Great Lakes Cities

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

then again, there are loads of small cities/towns with "large lakefront presences" all freaking over the great lakes region, and the vast majority of them never amounted to anything even 10% as significant as milwaukee, so maybe milwaukee has done just fine for itself?

^Good point. I didn't think about it from that perspective.

The Chicago lakefront is some of the most picturesque water front in the U.S. I would assume Milwaukee would offer similar results. -- Again never being there, I have no idea.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

The Chicago lakefront is some of the most picturesque water front in the U.S. I would assume Milwaukee would offer similar results. -- Again never being there, I have no idea.

milwaukee's lakefront is very nice as well. parkland, beaches, museums, lagoons, marinas, festival grounds, etc. all publicly accessible.

once again, in so many ways, milwaukee is a mini-me verison of chicago.


source: http://discoverwisconsin.com/video/visit-milwaukee/


source: /u/spefie at the Milwaukee subreddit.


Blue Green Algae isn't alllllll that bad by Nate V, on Flickr

[IrishIllini]

What gets me about Milwaukee is just how many small details are the same. The amount of overlap on street names is absurd.

[MolsonExport]

Toronto is like Jacksonville, but with a way worse skyline.



Toronto is unlike the other GL cities, by virtue of the zillions of skyscrapers throughout the metro region (much more like a giant Asian city in this regards, or for that matter, like Vancouver).

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

milwaukee's lakefront is very nice as well. parkland, beaches, museums, lagoons, marinas, festival grounds, etc. all publicly accessible.

There's something about that aqua blue FRESH water that adds to the exotic look. It looks Caribbean or Gulf Coast (Alabama - Florida), but it's salt free. Also those cool winter storm pictures with the huge wind driven waves --and ice--are really very unique.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

There's something about that aqua blue FRESH water that adds to the exotic look. It looks Caribbean or Gulf Coast (Alabama - Florida), but it's salt free.

it's all shark-free as well!

the waters of the great lakes have actually been getting bluer and clearer over the past several decades thanks to invasive species of mussels.

ecologists say it's a pretty big problem for the lakes' ecosystem, but it sure makes for some pretty postcards.

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Also those cool winter storm pictures with the huge wind driven waves --and ice--are really very unique.

the extreme seasonal nature in these parts combined with the lakes is one of my favorite aspects of the great lakes region.

they're not just beautiful and majestic inland seas, they really do take on different attitudes and moods as the seasons change.

[HowardL]

Only now starting to sober up from this weekend in Milwaukee, I feel that I learned an important lesson.

Milwaukee does not try to be anywhere except Milwaukee. Coming from Chicago, I have this mindset that one should always aspire to be the next city up the pecking order, to compete with cities both above and below in any given demographic profile.

Chicago strives to be. Milwaukee is happy to be.

A few Chicago friends and I have decided that we are lucky to have Milwaukee so close by and that 90 minutes of the Amtrak Hiawatha bind us to the city that should really be on every "coolest cities in America" list and yet we're glad it isn't because it would fucking ruin everything.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

it's all shark-free as well!

the waters of the great lakes have actually been getting bluer and clearer over the past several decades thanks to invasive species of mussels.

Are those mussels edible? If so, nice balance and problem solved.

Sharks are fun, they're really not that dangerous. Just don't chum the water with an open cut and you'll be fine.

E) Gator free is more of a selling point for me. Gators creep me out. Sharks, no. Gators, yes.

[the urban politician]

Sadly, I never got to know Milwaukee beyond a superficial sampling of its built environment and a few restaurants. Definitely obvious that it's a Chicago mini-me. I mean, that just screams out at you when you visit there.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Docere

Bringing this back to the question of Great Lakes cities, it's interesting to some similarities between L.A. and Detroit: both boomed in the early to mid 20th century(Detroit was late for the North, L.A. was early for the Sunbelt)were early examples of auto-dominated, weak-transit cities.

http://www.urbanophile.com/2012/02/2...pete-saunders/

Of course they had very different economies and locations.

Since you brought it up, yes, they both have a lot more in common than most people would think. But I would disagree about the weak transit characterization of both early L.A. and early 20th century Detroit. Both cities in the pre-war era were organized around sprawling street car systems. Detroit's was supposedly the largest in the world for a period of time. I think the Great Depression was the deciding factor in both cities not getting a pre-war subway system, which was probably solely a factor of their relatively late population booms. L.A. and Detroit were the only 2 of the 5 biggest cities in 1950 without one.

There is also a bit of community overlap. It's not that uncommon for people in the Detroit area to have family connections to L.A. My mother's family actually migrated to Detroit from L.A. post-war, but all of my mother's extended family still lives in southern California.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Milwaukee is the only city I've ever been to where tailgating for baseball works.

[PaleAle]

High speed rail between downtown chicago and downtown milwaukee would be good. NO suburban stops. NONE. Maybe a hyperloop.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

Milwaukee is the only city I've ever been to where tailgating for baseball works.

i tried it in kansas city once but it just feels wrong. also it started raining and the game was rained out and we were crammed in cars binge drinking soaking wet.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

that perceived under performance might be related to milwaukee's proximity to the urban juggernaut located just 80 miles south of it.

then again, there are loads of small cities/towns with "large lakefront presences" all freaking over the great lakes region, and the vast majority of them never amounted to anything even 10% as significant as milwaukee, so maybe milwaukee has done just fine for itself?

milwaukee only has 1.5 million people but can stand up to cities with twice the metro population, or more. people talk mke down but i don’t think they really know what they are talking about. those of us who have been there know better.

[Tom In Chicago]

Milwaukee's our little secret. . . stop telling everyone about it!!!

. . .

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by Crawford

LA has a (slightly) lower proportion of SFH than Chicago. LA is not really SFH-dominated, at all, at least not by American standards.

Indeed, LA is well known for its numerous apartment complexes. The difference between LA and San Francisco or a number of Northeastern places is that there aren't as many high rise apartments and thus even though LA sprawls for a city its size, it still isn't entirely a suburban layout.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

milwaukee only has 1.5 million people but can stand up to cities with twice the metro population, or more. people talk mke down but i don’t think they really know what they are talking about. those of us who have been there know better.

Yep. Relative to american urbanism, milwaukee punches WAY above its metro area size. Milwaukee has a lot more people living in higher denisty census tracts (>10,000ppsm) than any other Midwest city not named chicago, despite only being the 10th largest MSA in the region.

Milwaukee is exhibit A of why you should never judge a city by its MSA population figure.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Indeed, LA is well known for its numerous apartment complexes. The difference between LA and San Francisco or a number of Northeastern places is that there aren't as many high rise apartments and thus even though LA sprawls for a city its size, it still isn't entirely a suburban layout.

And the LA apartment complexes generally aren't built the same as in older metros, nor do they relate to the street in the same manner. Multifamily, by itself, isn't a proxy for relative urbanity.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

Milwaukee's our little secret. . . stop telling everyone about it!!!

. . .

Too late...

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Yep. Relative to american urbanism, milwaukee punches WAY above its metro area size. Milwaukee has a lot more people living in higher denisty census tracts (>10,000ppsm) than any other Midwest city not named chicago, despite only being the 10th largest MSA in the region.

Milwaukee is exhibit A of why you should never judge a city by its MSA population figure.

I've never been to Milwaukee, but looking on population density maps, almost all of the hyper-dense tracts (15,000+ PPSM) are in Latino neighborhoods on the southern side of the city. The built vernacular there isn't incredibly urban. It looks like lots of cottage-style detached wood framed structures with a few larger homes mixed in. Many of them are split into two-units, and it looks like in some cases there might be houses in the alleys. But overall, I'm guessing the relatively high population densities come from a mixture of minimal urban blight (e.g., very few vacant lots or abandoned buildings) and a high number of people per household.

If other Midwestern cities besides Chicago and Milwaukee experienced substantial Hispanic migration, we'd probably see unusually dense neighborhoods of this sort in them as well.