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.
Minneapolis and Minnesota in general are among top sources of new Dakota residents according to Census data
They have some influence in the financial sector and more broadly thru some of the other large corporations. They are heavily involved in Ag buying / processing / selling, ag chemicals and equipment. And in various ways in health care. Distribution in general, including processed food. I assume they get plenty of personal business and pleasure trips from the Great Plains.
Minnesota receives oil from North Dakota (and Canada), refines if and sells it in region or moves it out of region. It does similar with natural gas. And coal from Wyoming and Montana. And it buys up corn as a leading producer of ethanol.
MN probably sells IT equipment & services into the region.
16 Target stores in region and surely other retail "export" examples.
Aside from business, Minneapolis is far removed from the western Dakotas, Wyoming, and Montana. Minneapolis is closer to Milwaukee and Chicago than to these places. The vibe and culture is completely different. It's right on the Wisconsin border. Nothing great plains/western about it aside from some superficial things like having an outdoorsy liberal populace. Minneapolis is very green and is located in the eastern deciduous forest and is humid with lots lots of water. The western Dakotas, Montana, and Wyoming is very brown and dry in comparison. I'm not sure why people try to associate Minneapolis with these places.
Ironically, the kind of "uncrowded" development springing up in these places, aka new subdivisions just thrown up with no planning, is the kind of development that disproportionately destroys nature. Dense cities are actually the best way to limit incursion into natural and/or agricultural lands...
Traffic is a result of auto-dependent development. So is pollution, to an outsized extent. If anything, you should advocate for denser development and strong transit options (buses, bike lanes, etc.) spread across towns/cities in these places instead of the status quo...
I'd bet that people in non-Idaho states also enjoy looking at forests, waterfalls, lakes-- even ones known for big cities/lots of people, like New York State or California. How exactly does that make Idahoans unique? Lmao.
Also, it sounds like you're extrapolating largely from Oregon/the west coast, in regard to the homeless/crime issues. There are plenty of cities that don't have these issues to any significant extent, for whatever reason, despite the fact that they are national issues.
You know what the middle ground between it all is? Small cities. People all spread out on ranchettes and people all clustered in a concrete corridors are both kinda odd arrangements that result in unbalances between social living and solitude in nature. In a small city you can get a little bit of both: interaction and nature within a small radius. You don't have air pollution problems or mega traffic jams.
Habitat is less of a deal in the arid west than it is in a subtropical rainforest like Appalachia. Especially in this threads area, there's millions of acres of undisturbed land. The western US was simply developed better than the eastern half, because there wasn't the mega welfare free land giveaway program (homesteading).
Wasn't "describing" Minneapolis above. Was describing Minneapolis / Minnesota influence on Great Plains and beyond.
I consider Minneapolis more the end of the East (Northeast) but western Minnesota is the start of the plains and it certainly has major impacts on that region..
You know what the middle ground between it all is? Small cities. People all spread out on ranchettes and people all clustered in a concrete corridors are both kinda odd arrangements that result in unbalances between social living and solitude in nature. In a small city you can get a little bit of both: interaction and nature within a small radius. You don't have air pollution problems or mega traffic jams.
Habitat is less of a deal in the arid west than it is in a subtropical rainforest like Appalachia. Especially in this threads area, there's millions of acres of undisturbed land. The western US was simply developed better than the eastern half, because there wasn't the mega welfare free land giveaway program (homesteading).
Homesteading was mostly in the west. Arid conditions don't allow for multiple massive cities in a small geographic area. And good luck running a modern economy on tons of small cities. Like it or not, megabytes are somewhat necessary in the 21st century.
Aside from business, Minneapolis is far removed from the western Dakotas, Wyoming, and Montana. Minneapolis is closer to Milwaukee and Chicago than to these places. The vibe and culture is completely different. It's right on the Wisconsin border. Nothing great plains/western about it aside from some superficial things like having an outdoorsy liberal populace. Minneapolis is very green and is located in the eastern deciduous forest and is humid with lots lots of water. The western Dakotas, Montana, and Wyoming is very brown and dry in comparison. I'm not sure why people try to associate Minneapolis with these places.
I agree. The in-laws were from a small town in far SW South Dakota, and many years later moved back to the Rapid City area. When they talked of a bigger city it was always Denver, which is about 6 hours away. But I'd say Sioux Falls would be greatly influenced by Minneapolis. Minneapolis is about 4 hours away, and Rapid City is 5 hours away from Sioux Falls.
Another issue that keeps a mega city from growing in these areas is how far apart all these moderately sized western cities are from each other and not much between them. Using Rapid City, it is pretty much a 5 hour drive to any comparable city in Wyoming or Montana. In between are a bunch of towns well below 10K in population and a very few in the 10k-50k range. Lots of ranch, farm, forest, mountain, and desert land in between. None of these cities are on or near any type of major river, lake or ocean port, so that reason for commerce and development isn't available. They all tend to be nearer to the ends of freeways and rail lines, then central surface transportation crossroads. For the most part they don't have major universities that can feed major industries in the cities, so skilled/specialty workers would have to be imported from other areas. Minneapolis seems to be the anomaly, and I'm not sure why it developed... but it did.
You know what the middle ground between it all is? Small cities. People all spread out on ranchettes and people all clustered in a concrete corridors are both kinda odd arrangements that result in unbalances between social living and solitude in nature. In a small city you can get a little bit of both: interaction and nature within a small radius. You don't have air pollution problems or mega traffic jams.
Habitat is less of a deal in the arid west than it is in a subtropical rainforest like Appalachia. Especially in this threads area, there's millions of acres of undisturbed land. The western US was simply developed better than the eastern half, because there wasn't the mega welfare free land giveaway program (homesteading).
Great point-- I think smaller cities are most ideal in a lot of ways. However, the large urban areas/metropolises we say today are largely a byproduct of the vast human population on this planet, itself stemming greatly from the agricultural and industrial advances of the past couple hundred years. We are almost entirely dependent on fossil fuels to sustain our global population and way of life as we know it, which has made our distribution of habitation an inevitable reality in some ways. Aka, I'm not sure if we have the physical capacity for everyone to live in what may be considered ideal.
Great point-- I think smaller cities are most ideal in a lot of ways. However, the large urban areas/metropolises we say today are largely a byproduct of the vast human population on this planet, itself stemming greatly from the agricultural and industrial advances of the past couple hundred years. We are almost entirely dependent on fossil fuels to sustain our global population and way of life as we know it, which has made our distribution of habitation an inevitable reality in some ways. Aka, I'm not sure if we have the physical capacity for everyone to live in what may be considered ideal.
The population centers we see today aren't a product of global population. There were huge cities 1000 years ago, relative to most villages. Humans are social animals and concentration of goods and resources is key to having a successful city, community, or nation-state. We stopped being a nomadic species when we figured out agriculture, the single most important technological advancement in human history.
Homesteading was mostly in the west. Arid conditions don't allow for multiple massive cities in a small geographic area. And good luck running a modern economy on tons of small cities. Like it or not, megabytes are somewhat necessary in the 21st century.
Yeah. The Homestead Act of 1862 was specifically designed to draw settlers to the western Territories and states (although there was some pushback from the original residents).
The aridity is key. What anyone thinks it's a good idea to bring hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of residents to a desert is beyond me. That's happening to Salt Lake City right now.
Why would Idaho want a huge major city, with all the dirt, crowding, traffic, drugs, homeless, and crime?
People move to Idaho to get away from all the crowding and all the bad things that come with over-crowding.
If you like living in a big city, you have your choice of many. Do not try to ruin other areas by moving all that crap to them. Keep it to yourself.
The people in Idaho prefer to look at forest, waterfalls, and lakes instead of admiring an "incredible" urban skyline, which just indicates more crowding, worse traffic, more pollution. Yes, humans are capable of building huge tall ugly concrete structures. I don't see much to admire about that.
I'm not even from Idaho nor live there but I agree.
Leave those states with their balance and nature. Just keep building on SF and NY until they sink and implode. We'll watch from a distance.
The population centers we see today aren't a product of global population. There were huge cities 1000 years ago, relative to most villages. Humans are social animals and concentration of goods and resources is key to having a successful city, community, or nation-state. We stopped being a nomadic species when we figured out agriculture, the single most important technological advancement in human history.
I'm not really disagreeing with anything you've said, and keep me honest here, but today's cities, at their densities and scales, are able to exist largely because of the success and availability of our fossil fuel infrastructure.
A city is foremost a population center whose density requires the routine extraction and importation of resources from a hinterland-- with the Haber process, our global population skyrocketed from the increases in agricultural yields, separating vast segments of the population from any direct role in agriculture. It then no longer makes as much sense to live in small towns/more agriculturally based communities when your livelihood isn't tied to it (or can't be), and concurrently, denser and larger cities are possible (and even preferable).
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.
