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.
Out of those three..... Milwaukee. I hate to say it. Though I have little experience with Cleveland.
Milwaukee has several advantages on Detroit, one being it's on Lake Michigan which is a more scenic location, number two it's near Chicago. Her disadvantages are that she's slightly colder, slightly being the key word.
As for city vs city, Milwaukee is no exciting place by any means, but it has a lot of bars, German culture, etc. Detroit might have a bit more to do, but then Milwaukeens can just drive to Chicago.
Out of those three..... Milwaukee. I hate to say it. Though I have little experience with Cleveland.
Milwaukee has several advantages on Detroit, one being it's on Lake Michigan which is a more scenic location, number two it's near Chicago. Her disadvantages are that she's slightly colder, slightly being the key word.
As for city vs city, Milwaukee is no exciting place by any means, but it has a lot of bars, German culture, etc. Detroit might have a bit more to do, but then Milwaukeens can just drive to Chicago.
Actually, there's plenty to do in Milwaukee... AND, there are those Chicago residents who have purchased condos in Milwaukee's Third Ward, so they can spend week-ends there...yeah, imagine that.
the idea that any of these three cities have things for tourists to do is just a total farce and I'm from one of them
Cleveland has the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, which draws visitors from all over the world. We also have the Cleveland Museum of Art and the Cleveland Orchestra, both in the top of the top tier in their categories. The Pro Football Hall of Fame and Cedar Point amusement park are both less than an hour from Cleveland as well. That's not to mention all of the excellent restaurants, and hidden gems here (Christmas Story House, West Side Market, Garfield Monument/Lakeview Cemetary etc.)
the idea that any of these three cities have things for tourists to do is just a total farce and I'm from one of them
Here are some things you can do in Detroit:
Museums:
Henry Ford Museum,
Motown Museum,
Cranbrook Art Museum,
Cranbrook House and Garden,
Cranbrook Institute of Science,
Saarinen House Gardens,
African American Museum,
Detroit Historical Museum,
Holocaust Memorial Center,
Dossin Great Lakes Museum,
Yankee Air Museum,
Michigan Science Center,
Arab American Museum,
Detroit Institute of Arts,
Anna Scripps Conservatory,
Ford Rouge Factory Tour,
Crocker House Museum,
Fort Wayne,
Tuskagee Airmen Museum,
Museum of Contemporary Art,
Pewabic Pottery,
Scarab Club,
Wyandotte Museum,
Model T Heritage Complex,
Downtown Areas:
Downtown Ferndale
Downtown Royal Oak
Downtown Birmingham
Downtown Rochester
Downtown Mt. Clemens
Downtown Grosse Pointe
Downtown Windsor
Downtown Wyandotte
Downtown Northville
Downtown Plymouth
Downtown Walled Lake
Downtown Milford
East Dearborn
West Dearborn
Downtown Ypsilanti and campus of Eastern Michigan
Downtown Ann Arbor and campus of University of Michigan
Downtown Pontiac
Downtown Berkley
Downtown Hamtramck
Somerset Collection of Troy
Outdoor Activities;
All the lakes in Oakland County
Lake St. Clair/Harrison Township/Metropark
Delphi
Dexter-Huron
Hudson Mills
Huron Meadows
Indian Springs
Indian Springs
Kensington
Lake Erie
Lower Huron
Metro Beach
Oakwoods
StonWillowey Creek
Wolcott Mill
I don't know why it's necessary to list everything each city has to do. I'm sure each city has lots to do... I also don't like bragging about this and that...reeks of desperation. If someone is interested in your city, they can research themselves. Pretty sure this is an old thread that really didn't need to be revived.
Cleveland got a big head start on trying to reinvent itself. It say the writing on the wall long before Detroit although I don't know much about Milwaukie. Cleveland seems to have the wind at her back and just as Detroit has become the poster child of urban decay, Cleveland {and Pittsburgh} has become the poster child of urban renewal.
Milwaukie's problem is that it is overwhelmed by it's big neighbour to the south. When people think of the region they automatically think Chicago. Economically, demographically, politically, socially, economically it is in it's big sister's shadow and thus doesn't get the attention it deserves.
Cleveland is quite different being an old city without any regional rivals. When you ask people what is Ohio's biggest and most important city, 90% will say Cleveland. Even thou it is basically a 3 way tie, for most people Columbus is an explorer and Cinncinatti is a radio station.
Cleveland also has one benefit that is increasingly very important for younger people when looking for a place to live and help change.............good transit. Many young people are choosing not to get cars or drive them less, are living closer to the urban centres, and have a more pronounced sense of wanting to live in an environmentally friendly and sustainable manner. Cleveland has LRT, subway, and BRT and Milwaukie and Detroit have none of those things.
Cleveland has the social, artistic, and urban infrastructure in place that the other cities don't. I would say it's Cleveland by a long shot.
yes, yes, all of our rustbelt towns have museums and orchestras and waterfronts and kooky **** we want to believe make us just below New York and Chicago or whatever, but the truth is that none of these cities are real draws for tourism... the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame comes the closest but it doesn't draw in half as many people per year as it was projected to before opening and the organization that runs it seems almost embarrassed by the Cleveland location, only bothering to induct members in the building itself once per decade. Cleveland and Detroit are both home to contingents of New York expats who rave about how they're everything NYC used to be and I wouldn't be at all shocked if priced out Chicagoans do the same in Milwaukee.
Milwaukee is the only city of the three that posted growth between 2000 and 2010... the Milwaukee MSA grew while Cleveland's shrank and Detroit's remained stable. Cleveland has been losing ground to Columbus in every way for the past 30 years... it's status as the state's largest metro area is now hanging by a thread, ~100,000 people above Columbus, and will likely be erased by 2020 barring some miracle. All the hipster gentrification projects in the world aren't going to stop the bleeding until something stops the brain drain from the rust belt. Detroit, meanwhile, is following the Cleveland model to a tee and is poised to do better because it's starting from a better position: larger metro, larger economy, more/better public education in the immediate area, less competition for resources within the state, but it's still Detroit at the end of the day. Milwaukee is the smallest by far but is in the most advantageous position being located close enough to eventually unite with Chicago's CSA ala Baltimore/Washington. In this sense it is the best off, though it's an oddly sad way to win this competition.
Also, the claim that the Cleveland Museum of Art is somehow empirically superior to the DIA is specious at best... on the balance the DIA is larger, it draws more visitors and both tend to be ranked closely (that is to say behind the major coastal museums and the AIC) in most rankings, Cleveland has a larger endowment and that's about all there is to the story. Cleveland has the better regarded symphony of the two, by a very wide margin, though. Detroit's downtown is of greater architectural significance. It's really a push when it comes to fine arts.
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.