How Would You Characterize The Twin Cities? (Minneapolis, St. Paul: moving to, estimated)

[srsmn]

Originally Posted by Katarina Witt

Tax sharing! The whole district pays a sales tax for transportation services.

PAT is funded jointly by the state of Pennsylvania, and one county (Allegheny). It is literally called the Port Authority of Allegheny County. That hardly qualifies as a "tax-sharing" endeavor.

Pete may have been wrong about the numbers (although I did find the link Uptown alluded to through a quick google search, as well) but the point he was trying to make remains. The Metropolitan Council is one of the oldest and most extensive (in scope) metro-wide tax revenue sharing and planning bodies in the country. It does way, way more than act as a distributor for tax money down to arts agencies. It has served as a national model for regional planning for decades.

Nice Ride Minnesota was the first permanent bike sharing program in the US, and only the second globally. B-Cycle is a for-profit bike sharing program that launched temporarily in Denver for the 2008 conventions (yes, a little over a year before Nice Ride was fully operational). As of right now, Nice Ride Minnesota is approximately twice the size of Denver's B-Cycle. It is one of the largest bike-sharing programs in the country, the first not-for-profit system anywhere nationally.

At any rate, I'm not sure why Denver is in this discussion. Denver is a great city, but this thread is not a slam on Denver. You're the first one here to even bring up Denver...

[rogead]

Originally Posted by Katarina Witt

Hmm. I was thinking mostly of tax-sharing when I asked this, and Denver has a number of metro-wide taxing districts, such as the SCFD, Scientific and Cultural Facilities District that collects taxes district-wide for various cultural facilities. That is how the community theater in our little burb 25 miles away is supported (in part). Here's their website: Scientific and Cultural Facilities District There's also the RTD trasnportation district, again a tax district-wide for bus and light rail services. RTD Then there's the football stadium and the baseball stadium, being paid for by district-wide taxes.

I also found this when I googled "Denver metro wide taxing districts"

Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District
St. Louis city and county district Much like Denver, St. Louis is an independent city. (Denver is a city-county. Everything outside the city limits is in a different county.)

Denver certainly has many different social services and is LGBT-friendly, and has had a bike share since 2008.

As far as tax-sharing, that makes at least 4 cities, Minneapolis, Meadowlands, Denver and St. Louis, not two.

Actually, most metro areas have some sort of transportation district that is area-wide. BART (San Francisco), METRA (Chicago), SEPTA (Philadelphia), MARTA (Atlanta), even O-metro (Omaha), PAT (Pittsburgh) to name a few.

If you're asking "what's my point" it is that these things are not so unique as Minneapolitans perceive them to be.

I think a lot of people don't understand the role of tax-base sharing in The MSP metro area. It is by far the most comprehensive program of its kind. It was enacted by a bi-partisan vote in 1971 and is known as The Fiscal Disparities Act. It is a unique program in terms of its scope (the seven core counties of the metro area, nearly two hundred communities). The program has been extensively studied by Seoul and Montreal, among other cities.

Here's an overview:

Minnesota's Fiscal Disparity tax redistribution explained | Minnesota Public Radio News

Historically, Saint Paul has been the largest net-recipient, while Bloomington has been the largest-net contributor. However, many of the greatest beneficiaries of the program have been third-ring suburbs and exurban communities which have very little in the way of indusrial or commercial tax base.

[vongol]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

Sounds like the OP would love San Francisco - smart, dense and urban, distinctive "aura," cooler, foggy/rainy weather - but San Francisco is also astronomically expensive. Same thing with Seattle. Minneapolis (or st. paul, maybe) could be the good compromise option. Or maybe not... in which case it might be worth looking at smaller cities, too; an interesting college town with a compact urban core, maybe?

I once would've considered San Francisco to be a good option. Having lived in its vicinity, though (in dumpy, scatterbrained Sacramento), I've heard wildly mixed opinions about it: it's alienating, filthy in some parts (the ones I'm more than likely to peruse), lacks the sense of community that some posters have ascribed to Minneapolis, and, of course, it is one of the most expensive (if not the most expensive, by some accounts) cities, regardless of personal opinion.

So, Frisco's not gonna do it.

Now, Seattle, really, is a city I've had a damned-near lifelong fascination with: a towering emblem of innovation, talent, progress, and urbanism. Yet, alas, the living expenses concern me. Perhaps Minneapolis would, indeed, step in and straddle the doorway as a good compromise.

Looking for smaller cities is not an option whatsoever. I would go ****ing haywire. Remember that I'm from New York, where, sadly, you have to cough up two-and-a-half grand to take up fifty square feet of space adorned with subpar plumbing.

Another thing that worries me about Seattle is the presence of a "hipster"-infested atmosphere. When I use the term "educated," I don't refer to the flavor of education, institutional and "trendy," that charletains tote around. Liberals, conservatives—I couldn't care less about subcultures and bull**** political affiliations. I'm a person who looks to reason and universal values as the sole ingredients of a working mind.

[vongol]

I've noticed the mention of Denver... I ought to look into that place, too. All suggestions are welcome. Help a brother out (a blonde-haired, blue-eyed brother).

[montymontage]

Minneapolis can be a good compromise. Compared to Seattle, it comes up short. While the lakes and the Mississippi river are nice, it is nothing compared to Puget Sound. Seattle, over all, feels a lot more big city and, imo, has far better weather.

Minneapolis is nice. It's more affordable than Seattle. But is a more straight laced, no nonsense type of place. It's best described as wholesome, not edgy, not exciting, certainly not quirky.

Can you visit it a bit before making choice? because based on your original post, i think you are 60/40 (not liking/ liking)....but i may tend to underplay the area's virtues....but please know that many will way, way over play 'em...

In the end, you could do far worse but just know this is a small-ish city in the upper Midwest.

[uptown_urbanist]

It's ridiculous to call Minneapolis a "smallish city in the Upper Midwest." Smallish on an international level, yes, but it's still a big city for the United States even if not one of the mega-cities.

That said, the OP may find Minneapolis too hipster-filled for his liking. It's not annoying trust fund hipsterism (i.e. we're no Williamsburg), but there's a strong hipster vibe in many of the urban areas.

Definitely visit first, or else be willing to take a chance and realize it may not be right.

If Minneapolis isn't it, what about Philadelphia? Urban, way cheaper than NYC, and with a fantastic walkable center core.

[montymontage]

According to CD, Minneapolis is the 47th biggest city in the US. Yes, one can add St Paul, then we reach the Cleveland threshold. It's clearly not a big city.

[rogead]

Originally Posted by montymontage

Minneapolis can be a good compromise. Compared to Seattle, it comes up short. While the lakes and the Mississippi river are nice, it is nothing compared to Puget Sound. Seattle, over all, feels a lot more big city and, imo, has far better weather.

Minneapolis is nice. It's more affordable than Seattle. But is a more straight laced, no nonsense type of place. It's best described as wholesome, not edgy, not exciting, certainly not quirky.

Can you visit it a bit before making choice? because based on your original post, i think you are 60/40 (not liking/ liking)....but i may tend to underplay the area's virtues....but please know that many will way, way over play 'em...

In the end, you could do far worse but just know this is a small-ish city in the upper Midwest.

Having lived in Seattle, and now living in Minneapolis, I would suggest that the OP would probably enjoy either city. However, I do disagree with most of the above-quoted post.

A preference for a large ocean inlet, as opposed to a vast number of lakes/rivers is perfectly valid. However, it is a highly subjective preference.

While some people would argue that Seattle's overall weather is marginally preferable to that of Minneapolis, few would reasonably suggest it to be "far better". While I personally enjoy the weather in both cities, both are notorious for weather which is popularly considered to be undesirable. The OP did indicate a preference for cold weather--not a trait of Seattle's climate profile. On the other hand, the OP's desire for overcast skies and rain is .

As for "big city feel", one cannot even attend an NHL or NBA game in Seattle. Nor are there as many prominent fine arts organizations as one finds in Minneapolis (my St Paul friends would admonish me to point out that St Paul, with its own unique charms, is part of the package). While the OP didn't mention either of these specific criteria, they are amenities that contribute to the aura of a big city.

I wouldn't describe either city as being particularly edgy, exciting, or quirky. Both are actually very corporate, albeit in different ways. I probably would agree that Minneapolis has more of a straight-laced and no-nonsense vibe to it. With that said, both cities certainly have their pockets of Bohemian flavor and far more cultural diversity than most people realize.

As for the notion that Minneapolis is a "small-ish city in the upper Midwest", that's like saying that Seattle is a small-ish city in the Pacific Northwest. True if one compares either city to N Y or LA, but largely irrelevant given that Seattle and Minneapolis are pretty close in size.

Minneapolis isn't a "compromise". It is a different kind of city than Seattle, but it's not a step down. In fact, contrary to pop-culture profiles, I find it to be a slight step up. Personally, even if the two cities were comparable in COL, I would choose Minneapolis because it excels at the things I find most important in a city: an unequaled fine arts scene for any American city even close to it in size, one of the best urban park/recreation systems in the world, four distinct seasons, all four major league sports (with MSL on the way), and two distinct downtowns--Minneapolis (modern and bustling) and St Paul (charming and Euro-inspired). The lower cost of living in Minneapolis simply makes it a much easier choice for me.

Both cities have similar population densities--in the mid 7000s. Both cities provide an excellent array of social services. However, at the state level, Minnesota outshines Washington in social services. Both cities are routinely counted among the best-educated cities in the country. From an overall picture, both cities are among the most desireable large cities in North America.

The OP may also want to consider Denver and Pittsburgh, and I do agree that anyone should personally check-out a city before relocating there.

[rogead]

Originally Posted by montymontage

According to CD, Minneapolis is the 47th biggest city in the US. Yes, one can add St Paul, then we reach the Cleveland threshold. It's clearly not a big city.

2015 population estimates (cities proper):

Minneapolis/St Paul--712,000 (411,000 + 301,000)

Seattle--662,000

Cleveland--385,000

[montymontage]

Cleveland, Ohio (pop 449,188); yes the combined populations of both Minneapolis and St. Paul are larger than those of Cleveland but your numbers are wrong. MNPLS is 375, 641; St. Paul is 297, 978; together that is: 673,619 bigger than Cleveland even w/out your wonky numbers. But that wasn't the point.

Most folks how have been to Cleveland would likely find it more dense, more urban than Minneapolis. This is far more true of Seattle to Minneapolis. It's not a bad thing, no need to cry!