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.
Charlotte had an advantage of annexation. Mpls didn't. In many ways it isn't far.
I like the ol' city population to metro population ratio:
For instance, Minneapolis has an estimated population of 382,578.
Minneapolis is part of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Statistical Area with a popultion of 3,317,308.
I take the city population (382,578) / against the metro population (3,317,308) and it = 11.53%. Minneapolis proper makes up about 12% of the entire metropolitan area. That shows that while Minneapolis doesn't have a large population, but still holds significance in a large metro area while only taking up 56 square miles.
Comparing some other cities -
Charlotte: (751,087) / (1,758,038) = 42.72% 298 square miles
Denver: (619,968) / (4,423,936) = 14.01% 155 square miles
Jacksonville: (821,784) / (1,345,596) = 61.07% 885 square miles
Seattle: (608,660) / (3,344,813) = 18.20% 143 square miles
Detroit: (713,777) / (4,296,250) = 16.61% 143 square miles
Los Angeles: (3,792,621) / (12,828,837) = 29.56% 503 square miles
Indianapolis: (829,718) / (2,080,782) = 39.88% 372 square miles
The closest I can find to Minneapolis' situation is Miami:
Miami: (408,568) / (5,547,051) = 7.36% 55 square miles
I've included an easy graph as an attatchment. It has the cities with their population in 100s and the sq miles. Quite the correlation.
Just another reason why Minneapolis-St. Paul is so unique.
I like the ol' city population to metro population ratio:
For instance, Minneapolis has an estimated population of 382,578.
Minneapolis is part of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Statistical Area with a popultion of 3,317,308.
I take the city population (382,578) / against the metro population (3,317,308) and it = 11.53%. Minneapolis proper makes up about 12% of the entire metropolitan area. That shows that while Minneapolis doesn't have a large population, but still holds significance in a large metro area while only taking up 56 square miles.
Comparing some other cities -
Charlotte: (751,087) / (1,758,038) = 42.72% 298 square miles
Denver: (619,968) / (4,423,936) = 14.01% 155 square miles
Jacksonville: (821,784) / (1,345,596) = 61.07% 885 square miles
Seattle: (608,660) / (3,344,813) = 18.20% 143 square miles
Detroit: (713,777) / (4,296,250) = 16.61% 143 square miles
Los Angeles: (3,792,621) / (12,828,837) = 29.56% 503 square miles
Indianapolis: (829,718) / (2,080,782) = 39.88% 372 square miles
The closest I can find to Minneapolis' situation is Miami:
Miami: (408,568) / (5,547,051) = 7.36% 55 square miles
I've included an easy graph as an attatchment. It has the cities with their population in 100s and the sq miles. Quite the correlation.
Just another reason why Minneapolis-St. Paul is so unique.
Two immediate thoughts:
#1. St. Paul certainly counts as core, too. Downtown St. Paul is the second largest employer in the area. Adding St. Paul would bring us up to, what? 18%? More on par with Seattle.
#2. There is no way there are 4.4 million people in metro Denver, even by the most liberal definitions. Whole state of Colorado is only 5.1...
#1. St. Paul certainly counts as core, too. Downtown St. Paul is the second largest employer in the area. Adding St. Paul would bring us up to, what? 18%? More on par with Seattle.
#2. There is no way there are 4.4 million people in metro Denver, even by the most liberal definitions. Whole state of Colorado is only 5.1...
I'm tired of this argument --- "Minneapolis destroyed so many old historic buildings"
Prior to WWII and immediately after, there were no minimum housing standards in urban areas, major cities, especially regarding high-rises. Most of these buildings were constructed around the turn of the century with inadequate standards that is now REQUIRED. Simple buildings standards like plumbing and electricity were exempt from most of these buildings, but furthermore, even things like trash removal, light switch/door knob heights, emergency exits, fire/sprinkler systems, ADA requirements... There are even building standards that require X amount of natural lighting for every X amount of sq. feet. There are minumum standards that make up an offical bedroom/kitchen... All of this stuff needed to be considered in the 1950's,60's, and 70s when much of these buildings were destroyed. Many times, property owners, and developers were looking at a higher bill for restoration than to just raze it and build a lot where they could make money. Plus, prior to WWII and the interstate system, those living in the inner city wouldn't own vehicles (or afford to, or no need for one), often taking streetcars, trains or subways into downtown. The 1950s added the Interstate Highway System bringing swarms of people and their cars into downtown.... Buy my oh my where are these people going to park? Hmm.. spend a million $ refixing a 60 year old crumbling building? or raze it, lay down some asphalt and make money off parking fees? DUH~!
"The Metropolitan Building, originally known as the Northwestern Guaranty Loan Building, is considered to be one of the most architecturally significant structures in the history of Minneapolis, Minnesota. It stood from 1890 until it was torn down starting in 1961 as part of major urban renewal efforts in the city that saw about 40% of the downtown district razed and replaced with new structures . . . There was little practical reason to tear down the building. Records from the day indicate that it was safe and almost fully occupied at the time it was condemned. The structure came down because it was in the wrong neighborhood—on the edge of the so-called Gateway District, sitting on the southwest corner of Third Street South and Second Avenue South."
We're still trying to fill in all those vacant lots from the disaster that was urban renewal, which was spawned by trying to de-urbanize and automobile-orient city cores, not housing codes.
And if we didn't have the equal tragedy of tearing up all those streetcar tracks, all that parking for cars wouldn't be needed downtown. Manhattan is doing quite fine despite Robert Moses failing to ever gut it with a crosstown highway.
I'm tired of this argument --- "Minneapolis destroyed so many old historic buildings"
Prior to WWII and immediately after, there were no minimum housing standards in urban areas, major cities, especially regarding high-rises. Most of these buildings were constructed around the turn of the century with inadequate standards that is now REQUIRED. Simple buildings standards like plumbing and electricity were exempt from most of these buildings, but furthermore, even things like trash removal, light switch/door knob heights, emergency exits, fire/sprinkler systems, ADA requirements... There are even building standards that require X amount of natural lighting for every X amount of sq. feet. There are minumum standards that make up an offical bedroom/kitchen... All of this stuff needed to be considered in the 1950's,60's, and 70s when much of these buildings were destroyed. Many times, property owners, and developers were looking at a higher bill for restoration than to just raze it and build a lot where they could make money. Plus, prior to WWII and the interstate system, those living in the inner city wouldn't own vehicles (or afford to, or no need for one), often taking streetcars, trains or subways into downtown. The 1950s added the Interstate Highway System bringing swarms of people and their cars into downtown.... Buy my oh my where are these people going to park? Hmm.. spend a million $ refixing a 60 year old crumbling building? or raze it, lay down some asphalt and make money off parking fees? DUH~!
I studied this a lot during my Urban Planning studies, but the whole "gentifrication" argument gets old. Yes, sure some great buildings got destroyed when they probably shouldn't have, but many were due to no other choice, they just had to.
It's trickled into small towns today. I was recently on a community visit for a SWOT analysis in a community west of the Twin Cities, home to about 8,000, with a nice little dowtown. However someone pointed out an old, crumbling, abandond building. They guy showing us around beamed and explained "It's the state theater they wanted to destroy, it went out of business in the early 90s. So the city bought it, but has no money to restore it, we're waiting to secure enough grant money and fundraisers to restore it and then we'll have movies playing there"
It was a cute story, but really? You're going to sit on this eyesore downtown so it can be restored? And once you restore it, you want to have movies play there? Movies did play there!! Until the 1990s. Then big, fancy, nice, comfy theater on the other side of town was built... and that's where people go now. They don't want to go to the dark, 100 yr old theater downtown that's dead as a graveyard after 4 pm every day.
For everyone who has wondered at the ugliness and soulless utility of modern architecture and society in general, or wondered how did the town you love become like this? what happened? Well here is your answer, guys like this happened.
For everyone who has wondered at the ugliness and soulless utility of modern architecture and society in general, or wondered how did the town you love become like this? what happened? Well here is your answer, guys like this happened.
I hope you're still driving a 1938 Packard because they were so beautiful and weren't ugly and soulless like these modern cars.
I hope you're still driving a 1938 Packard because they were so beautiful and weren't ugly and soulless like these modern cars.
The fact is Glen, I bet you once really did appreciate the superiority of old architecture, of the historic and cultural value of buildings. But at some point perhaps it clashed with your religious and political views, preserving historic buildings of the past and developing outward doesn't fit into the minimal footprint, urban-dense, car-light, save-the-whales-to-boot ideal and perhaps you decided its better to sacrifice those crowning architectural achievements, as beautiful as they may be, on the altar of pop-environmentalism.
The fact is Glen, I bet you once really did appreciate the superiority of old architecture, of the historic and cultural value of buildings. But at some point perhaps it clashed with your religious and political views, preserving historic buildings of the past and developing outward doesn't fit into the minimal footprint, urban-dense, car-light, save-the-whales-to-boot ideal and perhaps you decided its better to sacrifice those crowning architectural achievements, as beautiful as they may be, on the altar of pop-environmentalism.
Or am I wrong.
You actually could not be more wrong. I cannot for the life of me imagine what religion or politics would have to do with any of this, or where you would get the idea that I subscribe to some sort of "pop environmentalism," ( the very thought of which makes me chuckle) but that little winking guy at the end of my post was supposed to tip you off that my comment was tongue in cheek.
As to now I really feel about old buildings, i think some of them, like the one I live in, are very useful and nice. Others are worthless and are best removed. Perhaps some that are now gone could have been preserved, but we weren't there on the spot when the decisions were made, and it's easy to second guess our predecessors, especially when we don't have to deal with the practical issues.
But you do see the parallel with the cars, don't you? As a collector's item, a 54 MG or 32 Ford is a wonderful thing, but in day to day use it would be a nightmare.
The fact that they are building them doesnt really mean anything. I know plenty of people who work in offices in NY's financial district and they are not all that comfortable with the idea, but the people who work in the offices aren't the ones who decide to develop the property or sign the leases. I'm just saying how many of the worker bees feel about it.
By the way, though it did tick down ever so slightly this year, the vacancy rate in Minneapolis is still almost 20%. I don't think there's any demand for this here right now.
Idk about that , although alot of companies moved to Jersey and out of Manhattan. But since 9/11 theres been a boom in high rises and Skyscrapers in the region over 300 built since 9/11 , 12 in Lower Manhattan. 58 in Jersey City and the rest are in the outer boroughs and satilite cities...
For everyone who has wondered at the ugliness and soulless utility of modern architecture and society in general, or wondered how did the town you love become like this? what happened? Well here is your answer, guys like this happened.
I think Minneapolis is a gorgeous city. In fact, it's beautiful buildings are often what outsiders notice. It's known for its modern architecture.
I didn't say that no building ever in the history of Minneapolis was razed for no good reason, obviously not. That's the reason for the national register of historic places was created in the mid 1960s during and after all that demolition happened.
I also didn't state opinion, I stated facts. Many buildings were demolished due to horrible standards. You can copy and paste your cute little link to Wikipedia, but I've done much further research on the topic than some hand-made wiki article. The city has to take a long hard look at itself. Planning is often done in the scope of 25-50 years. As a growing city at the time (Mpls ballooned to nearly 600,000 in the '50s) they were faced with challenges like many cities have gone through - Growing pains. Does it make sense to keep a 70 year old building (I find hard to believe up to standards, albeit '60s standards of buildings)? Or to start new. Keep in mind a 70 year old building today will be 120 years old in 50 years.
Historic Preservation is a touchy topic in this country. From my experience, often times a building is left, neglected because nobody wants to invest the time or money for renovation/improvements.
You have people like you who think a 70 yr old building with "historic architecture" is vital for a city and it's history... Then you have people like myself who believe that when needed, it only makes sense to raze a building and build something new. Just because it's an oldie, doesn't mean it's a goody. Again, I'm not saying that every old building needs to go, but it's much deeper than "Some goons in MPLS just wanted to start demolishing buildings because some guy wanted it to be soulless and ugly"
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.
