Best Midwest Cities (apartment, condo, theater)

[EnjoyEP]

I will post my own personal preference rankings as well. This list includes all metro areas of all of the cities/towns, and truly I am ranking them in terms of cities I would most prefer to live in (most being #1)...just personal preference, nothing more.

Personally preferred-to-live-in - LARGE metros, Midwest:

1) Milwaukee (Viva Milwaukee, one of the most underrated metros in the nation if you can get past the winter)
2) Kansas City
3) Cincinnati
4) Indianapolis
5) St. Louis
6) Chicago
7) Cleveland
8) Twin Cities
9) Omaha
10) Detroit

Personally preferred-to-live-in - SMALLER metros, Midwest:

1) South Bend, IN
2) Des Moines
3) Madison
4) Lincoln, NE
5) Iowa City
6) Rochester, MN
7) La Crosse, WI
8) Appleton/Green Bay, WI
9) Sioux Falls, SD
10) Fargo, ND

[casmith]

I am living in Atlanta and seriously considering moving to Minneapolis. Atlanta only I am 40 years old but look about 32 - THANK GOD. So how is it being single in Minneapolis? And are the winters any worse than Chicago? My sister lives there, and is it cheaper than Chicago?
Thanks
Court

[metroplex2003]

Originally Posted by Plains10

I would put Minneapolis/St. Paul and Columbus ahead of Kansas City. Kansas City does not have a very vibrant downtown area at all and mainly just consists of boring, bland, and beige suburbs. Jackson County Missouri also has a lot of urban decay and job declines the past several years. At least Minneapolis/St.Paul and Columbus have slightly more vibrant downtown areas with more younger people and greater amounts of entertainment options. KC only has the Plaza area which is not in the downtown core area, but is further south. Des Moines and Omaha are fairly strong regional centers that suck large amounts of people out of the surrounding rural counties. Des Moines and Omaha are both solid smaller metros. Sioux Falls metro has one of the STRONGEST economies in the Dakotas region that attracts many people from a large area. Fargo North Dakota also has a very strong economy right now as well and I would rank it near the top of the smaller metros. Springfield/Branson should not be considered part of the Midwest AT ALL. Branson is practically on the Arkansas border.

I agree, MSP is a nicer overall MSA than KC. However, my list also included weather as a factor, and given my dislike for extreme subzero temps, I put KC there (barely). As for Ohio, my issue again that forced the hand was weather...they rank has having more cloudy days on average than the average U.S. State...the winter cloudiness tends to linger in OH and PA, and Upstate NY for some reason longer than other midwestern states...but...if basing it on city with weather not as a confounding variable, yes, places like MSP and Columbus move up rapidly...been to both, both have done a great job at turning their cities around. Same with Indianapolis. In fact, I may even nudge Cleveland down and Columbus up, it was a hard choice since I'm not too fond of OH in general.....b/c Columbus did sport the vibrance of a college town atmosphere.
The lagging cites are again St. Louis (very stagnant), Cleveland, ESPECIALLY Cincinatti, KC, and even MKE.

But in terms of overall package, I'd rather live in KC than MSP (barely)...and once again, MSP seems to trump on pretty much everything (sports, entertainment, etc...just so very cold...and that's my own personal preference, but after living in those extreme temperatures for so long, then experiencing what it's like to live in warm weather here in Texas, I do not think I would like to go back to that.

But as for Iowa City, yes I agree, it's a very nice small MSA that's booming on the Coralville side. It's relatively close to Chicago, Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, and the Quad Cities, so there are options.

One city not mentioned is Sioux City, IA, which is a MSA in NW Iowa of roughly 150,000 people. It is located in the Loess Hills (just like in Omaha), and sports some big city amenties in a more hilly atmosphere. Located on the Missouri river, there are associated lakes and the Missouri itself that offers great water recreation. The economy stagnated when Gateway Computers moved its corporate headquarters, but Sioux City still maintains some other corporations that are expanding.


But I'm very happy that this rankings thing got off the ground, b/c it's interesting to see people's preferences.

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by casmith

I am living in Atlanta and seriously considering moving to Minneapolis. Atlanta only I am 40 years old but look about 32 - THANK GOD. So how is it being single in Minneapolis? And are the winters any worse than Chicago? My sister lives there, and is it cheaper than Chicago?
Thanks
Court

Lots of singles in Minneapolis. I'd live in the city if I were you, more singles in the burbs are "from here" and we've found that native Minnesotans are not overly welcoming to those they didn't grow up with. Yes, the winters are worse than Chicago, longer winter, colder average temperatures. Yes, things are generally cheaper here than Chicago. Nevertheless, it's a great place to live!

[ajf131]

What I have always liked about the Midwest is its continental temperature climate. All the cities of Midwestern cities listed above have four very distinct seasons....cold winters with medium to large amounts of snow, summers can be brutally hot to moderately hot. So basically the weather in the Midwest is not boring by any means. Still, if you want to be in an area of the Midwest where the climate is pretty balanced out, I'd recommend cities like St. Louis, Indianapolis, Kansas City, or Cincinnati. Cleveland has absolutely brutal winters especially given for the latitude it is at. If you want predictable climates, move to the cities of the Upper Midwest like Minneapolis, Chicago, or Cleveland. St. Louis, Indianapolis, Columbus, Cincinnati, and Kansas City have very unpredictable weather year-round. Winters are not all that bad in these cities but easily have the potential to become bad, bad usually being not on the scale of the Upper Midwest but it can be harsh at times. Summers are the same way. They can either be nice or absolutely scorching. Pretty much anything can happen in these cities as far as weather goes.

[vader]

Factoring in things I hear and know about weather, crime, economy, diversity, and overall "ambience"(all important to me) this is how id rank the large midwest cities.

Chicago
Columbus
Minneapolis
Indianapolis
Cincy
Cleveland
St. Louis
Milwaukee
Kansas City
Detroit

BTW I think Detroit is a decent city I like the gritty feel to it and the history but its just severly lacking in the crime, whether, and economy departments.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by ajf131

What I have always liked about the Midwest is its continental temperature climate. All the cities of Midwestern cities listed above have four very distinct seasons....cold winters with medium to large amounts of snow, summers can be brutally hot to moderately hot. So basically the weather in the Midwest is not boring by any means. Still, if you want to be in an area of the Midwest where the climate is pretty balanced out, I'd recommend cities like St. Louis, Indianapolis, Kansas City, or Cincinnati. Cleveland has absolutely brutal winters especially given for the latitude it is at. If you want predictable climates, move to the cities of the Upper Midwest like Minneapolis, Chicago, or Cleveland. St. Louis, Indianapolis, Columbus, Cincinnati, and Kansas City have very unpredictable weather year-round. Winters are not all that bad in these cities but easily have the potential to become bad, bad usually being not on the scale of the Upper Midwest but it can be harsh at times. Summers are the same way. They can either be nice or absolutely scorching. Pretty much anything can happen in these cities as far as weather goes.

Actually, Cleveland is not located that far north in latitude compared with other cities in the Midwest. Cleveland is only located at 41.5N latitude. Duluth is located at 47N latitude, Minneapolis at 45N latitude, Marquette at 46N latitude, Milwaukee is at 43N latitude, and Green Bay is at 44N latitude.
The winter temperatures are not bad in Cleveland compared with cities in the Upper Midwest. The lake effect snow in the city also tends to be highly localized in certain sections of town, especially Ashtabula County. Winters in KC, Saint Louis, and Cincinatti have been getting much warmer as well over quite a number of years. I live in the Kansas/Missouri region and the snowfall has been on the steady decrease over a long period of time, and the temperatures in the winter are usually fairly mild most of the time. I know people from the Upper Midwest and they consider the winter mild if the low temperature does not get colder than -25F at least a few times in the winter.

[metroplex2003]

At the end of the day, if you dont mind winter, then the midwestern cities listed above are suitable cities. And if weather was not a factor, then I would rank as follows:
1) Chicago
2) St. Louis
3) Minneapolis/St. Paul
4) Indianapolis
5) Columbus
6) Milwaukee
7) Kansas City
8) Cleveland
9) Cincy
10) Detroit

Small Metros:
1) Omaha, NE
2) Des Moines, IA
3) Madison
4) SIoux Falls
5) Sioux City
6) Iowa City

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by metroplex2003

At the end of the day, if you dont mind winter, then the midwestern cities listed above are suitable cities. And if weather was not a factor, then I would rank as follows:
1) Chicago
2) St. Louis
3) Minneapolis/St. Paul
4) Indianapolis
5) Columbus
6) Milwaukee
7) Kansas City
8) Cleveland
9) Cincy
10) Detroit

Small Metros:
1) Omaha, NE
2) Des Moines, IA
3) Madison
4) SIoux Falls
5) Sioux City
6) Iowa City

I can easily handle Midwest weather. 0 to -20F does not really faze me at all as long as the wind is not horribly strong. I dislike the heat much more than the cold. Your list seems good but you did not include Fargo North Dakota in the small metros. Its economy is very strong right now along with Sioux Falls.

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by Plains10

Actually, Cleveland is not located that far north in latitude compared with other cities in the Midwest. Cleveland is only located at 41.5N latitude. Duluth is located at 47N latitude, Minneapolis at 45N latitude, Marquette at 46N latitude, Milwaukee is at 43N latitude, and Green Bay is at 44N latitude.
The winter temperatures are not bad in Cleveland compared with cities in the Upper Midwest. The lake effect snow in the city also tends to be highly localized in certain sections of town, especially Ashtabula County. Winters in KC, Saint Louis, and Cincinatti have been getting much warmer as well over quite a number of years. I live in the Kansas/Missouri region and the snowfall has been on the steady decrease over a long period of time, and the temperatures in the winter are usually fairly mild most of the time. I know people from the Upper Midwest and they consider the winter mild if the low temperature does not get colder than -25F at least a few times in the winter.

Plains10, that's exactly what I was saying about Cleveland. It is further south than Chicago yet it gets winters more severe than even Minneapolis. Cleveland gets on average 60 inches of snow. Minnesota averages between 40 and 50. I have relatives in Cleveland and know the city quite well. it's not uncommon to get a foot of snow at all. Cleveland is located at the beginning of the famous Snow Belt that extends from Cleveland to Erie to Buffalo to Syracuse to basically all the way to the St. Lawrence River. Cleveland gets by far the harshest winters of any city in the Midwest except maybe International Falls, Minnesota or Duluth or Upper Michigan or northern Wisconsin. Also, this last winter was one of the harshest we've seen in awhile. And global warming is predicting the legendary winters of St. Louis and Kansas City will return. St. Louis and KAnsas City's winters I would call brisk, not mild. Historically the winters of those cities are not mild at all. Mild is for cities like Memphis which don't get any snow at all and generally barely even get below the freezing point. St. Louis and KC average around 20 inches and St. Louis can get into the lower teens during extreme times. I've lived in St. Louis over 20 years and winters here while certainly not severe can be very cold and snowy in January, and no winter is exactly like the other here...sometimes it doesn't snow, other times it does snow. Predictions say winters are going to be getting colder and snowier, possibly returning St. Louis and KC eventually to winters they used to get 100 years ago. As of late I don't see winters getting milder and milder by any stretch. maybe they are mild compared to the average one for here but overall the past few winters have been relatively consistent in terms of snowfall and are slowly climbing up already. Winters have not been getting warmer as far as I can tell...they may be milder compared to say 20 years ago but for the past 10 years, they're not getting warmer and warmer. I'd argue the reverse. In any case, even if they are getting warmer, global warming predictions guarantee that will change dramatically.