Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For MSA, yes the populations are similar (Seattle larger by about 500,000 people) but actually for cities, Seattle has over 250,000 more people than Minneapolis does. I wouldn't say their transit infrastructure is the same. Perhaps for highway/interstate stuff, but Seattle has superior public transit IMO.
Minneapolis has superior public education and economy (both unemployment and diversity of employers).....so what? His point remains true -- both cities are very very similar. To deny this is to be in denial.
Why would city population mean anything? That's a totally arbitrary measurement. And what are you talking about, King County is hardly "superior" to MetroTransit.
There's already a Minneapolis vs. Seattle thread. If you want to bash MSP, do it there.
First of all, how the **** am I bashing Minneapolis? I merely presented facts for the OP. Do you have a problem with facts? And what does saying that Seattle has better public transit have to do with bashing Minneapolis? Last I checked, I never said one ****ing thing bad about Minneapolis in this. I stated that one thing has better than another. It would be like me saying "NYC has superior public transit as DC." Did I mention anything about DC's? No, I just said one is better than the other. It would be like saying Kobe is better than LeBron. You aren't bashing the losing side.
Yes, the train systems are similar (similar number of stations, similar daily ridership and both are growing, although Seattle's may very well be a bit larger in a handful of years. They have 20 more approved stations currently which would double their existing total of stations). Seattle has the bigger bus system currently by a bit. Perhaps I shouldn't use "superior," but Seattle's system is a little more extensive than Minneapolis'
Overreact much? For the record, I was born and raised in Minnesota. I am very proud of the state.
Last edited by marothisu; 06-18-2013 at 09:38 PM..
Minneapolis has superior public education and economy (both unemployment and diversity of employers).....so what? His point remains true -- both cities are very very similar. To deny this is to be in denial.
Your overreactions are hilarious. I agree that Minneapolis has better overall education and I wouldn't say the economy is "superior." Both are similar and have good economies. In 2011, Seattle MSA's GDP was $211.122 Billion and Minneapolis' was $207.819 Billion (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm...06=33460,42660). So as you guys said, similar, but neither one is superior to the other one as you tried to claim.
I grew up in Minnesota and not only am I a product of the great public schools there, I am well aware of all this ****.
You guys need to stop being so sensitive. I merely brought up the populations as to bring more detail to the conversation and was correcting for saying they are the same. Similar != same.
Last edited by marothisu; 06-18-2013 at 09:33 PM..
I wouldn't put SF and Seattle weather together. SF area is significantly warmer, drier, and sunnier, not really close. Some might call it amazing weather, actually. The greater bay area regularly gets into the 90s and even 100s and even over 110. Only about 3% of all people in the metro are represented in the cooler confines of the western half of SF. It can be 100 degrees inland and 55 degrees by the water at the same exact time. That is how crazy the microclimates are there. Additionally, Dec-Jan SF experiences around 3x the sunshine as Seattle in the city proper and far more in other areas. Snow is virtually nonexistent in the bay area and basically a once in 30 year occurence. Snowfalls in Seattle sometimes get a bit crazy and cause cars sliding everywhere. Seattle has record low of 0 and has been below 10 degrees in 5 different months, record low in SF ever is 29 all time and it rarely gets below 40 ever.
So I want to move to one of these cities but not sure which on yet. I just want peoples impressions of these cities, from people who have visited any of them. Some pros and cons from your experiences in this city would be nice, not just saying NYC has high rent because anyone could tell me that. What did you hate or love about any of these cities
I think you should list some parameters in terms of what you're looking for, what sort of experience you have in each, what job opportunities or offers you have in each, what sort of budget you have and what support network you have in each. Any of these cities can be great for someone, but none of them are going to work for everyone.
I've lived in NYC, Chicago, SF and have visited Seattle and Minneapolis a few times...
NYC PRO: The variety of people, amenities, events, neighborhoods, food, etc. will keep you from ever feeling bored.
NYC CON: It can feel very rushed sometimes, as if there is not time to stop and breathe.
Chicago PRO: It's a gorgeous city that has some of the nicest, most outgoing people of any major city in the world.
Chicago CON: The local government is horrendous and gets very little done.
SF PRO: Unparalleled natural beauty with a population that truly loves to live life to the fullest.
SF CON: For such a diverse and progressive city, people in SF tend to be a bit more narrow and limited in perspective than the other cities on this list.
Seattle PRO: It probably has the best balance between city life and nature of any city in the U.S.
Seattle CON: People in Seattle are generally nice, but they are rather reserved.
Minneapolis PRO: It's a very cultured city with some of the nicest, most down to earth people you'll ever meet.
Minneapolis CON: It's isolated, and it's noticeable in how inward looking people are there.
All five are awesome cities. NYC, Chicago, and SF are easily my three favorite cities. I could happily live in Seattle or Minneapolis if it weren't for their climates, I love both cities.
Your overreactions are hilarious. I agree that Minneapolis has better overall education and I wouldn't say the economy is "superior." Both are similar and have good economies. In 2011, Seattle MSA's GDP was $211.122 Billion and Minneapolis' was $207.819 Billion (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm...06=33460,42660). So as you guys said, similar, but neither one is superior to the other one as you tried to claim.
I grew up in Minnesota and not only am I a product of the great public schools there, I am well aware of all this ****.
You guys need to stop being so sensitive. I merely brought up the populations as to bring more detail to the conversation and was correcting for saying they are the same. Similar != same.
Just be wary that what you say may come off in a negative connotation. But if that was not your intent, no harm no foul.
*Note: your reaction to my stance on the economy is incorrect, and that's ONLY because I mentioned it in terms of a.) unemployment, and b.) employment diversity (different industries). I KNOW Seattle has a higher GDP than the Twin Cities, which is why I put the caveat there in the 1st place (to deter that very reaction). It also has a higher population. As for the number of planned or existing stations, I'm not so sure who is ahead of whom here, because Minneapolis has 2 lines essentially completed and there are at least 2 more that will almost assuredly be completed, each with about 12-15 stations, making the total future "network" of four LRT lines and let's say 50-60 stations.
I STILL maintain that the Twin Cities and Seattle are very close in just about every possible regard, and I will admit Seattle has a slight edge in most of those areas (but still prefer Mpls).
I wouldn't put SF and Seattle weather together. SF area is significantly warmer, drier, and sunnier, not really close. Some might call it amazing weather, actually. The greater bay area regularly gets into the 90s and even 100s and even over 110. Only about 3% of all people in the metro are represented in the cooler confines of the western half of SF. It can be 100 degrees inland and 55 degrees by the water at the same exact time. That is how crazy the microclimates are there. Additionally, Dec-Jan SF experiences around 3x the sunshine as Seattle in the city proper and far more in other areas. Snow is virtually nonexistent in the bay area and basically a once in 30 year occurence. Snowfalls in Seattle sometimes get a bit crazy and cause cars sliding everywhere. Seattle has record low of 0 and has been below 10 degrees in 5 different months, record low in SF ever is 29 all time and it rarely gets below 40 ever.
Where in the world did you get your 3% figure? The ENTIRE city of SF proper is within that cool zone, as are just about all of the West Bay suburbs, and frankly anything that resides on the Bay itself, including Oakland. Sometimes Oakland can get hotter because of that Santa Ana effect, but usually it's quite mild. I agree though, that SF has beautiful weather most of the time (albeit very mild) and the microclimates are ridiculous and impossible to track, IMO!
It's hard to imagine that anyone who has frequently visited all five of these cities (or at least has taken the time to explore the available urban amenities) would exclude Minneapolis while keeping Seattle in the company of the other three cities--yet alone place Seattle above San Francisco! I've lived in Seattle, and I currently live in Minneapolis. I prefer the latter for its advantages in fine arts, professional sports (you'll need that trip to Vancouver for an NHL game and one to Portland for the NBA.) and seasonal changes. However, Seattle is a wonderful city with one of the most beautiful natural settings in the world.
The simple fact is that, from virtually any objective perspective, San Francisco and Chicago are not in the same league with New York; and Minneapolis and Seattle are not in the same league with any of the other three.
You are right. If you want to split hairs then there would be three categories: (1) NYC; (2) Chicago, SFO; (3) Minneapolis, Seattle.
But when travelling, you sometimes just "love" a city for no rational reason. I just find Seattle to be beautiful. And why must everyone always judge cities based on professional sports teams? Outside of the US, people have heard of NYC, Chicago, SFO, Seattle ..... Minneapolis, not so much. Why is that?
I think you should list some parameters in terms of what you're looking for, what sort of experience you have in each, what job opportunities or offers you have in each, what sort of budget you have and what support network you have in each. Any of these cities can be great for someone, but none of them are going to work for everyone.
Lets just assume money is no issue and I will be working in tech. I have only been to Minneapolis of these cities. Also I think its worth mentioning of course NYC is a lot bigger than NYC but how different does it feel than Seattle? Does it just offer more of what Seattle does or is it a completely different feel?
What I am looking for is listed below.
Urban and Walkable
Can survive without a car
Lots of stuff to do. I am not a club or bar person but like museums and theaters
Will be able to get a job
pretty city to walk around
Here is how I would rank them so far
1. Seattle- Beautiful scenery and from what I read fairly urban for its size. I would be a little worried about the transportation though. Job market would be nice for me
2. NYC- Probably has everything I would ever want but for some reason I keep being drawn back to Seattle.
3. Chicago-A little bit less than NYC but cheaper and closer to home but not too close
4. Minneapolis- Not so urban and transportation not great. Cheaper and only an hour from where I live so financial it would be easier on me. My family and my favorite sports teams on form the Twin Cities. I kinda want to get away from home so thats a problem
5. San Francisco- Pretty location but super expensive and something about the culture kinda turns me off
Last edited by PhantomByte; 06-19-2013 at 12:15 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
).
