What will Minneapolis' boom mean to Chicago?

[The Urban Politician]

Okay, guys, I DO NOT want this to become a Chicago vs. midwest or vice-versa type of thread. If it does, I insist that the mods come and shut it down. I am really interested in this and want to discuss it in a civilized and productive matter. I have some thoughts and I would like you all to share your opinions about this.

The midwest, like any other region, benefits more when its cities work together, and when they complement eachother. IMO, even though NYC is dominant, I think the importance and intellect-drawing magnets of Philly, Boston, and DC contribute greatly to bolstering New York's importance, and vice-versa.

Analogously, the midwest's premiere city is Chicago. Yet one of the complaints I hear from people out east is that Chicago is great, but they aren't too thrilled about the rest of the midwest--thus many don't bother going, and Chicago loses out on future jobs/opportunities. However wrong this assessment is, it is true--this is truly how many people (not all) in the east coast feel.

In my opinion, Chicago needs nearby cities to act as greater job/culture magnets, thus helping not only Chicago, but the midwest as a whole. St Louis is poised for enormous job growth, and is making good headway, but the greatest success story seems to be Minneapolis right now.

In the previous century, Chicago's growth was helped by the presence of other industrial cities nearby, esp Detroit. Yet with the decline of industry in the region, Chicago has emerged as the only significant corporate services/financial-oriented city. Other cities are still very industry-dependent. However, Minneapolis seems to be a great exception.

Minneapolis has never been a major industrial-oriented town, and is instead a city of vastly growing potential as a services/professional magnet. IMO, this lessens the burden of Chicago to "go it alone", if you will. I would like to think that more interaction and collaboration will occur between Chicago and Minneapolis, so that both can set up a symbiotic relationship that will help both metros out in the new economy. Perhaps, for example, Minneapolis creates jobs, etc, while Chicago connects them to the greater national/international arena--or something similar to that.. This is why I feel so strongly that a high-speed rail connection between Minneapolis and Chicago get developed

In a sense, the Chicago-Minneapolis relationship can be analagous to the Chicago-Detroit relationship of the previous century. If I'm correct, a lot of trade and cooporation occurred between Chicago and Detroit in the past, and many industrial towns grew up in the corridor that connected them (many of which, unfortunately, are suffering now)

I realize that other cities have huge job-growth potential. St Louis, as mentioned, and Madison as a high-tech center--but Minneapolis is a large and fastly-growing city and thus can contribute the greatest. Besides, I would be thrilled to see Chicago develop more of this relationship with other cities as well, for example Detroit as it emerges from its grand post-industrial slumber..

Anyway, those are my thoughts. What do you guys think?

[The Urban Politician]

No responses? Damn! :bowtie:

[Mpls_9]

Well, you've got plenty over at SSP... :lol:

[The Urban Politician]

True, I just assumed that perhaps some people here don't visit that forum..

[mjtinmemphis]

I believe your right. When looking at how the southeast has developed over the past 30 years. I don't believe that Atlanta would be where it is if it wasn't for Nashville and Charlotte nor would Nashville and Charlotte be where they are without Atlanta.

I'm not saying that the midwest should look to the southeast for growth strategy. I do believe that Minneapolis and Chicago could benefit from each others growth. As you stated, one of the ways to link the two together would be through highspeed rail. St. Louis to Chicago is another route that could definately benefit from highspeed rail.

Without trying to sound like I am predicting the future, I can see a great deal of prosperity coming to midwestern cities especially Madison St. Louis and Minneapolis. They are poised for growth with good schools and a desirable lifestyle or the potential to develop a desirable lifestyle. But its going to have to happen in its own time.

Another thing to consider is every city has its potential. IMO, Chicago isn't going to gain anymore ground than it already has. As long as Minneapolis continues to do what its done over the past 10 years the area is going to be fine and maintain its position as one of the regional leaders for years to come. St. Louis is problably going to be the city to watch in the midwest as far as job growth and hopefully the region would be able to outgrow some of its social issues that has held the area back for years. St. Louis is like a economic and cultural powerhouse just waiting to explode.

These are my thoughts. I do believe everything will evolve naturally over time. There isn't any majic potion that Chicago could poor over her midwestern sisters to speed things up.

[samsonyuen]

I think Minneapolis as a growth center is a good thing for the Upper Midwest, and the entire Midwest region in general. It creates more positive buzz and image for the region, and will even make Chicago more competitive. Look at the South and the friendly rivalries between Atlanta, Dallas and Houston.

[skokster123]

nothing at all

[SRG]

What is SSP?

I think it will mean competition, because CHI has had an economic free pass for so long.

[Toggie]

SSP = www.SkyScraperPage.com

[SRG]

Oh, thx. Do you all agree that Chicago has had an economic free pass forever?

[edsg25]

Oh, thx. Do you all agree that Chicago has had an economic free pass forever?

What exactly do you mean by an economic free pass? Does this mean Chicago set up economic power and then sat back, doing little but enjoy the fruits of its labor? Did NYC get a free pass, too?

What is the concept? I really don't understand.

[ReddAlert]

Oh, thx. Do you all agree that Chicago has had an economic free pass forever?


I dig your avatar

[SRG]

The fact is that me and my avatar have been well known for awhile on SSC, but I don't get on very much anymore, and it's such a hassle for me.

I mean sort of what you say, edsg. Just add lack of competition except NYC and HOU and you nailed what I meant.

[The Urban Politician]

^ I would say that for a good century they did.

However, with the changing face of corporate America, the corporate relocations, aquisitions, mergers, etc Chicago has long lost that free pass, as has NYC, or any city in America for that matter. Plus, with growing business and competition from the sunbelt, cities like Chicago have to fight to keep their prominence.

And that's exactly what Chicago has been doing for a few decades. I can't think of a city in the US that fights as aggressively as Chicago for business prominence. They are professionals at it, and very organized from the State all the say down to the local civic level, and luckily the Daley clan is very well connected

[Badgers77]

Okay, guys, I DO NOT want this to become a Chicago vs. midwest or vice-versa type of thread. If it does, I insist that the mods come and shut it down. I am really interested in this and want to discuss it in a civilized and productive matter. I have some thoughts and I would like you all to share your opinions about this.

The midwest, like any other region, benefits more when its cities work together, and when they complement eachother. IMO, even though NYC is dominant, I think the importance and intellect-drawing magnets of Philly, Boston, and DC contribute greatly to bolstering New York's importance, and vice-versa.

Analogously, the midwest's premiere city is Chicago. Yet one of the complaints I hear from people out east is that Chicago is great, but they aren't too thrilled about the rest of the midwest--thus many don't bother going, and Chicago loses out on future jobs/opportunities. However wrong this assessment is, it is true--this is truly how many people (not all) in the east coast feel.

In my opinion, Chicago needs nearby cities to act as greater job/culture magnets, thus helping not only Chicago, but the midwest as a whole. St Louis is poised for enormous job growth, and is making good headway, but the greatest success story seems to be Minneapolis right now.

In the previous century, Chicago's growth was helped by the presence of other industrial cities nearby, esp Detroit. Yet with the decline of industry in the region, Chicago has emerged as the only significant corporate services/financial-oriented city. Other cities are still very industry-dependent. However, Minneapolis seems to be a great exception.

Minneapolis has never been a major industrial-oriented town, and is instead a city of vastly growing potential as a services/professional magnet. IMO, this lessens the burden of Chicago to "go it alone", if you will. I would like to think that more interaction and collaboration will occur between Chicago and Minneapolis, so that both can set up a symbiotic relationship that will help both metros out in the new economy. Perhaps, for example, Minneapolis creates jobs, etc, while Chicago connects them to the greater national/international arena--or something similar to that.. This is why I feel so strongly that a high-speed rail connection between Minneapolis and Chicago get developed

In a sense, the Chicago-Minneapolis relationship can be analagous to the Chicago-Detroit relationship of the previous century. If I'm correct, a lot of trade and cooporation occurred between Chicago and Detroit in the past, and many industrial towns grew up in the corridor that connected them (many of which, unfortunately, are suffering now)

I realize that other cities have huge job-growth potential. St Louis, as mentioned, and Madison as a high-tech center--but Minneapolis is a large and fastly-growing city and thus can contribute the greatest. Besides, I would be thrilled to see Chicago develop more of this relationship with other cities as well, for example Detroit as it emerges from its grand post-industrial slumber..

Anyway, those are my thoughts. What do you guys think?

Boom? It's projected to lose population by 2010...

[MinneapolisGuy]

Boom? It's projected to lose population by 2010...
Even if the city proper is projected to lose population (which at this rate I don't believe, we've had a net gain since 2000) the metro is expected to gain 1 million more by 2020.

[Badgers77]

Even if the city proper is projected to lose population (which at this rate I don't believe, we've had a net gain since 2000) the metro is expected to gain 1 million more by 2020.

http://www.city-data.com/city/Minneapolis-Minnesota.html

Ah, Nevermind, you said 2020.

[Toggie]

I believe this thread refers to the economic boom which is measured by the metro as a whole, and it should be noted that the pop estimate that you refer to also projected a loss for 2000 which turned out to be incorrect, the city limits gained population between 1990 and 2000. It should also be noted that Minneapolis has a relatively small ratio of city population to metro population, this is due to the fact that Minneapolis has a very small (physically) city limits, not added suburbs as so many assume. this small city limit size yields, if I remember correctly, the second highest density for any major "city" in the Midwest. Chicago would be first. This puts Minneapolis at a disadvantage because any growth in the city limits must be from a redevelopment rate that is equal to or greater than the loss of population due to a decrease in the average household size, a phenomenon that is affecting most American cities but is magnified in areas that cannot expand in cheap, low density housing, such as urban areas.

[1st Division Marine]

i hope they both boom.

[Minneapolis612]

haha like always here comes badger and his bring down minneapolis mentality (bullshit)

[Minneapolis612]

NORTH MINNEAPOLIS