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.
The photos of Milwaukee are amazing, but I still have to pick Tulsa. Having driven though downtown AT LEAST once a year (often twice) I am always impressed with the diversity of the skyline (and i always lol at the two adjacent skinny as heck skyscrapers) plus if one is driving along I-44 across the Arkansas the FULL 'downtown' skyline is viewable PLUS the hilly landscape around it, which during the summertime is just breathtaking IMHO. I guess a lot of my bias here is mostly due to my never having been to Milwaukee but still...I like Tulsa.
First of all, if you're supposed to be the mayor of "Mil-Town" (I hate that term), then why do you live in Franklin?
Secondly, you must not be very familiar with the city's downtown if you think we can even build skyscrapers to a height of 50 stories. Milwaukee was built upon very soft, swampy land. We can't build 'em much taller than the US Bank Center or they'll start sinking into the ground.
Sorry you don't like "Mil-Town" man. I've never heard of anyone else who really cares so....
It's right there in my bio that I live in Franklin and Milwaukee. I guess I could have fibbed and just say I live in Milwaukee, but I have two homes and I use both-- one out in Franklin (my folks house, they both passed recently) and my two flat rental property in Milwaukee. I stay here in Franklin alot right now because Im trying to fix the house up to sell.
I am very familiar with Milwaukees downtown and actually worked at the Hyatt when I was younger before landing a job in western Kenosha. As for the swampland, some of Chicago's tallest buildings were built on the swampiest parts. Since the US Bank building is about 43 floors its not that inconceivable that a 50 story building could be done. Different era, different technology, different materials. Swamp to City Introduction
Sorry you don't like "Mil-Town" man. I've never heard of anyone else who really cares so....
It's right there in my bio that I live in Franklin and Milwaukee. I guess I could have fibbed and just say I live in Milwaukee, but I have two homes and I use both-- one out in Franklin (my folks house, they both passed recently) and my two flat rental property in Milwaukee. I stay here in Franklin alot right now because Im trying to fix the house up to sell.
I am very familiar with Milwaukees downtown and actually worked at the Hyatt when I was younger before landing a job in western Kenosha. As for the swampland, some of Chicago's tallest buildings were built on the swampiest parts. Since the US Bank building is about 43 floors its not that inconceivable that a 50 story building could be done. Different era, different technology, different materials. Swamp to City Introduction
Chicago had a ton of help from the Army Corps of Engineers in constructing their downtown. Chicago had arguably worse land to build upon than we do, but they trucked in tons of dirt to fill in the swampland making it sturdy enough to support monsters like the John Hancock or the Sears Tower. The entire Loop is actually elevated above the rest of the city on a man made platform, with an extensive series of tunnels running beneath it.
Chicago had a ton of help from the Army Corps of Engineers in constructing their downtown. Chicago had arguably worse land to build upon than we do, but they trucked in tons of dirt to fill in the swampland making it sturdy enough to support monsters like the John Hancock or the Sears Tower. The entire Loop is actually elevated above the rest of the city on a man made platform, with an extensive series of tunnels running beneath it.
But Milwaukee does not need a Hancock or Sears. Buildings over 50 stories have been proposed for Milwaukee in the past, and they werent built because of lack of interest or financing issues, not because the ground is too soft. Check out the exhibit on Milwaukee architecture and they have a whole slew of tall buildings or towers that were designed and never built.
Please, it is now the Willis Tower...as in "what you talkin about Willis". And...Milwaukee could built a tower as tall as they want, there just no demand for it at this time.
Please, it is now the Willis Tower...as in "what you talkin about Willis". And...Milwaukee could built a tower as tall as they want, there just no demand for it at this time.
I'm well aware of the name change, however, I refuse to refer to that structure as anything other than the Sears Tower. Milwaukee can't build towers as tall as they want because that would involve completely altering the lakefront. Milwaukee's downtown and East Side are perched upon bluffs that overlook the parks, beaches, and marinas that dot the lakefront. The ground beneath Downtown is too soft to support extremely tall or heavy structures.
Which city has the best "skyline" I'm going to settle this right "now" which ever one( "you" want to!!! ) "Tulsa" or "Milwaukee" throw some dices..pin a tail on a donkey...spit into the wind or just make a guessamation (or) do it the sciencific way measure the buildings...count the building..put that into a formula and DaDaDaDa we got a winner!
Really if this was a SKYLINE BEAUTY CONTEST I would choose Milwaukee because of Lake Michigan...(but)now between the Metro's of Kansas City MO...Tulsa OK...Milwaukee Wis... Des Moines Iowa..KC barely Beats TULSA Oklahoma.
Milwaukee by a long shot. Tulsa is ok, especially for the size of the city, but Milwaukee has so much more "depth" to it. It's just so hard to photograph. I have tried many times and it's difficult to capture the city with a camera. But the city is much more than what you see in most photos of it. You can see 80% of downtown or any of the buildings to the north of downtown in most shots while you can get every single building in Tulsa in one shot which makes it look more impressive. Similar to Des Moines. While you only see parts of the city of Milwaukee in most photos making it appear smaller, although Milwaukee could use a couple more modern 40 story towers for the size of the city.
Here are few photos I took of both towns:
Millwaukee:
Tulsa:
hmmmm how odd. I actually would have chosen Milwaukee, until you posted your photos....
I'm just not gonna vote, I really can't decide they seem very similar.
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.
