Minneapolis v. Milwaukee v. Detroit v. WNY (crime, compared, America)
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.
Thanks to all who have explained their reasoning, and offered pro-tips, for other possible destinations. Milwaukee seems to be pulling away in the poll. Could people post their reasoning? It's the city I know the least about.
Milwaukee has affordability, lots of parks and Lake Michigan waterfront. You can find walkable areas. It's close to Chicago for a bigger city but Milwaukee has plenty to do.
I think if you want to raise a family in a city St Paul is probably the best option. There are lakes and rivers and parks, city services are pretty good. Might be a bit pricier than Milwaukee but being able to send your kids to public school would more than make up for it.
^Minnesota and Wisconsin have Open Enrollment as well. So, as long as you can get your child to school and there is space, they can go to school anywhere.
I believe that Michigan has something similar with Schools of Choice.
With the NY areas, there are multiple options within city limits to the point that charter schools in both Buffalo and Rochester essentially form another district. https://enrollbuffalocharters.org/
With Buffalo, public district and charter schools participate in this scholarship program(same program is in Syracuse): https://sayyesbuffalo.org/
Also, with those 2 NY cities, they are small enough in terms of land size(Buffalo at 40 square miles and Rochester at just under 36 square miles), living in a first ring suburb still allows you to be close to city amenities and can offer walkability or even good public transit options. Places like Kenmore(a top 100 population dense municipality nationally) and Eggertsville(has access to Metro Rail) in the Buffalo area, as well as Brighton(a top 10 SD in Upstate NY historically) and Irondequoit(particularly West Irondequoit) in the Rochester area are some examples that come to mind.
Buffalo and Rochester probably have the best access to rugged terrain. They aren't exactly close, but they are closest to real mountains. You can easily get their for the weekend. Plus, they have big gorges (Niagara, Zoar Valley, Letchworth, High Tor, Stoney Brook) and the Appalachian foothills (Bristol Hills, Allegany State Park) within 90 min from the cities.
I would choose Western Upstate NY for sure. I would perhaps even encourage you to expand a bit east to include Syracuse in this. I am not sure about health care there, but ckhthankgod lives in suburban Syracuse (I think) and is our forum's Syracuse expert. I only visited Syracuse once (to tour the university), but the city left me with a positive impression.
Housing is very reasonably-priced in Buffalo, Rochester, or Syracuse. You have urban walkable neighborhoods that are generally safe in all three cities. All three cities have real winters and are within an hour's drive of great hiking areas. You may even want to consider a city like Batavia that is near to both Rochester or Buffalo or a city like Geneva that is near to both Rochester or Syracuse.
As a gay male I am considering Upstate NY as a "refugee" because our GOP gubernatorial candidate here in purple Pennsylvania wants to push to overturn same-sex marriage if elected. Upstate NY's cities are up my alley---lots of snow in the winter; walkable neighborhoods; lots of tree-lined streets; generally good health care; reasonable housing prices.
I voted Milwaukee.
It managed to hold together better than most rustbelt cities, economically speaking. Even though its population is down from its peak, Milwaukee doesn't feel abandoned at all. Some rustbelt towns have half the population than at their peak, but that's not the case here. MKE must have been extremely dense pre-1950.
It is and feels a good bit bigger than Buffalo, at least from my experience. For public schools I'd at least stick with inner-ring suburbs which often feel like just another part of the city.
The parks are nice and it has a good collection of museums and amenities.
The housing stock is pretty cool.
Chicago is also right there if that's your thing.
The weather isn't as extreme as Minneapolis.
In my opinion, Wisconsin >>> New York. More politically balanced. More people get their say.
It's one of the better states for outdoor recreation that doesn't have real mountains. Some areas remind me of parts of the Ozarks in terms of topography.
The state spends a lot of money and resources keeping up state parks and recreational trails. It's pretty extensive.
Detroit is cool, but my goodness it still has a ways to go. It has some redeeming qualities and some really nice suburbs, but the vibe I get is to let someone more adventurous take that on.
Some place in western Michigan might be worth a look.
The Twin Cities are fine. Definitely bigger and/or more robust feeling than the others. A notch more upscale too. It's not my thing (anymore), but they can still be quite nice and impressive in some ways.
Minnesota is another good one for outdoor recreation especially when winter sports are thrown in.
I voted Milwaukee.
It managed to hold together better than most rustbelt cities, economically speaking. Even though its population is down from its peak, Milwaukee doesn't feel abandoned at all. Some rustbelt towns have half the population than at their peak, but that's not the case here. MKE must have been extremely dense pre-1950.
It is and feels a good bit bigger than Buffalo, at least from my experience. For public schools I'd at least stick with inner-ring suburbs which often feel like just another part of the city.
The parks are nice and it has a good collection of museums and amenities.
The housing stock is pretty cool.
Chicago is also right there if that's your thing.
The weather isn't as extreme as Minneapolis.
In my opinion, Wisconsin >>> New York. More politically balanced. More people get their say.
It's one of the better states for outdoor recreation that doesn't have real mountains. Some areas remind me of parts of the Ozarks in terms of topography.
The state spends a lot of money and resources keeping up state parks and recreational trails. It's pretty extensive.
Detroit is cool, but my goodness it still has a ways to go. It has some redeeming qualities and some really nice suburbs, but the vibe I get is to let someone more adventurous take that on.
Some place in western Michigan might be worth a look.
The Twin Cities are fine. Definitely bigger and/or more robust feeling than the others. A notch more upscale too. It's not my thing (anymore), but they can still be quite nice and impressive in some ways.
Minnesota is another good one for outdoor recreation especially when winter sports are thrown in.
If the choice ends up Milwaukee area, Shorewood can be had at $350k. Wauwatosa maybe even slightly lower. Great schools, nice areas, and both should check the walkability requirement.
You’d probably get the most bang for your buck in Milwaukee. Minneapolis/ St. Paul will probably have the most to offer considering it’s size but will be more expensive than all others on the list. Detroit, although making strides to get better you’d probably be best looking in the suburbs. WNY has the best access to scenic walks and hikes….
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.
