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.
Cleveland is bigger than Milwaukee, has more amenities, and is not so dependent on a larger metro as to be essentially a satellite city. Our economy is also transitioning very nicely into a 21st century, high tech manufacturing city, in addition to the banking, real estate, law, and insurance industries we have now; many of which are growing and thriving (see Progressive Insurance, Key Bank, Forest City Enterprises, Eaton Corp). Additionally, neighborhoods in the city are steadily coming back to life, and attracting hip, young, educated talent. Add that on to Cleveland's interesting character and Central and Eastern European ethnic charm, and Cleveland is IMO the most attractive city out of these 3.
I am positively SHOCKED that you are coming down on the side of Cleveland. If there's one thing that no one can ever call you, it's "totally predictable."
I am positively SHOCKED that you are coming down on the side of Cleveland. If there's one thing that no one can ever call you, it's "totally predictable."
I love Cleveland, guilty as charged, so I guess that makes me predictable, but I'm not biased. I enjoy Cleveland for what it is, but that's not to say other cities wouldn't "beat" it in my mind, I just find it to be, based on my own objective criteria, the best out of these three.
I've always found Detroit, Cleveland, and Milwaukee to feel somewhat related to each other. They seem to be their own group in the Midwest, set apart from peers such as Indianapolis and Columbus which are more newer and almost sunbelt-like, and St. Louis and Cincinnati which are older river cities. In many ways, they all remind me of smaller, less dense versions of Chicago in regards to their built environments.
So, how do these three cities compare to each other in the following categories? Which is best to live in, and which is best to visit?
Food
Museums
Higher Education
Architecture
Vibrancy
Nightlife
Shopping
Safety
Cost of Living
Scenery
Parks
Pedestrian Friendliness
Public Transportation
Performing Arts
Visual Arts
Tourist Attractions
Local Culture
Feel free to add any other categories.
I've been to Cleveland a couple of times but mostly just seen it a lot on The First 48. So, I will withhold from commenting on it. I've lived in both Milwaukee and the Detroit area so I will take the bait on those two:
Food-Detroit area being larger ultimately has more options but Milwaukee has quality old school food. Toss up.
Museums-Detroit probably wins this one.
Higher education-slight edge to Milwaukee.
Architecture-residential architecture in Milwaukee can compare with anywhere in the US IMO. But Detroit has some fascinating commercial structures and beautiful neighborhoods. Another toss-up.
Vibrancy-Detroit always felt like everyone was so dispersed that this suffered. Milwaukee is kind of low-key but still wins here.
Nightlife-Detroit probably wins overall, but it's so much more convenient in Milwaukee.
Shopping-Detroit by a mile. Milwaukee's proximity to Chicago has really stifled its options.
Safety-Milwaukee wins this, though burbs are pretty much the same.
Scenery-I definitely prefer Milwaukee's lakefront over the Detroit riverfront. Neither has much though.
Parks-Milwaukee for sure on a daily basis, though the Metro Parks, which tend to be inconveniently far out, are nice.
Pedestrian friendliness-Neither is good here, though both have pockets where pedestrians are "normal" and Milwaukee is a bit less car-oriented overall.
Public transport-Milwaukee for sure, Detroit's is just awful.
Performing arts-slight edge to Detroit, but that is a vague perception.
Tourist attractions-neither is that good...
Local culture-not a lot of differences. Both like beer, sports, vehicles (cars in Detroit and more so Harleys in Milwaukee), going "up north" for sporting activities, both have a strong blue collar presence and both are fairly segregated with less than stellar race relations in their pasts. People are generally friendly in both. Milwaukee has a huge "festival culture" I badly missed while living in the Detroit area.
Cost of living-Milwaukee is a bit cheaper except perhaps for housing. Cars are dirt cheap in Detroit though.
Detroit is a sprawling place compared to Mikwaukee, and far larger. So it's kind of hard to make direct comparisons in some cases. Personally I would choose Milwaukee for both living and visiting but being a native I am biased-a big part of it is that I find Milwaukee far, far more compact (in a good way) and convenient. This is not a knock on the Detroit area which gets a lot of bad press undeservedly and has plenty of positives.
Last edited by svicious22; 04-01-2014 at 11:35 PM..
Reason: Missing punctuation
some see it as a negative for Milwaukee to be so close to Chicago. I disagree. I think the closeness of both cities enriches them both and the region. For many of us in the Chicago area, going to Milwaukee is little more than a day trip and hardly even seems like we're leaving the area. And lots of us go and thus support Milwaukee's many attractions, thus enriching the city.
an area of intense attractions, the Gurnee/Kenosha region, exists primarily because it serves as the mid-point between Chgo and Milw. This is one example of how the two metros work in concert for the betterment of both.
There is so much potential in the Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison triangle, a good part in place already, and far more to come.
Chicago and Milwaukee are the closest to each other, by far, of midwestern metro areas; nothing else comes close and no place else has that whole concept of being in each other's back yards. Again, I see this as a true benefit for all in the region.
so if you want to know how great Milwaukee is, ask a Chicagoan….we're the guys who are neighbors and tend to know the place.
...Chicago and Milwaukee are the closest to each other, by far, of midwestern metro areas; nothing else comes close and no place else has that whole concept of being in each other's back yards...
Not quite. Both the Cincinnati/Dayton and Cleveland/Akron metro areas are very close together.
This is an old thread I would imagine. I didn't bother reading the opening post, the threads probably evolved since then but Detroit. It's bigger than the other two by quite a bit. It's immediate metropolis area claims the souls of nearly 6 million people to Cleveland's 3.5 million and Milwaukee's 2 million, so it's larger than both combined.
Detroit like the other two also has a rich collection of arts and museums, as well as other sophisticated cultural exhibits and institutions from an era of the United States that just wont ever be coming back. It has a substantial Arab population (by percentage it leads the nation, I think third in raw numbers), substantial Ismaili population, and substantial other groups as well as serving as a cultural gateway into and out of Canada (through Windsor, Ontario). Detroit has it's own cuisine, it's own style, it's just that big and has held a position of importance that the other two cant match and don't think still can match.
In the last decade, the core area has spruced up significantly and the redevelopment is expanding outward into the former blight and decay, whereas 80% of the metropolis' suburbs were never "let go of" in the first place, so they're already good to go.
Then there's the perks of it being a large market city. It has the core basic 4 professional sports teams, a world class and increasingly more connected (globally) airport, and extraordinary amount of resources and financial capital in the region. I also like the location, it's exactly half way mark between Chicago and Toronto, which are on two opposite sides of each other to central Detroit. I think all around, way too easy of a choice for me. For what it's worth, Detroit is closer to more scenic locations along the great lakes than the other two, no doubt about it and it's generally rolling lushly forested terrain is a nice touch too.
Haven't seen Cleveland but Milwaukee is cool. It's a good pre-requisite to Chicago if someone from the Twin Cities is making that voyage south. Similar bones, different scale.
This is an old thread I would imagine. I didn't bother reading the opening post, the threads probably evolved since then but Detroit. It's bigger than the other two by quite a bit. It's immediate metropolis area claims the souls of nearly 6 million people to Cleveland's 3.5 million and Milwaukee's 2 million, so it's larger than both combined.
Detroit like the other two also has a rich collection of arts and museums, as well as other sophisticated cultural exhibits and institutions from an era of the United States that just wont ever be coming back Cleveland has a better art museum, a better orchestra, and better theater, also from an era that won't be coming back, and beautifully restored, and expanded. It has a substantial Arab population (by percentage it leads the nation, I think third in raw numbers), substantial Ismaili population, and substantial other groups as well as serving as a cultural gateway into and out of Canada (through Windsor, Ontario). Detroit has it's own cuisine, it's own style, it's just that big and has held a position of importance that the other two cant match and don't think still can match.
In the last decade, the core area has spruced up significantly and the redevelopment is expanding outward into the former blight and decay, whereas 80% of the metropolis' suburbs were never "let go of" in the first place, so they're already good to go. Cleveland's core city is much nicer, has a larger population, more foot traffic, more 24 hour vibrancy
Then there's the perks of it being a large market city. It has the core basic 4 professional sports teams, a world class and increasingly more connected (globally) airport, and extraordinary amount of resources and financial capital in the region. I also like the location, it's exactly half way mark between Chicago and Toronto, which are on two opposite sides of each other to central Detroit. I think all around, way too easy of a choice for me. For what it's worth, Detroit is closer to more scenic locations along the great lakes than the other two, no doubt about it and it's generally rolling lushly forested terrain is a nice touch too. Both Cleveland and Milwaukee are close to scenic areas of the Great Lakes, in fact unlike Detroit they are both on one
Haven't seen Cleveland but Milwaukee is cool. It's a good pre-requisite to Chicago if someone from the Twin Cities is making that voyage south. Similar bones, different scale.
I appreciate your love for Detroit, but please try to be fair and realistic about your boosterism.
I appreciate your love for Detroit, but please try to be fair and realistic about your boosterism.
I'm not a Detroit booster, this is like one of the first times ever where I've even talked about the place in any sort of detail. I'm foreign and Detroit metropolitan area is attractive to me, it offers the best life incentives and big city compensation to living in the Midwest (aside from Chicago and equally impressive Twin Cities) and the most abundant amenities for someone like me.
Three words: Falafel. Shwarma. Hookah. Can Cleveland match?
Not even close.
Quote:
Both Cleveland and Milwaukee are close to scenic areas of the Great Lakes, in fact unlike Detroit they are both on one.
I said "Detroit is closer to more scenic locations along the Great Lakes than the other two."
Myth of fact?
Detroit:
[Inside the metropolitan area boundaries]
Detroit to Lake Saint Clair: 5 miles
Detroit to Lake Erie: 25 miles
Detroit to Lake Huron: 65 miles
[Outside the metropolitan area boundaries]
Detroit to Lake Michigan: 180 miles
Detroit to Lake Ontario: 197 miles
Detroit to Lake Superior: 350 miles
Cleveland:
[Inside the metropolitan area boundaries]
Cleveland to Lake Erie: 0 miles
[Outside the metropolitan area]
Cleveland to Lake Saint Clair: 175 miles
Cleveland to Lake Ontario: 215 miles
Cleveland to Lake Huron: 232 miles
Cleveland to Lake Michigan: 290 miles
Cleveland to Lake Superior: 501 miles
Looks to be right in the center of where the five Great Lakes, Canada, and United States all converge. Like I said, I prefer it's location way more than the other two cities. There's no question about that. Factor in the value of a larger market city with more global exposure and connections (with a much more refined and world class airport) and it's not really all that close for me.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 07-21-2014 at 11:42 PM..
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.
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.
