Quote:
Originally Posted by Chef
I have always thought that Detroit, Denver, Portland and LA are cities that have similar urban DNA to Minneapolis but all in different ways. Detroit and Minneapolis were very similar in urban form and architecture in the first half of the 20th century and then went in radically different directions after WWII.
If you are going to compare LA to a Midwestern city Minneapolis probably works as well as Detroit. LA and the Twin Cities are both multi-nodal metros with downtowns that are large but not culturally dominant. They are both products of prewar 20th century booms and are full of relatively dense streetcar suburbia, there are miles of bungalows and craftsman houses in both. The freeways are laid out in grids rather than the hub and spokes of most metros. The chain of lakes is the Minneapolis analog to the Pacific beaches. Both are relatively walkable for 20th century cities but are full of people who drive. Both have lots of stucco. The older parts of LA really give the impression that it started out as a Midwestern city on the Pacific and only became the modern LA after WWII. The main differences between LA, Minneapolis and Detroit seem to be their arcs after WWII - LA went on to become a megacity that was heavily influenced by Latin America, Minneapolis remained a healthy mid sized metro while Detroit boomed hard and then crashed.
|
Definitely agree that there are many structural similarities between Minneapolis and Detroit. Minneapolis has a bigger downtown, and it is filled with towers that are relatively new, versus Detroit's mostly prewar skyline. Detroit had a much bigger buffer area of densely populated neighborhoods surrounding downtown, though.
I see some similarities between Minneapolis and Austin, too. Both have a large growing downtown area that is eating up the lower density areas right around it.