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.
You two are really a piece of work. The OP comes here asking about Edina and OTHER PLACES TO CONSIDER, I give a VERY REASONABLE suggestion and you act like the only place to live is in Minneapolis because there are sidewalks. Well, let me clue you in, there are PLENTY of sidewalks all over the places I suggested and are a BETTER fit for a young family than Edina, period. Edina is lovely, but you get small yards, older houses, and not very many young kids. If that is what the OP wants, great, but she did ask for other suggestions and I gave her some.
Come on, Golfgal, can't we all just get along? Or at least do our best to offer the OP quality suggestions? And provide feedback about other suggestions?
Eagan or Chaska may be a "better" fit for SOME young families, but it would be a terrible fit for others. I would absolutely HATE to live in such a place, and given that they specifically said they were interested in sidewalks, how about we actually -- shocking! -- give them some neighborhood suggestions that HAVE sidewalks? Or, if sidewalks are negotiable, might as well focus on Edina itself, rather than eliminate it based on outdated stereotypes from 15 years ago.
Some of us don't think utopia is a modern McMansion on huge lot with no sidewalks. Others do, and that's their choice. But being "best" for a family depends on the family in question, not what one person THINKS they should like. And, given how many families actively seek out Edina, I think it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that the city is lacking young kids.
I don't think Minneapolis is the only option out there, but for a family-friendly appealing location with ultra-easy commute to Edina and the requested sidewalks (and because they said they thought they wanted to be closer to Minneapolis), it seems like the most obvious and easy option. You are, of course, welcome to dispute that, but we are certainly entitled to debate your assertions. The resulting discussion -- if it can be kept focused on locations -- can help the OP get a sense of the options, of course realizing that all posters here are people with their own inherent biases and preferences, much as some of us try to target our suggestions based on the OP's requests, and not our own.
Eagan or Eden Prairie are not suggestions I would give to someone who has said that sidewalks are important. But again, that's just opinion, albeit opinion backed up by the fact that those areas are not known for their sidewalks. Even Edina has a long way to go, sidewalk-wise (although to give them credit the city has been trying to make it more pedestrian-friendly).
Come on, Golfgal, can't we all just get along? Or at least do our best to offer the OP quality suggestions? And provide feedback about other suggestions?
Eagan or Chaska may be a "better" fit for SOME young families, but it would be a terrible fit for others. I would absolutely HATE to live in such a place, and given that they specifically said they were interested in sidewalks, how about we actually -- shocking! -- give them some neighborhood suggestions that HAVE sidewalks? Or, if sidewalks are negotiable, might as well focus on Edina itself, rather than eliminate it based on outdated stereotypes from 15 years ago.
Some of us don't think utopia is a modern McMansion on huge lot with no sidewalks. Others do, and that's their choice. But being "best" for a family depends on the family in question, not what one person THINKS they should like. And, given how many families actively seek out Edina, I think it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that the city is lacking young kids.
I don't think Minneapolis is the only option out there, but for a family-friendly appealing location with ultra-easy commute to Edina and the requested sidewalks (and because they said they thought they wanted to be closer to Minneapolis), it seems like the most obvious and easy option. You are, of course, welcome to dispute that, but we are certainly entitled to debate your assertions. The resulting discussion -- if it can be kept focused on locations -- can help the OP get a sense of the options, of course realizing that all posters here are people with their own inherent biases and preferences, much as some of us try to target our suggestions based on the OP's requests, and not our own.
Eagan or Eden Prairie are not suggestions I would give to someone who has said that sidewalks are important. But again, that's just opinion, albeit opinion backed up by the fact that those areas are not known for their sidewalks.
That is my whole point--let's get along. Your ASSUMPTION is that Eagan and Eden Prairie do not have sidewalks and it is just flat out WRONG. Also, the sidewalk issue came up AFTER I suggested Chaska-which also has PLENTY of sidewalks so this is not about sidewalks and about your insistence that any suburb is evil. In these areas that do not have sidewalks, there is no NEED for sidewalks, a concept you just can't understand no matter how many time people point this out to you. There is NO TRAFFIC in these neighborhoods warranting sidewalks, but a good portion of these suburbs DO have sidewalks...why can't you understand that. Take your bus out there, walk around in the neighborhoods and see for yourself that there are sidewalks and biking/walking paths EVERYWHERE.
That is my whole point--let's get along. Your ASSUMPTION is that Eagan and Eden Prairie do not have sidewalks and it is just flat out WRONG. Also, the sidewalk issue came up AFTER I suggested Chaska-which also has PLENTY of sidewalks so this is not about sidewalks and about your insistence that any suburb is evil. In these areas that do not have sidewalks, there is no NEED for sidewalks, a concept you just can't understand no matter how many time people point this out to you. There is NO TRAFFIC in these neighborhoods warranting sidewalks, but a good portion of these suburbs DO have sidewalks...why can't you understand that. Take your bus out there, walk around in the neighborhoods and see for yourself that there are sidewalks and biking/walking paths EVERYWHERE.
No -- that's not my assumption, and I never did say that. Eagan has historically not required sidewalks, and while there are SOME sidewalks, they do not cover the city. It's very different than having sidewalks on both sides of every street, even quiet residential streets. Some people don't mind walking in the street, others do. OP said that they prefer sidewalks. Others think that trails or sidewalks on one side of the street are good enough, or that sidewalks on busy streets are good enough. As the parent of a young child, I personally feel safer with sidewalks on both sides, buffered by a green boulevard and a parking lane. I know people walk all the time in the neighborhoods (or at least get out and walk the dogs) without sidewalks, though, but personally those make me uncomfortable, especially in the winter, and especially with a little kid. (and NO, there are not sidewalks "everywhere" in the areas mentioned. Everywhere means, well, everywhere, which is clearly not the case.)
As far as Chaska, I just figured why go farther away when there's something so nice right by Edina? Didn't you just (in another thread) say something about why creating a commute when it's not needed? Same thing, really, goes for Eagan -- why would they want to commute from Eagan when their are other options right by work? Might as well keep the initial focus on Edina and adjacent neighborhoods, rather than take on a longer commute just for the fun of it.
Your argument here isn't making any sense -- you're saying that these suburbs all have sidewalks, yet there isn't any traffic and therefore there is no need to have sidewalks? And where in the world do you get off on this constant repetition that I live in a bubble?
In any case, let's not make this into yet another tired suburb-versus-city argument. It's NOT about that. It's just that I think that if the OP wants sidewalks, then the Edina-adjacent SW Minneapolis neighborhoods are going to be their best bet, and will have the added bonus of being about the most family-friendly areas you could possibly ask for. They'll be able to experience Minneapolis at its best, and have easy access to everything the metro area has to offer. Or they could (and maybe they DO like this) move to somewhere like Eagan, where they could walk their dog and kid on the trails, but would have a longer commute. Or move to Eden Prairie and have fewer sidewalks and a bland experience and have a longer haul to get anywhere other than work or the mall. But again, priorities and preferences vary. I just didn't get the Eden Prairie vibe from the OP based on their posts so far.
Last edited by uptown_urbanist; 03-17-2012 at 04:29 PM..
No -- that's not my assumption, and I never did say that. Eagan has historically not required sidewalks, and while there are SOME sidewalks, they do not cover the city. It's very different than having sidewalks on both sides of every street, even quiet residential streets. Some people don't mind walking in the street, others do. OP said that they prefer sidewalks. Others think that trails or sidewalks on one side of the street are good enough, or that sidewalks on busy streets are good enough. As the parent of a young child, I personally feel safer with sidewalks on both sides, buffered by a green boulevard and a parking lane.
As far as Chaska, I just figured why go farther away when there's something so nice right by Edina? Didn't you just (in another thread) say something about why creating a commute when it's not needed? Same thing, really, goes for Eagan -- why would they want to commute from Eagan when their are other options right by work? Might as well keep the initial focus on Edina and adjacent neighborhoods, rather than take on a longer commute just for the fun of it.
Your argument here isn't making any sense -- you're saying that these suburbs all have sidewalks, yet there isn't any traffic and therefore there is no need to have sidewalks? And where in the world do you get off on this constant repetition that I live in a bubble?
Ok, so a 10 mile commute from Eagan to Edina is too far, but a 45 minute commute from Hopkins to Prior Lake is ok?? The idea you live in a bubble comes from suggestions like this and that you keep insisting that these suburbs don't have sidewalks--which again is just wrong, but I am sure all of our friends that have sidewalks in all of these various suburbs will be more than happy to discover that they have disappeared and they no longer have to shovel them in the winter. If you can read, I said in the few areas where they don't have sidewalks in the suburbs they don't need them....
Ok, so a 10 mile commute from Eagan to Edina is too far, but a 45 minute commute from Hopkins to Prior Lake is ok?? The idea you live in a bubble comes from suggestions like this and that you keep insisting that these suburbs don't have sidewalks--which again is just wrong, but I am sure all of our friends that have sidewalks in all of these various suburbs will be more than happy to discover that they have disappeared and they no longer have to shovel them in the winter. If you can read, I said in the few areas where they don't have sidewalks in the suburbs they don't need them....
Let's not confuse the issue. My general point is that life is easiest if you can find the type of neighborhood you like within the shortest commuting distance. I had only suggested Hopkins on the other thread because there was really nothing (at least I don't think there is) anything that met all of her requirements closer. Just like if someone works in downtown Minneapolis and wants a 2-acre lot, we wouldn't tell him/her to start by looking at lofts by the river. For the OP of THIS thread, however, there's really no reason to look at Eagan when there are suburbs that offer a nearly identical experience that are closer. There's no added benefit (such as finding a place that better meets their needs/wishes) by taking on a longer commute. There are, however, the downsides of commute time and added costs (financial and environmental). If you can find what you want near work, might as well start there and then -- and only then -- radiate outwards until you find what you want.
And can we just say enough is enough with the sidewalk issue? I never said that those suburbs had no sidewalks, and you know it. You also know full well (or should, if you walk) that those suburbs do not have universal sidewalks on both sides of every street. And in most, although not all, of the areas mentioned, full-coverage sidewalks are NOT the norm. That doesn't mean that no sidewalks exist.
Generally speaking, it's a naturally beautiful area with old stands of trees (that are all the right height ), lots of hills and valleys, and even a natural running spring that somone piped into so people can fill drinking water jugs from it for free. Fredrick-Miller Spring (http://www.edenprairie.org/vCurrent/live/article.asp?r=1504 - broken link)
But one thing it doesn't have is an extensive network of sidewalks in its residential neighborhoods. It does have some though; a few are even useful.
Come to think of it, E.P. does a better job for pedestrians than a lot of other places I can think of. The main problem is one of geography; things are spread out there, so walking everywhere isn't very practical for most residents.
I have one more thing to add. I am certainty not saying this to take sides but when I originally started asking about certain places, I was looking at a map and I had no concept of how far things were from each other. Now that a few of you have talked about 30-34 minute commutes, I want to add that I would really prefer a minimal commute. My husband is able to come home for lunch at his current job and it tends to be the only like he gets to see our daughter so we are hoping to continue that. Also, living in an area with cookie cutter homes is not us. However, we do want to walk on side walkes, play ball in the front yard and be able to see other kids riding bikes around the neighborhood. I feel this will help us meet people. With all of that being said, does Linden Hills still fit the criteria. I really appreciate all of the suggestions. Its helping us determine what is important about where we live
I have one more thing to add. I am certainty not saying this to take sides but when I originally started asking about certain places, I was looking at a map and I had no concept of how far things were from each other. Now that a few of you have talked about 30-34 minute commutes, I want to add that I would really prefer a minimal commute. My husband is able to come home for lunch at his current job and it tends to be the only like he gets to see our daughter so we are hoping to continue that. Also, living in an area with cookie cutter homes is not us. However, we do want to walk on side walkes, play ball in the front yard and be able to see other kids riding bikes around the neighborhood. I feel this will help us meet people. With all of that being said, does Linden Hills still fit the criteria. I really appreciate all of the suggestions. Its helping us determine what is important about where we live
Linden Hills will be similar to Edina, older population. It won't be devoid of kids but you MIGHT have one or two kids on your block that are toddlers/early elementary school and a lot of teenagers and older. Again, depending on where in Edina the job is, you might end up living closer to his job in Eden Prairie than in Edina. You are going to probably have to make some choices, close to work and sacrifice a lot of kids in the neighborhood or farther away from work having a neighborhood full of kids.
Linden Hills will be similar to Edina, older population. It won't be devoid of kids but you MIGHT have one or two kids on your block that are toddlers/early elementary school and a lot of teenagers and older. Again, depending on where in Edina the job is, you might end up living closer to his job in Eden Prairie than in Edina. You are going to probably have to make some choices, close to work and sacrifice a lot of kids in the neighborhood or farther away from work having a neighborhood full of kids.
LOL. And that's why Lake Harriet School (K-8), which has two campuses one of which is located in Linden Hills, is bursting at the seams and slated by the Minneapolis Public Schools for expansion. "One or two kids per block." Har dee har har, Alice. Someone really doesn't know what they're talking about on this one! http://www.startribune.com/local/min...130478933.html
LOL. And that's why Lake Harriet School (K-8), which has two campuses one of which is located in Linden Hills, is bursting at the seams and slated by the Minneapolis Public Schools for expansion. "One or two kids per block." Har dee har har, Alice. Someone really doesn't know what they're talking about on this one! 'Already full,' 3 Minneapolis schools poised to expand | StarTribune.com
Or it's full from kids from other areas of Minneapolis attending.......and the school is small to start with--only 5 sections of each grade.....
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.
), lots of hills and valleys, and even a natural running spring that somone piped into so people can fill drinking water jugs from it for free. Fredrick-Miller Spring (http://www.edenprairie.org/vCurrent/live/article.asp?r=1504 - broken link)
