LA Times article paints MKE very favorably (Milwaukee, Alto: university, income)

[EnjoyEP]

Great read from a recent LA Times article:

Hear the vroom at the new Harley museum in Milwaukee - Travel - LATimes.com

Their travel writer viewed Milwaukee very positively in their stay in MKE. A neat read, and neat to see someone from a coast so up on their Milwaukee experience!

[JoshB]

Great Article! I was surprised to hear that they said it was similar to Seattle.

[Fishtacos]

Originally Posted by JoshB

Great Article! I was surprised to hear that they said it was similar to Seattle.

Guesses for comparisons to Seattle by the author:

Seattle and Milwaukee are virtually the same size. Seattle metro is much bigger, but as cities go, same size.

Both have lots of water around them.

Milwaukee has increasingly hip and progressive parts of town and she chose some of those parts of town.

Her last visit was a loooong time ago and was pleasantly surprised(like so many others) at what they find when they visit currently.

She chose wisely both times in her choices of places to stay.

In summer, both are warm, sunny and green with plenty of parks etc...

Seattle also has some older reviatlized districts.

The places also obviously have plenty of differences (before anyone wants to chime in to say so) but plenty of similarities too for comparison.

[43north87west]

Originally Posted by EnjoyEP

Great read from a recent LA Times article:

Hear the vroom at the new Harley museum in Milwaukee - Travel - LATimes.com

Their travel writer viewed Milwaukee very positively in their stay in MKE. A neat read, and neat to see someone from a coast so up on their Milwaukee experience!

We need more out of state journalists and travel people to start noticing Milwaukee. It's not the "factory town" that people think it is, anymore. It takes years for an image to take hold, and that is presently taking place.

I have the unique (to me) advantage of being able to see Milwaukee from a snowbird's perspective. I've been amazed this summer, at the large amount of improvements and development. One thing that I've enjoyed seeing, is the urban development. I'm so tired of the clone-like appearance of middle-of-the-road suburban developments across the country. Seeing new, unique development in urban areas, is a very positive sign. Phoenix has started to see more urban area growth, but it will still be quite some time before it is at the level Milwaukee has experienced.

Now, if a few more solid companies could take root in Milwaukee...

[radraja]

I actually prefer that Milwaukee be kept a secret.

Places get ruined when they're "discovered".

But I think the local economy at the moment is too weak and narrow-minded to allow significant change, anyway.

[JoshB]

Originally Posted by radraja

I actually prefer that Milwaukee be kept a secret.

Places get ruined when they're "discovered".

But I think the local economy at the moment is too weak and narrow-minded to allow significant change, anyway.

Very true, just like Raleigh-Durham, NC

[quijote]

Originally Posted by JoshB

Very true, just like Raleigh-Durham, NC

I don't mind the state's connections to dairy and industry so much--they're important features of the state's past and present, and I hope they can be respectably honored in the future. I was born and raised in a very privileged part of California--the heart of Silicon Valley--, and as nice as it was to live within the cutting edge and upscale innovations all of the time, I now find it disturbing how disconnected I was (and how disconnected other people there currently are) to the fundamentals of our economy, and to the fundamentals of how things are made. Food used to magically appear on supermarket shelves, and stuff used to magically appear in retail stores. Now that I've lived in Wisconsin and similar states, I have a fuller connection with food production, industry, and their consequences. If Milwaukee and the rest of Wisconsin changes, I hope people don't lose the understanding of process in their material lives.

A lot of people in MKE want change in the economy, but it really is hard to make changes if there is little momentum. Most of the textbook examples of economic boom today--SF Bay Area, Seattle, Dallas, etc.--really are products of long-term processes as well as a lot of luck. It's possible that some unsuspecting places now are the hotspots of the future, but only in retrospect will we be able to understand why some places with certain ingredients moved ahead, whereas other places with similar ingredients didn't. It seems that a lot of MKE leaders are trying to lay the groundwork for future success, but if it comes, it may not even be for another 50-75 years. The worst thing is for people to get frustrated in the meantime and quit prematurely. Who knew, in the early 1900s in humble old Palo Alto, CA, that a sleepy little university town would hit the economic charts later on in the century? Though leaders now talk about about high taxes versus business incentives and other things, Silicon Valley and many other boomtowns happened regardless.

[radraja]

But the thing is - although people aren't thrilled with the economy at the moment, most residents don't want WI or MKE to change. They don't want it to become the next boom town. They don't want it to become the next big thing. They just want it to remain the same hometown that it's been.

[43north87west]

Originally Posted by quijote

I don't mind the state's connections to dairy and industry so much--they're important features of the state's past and present, and I hope they can be respectably honored in the future. I was born and raised in a very privileged part of California--the heart of Silicon Valley--, and as nice as it was to live within the cutting edge and upscale innovations all of the time, I now find it disturbing how disconnected I was (and how disconnected other people there currently are) to the fundamentals of our economy, and to the fundamentals of how things are made. Food used to magically appear on supermarket shelves, and stuff used to magically appear in retail stores. Now that I've lived in Wisconsin and similar states, I have a fuller connection with food production, industry, and their consequences. If Milwaukee and the rest of Wisconsin changes, I hope people don't lose the understanding of process in their material lives.

A lot of people in MKE want change in the economy, but it really is hard to make changes if there is little momentum. Most of the textbook examples of economic boom today--SF Bay Area, Seattle, Dallas, etc.--really are products of long-term processes as well as a lot of luck. It's possible that some unsuspecting places now are the hotspots of the future, but only in retrospect will we be able to understand why some places with certain ingredients moved ahead, whereas other places with similar ingredients didn't. It seems that a lot of MKE leaders are trying to lay the groundwork for future success, but if it comes, it may not even be for another 50-75 years. The worst thing is for people to get frustrated in the meantime and quit prematurely. Who knew, in the early 1900s in humble old Palo Alto, CA, that a sleepy little university town would hit the economic charts later on in the century? Though leaders now talk about about high taxes versus business incentives and other things, Silicon Valley and many other boomtowns happened regardless.

While I appreciate the pastoral imagery of a dairy farm at sunrise, there are a lot more marketable aspects to Wisconsin than cows, farms, and cheese. Sure they're important to the state's economy, but you don't see Alaska billing itself as the Oil Rig State, or California as "America's Lettuceland". People already know about that, the same as they know about corn in Iowa and cattle ranching in western states. It isn't that people don't appreciate economic fundamentals, but they don't get attention of outsiders like other things do.

That aside, 50-75 years is time--and tax dollars--that nobody will spend for the "greater good" of future generations. People want things to happen today. If other things can happen fast, why can't business? The city has a huge influx of fresh faces every single year in the form of students. Where they all go when done, I have no idea, but they aren't staying around the area. There is a prime opportunity for an inexpensive but educated entry-level labor force, and what I consider enough economy to support it if the initiative is there.

[quijote]

Originally Posted by 43north87west

While I appreciate the pastoral imagery of a dairy farm at sunrise, there are a lot more marketable aspects to Wisconsin than cows, farms, and cheese. Sure they're important to the state's economy, but you don't see Alaska billing itself as the Oil Rig State, or California as "America's Lettuceland". People already know about that, the same as they know about corn in Iowa and cattle ranching in western states. It isn't that people don't appreciate economic fundamentals, but they don't get attention of outsiders like other things do.

Years ago, states and regions did market themselves according to their relationship to food, and the efforts were rather successful. But this was a couple of generations ago, when consumer spending on food took up twice as much of the consumer's net income as it does today. Food prices have since gone down (relative to other factors), and people have pretty much found other things to do with their disposable income. Some places, such as Louisiana (Cajun/Creole food), Kentucky (Bourbon), Vermont (maple syrup), and California (wine) still use food as marketing tools, but I guess dairy is so...unsexy. Wisconsin farmers have made admirable efforts to enter and showcase the gourmet, artisanal cheese industry, but it's not enough. And in any case, California outproduces Wisconsin in cheese and other dairy products now. It has become the nation's dairyland, to a large extent. Many people don't know this, though, and still think of Wisconsin as cheeseland.

If Wisconsin has to market itself with a sexy product or service, what would it be?

That aside, 50-75 years is time--and tax dollars--that nobody will spend for the "greater good" of future generations. People want things to happen today. If other things can happen fast, why can't business? The city has a huge influx of fresh faces every single year in the form of students. Where they all go when done, I have no idea, but they aren't staying around the area. There is a prime opportunity for an inexpensive but educated entry-level labor force, and what I consider enough economy to support it if the initiative is there.

Unfortunately, the best thing would be for Wisconsin to do major long-term investment and planning, but I agree that most people want something sooner. That has the danger of leading into a "quick-fix," but it could also force leaders to pay close attention to the upcoming trends (and jump on them). It seems that several people in MKE are trying to make such a move--the mayor, UWM Chancellor, and others have singled out healthcare technologies and certain kinds of engineering as hot growth areas. So, perhaps that could work.

The problem is, even if successful, will these moves be long-lasting? By focusing on the aforementioned industries, will we miss out on more transformative and long-lasting possibilities? Will people be complaining in 50-80 years about Wisconsin's "old economy" in healthcare and engineering?[/quote]