Possible relocation to Milwaukee or Kansas City MO (neighborhoods, school)
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 am familiar with both cities. I was born in Milwaukee and spent my childhood there. I have gone back to visit over the years. My brother lives in Kansas City (Overland Park).
I would pick Kansas City. The winters in Milwaukee are brutal. KC is one of the fastest growing cities in the Midwest. Milwaukee has little or no growth just like the rest of the rust belt.
I'm not concerned with "growth"- which usually leads to bigger crowds, more traffic, and more Mcmansion subdivisions. But I'd choose Kansas City simply for the much more bearable winters.
I'm not concerned with "growth"- which usually leads to bigger crowds, more traffic, and more Mcmansion subdivisions. But I'd choose Kansas City simply for the much more bearable winters.
Kansas City's growth is very spread out. In some ways, it feels less crowded than Milwaukee.
KC is more suburban with more of those McMansions. Milwaukee holds on to it's early-20th century roots quite well. It is a very nice town, overall.
KC has more stuff, more amenities. Punches well above it's weight there.
Milwaukee seems more livable. More bearable, but that just boils down to personal preference.
Milwaukee doesn't seem to resent Chicago, at least not to any great degree. There is far more resentment between the Kansas and Missouri sides of Kansas City than there is between those two Lake Michigan cities.
Milwaukee is more outdoors-oriented overall with the cooler weather actually making that sort of thing more inviting. Kansas City can be brutal in the summer and wild in the spring with storms.
They both have good suburban schools, but I'd prefer Milwaukee's culture to grow up in.
I like both cities for very different reasons. If I were in the OP's position, I'd go with Milwaukee.
These overall shots of Milwaukee vs. KC, are part of the main reason, I would choose Milwaukee over Chicago. It's called a coast of water...the entire eastern border of WI, is Lake Michigan.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mi...!4d-87.9064736 On the map, you can see Kenosha. It used to be a part of Milwaukee's MSA, but now, it's a part of Chicago's MSA. That's how the two cities meet. You can live in WI, and still be a part of Chicago's MSA, yet be closer to Milwaukee. Along Lake Michigan, it's developed all the way from Milwaukee to Chicago. The suburbs make it seamless, from city to city.
AND, even though someone is trying to paint the proximity to Chicago as a negative, that's the farthest thing from the truth. Chicago is a quick train ride away for a day of shopping. Lincoln, NE is KC's nearest city. I would feel isolated in KC, but that might be, just me.
I am familiar with both cities. I was born in Milwaukee and spent my childhood there. I have gone back to visit over the years. My brother lives in Kansas City (Overland Park).
I would pick Kansas City. The winters in Milwaukee are brutal. KC is one of the fastest growing cities in the Midwest. Milwaukee has little or no growth just like the rest of the rust belt.
I have no doubt the winter in Milwaukee is worse than Kansas City’s, but it’s not like KC isn’t brutal as well. I’ve watched many Chiefs games over the years where it looked absolutely miserable out in December and January.
I’ll never understand the growth argument. Why is growth so important? Why can’t a place have little to no growth and not still be a great place? Growth just leads to more headaches, at least that’s been my experience with it.
I’d go with Milwaukee all day in this one. I found it to be a cool city the one time I was there many years ago. I don’t know how much it has changed in the last 25 years, but I can only imagine it’s gotten better? It’s location on Lake Michigan being the biggest factor. Being close to Chicago is just the icing on the cake.
Thank you everyone for your input. It is interesting to see what everyone thinks of the two cities. I have never been to Kansas City before but I am getting the vibe that it is kind of like the DFW area although on a smaller scale. The one thing that is slightly off putting is that the area does seem kind of isolated. That may or may not be an issue though depending on amenities.
As a kid I grew up in a Chicago area suburb and would go to the city often. I’ve been to Milwaukee quite a few times as we would pass through to vacation in Door County WI. Most of my memories of the area are from when I was a kid so I’m sure it’s changed some! I like the idea of being able to give my kids the opportunity to experience Lake Michigan and the proximity to Chicago.
One of the reasons we moved away from Texas was due to the weather. However we do miss the conveniences that the DFW area had as the Dayton area is very limited.
I am familiar with both cities. I was born in Milwaukee and spent my childhood there. I have gone back to visit over the years. My brother lives in Kansas City (Overland Park).
I would pick Kansas City. The winters in Milwaukee are brutal. KC is one of the fastest growing cities in the Midwest. Milwaukee has little or no growth just like the rest of the rust belt.
Brutal winters in Milwaukee? Not so much anymore with warming winters overall. KC has a much more brutal summer with little relief compared to the near constantly pleasant summer temperatures In Milwaukee. True, KC is growing somewhat faster in percentage terms, but that really is a function of younger population age demographics. The fastest two growing metro areas in the Midwest in percentage terms are Des Moines and Sioux Falls, SD.
I'm not concerned with "growth"- which usually leads to bigger crowds, more traffic, and more Mcmansion subdivisions. But I'd choose Kansas City simply for the much more bearable winters.
Milwaukee actually has four very distinct seasons. KC just has more weather extremes with horrid summer temperatures.
The winter might surprise you. Winter seems just as long in Kansas City. Milwaukee stays cold enough that it always snows. In KC you get 31-degree ice-storms, and they are worse. KC, the ground is under continuous snow cover for a good three months.
Winters are definitely worse in Milwaukee.... but the amenities and location with regards to other major metros (Chicago/Madison/Minneapolis) is definitely far and away better than KC, which is very isolated. And of course... you have a beautiful lake right there. KC is landlocked.
I'd definitely say KC's individual economy is stronger, but MKE is no slouch, and when you couple it with Chicago and Madison's economy to the south and west..... there's no contest, it's better in that regard.
Milwaukee is a nicer city and Wisconsin is a better state.
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.
