Difference between WI and MN (Milwaukee, Wausau: apartment, crimes, living in)

[JDCATONSVILLE]

Originally Posted by south-to-west

Oh we (blacks) will be following you to Lincoln County...faster than you can say "there goes the neighborhood." We will haunt you in your dreams...

I wasn't necessarily refering to skin color, but since with some groups of people it always seems to go that way then you can interprit it they way you see fit. And as far as haunting my dreams I have much better things to dream about then someones idle threats. Like I said I lived in Maryland for 37 years and worked for a good deal in the city and not the white collar yuppie bussiness district. You kind of become harden and don't get intimidated easily...which means you can handle and take care of yourself.I have nothing against someone for the color of their skin I have had many a friends of all colors and races, which when you live in a metro area your going to have. I was refering to white and boring as safe and sound. But I guess maybe others were refering to a racial thing.

[fadaf]

WI and MN are extremely similiar. I have lived in both and like both. The only major difference you stated: MN's metro is more cosmopolitan
WI has more medium sized cities.
I would stay away from Wasau, that city has a void of things to do. If you would like to live in WI and still have the convenience of the twin cities, I suggest hudson, river falls, menomonie, or Eau Claire.

[jjacobeclark]

Originally Posted by rodhaenke

I live in MN, but also like WI (other than the Packers). I think they are very similar states, but also different. Here's what I think:

Similarities:
Northwoods and lakes
Midwestern friendly
Progressive
Great Lakes access
Both share wonderful Mississippi River Bluff Country and driftless zone

Differences:
WI is more hilly
MN has more lakes
MN has more diversity in geography
MN's metro is more cosmopolitan
WI has more medium sized cities
WI is closer to Chicago

What do you think?

First of all, Wisconsin has more than one metropolitan area, whereas Minnesota basically just has the Twin Cities. Are you saying the Twin Cities are more cosmopolitan than Milwaukee, Madison, or the entire state of Wisconsin?

Second, according to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, cosmopolitan means composed of persons, constituents, or elements from all or many parts of the world. Being that Milwaukee is far more ethnically diverse than the either of the Twin Cities, I don't quite understand how it can be considered less "cosmopolitan."

Milwaukee city, Wisconsin - ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2007
Milwaukee, WI
45.0% White
40.0% Black or African American
0.8% American Indian and Alaska Native
3.1% Asian
0.0% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
11.1% from some other race
2.2% from two or more races
16.2% of the total population were Hispanic or Latino of any race

Minneapolis city, Minnesota - ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2007
Minneapolis, MN
72.5% White
18% Black or African American
1.5% American Indian and Alaska Native
5.2% Asian
0.0% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
2.8% from some other race
3.5% from two or more races
9.4% of the total population were Hispanic or Latino of any race

St. Paul city, Minnesota - ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2007
St. Paul, MN
69.7% White
14.2% Black or African American
0.9% American Indian and Alaska Native
12.3% Asian
0.0% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
2.9% from some other race
3.9% from two or more races
8.7% of the total population were Hispanic or Latino of any race

[rodhaenke]

Originally Posted by jjacobeclark

First of all, Wisconsin has more than one metropolitan area, whereas Minnesota basically just has the Twin Cities. Are you saying the Twin Cities are more cosmopolitan than Milwaukee, Madison, or the entire state of Wisconsin?

Second, according to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, cosmopolitan means composed of persons, constituents, or elements from all or many parts of the world. Being that Milwaukee is far more ethnically diverse than the either of the Twin Cities, I don't quite understand how it can be considered less "cosmopolitan."

Milwaukee city, Wisconsin - ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2007
Milwaukee, WI
45.0% White
40.0% Black or African American
0.8% American Indian and Alaska Native
3.1% Asian
0.0% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
11.1% from some other race
2.2% from two or more races
16.2% of the total population were Hispanic or Latino of any race

Minneapolis city, Minnesota - ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2007
Minneapolis, MN
72.5% White
18% Black or African American
1.5% American Indian and Alaska Native
5.2% Asian
0.0% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
2.8% from some other race
3.5% from two or more races
9.4% of the total population were Hispanic or Latino of any race

St. Paul city, Minnesota - ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2007
St. Paul, MN
69.7% White
14.2% Black or African American
0.9% American Indian and Alaska Native
12.3% Asian
0.0% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
2.9% from some other race
3.9% from two or more races
8.7% of the total population were Hispanic or Latino of any race

Certainly Milwaukee is more diverse. That is a good and valid point. I guess I would say that the Twin Cities have more cultural offerings probably than Milwaukee - theaters, museums, that kind of stuff although maybe it is close. Milwaukee, while nice, seems to be an older blue collar town while the Twin Cities seems more progressive to me. Probably just an opinion.

By metro I guess I meant like a top 30 metro - Madison really isn't even close to that. Twin Cities I believe are the 16th biggest metro while Milwaukee I think is around 30th.

[south-to-west]

Originally Posted by JDCATONSVILLE

I wasn't necessarily refering to skin color, but since with some groups of people it always seems to go that way then you can interprit it they way you see fit. And as far as haunting my dreams I have much better things to dream about then someones idle threats. Like I said I lived in Maryland for 37 years and worked for a good deal in the city and not the white collar yuppie bussiness district. You kind of become harden and don't get intimidated easily...which means you can handle and take care of yourself.I have nothing against someone for the color of their skin I have had many a friends of all colors and races, which when you live in a metro area your going to have. I was refering to white and boring as safe and sound. But I guess maybe others were refering to a racial thing.

Chill out, man. I know that Baltimore is a rough city. Been there to some of the rougher areas and was intimidated myself.

However you did take it there when you said:

You can have all your urban diversity it's not all that it's cracked up to be, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm sure you're not prejudiced--but you (as well as all of us) just gotta watch how you say things sometimes.

[gold*dust1]

Originally Posted by jjacobeclark

First of all, Wisconsin has more than one metropolitan area, whereas Minnesota basically just has the Twin Cities. Are you saying the Twin Cities are more cosmopolitan than Milwaukee, Madison, or the entire state of Wisconsin?

Second, according to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, cosmopolitan means composed of persons, constituents, or elements from all or many parts of the world. Being that Milwaukee is far more ethnically diverse than the either of the Twin Cities, I don't quite understand how it can be considered less "cosmopolitan."

Milwaukee city, Wisconsin - ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2007
Milwaukee, WI
45.0% White
40.0% Black or African American
0.8% American Indian and Alaska Native
3.1% Asian
0.0% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
11.1% from some other race
2.2% from two or more races
16.2% of the total population were Hispanic or Latino of any race

Minneapolis city, Minnesota - ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2007
Minneapolis, MN
72.5% White
18% Black or African American
1.5% American Indian and Alaska Native
5.2% Asian
0.0% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
2.8% from some other race
3.5% from two or more races
9.4% of the total population were Hispanic or Latino of any race

St. Paul city, Minnesota - ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2007
St. Paul, MN
69.7% White
14.2% Black or African American
0.9% American Indian and Alaska Native
12.3% Asian
0.0% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
2.9% from some other race
3.9% from two or more races
8.7% of the total population were Hispanic or Latino of any race

Time to do a dictionary check, as you are leaving out all meanings applicable to cosmopolitan.

I find it interesting from an human nature standpoint that it hurts you so much the other person you quoted finds the TC's to be more cosmopolitan than the whole of WI! I also find the same to be true, as Milwaukee doesn't fit the meaning of cosmo to many people nor does Madison.

Lighten up and realize Milwaukee just doesn't evoke the kind of connotation the word cosmopolitan conveys. You can't force people to recognize Milwaukee to be something it's not in the minds of a sizable number of people.

[jjacobeclark]

Originally Posted by rodhaenke

Certainly Milwaukee is more diverse. That is a good and valid point. I guess I would say that the Twin Cities have more cultural offerings probably than Milwaukee - theaters, museums, that kind of stuff although maybe it is close. Milwaukee, while nice, seems to be an older blue collar town while the Twin Cities seems more progressive to me. Probably just an opinion.

This is extremely debatable. I know the Twin Cities are 2nd to NYC in terms of theatre attendance, but as far as museums, the fine arts, and everything else is concerned, I would say the two cities are neck and neck. No offense, but I hate these stupid buzzwords like "progressive" and "cosmopolitan" because they save people from having to make a thoughtful analysis. Words like progressive need to be accompanied by a comparison of something which is to be judged as being more or less progressive. How exactly are the Twin Cities more progressive than Milwaukee? Give me a concrete example like the fact you already have light rail.

Originally Posted by rodhaenke

By metro I guess I meant like a top 30 metro - Madison really isn't even close to that. Twin Cities I believe are the 16th biggest metro while Milwaukee I think is around 30th.

The Twin Cities are actually the 13th largest CSA, while Milwaukee is 26th.

[jjacobeclark]

Originally Posted by gold*dust1

Time to do a dictionary check, as you are leaving out all meanings applicable to cosmopolitan.

I find it interesting from an human nature standpoint that it hurts you so much the other person you quoted finds the TC's to be more cosmopolitan than the whole of WI! I also find the same to be true, as Milwaukee doesn't fit the meaning of cosmo to many people nor does Madison.

Lighten up and realize Milwaukee just doesn't evoke the kind of connotation the word cosmopolitan conveys. You can't force people to recognize Milwaukee to be something it's not in the minds of a sizable number of people.

Just because Milwaukee doesn't evoke the warm-and-fuzzy feeling you associate with the word cosmopolitan, doesn't make it any less true. IMHO, neither Milwaukee nor the Twin Cities qualify as being truly cosmopolitan, like on the same level as Rome or Moscow. The only city in the Midwest, and one of a very few in the entire US, that can even be considered cosmopolitan is Chicago.

[gold*dust1]

Originally Posted by jjacobeclark

Just because Milwaukee doesn't evoke the warm-and-fuzzy feeling you associate with the word cosmopolitan, doesn't make it any less true. IMHO, neither Milwaukee nor the Twin Cities qualify as being truly cosmopolitan, like on the same level as Rome or Moscow. The only city in the Midwest, and one of a very few in the entire US, that can even be considered cosmopolitan is Chicago.

Again get the dictionary out...I'm not talking "warm and fuzzy" in the least. It's subjective and everyone has their own opionion...you can't force feed it!

[quickdraw]

Originally Posted by rodhaenke

I guess I would say that the Twin Cities have more cultural offerings probably than Milwaukee - theaters, museums, that kind of stuff although maybe it is close.

I couldn't disagree more. I think Milwaukee has much more cultural offering than TC. Theatre, dining, and concerts Milwaukee is way ahead. I don't know of a city that has more beautiful theatres of all sizes. Milwaukee's ethnic dining scene is incredible too. I don't live in Wisconsin or Minnesota, but I've found Milwaukee to be a smaller version of Chicago with a lot less headaches. Other than some of the older homes in St. Paul, I find the Twin City area to be very sterile. I don't know why, but it's just boring to me. Can't really put my finger on it. It has nothing to do with the color of its people.

The main difference I see between Milwaukee and Minnesota, and the rest of the US for that matter is that Wisconsin has a lot of nice small functional downtowns. Nice Main Streets-there are so few of these left in the US. Often, nice small towns seem to be bed and breakfast/antique towns aimed at urban yuppies for weekend visits. The Wisconsin
small towns are nothing fancy, just clean and functional with less empty stores than most places.

I'd also say Wisconsin is the neatest state I've been too, not as many yards littered will old cars and boxsprings.

I made fun of Wisconsin a lot when I lived in Illinois, but deep inside I always knew it was a great place.