Skyline competition: Seattle vs Minneapolis (cost, map, Los Angeles, life)
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 easily wins this over Minneapolis. Seattle in my opinion has the third best skyline in the USA.
Is there ANYTHING positive that Minneapolis beats Seattle in?
There are probably fewer people in the Minneapolis area using Prozac and/or other antidepressants. Minneapolis is less polluted in terms of air and water quality. Minneapolis is also less congested. People also get more sun in Minneapolis. I could go on and on, but don't really care to. Seattle has a better skyline, but Minneapolis wins out in many areas.
Minneapolis simply has a better economy than Seattle.
The metro area population and metro area GMP are about the same for both metros. Seattle might be slightly ahead on those measures right now, but that could change quickly due to Minneapolis' economy.
A major negative against Seattle is that it is one of the biggest earthquake and volcano hazard zones in the country. Mount Rainier is considered by geologists to be the most dangerous volcano in the country. If Mount Rainier had a major eruption, which geologists think may happen within the next 100 years, it could absolutely destroy the Seattle metro area. A major earthquake could do the same thing.
Minneapolis has zero earthquake or volcano threat, and the tornado threat is minimal due to Minneapolis' climate and location.
Last edited by Blue Earth; 04-25-2011 at 11:37 AM..
. If Mount Rainier had a major eruption, which geologists think may happen within the next 100 years, it could absolutely destroy the Seattle metro area.
Patently false.
Simply not true. Some of Tacoma and points east of there stand as threatened. Try to at least be accurate.
Today, some 150,000 people currently live in historic lahar slide paths like the 2,300-year-old National Lahar in the Nisqually Valley and the 500-year-old Electron Mudflow in the Puyallup Valley.
Simply not true. Some of Tacoma and points east of there stand as threatened. Try to at least be accurate.
Not true.
Quote:
If Mt. Rainier were to erupt as powerfully as Mount St. Helens did in its May 18, 1980 eruption, the effect would be cumulatively greater, because of the far more massive amounts of glacial ice locked on the volcano compared to Mount St. Helens and the vastly more heavily populated areas surrounding Rainier.
Quote:
According to Geoff Clayton, a geologist with a Washington State Geology firm, RH2 Engineering, a repeat of the Osceola mudflow would destroy Enumclaw, Orting, Kent, Auburn, Puyallup, Sumner and all of Renton. Such a mudflow might also reach down the Duwamish estuary and destroy parts of downtown Seattle, and cause tsunamis in Puget Sound and Lake Washington.
Geologists consider Mount Rainier the most dangerous mountain in the United States, and the Geological Survey has estimated there is a 1-in-7 chance of a catastrophic lahar at Mount Rainier occurring in the next 75 years.
History suggests otherwise. The report I quoted was based upon what has happened in history, not what "could happen" I would just as easily suggest that MSP could have a major earthquake.
There's a very meaningful difference there.
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.
