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.
Having close and extensive experience with both, I simply like Milwaukee better.
The results of the poll are what they are and maybe people do genuinely like St. Louis better, but one has to consider that Milwaukee is one of the most underrated and overlooked cities in the Midwest. People don’t seem to know much about it.
For a “rust belt” city, it never bled population in the dramatic way that Detroit and St. Louis has. While it hasn’t been a boomtown in ages, Milwaukee has quietly held its own and even thrives to a certain degree.
Saint Louis relies heavily on it's total metro to stay relevant, outside of its cultural attractions anyway, while Milwaukee suburbs are mostly bedroom communities by comparison. Not an insult to St. Louis, it is what it is.
For the OP’s purposes, either would be fine.
Having close and extensive experience with both, I simply like Milwaukee better.
The results of the poll are what they are and maybe people do genuinely like St. Louis better, but one has to consider that Milwaukee is one of the most underrated and overlooked cities in the Midwest. People don’t seem to know much about it.
For a “rust belt” city, it never bled population in the dramatic way that Detroit and St. Louis has. While it hasn’t been a boomtown in ages, Milwaukee has quietly held its own and even thrives to a certain degree.
Saint Louis relies heavily on it's total metro to stay relevant, outside of its cultural attractions anyway, while Milwaukee suburbs are mostly bedroom communities by comparison. Not an insult to St. Louis, it is what it is.
For the OP’s purposes, either would be fine.
Yes, as far as population, St. Louis has a much larger MSA. City proper, though, Milwaukee is almost double the size of St. Louis, which is why it seems like a bigger, more urban city. As far as population density, Milwaukee is highly dense, while St. Louis is moderately dense. It's a downtown on Lake Michigan, though, that takes the cake for me. Oh, and proximity to Chicago.
Yes, as far as population, St. Louis has a much larger MSA. City proper, though, Milwaukee is almost double the size of St. Louis, which is why it seems like a bigger, more urban city. As far as population density, Milwaukee is highly dense, while St. Louis is moderately dense. It's a downtown on Lake Michigan, though, that takes the cake for me. Oh, and proximity to Chicago.
Lake Michigan really is the x-factor here and Milwaukee utilizes it well. The way they've developed the Milwaukee River is also very cool.
Not only that, the lake actually moderates the weather somewhat. Yes, it's a cooler climate, but less susceptible to extremes like wild, frequent, and unseasonal temperature swings, and things like tornadoes aren't much of a problem either.
Chicago is a cool place to have at an arm's length, but Milwaukee stands strong on it's own regardless.
St Louis is the bigger city and it has the larger metro population and economy vs Milwaukee. Why many don’t choose it in polls here is probably because of its more isolated location and that there is no ocean, mountains, desert.
Do you know where your employment will be within each respective city (if you know the neighborhood, then maybe list it)? Will both of them be in the city public school system or is one or both in a suburban school district? I think if you're relying on walking and mass transit, and the two cities have overall pretty comparable advantages, then this could be a very important part of gauging what your quality of life would be like.
Yes, as far as population, St. Louis has a much larger MSA. City proper, though, Milwaukee is almost double the size of St. Louis, which is why it seems like a bigger, more urban city. As far as population density, Milwaukee is highly dense, while St. Louis is moderately dense. It's a downtown on Lake Michigan, though, that takes the cake for me. Oh, and proximity to Chicago.
I would say pound for pound, St. Louis feels a lot bigger and more substantial as an urban city. Probably because it is. . Milwaukee is a great town and I agree it's totally underrated, but the same applies to St. Louis and every other legacy rust belt city for that matter. Both cities are cool as hell.
Milwaukee was chosen to host the DNC, this July. Hopefully, it will happen, as that's kind of a big deal. No one knows how things will be over 3 months from now.
If you are LGBT and will be working in the public sector, I think it's a clear win: Milwaukee. The WI government is bluer than MO's, and with that, you will always get better LGBT and union protections.
If you are LGBT and will be working in the public sector, I think it's a clear win: Milwaukee. The WI government is bluer than MO's, and with that, you will always get better LGBT and union protections.
Not sure I buy this. Yeah, MO is a bit redder these days than WI, but St. Louis scored slightly higher on the HRC Municipal Equality Index than Milwaukee. Both cities scored 100, but STL has 8 bonus points compared to Milwaukee’s 4. https://www.hrc.org/resources/mei-20...ur-citys-score
Both cities are among the most pro-union in the USA, not sure it would be possible to pit one over the other.
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.