U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Midwest fight, which city is best. highrise buildings, and architecture, to parks and waterfronts.
Milwaukee 15 7.50%
Detroit 14 7.00%
Chicago 100 50.00%
Indianapolis 12 6.00%
St. Louis 20 10.00%
Minneapolis 26 13.00%
Cleveland 13 6.50%
Voters: 200. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-27-2007, 12:47 PM
 
5,678 posts, read 13,672,234 times
Reputation: 3239

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonicman25 View Post
7 miles? Are you talking about the downtowns? If so then I could understand. But the cities themselves are right next to each other.
Correct, sonicman. The downtowns are 11 miles apart, but their boundaries are contiguous. I live in St Paul, but within walkable distance to Mpls, just across the city line. Other "twin"-type cities have something between them, such as the suburbs between Dallas and Ft Worth, suburbs between Cleveland, Akron (and Canton!), the SF Bay between San Francisco and Oakland, the Hudson River and a state line between NYC and Newark, the Mississippi and a state line between St Louis and East St Louis, Tampa Bay between Tampa and St Pete, etc. By contrast, Mpls and St Paul grew independently from two settlements 11 miles apart along the Mississippi, eventually annexing all land between them, all this before the automobile age.

Yes, you would think one city absorbing the other would be more efficient, but local politics would never let this happen, and I'm glad. I like the idea of each having its own distintive government, cityscape and personality. Too much blandness in urban America today. How do you know when you are in Jacksonville? When you cross the county line.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-27-2007, 06:09 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis
102 posts, read 409,651 times
Reputation: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Around View Post
Yes, you would think one city absorbing the other would be more efficient, but local politics would never let this happen, and I'm glad. I like the idea of each having its own distintive government, cityscape and personality. Too much blandness in urban America today. How do you know when you are in Jacksonville? When you cross the county line.
I agree. Yes combining the two cities would create one large city which would create opportunities in some areas. But I don't want to compete with the Houstons and Atlantas of the world. I think the way the Twin Cities metro area is split up creates two unique identities that are big but not too big instead of one big sprawled out metro area. There are two downtowns so everyone's not flowing into one area and you can enjoy two different types of cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2007, 10:19 AM
 
1 posts, read 1,254 times
Reputation: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by metroplex2003 View Post
I knew someone would try to call me out on it...that's why I said "off the top of my head"...so I looked it up this evening.

Columbus is indeed ahead of Milwaukee's MSA.

COlumbus in at #29, Milwaukee at #32...Columbus has 1.9M, Milwaukee 1.7M

I didnt check the rest...but the last half are all fairly close to each other, so I apologize if I get some mixed up...but I think for the most part my MSA size rankings are accurate.
MILWAUKEE'S CITY POPULATION IS MORE THAN ANY OHIO CITY EXCEPT FOR CLEVELAND...AND I MEAN CITY POPULATION NOT METROPOLITIAN...THE METROPOLIS IS NOT THE CITY....2000 CENSUS IS 656,000 ..TELL ALL THEM OTHA MIDWEST CITIES TO GET IT UP...AND MILWAUKEE GOT MORE HOMICIDES THAN ANY OHIO CITY
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2007, 09:20 PM
 
9 posts, read 31,483 times
Reputation: 16
Milwaukee has 656000 people and thats more than any in ohio?

Columbus has 730000 according to the 2000 census, and im sure it has grown.

all 3 of the major cities in ohio have a larger metro than milwaukee and Dayton, a city with 1/5 of its population, rivals its metro area with 1.2 million people as of 2006.

what happened to the love for Cincy? it has a metro of about 2.1 million(expected to reach 2.2 by the end of the year). Thats larger than indy, milwaukee and a couple others on this list. And cleveland has a metro of 2.9 million, larger than all but three and virtually tied with STL.

so give us some love.

GO DAYTON!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2007, 10:46 PM
 
609 posts, read 2,679,613 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by da_black_fonz View Post
MILWAUKEE'S CITY POPULATION IS MORE THAN ANY OHIO CITY EXCEPT FOR CLEVELAND...AND I MEAN CITY POPULATION NOT METROPOLITIAN...THE METROPOLIS IS NOT THE CITY....2000 CENSUS IS 656,000 ..TELL ALL THEM OTHA MIDWEST CITIES TO GET IT UP...AND MILWAUKEE GOT MORE HOMICIDES THAN ANY OHIO CITY
I was referring to metropolitan statistical area population, which is a more reflective measure of cities.
The reason why we use MSA's is for funding issues or urbanized areas.

Examples are Omaha proper vs. St. Louis proper.
Omaha proper actually has more population than St. Louis proper...but the msa's are 800,000 or so vs. 2.8 million people...that's why people will never say Omaha is bigger than St. Louis even though the proper cities are that way.
Same with Atlanta and Louisville.
No one will ever talk a/b Louisville and Atlanta in the same breath of importance. but the proper populations are roughly the same. Metro Atlanta has close to 5 million people. Or how bout Boston vs. El Paso? El Paso is larger than Boston? Do they ever get mentioned in the same breath. Boston MSA is 4.5 million people. El Paso's...700-800k or so? THe metro population is very important...as boundaries between proper and suburbs are really trivial when dealing with the majorness of a city. The fact is suburbs would not exist if it werent for the principal city.
The Atlanta vs. Louisville example, or Omaha vs. St. Louis, or Boston vs. El Paso, or even San Francisco vs. Indianapolis...as much as it's nice for these smaller towns to claim proper population size as hugely important...the metro is what companies look at. Louisville is huge, but once again, boundaries are meaningless...Atlanta is clearly the more major of the two...lots of corporations and offices within Atlanta proper, and the citizens just choose to live mostly in the suburbs. Atlanta has roughly 580,000 or so people only...that means the remaning 4.5 mllion live in the suburbs.

I doubt DFW would have the 2nd highest number of corporate hq relocations if it werent for a huge metropolitan area that can supply a decent workforce...or likewise for #1 chicago last year.

Metros matter....and are what defines cities in America. Now at the turn of the 20th century, it was different, city proper:suburb ratios were much higher...and city propers were acurate measures of the majorness of a city.
Case in point: St. Louis, MO. in the year 1900, it was the 4th largest city in the nation...close to 1 million people resided within St. Louis Proper...over the next 100 years people there moved all out into St. Louis County and out of the principal city. To accurately measure that, the term MSA was born...as culturally the region is essentially tied together and would not exist if it werent for the principal city.

So now we compare Milwaukee's MSA vs. Cleveland. Cleveland's is clearly bigger. Cincy is also bigger....hence the reason why it can support a major Delta hub and Cleveland a Continental hub....and to Milwaukee's credit...it is close to chicago and thus has great competition at O'Hare, but it's a case in point overall.

Dallas proper has 1.3 million, but greater DFW has 6.4 million.
That's why though Dallas proper is technically smaller than San Antonio proper, people always compare Dallas to Houston and that's whyDallas, Houston, Atlanta are all "gamma" world cities. FYI: Dallas' MSA is the 4th largest in the country. 4.4 million on the Dallas side, 2 million on the Ft. Worth side of the airport.

Now you're right, Columbus, the smallest of the 3 metros in Ohio is not too far off from Milwaukee, but the other two Ohio cities metros are significantly larger markets....with Cleveland being the largest market in Ohio despite Columbus overtaking Cleveland in city proper population over the last few decades.

Having said all that, I do like Milwaukee. It's in a great location. Like the city better than any of the Ohio cities anyday. In fact, not a big fan of Ohio. It has one of the highest cloudy day:sunny day ratios in the country...right along with that Western PA and UpState NY region. Except for Columbus, I find the the other two Ohio cities not so nice (but personal preference).
Milwaukee is a nice mid sized city in the midwest. Have relatives in Mequon. Lake Mich is great.
Great music festival. Major league sports. Close proximity to the nation's 3rd largest metro area, which is an alpha world city in its own right (Chi-town that is). But you have the benefits of being close to Chi-town, but able to live in a city in its own right. What do Ohio cities have? Detroit nearby??? hardly anything to brag about.

Last edited by metroplex2003; 12-01-2007 at 11:07 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2007, 08:56 AM
 
2,248 posts, read 6,067,524 times
Reputation: 2063
For my personal list, I've replaced Chicago with Kansas City, Cincinnati, and Columbus.

1. Indianapolis
2. Minneapolis
3. Columbus
4. Cleveland
5. Milwaukee
6. Kansas City
7. St. Louis
8. Detroit
9. Cincinnati
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2007, 08:58 AM
 
2,248 posts, read 6,067,524 times
Reputation: 2063
Now here's the way I see it on the forums:

1. Chicago



















2. Minneapolis

3. St. Louis

4. Milwaukee

5. Kansas City
6. Columbus



7. Cleveland
8. Detroit
9. Cincinnati












10. Indianapolis
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2007, 10:46 AM
 
Location: Portland, Maine
4,180 posts, read 12,807,403 times
Reputation: 1603
Livability (walking, density, transit, nice neighborhoods)
1. Chicago (hands down)
2. Milwaukee (very walkable; gorgeous lakefront)
3. Minneapolis-St. Paul (nice neighborhoods, clean, green)
4. Cincinnati (great historic neighborhoods, hills)
5. Columbus (activity, college town, vitality)
6. Kansas City, Missouri ( nice views, decent neighborhoods)
7. Indianapolis (vitality-hard though because it is in Indiana; I really don't like that state)
8. Cleveland (lakefront although obscure because of the freeway; University Circle, decent west side neighborhoods, city market)
9. Detroit (close to the lakes to get out when needed---always!!)
10. St Lous ( what can I say? I just really didn't like this town)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2007, 05:21 PM
 
Location: Phoenix
1,277 posts, read 4,078,989 times
Reputation: 688
1. Chicago (business district and the neighborhoods (some) are really put together
2.Columbus (neighborhoods, activity, local arts, safeness, are vibrant and put together)
3.Minneapolis (same as Columbus, but with more strength in the center of downtown here)
4. Indianapolis (great downtown for visitors or shopping)
5. Kansas City
6. Milwaukee
7. St. Louis
8. Cincinnati (i really do not the conservative bent of the metro, but they have some okay neighborhoods and downtown)
8. Cleveland
9. Detroit


I really like to judge the cities on the WHOLE city limits. Not just downtown. Based on that view, I had to make the list in the order above. I put Columbus before some other cities with more well known downtowns, because, Columbus has such great vitality/clean streets/ youth/ activity in nearly all of its neighborhoods in the central city. I felt the same way about Chicago and Minneapolis. Those three cities, Chicago, Minneapolis, and Columbus just really have their innercity together so its liveable, in the urban neighborhoods. (
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2007, 01:39 PM
 
Location: Chicago
395 posts, read 1,196,225 times
Reputation: 190
Here's my list, cities i've been to:

1.) Chicago. I really don't need to say more, nor does anyone else. It's obviously a kick ass city. One DOWNside is the weather here, which can really blow during the winter. Other than weather and traffic and cost of living, Chicago is like that mecca for the region between nyc and california. So many different types of folks and languages spoken. Great food, bars and transportation. My home.

2.) St. Louis. Once butted heads with Chicago (have family that live there) and still butts heads in baseball, great Cubs Cards rivalry. Great older city w/ history (olymics, worlds fair, lousiana purchase, saw pope john paul II etc.) with funky neighborhoods. HIGHLY underrated city. Have been there on quiet times and kind of dull, but if you go for times like mardi gras or weekends in the summer, the city is bumpin. Has hot girls and good clubs/bars scene neighborhoods (the loop is the ****!). Some of my greatest nights out were in stl. Has slight southern feel. Close mountains/ foothills/ozarks (1.5 drive). highrises stretch from downtown to st. louis county downtown clayton (6 miles?) yes, metro is smaller than detroit and slightly smaller than twin cities, but benefits outweigh. BTW, downtown st. louis is a financial center, NOT an entertainment center. This probably confuses a lot of of visitors to the city who are used to downtown being the center.

3.) Twin Cities. Great culture and vibe. Been there once in the summer and admired the lakes and parks. I was surprised by the diversity and artistic liberal vibe. Not very "midwesterny" which i liked. Decent looking girls. GREAT BARs. HOWEVER, haven't been in the winter, but can imagine the dread. So, it moves down on list for being so far north, sorry.

4.) Detroit. Very urban city, despite decay, I love this aspect. Once a major force economically on the country and contributed greatly to our daily lives and how the world functions (think: automotive industry). Despite crime and decay, detroit still has a TON of culture and great nightlife. We hung out in midwtown which is awesome, a lot of people, cool museums. Plus, you get a "city" vibe when being in detroit. Because of the amount of decay though, i would rate below stl and Minneapolis.

5.) Milwaukee. It's good to get away from the clutter of chicago and go to a city up north not to far away and hang out with friends from marquette. Theres' a really cool vibe in milwaukee, urban yet not. We had some great fusion japanese food in a restaurant district. plus, its by the lake and there's some really pretty views. Unique feel, yet a bit small.

6.) Kansas City. Cool, yet not that great. Ive been there a few times, twice for conventions, and twice to visit distant relatives. The downtown was pretty blah, but then again, downtowns are for wussies/tourists imo. We went to the plaza, and that was pretty cool, but that was about it...There were some cool bars, but nothing that struck me in the face like WOW. Everything seemed kind of ... been there done that... But as a whole, a nice city, western more new feel.

7.) Indianapolis. I'm sorry, but because it's in the state of indiana, it already has a huge negative vibe that runs across it. The downtown's nice, but that's all there really was. And it wasn't THAT great of a downtown. It had a semi-city vibe in parts, but out of downtown, definately not. I didn't notice substantial neighborhoods or anything surrounding the downtown, just straight to suburbs. Plus, the people i met were kind of...ehh...not many "personalities". I've been to indy about 8 times, visiting friends. It's just really blah to me, and nothing funky or interesting about it and very lacking in personality. Very artificial feeling. I'm sorry indy, but i think if you were in the state of illinois ... or michigan you would have A LOT more going for you. (plus, im so annoyed with all the indy residents always claiming its the THIRD largest city in the midwest, some trying to compare with chicago detroit and stl. It's such a misleading figure, considering the WHOLE county lives in "indy".

The rest:
Haven't spent enough time in Cincy or Cleveland to make judgements, just drove through. I would choose cincy for its geography, decent size, and southern feel. Cleveland appears kind of "has been" but..."can never be again". I wouldn't consider it a mistake, but I hope it can make a come back, given its oldness and culture!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top