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.
"The Golden operation, founded by Adolph Coors in 1873, is today the largest single-site brewery in the world. The Golden facility can brew up to 22 million barrels and package up to 16 million barrels annually. "
"The Golden operation, founded by Adolph Coors in 1873, is today the largest single-site brewery in the world. The Golden facility can brew up to 22 million barrels and package up to 16 million barrels annually. "
can brew up to 22million barrels? what does that mean...does it do that or it doesnt?
can brew up to 22million barrels? what does that mean...does it do that or it doesnt?
Let's see, I've provided two sources that says Golden, CO is home to the largest single-site brewery in the world, while you haven't managed to provided a single source that says "St. Louis has the largest beer factory in the world." LOL, who says beer factory anyways?
Anheuser-Busch produces more beer overall than MillerCoors, but not at a single location. What's so difficult to understand about that? If you would have taken 2 minutes to read the links I provided, then you could have saved yourself from looking so foolish.
The big difference between the two are their locations in the Midwest. Milwaukee is a Great Lakes city, and St. Louis is a river city. St. Louis is more like Kansas City, Indianapolis, Columbus, and Cincinnati while Milwaukee is more like Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland and the Twin Cities. It's the Lower Midwest compared to the Upper Midwest. The Upper Midwest has some Canadian influences while the lower Midwest has some Southern influences. Both these cities, however, have far more similarities than differences.
i am going to disagree with you here. objectively speaking, i find st. louis to be much, much more like detroit, chicago, cleveland and milwaukee than it is like indianapolis, kansas city or columbus. this has more to do with age, history and development more than with geography. indy, kc, col are all much younger, less industrial cities. st. louis does have a few southern traits, but overall it is much more northern in flavor than anything else. st. louis also has a lot in common with eastern cities such as baltimore, philadephia and pittsburgh, moreso than just about any city in the midwest, simply due to its age.
milwaukee may have a higher city population, but that means nothing. jacksonville has a higher city population than boston and seattle, for comparison. st louis is a much more substantial urban center than milwaukee in just about every quantifiable measure. milwaukee is a great town and a lot of fun, but st. louis is a more complete package. the urban neighborhoods in st. louis are unsurpassed by any midwest city save for chicago. that's not really debatable.
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.
never been to a beerpong tournament? 
