Milwaukee comparable to which midwestern city? (Cleveland: to live in, vs, stats)

[ComfortablyNumb]

To me, Milwaukee can't exactly be compared to any other city in the midwest. It has its own thing going for it really. Milwaukee feels quite a bit smaller, hipper, and probably healthier/stable than Cleveland.

Plus, the upper midwest (I'd say MN, WI, IL) are quite a bit different than the rest, I think. St. Louis has a much more conservative, religious, southern feel to it, so I would never compare it to that.

[MidwestAir]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

St. Louis could be the lower Midwest equivalent of Milwaukee.

I would disagree. I was recently in St. Louis and it is dull. Their downtown was empty and after one visit I have a really negative impression. I actually thought it would be a lot better than it was. I think Milwaukee is a mini-Chicago or like a Kansas City (minus the ribs).

[ComfortablyNumb]

St. Louis is much, much rougher feeling than Milwaukee.

If I had to compare Milwaukee to ANY city, it would DEFINITELY be Buffalo. Milwaukee is quite a bit prettier and more prosperous feeling, but of the cities I've been to, Buffalo comes the closest.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by MidwestAir

I would disagree. I was recently in St. Louis and it is dull. Their downtown was empty and after one visit I have a really negative impression. I actually thought it would be a lot better than it was. I think Milwaukee is a mini-Chicago or like a Kansas City (minus the ribs).

I don't think it's fair to judge a city by its downtown. Even downtown Chicago is largely empty after business hours, but nobody in their right mind would call this place dull. The fact is, for a lot of cities "downtown" isn't where all the action is once people stop working and start playing.

[Milwaukee Ronnie]

Cincinnati without the "Suthern" influence and a Lake instead of a River.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Milwaukee Ronnie

Cincinnati without the "Suthern" influence and a Lake instead of a River.

Oh, and flat instead of in the Appalachian foothills. And laid out in a grid instead of roads winding all over. And a bigger downtown. And less urban decay right in its core. And....

[mizzou65201]

I've spent substantial time in both St. Louis and Kansas City...I actually think Milwaukee is more like Kansas City. Not to say there aren't any similarities between MKE and STL...there are plenty...but I think Kansas City has a more "down to earth" feel that is similar to MKE.

[Fishtacos]

Originally Posted by ComfortablyNumb

To me, Milwaukee can't exactly be compared to any other city in the midwest. It has its own thing going for it really. Milwaukee feels quite a bit smaller, hipper, and probably healthier/stable than Cleveland.

Plus, the upper midwest (I'd say MN, WI, IL) are quite a bit different than the rest, I think. St. Louis has a much more conservative, religious, southern feel to it, so I would never compare it to that.

I think you are confusing St. Louis with the rest of Missouri. Other parts of Missouri have big increasing evangelical populations. St. Louis is very Midwestern in feel, and relates more to the North and East. There is a large percentage of Catholics, but St. Louis isn't Conservative, city or burbs overall. It is a very moderate place overall in political, religious, and social feel. St. Louis is much bigger and more spread out than Milwaukee. Unless you are in East St. Louis across the river, or North St. Louis City well outside of "downtown," St. Louis as a city is fairly safe. And, the burbs are among the safest nationally.

[Fishtacos]

Originally Posted by Drover

I don't think it's fair to judge a city by its downtown. Even downtown Chicago is largely empty after business hours, but nobody in their right mind would call this place dull. The fact is, for a lot of cities "downtown" isn't where all the action is once people stop working and start playing.

This is true. In St. Louis you need to be on Washington Ave, the Soulard, Central West End, South Grand, and other places to be closer to regular action. Other things are seasonal, i.e. places near Busch Stadium during the 6 months of baseball, etc..

If you head about 9-10 miles West, you hit Clayton and U.City and social areas...if you head 10 miles North of Milwaukee you are in the sticks of parts of Mequon and beyond. Milwaukee is a very compact city/metro. St. Louis is not. It's far more spread out with an extra million people that Milwaukee does not have, even despite the lower population levels of the Metro East (Illinois side) The layout is very different.

Lots of older rust belt familiarities and long standing Irish, German, and Italian past immigrants in both places, more Italian in St. Louis.

[Fishtacos]

Originally Posted by stlsmoore

Yea STL is average for a Midwestern city but Milwaukee has a decent sized hispanic and asian population compared to all those other cities. I'm guessing due to it's very close proximity to Chicago. In all honesty I've never really travelled out of the midwest or up by the Chicago area. So when I was staying up there with a friend (Puerto Rican) it was a lil bit of a culture shock to see so many different ethnic groups just out and about together at stores and things like that.

Milwaukee does not have what I would call anything close to a decent sized Asian population, East or South Asian.