Minnesota compared to Wisconsin and Michigan (Minneapolis, St. Paul: crime rate, gated, camping)

[pathseeker]

I'm looking to move to the Great Lakes Region..I've been to Michigan and Wisconsin many times but never to Minnesota. I'm planning on visiting the area soon. In the meantime, any insight on how the state compares to the other two Upper Midwest States would be much appreciated. Specifically, I'm interested in knowing how the twin cities compare to Milwaukee and Detroit and what difference there is between the three states in terms of Rural areas. My impression on that count is they're very similar in terms of the recreational opportunities such as hunting, fishing and camping.

[golfgal]

They are all very similar, the economy in MN and WI is significantly better then MI though. Wisconsin is more scenic, more rolling hills, trees, etc. MN has more lakes for fishing. Hunting opportunities, etc. are equal in WI and MN but it is more "supported" in WI. In WI you will find companies, especially in the more rural areas that actually close down for a week during hunting season.

Cost of living between MN and WI is about a wash--property taxes in WI are higher, other taxes are lower. MN usually is in the top ten for highest tax burden overall, WI is usually 3 or 4 spots behind.

The Twin Cities will have a more varied employer base then Milwaukee and Detroit. Crime rate is infinitely better in the Twin Cities then it is in Detroit, probably close to the same as Milwaukee in proportion to the population. You won't see the slums in Milwaukee and MSP like you do in Detroit either--not that there aren't some not so nice areas in both, just not on the same scale. Both Milwaukee and MSP are just nicer (cleaner, in better repair overall, etc.) then Detroit.

[xandrex]

The Twin Cities not too long ago took over Detroit as the second-biggest regional economy in the Midwest, following Chicago (naturally). I think the outlook for the Twin Cities (and therefore Minnesota in general) is considered better than Michigan and maybe even Wisconsin. I've been told that Minneapolis/St. Paul generally fare better than Milwaukee in terms of inner-city quality living (Milwaukee being one of the most segregated cities in the country) and certainly I would say ahead of Detroit. I have some friends who are Milwaukee suburbanites and there is definitely an attitude of "visit the city, but don't live there" (unless you have a lot of money, of course!).

In terms of recreational activities, I can imagine they're all about the same. They all offer a lot of lakes and I know that Minnesota and Wisconsin are definitely hunting and fishing crazy. Golfgal mentioned Wisconsin being slightly more "supported" in Wisconsin because of places closing down. But I think you'd see that same thing once you get outside metro Minnesota. Growing up in the northeast area of the state, I can tell you that opening hunting season is crazy. It's all anyone can talk about and my Facebook feed gets filled with pictures of game people were able to take down. I just don't see as much of that out of Twin Cities residents, and it's likely because a lesser percentage of them hunt and fish than people in Greater Minnesota.

[michigan83]

I have to point out that Michigan does have an advantage over the other two states as far as Great Lakes shoreline is concerned. In Michigan, there are beautiful sandy beaches, awesome sand dunes, and quaint beach towns all along the shores of Lake Michigan, and it is pretty spectacular the whole length of the lower peninsula. Wisconsin and Minnesota also have Great Lakes shoreline, but the beaches there do not compare to Michigan at all. Being on the leeward side of the Lakes also gives Michigan warmer winters (with more snow) and cooler summers than Wisconsin of Minnesota. The difference in climate makes Michigan a prime spot for growing fruit along the Lake Michigan shore. Outside of California, MI has the most diverse agriculture industry in the U.S, including a thriving wine industry. The Traverse City region grows more tart cherries than anywhere else in the world.

Overall, there are a lot of similarities between the three states. But Michigan's geography is also pretty unique.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by michigan83

I have to point out that Michigan does have an advantage over the other two states as far as Great Lakes shoreline is concerned. In Michigan, there are beautiful sandy beaches, awesome sand dunes, and quaint beach towns all along the shores of Lake Michigan, and it is pretty spectacular the whole length of the lower peninsula. Wisconsin and Minnesota also have Great Lakes shoreline, but the beaches there do not compare to Michigan at all. Being on the leeward side of the Lakes also gives Michigan warmer winters (with more snow) and cooler summers than Wisconsin of Minnesota. The difference in climate makes Michigan a prime spot for growing fruit along the Lake Michigan shore. Outside of California, MI has the most diverse agriculture industry in the U.S, including a thriving wine industry. The Traverse City region grows more tart cherries than anywhere else in the world.

Overall, there are a lot of similarities between the three states. But Michigan's geography is also pretty unique.

MN has more shoreline then any state in the union, including Florida and Alaska. No one swims in Lake Superior, but they do in most of the 15,000+ other lakes in MN.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by xandrex

The Twin Cities not too long ago took over Detroit as the second-biggest regional economy in the Midwest, following Chicago (naturally). I think the outlook for the Twin Cities (and therefore Minnesota in general) is considered better than Michigan and maybe even Wisconsin. I've been told that Minneapolis/St. Paul generally fare better than Milwaukee in terms of inner-city quality living (Milwaukee being one of the most segregated cities in the country) and certainly I would say ahead of Detroit. I have some friends who are Milwaukee suburbanites and there is definitely an attitude of "visit the city, but don't live there" (unless you have a lot of money, of course!).

In terms of recreational activities, I can imagine they're all about the same. They all offer a lot of lakes and I know that Minnesota and Wisconsin are definitely hunting and fishing crazy. Golfgal mentioned Wisconsin being slightly more "supported" in Wisconsin because of places closing down. But I think you'd see that same thing once you get outside metro Minnesota. Growing up in the northeast area of the state, I can tell you that opening hunting season is crazy. It's all anyone can talk about and my Facebook feed gets filled with pictures of game people were able to take down. I just don't see as much of that out of Twin Cities residents, and it's likely because a lesser percentage of them hunt and fish than people in Greater Minnesota.

Go spend the week of Hunting opener in Wi and you will see what I am talking about. I have lived in outstate MN and yes, hunting is very popular, but it just isn't the same as it is in WI. Talking about it and having entire towns shut down to allow people to go out an hunt are not on the same level.

[michigan83]

MN has more shoreline then any state in the union, including Florida and Alaska. No one swims in Lake Superior, but they do in most of the 15,000+ other lakes in MN.

Not trying to get into a nerdy geography fight, but Minnesota only has the "most shoreline" based on a technicality. Michigan has 3,288 miles of shoreline along 4 of the 5 Great Lakes, compared to only 189 miles of Great Lakes shoreline for Minnesota. Most of Minnesota's shoreline is along inland lakes. The miles and miles of Great Lakes shoreline in Michigan are more impressive to visit than the inland lakes in Minnesota. Inland lakes are nice, but they are not going to "wow" anyone. Michigan also has more than 11.000 inland lakes and I know Wisconsin has a lot too, so inland lakes are very common in the Upper Midwest. But having almost the entire state surrounded by four Great Lakes is very unique. I think most outside visitors would be much more impressed with the Great Lakes shoreline.

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by golfgal

MN has more shoreline then any state in the union, including Florida and Alaska. No one swims in Lake Superior, but they do in most of the 15,000+ other lakes in MN.

Speak for yourself. Us northern Minnesotans swim in Lake Superior plenty.

[Gibbous Moon]

Originally Posted by michigan83

Not trying to get into a nerdy geography fight, but Minnesota only has the "most shoreline" based on a technicality. Michigan has 3,288 miles of shoreline along 4 of the 5 Great Lakes, compared to only 189 miles of Great Lakes shoreline for Minnesota. Most of Minnesota's shoreline is along inland lakes. The miles and miles of Great Lakes shoreline in Michigan are more impressive to visit than the inland lakes in Minnesota. Inland lakes are nice, but they are not going to "wow" anyone. Michigan also has more than 11.000 inland lakes and I know Wisconsin has a lot too, so inland lakes are very common in the Upper Midwest. But having almost the entire state surrounded by four Great Lakes is very unique. I think most outside visitors would be much more impressed with the Great Lakes shoreline.

And aside from Minnesota and Michigan, Alaska has over 3,000,000 lakes -- yes, 3 million -- so I think it wins the mighty "my state is better 'cause it has more shoreline!" battle ...

(which is a pointless argument anyway, since no one person is ever going to personally sample even so much as 1% of the beachfront of their state anyway)

[Ghengis]

Originally Posted by Gibbous Moon

And aside from Minnesota and Michigan, Alaska has over 3,000,000 lakes -- yes, 3 million -- so I think it wins the mighty "my state is better 'cause it has more shoreline!" battle ...

bs, unless you are counting puddles too.