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.
^^My experience "boots on the ground" in Minneapolis is that Mpls isn't very diverse either, but people there (many of them) think it's just the absolute best. I came back from one trip (to visit my daughter) thinking "how do these people stand themselves; they're so convinced they're perfect".
I'll do what I want with my life, thank you very much. I will thank you for keeping your advice on what I should do to yourself. You have no idea what's going on in my life.
^^My experience "boots on the ground" in Denver is that Denver isn't very diverse either, but people there (many of them) think it's just the absolute best.
If you can handle the weather, Minneapolis has the best balance of any city on this list when it comes to bang for your buck.
If you find the idea of below zero temperatures abhorrent, it's a moot point.
Minneapolis has the best skyline of the bunch; arguably the best theater scene in the country outside of NYC/Chicago; abundant fine arts, music, museums, and entertainment; all the major sports (albeit fair-weathered fans) [Denver does too]; improved public transit; a phenomenal airport [Again, so does Denver]; all the major shopping and restaurants you'd ever need; pretty much all the outdoor activities (outside of mountain/beach activities); and it's one of, if not, the cleanest major cities you'll ever step foot in.
But again, the weather. Despite what any Minnesota homer (myself included) will tell you, it's not for the faint of heart.
Denver would be my second choice. Personally, I think it offers about 75% of the best of Twin Cities living with much better weather and surroundings.
Also the black share of population in Baltimore isn’t rapidly falling. 20 years ago it was 65% black it’s 62.5% black 20 years later. Nothing rapid about that. The overall black population is dropping but I wouldn’t call it rapid
The percentages are only dropping slowly because of just how many African Americans there are in the city. Only NYC, Chicago, Philly, Houston, Memphis & Detroit have more African Americans than Baltimore in raw numbers.
The city is absolutely hemorrhaging African Americans when in 2018 alone it lost 7.5k people and most of that was attributed to black flight. It's the primary driver for the cities population loss.
If you find the idea of below zero temperatures abhorrent, it's a moot point.
The thing that I find really annoying is this general perception that it's literally below zero all winter long here. If it ever is below zero, it's generally overnight, and only lasts a day or two. People carry on with their daily routine like it's nothing. Yesterday morning on my way to work, I saw multiple people bundled up in the -10º cold biking to work. It doesn't really affect anyone here, really.
Really though, winters here just aren't bad anymore. The past month has been abnormally warm, with several days climbing up to 40º and snow melting like crazy. It used to be that we would never get thaws in the winter. Now it's normal.
Shows up #1
1. New York: 53 times
2. Los Angeles: 13
3. Chicago: 10
4T. Miami: 6 4T. Minneapolis: 6
5T. Boston: 5
5T. Detroit: 5
5T. Washington DC: 5
9. Dallas: 4
10. Atlanta: 2
11T. Each with 1: Philadelphia, Seattle, Sacramento, Providence, Salt Lake City, Lafayette (LA), Honolulu, Grand Rapids (MI)
Looking back at that marothisu thread, though, it seems there was controversy about the numbers, and that controversy was never sufficiently addressed (not least because marothisu got quite defensive when challenged). He initially referred to these stats as 'first ancestry listed', then later walked that back and claimed that it was for 'single ancestry listed'. Multiple posters noted Buffalo's low Polish total, and when 'any ancestry listed' stats were unearthed, the figures changed significantly--suddenly Buffalo went from ~79k to over 180k, and Detroit (which caught my eye for whatever reason) went from 166.5k to 440ish k. So I mean it's a massive discrepancy depending on which total is used, and I for one would prefer the latter numbers, the 'any ancestry reported' numbers over the 'only/first ancestry reported'. Side note, it's funny to see my posts in that thread from two years ago, posts I have no recollection of having made.
Not to encourage the creation of the most obnoxiously long and number-laden post in city-data history, but it would actually be nice to have the context provided by both sets of data...your move, YIMBY? I'm sure not doing it. Maybe ckhthankgod has it in him. It's a February long weekend in Syracuse, what else is there to do (admittedly I could say the same thing here in Buffalo).
The thing that I find really annoying is this general perception that it's literally below zero all winter long here. If it ever is below zero, it's generally overnight, and only lasts a day or two. People carry on with their daily routine like it's nothing. Yesterday morning on my way to work, I saw multiple people bundled up in the -10º cold biking to work. It doesn't really affect anyone here, really.
Really though, winters here just aren't bad anymore. The past month has been abnormally warm, with several days climbing up to 40º and snow melting like crazy. It used to be that we would never get thaws in the winter. Now it's normal.
That's all good and fine, but just because we're used to it doesn't mean everybody can handle it. There are literally people who would find the idea of even one day below zero undoable. Just as the whole world ends in *some* places when there's a dusting of snow. Minneapolis is not going to be for those people. Personally, I've lived here 30/36 years of my life and I've grown tired of it (the weather). No matter how exaggerated it gets, there's still the potential for it to be as cold as Winnipeg, as snowy as Buffalo, or both on any given winter day. And for many people that's a non-starter.
The thing that I find really annoying is this general perception that it's literally below zero all winter long here. If it ever is below zero, it's generally overnight, and only lasts a day or two. People carry on with their daily routine like it's nothing. Yesterday morning on my way to work, I saw multiple people bundled up in the -10º cold biking to work. It doesn't really affect anyone here, really.
Really though, winters here just aren't bad anymore. The past month has been abnormally warm, with several days climbing up to 40º and snow melting like crazy. It used to be that we would never get thaws in the winter. Now it's normal.
Oh, yeah? https://www.kare11.com/article/news/...d-b844f9813730 "GOLDEN VALLEY, Minn. — While many students have the day off on Monday for the federal holiday Presidents Day, at least two school districts have decided to remain open. . . The decision comes after many schools closed due to harsh weather conditions in late January and early February. . . . Because students lost so many days, schools have had to figure out ways that work for them to make up the lost time."
Plus much more.
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/...ounts=cnt_le_0
Number of days with minimum at or below zero. It looks like the winter of 2001-02 had the least (2) and since 2000, the winter of 2013-14 the most at 53. In the past 20 years, 17 had more than 10.
Looking back at that marothisu thread, though, it seems there was controversy about the numbers, and that controversy was never sufficiently addressed (not least because marothisu got quite defensive when challenged). He initially referred to these stats as 'first ancestry listed', then later walked that back and claimed that it was for 'single ancestry listed'. Multiple posters noted Buffalo's low Polish total, and when 'any ancestry listed' stats were unearthed, the figures changed significantly--suddenly Buffalo went from ~79k to over 180k, and Detroit (which caught my eye for whatever reason) went from 166.5k to 440ish k. So I mean it's a massive discrepancy depending on which total is used, and I for one would prefer the latter numbers, the 'any ancestry reported' numbers over the 'only/first ancestry reported'. Side note, it's funny to see my posts in that thread from two years ago, posts I have no recollection of having made.
Not to encourage the creation of the most obnoxiously long and number-laden post in city-data history, but it would actually be nice to have the context provided by both sets of data...your move, YIMBY? I'm sure not doing it. Maybe ckhthankgod has it in him. It's a February long weekend in Syracuse, what else is there to do (admittedly I could say the same thing here in Buffalo).
Yeah, I went back and took a look at the original post as well. In addition to the "Czech/Czechoslovakian", "American", "Canadian" and "Puerto Rican" listings that I noted, someone else pointed out "British/English" as separate listings. I also noticed "Australian". American, Australian, and Canadian are all nationalities, not ancestries. These are countries that have people of many ancestries within. Also brought up again was they use raw numbers, not percentages, so of course in most cases the largest cities are in the top few.
ETA: Took yet another look and saw "South African" and "New Zealand" which are also nationalities. I think this list is interesting, but not scientifically valid.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 02-15-2020 at 09:15 AM..
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.
