Minneapolitans vs Saint Paulites (Minneapolis, St. Paul: high school, university, live)

[Radical_Car]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

From what I know Minneapolis attracts more transplants, is more dominated by newer, shinier high rises, and St. Paulites from what I understand view Minneapolis as been a bit fast-paced and elitist. Minneapolis is often compared to Seattle and Denver. (without mountains).

St. Paul has fewer transplants, neighborhoods dominated by a certain white ethnic group, more families that have been there for a couple generations, and has experienced less new construction. St. Paul might be considered similar to Milwaukee or the quieter, less hip parts of Chicago.

Originally Posted by DannyBanany

If you're comparing people, I'd say that Minneapolitans are either hipsters, business people, or transplants/foreign people. Saint Paulites are usually from Saint Paul but like to play hippy. Saint Paul has a large amount of left-minded people which I find hypocritical at times. Granted, that's just a few of them. Most Saint Paulites are just normal, hard-working people.

I love these stereotypes that people always throw around. They make my day.

[Radical_Car]

Originally Posted by laxster

Imagine wanting to have ample grass and trees all around. Imagine not having to live in a tiny little box that you probably don't own. Imagine dealing with all the noise.

I've lived in city and suburb. Give me the 'burbs any day. People weren't meant to live breathing in a cloud of constant smog. If that's "modern", then please turn back the clock for me!

What are you talking about? There is an ample supply of grass and trees in Minneapolis and St. Paul, and theres also many, many, many houses that people own. Everybody doesn't live in apartments in cities. And what noise? Cloud of constant smog???
It seems that you've never been to Minneapolis, or any city before, let alone lived in one.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by LittleMathYou

Is there something apparently different between those who grow up in Minneapolis/ live in Minneapolis for a long time than those you live in Saint Paul?
I've heard that Minneapolis is more "big city" cultured, and Saint Paul is a little older and more "small town" cultured.

How true do you think that is? What else would you say about the two types of Minnesotan urbanites?

Well, this is all I have heard. From what I have been told, Minneapolis is more "white collar" and trend. I have heard St. Paul described as "blue collar", Catholic(speaking of which, I want to see the Cathedral), and very tight-knit.

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by laxster

Imagine wanting to have ample grass and trees all around. Imagine not having to live in a tiny little box that you probably don't own. Imagine dealing with all the noise.

I've lived in city and suburb. Give me the 'burbs any day. People weren't meant to live breathing in a cloud of constant smog. If that's "modern", then please turn back the clock for me!

Have you ever been to the Twin Cities? (or out of the suburbs, for that matter!) Lots of smog free, tree-lined, quiet, owner-dominated neighborhoods all over both cities.

[west336]

exaggerating to emphasize his point, perhaps?

[ChocoB]

We spent about 10 months looking for a home in both Minneapolis and St Paul, and as newbies we weren't biased towards either city.

After all those months, we found that the St Paul homes in our price range (300-350) far exceeded the ones in Minneapolis in many ways. It seemed like the neighborhoods in Minneapolis were surrounded by rough pockets that were hard to avoid. The over-abundance of alleys and street parking (as opposed to your own driveway leading up to a garage) were a downfall for us too. The homes were beautiful, but we found that there was a lack of consistency with the upkeep of surrounding homes.

We found that St Paul had more protected neighborhoods filled with beautiful homes (with driveways) and there was a large separation from the more rough areas-- meaning you can drive to and from the highway or the store without going through any rough patches.

We were up in the air between Mac Groveland and Como/Roseville area and ended up finding a home in Como Park (near the fair grounds) and we love everything about it.

[HarborEastGuy]

I'm from Denver and flew up for 4 days about 2 weeks ago.. Being an Outsider, here's what I noticed..

Eagan was the nicest of the areas I visited and people were all very nice and beyond friendly.

Downtown St. Paul was older than Downtown Minneapolis but I favored St. Paul.
Driving around and finding parking was easier and the people were more laid back and seemed happier.

Grand Ave was a College Student mecca with lots of character and more friendly
people. No gloomy faces seen here..

Minneapolis was newer and glitzier but not as laid back. People seemed less
at ease and maybe a bit stressed in comparison to St. Paul.

[Libby01]

Having lived and worked in both Minneapolis and St Paul, I find it curious that there is the impression out there that St Paul is "blue collar" and Minneapolis is "white collar". I hadn't ever heard that before and couldn't find any stats that would back that up. Between the two, the income level seems to be virtually the same, as well as education level. Does anyone have a source that says something otherwise?? I would say that it really depends more on the neighborhood than the city.

The cities definitely have different personalities and I think the differences are complimentary. I love both cities. I feel like I have the best of both worlds living in one (on the border) and working in another. I would say St. Paul is more conservative-minded (not necessarily politically- but rather in risk-taking). They embrace history, their cultural institutions and colleges- but haven't effectively figured out how to activate the downtown (thus the ghost town references). Minneapolis thinks bigger and takes more risks. They can celebrate the successes of this strategy in projects like the new Twins stadium, but can also bemoan the loss of much of the historic fabric in the eagerness for the "new & improved".

[CaveCanis01]

Just personal preference here -- no intention to offend anybody -- I have lived in St. Paul for a very long time and love it. I could easily see myself living in Minneapolis, too. I would never want to live in the suburbs -- especially the Apple Valley, Burnsville, Rosemount places. Again, just personal preference for what I get out of where I live. Mpls./St. Paul have an energy that resonates with me; it's an energy and personality that I have never felt in suburbia.

[uptown_urbanist]

I think there are definite differences between the cities (I think especially seen through the different values historically placed on historic preservation, for one thing), but agree with Libby01 that I don't think the people are much different, or that there's a blue collar/white collar difference (between individual neighborhoods, sure, but both cities have a blend of neighborhoods). I haven't found a neighborhood in St. Paul that I like as much as I like Uptown in Minneapolis when it comes to the total package, but there are definitely a lot of very nice neighborhoods there that are very nice and very livable. It does seem overall a bit quieter than Minneapolis (or, rather, Minneapolis' most bustling neighborhoods seem to have more activity than the most active St. Paul neighborhoods), but for most parts of both cities there's not really a difference. I think I'm in agreement with what CaveCanis01 is saying; Mpls and St. Paul have more in common with each other than either does with, say, Apple Valley. The two cities have different personalities and histories, but overall they flow into one another and I don't think there's any real difference between the people who live in each place. I don't think there's a "St. Paul personality" or vice-versa. People move back and forth between the two too often for that.