Even if you did run a line down to Lakeville, the people in Lakeville aren’t going to be headed downtown every day. They’ll work in Lakeville, or some other community on the perimeter of the metro...

I think this assumption is false. Most of those suburbs don't have enough jobs to accommodate the large numbers of people moving to them. All the high-rise office buildings and major HQs are closer to the inner-city area. A population explosion like that will eventually create more jobs in the local area (more people = more hospitals and schools and police departments, etc), but the people have to live there first for that to happen.

Yes, there certainly is no political angle to your putting your foot down and decreeing for us that "sprawl will happen, just give up on your trains already."

If Minneapolis is going to get that big, then the new name should be Megeapolis. Or Maxeapolis.

Oh forget it.

No need to rename the Twin Cities. Other urban areas have already experienced this kind of growth. There is already much less central identity in Los Angeles or Atlanta than there is here. Also I've been finding fewer and fewer people referring to the area as the Twin Cities any more. Sorry St. Paul but it's increasingly just called Minneapolis. Especially outside of MN.

Also it is kind of a relic of the city incorporation laws in Minnesota that make the growth appear to be away from Minneapolis and St. Paul. In other areas the central cities were able to forcibly incorporate surrounding countryside and that is now where their growth is happening. Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego especially fit this model. Also to a lesser extent Denver and Kansas City and even Indianapolis. Clearly all of us living adjacent to each other have common interests and perhaps it is time for a more metro-wide form of government.

As a St.Paul guy, I refuse to say I live in Minneapolis!
Put me down as a vote for Funkytown!

Bring on the next million... we can handle them if we apply some common sense and start building an adequate road infrastructure.

Think about it:

We have two central cities rather than one (yes we do... St. Paul is still 2/3 the size of Minneapolis)

We have a full 360 Degrees to grow out from (as opposed to Chicago/LA/NYC/Boston etc...

And even with another million that will only make the entire metro have about 4.5 million people.

We'll still be a small market area!

What irritates me is how some folks insist that, if a town is near a major city, they're actually IN that major city! I was in Tempe, AZ a few months ago, and one of our group (none of whom were from AZ) kept insisting we were in Phoenix. I pointed out that, no, we're not, we're in TEMPE, but she gave me the "you're so provincial" look, and kept insisting (recent college grads have a tendency to act that way).

Hey--if you're in Minneapolis, you're in Minneapolis. If you're in Eden Prairie, then THAT's where you are. You might be part of the "Greater [name of city] Metropolitan Area," but get specific, people!!!

I'll pass on the metro-wide gov't, thanks. There are many reasons I don't live in Mpls anymore, among them the high taxes and crowding James mentions, but make sure to put the terrible schools up there, too.

How 'bout:

St. Big-Fish-River-Rock-Ville Falls

...seems the quintessential MN town name to me.

You said, "No other urban area in America has ever renamed itself."

New Amsterdam got a new name a few years ago.

jbazan

Here's the solution. Let's just rename the counties. Hennepin County becomes Minneapolis and Ramsey County becomes Saint Paul.

That would shore up the inner city's tax base. Would put several levels of politicians and government administrator's out of work too.

My gosh, is there any downside at all?

While we're at it, one school district per metro county would cure a lot of financial discrepancies and administrative duplication, too.

How about giving it an unpronounceable symbol for a name? And then everyone can just call it "The Metropolitan Area Formerly Know As etc." until they get sick of it and start calling it the "The Area" for short.

"I think this assumption is false. Most of those suburbs don't have enough jobs to accommodate the large numbers of people moving to them"

Most people work in the suburbs now.

Municiburg.

Why not raise some needed revenue by selling naming rights to sprawlopolis? Targetown?

I rememberance of Pig'e Eye Parrant, call the whole area Pig's Eye. If that won't fly, perhaps a nod to our future Senator will catch on: Frankengrad.

mnitchalls seems to have a point.

I live in the Bay Area, no, not that one. I live in St. Petersburg at one pole and Tampa anchors the other. We root for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, which implies avid support from Manatees and Snook. I moved here from Jacksonville, which bills itself as the largest city in the nation (county-city limits are the same). So I live in the Bay Area and root for the Jags.

My main reason for commenting was in reaction to the Buzzeratti in Chief's internet issues. I need to work on the move and have found that economics drive me away from hardwired service. It makes no sense for me to pay for a high-speed connection into a home I may only be near for several hours a day, if that. High speed over an aircard is horribly expensive, but allows me to move huge files from just about anywhere. No more insecure WiFi connections in hotels/cafes/airports and very reliable. I would never go through the switch-over (again) using my primary machine, as there are bugs to be worked through and my remaining hairs are precious. Just a suggestion for people that need reliable access from various places and are paying for wasted bandwidth in a central location.

Jasperville (home of Jasperwood, of course!)

Or, better yet: Buzzland.mn!

We've had our regional name for a long long time.

My friends from other parts of the country think this is as funny as having a wrestler for governor.

We live in the Seven-County-Mosquito-Control-District.

Will the new 1 million be enough to keep the 8 seats in the US House of Representatives. Or will the chokehold on "sprawl" (whatever that really means), and the NIMBYs of Minneapolis's and St. Paul's neighborhoods who prevent densification outside of downtown, be strong enough to knock us down to seven seats in the House.

The growth of the Twin Cities is not unique.. it's already happened (long ago) in many other metropolitan areas. The "leaders" of the communities that comprise the Twin Cities would be wise to learn from the experiences of other communities. I live in the Bay Area (San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose) as we call it. There's approximately 6 million people in our 'metro area'. Here's news for you. Your traffic WILL continue to get worse, especially the traffic that revolves around your two anchor towns (Mpls/St. Paul). Why? Because people DON'T tend to work in the city they live in. People work where jobs are, and people generally live where they can afford it. In the Bay Area people who live in the north bay commute to the south bay. People in the south bay commute to the north bay. People in the east bay commute to.. well you get the picture. Traffic in the Twin Cities will continue to become more congested as time passes, and commuters will create a criss/cross pattern north to south and east to west everyday to and from work. Oh, and many will still commute into the Twin Cities (Mpls/St. Paul) every day in the same crazy traffic that all those perimeter commuters will be in. Light rail is not a solution because that involves mass-transit being part of the traffic-mess. What the Twin Cities needs (should have started building about 20-30 years ago) is a rapid transit system. A system that does not share the road with the cars (light rail). Here in the Bay Area we have BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit), and it operates either elevated off the ground (above traffic) within the cities, or underground. And guess what, it goes a lot farther than Lakeville to Blaine. My point, Light rail is a band aid at best, get a system that operates within it's own confined operating space (so it's not competing with the rest of the traffic), and do it soon, you're only half a century behind schedule.

Yes, it's true most of the growth is going to the suburbs. But those people in the suburbs will never have the sublime experience of being able to peoplewatch from their front stoops, or of running into a treasured acquaintance downtown because, well, people walk downtown and it's easier to run into people that way, or being able to walk around the corner to a really splendid coffee shop. There are great coffee shops in the suburbs, I'm sure, but I'm just as sure you have to drive to them. That's just such a hassle sometimes. You know? Also, growth in the suburbs is, everyone will agree, dependent on cars--really, everything is SERIOUSLY far away from everything else out there. It will be interesting, if a bit distressing, to see how people and growth patterns react to continued gas price increases. $100 a barrel, anybody?

Anonymous said "Most people work in the suburbs now."

If that's the case, then what's with the "rush hour" traffic pouring into the Mpls area in the morning?? And the crowded commuter busses coming into Mpls from all those suburbs?

Granted, SOME people are able to work in the 'burbs (Bloomington has a lot of office workers, for example), but any of the further suburbs (or exurbs) don't have the numbers of jobs to support the people moving out there.

i live in the suburb with the most growth, Shakopee, and we are seeing a lot of these new office park and office type buildings going up along 169, so i think you're going to be seeing more and more jobs in Shakopee, and more people actually living/working in the suburbs. A lot of these big companies are building headquarters and big office parks in these outer lying suburbs because that is where the available land is - plus - i'm sure the taxes aren't as bad as if they were in the minneapolis downtown area..

Perhaps we should consider the fault of over-zealous neighborhood associations for preventing more redevelopment of run-down and older areas in the inner core. A lot of the structures in the central area of the TC area are ancient by American standards, and despite what some day are not worth preserving.

Old warehouse districts that are only marginally used -- raze them. Old houses that havent been renovated in decades and apartment buildings that look like they're right out of Oliver Twist and lack built in A/C units -- give me a bulldozer.

We should create incentives for redevelopment as new, denser housing (single or multi-family). Only by increasing the availability of *quality* housing stock in the inner cities can we help keep prices attractive.

Btw, I suggest Frostbite Falls as the name of the metro.

"If that's the case, then what's with the "rush hour" traffic pouring into the Mpls area in the morning?? And the crowded commuter buses coming into Mpls from all those suburbs?"

It's still less than what goes around the city. Have you ever driven 169 or 100 or 494 at rush hour? They're packed. The few times I've had to work downtown there was less traffic than heading down 169 towards Edina or Bloomington.

And nice moving of the goalposts. I start with saying that more people work in the suburbs than in the city and you say that you really meant the further suburbs or exurbs. And give it time for even that. As housing density moves out so will office density.

I agree that more and more office BUILDINGS are going up, but have you noticed how many of them still say "space for lease"? Developers build these nice new office buildings, but have a hard time getting people to actually fill them. Or they get companies to fill them, which leave other office buildings empty. It's not increasing jobs (which you need if the population is incresing) - it's only rearranging the locations of jobs.

yes, and Istanbul was Constantinople.

"If that's the case, then what's with the "rush hour" traffic pouring into the Mpls area in the morning??"

That rush hour traffic is people going across the city centers from one suburb to another. We have people from Wi working in St.Louis Park, people in Anoka working in Burnsville, etc.

heather8875 wrote:
" It's not increasing jobs (which you need if the population is incresing) - it's only rearranging the locations of jobs."

Hmm. I think you just contradicted yourself. Weren't you saying that the jobs aren't moving to the sub/exurbs? And now you're saying that new office buildings in the 'burbs are just relocating jobs?

Or do you mean that only 'burb jobs are moving within the 'burbs?

Is that what's really happening? or are companies that have been downtown either expanding, or transplanting out?

"All the high-rise office buildings and major HQs are closer to the inner-city area"

High-rise seems irrelevent and lots of companies are moving their HQs out - Best Buy in Bloomington, Guidant and Medtronic are both north of 694.
I live in Prior Lake. I work in Eden Prairie. My wife works in St. Louis Park. We hardly ever go to Minneapolis or St. Paul, even though my house is only 30 miles from downtown Minneapolis.
We'd like to get there more, but we don't NEED to.

The City of Townsville is the cartoon home of the Powerpuff Girls. Where's the "nod"?

Letting a lame girl-power show for five year olds steal into your subconscious is far less shameful than remembering who Steve Greenberg is, so you might as well confess.

Most people's geographical knowledge is based on airport names nowadays. I used to live in Raleigh, NC and was constantly being told that it's really Raleigh-Durham. It doesn't matter that Raleigh and Durham are separated by the RTP, which is 30 miles wide. The airport is named Raleigh-Durham International and that's what counts! Heck, I bet your friend has been telling everybody she knows how much she enjoyed visiting Phoenix-Sky Harbor, AZ!

Well, I've been calling the region Twinopolis, but if we want something sanctified by history, why not Pig's Eye?

Said Willkim on 7/18: "Hey--if you're in Minneapolis, you're in Minneapolis. If you're in Eden Prairie, then THAT's where you are. You might be part of the "Greater [name of city] Metropolitan Area," but get specific, people!!!"

Good advice, but not always practical when trying to explain to outsiders. I live in Northern Virginia, so it's often easier just to say, "Oh, I live in Northern Virginia, south of DC." Otherwise it works out like this:

Me: I live in Catherpin, Virginia
Outsider: (Blank Look)
Me: Oh, that's in Prince William County
Outsider: (Continues Staring)
Me: South of DC about thirty or forty miles
Outsider: Oh, you live in the DC area!
Me: Sort of...

One little comment regarding traffic flow:

Consider the fact that the vast majority of people we see "streaming into the city" are actually simply passing through, on their way to somewhere else

The vast majority of commuting trips (90% plus, by one study I recall) in the Metro area are from one 'burb to another. They are most definitely NOT from 'burb to downtown.

Personally, I live in South Mpls (right off 46th and Nicollet), and work in Bloomington. My daily commute regularly shows me as much (or more) traffic moving counter to the flow of what is expected by the mass transit bureaucrats, who STILL seem enamored of "hub-and-spoke" type planning.

Most of the people I work with here are coming from a diverse set of geographical areas, including Blaine, Hudson (WI), Maple Grove, or Brooklyn Park. The first part of their commute takes them towards one of the downtowns...and then back out. The lucky ones are able to skirt these areas by using the 494/694 ringroads, but when those are under construction for the long-awaited widening or "un-weaving" they have no choice.

Of course it's probably just a coincidence that the central-planners who love hub-and-spoke mass transit all work in one of the dot-gov jobs in one of the downtowns...

I always thought you were the best they had.

I recommend "Land of 10,000 Commuters," or Railsburg

"yes, and Istanbul was Constantinople."

That's nobody's business but the Turks.

Armpit of the Midwest.

There, I said it. If you don't like it, get in your Sport Futility Vehicle and drive away.

Taxopolis

I think it's true that we're developing in a new way, but those government bureaucrats are trying to maintain the position of Minneapolis and Saint Paul in the metro area for a reason. Suburban living is wasteful. Cars cost lots of money to build infrastructure for, and having things close by is not just a transit planner's childish fantasy; it's sensible. As gasoline prices continue to increase, more people might come around to this viewpoint. Plus, abandoning the inner cities to the poor and the transient isn't smart, either. A healthy inner city is good for the image of the whole state: anyone been to Detroit lately?

As for names, how about Minneapaulville?

Sorry, that one's already taken. In Kansas City, Missouri, we just elected a mayor named Mark Funkhouser this spring, so we're claiming it.

Although Minneapolis and St. Paul housing will take a hit as the sub-prime mortgage bubble bursts, there are no large areas with vacant houses or lots. Minneapolis has more housing units than ever, but households are smaller. House prices in desirable Minneapolis neighborhoods are quite high for what you get. Families don't as much flee to the suburbs as as pushed. On reason for providing areas for condos is to lessen the demand for houses and encourage empty nesters to move out of their houses so they can be bought by families. It doesn't seem to have worked. I think townhouses might have been more attractive to empty nesters.

There are no simple solutions. Much affordable housing is provided by less desirable neighborhoods. If higher income folks started moving into those neighborhoods the supply of affordable housing would decrease. This happened with condo conversions. I'm not saying we should not improve neighborhoods but we must be mindful of the consequences.

I live in Minneapolis. I'm sick and tired of City folks talking about suburban sprawl as being wasteful and being smug about living in the City. While a few City folks are able to forgo a car, most of us have one and we use it. Even if we have a nearby bus line (I don't), it isn't practical for bringing home a weeks worth of groceries for a family of four, getting a child to a friend's house or home from an after school activity, going to a movie, and the many other activities that are part of our lives. I live a mile from Uptown but for me the only useful store there is the Rainbow. So I have to drive to Southdale and St. Louis Park for my basic needs.

It isn't sprawl that's the problem. It's our lifestyle. Remember Pogo - We have met the enemy and it's us. Most of us City folks I would add.

I'm with you, Willkim. You'd be amazed at how many Long Islanders, who would never think of living within the boundaries of New York City with all the scary colored people, will insist on referring to themselves as "New Yorkers" in conversation.