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've never been there so you're opinion is irrelevant.
It isn't though. Sure, it would be helpful to have visited MSP to be more informed on this debate. But when Seattle wins at every single category I listed, all of which can be easily determined online, I don't need to have been to Minneapolis to know that Seattle is a bigger city with more of a big-city feel.
Similarly, I know, as you probably do too, that Lisbon is a more urban city and has more of a big city feel than Tampa, although I haven't been to either.
Or that Barcelona has more of a big city feel than Phoenix, even though both are the same size (with quite frankly fairly similar climate).
The difference between Seattle and Minneapolis is clearly not extreme, or really even all that apparent to most, except nerds and perhaps people who have been to both. But facts are the facts. "Feel" is subjective, but when you have a win for one city in all the major categories that obviously lend itself to big city feel (density, population, transit use, skyscrapers, downtown shopping, tourism, etc), then it becomes fairly clear which one is going to feel larger.
Just to review:
Seattle:
1) Has more people in its city limits, in its MSA, and its CSA
Proven already, too easy to look up
2) Is denser
Proven already, too easy to look up
3) Has more skyscrapers and taller skyscrapers with many more (far more) under construction
3a) Has a ton of residential high rises (comparatively, Minneapolis does not)
Proven already, links provided
4) Has a much higher transit ridership
4a) Has a more ambitious transit plan, currently underway
Proven already, link provided
5) Has significantly more/more reputable/more diverse downtown shopping, thereby drawing more leisure sidewalk crowds
This can be proven out
6) *Seems* like it would have higher tourism (I don't place ANY weight on domestic tourist counts...don't even get me started, whatever system SF uses for instance only counts 16 million tourists and it's surpassed by almost every city in America...which is basically proof that these counts are pointless and are all using completely different methodologies...the only uniform methodology used in the US and also fairly similarly around the world is international tourism, and Seattle makes Top 20 in America while Minneapolis doesn't register).
Where are they pulling transit riders from? Both MSP light rail lines have already exceeded 2030 ridership goals.
Also, Seattle has about 10% more tall buildings which doesn't really strike me as "way more" either....
Where are these way more tourist claims coming from? The Mall of America parking ramps are full of out of state plates this time of year. I did not find Seattle or Minneapolis in the top tourist attractions on any Google searches.
Minneapolis has way more affordable housing and still has a high paying economy that is more diversified than Seattle.
Minneapolis is more literate (slightly) than Seattle.
Everything I have seen shows Minneapolis has better theater, comedy, and arts than Seattle.
Some of the arguments are as good as me asking about that giant earthquake that is overdue and going to obliterate Seattle.
I'm not talking about tall buildings I'm talking about the number of people employed downtown, which has a big effect on street life and big-city bustle downtown.
Downtown Seattle employment: 163,800
Downtown Minneapolis employment: 98,310
(source: http://www.demographia.com/db-cbd2000.pdf)
Crowded parking lots at a suburban mall are not what I think of when I hear "big-city feel," although admittedly the tourism figures appear to be about the same, which surprises me
BTW, downtown Seattle does not have way more people on the streets. Yes, there are the tourist areas, but aside from those spots and places where the homeless hang out, downtown Seattle is surprisingly dead after 6pm.
Again, if you actually look at the data there are many Seattle intersections with as much pedestrian traffic in 5 hours (that's the length used in the Seattle counts) as in 24 hours (that's the length used in the MSP counts) in Downtown Minneapolis
I'm not talking about tall buildings I'm talking about the number of people employed downtown, which has a big effect on street life and big-city bustle downtown.
Downtown Seattle employment: 163,800
Downtown Minneapolis employment: 98,310
(source: http://www.demographia.com/db-cbd2000.pdf)
Crowded parking lots at a suburban mall are not what I think of when I hear "big-city feel," although admittedly the tourism figures appear to be about the same, which surprises me
Seattle: 61K (37%) ranked 7th by percent and by #
Minneapolis: 31K (32%) ranked 9th by percent and 8th by #
Each compared to say SF, DC, or Chicago makes them appear quite similar and side by side. But when compared to just each other, Seattle is quite far ahead of Minneapolis.
Each compared to say SF, DC, or Chicago makes them appear quite similar and side by side. But when compared to just each other, Seattle is quite far ahead of Minneapolis.
It isn't though. Sure, it would be helpful to have visited MSP to be more informed on this debate. But when Seattle wins at every single category I listed, all of which can be easily determined online, I don't need to have been to Minneapolis to know that Seattle is a bigger city with more of a big-city feel.
Similarly, I know, as you probably do too, that Lisbon is a more urban city and has more of a big city feel than Tampa, although I haven't been to either.
The point is that Seattle does not blow away Minneapolis, which is what many of you are trying to claim. Heck, my vote went to Seattle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMBX
I'm not talking about tall buildings I'm talking about the number of people employed downtown, which has a big effect on street life and big-city bustle downtown.
Downtown Seattle employment: 163,800
Downtown Minneapolis employment: 98,310
(source: http://www.demographia.com/db-cbd2000.pdf)
These numbers are notoriously bad. Furthermore, they are pretty dated. However, I haven't nor would I state downtown Minneapolis has more employees.
Haha. Can you be anymore delusional? Minneapolis produced Prince and Bob Dylan started his musical career there. Those two artists combined have done more for music than the likes of Heart, Alice and Chains, Soundgarden, Queensrÿche, etc... Minneapolis also ruled the 80s with the Minneapolis Sound; the synthesized funk of Prince and the post-punk rock of the Replacements and Hüsker Dü. Bands associated with Prince included local groups such as the Revolution, the Time, the Jets, the Family, Lipps Inc., Mazarati, and a number of other groups (local and national). Other musicians / bands from Minneapolis (and St. Paul) include Information Society, Next, Soul Asylum, Atmosphere, Brother Ali, Babes in Toyland, Mason Jennings, Semisonic, Dilinger Four, the Cows, and many others.
Since 1960 more than 100 songs that have either been recorded in Minneapolis or made by artists based there have reached the Top 40 on Billboard’s pop chart. To think there is no comparison shows how much (or little) you know about music.
They are both very strong in this category, but Seattle brought us Jimi Hendrix and Nirvana, which is at least on par in terms of historical and musical significance with Bob Dylan and Prince (all four are major heavyweights). Then when you add bands like Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, the Sonics, Heart, Mudhoney, Fleet Foxes, Band of Horses, Modest Mouse, the Melvins, Death Cab for Cutie, the Posies, Presidents of the United States, Screaming Trees, Queensryche, Sir-Mix-a-Lot, Macklemore, Sunny Day Real Estate, Temple of the Dog, Young Fresh Fellows, Bikini Kill, etc. - as well as being at or near the epicenter of musical movements like Grunge and Riot Grrrls - I think you have to give it to Seattle.
Yeah, and the majority of that 75% have never been to Minneapolis.
BTW, downtown Seattle does not have way more people on the streets. Yes, there are the tourist areas, but aside from those spots and places where the homeless hang out, downtown Seattle is surprisingly dead after 6pm.
If you mean the main CBD where the office towers are, then by 8pm it's pretty dead, but Westlake, Pioneer Square, Belltown, and even the area by the Pike Place Market (all considered part of Downtown) then that's not really true. Capitol Hill, Belltown, and Lower Queen Anne are the main late-night areas in the core, but much of the rest of it is still buzzing well past 6pm (especially in the summer when it doesn't get dark until 9 or 10pm)
Portland's land area is larger than Minneapolis and St. Paul combined. Perhaps that is the reason why it, in your words, feels more big.
BTW, both Denver and Minneapolis are better than Portland, which is by far one of the most overrated US cities.
It depends on what you mean by "better". Downtown Portland and its adjacent neighborhoods are by far the most pedestrian-friendly core of the three cities, and also has a higher concentration of restaurants and bars.
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.
