St. Paul vs. Minneapolis

[bagelman]

Nobody seems to really care about St. Paul. They are supposed to be the twin cities, not greater Minneapolis and it's little sibling.

Of course there might be a valid reason that I'm not aware of.

[ilikeverin]

I can't think of a reason, either, which is why I'm confused the poll is currently 5-3 in favor of St. Paul.

[muon2]

I picked St Paul. My choice was influenced by growing up in Roseville during the 1970's. I spent a lot of time in both Mpls and StPaul. I continued to visit both frequently until about 5 years ago, and less frequently in the last 5 years.

I've always found StPaul easier to get around with a better defined sense of neighborhood than Mpls. Even though it's the capital, StPaul seems able to project the feeling of a mid-sized city with a small town ambiance. Mpls always feels like a big city to me, even in its residential neighborhoods. Since the poll's about where to live as opposed to visit, StPaul gets my vote.

[Goldwater]

Minneapolis, I guess. Actually, this is probably be the first time I've voted for that city in a poll.

[CountyTy90]

Both are amazing and I hope to live in one someday. I'd prefer St. Paul, however. Many compare it to a US version of a European city. Muon2, can you confirm or deny?

[Ban my account ffs!]

St. Paul isn't like a European city at all.  It's just a quieter, perhaps more family friendly version of Minneapolis.

It is not all that different from Minneapolis... but it still suffers from little brother syndrome... like Fort Worth or Tacoma.

That said.. it has some pretty great architecture downtown.  St. Paul has prided itself in maintaining its architectural gems over the years while Minneapolis has been all about "RIP IT DOWN AND BUILD SOMETHING SHINY!"

The Cathedral in St. Paul is quite impressive


Interestingly... the Cathedral, the Capitol building, and downtown form a triangle of religion/government/commerce.

[ilikeverin]

I'm not sure why St. Paul would be compared to a European city.  As snowguy said, it's just sort of a "smaller Minneapolis"... the city center, which isn't very large, is pretty much the only spot in the city that's high density.  The rest is pretty suburban.

I mean, it does have the Science Museum of Minnesota, which is pretty awesome.  And its downtown is quite lovely.  But Minneapolis just has so much more.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

St. Paul

[muon2]

Both are amazing and I hope to live in one someday. I'd prefer St. Paul, however. Many compare it to a US version of a European city. Muon2, can you confirm or deny?

I agree with Snowguy. It never struck me as European. It does have more of a sense of community history than Mpls, which is reflected in the aforementioned architecture. A great example of the communities and history of St Paul occurs every year during the Winter Carnival. I marched in more than one of those parades in freezing temps (it's at the end of Jan - early Feb) with hundreds of others.

Within St Paul I'm partial to the Como Park neighborhood since I biked there often when I was young.

[CountyTy90]

Both are amazing and I hope to live in one someday. I'd prefer St. Paul, however. Many compare it to a US version of a European city. Muon2, can you confirm or deny?

I agree with Snowguy. It never struck me as European. It does have more of a sense of community history than Mpls, which is reflected in the aforementioned architecture. A great example of the communities and history of St Paul occurs every year during the Winter Carnival. I marched in more than one of those parades in freezing temps (it's at the end of Jan - early Feb) with hundreds of others.

Within St Paul I'm partial to the Como Park neighborhood since I biked there often when I was young.

I should have clarified; I meant that I've read before that the architecture and sense of neighborhoods is what people have compared to European.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What makes St. Paul a "European" style city? Because it's mostly historically preserved? But I've never heard that claim of Boston or Philadelphia or DC.

St. Paul gets overlooked because besides the state government functions and a bunch of universities, not a whole lot goes on there. It's very far from a city that never sleeps. The downtown has some cool bars and restaurants, some historical sites, the state government and some hotels, but that's kind of it. It doesn't have the very happening downtown of Minneapolis and is actually kind of dead even on Saturday nights. Plus not a whole lot of commerce outside of some banks, unless you work for the state, said banks, a museum or in a bar/restaurant you probably aren't commuting there. The outskirts have some prestigious colleges but each neighborhood is kind of separate with their own separate downtowns kind of, it's more like a bunch of college towns stuck together. It doesn't have much of a hipster area or equivalent to Uptown Minneapolis, closest is Frogtown, but seriously that is not Uptown. In fact the comparison to Des Moines is made quite frequently, and I think it fits, St. Paul isn't even much bigger than Des Moines really, more like that than Minneapolis, Milwaukee or Chicago.

That said though I think St. Paul is kind of similar to how movies will take some by all standards very attractive actress and put her next to some A-lister than then pretend she's ugly and undesirable. If it wasn't right next to Minneapolis, it would be better thought of. Far worse places you could live, and the downtown is actually notable in that you can get a great place there without being insanely affluent.

But for comparison this is the St. Paul skyline:



Minneapolis skyline:



Contrast is pretty clear.

[bagelman]

Nice to see a native of the area comment on this. So I guess it's more like Cleveland vs. Akron than twins.

As a bore who stays inside and plays games at night I'd pick St. Paul for it's lower CoI and lower profile, but visit the larger neighbor of the state's largest city when I want to do things.