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.
Well, cows make cheese! I think it was meant as an insult, and "cows" seemed more hick than "cheese" (which is so delicious it cannot be made into a negative unless you wear it on your head). Regardless, people living in Milwaukee's East Side see as many cows as someone in Manhattan.
I'm sorry, but the ballet and 3rd run plays and the orchestra are available in every metro across the country, and have been for over 100 years, housed in various sized buildings. Remember Greek culture? Boy, they were something a few thousand years ago. But how is that relevant to Greece's standing in the modern world? The cities where new, cutting edge arts are created are more cultured, period. Paying money to see an opera has zero bearing on how cultured you are, literally any human can do that. Creating works of art that are influential to new artists who flock to the area to take part in a movement is enhancing culture. I don't know why this would be a contentious issue at all - it's pretty clear.
Creativity is not associated with the endless reproduction of established ideas:
cre·a·tiv·i·ty /ˌkrēāˈtivitē/
Noun
The use of the imagination or original ideas, esp. in the production of an artistic work.
^So are you prepared to say that Rome, London, Prague, Paris are not as cultured as say, Seattle or Houston? There is a difference between having culture, and being cutting edge. Culture has more to do with the aesthetically pleasing, empathy producing, mind opening things that are incorporated into the fabric of a place. Besides, cutting edge art can come from anywhere. Ever hear of George Ohr? He grew up in rural mississippi, yet produced some of the best, most original pottery in the world, and is internationally acclaimed.
Sure, artists can exist everywhere. In some cities, however, they exist in much higher concentrations. In some of those "scenes," there are more brilliant and influential artists. It's just the way it is. And Columbus has the highest concentration of these people in the state of Ohio. Columbus is a destination for artists in a way that Cleveland and Cincy are not.
Yup. Cleveland isn't bad, like you said, bands do hit Cleveland. Cincy is generally skipped. This sort of thing happens in waves (especially in college cities), but Columbus has pretty consistently been a hotspot for many years.
Wouldn't this be because there are a hunge number of young Cincy folk in Columbus for school as opposed to vice versa....and that they really aren't too far from one another. Similarly, I could see certain types of bands skipping Milwaukee for Madison for the same reason, you'll get plenty of young Milwaukeans in the crowd????
Well, cows make cheese! I think it was meant as an insult, and "cows" seemed more hick than "cheese" (which is so delicious it cannot be made into a negative unless you wear it on your head). Regardless, people living in Milwaukee's East Side see as many cows as someone in Manhattan.
fair enough. It's humorous either way!
Quote:
Originally Posted by CowsAndBeer
I'm sorry, but the ballet and 3rd run plays and the orchestra are available in every metro across the country, and have been for over 100 years, housed in various sized buildings. Remember Greek culture? Boy, they were something a few thousand years ago. But how is that relevant to Greece's standing in the modern world? The cities where new, cutting edge arts are created are more cultured, period. Paying money to see an opera has zero bearing on how cultured you are, literally any human can do that. Creating works of art that are influential to new artists who flock to the area to take part in a movement is enhancing culture. I don't know why this would be a contentious issue at all - it's pretty clear.
Creativity is not associated with the endless reproduction of established ideas:
cre·a·tiv·i·ty /ˌkrēāˈtivitē/
Noun
The use of the imagination or original ideas, esp. in the production of an artistic work.
You're all over the place so I'm not sure how to respond to this. My first thought is that I'm talking about the quality and not the mere availability of the fine arts in Cleveland. The first-rate orchestra, the international piano competition, the museum, the opera company and all the great stuff coming out of CIM. As for Greek culture, what has that got to do 1) with this discussion 2) with the point that they should be on top in the modern world. Great arts, as we're all too aware, doesn't necessarily follow the money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CowsAndBeer
Paying money to see an opera has zero bearing on how cultured you are, literally any human can do that. Creating works of art that are influential to new artists who flock to the area to take part in a movement is enhancing culture. I don't know why this would be a contentious issue at all - it's pretty clear.
Creativity is not associated with the endless reproduction of established ideas:
cre·a·tiv·i·ty /ˌkrēāˈtivitē/
Noun
The use of the imagination or original ideas, esp. in the production of an artistic work.
I would agree with most of this. How exactly does it negate Cleveland's artistic offerings? I don't follow you.
I also get the sense (though I may be making an incorrect assumption here) you are suggesting that recent art from the past 5 years is somehow more significant than art from the past 500 years, despite the fact that the latter has and continues to have greater influence. I mean it would be difficult to find an emerging artist in any medium who has spent more time studying their contemporaries than they have studying people and works from the past.
Okay, I've read the whole thread and I'm going to choose to ignore much of the conversation and just answer the OP's Question.
I've been car-free for 8+ years now, spending 6 years in Milwaukee, 2+ in Cincinnati and taking dozens of car-free trips to Cleveland. Here are my observations.
Milwaukee is the best city for bicycling, fairly walkable, and has the worst public transit BY FAR. Still, I managed to commute from Marquette to UWM for 5 years on rt 30 without regularly checking a schedule. Milwaukee is a great city for getting drunk in. Nightlife is a big ole party. People drink cheap beer and lots of it. Dating is easy because people are really sociable. You'll make tons of connections right away. Also of note, is Milwaukee's connectivity to Chicago. It's VERY easy to take the train down to the Loop for the night and have fun there.
Cleveland is the best city for transit, decently walkable (but probably the worst of the 3), and lacks the bicycling infrastructure but is relatively flat with wide streets. I've biked from Shaker Square to Rocky River without a problem. Nightlife in Cleveland is great. All sorts of options. People don't get wasted every night. Conversations are easy to start, but Clevelanders have a hard edge beneath the surface. It's never been a problem, but it's just something I've noticed.
Cincinnati is BY FAR the best city for walking. The streets are VERY engaging and everything is close together. Transit is effective in the city, but often unnecessary. I've walked from Northern Kentucky to Clifton Heights numerous times and it's always lively and engaging. The city is very old and has a relaxed, old-world feeling to it. Nightlife is generally not the party atmosphere. People enjoy quality beer and cocktails. Fine arts are the best in Cincinnati (in general...Cleveland has a better orchestra and Milwaukee has better theater) and you'll find a lot of artistically minded people. Speaking of people, Cincinnati is by far the hardest city of the three to start a conversation at a bar in. People are very reserved here...but as a result the friendships formed tend to be deeper.
My vote is Cincinnati, but it really depends on what you're hoping to gain. There are all fine cities to live car-free in.
Okay, I've read the whole thread and I'm going to choose to ignore much of the conversation and just answer the OP's Question.
I've been car-free for 8+ years now, spending 6 years in Milwaukee, 2+ in Cincinnati and taking dozens of car-free trips to Cleveland. Here are my observations.
Milwaukee is the best city for bicycling, fairly walkable, and has the worst public transit BY FAR. Still, I managed to commute from Marquette to UWM for 5 years on rt 30 without regularly checking a schedule. Milwaukee is a great city for getting drunk in. Nightlife is a big ole party. People drink cheap beer and lots of it. Dating is easy because people are really sociable. You'll make tons of connections right away. Also of note, is Milwaukee's connectivity to Chicago. It's VERY easy to take the train down to the Loop for the night and have fun there.
Cleveland is the best city for transit, decently walkable (but probably the worst of the 3), and lacks the bicycling infrastructure but is relatively flat with wide streets. I've biked from Shaker Square to Rocky River without a problem. Nightlife in Cleveland is great. All sorts of options. People don't get wasted every night. Conversations are easy to start, but Clevelanders have a hard edge beneath the surface. It's never been a problem, but it's just something I've noticed.
Cincinnati is BY FAR the best city for walking. The streets are VERY engaging and everything is close together. Transit is effective in the city, but often unnecessary. I've walked from Northern Kentucky to Clifton Heights numerous times and it's always lively and engaging. The city is very old and has a relaxed, old-world feeling to it. Nightlife is generally not the party atmosphere. People enjoy quality beer and cocktails. Fine arts are the best in Cincinnati (in general...Cleveland has a better orchestra and Milwaukee has better theater) and you'll find a lot of artistically minded people. Speaking of people, Cincinnati is by far the hardest city of the three to start a conversation at a bar in. People are very reserved here...but as a result the friendships formed tend to be deeper.
My vote is Cincinnati, but it really depends on what you're hoping to gain. There are all fine cities to live car-free in.
Interesting observations. Can't say I agree with everything you said, but your post is well thought out.
Sure, artists can exist everywhere. In some cities, however, they exist in much higher concentrations. In some of those "scenes," there are more brilliant and influential artists. It's just the way it is. And Columbus has the highest concentration of these people in the state of Ohio. Columbus is a destination for artists in a way that Cleveland and Cincy are not.
Every single one of your post are laughable. I don't know anyone that will take you serious on city data f you keep talking this way.
I think Cleveland is probably the best city on a stand alone basis, but Milwaukee's easy access to the greater Chicagoland area would probably cause me to pick it.
I think Cleveland is probably the best city on a stand alone basis, but Milwaukee's easy access to the greater Chicagoland area would probably cause me to pick it.
The only reason I would pick Milwaukee is for Chicago.
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.
