Quote:
Originally Posted by Centropolis
i think theres some kind of baked in chicago-milwaukee dynamic that’s hard to pin down but has always been there.
|
a big part of why it can be hard to pin down is the fact that they're close enough to be kinda close, and at the same time they're far enough to be kinda far.
80 miles. it's a bit of an unorthodox tweener relationship, modified by a state border almost exactly in the middle of them.
there's certainly much more interplay betwen them than, say, st. louis and indy, but at the same time, chicago and milwaukee will
never share a singular regional identity like "the bay area" or "the metroplex" or any of those other city pairs that are indeed truly much closer to each other, both physically and psychologically.
as an aside, i find it interesting that the DC/baltimore region has never assumed a singular identity either, even though they're roughly as close to each other as SF/SJ or dallas/ft. worth. it probably has to do with the MUCH deeper history of their separate identities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Centropolis
i think theres some kind of baked in chicago-milwaukee dynamic that’s hard to pin down but has always been there. i think it slightly favors milwaukee since everyone i know who has ever lived in chicago loves to go spend money in mileaukee.
|
some of the chicago affection for milwaukee is based upon the radical size imbalance.
if chicagoland was closer in size to metro detroit (4.3M) and metro milwaukee was closer in size to the twin cities (3.6M), then there would be a lot more fear involved in the equation.
but as it is, sometimes milwaukee lashes out at its big brother with its silly "FIB" trope, and then chicago pats its little brother on the (cheese)head and says "how cute".
but everyone knows the pecking order so there's really no use arguing over it. the animus mainly stays in the realm of "fuck the packers/fuck the bears".