Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I personally like Downtown Milwaukee better. Not sure why you think Indy is better, but I respect your opinion.
In the core of downtown Milwaukee, it has never seemed like there was much going on. The Third Ward is great, but it is seperated by the interstate, it feels cut off from the core. Downtown Indianapolis just has more activity, and more stuff to do. That is my opinion though, and at the end of the day, that is all it is and there is no wrong answer.
Chicagoans hate Indy? I've certainly never heard that before. I've gone there once or twice for a random weekend to check it out, but overall no one in Chicago really thinks much about Indy. Certainly not HATE, unless you have a personal reason like your ex is from there or something silly.
Who really cares that much about where the superbowl is held anyway? If it's in your city that's great, but for 90% of the people watching it's really meaningless. I never think about it while the game is on except for a vague recognition. If Chicago's mayor wants to make a statement that he'd like to get the superbowl in Chicago - then good for him. Isn't that what mayors do? Try to get stuff for their city? It's just a comment, who knows what will happen. It's not like an army is invading NFL headquarters or people are losing sleep about this...
is it right next to the loop or do i have to walk 3-4 miles?
Indianapolis everything is concentrated in 1 square mile.
plus does chicago have the infrastructure to handle the massive crowds from the loop to stadium/convention center? probably not.
Plus Chicago HAS to copy Indy's standards now the NFL says so.
So you would need a Super Bowl Village maybe a few ziplines.
the loop is already crowded and has alot of people.
Indianapolis's downtown can absorb the influx of people.
Indianapolis everything is concentrated in 1 square mile.
The loop to Solider Field is 2 miles or so, even if you had to walk a 3-4 miles is it the end of the world?
plus does chicago have the infrastructure to handle the massive crowds from the loop to stadium/convention center? probably not.
This doesn't make any sense, Chicago has millions of tourists a year plus locals and handles people not only going to Solider Field but Wrigley Field, Us Cellular, tourist destinations, etc. There is the EL, buses, taxis, etc so yeah I say the city is pretty equipped. I guess when your city has tons of locals and tourists a like its going to be crowded, but you make it sound like a bad thing. If the loop was deserted during the day in the summer, then we would have a problem.
Your logic makes no sense. You make your city attempt to sound better by just attacking Chicago. To me it sounds like you wish Indy had what Chicago has and are just a bit jealous. The fact of the matter is Chicago is on a whole other level then Indy, get used to it. Yes there is violence and no we haven't hosted a superbowl but who cares honestly. Can I say since we host the Chicago Auto Show we are better then Indy then? There are pros and cons to both cities, then again that goes with any city.
This is what larger, more prominent cities don't always understand. It's not that big of a deal to a city like New York, Chicago, Miami or maybe even New Orleans, but to a cities like Indianapolis it was proof that the city's long effort (and I mean decades) to improve its appearance and infrastructure was a success. Against hard odds, Indy got the Super Bowl so they worked hard, and poured a lot of money into it. Let 'em gloat a little.
If Chicago gets the Super Bowl, then best of luck to them.
I would like to visit Milwaukee--not for the beer, but I hear it has lots of nice old buildings. My favorite.
This is what larger, more prominent cities don't always understand. It's not that big of a deal to a city like New York, Chicago, Miami or maybe even New Orleans, but to a cities like Indianapolis it was proof that the city's long effort (and I mean decades) to improve its appearance and infrastructure was a success. Against hard odds, Indy got the Super Bowl so they worked hard, and poured a lot of money into it. Let 'em gloat a little.
If Chicago gets the Super Bowl, then best of luck to them.
I would like to visit Milwaukee--not for the beer, but I hear it has lots of nice old buildings. My favorite.
Detroit/Milwaukee/Indianapolis alot of midwestern cities have alot of historical buildings which is nice
Charlotte, NC Had historical buildings. but sadly their city decides to demolish most of them downtown in favor of new structures.
All cities need to have history otherwise it gives the city a bland taste. other cities should learn from Charlotte's mistake of killing off most its history.
Heck Charlotte is older than Indy/Chicago and maybe even Detroit.
So can we all agree that Chicago and Indy ain't got no beef and should go fly fishing and drink some brewskies and then frolic through a colossal metaphysical field of daisies set to "Wouldn't it be nice" off the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds???
kid...nobody takes you seriously...even on the Indy boards. The stabbing was not lollapalooza related. Lollapalooza, C3 and the City all work together fantastically to make this destination festival happen every year and for years to come. When the storm hit Saturday, they evacuated approximately 90,000 people from the park in less than an hour and successfully re-admitted them when the storm passed. The city and the promoters of the festival were very pleased how it was all handled. you make yourself look horrible with your incoherent ramblings and pathetic attempts at insult.
If you take Lake Michigan away, Chicago probably never becomes the mega city it is today. Chicago never grows into the 2nd largest city in the country and as a result, never gains the perceived disadvantage of road traffic. Why? Because Chicago never becomes Chicago without the lake. It becomes, Indianapolis. In that scenario, St. Louis probably becomes the flagship of the Midwest and the entire premise of this thread is moot. Who knows who St. Louis would choose to hate. I bet Kansas City. Or the small lakeless Chicago.
Hypothetically, if we removed Lake Michigan of course.
Actually, it's kind of interesting. Yes-- it has to do with the lake, but I read something (I think it was "Gunboats of the Mississippi"-- all about the demise of river boat traffic and rise of rail traffic. Lincoln was an attorney for one of the big rail companies) about Chicago's position, and it posited, why not Milwaukee?
Reason is pretty simple. Not only is Chicago on the lake, opening up the St. Lawrence River and by default the Atlantic to shipping, and not only is it one of the furthest inland ports on the lake, but it is also the furthest south. It is at the very base of the lake, so rail companies could lay track into Chicago without having to get off track by going north to, say, Milwaukee if Chicago never existed.
That and the canal, of course. But I'm getting myself sidetracked...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
