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.
Hmm. That is exactly the feel I have when I exit Miami into the Everglades! However, your Tokyo credentials make you a good source! I can't imagine living in such a populated city...
Hmm. That is exactly the feel I have when I exit Miami into the Everglades! However, your Tokyo credentials make you a good source! I can't imagine living in such a populated city...
Miami to me feels like a medium sized city. Los Angeles and Chicago can be considered Large while cities like NYC, Tokyo, Shanghai can be considered mega cities.
Even in Tokyo you can get to nature in 1-2 hours depending.
OK, I better understand your perspective. But the question is which metro feels bigger? Sea-Tac or Twin Cities?
So far, the poll is strongly headed toward Seattle. However, even as a Seattle native, I don't quite understand this. Perhaps there are more Seattle folks on this site, or perhaps the users are stringent on their beliefs, based on visiting both metros.
There are a number of variables here. Transportation, hometown businesses, traffic, skylines, and just an overall feel of being in a big metro.
In 10-15 years, Seattle will have operational light rail lines connecting Seattle's priority neighborhoods as well as Bellevue and the Bel-Red corridor. I'm hoping by then, the Ballard-Dowtown line will be complete as well. Seattle will have quite a large population by then, which will naturally spill over into the nearby cities resulting in a more populated metro area.
MSP has a number of mega companies headquartered there. So does Seattle. That is why I chose this city vs. city comparison. How do these companies fare for the future? Let's list them and determine who will thrive and who will survive, or die.
Both metro areas are essentially the same population (Seattle slightly larger). As far as the feel of the individual cities go, I think Seattle itself feels slightly bigger than Minneapolis, St. Paul much bigger than Tacoma, and Bellevue slightly bigger than Bloomington.
If you are judging size from a distance (downtown skyline, number of high-rises, etc.), using Emporis, Minneapolis and Seattle are nearly equal (with Seattle slightly ahead), St. Paul and Bellevue are nearly equal (with St. Paul slightly ahead), and Bloomington and Tacoma are nearly equal (with Bloomington slightly ahead, yet more spread out). Once again, the size ends up being roughly equal.
All things considered, between Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington and Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, the metros feel about the same size.
Both metro areas are essentially the same population (Seattle slightly larger). As far as the feel of the individual cities go, I think Seattle itself feels slightly bigger than Minneapolis, St. Paul much bigger than Tacoma, and Bellevue slightly bigger than Bloomington.
If you are judging size from a distance (downtown skyline, number of high-rises, etc.), using Emporis, Minneapolis and Seattle are nearly equal (with Seattle slightly ahead), St. Paul and Bellevue are nearly equal (with St. Paul slightly ahead), and Bloomington and Tacoma are nearly equal (with Bloomington slightly ahead, yet more spread out). Once again, the size ends up being roughly equal.
All things considered, between Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington and Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, the metros feel about the same size.
According to Emporis Seattle has 53 skyscrapers with dozens more planned. Minneapolis has 27. And according to Collier downtown Seattle has 55 million square ft of office space and and 16 million more in development . Minneapolis has 27 million .
Both metro areas are essentially the same population (Seattle slightly larger). As far as the feel of the individual cities go, I think Seattle itself feels slightly bigger than Minneapolis, St. Paul much bigger than Tacoma, and Bellevue slightly bigger than Bloomington.
If you are judging size from a distance (downtown skyline, number of high-rises, etc.), using Emporis, Minneapolis and Seattle are nearly equal (with Seattle slightly ahead), St. Paul and Bellevue are nearly equal (with St. Paul slightly ahead), and Bloomington and Tacoma are nearly equal (with Bloomington slightly ahead, yet more spread out). Once again, the size ends up being roughly equal.
All things considered, between Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington and Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, the metros feel about the same size.
According to Emporis St Paul has 7 skyscrapers and Bellevue has 8 . And also Bellevue has several billion dollars of construction going on. Spring district alone is 2 billion and Lincoln square is 1.2 billion.
Downtown Seattle and its immediate area feels larger than downtown Minneapolis and its surrounding area. Outside of these areas, however, they look and feel about same. Source: I've been to both cities enough to know.
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.
