WOW!!! MPLS-SP has it going on!!! (Minneapolis, St. Paul: best neighborhoods, apartments, house)

[313Weather]

Originally Posted by xandrex

The MSP area already is the second city in the Midwest in some ways. For instance, it surpassed the Detroit area a while ago for size of the metro economy.

That's true.

I'm referring to all measures

[WhiteSandsYucca]

Originally Posted by Govie

You talking about the architecture? There was a rock star that came through here some time back who had majored in architecture and he said in the interview that Minneapolis Downtown has some of the most beautiful architecture he had ever seen.

Yes, I do love the Minneapolis skyline! It is one of my favorites in the USA. I love the colors & tones of it, the shapes, ect. My only complaint about it is the fact that most of it that is visible (besides the Foshay Tower) has been built since the early 70's -- much like Denver, CO. The two other major historic art deco buildings downtown (the phone building, and Rand Tower) are mostly hidden between the new buildings, when you are looking at the entire skyline. And, there's hardly a "60's shoebox" present (like you see in a lot of cities). So, as far as a mirrored, striking modern skyline, I love it. As far as having textures that older buildings "bring to the mix", it lacks that, I feel. (Whereas, cities like KC have a great set of textures, and ecclectic mix of architecture from many decades, I think.) In fact, I wonder if Pelli designed the Wells Fargo Center with the idea that Minneapolis needed more historic-looking textures (as that new skyscraper takes design cues from historic art deco buildings). Nonetheless, it really has it goin' on, and I love it.

Love this pic on Wikipedia: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...e-20070805.jpg

(Another thing about modern skylines is that they don't look "romantic" in paintings, like an old painting of NYC or Chicago would look, imo. I hardly ever see any artwork done of Minneapolis and like it for that reason. For example, it is hard to picture an oil painting of modern Minneapolis or modern Denver that would be likeable to me. I think it is challenging for artists to paint modern/ist-looking skylines in a way to make the painting look good, imo -- unless they are doing some sort of abstract-type painting with acrylics, I think.)

[Govie]

Originally Posted by WhiteSandsYucca

Yes, I do love the Minneapolis skyline! It is one of my favorites in the USA. I love the colors & tones of it, the shapes, ect. My only complaint about it is the fact that most of it that is visible (besides the Foshay Tower) has been built since the early 70's -- much like Denver, CO. The two other major historic art deco buildings downtown (the phone building, and Rand Tower) are mostly hidden between the new buildings, when you are looking at the entire skyline. And, there's hardly a "60's shoebox" present (like you see in a lot of cities). So, as far as a mirrored, striking modern skyline, I love it. As far as having textures that older buildings "bring to the mix", it lacks that, I feel. (Whereas, cities like KC have a great set of textures, and ecclectic mix of architecture from many decades, I think.) In fact, I wonder if Pelli designed the Wells Fargo Center with the idea that Minneapolis needed more historic-looking textures (as that new skyscraper takes design cues from historic art deco buildings). Nonetheless, it really has it goin' on, and I love it.

Love this pic on Wikipedia: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...e-20070805.jpg

(Another thing about modern skylines is that they don't look "romantic" in paintings, like an old painting of NYC or Chicago would look, imo. I hardly ever see any artwork done of Minneapolis and like it for that reason. For example, it is hard to picture an oil painting of modern Minneapolis or modern Denver that would be likeable to me. I think it is challenging for artists to paint modern/ist-looking skylines in a way to make the painting look good, imo -- unless they are doing some sort of abstract-type painting with acrylics, I think.)

Well-written post. Good point about the old pictures you see of DT NYC and Chicago. And nice pic of DT Minny.

[dgd717]

Well, what I really don't understand is why Minneapolis is compared to Chicago, DT, and NYC? Those major cities have districts, which captures Minneapolis in smaller inaccessible scales. What you find about Minneapolis / St. Paul is that it's accessible. It only takes a 5-10 min drive from coffee shops with great coffee to a live affordable music show. It's "poor man's rich living" in a classy sense, separated into so many different ways. Major cities can't be really comparable to Minneapolis. It's not big enough to have everything, but it does have everything it needs in such a short amount of distance.

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by dgd717

Well, what I really don't understand is why Minneapolis is compared to Chicago, DT, and NYC? Those major cities have districts, which captures Minneapolis in smaller inaccessible scales. What you find about Minneapolis / St. Paul is that it's accessible. It only takes a 5-10 min drive from coffee shops with great coffee to a live affordable music show. It's "poor man's rich living" in a classy sense, separated into so many different ways. Major cities can't be really comparable to Minneapolis. It's not big enough to have everything, but it does have everything it needs in such a short amount of distance.

Arguably, Minneapolis has just about everything a major city like NYC or Chicago has...just on a smaller scale. No, we don't have all of the tourist attractions like Navy Pier or the Statue of Liberty. But we have the Walker and Minneapolis Institute of Art. We have cool bars and restaurants. We have bike trails. We have affordable, funky neighborhoods. I live right across the river from downtown in Marcy Holmes. It's quiet and green, yet right next to all the attractions of the St. Anthony Main area. Imagine getting a place with a nice neighborhood vibe but close to the center of everything in NYC. You'll pay exorbitant rents. Here, we get nearly all the attractions but at a fraction of the cost.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by xandrex

Arguably, Minneapolis has just about everything a major city like NYC or Chicago has...just on a smaller scale. No, we don't have all of the tourist attractions like Navy Pier or the Statue of Liberty. But we have the Walker and Minneapolis Institute of Art. We have cool bars and restaurants. We have bike trails. We have affordable, funky neighborhoods. I live right across the river from downtown in Marcy Holmes. It's quiet and green, yet right next to all the attractions of the St. Anthony Main area. Imagine getting a place with a nice neighborhood vibe but close to the center of everything in NYC. You'll pay exorbitant rents. Here, we get nearly all the attractions but at a fraction of the cost.

The Mall of America is the most visited tourist attraction in the US.

[ManBearPig1]

Originally Posted by golfgal

The Mall of America is the most visited tourist attraction in the US.

Not true. It's the most visited MALL in the US.

Mall of America: 40 million visitors annually (source) that means 109,500 or so per day. Times Square has more employees alone than that (source). I won't even get into the notion that somehow a giant mall in the suburbs is remotely comparable to the Statue of Liberty.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

Heh. Can't wait for the next icepocalypse in Atlanta. Need to stock up on popcorn.

And for me, a few bottles of pop(Canada Dry ginger ale particularly), hot chocolate, milk, marshmallows, cheesecake, cookies, and a sled(for when I want to go outdoors).

[green_mariner]

The skyways are one architectural feature one doesn't find in alot of American cities. And it speaks to the innovation in Minneapolis. I think it was done for the climate. Same thing for the Metrodome.

[eluko]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

The skyways are one architectural feature one doesn't find in alot of American cities. And it speaks to the innovation in Minneapolis. I think it was done for the climate. Same thing for the Metrodome.

From what I remember reading long ago, the cold weather was never a selling point to get them built but rather an optimistic view by the city on future pedestrian traffic. When the skyways were first proposed back in the 30's and 40's they expected 4 times the pedestrian traffic it had when they were eventually built.