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.
Seattle is only isolated from the eastern cities. There's plenty around Seattle in the PNW however.
Vancouver, Victoria are pretty close. Portland isnt terribly far, San Francisco is a decent hike but it's not terrible. (only 12 hours drive, I regularly drive longer than that in a days period in my frequent commutes between Austin and Atlanta)
Minneapolis and Chicago have a strong retail base. Outside of transit they also share similar infrastructure and designs. Both can get frigid cold and windy. Both share similar mall designs as well (large strip centers congregated into indoor malls which you dont see alot of in southern states, Seattle has these as well.)
12 hours drive is long drive it like NYC to South Carolina almost 800 miles.
Vancouver-Seattle/Tacoma-Portland is a tight group. The same corridor includes a decent scattering of smaller cities...Victoria, Bellingham, Olympia, Salem, Eugene...
Would y'all agree that Minneapolis is the second most functionally urban city in the Midwest outside of Chicago?
Do you mean the Twin Cities metro? At the metro level the Twin Cities and Detroit are pretty comparable, and you can make arguments for either at spots 2 or 3.
If you mean just the city of Minneapolis, the city of Minneapolis isn't that populous, with several other Midwestern cities more populated. I'd argue the city of Detroit is more urban, the city of Milwaukee is denser, and the cities of Minneapolis and Kansas City comparable to one another in urbanity.
I grew up near KC and love it dearly, but the City of Minneapolis is definitely more urban in terms of built up environment, neighborhoods, skyline and transportation. It’s not really even close. I’m not really familiar with Detroit, but aren’t a lot of it’s neighborhoods pretty much empty?
Would y'all agree that Minneapolis is the second most functionally urban city in the Midwest outside of Chicago?
Structurally I'd say Milwaukee, but functionally/culturally I'd agree it's Minneapolis. St. Louis could've competed for this title if it hadn't turned it's back on the core and demolished so much of the urban fabric.
Do you mean the Twin Cities metro? At the metro level the Twin Cities and Detroit are pretty comparable, and you can make arguments for either at spots 2 or 3.
If you mean just the city of Minneapolis, the city of Minneapolis isn't that populous, with several other Midwestern cities more populated. I'd argue the city of Detroit is more urban, the city of Milwaukee is denser, and the cities of Minneapolis and Kansas City comparable to one another in urbanity.
I've spent a lot Kansas City for work and family. Minneapolis and KC are nothing alike. Milwaukee and Detroit have a more industrial feel. I'm not saying that's bad, few areas of Minneapolis have this look / feel.
I grew up near KC and love it dearly, but the City of Minneapolis is definitely more urban in terms of built up environment, neighborhoods, skyline and transportation. It’s not really even close. I’m not really familiar with Detroit, but aren’t a lot of it’s neighborhoods pretty much empty?
I disagree about KC and Detroit being more dense than Minneapolis also. Mpls has about 430,000 residents packed into 50 sq miles. If I'm not mistaken, Mpls is the second most densely populated city in the Midwest (city limits)
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.