Article about big companies relocating back to cities from the suburbs (Minneapolis: how much, living)

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by mkmb

Does Golfgal just assume people in the core cities are too poor to afford cars? How bizarre! Where does she come up with this stuff? Richard Davis, I suppose....

No, golfgal keeps getting told by city dwellers that car dependency in the suburbs is a nasty thing, so when you talk about businesses moving from suburb to suburb possibly creating longer commutes, that is a bad thing....but a company moving from Minneapolis to say Maple Grove causing a city dweller to drive to work is an ok thing--just pointing out the double standard, once again....

[1stpontiac]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Except that if you live in Minneapolis and don't drive and your company moves to say Maple Grove, you are kind of out of luck too. I'd rather take the chance of my company moving from say Eagan to Maple Grove and have access to a car then get stuck anywhere without one.

As others have already said, we do have two cars and we would still have two cars if we lived more central...I just prefer to leave them parked whenever possible because I find buses and trains to be cheaper and easier than driving. I would guess that the vast majority of people in the city own cars.

If my company moved to Maple Grove, I'd have a 20-25 min drive from the city or a first ring suburb, and that would be flowing opposite of the worst traffic. If I lived in Maple Grove and my company relocated to Eagan, that's a 45 minute drive without any traffic and would likely be at least 70 minutes if you left Maple Grove at 7:15 am.

[1stpontiac]

Originally Posted by golfgal

No, golfgal keeps getting told by city dwellers that car dependency in the suburbs is a nasty thing, so when you talk about businesses moving from suburb to suburb possibly creating longer commutes, that is a bad thing....but a company moving from Minneapolis to say Maple Grove causing a city dweller to drive to work is an ok thing--just pointing out the double standard, once again....

I don't really lose too much sleep over whether companies locate in the suburbs or the city, but the example you give is a little flawed. Companies located in the cities should theoretically minimize the commutes of everyone, as that is the most densely populated and most centrally-located place. Sure, it will cause some people to commute further, but as a whole, it should decrease the total commute times.

Also, as you've pointed out, there's simply the fact that public transportation service is more frequent and dense in the cities. Hence why its really nice for me to work downtown, because then I get the dual benefit of living in the suburbs and not having to drive downtown.

[northsub]

Originally Posted by 1stpontiac

Companies located in the cities should theoretically minimize the commutes of everyone, as that is the most densely populated and most centrally-located place. Sure, it will cause some people to commute further, but as a whole, it should decrease the total commute times.

You're assuming zero affect from congestion. Rush hour would be horrible. I'd guess some amount of dispersion would be optimal.

[1stpontiac]

Originally Posted by northsub

You're assuming zero affect from congestion. Rush hour would be horrible. I'd guess some amount of dispersion would be optimal.

As with many things people argue about, it might be that middle of the road options - "the way things are now" - might actually be about the best solution.

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by 1stpontiac

I don't really lose too much sleep over whether companies locate in the suburbs or the city, but the example you give is a little flawed. Companies located in the cities should theoretically minimize the commutes of everyone, as that is the most densely populated and most centrally-located place. Sure, it will cause some people to commute further, but as a whole, it should decrease the total commute times.

Also, as you've pointed out, there's simply the fact that public transportation service is more frequent and dense in the cities. Hence why its really nice for me to work downtown, because then I get the dual benefit of living in the suburbs and not having to drive downtown.

This, to me, seems why it would be ideal to have more companies based downtown. It's convenient for those who live in the city because they can live close to work (and perhaps even walk/bike to get there, or drive, or take public transportation), and it's convenient for those who live in the suburbs because then they can similarly avoid having to drive to work (unless they feel like it). Most people working in downtown have at least two transportation options -- car or public transportation (bus/LRT/train), while many businesses located out in the suburbs are going to be solely accessible by car, other than for the lucky few who either live close enough to walk/bike, or those who live along the (far more limited) bus routes that may access them. In any case, while I know some people prefer to live AND work in the suburbs, I think for many others -- regardless of where they choose to live -- like the convenience of working downtown.

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by golfgal

No, golfgal keeps getting told by city dwellers that car dependency in the suburbs is a nasty thing, so when you talk about businesses moving from suburb to suburb possibly creating longer commutes, that is a bad thing....but a company moving from Minneapolis to say Maple Grove causing a city dweller to drive to work is an ok thing--just pointing out the double standard, once again....

it's not a double-standard. I would not be happy if my company moved from downtown to Maple Grove, but it would be a lot less disruptive for commuting purposes than, say, a company moving from Maple Grove to Eagan, or for a Maple Grove resident working at a downtown-based company who moved their offices clear across town to Eagan. At least those who live centrally have a better shot at living near their work, at least in the long-run (given that companies move around, and that most employees these days do not stay at one company for their entire career).

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by northsub

You're assuming zero affect from congestion. Rush hour would be horrible. I'd guess some amount of dispersion would be optimal.

If the Twin Cities could get moving and actually DO more about public transportation, then having jobs centrally located could make congestion better, as more people could use public transportation to get to/from work. It's tougher and more expensive to put in that kind of infrastructure when companies are so scattered here and there. It pushes more people to drive, therefore clogging the roads.

[northsub]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

it's not a double-standard. I would not be happy if my company moved from downtown to Maple Grove, but it would be a lot less disruptive for commuting purposes than, say, a company moving from Maple Grove to Eagan, or for a Maple Grove resident working at a downtown-based company who moved their offices clear across town to Eagan. At least those who live centrally have a better shot at living near their work, at least in the long-run (given that companies move around, and that most employees these days do not stay at one company for their entire career).

But, a whole lot more convenient for an Apple Valley resident who was commuting downtown and now commutes to Eagan.

Do companies that are in one suburb often move to a suburb that's entirely on the other side of the metro? This seems like something a company would be pretty hesitant to do, particularly if their employees tend to live near the current location.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by northsub

But, a whole lot more convenient for an Apple Valley resident who was commuting downtown and now commutes to Eagan.

Do companies that are in one suburb often move to a suburb that's entirely on the other side of the metro? This seems like something a company would be pretty hesitant to do, particularly if their employees tend to live near the current location.

Not that I have ever heard of...

Driven to Maple Grove plenty of times, never has it taken 45 minutes, even in traffic...

Funny thing is pretty much everyone I know that lives in the suburbs works in the suburbs pretty near their homes but everyone I know that lives in St. Paul or Minneapolis commutes out to the suburbs .