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.
Lol, you never fail to respond when someone might prefer Detroit over Cleveland. It comes in across as very thin skinned and condescending.
I think it is a fair question to ask. What does Detroit offer that Cleveland doesn't?
I'm trying to think of something and outside of more people, I don't have an answer. Best I can come up with would be if you include Ann Arbor with Detroit (which I don't have an issue with) then you can say University of Michigan. At the same time, wouldn't University of Michigan's closest match (as a public, flagship, land grant institution) in Illinois be University Illinois Urbana-Champaign, which isn't in Chicago? Though I know Northwestern and University of Chicago are there and highly regarded, but both are private universities
I don't know enough about Milwaukee, but I imagine it also has most, if not all, the big city amenities Detroit does. Milwaukee, btw, would get my vote for what is being asked anyway. Plus, I didn't didn't take this thread as which Midwest metro would you prefer if not Chicago, but more of which one is a mini-version. Milwaukee and the SE Wisconsin coast areas along Lake Michigan always struck me as basically an extension of Chicagoland.
It reminds me of flat colder versions of Pittsburgh and Cleveland. I served two years in Pittsburgh before I escaped. All I heard when mentioning how cold it was for so long was 'if you it's bad here Chicago is colder longer' . Sold me to never consider living there.
I would lean toward Milwaukee as the feeling the most like a smaller Chicago.
Milwaukee- the river, the lakefront setting, the walk-able neighborhoods on the north along the lake. Really the main thing that makes it feel different is it's smaller size.
Detroit- the Midwest's other major metropolis. It offers more big city amenities than other Great Lake cities: all 4 major pro-sports teams, a major international airport, a large MSA. Birmingham and Royal Oak can feel like Chicago's walk-able suburbs. The primary way it differs is that Detroit although improving really has a very decayed urban core without a lot of the walkability you would expect in a big city. In an alternate history, Detroit should rank along side Chicago, Boston and Philly as a grand old urban center.
Cleveland- Milwaukee feels more like Chicago than Cleveland does. But, Cleveland has a bigger city feel (despite being smaller and less dense in the city itself) on a great lake. It has renowned cultural institutions, skyscrapers, major educational/health and streetcar suburbs that make it feel like a grander city than Milwaukee. Parts of Cleveland and Lakewood can seem like less dense versions of Chicago lakefront neighborhoods. The topography is hillier than the other Great Lakes cities and the city feels little more dis-invested than Milwaukee.
Less so- St. Louis- it arguably has the best architecture of the cities listed. It has the Missouri River/Illinois River system link to Chicago. It is renowned for its Pizza and Jazz. Overall, I would say it feels culturally a little different with its slightly southern influence. Minneapolis- this is probably the least like Chicago. It frankly reminds more more of Denver than it does other Midwestern cities. But, it has the most vibrant economy outside Chicago. It is also the most functionally urban with walk able vibrant neighborhoods and a vibrant downtown.If you are looking for a traditional urban big city experience, Minneapolis is probably your best bet in the midwest after Chicago.
With regard to Milwaukee there are a few other similarities - demographically I can’t think of any city proper that is more similar to Chicago. Both cities saw similar migration patterns from Europe and later Latin America. There are a few differences (i.e. Chinese, Japanese (historical), Indian migration to Chicago has been and is currently much more significant than in Milwaukee, which saw more Hmong migration). But both cities saw fairly significant German, Polish, Italian, Mexican, Puerto Rican and Eastern European immigration which is still reflected in the cultural fabric of each city.
Also, Milwaukee is no slouch when it comes to museums - it’s actually a fairly impressive array for a city of its size. Milwaukee also has a lakefront culture similar to Chicago in terms of recreational activities.
Some Milwaukee suburbs remind me of Chicago suburbs and like Chicagoland, the Milwaukee metro has cities, towns, and villages.
Of course, none of this is to say other cities don’t share some of these similarities with Chicago, but overall I can’t really think of one that shares even more than Milwaukee.
I would lean toward Milwaukee as the feeling the most like a smaller Chicago.
Milwaukee- the river, the lakefront setting, the walk-able neighborhoods on the north along the lake. Really the main thing that makes it feel different is it's smaller size.
Detroit- the Midwest's other major metropolis. It offers more big city amenities than other Great Lake cities: all 4 major pro-sports teams, a major international airport, a large MSA. Birmingham and Royal Oak can feel like Chicago's walk-able suburbs. The primary way it differs is that Detroit although improving really has a very decayed urban core without a lot of the walkability you would expect in a big city. In an alternate history, Detroit should rank along side Chicago, Boston and Philly as a grand old urban center.
Cleveland- Milwaukee feels more like Chicago than Cleveland does. But, Cleveland has a bigger city feel (despite being smaller and less dense in the city itself) on a great lake. It has renowned cultural institutions, skyscrapers, major educational/health and streetcar suburbs that make it feel like a grander city than Milwaukee. Parts of Cleveland and Lakewood can seem like less dense versions of Chicago lakefront neighborhoods. The topography is hillier than the other Great Lakes cities and the city feels little more dis-invested than Milwaukee.
Less so- St. Louis- it arguably has the best architecture of the cities listed. It has the Missouri River/Illinois River system link to Chicago. It is renowned for its Pizza and Jazz. Overall, I would say it feels culturally a little different with its slightly southern influence. Minneapolis- this is probably the least like Chicago. It frankly reminds more more of Denver than it does other Midwestern cities. But, it has the most vibrant economy outside Chicago. It is also the most functionally urban with walk able vibrant neighborhoods and a vibrant downtown.If you are looking for a traditional urban big city experience, Minneapolis is probably your best bet in the midwest after Chicago.
Good analysis. I would vote for Milwaukee, too. Downtown, esp near the Milwaukee River, and the Lower East Side are very Chicago-ish. The river area downtown is almost an exact replica -- just shorter buildings. Also, I gather ethnically there are a lot of similarities between the 2 cities.
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.
