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.
Honestly, I wouldn't even consider Elk River to be a "suburb," although I suppose these days it is. (I have relatives in Elk River, but they work in that area or towards St. Cloud) Things get really complicated once you start adding in the far-flung locations. My impressions are likely skewed because I am most familiar with Minneapolis and the southwest suburbs. And in SW Minneapolis it has been my experience that many couples are splitting the commute, with one person heading towards Eden Prairie (or beyond; I've met a bunch of people who work in Shakopee) and one working in Minneapolis.
I don't think choosing to live in Minneapolis is by any means a guarantee of a fast commute (although if you have a job in downtown Minneapolis and live in Minneapolis then it should at least be fairly quick), but if you're part of a working couple then there's the benefit that should one or both of you change jobs (as most people do multiple times in their career these days) then you're not as restricted by geographic location as would be someone who lives on one edge of the metro area.
Another model would be somewhere like Los Angeles, which has multiple job centers scattered across its region, centers that are fully-functioning cities in their own right, many of them with satellite "suburbs" of their own. (I'm thinking places like Pasadena, Long Beach, Santa Monica, for example, or even Glendale). These all have city cores, ample public transportation options, variety in housing choices, etc. I don't think we have anything that comes close to this in the Twin Cities, although some areas sort of function like that at a much smaller level (Bloomington, maybe, and perhaps Eden Prairie in the future). They have the population density and numbers that we lack, though. And their public transportation system, while excellent, is still rushing to fill in the gaps needed to fully connect a metro area that doesn't neatly fit into the east coast urban model. The Twin Cities seems to fall somewhere in-between: multiple job centers (including two core city downtowns), but most of the suburban jobs scattered rather than concentrated. Maybe that will continue to change as more light rail or commuter lines eventually get built. In any case, I would think that many employers would consider it a bonus to be located with easy access to reliable public transportation. It also depends on the type of company and industry, of course. I think much of this conversation has been skewed towards talking about professional, white-collar type office jobs, while the data we're looking at is more general.
What I seem to be hearing is that there is a large difference between how much time most people in Minneapolis spend commuting and how much time most people in suburbs spend commuting. I'm arguing that a typical commute length in suburban locations isn't very different than a typical commute length in city locations. I wouldn't consider those spending 45-minutes plus commuting to be very typical. And there presence is going to have a pretty big affect on the average.
Incidentally, I think where people commute to from various locations is sort of necessary to understand these things. The following site has some interesting info: http://stats.metc.state.mn.us/profile/detail.aspx
If you click on the "COMMUTING" tab and select a particular town from the "select another area" box, then you can see the top 10 work cities from that town (you need to scroll down). Everything I've checked indicates suburban folks work largely in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and the surrounding suburbs. I've also seen Bloomington pop up (fairly frequently) and occasionally Eagan. "Other" (not in the top 10 for that city) is also a pretty big factor. I've been looking mostly at northern suburbs, so maybe things are different elsewhere.
Incidentally, info on Elk River is missing at the above site (since Elk River isn't in the 7-county metro). I'd be curious about how many families in Elk River have a commuter to St. Cloud and a commuter to Minneapolis or St. Paul.
But we don't exactly get to call anything we want "not typical". Very clearly, a large percentage of Elk River residents (nearly 1/3!) have--in Twin Cities terms--a long commute. That's absolutely something to take into account.
I think it's pretty obvious that commutes are going to be shorter in the city if you compare apples to apples. That is, two people driving to, say, downtown in a car using the freeway are pretty likely to get there in a shorter amount of time than people in the suburbs. But a lot of people in the city use other methods to commute--bus, bike, or walk--all of which take more time to get from one point to another than driving alone. That in itself is going to skew commute times if we're looking at everyone.
But I think we're looking at the wrong topic anyway. Commute times don't particularly matter as long as they're reasonable. What's most important about commute are the options you have for getting from point A to point B. Your commute might be 10 minutes from you suburban home to your suburban office complex. But if that car breaks down, you're stranded unless you want to call a taxi (expensive) or can find a friend who can lend a hand. On the other hand, if I were a commuter who drove from where I live in Minneapolis to downtown, not only would it be a short commute (probably 10 minutes tops including navigating to a downtown parking ramp), but should my car break down or if I didn't feel like driving for whatever reason, I have the option to hop on one of about 5-6 buses that pass by the area, I can take my bike into downtown, or I could walk.
The selling point of jobs moving downtown isn't to shorten commutes. It's to offer other options for the commute.
Last edited by xandrex; 12-07-2011 at 03:55 PM..
Reason: Deleted repeated line
But we don't exactly get to call anything we want "not typical". Very clearly, a large percentage of Elk River residents (nearly 1/3!) have--in Twin Cities terms--a long commute. That's absolutely something to take into account.
I think it's pretty obvious that commutes are going to be shorter in the city if you compare apples to apples. That is, two people driving to, say, downtown in a car using the freeway are pretty likely to get there in a shorter amount of time than people in the suburbs. But a lot of people in the city use other methods to commute--bus, bike, or walk--all of which take more time to get from one point to another than driving alone. That in itself is going to skew commute times if we're looking at everyone.
But I think we're looking at the wrong topic anyway. Commute times don't particularly matter as long as they're reasonable. What's most important about commute are the options you have for getting from point A to point B. Your commute might be 10 minutes from you suburban home to your suburban office complex. But if that car breaks down, you're stranded unless you want to call a taxi (expensive) or can find a friend who can lend a hand. On the other hand, if I were a commuter who drove from where I live in Minneapolis to downtown, not only would it be a short commute (probably 10 minutes tops including navigating to a downtown parking ramp), but should my car break down or if I didn't feel like driving for whatever reason, I have the option to hop on one of about 5-6 buses that pass by the area, I can take my bike into downtown, or I could walk.
The selling point of jobs moving downtown isn't to shorten commutes. It's to offer other options for the commute.
I'm guessing you're upset when we compare school test scores for non-low income students then??? After all we are removing some of the students, and different numbers for different schools. I'm more of the opinion that a statistical distribution is not entirely determined by its mean.
Incidentally, I do find going a given distance in most suburbs to be generally easier than going the same distance in Minneapolis. In Minneapolis there just seem to be far more stoplights and stop signs. Plus, freeways downtown are congested pretty much anytime I'm there between like 4 and 7 pm. These are some of the downsides of population density.
I also don't understand why I would be stranded if I needed to go a few miles if a car breaks down. One could walk or bike or ask someone for a ride. One might even be able to take a bus if going to particular locations. I've done all of these things in suburbs. It's not really a big deal for the rare times that a car breaks down.
There was just a story about this in the Strib a few weeks ago.
As someone who does live in the suburbs, I've always liked working in downtown Minneapolis due to the ease of getting there and back as well as the ability to conveniently run errands over my lunch. The restaurants and bars downtown are a nice perk as well. I wouldn't mind working down here in the south suburbs if I could keep it to a 10-15 minute drive, but I'll take downtown Minneapolis or St. Paul over the west, east, or north suburbs any day.
I read the New York Times article that is mentioned in what you posted a couple of days ago and was intrigued that businesses are coming back to the city. In my opinion, it's great as have a less spread-out corporate environment can bring more people downtown (hopefully making it livelier) and making transit more efficient.
I know I'm certainly one of the younger generations that is demanding a more urban living and work environment. I'll be graduated by this time next year and the first place I'm looking for jobs are in places that a urban, vibrant, etc. My hope is in Minneapolis as I love this city, but I'm not opposed to going elsewhere.
I really wonder if it isn't about city governments luring them back with tax breaks. The argument seems to be that somehow there will be trickle down, but people who never ran away could be seeing HIGHER taxes as the companies, having got sweetheart deals, ask for expensive services.
I really wonder if it isn't about city governments luring them back with tax breaks. The argument seems to be that somehow there will be trickle down, but people who never ran away could be seeing HIGHER taxes as the companies, having got sweetheart deals, ask for expensive services.
Lots of suburbs offer tax breaks too, though; it's not just a city thing. I think the logistical advantages of having a central location, and people's changing lifestyles to a lesser degree, are what's causing this.
Unfortunately, I think companies in the Twin Cities will be slower to jump on this bandwagon than many other cities, but it's an encouraging sign of things to come.
A lot of people from my high school graduating class (2005...certainly in the "Millennial" range) who have moved to the Twin Cities (or other large Midwestern cities, such as Chicago). Most of them live in the suburbs. I occasionally have asked them in the past if they would want to live in the actual Cities. The answer has always been a "No".
Personally, I thought "new urbanism" was the coolest thing when I was in high school, especially being from the rural outskirts of town where you absolutely needed a car to get anywhere. However, I don't think many other people shared my views, or even saw anything wrong with the suburban lifestyle and auto dependency.
So it might be a certain subset of millennials that prefers the urban lifestyle, or those on the Coasts maybe, or maybe those that have grown up in sterile subdivisions. But as for Minnesota, I see a lot of my generation continuing to live (or try attaining) the "suburban dream", much like they lived as children.
Frankly, I think the economy has outgrown urban cores. This company or that might "move downtown", but the boundaries don't change, so the majority of companiese will be forced to locate outside the boundaries of urban core cities. To me, I can see advantages. If some city dwellers could commute to a suburb, it creates some traffic counterflow. I remember years in which I was driving OUT of town while the mob was coming in. It is so dumb that all the traffic flows one way and so both sides have to be enlarged for once-a-day use. They should tax companies who locate in such a way as to aggravate gridlock. Make it worth their while to generate flow when traffic is light. I mean, the fact is that real estate developers don't pay ANYTHING for highway development, so they don't even consider the cost in their projects.
I feel like young people in Minnesota choose the suburbs because:
1. houses in good city neighborhoods are already too expensive
2. Minneapolis and St. Paul aren't really "urban living" like how one would define it most places in the world. One still needs a car, so it combines the headaches of the city with the headaches of the suburbs.
3. The job they have is in the suburbs
That said, a big reason to have businesses downtown is that it is a central location. If people want to live in Anoka or Chanhassen, it takes about the same amount of time to get downtown. If a business relocates to Bloomington, it's ok for the Chanhassen person but a headache for the person in Anoka.
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.
