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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-02-2019, 07:20 AM
 
7,765 posts, read 9,621,198 times
Reputation: 9225

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TacoSoup View Post
I have no doubt the winter in Milwaukee is worse than Kansas Cityís, but itís not like KC isnít brutal as well. Iíve watched many Chiefs games over the years where it looked absolutely miserable out in December and January.

Iíll never understand the growth argument. Why is growth so important? Why canít a place have little to no growth and not still be a great place? Growth just leads to more headaches, at least thatís been my experience with it.

Iíd go with Milwaukee all day in this one. I found it to be a cool city the one time I was there many years ago. I donít know how much it has changed in the last 25 years, but I can only imagine itís gotten better? Itís location on Lake Michigan being the biggest factor. Being close to Chicago is just the icing on the cake.
Absolutely. On Lake Michigan, nice/old-fashioned bungalow neighborhoods ( also affordable), and only about 1.5 hrs from Chicago. ..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-02-2019, 07:41 AM
 
Location: IN
21,041 posts, read 36,421,933 times
Reputation: 13555
Quote:
Originally Posted by FalstaffBlues View Post
The "freeze thaw cycle" is great. I can damn near golf year round at 39 degrees north.

What winter activities? Snowmobiling? You can just ride an ATV in KC. Ice Fishing? In KC you can just go regular fishing.
That is why KC has ZERO in common with most of the Midwest in terms of climate, no well defined four seasons. Winter weather is lousy in KC because you don't have consistent snow or mild conditions, just a constant battle between the two which is pointless. Summer is completely useless in KC because it is too hot or too humid. Until you have experienced a near constantly pleasant summer climate location, it is a big quality of life advantage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2019, 07:53 AM
 
2,284 posts, read 1,148,521 times
Reputation: 2933
Quote:
Originally Posted by FalstaffBlues View Post
I didn't say downtown Milwaukee sucks and has nothing to offer. I said KC has a livelier city center. Its not even alot livelier.

However, DT Milwaukee has about 10,000 residents (DT Milaukee's website says there are over 30,000 but the boundaries of what they call "downtown" includes the entire lower east side, which is not downtown.) Downtown KC has over 23,000.

According to DT Milwaukee website, DT employed 83,000 people in 2016. Considering that they are using those same boundaries including the lower east side its still misleading. DT KC employs over 120K people.
I don't think you should get in numbers, when comparing the city. BUT, here's a big one, and one that makes a city feel like a city. Population density.

Kansas City - 1,559 people psm
Milwaukee - 6,197 people psm

Milwaukee's Walk Score is 62 compared to 34 for KC.

Last edited by Enean; 10-02-2019 at 08:02 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2019, 08:58 AM
 
Location: Illinois
317 posts, read 130,457 times
Reputation: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraniteStater View Post
That is why KC has ZERO in common with most of the Midwest in terms of climate, no well defined four seasons. Winter weather is lousy in KC because you don't have consistent snow or mild conditions, just a constant battle between the two which is pointless. Summer is completely useless in KC because it is too hot or too humid. Until you have experienced a near constantly pleasant summer climate location, it is a big quality of life advantage.
Milwaukee doesn't have "consistent mild conditions." It has consistently deathly cold weather where the average high hovers below or at freezing for 3 consecutive months. That is not "mild," it's harsh.

KC doesn't have defined seasons? Thats just not accurate. The majority of continental US has defined seasons, KC is no different.

Summer in KC is not useless due to heat and humidity, just July and early august. Even in the oppresively hot time of year you can still safely and comfortably enjoy the outdoors in the morning and the evening. Last weekend it 60 and rainy in Southern Wisonsin and 90 and sunny in KC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2019, 09:02 AM
 
Location: Illinois
317 posts, read 130,457 times
Reputation: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enean View Post
I don't think you should get in numbers, when comparing the city. BUT, here's a big one, and one that makes a city feel like a city. Population density.

Kansas City - 1,559 people psm
Milwaukee - 6,197 people psm

Milwaukee's Walk Score is 62 compared to 34 for KC.
Yeah, again I'm talking about DOWNTOWN, not the whole city. Are you keeping up? It doesn't seem like it.

So again, my OPINION that is supported by data is that DT KC is livelier and than DT Milwaukee by, but that Milwaukee has better urban neighborhoods. Neither being a significant advantage over the other in either direction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2019, 09:50 AM
 
2,284 posts, read 1,148,521 times
Reputation: 2933
Quote:
Originally Posted by FalstaffBlues View Post
Yeah, again I'm talking about DOWNTOWN, not the whole city. Are you keeping up? It doesn't seem like it.

So again, my OPINION that is supported by data is that DT KC is livelier and than DT Milwaukee by, but that Milwaukee has better urban neighborhoods. Neither being a significant advantage over the other in either direction.
Overall, KC is a city of low population density...I wouldn't like that. Milwaukee is one of the most dense cities in the US...I would like that better. Milwaukee's Lower East Side is a seamless transition into downtown....seamless.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0483...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0481...7i13312!8i6656

This is the Lower East Side....look around, and you'll see what I mean.

This isn't downtown, either, but take a look. You, maybe then, will understand why Milwaukee is 4x more dense than KC.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0600...7i13312!8i6656
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2019, 10:17 AM
sub
Status: "Support Your Liberal Loved Ones During TDS Awareness Week" (set 5 hours ago)
 
955 posts, read 479,638 times
Reputation: 1608
Winters in Milwaukee aren't that bad, seriously. At least there are things to do in winter. KC not so much, but it still gets cold enough that you're probably not out playing golf.
Milwaukee's summers run circles around KC's. 90 and sunny in late September is just as depressing as 30 and snow in late April for people who don't anything too extreme. I personally don't mind extended winters though.
Downtowns compare very nicely to each other. Neither stands way out, but Lake Michigan is priceless, and the nudge goes to Milwaukee because of it.
Overall, MKE is more uniformly dense, but KC's core is no slouch. It just has a ton more post-war suburban style development within the city limits in addition to some lingering, undeveloped cow pastures and corn fields.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2019, 10:37 AM
 
2,284 posts, read 1,148,521 times
Reputation: 2933
Quote:
Originally Posted by sub View Post
Winters in Milwaukee aren't that bad, seriously. At least there are things to do in winter. KC not so much, but it still gets cold enough that you're probably not out playing golf.
Milwaukee's summers run circles around KC's. 90 and sunny in late September is just as depressing as 30 and snow in late April for people who don't anything too extreme. I personally don't mind extended winters though.
Downtowns compare very nicely to each other. Neither stands way out, but Lake Michigan is priceless, and the nudge goes to Milwaukee because of it.
Overall, MKE is more uniformly dense, but KC's core is no slouch. It just has a ton more post-war suburban style development within the city limits in addition to some lingering, undeveloped cow pastures and corn fields.
You can't compare the city density...you just can't....over 6 thousand per sq mile compared to 1.5 thousand per sm....no comparison.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2019, 11:16 AM
sub
Status: "Support Your Liberal Loved Ones During TDS Awareness Week" (set 5 hours ago)
 
955 posts, read 479,638 times
Reputation: 1608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enean View Post
You can't compare the city density...you just can't....over 6 thousand per sq mile compared to 1.5 thousand per sm....no comparison.
Actually, you can.
Consider that Kansas City is much larger in land area, and that large portions of it are undeveloped or underdeveloped.
I realize that even when comparing total built environments that Milwaukee would probably still be more dense, but Kansas City has an old original core that compares nicely with Milwaukee. There’s just not going to be as much of it.
For whatever reason, urban density is something of a past time here on C-D, but in reality a person can find some pretty cool urban traits in almost any city of any decent size.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2019, 11:24 AM
 
Location: Cleveland, OH
9,022 posts, read 7,989,294 times
Reputation: 8013
Quote:
Originally Posted by sub View Post
Actually, you can.
Consider that Kansas City is much larger in land area, and that large portions of it are undeveloped or underdeveloped.
I realize that even when comparing total built environments that Milwaukee would probably still be more dense, but Kansas City has an old original core that compares nicely with Milwaukee. Thereís just not going to be as much of it.
For whatever reason, urban density is something of a past time here on C-D, but in reality a person can find some pretty cool urban traits in almost any city of any decent size.
True. According to city data standards, you can tell pretty much everything you need to know about a place by its density and growth rate. It rarely occurs to anyone that stable population or even slightly declining population might actually be ok or that some people prefer medium or *gasp* low density 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

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