How Would You Characterize The Twin Cities? (Minneapolis, St. Paul: affordable apartments, home)

[uptown_urbanist]

I don't see much of a difference between "smallish" and "smaller" cities, yet there is clearly a world of difference between these much smaller cities and the Twin Cities.

Clearly in international context Minneapolis is a smaller city; in context of evaluating American cities as a place to live, it's a bigger but not huge city. Or at least that's my take, as I think, experience-wise, there's more in common between Minneapolis and Chicago (despite the admittedly many differences) than there is between Minneapolis and Duluth. I say that as someone who has lived in both a much smaller city as well as in several of the nation's largest cities, so that's where my biases are coming from.

[Glenfield]

I hate to let facts obscure the argument here, but Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington is the 16th largest Metropolitan Statistical Area, falling between Seattle and San Diego. Denver, Portland, KC, St. Louis are all in less populous MSAs.

These are facts. "Small," "smallish" and other terms are completely subjective. Better to use numbers when discussing things that actually be quantified.

[vongol]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

I hate to let facts obscure the argument here, but Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington is the 16th largest Metropolitan Statistical Area, falling between Seattle and San Diego. Denver, Portland, KC, St. Louis are all in less populous MSAs.

These are facts. "Small," "smallish" and other terms are completely subjective. Better to use numbers when discussing things that actually be quantified.

I like the cut of this fella's jib. Right on, Glenfield.

[rogead]

Originally Posted by montymontage

"After all, if Minneapolis is "smallish," then what does that make them?"--uptown_urbanist

A: by definition, it would make 'them' smaller cities. That is all. Smallish is not a slur. Considering that North America is less urbanized that much of the world, that Minneapolis is far from the urbanized coasts, it should be fairly non-controversial to describe Minneapolis as a small-ish city in the upper midwest.

Again, it's not a slur; in fact, it's the lack of size and population that makes such places attractive to many.

At any rate, I've made--or utterly failed to--make what should be a rather obvious point. If I seemed snarky and that poisoned the well, I do apologize; however, if one wants to sing the praises of a particular place, it's best to stay in key, so-to-speak. In any event, I'm done ruffling feathers on this particular issue, lol.

There are 381 MSAs in The United States (exclusive of Puerto Rico). New York is, of course, the largest. The smallest is Carson City, NV with a population of about 55,000. Of those MSAs, the median population is represented by Champaign-Urbana, IL at about 237,000.

If you want to call Fargo (4 spots below median) or Rochester (14 spots below median) a "small-ish upper Midwestern city", that probably wouldn't be outrageous. You might even be able to stretch the definition to include Sioux Falls (5 spots above median) or Duluth (twenty-five spots above median). Of course, even these four cities are statistically far closer to the median than they are to the cities near the bottom of the MSA list.

To put it another way, if you divided the list of US metro areas into ten equal and progressively larger groups, MSP would be in the top group. In fact, if you divided metro areas into twenty equal groups, MSP would still be in the top group. So, if a city which is in the 96th percentile of US metro area populations is "small-ish", what are the regressive categories you use to represent the 96 percent of US metro areas that are smaller?

My impression of the OP is that they are intelligent enough to understand that Minneapolis is not on the same hierarchical level of US cities as is Chicago, and I know of no one in this forum who has ever suggested the contrary.

I also assume that the OP understands that asking for input from those who live in a given city will yield a fair number of positive comments about that city. The problem is that the tenor or your posts would seem to suggest that you are simply grasping at ways in which you can disparage Minneapolis. Those of us who are addressing your comments, and who appreciate what the city has to offer, aren't so much engaging in boosterism, as we are defending against your grossly inaccurate portrayals of the city.

Again, the OP should certainly visit all of the cities in which they're interested before just moving to one. For my part, I'm quite confident that Minneapolis would make a good impression on the vast majority of people.

[montymontage]

The problem is that the tenor or your posts would seem to suggest that you are simply grasping at ways in which you can disparage Minneapolis. Those of us who are addressing your comments, and who appreciate what the city has to offer, aren't so much engaging in boosterism, as we are defending against your grossly inaccurate portrayals of the city.....For my part, I'm quite confident that Minneapolis would make a good impression on the vast majority of people.--Roged

Had I known that some CD posters had such raving issues of "city envy" I wouldn't have wasted time suggesting it's a smallish city, though it certainly seems that way to me and to many ppl who visit that i speak with. But really, is that ignominious to be the 47th biggest city? How can that possibly bother you?

And I've said a number of pleasant things about Minneapolis; will continue do do so; I, for the most, like it here but I will not pretend it's a liberal metropolis, the final word in the urbane. In any event, I really am done with this thread. It's become obtuse and for reasons that ought to be laughable.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by montymontage

The problem is that the tenor or your posts would seem to suggest that you are simply grasping at ways in which you can disparage Minneapolis. Those of us who are addressing your comments, and who appreciate what the city has to offer, aren't so much engaging in boosterism, as we are defending against your grossly inaccurate portrayals of the city.....For my part, I'm quite confident that Minneapolis would make a good impression on the vast majority of people.--Roged

Had I known that some CD posters had such raving issues of "city envy" I wouldn't have wasted time suggesting it's a smallish city, though it certainly seems that way to me and to many ppl who visit that i speak with. But really, is that ignominious to be the 47th biggest city? How can that possibly bother you?

And I've said a number of pleasant things about Minneapolis; will continue do do so; I, for the most, like it here but I will not pretend it's a liberal metropolis, the final word in the urbane. In any event, I really am done with this thread. It's become obtuse and for reasons that ought to be laughable.

Translation: I was never that good with numbers so I'm taking my ball and going home. I will be peeking out the window, though, in case you guys make fun of me.

[montymontage]

No, not casting pearls before swine

[Minnesota Spring]

Humm, smallish city? If cities such as Denver, Phoenix, San Diego, Seattle, Cleveland, St. Louis are considered smallish, I suppose.
With that I supposed places like Kansas City, Milwaukee, Charlotte, Austin, Portland and New Orleans would be considered tinny cities. Omaha, Madison, Memphis, mere hamlets.

[srsmn]

Originally Posted by montymontage

Yes the Cleveland's comparison wasn't accurate in so far as populations are concerned. My apologies for making an analogy btwn the two places when I meant to be more figurative. That was dumb to do.

Nevertheless, my basic point still stands: Minneapolis barely cracks the top fifty in terms of city population. In and of itself, this hardly matters--though it does make my characterization of Minneapolis as a smallish city in the upper midwest hardly unreasonable.

Clearly Chicago is the region's primary city; arguably the region's only big city.

This is not a bad thing; but could be seen as important for someone considering relocating here--especially in terms of balancing hopes for a new place verses having reasonable expectations. Bluntly put it's one thing moving to a Chicago sized city; quite another moving to a place like Minneapolis.

I mean, Seattle falls a lot closer to the Minneapolis side of things than it does the Chicago side of things, to be quite honest. So your "Move to Seattle because it is a big city and Minneapolis is not" argument is kind of moot.

[tribecavsbrowns]

I grew up less than 15 minutes from downtown Cleveland, and at present, I'm in the Twin Cities a lot. Cleveland's definitely more urban and densely populated than Minneapolis -- if we're stepping out of a time machine into 1962.