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.
An interesting point noted in an earlier post. Of course, the criteria of cosmpolitan/diverse don't really relate to that, but is it entirely possible that cities like Cleveland, Pittsburgh, St. Louis are more well known/cosmopolitan than Minneapolis because of their legacy status/institutions, in spite of their size? Similarly to how Detroit will for some time be more well known than Minneapolis will, even if their GDPs are moving closer and closer together. However, I'm sure that argument about those cities has been beaten to death, so I'll let someone else answer on any of those. Obviously, Minneapolis is an awesome city, and it's economy is performing well, and it has higher favorables probably than any city in this list, especially because several cities in this group easily have higher unfavorables than just about any city, regardless of reality. To Minneapolis posters: What things historically, culturally, etc., would you feel are internationally renowned? I know that it was (is?) home to General Mills, but I don't know if most people would. I think Minneapolis for the lakes and I think others do, but in general, they think of Minnesota being the place with the lakes (I'd guess there are many people who think Minnesota is the name of the city). The Mall of America I think is pretty well known. Also the Mississippi River, though, I think it is less known for being a river city than St. Louis or New Orleans. Minneapolis park and recreation system gets a lot more press than just about any other, and it certainly is among the best, but there are other similar park systems that don't get as much praise. I'm trying to think out loud here: I'd say that Minneapolis and Cleveland are more or less peers culturally, both with impressive scenes that punch well above their weight. Target? Ironically, I still think Cleveland and probably Pittsburgh are still better known than Minneapolis, but ironically probably more for their supposed and actual shortcomings.
This is yet another example of how perception is out of step with reality. Wash U is in fact VERY heavily invested in growing STL's economy. A booming example is Cortex, which is growing by leaps and bounds and attracting scores of new and expanded employers.
Touche, and I applaud you for making me aware of CORTEX. I looked up their resident company directory and was surprised to see so many listed. I always enjoy learning new things about cities, and I admittedly had no idea WU was so influential in the start-up scene.
I'm a big fan of the Rust Belt's revival in general, so what is good for St. Louis is good for Cleveland and is good for Detroit, Pittsburgh, Dayton, Akron, Chicago, etc., too.
Touche, and I applaud you for making me aware of CORTEX. I looked up their resident company directory and was surprised to see so many listed. I always enjoy learning new things about cities, and I admittedly had no idea WU was so influential in the start-up scene.
I'm a big fan of the Rust Belt's revival in general, so what is good for St. Louis is good for Cleveland and is good for Detroit, Pittsburgh, Dayton, Akron, Chicago, etc., too.
This feels like little more than a backhanded attempt to belittle Minneapolis position. More than anything this post displays a lack of knowledge on the authors part rather than any sort of general consensus. In terms of if Minneapolis is as cosmopolitan as Cleveland. I'm not sure anyone outside of our beloved Cleveland contingent would even question that. Also are you trying to assert that Minneapolis is somehow NOT a legacy city? It peaked in population in 1950 like every other legacy city. It emerged like every legacy during the industrial revolution. It along with it's core counterpart St Paul have still not recovered to their 1950 peak like most other legacy cities. Perhaps the question should be raised as to why the Twin Cities have made such a profound transition a knowledge based economy from a legacy industrial economy where the aforementioned cities have struggled harder.
The mention of knowing that General Mills is headquartered there but not being sure if a lot of other people would is more telling of a lack of personal knowledge, rather than knowledge in the general population. The Twin Cities are are home to 18 Fortune 500 companies. Seven of which are larger than General Mills and they are not companies that are unheard of. That doesn't even include private companies like Cargill $120B+ in revenue:
It isn't at all. I think you genuinely misunderstood the reason for my post (which was simply genuine intellectual curiosity).
I'm asking, sincerely. Do you think that if you went around to ten random Americans, and asked them where General Mills, or Target was HQ'd, a majority would be able to tell you it was in Minneapolis? I think more might know Target was there, largely because of the stadiums that share that name there.
I wasn't trying to knock Minneapolis at all. It's a great city, with a diverse economy, excellent parks, arts, etc. and I would recommend it to anyone. I think that a good amount of people who pay attention to cities would be able to tell you those things about it, sure. But, honestly, I think we're dating ourselves here if we think people from outside Minneapolis would be able to list all (or even more than about 2) of these companies that are specifically there. And I don't mean, name the companies (for instance, do you think a majority of the population thinks "Oh, that's Cincinnati!" every time P&G or Macy's gets mentioned?). Most of the companies in Cleveland, or STL (Anheuser Busch being an exception with their association), wouldn't be known to be specifically there by people outside of that city. Honestly, that even goes for LA, NYC and Chicago. I never said Minneapolis didn't have a higher GDP or more companies, and I'm not sure where it was confused that I did.
I don't really know. How is cosmopolitan being measured? Honestly, I'm not particularly worried about it either. I like Cleveland, and I have no need to get in some type of competitive battle with Minneapolis about anything really. Both are nice cities.
It peaked in population in 1950, sure. But, Pittsburgh's population at it's peak was 700,000, Cleveland's was 900,000, and Detroit's was 1.9 million. So, obviously while those have had massive declines, all of which have been documented, they also had higher zeniths. No one could reasonably disagree with this.
It made that transition more easily partially because of better planning, but also because of the fact that since there wasn't such a high, there wasn't such a drop in the low, at the bottom of that. That's natural.
So, in spite of all this, I still think it is a very valid question: Out of Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Cleveland and St. Louis, which city would be the most well known worldwide? Why? Same thing nationally. Obviously, most people with reasonable levels of education would know of these cities, but which one would they know the most about/hear the most about?
That really isn't a dig on MPLS, at all, and again, not sure how it would be construed as such.
FWIW, out of those 3, I'd say STL might be the most known around the world, as a brand because of The Arch, Lewis and Clark & Anheuser Busch (though I don't know how much their product sells worldwide).
Genuine question! Minneapolis has a higher GDP, and has more companies than Cleveland or Pittsburgh, that no one will argue. Question is, which city out of those is more well known? Nationally and globally? Since we've already established the fact that MPLS, DET and CHI are the big 3 in the midwest in terms of cosmopolitanism/diversity.
Touche, and I applaud you for making me aware of CORTEX. I looked up their resident company directory and was surprised to see so many listed. I always enjoy learning new things about cities, and I admittedly had no idea WU was so influential in the start-up scene.
I'm a big fan of the Rust Belt's revival in general, so what is good for St. Louis is good for Cleveland and is good for Detroit, Pittsburgh, Dayton, Akron, Chicago, etc., too.
Agree with this 100%. STL, MPLS, PIT, DET, etc. are all among my favorite cities for their feel, and amenities-value ratio.
I
It peaked in population in 1950, sure. But, Pittsburgh's population at it's peak was 700,000, Cleveland's was 900,000, and Detroit's was 1.9 million. So, obviously while those have had massive declines, all of which have been documented, they also had higher zeniths. No one could reasonably disagree with this.
An argument actually can be made for this. Minneapolis and St. Paul together make up the core of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Unlike other "Dual City" metro's these two cities are only separated by a single boundary. They are both legacy cities that share in anchoring their metro. In 1950 when they peaked they had a combined population of 833,067.
1950 Census pop.
Minneapolis: 521,718
St. Paul: 311,349 Total: 833,067
Pittsburgh:671,659
St. Louis: 856,796
160,000 more people than Pittsburgh, and almost in line with St. Louis.
Again historically was a peer city with these other cities. You are trying to paint Minneapolis in a light as if it is an emerging center, such as Sunbelt cities are, or the way tech centers like Seattle and Denver are. This is just not the case. Perhaps the lines about where the cities lined up in terms of importance were closer, perhaps Cleveland and St Louis could have been a small notch ahead of them. I find any argument stating that MSP 1950 was not in the same tier to be intellectually dishonest. The difference is in the 70's and 80's while the other cities plummeted MSP started to emerge, and then rapidly excel.
This is NOT an example of a lower tiered city rising above. This is an example of Cities in the same tier falling behind.
Sorry, I totally forgot haha. I would've included STL in that group too, but the comment I was responding to was just addressing PIT, CLE and DET. But yeah, STL certainly had a higher zenith also. Actually, I'm quite surprised based on just how important STL was to the country that it was only at 857K, I would have had it at a million at some point in time. (for reference, MPLS peak population was 511K, and I can't for the life of me find St. Paul's. Duly noted that having a 2nd city there makes a difference, but prob still not enough to say that MPLS was as historically prominent as those cities during that time. STL reached #4 on three occasions though (Cleveland's highest was #5), and stayed in the top 10 from 1850-1960, still a longer period of time than any of this group (vs. 9 decades for Cleveland and 4 for Pittsburgh and 10 for Detroit). Actually, still STL was in the Top 10 longer than SF and LA (in LA's case, for another decade). Impressive.
An argument actually can be made for this. Minneapolis and St. Paul together make up the core of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Unlike other "Dual City" metro's these two cities are only separated by a single boundary. They are both legacy cities that share in anchoring their metro. In 1950 when they peaked they had a combined population of 833,067.
1950 Census pop.
Minneapolis: 521,718
St. Paul: 311,349 Total: 833,067
Pittsburgh:671,659
St. Louis: 856,796
160,000 more people than Pittsburgh, and almost in line with St. Louis.
Again historically was a peer city with these other cities. You are trying to paint Minneapolis in a light as if it is an emerging center, such as Sunbelt cities are, or the way tech centers like Seattle and Denver are. This is just not the case. Perhaps the lines about where the cities lined up in terms of importance were closer, perhaps Cleveland and St Louis could have been a small notch ahead of them. I find any argument stating that MSP 1950 was not in the same tier to be intellectually dishonest. The difference is in the 70's and 80's while the other cities plummeted MSP started to emerge, and then rapidly excel.
This is NOT an example of a lower tiered city rising above. This is an example of Cities in the same tier falling behind.
If we are using both cities then though, it is only fair that sq. mileage be accounted for. Cleveland is 77 sq. mi., Pittsburgh is 58, and STL is 66. MPLS and St. Paul combined are 115 sq. mi. So, those cities should have population (many inner ring suburbs with similar, or greater population density, then and now) added to make it equitable.
I'm not saying MPLS is an emerging center. It certainly has a good history, and was a powerful city, with some impressive features back in the day. Was it on the level of CLE, PIT, or STL historically though? Simply put, based on most evidence and general consensus I have come across, no. But, if you have evidence to the contrary that you would want to post, I would personally be interested in seeing it. (eg, companies HQ'd vs. others, GDP at those times, etc.)
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.
