, and his family still lives in Seattle. Seattle has a museum (or at least a large portion of the EMP museum), a statue, and a park (currently under construction) near where he lived most of his life dedicated to Jimi.
So clearly it's absurd to say Seattle can't claim Jimi Hendrix. I was just trying to apply the same ridiculous logic to Prince, since he moved to California before he got famous, to make a point. I obviously think Minneapolis can claim Prince just as Seattle can claim Jimi.
Then I guess you could say Bob Dillon is tied to Minneapolis, since he went to school there and started his career there (I think). Most people associate Bob Dillon with Duluth though, since that's where he was born (and to your point).
I don't know the twin cities well, but I think what you're getting at is that outside of Seattle and parts of Tacoma, Bellevue, and Everett, the Puget Sound region/Seattle MSA is mostly low-density sprawl.
Twin Cities are low density sprawl as well outside of the downtown cores. I live in Seattle area and have been to MSP a few times- both feel pretty spread out but I would have to say MSP feels bigger/more spread out. I think it has more sprawl reaching out further in all directions. SeaTac is limited on the west by water and on the east by mountains, so it does sprawl a very long distance north/south, but does feel somewhat compacted by these geographic features that MSP doesn't have to deal with.
I also posted one of Renton, and I could post at least a dozen more of different areas throughout the metro that look similar. (Burien, Kent, Kirkland, Redmond, Auburn, and many others all have similar walkable, urban-bones downtowns. And if we're going to include Olympia, that has a pretty good Downtown as well). The point is to say it looks like wilderness is absurd. Even the sprawly parts of the metro - and there are plenty of them - look nothing like wilderness, which implies sparse to no development. Yes, it's more tree-covered than most metro areas, but to somehow equate that with wilderness makes no sense when much of the rest of the metro area is 3K-4K PPSM. (Much less than Seattle's 8K but not wilderness by any stretch).
I think what the poster meant is that it looks like wilderness when driving through on freeways in some areas- the dense forest along the freeways hide all the development just behind them so you feel like you're driving through wilderness instead of being inside the metro area. I notice this in some areas such as I-5 up around Mountlake Terrace, or I-405 between Lynnwood and Bothell. I love that, it's actually a plus for me. SO maybe I'm wrong, I didn't take that comment as a negative or as a slam, just that appearances from overhead or on freeways are that areas are hidden and look like wilderness.
I do think the Seattle-Everett-Bellevue-Tacoma metro area is much more dense overall, all the way out through all suburbs than MSP. I have been to MSP, have family that lives around there- it sprawls a lot more because land is not at such a premium as it is out here. So you don't see nearly as many housing developments that have houses on postage stamp lots- people tend to have pretty good sized yards there. You'll see more open space all around even around business parks or industrial areas. So Seattle area to me feels much more tightly packed, but MSP feels more spread out, as in it feels bigger in the sense that the built up area takes longer to drive across from one end to the other.
According to Minneapolis Govt itself the metro area doesnt even get 20 million tourists a year much less 20 million more than Seattle (http://www.minneapolis.org/sites/def...iaKit_Meet.pdf). I can only conclude you're being willfully ignorant or made no attempt to find actual data. That being said, the visitors numbers seem hard to come by and hard to compare, but I think we've agreed the cities are probably pretty close but, as in many cases, with Seattle slightly ahead.
I assume you're being sarcastic about the Mall of America, but, no, in fact, a suburban mall has nothing to do with a big city feel. That's the epitome of sprawl. Would the Dubai Mall give Dubai more of a big city feel than New York?
You're the one discounting actual statistics. The ridership numbers "seem off" to you? How would you have any idea? They're collected by an official and universally-respected semi-governmental agency that gets reports from the agencies themselves. Is Metro under-reporting their ridership?
And yes, MSP is certainly making great strides in transit (as is Seattle). I don't deny it, but Seattle is way ahead to begin with on transit.
Then you quote a statistic indicating that Seattle is ahead of Minneapolis by a decent amount but not too much, which is what I'm saying
The study I linked to uses a very narrow definition of Downtown (they call it "where the big buildings are") and thus has employment numbers that are lower than what you'll find from almost any other agency. However the source is good for comparisons because all cities are measured using the same criteria, which isn't the case when using Downtown associations and the like (e.g. Seattle's downtown association gives a count of 250,000: http://www.downtownseattle.com/files...rce-101014.pdf). Any way you cut it Seattle is ahead here too.
I have no special affinity for Seattle and no special distaste for MSP. I am not saying anything about Seattle being "better" than MSP, just about which feels like/is more of a "big city," as the thread says. I just appreciate when these discussions are based on facts and reality
So true! They must be considering anyone who drives across the border from Wisconsin or Iowa or from another nearby state to shop at the Mall of America a tourist. Technically you could consider them that, but in reality they are just going shopping. Seattle is a tourism destination- people book trips to fly here from across the country or the world to see all that it and its surrounding areas have to offer. MSP, not so much.
I live in Minneapolis, and I have lived in Seattle. I still visit the latter fairly often.Given the combination of this website's ubiquitous Seattle boosters and the large number of people who are choosing Seattle in spite of never having been to Minneapolis, the poll results really aren't any surprise.
Going back to the OP's question, I agree that Minneapolis feels bigger, although not considerably so. I think much of the feel of a city comes from what you can do there. In Minneapolis, I can watch all four major sports played at the highest professional level--with MSL on the way. In fact, I can walk from my home to see MLB, The NFL, and The NBA. A ten mile train rides gets me to an NHL game. In Seattle, the closest NBA team is in another state, while the closest NHL team is in another country.
Another aspect of big city feel comes from the presence of, and commitment to, fine arts. While these are always somewhat subjective determinations, I find Minneapolis-St Paul to have more fine arts organizations--which tend to exist on a higher artistic level than their counterparts in Seattle.
The regional importance of Minneapolis also contributes to its bigger feel. For Seattle, there is nearby competition for regional importance in the form of other major cities. Both Portland and Vancouver are less than two hundred miles away, to the south and north respectively--and Vancouver is arguably a more prominent city than is Seattle.To the west of Seattle is water, and to the East are mountains. Even Spokane, though clearly not of Seattle's level of importance, is the third largest city in The Pacific NW--ironically, Spokane is the largest city between Minneapolis and Seattle.
The closest major city to Minneapolis is Milwaukee (350 miles away), and Minneapolis is nearly twice the size of Milwaukee. Minneapolis is the dominant major city for nearly two hundred miles in virtually any direction.
Lastly, there is a potential political element to the larger feel of Minneapolis. There is a governing body known as The Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan Council plays a primary role in transportation, water resources, economic development, housing, and a vast regional parks and recreation system within the seven core counties of The MSA. This metro-wide governing concept has been studied and emulated to varying degrees by several major cities around the world, including Seoul and Montreal. The Metropolitan Council tends to be unpopular with those on the political right, who see it as too urban-centric. However, it provides a sense of unification and continuation throughout the core of the metro area.
So true! They must be considering anyone who drives across the border from Wisconsin or Iowa or from another nearby state to shop at the Mall of America a tourist. Technically you could consider them that, but in reality they are just going shopping. Seattle is a tourism destination- people book trips to fly here from across the country or the world to see all that it and its surrounding areas have to offer. MSP, not so much.
Roughly 5 million of the mall's 42 million annual visitors come from outside the United States.
For Seattle, there is nearby competition for regional importance in the form of other major cities. Both Portland and Vancouver are less than two hundred miles away, to the south and north respectively--and Vancouver is arguably a more prominent city than is Seattle.To the west of Seattle is water, and to the East are mountains. Even Spokane, though clearly not of Seattle's level of importance, is the third largest city in The Pacific NW--ironically, Spokane is the largest city between Minneapolis and Seattle.
The closest major city to Minneapolis is Milwaukee (350 miles away), and Minneapolis is nearly twice the size of Milwaukee. Minneapolis is the dominant major city for nearly two hundred miles in virtually any direction.
Having two major cities like Portland and Vancouver nearby is considered a pro, not a con, for most people.
And Seattle has always been, still is, and always will be the anchor of the PNW.
Having two major cities like Portland and Vancouver nearby is considered a pro, not a con, for most people.
And Seattle has always been, still is, and always will be the anchor of the PNW.
Definitely one thing I love about Seattle - its location.
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.
