Does Minneapolis have what it takes to be a global city? (St. Paul: buy, living in)

[uptown_urbanist]

When I said Minneapolis was a medium city I meant metro-area, including St. Paul. It makes more sense to compare metro areas rather than formal city limits, as the way cities incorporate (or have historically) adjacent areas varies greatly by location. Actually, I'm not sure how we disagree; are you saying that Minneapolis is a small city, or that it's a large city? I was arguing that it's not a small city. I think it's a medium city/metro area, but would be fine calling it a large city, too, if there was a "huge" or "mega" city category for places like NYC, LA, etc. (if you're talking national)

Haver, I know what you're saying about expense - I've lived in some "world cities," and while they were wonderful places they were also extremely expensive. We've decided to put down our roots in Minneapolis because it offers enough of the benefits of the much bigger cities, but at a much lower price tag.

[knke0204]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

When I said Minneapolis was a medium city I meant metro-area, including St. Paul. It makes more sense to compare metro areas rather than formal city limits, as the way cities incorporate (or have historically) adjacent areas varies greatly by location. Actually, I'm not sure how we disagree; are you saying that Minneapolis is a small city, or that it's a large city? I was arguing that it's not a small city. I think it's a medium city/metro area, but would be fine calling it a large city, too, if there was a "huge" or "mega" city category for places like NYC, LA, etc. (if you're talking national)

Haver, I know what you're saying about expense - I've lived in some "world cities," and while they were wonderful places they were also extremely expensive. We've decided to put down our roots in Minneapolis because it offers enough of the benefits of the much bigger cities, but at a much lower price tag.

i actually quoted the wrong person. sorry.

MPLS is a big city in alll generic sense of the term, but once you step foot in downtown Chicago, NYC, even Houston or LA or SF, it suddenly becomes very small in terms of vast intimidation, hustle and bustle, and people.

[Clifford63]

Originally Posted by knke0204

i actually quoted the wrong person. sorry.

MPLS is a big city in alll generic sense of the term, but once you step foot in downtown Chicago, NYC, even Houston or LA or SF, it suddenly becomes very small in terms of vast intimidation, hustle and bustle, and people.

It is all perspective.

Any metro in the US will seem small if you compare it with NYC, LA or Chicago. Even Atlanta, Boston, and Houston, will seem small, but they really are not that small in a broader comparrison.

Not trying to say the Twin Cities are huge, or an International City of note. Just pointing out that sometimes the perspective can be misleading.

[cdubs3201]

Originally Posted by Clifford63

It is all perspective.

Any metro in the US will seem small if you compare it with NYC, LA or Chicago. Even Atlanta, Boston, and Houston, will seem small, but they really are not that small in a broader comparrison.

Not trying to say the Twin Cities are huge, or an International City of note. Just pointing out that sometimes the perspective can be misleading.

Well the question wasn't if Minneapolis was a big american city. It was asked if Minneapolis was a GLOBAL city, which it really is not.

The US only has 3 to 5 really large cities compared to the world. You also have to factor in the the US is one of the youngest countries so our populations and growth isn't caught up to the rest of the world or places like China, Japan, India, and even some cities in Europe.

Another aspect to the big cities like NYC and Chicago are the public transportation systems. I've lived in Downtown Chicago for 3 years now and never owned a vehicle...I could not do that in Minneapolis, you need a car. Also, I would argue there's a lot more to do in Chicago than there is MN or Minneapolis. There's much more of a diverse culture that literally you can do just about anything and find other people who are interested in anything in Chicago or NYC or LA. Minneapolis has some cultural diversity and things to do, but not nearly on the level of the bigger cities.

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by cdubs3201

Well the question wasn't if Minneapolis was a big american city. It was asked if Minneapolis was a GLOBAL city, which it really is not.

The US only has 3 to 5 really large cities compared to the world. You also have to factor in the the US is one of the youngest countries so our populations and growth isn't caught up to the rest of the world or places like China, Japan, India, and even some cities in Europe.

Another aspect to the big cities like NYC and Chicago are the public transportation systems. I've lived in Downtown Chicago for 3 years now and never owned a vehicle...I could not do that in Minneapolis, you need a car. Also, I would argue there's a lot more to do in Chicago than there is MN or Minneapolis. There's much more of a diverse culture that literally you can do just about anything and find other people who are interested in anything in Chicago or NYC or LA. Minneapolis has some cultural diversity and things to do, but not nearly on the level of the bigger cities.

I agree with most of what you say, but just have to stick up for MInneapolis on the car thing. I think the public transportation offerings in the Twin Cities have a LONG way to go, but despite those failings it's still pretty easy to live without a car in Minneapolis, and there are many people who do. Depends where you're working, of course, but that's true of any city.

[Clifford63]

Originally Posted by cdubs3201

Well the question wasn't if Minneapolis was a big american city. It was asked if Minneapolis was a GLOBAL city, which it really is not.

The US only has 3 to 5 really large cities compared to the world. You also have to factor in the the US is one of the youngest countries so our populations and growth isn't caught up to the rest of the world or places like China, Japan, India, and even some cities in Europe.

Another aspect to the big cities like NYC and Chicago are the public transportation systems. I've lived in Downtown Chicago for 3 years now and never owned a vehicle...I could not do that in Minneapolis, you need a car. Also, I would argue there's a lot more to do in Chicago than there is MN or Minneapolis. There's much more of a diverse culture that literally you can do just about anything and find other people who are interested in anything in Chicago or NYC or LA. Minneapolis has some cultural diversity and things to do, but not nearly on the level of the bigger cities.

Not sure what makes you think I did not understand the question because I more or less stated that Metro MN is mid market metro of limited international importance.

You seem to be saying something along the lines of Glenn Taylor does not have much money compared to Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. True enough, but entirely lacking in context because the guy has some major wallet.

If you really want to go that route. There is about 1 notable international city in the US. Nothing comes remotely close to NYC including Chicago. Chicago is big and all, and I guess if you want to live downtown and not have a car that is all good. Still right in the center of flyover country though.

[MN Man]

Becoming a global city has nothing to do with the transportation. You need to be in a huge metro area like New York to have an effective and efficient transportation system that can at least somewhat support itself, unlike the Twin Cities sad attempt at it.

[cdubs3201]

Originally Posted by Clifford63

If you really want to go that route. There is about 1 notable international city in the US. Nothing comes remotely close to NYC including Chicago. Chicago is big and all, and I guess if you want to live downtown and not have a car that is all good. Still right in the center of flyover country though.

Chicago is the 24th largest city in the world, holds plenty of historical significance, as well as many world renowned landmarks (including the Sears Tower which was for a long time was the tallest building in the world).

I consider that internationally noteable.

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by MN Man

Becoming a global city has nothing to do with the transportation. You need to be in a huge metro area like New York to have an effective and efficient transportation system that can at least somewhat support itself, unlike the Twin Cities sad attempt at it.

I don't agree with this; I think it's tough to be a truly global city without a decent public transportation system. It doesn't have to be on par with NYC, but it should be at least on par with other desirable cities of equivalent size. It's a way to manage traffic, attract businesses, and improve quality of life. I think it's possible to debate to what degree public transportation matters, but saying that there's no relationship seems overly simplistic. And it's not true that an effective and efficient public transportation system can only happen in huge cities like NYC - there are many examples of other cities from around the world that prove that it can be done. And when people compare the costs of public transportation ("support itself") to cars-only they are neglecting to factor in the many indirect costs affiliated with cars - everything from building and maintenance of roads, environmental impact, zoning regulations and the impact on development, businesses, and quality of life, etc.

[knke0204]

Originally Posted by cdubs3201

Chicago is the 24th largest city in the world, holds plenty of historical significance, as well as many world renowned landmarks (including the Sears Tower which was for a long time was the tallest building in the world).

I consider that internationally noteable.

Also home of the skyscraper.

Thanks to the Chicago Fire, it allowed much reconstruction towards the sky, and pusehed the limits of engineering and high rise construction, that led other cities to follow.