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.
People who leave California want to get away from the high COL, so they go to cheaper neighboring western states. People who leave Illinois want to get away from northern winters, so they go to the sunbelt.
but it still is interesting how it is not seen that way on the west coast. Again, its probably partially the HUGE difference in COL between Portland/Seattle vs LA/SF/SD, but possibly also that California for such a LONG time held prominence for so long that some millenials might think of California obsession as being a little passe/little too "20th century" for them?? I wonder if that might be part of it?
Seattle's COL is horrendous... right on par with LA and SD. So not sure this whole COL argument is working when it comes to Seattle....
Portland? Sure. But not Seattle.
But on the west coast, Portland and Seattle are very well known and are seen as VERY desirable, if not straight out preferable to San Francisco and LA, yet that the Twin Cities are hardly on the radar screen of any Chicagoans, and if they have any familiarity there is essentially never any talk of moving there.
Why is that? The only reason I can think of is that the cost of living difference between LA/SF and Seattle/Portland is a bigger gap than it is between Chicago and Minneapolis.
Any thoughts or explanations?
As far as domestic migration is concerned, Cook County (Chicago) is in the top ten for movement to both Hennepin (Minneapolis) and Ramsey (St. Paul) counties. So, to state that the Twin Cities isn't on the radar for any Chicagoans is not true.
Seattle's COL is horrendous... right on par with LA and SD. So not sure this whole COL argument is working when it comes to Seattle....
Portland? Sure. But not Seattle.
Yes, but it's cheap compared to San Francisco, which is important when tech is a big reason for our growth.
Also, since much of this is about core neighborhoods, a big key is not needing a car. Seattle is dramatically more affordable to people without one. Since apartments almost universally go up with a lot fewer parking spaces than housing units and sometimes with zero parking, it's a popular concept. Rent can be much cheaper in addition to the direct and indirect car expenses.
PS, Seattle's percentages for transit and pedestrian commuting are far higher than any many city in the Midwest outside Chicago, and its population densities are much higher than anywhere outside Chicago.
PS, Seattle's percentages for transit and pedestrian commuting are far higher than any many city in the Midwest outside Chicago, and its population densities are much higher than anywhere outside Chicago.
Wrong. Both Seattle and Minneapolis have nearly identical density:
Seattle: 7,969/sq mi
Minneapolis: 7,417/sq mi
Commuting/mass transit numbers aren't very different, either:
Bicycle communting:
Seattle: 3.7%
Minneapolis: 4.6%
Percent of people walking to work and/or commuting by bike:
Yes, but it's cheap compared to San Francisco, which is important when tech is a big reason for our growth.
Also, since much of this is about core neighborhoods, a big key is not needing a car. Seattle is dramatically more affordable to people without one. Since apartments almost universally go up with a lot fewer parking spaces than housing units and sometimes with zero parking, it's a popular concept. Rent can be much cheaper in addition to the direct and indirect car expenses.
PS, Seattle's percentages for transit and pedestrian commuting are far higher than any many city in the Midwest outside Chicago, and its population densities are much higher than anywhere outside Chicago.
Much higher? Puhlease, Seattle knows nothing about density, let's not get carried away with the boosterism.
I see very different numbers, Jennifat. With your numbers it becomes a question of what qualifies as "dramatic" but let's take it one better.
The 2010-2014 Census ACS had Seattle (city of) transit ridership at 19.6% and Minneapolis at 13.5%. Metro was 8.7% to 4.6%.
Walking to work was 9.3% vs. 6.8%, similar to the variation hidden in your numbers. Metro was 3.6% to 2.3%.
The ACS doesn't cover bicycling but I have no qualm with your numbers.
Your population stats are outdated. Growth per the 2015 estimates was 12.5% vs. 7.4%. Seattle was 8,152 per square mile a year ago, and will have widened the gap in the last year. Further, we do it over a larger geography.
Even then, I didn't say the city of Seattle for density. I said "densities" meaning per neighborhood. Seattle peaked at 51,000 per square mile for census tracts in 2010 which the state has at 56,000 last year. I don't recall MSP's peak but I seem to recall it's much lower. The two greater downtown areas were a 2-1 density ratio last I checked, and while both are booming Seattle's boom dwarfs Minneapolis'.
Edit: I'm looking at the NYT density map and not finding anything over the 20s for Minneapolis in 2010.
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.
Puhlease, Seattle knows nothing about density, let's not get carried away with the boosterism.
