Do MSP's "neighbors" hurt it's National Reputation a little bit? (Minneapolis: rent, camping)

[beenhereandthere]

I love the Twin City Area for starters. Even though the Northern Suburbs and Western WI are more "right" than I'd like to see that's just an irritant not really a deal breaker.
However, for other entertainment, indoors and outdoors and other major Cities that surround it, there's not much compared to other Major Cities.
For example, yea to the Straight West of Chicago may be lacking but up to the Northwest of it, Northeast, North and even South to some degree, you have Door County and the Lake Country (Lake Geneva for example) and Milwaukee and Madison within less than a 3 hour drive. You have Indianapolis just over 3 and St Louis and Detroit (for indoor rec opportunities) 4 to 5 hours.
Almost the same at Seattle. A huge amount of Outdoor Opportunities in each direction and Portland and Vancouver BC (border will most likely reopen by year's end) 3 hours or less. Even Spokane (not really a "major" city but still about 800k around there) is about the same distance that Madison WI is from Minneapolis.
Around Minneapolis, yea straight North and East and SE, there's plenty of Outdoor Recreation chances.
But no real major cities until you get to Milwaukee, 5 hours at least away, unless you consider Des Moines and Madison those, I don't. If the Black Hills and Badlands were 3 hours instead of at least 8 or 9, lol? Well you get the point. Straight West and South, there's no real cities less than 4 hours away (Fargo's the biggest and there's not even 300k around there) and the scenery sucks.
So am I the only one who thinks that MSP rocks but the neighbors, overall, are like, blah?

[demtion35]

I am so glad that Minnesota is not crowded like some other states, like many many large cities. Minnesota is good the way it is. So, there is no major big cities near enough? I guess not. Good. It is what it is. Cannot do anything about it. Who will complain that there is not enough to do, without going to a large nearby city? Cannot do anything about it. Maybe they should move to a large city instead? :P lol

You and others can talk about how great being near all the action, but for now, there is nothing that is going to change. We cannot live near other large cities, nothing is going to change that. So, it does not really matter to me, anyway, but I just do not think it is important at all to be near or much nearer to any of those cities mentioned above.

I think Minnesota has it really good, even better than crowed places. If living near a big city is important, than all the best to them. However they will then be further away from some other larger city, where does it all end? So, it is not important. And besides of course nothing can be done about it anyway.

[Camden Northsider]

For me personally, I'd rather the city that I live be more adjacent to wide open spaces than in an area where you have to literally drive hours to get away from sprawl or gridlock, and it's unclear where one MSA ends and the other begins. I suppose it's all relative and likely influenced by the environment/setting one grew up, though. And I can't think of any reason where I'd *need* to live in a major city because of its adjacency to other major cities, unless I were really into concert tours or live sports, was a traveling salesman, or really liked road trips to urban areas. But if your litmus test of competitive advantage/desirability were *just* about the ability to quickly travel to other major cities, then I'd probably be comparing other cities' airport hubs and the ability to quickly hop on direct flights, which MSP can really hold its own with IMO.

[wamer27]

The part I don’t like is how far we are from what I consider great scenery, that being taller mountains. Black Hills took me 7:40 to get to last year. Then it’s a few more hours to finally get to “real” mountains via Buffalo, Wyoming, 12-13k ones. My mon is from Thunder Bay, so I’ve been to north shore my whole life and love it. I chose to move to CO twice and AK, MN doesn’t have mountains in comparison. A road trip from here out west is depressing to me via first and last long days are very ugly landscapes. Our road trips always consist of traveling and enjoying scenery and then stay in a town or city, so get nature and city in same day. It’s why we fly and rent cars now.

[tribecavsbrowns]

I heard this a lot when I lived in Chicago too, and when I drilled down, it almost always came down to something like "I want to live in a ski town and can't afford to." Fine, but not a legitimate critique of a city IMO.

[Cruz Azul Guy]

Distance from Minneapolis to other cities per Google Maps:

Duluth = 2 hrs 22 mins
Des Moines = 3 hrs 41 mins
Sioux Falls = 3 hrs 48 mins
Madison = 4 hrs 11 mins
Milwaukee = 5 hrs 2 mins
Thunder Bay = 5 hrs 54 mins
Chicago = 6 hrs 8 mins
Kansas City = 6 hrs 30 mins
Winnipeg = 7 hrs 13 mins
Rapid City = 8 hrs 37 mins
St. Louis = 8 hrs 43 mins
Indianapolis = 9 hrs
Detroit = 10 hrs 25 mins
Nashville = 13 hrs 16 mins
Denver = 13 hrs 28 mins
Dallas = 14 hrs 37 mins
New Orleans = 18 hrs 27 mins

Yup, MSP is pretty isolated I think it’s fair to say. Sometimes I think it’d be nice to live in So Cal where I could get to San Diego, Tijuana, San Francisco or Las Vegas all within a reasonable timeframe. Or somewhere on the east coast where there are like 7 major metropolitan areas within a few hundred miles. Ah well.

[Milo Wolf]

The Twin Cities are more isolated than most major (say, 1,000,000+) metropolitan areas. The only more isolated ones are probably Denver and Salt Lake City. We site on the edge of the big void, the northern Great Plains and northern Rockies, with low populations and no major metro areas. Minnesota has long been the 'fastest' (or maybe 'less-slow' is the better term) growing Midwestern state.

As for outdoor recreation, it's pretty much a fact of life that from the Rockies west, opportunities abound. First, there's a lot of land that is of marginal commercial value and so was never developed, or was saved from development because it didn't happen before the age of preservation rolled around and vast swaths of land were protected. Today, those are enormous playgrounds for hiking and backpacking and camping and skiing and the like. You can't till over mountains, and deserts are similarly not very good for much. And there's not much point in putting cities in the mountains - almost all of our major cities sprouted on the coasts or major inland waterways. Hard to compete with all that natural unspoiled land out there.

Minnesota has made a lot from what it has, though. We have a gem of a state park system, and some marvelous forests up north. And the North Shore itself is spectacular.

Anyway, everything in balance. If someone likes a regular diet of deep backcountry hikes and serious downhill slopes, the Twin Cities aren't going to fit the bill. But someone looking for a high quality of life with a variety of year-round outdoor opportunities, it just might.

[bigfatdude]

It's probably the other way around - those thinking about moving to MN for the nature with easy access to a major city might reconsider given the recent reputation of MSP. Hiking is great but getting carjacked while driving to a ball game at Target Field isn't that great.

Originally Posted by Milo Wolf

The Twin Cities are more isolated than most major (say, 1,000,000+) metropolitan areas. The only more isolated ones are probably Denver and Salt Lake City. We site on the edge of the big void, the northern Great Plains and northern Rockies, with low populations and no major metro areas. Minnesota has long been the 'fastest' (or maybe 'less-slow' is the better term) growing Midwestern state.

As for outdoor recreation, it's pretty much a fact of life that from the Rockies west, opportunities abound. First, there's a lot of land that is of marginal commercial value and so was never developed, or was saved from development because it didn't happen before the age of preservation rolled around and vast swaths of land were protected. Today, those are enormous playgrounds for hiking and backpacking and camping and skiing and the like. You can't till over mountains, and deserts are similarly not very good for much. And there's not much point in putting cities in the mountains - almost all of our major cities sprouted on the coasts or major inland waterways. Hard to compete with all that natural unspoiled land out there.

Minnesota has made a lot from what it has, though. We have a gem of a state park system, and some marvelous forests up north. And the North Shore itself is spectacular.

Anyway, everything in balance. If someone likes a regular diet of deep backcountry hikes and serious downhill slopes, the Twin Cities aren't going to fit the bill. But someone looking for a high quality of life with a variety of year-round outdoor opportunities, it just might.

[Cruz Azul Guy]

Originally Posted by bigfatdude

It's probably the other way around - those thinking about moving to MN for the nature with easy access to a major city might reconsider given the recent reputation of MSP. Hiking is great but getting carjacked while driving to a ball game at Target Field isn't that great.

An outdated view. Things are calm here now

[bigfatdude]

Things are calm now, just an occasional daily shooting or carjacking every now and then! And that's while the weather is still crappy...

Originally Posted by Cruz Azul Guy

An outdated view. Things are calm here now