Coolest towns in the Midwest (moving, size, restaurant, districts)

[BlackOut]

Originally Posted by Milwaukee City

I have never seen so many trees in one city ever before. Even in the hood it feels like you're in a forest.

Ever been to Atlanta?

[Brickmama]

Regardless of what you have witnessed Milwaukee is a pretty big city.

[JealousMonkey]

Hey!
Is someone out there who want to talk about NYC?
I wanna know so much but I don't know who to ask!
Please tell me!
on Skype: valentine_mo

I know, it's a bit stupid to ask, but I wanna talk to a living person, not just getting all the facts from the internet
Thank you!

[EastSideMKE]

Originally Posted by lakal

That's not what you said . You said this:

In terms of percentages, Milwaukee does have the 2nd largest Latino population in the Midwest.

Originally Posted by lakal

And that's not true, so stop promoting it as if it is. If MSP has a larger percentage of Asians than the Chicago metro, does that mean there are more Asians living in the MSP metro?

MSP doesn't have a higher percentage of Asians.

Asian
Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI Combined Statistical Area
487,361 (5.1%)

Minneapolis-St. Paul-St. Cloud, MN-WI Combined Statistical Area
158,785 (4.6%)

[lakal]

Originally Posted by jjacobeclark

In terms of percentages, Milwaukee does have the 2nd largest Latino population in the Midwest.



MSP doesn't have a higher percentage of Asians.

Asian
Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI Combined Statistical Area
487,361 (5.1%)

Minneapolis-St. Paul-St. Cloud, MN-WI Combined Statistical Area
158,785 (4.6%)

I didn't say the above was the case, I just put a hypothetical "what if" situation. My point is that even if MSP was higher, it wouldn't matter, since it's less in absolute terms.

Population =/= Percentages. Second-highest percentage in this case is not second-highest population, no ifs ands or buts about it. No need to continue going when you've been called out...

[EastSideMKE]

Originally Posted by lakal

I didn't say the above was the case, I just put a hypothetical "what if" situation. My point is that even if MSP was higher, it wouldn't matter, since it's less in absolute terms.

Population =/= Percentages. Second-highest percentage in this case is not second-highest population, no ifs ands or buts about it. No need to continue going when you've been called out...

Percentages and per capita figures are better representations than raw numbers. For instance, NYC has the largest Native American population in the US in terms of raw numbers. However, the presence of Native American culture in NYC is nowhere near as prevalent as it is in other cities, like Seattle and MSP for instance, that have much smaller populations in terms of raw numbers.

[lakal]

Originally Posted by jjacobeclark

Percentages and per capita figures are better representations than raw numbers. For instance, NYC has the largest Native American population in the US in terms of raw numbers. However, the presence of Native American culture in NYC is nowhere near as prevalent as it is in other cities, like Seattle and MSP for instance, that have much smaller populations in terms of raw numbers.

You're still not making any sense...what you originally said is not backed up by what you put here. Neither the Milwaukee MSA or CSA has the second-largest population of Latinos in the Midwest. Finito.

The Detroit CSA has a higher percentage of blacks than any other MSA in the Midwest....does that mean that there are more black people living in Detroit than say, Chicago?

[EastSideMKE]

Originally Posted by lakal

You're still not making any sense...what you originally said is not backed up by what you put here. Neither the Milwaukee MSA or CSA has the second-largest population of Latinos in the Midwest. Finito.

The Detroit CSA has a higher percentage of blacks than any other MSA in the Midwest....does that mean that there are more black people living in Detroit than say, Chicago?

You're the one not making any sense. Here's an example of how percentages are a better measurement than raw numbers. Miami claims to have the second largest foreign-born population on earth. This assertion is based upon percentages, not raw numbers. Otherwise, less international cities like Chicago would surpass them due to shear size alone. I think we all know that despite being a wonderfully diverse metropolis, Chicago doesn't come close to Miami in terms of international presence and appeal.

[gimme it]

Personally, I love Bloomington, IN even though it's under 100k. It has tons of great restaurants, a beautiful university right downtown, an impressive public library, lots of natural beauty, lakes very close to downtown, nightlife, laidback people, lots to do, child friendly... Also thought Madison was a cool city, but the property taxes are ridiculous and the winters are too cold. Minneapolis seems too big and impersonal, but I like some of the smaller towns outside of the city.

[Milwaukee City]

The city of Milwaukee (proper) is bigger than Minneapolis and St. Paul combined.

Thank You!