U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-03-2007, 12:19 PM
 
5,859 posts, read 14,048,152 times
Reputation: 3482

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajf131 View Post
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.
Well, I guess it depends on how you define "harsh". If you define it as snowfall, then yes, Cleveland is harsher than MSP. But if you define it as extreme temperatures, MSP beats Cleveland hands down! I grew up in Western NY (the Snow Belt), and now live in MSP. A Snow Belt winter is nothing like an Upper Midwestern winter. Along the southern shores of the Great Lakes, it rarely gets below zero, and when it does, it warms up fairly quicky. Here in MSP, we routinely get sub-zero temperatures every winter and sometimes it stays that way for several days.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-03-2007, 12:22 PM
 
5,859 posts, read 14,048,152 times
Reputation: 3482
Default A question...

With all this ranking going on, I'm just wondering if everyone has been to all of the cities they are ranking, or are they basing their rankings on statistics, heresay, feelings, etc.

Not a hostile question, just curious...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2007, 12:33 PM
 
Location: IN
20,847 posts, read 35,948,307 times
Reputation: 13287
Post Upper Midwest vs Great Lakes snowbelt

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajf131 View Post
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.
Average temperatures during the winter season have been running well above average for the most part in the Kansas/Missouri area. Even this winter season finished above normal for average temperature even though it was colder than it had been in awhile. The snowbelt usually does not have many low temperatures below zero, the closer you get to the lake. In the Upper Midwest they do get less snow, but the average low temperatures during the winter are much colder than the Great Lakes. So your classification of severity during the winter only really includes snowfall. The UP of Michigan has both extremes going for it because it gets 100-300 inches of snowfall on average during the winter and also has temperatures well below zero at times. I have lived in NW Indiana and the winters are usually snowy but not extremely cold. Their is usually only a few times that the low temperature goes below zero during an average winter because of the more consistent cloudiness associated with being downwind from Lake Michigan.
The urban heat island effect also has an impact on the low temperatures during the winter when their is an arctic airmass and snowfall on the ground. Urban locations typically are 5-10F warmer than rural areas on nights when it is cold with snow on the ground during the winter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2007, 12:49 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 18 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,996 posts, read 102,581,357 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Around View Post
Well, I guess it depends on how you define "harsh". If you define it as snowfall, then yes, Cleveland is harsher than MSP. But if you define it as extreme temperatures, MSP beats Cleveland hands down! I grew up in Western NY (the Snow Belt), and now live in MSP. A Snow Belt winter is nothing like an Upper Midwestern winter. Along the southern shores of the Great Lakes, it rarely gets below zero, and when it does, it warms up fairly quicky. Here in MSP, we routinely get sub-zero temperatures every winter and sometimes it stays that way for several days.
I agree! I grew up in the Pittsburgh area, then lived in central Illinois. Even in that part of the midwest, winter was colder than in Pgh. My DD went to college in Minn., learned what a "real" winter is like (grew up in Colo). My other DD goes to college in Indiana, near L. Michigan. Someone from Minn. described the winter there as "weird" because it doesn't get cold and stay cold like in Minneapolis!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2007, 03:35 PM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 6,903,922 times
Reputation: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plains10 View Post
Average temperatures during the winter season have been running well above average for the most part in the Kansas/Missouri area. Even this winter season finished above normal for average temperature even though it was colder than it had been in awhile. The snowbelt usually does not have many low temperatures below zero, the closer you get to the lake. In the Upper Midwest they do get less snow, but the average low temperatures during the winter are much colder than the Great Lakes. So your classification of severity during the winter only really includes snowfall. The UP of Michigan has both extremes going for it because it gets 100-300 inches of snowfall on average during the winter and also has temperatures well below zero at times. I have lived in NW Indiana and the winters are usually snowy but not extremely cold. Their is usually only a few times that the low temperature goes below zero during an average winter because of the more consistent cloudiness associated with being downwind from Lake Michigan.
The urban heat island effect also has an impact on the low temperatures during the winter when their is an arctic airmass and snowfall on the ground. Urban locations typically are 5-10F warmer than rural areas on nights when it is cold with snow on the ground during the winter.

Right, I'm not saying for Kansas and Missouri that the winters have been above the historical averages recently, but I am saying that they are getting colder than they've been in awhile. And global warming is predicting they will continue to get colder and climb back toward the averages.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2007, 03:58 PM
 
Location: Metro Milwaukee, WI
3,198 posts, read 11,332,852 times
Reputation: 2168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Around View Post
With all this ranking going on, I'm just wondering if everyone has been to all of the cities they are ranking, or are they basing their rankings on statistics, heresay, feelings, etc.

Not a hostile question, just curious...
Can't speak for anyone else, but in my rankings, I have been to each and every one of the cities I ranked...some farrrrr too extensively! (Not really...truly, I could say nice things about each and every one of the cities on my list).

I have to say that going to these places allowed my list probably to be different than most folks'. Like Milwaukee, which I ranked #1 (and am admittedly biased to because of my actually having lived there). In comparison to other metros in the Midwest, I can honestly say that Milwaukee metro has - at least for me - the most appeal (except for the weather, where places like K.C., St. Louis, Cincinnati, etc., have it clearly beat, but let's face it, the weather in the midwest overall is nasty winters, hot humid summers, so typically that won't be a "selling" point of the midwest).

I have found that when I have gone to places like Kansas City and Cincinnati, I have been very impressed. KC especially...really liked the town and its 'burbs - much more than I thought I would. Enjoyed their baseball stadium, loved the food (BBQ) there, the vibe, etc., was just a nice city.

Similarly, I used to go all the time to Chicago and Minneapolis/St. Paul, being relatively close to Milwaukee. In my opinion, Chicago is a great place to live near (like one does in Milwaukee) but I would never live there over Milwaukee. Why? Because the weather is the same, however, Chicago is obviously much more expensive, congested, commutes are much harder, etc. I can still enjoy all of its huge city ammenities living in Milwaukee, but don't have to deal with the headaches every day.

Minneapolis/St. Paul is very nice, modern, hip, etc., but it is the one midwestern city whose climate I find too tough to take (this coming from someone putting Milwaukee #1)...in contrast to Milwaukee, Chicago, Cleveland, etc., winters are even colder, and summers are hotter and more humid. Furthermore, the Twin Cities have now gotten fairly pricey as well, as well as being a bit more conjested/crowded.

However, I could say plenty of good things about Chicago (better lakefront than Milwaukee for sure) or the Twin Cities (very modern and with things)...it is just a matter of personal tastes and preferences.

I find Des Moines, IA, Omaha, NE, and Lincoln, NE nicer than most people probably (although wouldn't live in them except maybe for Omaha and that wouldn't be high on the list either). I love South Bend, IN.

Surely I have also read quite a bit about these cities as well, as you cannot "know" a place just by visiting (you really sometimes cannot even "know" a place only by living there). But yes, in my case, I have traveled the Midwest and the respective cities / towns very much. There are good things about most of these cities - even Detroit metro.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2007, 04:28 PM
 
Location: IN
20,847 posts, read 35,948,307 times
Reputation: 13287
Post Evidence please

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajf131 View Post
Right, I'm not saying for Kansas and Missouri that the winters have been above the historical averages recently, but I am saying that they are getting colder than they've been in awhile. And global warming is predicting they will continue to get colder and climb back toward the averages.
What is your evidence showing that global warming will produce colder weather? That does not make any sense considering that CO2 levels have been increasing exponentially ever since they have been measured starting in the 1950s. Also global average temperatures are continuing to rise. The rapid industrialization of developing countries like China and India are also leading to tons of power plants being built. These coal plants do not have the stringent environmental regulations compared with the US as well. All these plants add to the build up of man-made CO2 in the atmopshere. That is why coal gasification is the new technology being developed to capture and store CO2, instead of emitting it into the atmosphere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2007, 04:32 PM
 
Location: Phoenix metro
20,005 posts, read 69,407,118 times
Reputation: 10115
Milwaukee is pretty cool, but saying you could do everything there that you can in Chicago is a bit outrageous. There are TONS more things to do in Chicago than Milwaukee, and in far more abundance. Im not tearing into Milwaukee at all, I actually like it, but you just cant compare the two other than the weather.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2007, 04:56 PM
 
Location: Metro Milwaukee, WI
3,198 posts, read 11,332,852 times
Reputation: 2168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-o View Post
Milwaukee is pretty cool, but saying you could do everything there that you can in Chicago is a bit outrageous. There are TONS more things to do in Chicago than Milwaukee, and in far more abundance. Im not tearing into Milwaukee at all, I actually like it, but you just cant compare the two other than the weather.
Wait, Steve-O!

You have got to re-read my post. I didn't say that you can do the same things in Milwaukee as you can in Chicago...here is what I said [copied and pasted] -

"In my opinion, Chicago is a great place to live near (like one does in Milwaukee) but I would never live there over Milwaukee. Why? Because the weather is the same, however, Chicago is obviously much more expensive, congested, commutes are much harder, etc. I can still enjoy all of its (author's note - note "its" is used in this contex in reference to Chicago!, not Milwaukee) huge city ammenities living in Milwaukee, but don't have to deal with the headaches every day. "

Maybe I was unclear about it...I probably should have said "huge city ammenities WHILE living in Milwaukee."

Essentially, I was saying (maybe somewhat unclearly) that yes, Chicago has due to its size things that Milwaukee doesn't like some restaurant options, retail options, 2 MLB teams, a huge downtown, a bigger lakefront, 2 airports (including one huge one), etc.

I was saying living in Milwaukee, you are still very close to Chicago to be able to take advantage frequently of all of Chicago's huge-city ammenities being so close by, but not having to necessarily live in Chicago.

Also, I was trying to stress that these were my personal preferences only. The reasons I wouldn't live in Chicago are nothing against Chicago - it is just I like big cities, but not huge cities, housing is important to me and Chicago's is far too expensive, I hate crowded highways / commutes, etc., and I could really care less about the arts, theater, etc. But for those who care alot of that stuff and maybe are happy in a small apartment, a condo, etc., (eg: don't have kids) or are better off financially, I could see huge appeals to living in Chicago.

So please don't think I was knocking Chicago or saying Milwaukee had just as many ammenities...obviously a metro of 1.5 million isn't going to have those that a metro of 9-million like Chi-Town. I was just saying living in Milwaukee, I can easily take advantage of Chicago's ammenities without actually living there (similar I would imagine to folks living in Colorado Springs being able to utilize Denver).

Heck, I have enjoyed many a sunny summer day in the stands at both Wrigley or The Cell, and I am one of the few Milwaukeeans / Chicagoans who actually don't dislike the other party...I think that that rivalry is plain silly (except for good-natured sports rivalries). Being a Milwaukeean, I am glad Chicago is so close, and I think many Chicagoans feel the same about Milwaukee for get-aways.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2007, 05:54 PM
 
Location: Lakewood, CO
353 posts, read 378,282 times
Reputation: 50
Could you call Denver or Dallas "midwestern?" Dallas is neither southern nor western and Denver isn't really wholly western either--so I think there's a strong case to made that these towns really are deep down midwestern metro areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top