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.
More people live in the Pittsburgh metropolitan area. Pittsburgh has a light rail system, Pittsburgh's neighborhoods have more to offer, and Pittsburgh has taken advantage of its riverfronts. Pittsburgh has a diverse economy, and great universities to go with it. All just my opinion with a little fact.
So basically, what you are saying is that Milwaukee is not much to sniff at without Chicago being nearby. I have never heard people pimp another city as a reason to live in their city as Milwaukee people. If people wanted Chicago well then they would move to Chicago then, wouldn't they?
But if we are going by the what is nearby route, then DC Baltimore and Cleveland are all within a 3 hour drive. Even closer than Philly. You can day trip at these cities or go for weekend trips if you really wanted to.
Saying that West Virginia being nearby as a negative? Laughable really. Its similar to Denver having the rockies nearby, a couple hour drive to beautiful scenery, great skiing, awesome white water rafting, ect. WV gets a bad rap, but it's no different that many southern states in its social makeup, plus hardly anyone lives there anyway. I guess Atlanta sucks because it's isolated in the middle of the neocon, backwards, banjo playin south right?
Speaking of provincial, your comments make it sound like you've never left Milwaukee or the Midwest.
Its 20-30 minute drive from Denver to the rockies....
Not similar to DC or Seattle by metropolitan population though. Pittsburgh's metro population is about a half million larger than Milwaukee's.
Less in city proper + more in metro = Sprawl & Suburbia.
Less in metro + More in city proper = Density & Walk-ability.
Milwaukee wins this one by a nose, both are good cities, but Milwaukee has the East Side & Third Ward. Great for a truly urban living experience... Pittsburgh just can't match that... but it is close.
Someone mentioned Pittsburgh using its rivers and natural beauty... have you guys seen the river-walks in Milwaukee, and the gorgeous lake front as well?
IMO Milwaukee has done a great job of developing their natural spaces and waterfront.
Less in city proper + more in metro = Sprawl & Suburbia.
Less in metro + More in city proper = Density & Walk-ability.
Municipal boundaries don't necessarily determine density and walkabilty. Which do you think is more walkable -- Phoenix, or White Plains NY? Pittsburgh is another case in point. There are Pittsburgh suburbs as dense as 14,000 per square mile. That's higher than the average density of the city of Chicago, never mind Milwaukee. By and large, the first ring of suburbs is as much a part of the city fabric as the city neighborhoods they border; you literally can't tell where the city proper stops and the suburbs begin. In fact many residents and businesses of these suburbs use Pittsburgh as their mailing address.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xander_Crews
Someone mentioned Pittsburgh using its rivers and natural beauty... have you guys seen the river-walks in Milwaukee, and the gorgeous lake front as well?
IMO Milwaukee has done a great job of developing their natural spaces and waterfront.
This one's not even close. The natural setting in Pittsburgh is much more dramatic because many of the riverfront bluffs and other hills/ravines throughout the city are so steep that it's impractical to develop them. The net result is that Milwaukee's natural features are much more shaped by man to suit man's needs while Pittsburgh is more integrated into its natural environment -- in short, Milwaukee shaped its landscape while in Pittsburgh the landscape shaped the city.
Both are nice places, and although I don't really want to live in either city, I'd take Milwaukee over Pittsburgh. I spent a weekend in both cities last summer, and Pittsburgh seemed a bit more sleepy and quiet, while Milwaukee seemed to be more alive with more things going on. Pittsburgh is more structurally dense with more interesting housing and architecture, but Milwaukee seemed to be more vibrant. Both are scenic with Pittsburgh's hills and rivers and Milwaukee's lakefront, but Pittsburgh is more scenic overall. Pittsburgh is cleaner and has a better climate, so I think Pittsburgh would be a better city overall for raising a family. Milwaukee seemed to be more up and coming, so I think Milwaukee would be a better city overall for young people. Milwaukee also benefits from being 90 minutes from Chicago, which makes it very easy for someone to visit on a whim whenever they want to. Pittsburgh isn't isolated, but it doesn't have anywhere near that sort of access to a huge city.
Municipal boundaries don't necessarily determine density and walkabilty. Which do you think is more walkable -- Phoenix, or White Plains NY? Pittsburgh is another case in point. There are Pittsburgh suburbs as dense as 14,000 per square mile. That's higher than the average density of the city of Chicago, never mind Milwaukee. By and large, the first ring of suburbs is as much a part of the city fabric as the city neighborhoods they border; you literally can't tell where the city proper stops and the suburbs begin. In fact many residents and businesses of these suburbs use Pittsburgh as their mailing address.
This one's not even close. The natural setting in Pittsburgh is much more dramatic because many of the riverfront bluffs and other hills/ravines throughout the city are so steep that it's impractical to develop them. The net result is that Milwaukee's natural features are much more shaped by man to suit man's needs while Pittsburgh is more integrated into its natural environment -- in short, Milwaukee shaped its landscape while in Pittsburgh the landscape shaped the city.
Even if a suburb is dense, that does not mean that it is easy to walk downtown, it just means a lot of people live in the area. Suburban communities are not my Idea of a night on the town.
A dense city core on the other hand is much more beneficial to urban living, having the nightlife right outside your doorstep, as opposed to a bunch of people living tightly packed in the suburbs... they are still the suburbs.
You can talk all day about how much you like bluffs and ravines, but that by no means makes them superior in natural beauty... Wisconsin may be flatter, but it has lush forests, and soooo much green.
A lot of people think the Rocky Mountains have intrinsic natural beauty, while others hate how brown it looks. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, this applies to natural beauty as well. Milwaukee's development of the natural area makes it more accessible and they did a wonderful job.
I for one, love the Savannah of the mid-west, and Milwaukee mates that with the forests of the upper mid-west, yes Pittsburgh looks nice, but it is not intrinsically "better" than MKE. Again, it is all in the eyes of the beholder, to say Milwaukee doesn't come close is your opinion, but plenty of people feel the opposite way... one opinion is no more right than another.
Again I am not knocking Pittsburgh, I like the place, but in my opinion it is slightly behind Milwaukee as a city.
Even if a suburb is dense, that does not mean that it is easy to walk downtown, it just means a lot of people live in the area. Suburban communities are not my Idea of a night on the town.
A dense city core on the other hand is much more beneficial to urban living, having the nightlife right outside your doorstep, as opposed to a bunch of people living tightly packed in the suburbs... they are still the suburbs.
Several of Pittsburgh's suburbs are closer to nightlife districts than most of Milwaukee is to the East End and Third Ward. There are also several districts scattered throughout the city so nightlife is more accessible to more people.
Quote:
You can talk all day about how much you like bluffs and ravines, but that by no means makes them superior in natural beauty... Wisconsin may be flatter, but it has lush forests, and soooo much green.
Eh -- I thought this was a Pittsburgh versus Milwaukee thread? I can tell you that if it's Green you want, Pittsburgh has more of it, by far. But if you want to go the state-versus-state route, Wisconsin would be hard-pressed to win a green/forest contest against Pennsylvania.
Quote:
A lot of people think the Rocky Mountains have intrinsic natural beauty, while others hate how brown it looks. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, this applies to natural beauty as well. Milwaukee's development of the natural area makes it more accessible and they did a wonderful job.
"Development of the natural area" is an oxymoron. It's been completely re-made to suit the city's needs -- that's not a natural area, that's an artificial landscape. About 98% of Milwaukee's "natural beauty" got plowed under and paved over. That didn't happen in Pittsburgh because they just plain couldn't.
Quote:
I for one, love the Savannah of the mid-west, and Milwaukee mates that with the forests of the upper mid-west, yes Pittsburgh looks nice, but it is not intrinsically "better" than MKE. Again, it is all in the eyes of the beholder, to say Milwaukee doesn't come close is your opinion, but plenty of people feel the opposite way... one opinion is no more right than another.
Again I am not knocking Pittsburgh, I like the place, but in my opinion it is slightly behind Milwaukee as a city.
That's fine and all but I have to wonder how well you know Pittsburgh and the surrounding area if you believe Milwaukee's higher population within the city limits somehow makes it more urban or walkable. Much of Milwaukee's neighborhoods are more suburban in form and function than many of Pittsburgh's suburbs. One of Pittsburgh's entertainment districts is Regent Square. You may be walking from shop to shop without knowing whether you're actually still in Pittsburgh or if you've wandered into Edgewood. That's how woven into the urban fabric many of Pittsburgh's suburbs are; they are more so than many of Milwaukee's neighborhoods.
Several of Pittsburgh's suburbs are closer to nightlife districts than most of Milwaukee is to the East End and Third Ward. There are also several districts scattered throughout the city so nightlife is more accessible to more people.
Eh -- I thought this was a Pittsburgh versus Milwaukee thread? I can tell you that if it's Green you want, Pittsburgh has more of it, by far. But if you want to go the state-versus-state route, Wisconsin would be hard-pressed to win a green/forest contest against Pennsylvania.
"Development of the natural area" is an oxymoron. It's been completely re-made to suit the city's needs -- that's not a natural area, that's an artificial landscape. About 98% of Milwaukee's "natural beauty" got plowed under and paved over. That didn't happen in Pittsburgh because they just plain couldn't.
That's fine and all but I have to wonder how well you know Pittsburgh and the surrounding area if you believe Milwaukee's higher population within the city limits somehow makes it more urban or walkable. Much of Milwaukee's neighborhoods are more suburban in form and function than many of Pittsburgh's suburbs. One of Pittsburgh's entertainment districts is Regent Square. You may be walking from shop to shop without knowing whether you're actually still in Pittsburgh or if you've wandered into Edgewood. That's how woven into the urban fabric many of Pittsburgh's suburbs are; they are more so than many of Milwaukee's neighborhoods.
I mentioned Wisconsin since that is where Milwaukee is located, and the landscape is not primarily Milwaukee's, but Wisconsin's, Milwaukee just happens to be located there. You say that Pittsburgh is more green, but it isn't, they are very close in that respect, my point was that some prefer bluffs and such, some prefer rolling hills, some prefer flat. And that all three are equally attractive, again, eyes of the beholder.
Developing natural areas is not an oxymoron, believe it or not, man and nature can live in harmony, also natural areas can live in harmony with urban areas...
Lets use the river-walk as an example, the river is natural, yet they developed the banks to make it more accessible. (You can have coffee at a table essentially on the river, without trekking through woods, or getting mud on your shoes.)
If Developed areas can't exist in harmony with nature, you will have to explain downtown Portland to me.
You are comparing suburb living to city living, albeit that the suburbs are close to the city, they are not the city. This is city vs city, not city vs suburb. Milwaukee also has more of a vibrant vibe to it's downtown at night, not just in certain districts... this is my opinion and what I have notice personally.
I also find it funny that you throw so much support behind the hills of Pit, yet you wont acknowledge the natural beauty of Milwaukee, does the awe inspiring lake not count? Beautiful waterfront not count?
This is all a matter of opinion, You have yours, I have mine, there is no reason to bicker.
All I am saying, is after staying in both, if I was moving to either because I wanted city living and an urban vibe, I would choose Milwaukee, because that vibe is slightly stronger there than Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh is great in its own respects, its rowhomes are beautiful, but it is simply a slightly lesser place than Milwaukee in terms of urban living.
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.
