Difference between WI and MN (Milwaukee, Madison: school, gated, quality of life)

[tully]

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.

"cosmopolitan" even being on the comparison chart is :lol:
At best, Milw and the TC's have ELEMENTS - which can REMIND one - of a cosmopolitan city.
I agree, people need to reaquiant themselves with the word.
While we're at it, a refresher on World City is in order. The terms are somewhat interrelated.
TC's idea of culture is an oversized mall far from the urban core. (Just one example of its suburbaness)
Milwaukee is laughably segregated. TC's less so, but not good at all.
Both require ownership of a car, for all intents.
For city transport, both are in the Bus Age. TC's is taking baby steps out.
Both have significant socioeconomic/revenue gaps along racial lines.
Neither have high density over wide areas.
TC's is terribly geographically isolated and an "airline island".
TC's can't shake it's insular "little Norway" roots. (antithetical to embracement of "others").
Both have beautiful parks which were "ringed" (placed on the periphery, often later cardoned-off by freeways.) Neither has a Central Park, Montjuic, Hyde, Tianemen, Parc Eiffel/Luxembourg/Louve,etc. Milwaukee has well-located (and well-utilized) Cathedral Park. If only it were 20 times larger.
Neither are particularly religiously diverse.
I may be wrong, but I don't think either attracts a great number of international investments, artists, foundations, trade, foreign students (esp. ones who stay post-graduation), etc..

Both are good, functional cities and decent places to live. But they're far from cosmo and probably shouldn't try to be.

[rodhaenke]

Originally Posted by EnjoyEP

I did.

I guess when I was commenting, my illustration was a bit more towards the southern / more populated portions of the states.

Certainly you are correct, Lake Superior is on the northern portions of our states (with the UP technically being Michigan).

I know in my experience, Lake Superior is so cold, icey, chilly, snowy, harsh, etc., for such a vast portion of the year, it is hard to enjoy it truly as a Great Lake experience nearly as open or much as it is the more conventional (although yet still obviously cold) Lake Michigan.

You are certainly technically correct though...on the northern areas, Lake Superior wouldn't classify Minnesota as exactly New Mexico or Oklahoma or Wyoming.

You sound more like someone from the east coast or from the south by your exaggerations about the "northern" reaches of MN. You make it sound like Alaska. Summers are beautiful on the north shore and it is a prime tourism area not only in MN but in the upper Midwest. You make it sound like no one would want to go there as if it was frozen over 12 months (or "vast amonts") a year. It ain't balmy but it also ain't that much different from the southern parts of WI and MN. Spring comes about 2-3 weeks later and fall arrives 2-3 weeks earlier, but inbetween it is lovely. Plus, we had a great vacation skiing at Lutsen - the closest thing to mountain skiing in the midwest. It is far more than being "technically" correct - MN has a lovely shoreline and an international port that is only 2 hours drive from the cities. It is not a technicality nor an after thought.

[jjacobeclark]

Originally Posted by rodhaenke

You sound more like someone from the east coast or from the south by your exaggerations about the "northern" reaches of MN. You make it sound like Alaska. Summers are beautiful on the north shore and it is a prime tourism area not only in MN but in the upper Midwest. You make it sound like no one would want to go there as if it was frozen over 12 months (or "vast amonts") a year. It ain't balmy but it also ain't that much different from the southern parts of WI and MN. Spring comes about 2-3 weeks later and fall arrives 2-3 weeks earlier, but inbetween it is lovely. Plus, we had a great vacation skiing at Lutsen - the closest thing to mountain skiing in the midwest. It is far more than being "technically" correct - MN has a lovely shoreline and an international port that is only 2 hours drive from the cities. It is not a technicality nor an after thought.

The northern portions of MN and WI are way colder than the southern portions. The Twin Cities are geographically located further north than our northernmost metro, Green Bay, which itself is 140 miles north of Milwaukee. A couple hundred miles can mean a difference in temperature of 20 degrees or more, which is significant.

Milwaukee has an international port right in the city. WI also has around 100 miles of shoreline along Lake Superior as well as another 400 or so miles of Lake Michigan shoreline.

[Milwaukee City]

MINN has that stupid accent however everyone in GB seems to also have it as well.

[JoshB]

Talking about weather differences. It was supposed 80 in the Twin Cities today. In Duluth it was only supposed to reach 45. It snowed in Minnesota the other day.

[rodhaenke]

Originally Posted by jjacobeclark

The northern portions of MN and WI are way colder than the southern portions. The Twin Cities are geographically located further north than our northernmost metro, Green Bay, which itself is 140 miles north of Milwaukee. A couple hundred miles can mean a difference in temperature of 20 degrees or more, which is significant.

Milwaukee has an international port right in the city. WI also has around 100 miles of shoreline along Lake Superior as well as another 400 or so miles of Lake Michigan shoreline.

Give me a break. GB ain't a metro. It's a small town that has somehow hung on to a NFL team.

There are times when the temp diff between TC and Duluth are significant because of the lake effect. Well, duh, the northern portions of our states are colder. But you don't go the beautiful North Shore of Lake Superior for a Bahama's type beach experience. You go there because of the natural beauty, the hiking, the quaint sea villages....

I'm done with this thread, but I'm disappointed in my WI brothers and sisters. We have two wonderful states that are somewhat similar and somewhat different. I originally tried to just point out some slight nuances.

Good grief. MN has more real lakes by the thousands if you use the same standard of what a lake is.

WI has more hilly geography. I love that about WI!!!

MN has a top 15 metro; WI's only major metro is about #35 or half the size of TC. Yes, Packers won the Super Bowl a few times. But Favre wants to end his career in MN. WI has more Great Lake shoreline, but I'd argue that the North Shore is one of the most beautiful shorelines in the country (right up there with Maine and California) if you are looking for rocky cliffs and waterfalls.

Duluth is a major port. I'm not sure that Milwaukee is.

Where do you think your tourism $$ come from: Chicago and TC. You really should become more informed about your cousins across the state line.

[susancruzs]

This is just one of those "yes, there are differences" and both states have alot to offer, depending on what your wants and needs are!

Green Bay is not the TC's, just like Milwaukee is not Chicago and Chicago not New York, no biggie, you just appreciate each place for the great things they have to offer! If you don't like them and think other places are better so be it. If I'm sold on a place, you probably won't convince me otherwise!

I love visiting Chicago, taking the train, riding the trolleys, visiting different ethnic neighborhoods. I have a friend you'd think would enjoy going to an area connected to his heritage. I couldn't get him in Chicago probably even to save my life but he'll drive 140 miles to Two Rivers. He has his opinion, I cannot change it and don't even try.

[south-to-west]

Originally Posted by rodhaenke

Give me a break. GB ain't a metro. It's a small town that has somehow hung on to a NFL team.

There are times when the temp diff between TC and Duluth are significant because of the lake effect. Well, duh, the northern portions of our states are colder. But you don't go the beautiful North Shore of Lake Superior for a Bahama's type beach experience. You go there because of the natural beauty, the hiking, the quaint sea villages....

I'm done with this thread, but I'm disappointed in my WI brothers and sisters. We have two wonderful states that are somewhat similar and somewhat different. I originally tried to just point out some slight nuances.

Good grief. MN has more real lakes by the thousands if you use the same standard of what a lake is.

WI has more hilly geography. I love that about WI!!!

MN has a top 15 metro; WI's only major metro is about #35 or half the size of TC. Yes, Packers won the Super Bowl a few times. But Favre wants to end his career in MN. WI has more Great Lake shoreline, but I'd argue that the North Shore is one of the most beautiful shorelines in the country (right up there with Maine and California) if you are looking for rocky cliffs and waterfalls.

Duluth is a major port. I'm not sure that Milwaukee is.

Where do you think your tourism $$ come from: Chicago and TC. You really should become more informed about your cousins across the state line.

Yes, they're two wonderful states...it's just one's vastly superior.

If Favre ends up signing with the Viqueens, his legacy will be forever tarnished in Wisconsin and the glow you'll see on the horizon will be huge bonfires of betrayed Packer fans burning Favre jerseys. I love the guy, but if he signs that contract, I'll forever disown him.

East Dakota is not all so bad, I mean I really do like the Twin Cities. The fact that they're somewhat isolated makes them all the more appealing. Growing up in Milwaukee, you didn't think there were too many people living to the north. You can imagine my first time driving through the Northwoods and then happening upon this major metropolis of 3 million people! Insane!

And to the poster that said that neither Milwaukee or the Twin Cities attract international students, foreigners, or artists...you are dead wrong!!! Milwaukee has a thriving arts scene and a newly renovated art museum that is spectacular for a town its size. The Twin Cities on the other hand has an even larger arts scene that's very well renown. They're theater district is among the largest in the country and their live music scene is dynamic and booming. As far as attracting international folks--Milwaukee may not, but the Twin Cities are very, very international and surprisingly cosmopolitan--surprising for a city so isolated.

[jjacobeclark]

Originally Posted by rodhaenke

Give me a break. GB ain't a metro. It's a small town that has somehow hung on to a NFL team.

Green Bay and the Fox Cities are home to roughly 1 million people, which sounds like it's bigger than a "small town" to me.

Originally Posted by rodhaenke

There are times when the temp diff between TC and Duluth are significant because of the lake effect. Well, duh, the northern portions of our states are colder. But you don't go the beautiful North Shore of Lake Superior for a Bahama's type beach experience. You go there because of the natural beauty, the hiking, the quaint sea villages....

You were the one who said "It ain't balmy but it also ain't that much different from the southern parts of WI and MN." I simply pointed out that your statement wasn't accurate.

Originally Posted by rodhaenke

I'm done with this thread, but I'm disappointed in my WI brothers and sisters. We have two wonderful states that are somewhat similar and somewhat different. I originally tried to just point out some slight nuances.

Originally Posted by rodhaenke

Good grief. MN has more real lakes by the thousands if you use the same standard of what a lake is.

WI has more hilly geography. I love that about WI!!!

Wisconsin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wisconsin contains 11,188 square miles (28,977 km²) of water, more than all but three other states (Alaska, Michigan, and Florida).

Originally Posted by rodhaenke

MN has a top 15 metro; WI's only major metro is about #35 or half the size of TC. Yes, Packers won the Super Bowl a few times. But Favre wants to end his career in MN. WI has more Great Lake shoreline, but I'd argue that the North Shore is one of the most beautiful shorelines in the country (right up there with Maine and California) if you are looking for rocky cliffs and waterfalls.

Where are you pulling these numbers from?

Minneapolis-St. Paul 3,538,781

Milwaukee 2,014,032

You seem to be forgetting that Wisconsin shares the exact same Lake Superior coastline as Minnesota.

Originally Posted by rodhaenke

Duluth is a major port. I'm not sure that Milwaukee is.

Twin Ports - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Duluth forms a metropolitan area with Superior, Wisconsin. Called the Twin Ports, these two cities share the Duluth-Superior Harbor and together are one of the most important ports on the Great Lakes, shipping coal, iron ore, and grain. Together, the cities rank as the 19th-busiest port in the country overall (44.2 million short tons per year) as of 2002, though the area is the 7th-busiest port (13.8 million short tons per year) when measured on foreign exports alone.

Originally Posted by rodhaenke

Where do you think your tourism $$ come from: Chicago and TC. You really should become more informed about your cousins across the state line.

Why do you suppose so many people from those states want to come here to begin with?

[jjacobeclark]

Originally Posted by south-to-west

And to the poster that said that neither Milwaukee or the Twin Cities attract international students, foreigners, or artists...you are dead wrong!!! Milwaukee has a thriving arts scene and a newly renovated art museum that is spectacular for a town its size. The Twin Cities on the other hand has an even larger arts scene that's very well renown. They're theater district is among the largest in the country and their live music scene is dynamic and booming. As far as attracting international folks--Milwaukee may not, but the Twin Cities are very, very international and surprisingly cosmopolitan--surprising for a city so isolated.

I never said Milwaukee and Minneapolis didn't "attract international students, foreigners, or artists," so please don't put words in my mouth. I said neither city was cosmopolitan on the level of a city like Moscow, Rome, or Chicago.

I love Milwaukee, but it's definitely not cosmopolitan on the level of NYC, Paris, London, Hong Kong, LA, Berlin, Toronto, Tokyo, Shanghai, or any number of international metropolises, and neither is Minneapolis.

I believe the Twin Cities geographic isolation makes them seem greater than they actually are, I witnessed a similar phenomenon while living in Denver. People in Iowa and the Dakotas are blown away by the Twin Cities because they have never experienced anything remotely urban before, just like people from Wyoming and Kansas were blown away by what Denver had to offer. Being that Greater Milwaukee overlaps with Chicagoland, we have never been allowed to get cocky or pretentious because our accomplishments look so meager when compared to Chicago's. That's what makes Milwaukee so great, it can hold its own with cities like Denver and Minneapolis, all without the douchebag attitude.