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.
Yeah, but people never question where or even what Baltimore is. I'm willing to bet that more people think Baltimore is much further away from D.C. than it is.
Complete opposite of Ft. Worth and Saint Paul...
Your "but" and use of ellipsis confuses me. It sounds like, to me with my limited reading comprehension, that you are disagreeing with something I said. Forgive me if I am wrong, my apologies. But it seems like your post mostly supports my argument that Fort Worth is underrated/considered a secondary city because of its proximity to Dallas while the same is not true for Baltimore.
Anyway, I don't consider Saint Paul a major city. It's as big as a large suburb albeit a very large one, and is so close to Minneapolis that their borders would look very reasonable if one suddenly looked like the other (in contrast to if either Fort Worth or Dallas just annexed the other). Actual question, as I do not know much about the history, but did Minneapolis and Saint Paul each grow to be large, if not major, metros separately before actually joining together? In other words, an actual, >1 million, separate Saint Paul msa/md.
EDIT: I am incorrect. I knew Minneapolis was on the smaller side as well, in terms of city limits populations, but was not aware of just how close it was to Saint Paul. With that said, I still stand by most my argument. It seems hard to believe that they developed separately into major cities in their own right (the metro as a whole to, without a doubt, a major "city") because of their proximity.
Your "but" and use of ellipsis confuses me. It sounds like, to me with my limited reading comprehension, that you are disagreeing with something I said. Forgive me if I am wrong, my apologies. But it seems like your post mostly supports my argument that Fort Worth is underrated/considered a secondary city because of its proximity to Dallas while the same is not true for Baltimore.
Anyway, I don't consider Saint Paul a major city. It's as big as a large suburb albeit a very large one, and is so close to Minneapolis that their borders would look very reasonable if one suddenly looked like the other (in contrast to if either Fort Worth or Dallas just annexed the other). Actual question, as I do not know much about the history, but did Minneapolis and Saint Paul each grow to be large, if not major, metros separately before actually joining together? In other words, an actual, >1 million, separate Saint Paul msa/md.
EDIT: I am incorrect. I knew Minneapolis was on the smaller side as well, in terms of city limits populations, but was not aware of just how close it was to Saint Paul. With that said, I still stand by most my argument. It seems hard to believe that they developed separately into major cities in their own right (the metro as a whole to, without a doubt, a major "city") because of their proximity.
Oops... I totally skipped a word or two in your reply. My mistake.
��
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,529 posts, read 4,013,587 times
Reputation: 2894
Quote:
Originally Posted by brodie734
Baltimore is today and has almost always been the larger city in terms of city limits population. It was the 6th largest city in the country for years and years.
Your "but" and use of ellipsis confuses me. It sounds like, to me with my limited reading comprehension, that you are disagreeing with something I said. Forgive me if I am wrong, my apologies. But it seems like your post mostly supports my argument that Fort Worth is underrated/considered a secondary city because of its proximity to Dallas while the same is not true for Baltimore.
Anyway, I don't consider Saint Paul a major city. It's as big as a large suburb albeit a very large one, and is so close to Minneapolis that their borders would look very reasonable if one suddenly looked like the other (in contrast to if either Fort Worth or Dallas just annexed the other). Actual question, as I do not know much about the history, but did Minneapolis and Saint Paul each grow to be large, if not major, metros separately before actually joining together? In other words, an actual, >1 million, separate Saint Paul msa/md.
EDIT: I am incorrect. I knew Minneapolis was on the smaller side as well, in terms of city limits populations, but was not aware of just how close it was to Saint Paul. With that said, I still stand by most my argument. It seems hard to believe that they developed separately into major cities in their own right (the metro as a whole to, without a doubt, a major "city") because of their proximity.
St Paul is the older of the two cities. Minneapolis began essentially as an industrial suburb of St Paul. The two cities were of nearly-equivalent size by 1870-1880. In the following decade both cities grew enormously, with Minneapolis first surpassing St Paul in 1890. A couple of decades later, Minneapolis grew to be significantly larger than St Paul..the population was nearly 200,000 greater than St Paul by 1950. Between 1900-1950, Minneapolis was among the nation's twenty largest cities (city only).
Minneapolis and St Paul share an extensive border, and most visitors to the area have no idea which of the two cities they're in unless they pay close attention to things like "welcome to..." and other street signs. For all practical purposes, the two cities function as one in all ways other than local government. Minneapolis and St Paul share a transportation system, sports teams, entertainment venues, and media. For purposes of camparison, Minneapolis, St Paul, and Bloomington (technically also a core city); are all contiguous if you count the airport, and have a combined population of about 800,000 in a land area roughly equal to that of Detroit.
Minneapolis has a significantly higher national and international profile than does St Paul, which often belies the fact that the two cities aren't all that far apart in population. Since a strong majority of the attractions, venues, events, etc. are on the Minneapolis side of the metro, Minneapolis is generally perceived as a "major" city, while St Paul usually is not. Minneapolis does have a far greater number of populous suburbs... Minneapolis and suburbs account for about two-thirds of the metro area population, with St Paul and suburbs having about one-third.
St Paul is the older of the two cities. Minneapolis began essentially as an industrial suburb of St Paul. The two cities were of nearly-equivalent size by 1870-1880. In the following decade both cities grew enormously, with Minneapolis first surpassing St Paul in 1890. A couple of decades later, Minneapolis grew to be significantly larger than St Paul..the population was nearly 200,000 greater than St Paul by 1950. Between 1900-1950, Minneapolis was among the nation's twenty largest cities (city only).
Minneapolis and St Paul share an extensive border, and most visitors to the area have no idea which of the two cities they're in unless they pay close attention to things like "welcome to..." and other street signs. For all practical purposes, the two cities function as one in all ways other than local government. Minneapolis and St Paul share a transportation system, sports teams, entertainment venues, and media. For purposes of camparison, Minneapolis, St Paul, and Bloomington (technically also a core city); are all contiguous if you count the airport, and have a combined population of about 800,000 in a land area roughly equal to that of Detroit.
Minneapolis has a significantly higher national and international profile than does St Paul, which often belies the fact that the two cities aren't all that far apart in population. Since a strong majority of the attractions, venues, events, etc. are on the Minneapolis side of the metro, Minneapolis is generally perceived as a "major" city, while St Paul usually is not. Minneapolis does have a far greater number of populous suburbs... Minneapolis and suburbs account for about two-thirds of the metro area population, with St Paul and suburbs having about one-third.
Likely again as DC, which has a slightly higher population, has a lot less room to grow than Baltimore which has far more room to grow, and doesn't have a height restriction.
Another cool fact about the area. Stillwater and St. Paul were technically the first towns, then Minneapolis, and it was decided that they would split three major institutions.
St. Paul was made Capital.
Stillwater was given the Prison.
Minneapolis was given the U of M.
DC has been on the upswing for the past decade or so, and there are many more neighborhoods that can be gentrified long before Baltimore is able to recover from its issues. It's larger in square mileage than DC, but it has far more swaths of abandoned neighborhoods than DC does. It'll be at least a generation before Baltimore catches up with DC again. DC still hasn't reached its peak population (which was about 802,000 in 1950 compared to 950,000 in Baltimore the same year), but I bet it will before Baltimore reaches that milestone, even factoring in smaller families now compared to the 1950s.
Factoring in COL, I doubt DC ever gets back to 800k.
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.
