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.
Tough call, but I'd go with Minnesota because the Twin Cities rock, the people are friendly, and the culture is unique. Maybe I'm just getting 'home' sick to go back to college because I'm on break now.
Well I live in Wisconsin, have forever, not gonna move, but I would say the twin cities are easily better than Milwaukee. Also we need to stop kidding ourselves and look at a map, its pretty obvious that Minnesota has more lakes, but having said that, the lake country tourist from Minnesota is starting to get up there in as much obnoxiousness as the Illinois tourist, why is that when they got all their own damn in state lakes they could go to instead of ours? Also Minnesota sports fans tend to be real jerks, especially college hockey ones! But yes on their own terms Minnesotans are a friendly bunch and I can see the appeal that would draw someone to the twin cities or the north of Duluth.
Can't remember if I answered this at some point in the past. I'm originally from Minneapolis, and would choose to live there. It's a great city. If I was looking for a smaller town or city, though, I'd probably go with Wisconsin; WI seems to have a nicer selection of smaller cities/big towns than does Minnesota.
State DNR's decide what constitutes a "lake" and what does not qualify. I am unsure if it is by surface area, or volume, but the DNR always decides. Minnesota has a higher standard than does Wisconsin, so there are a lot of "lakes" in Wisconsin that would only be ponds in Minnesota, and vice versa. So, Minnesotans, if a Wisco ever brags about their 15,000 lakes, just tell them that if our DNR used the same standard as their's, we'd have over 22,000!
With that out of the way, I like both Minnesota and Wisconsin, but I think my Minnesota and Chicago sports allegiances would make living anywhere in Wisconsin rather difficult...
I have nice childhood memories of Wisconsin as the "fun" place to go for fairs, field trips, overnight trips with school and family, lakes, cutesy and/or unique shopping, activities, and etc. I'm from Illinois, not Wisconsin, but we spent a lot of time there...I grew up right between Chicago and Milwaukee but Chicago can stay 6 or 8 hours away for all I care about it. People think I was so lucky to have lived so close to Chicago but the older I get the less I agree with that. If I had the chance to move back to the place I grew up I would definitely pick SE Wisconsin.
State DNR's decide what constitutes a "lake" and what does not qualify. I am unsure if it is by surface area, or volume, but the DNR always decides. Minnesota has a higher standard than does Wisconsin, so there are a lot of "lakes" in Wisconsin that would only be ponds in Minnesota, and vice versa. So, Minnesotans, if a Wisco ever brags about their 15,000 lakes, just tell them that if our DNR used the same standard as their's, we'd have over 22,000!
With that out of the way, I like both Minnesota and Wisconsin, but I think my Minnesota and Chicago sports allegiances would make living anywhere in Wisconsin rather difficult...
Perhaps, but Wisconsin has more square miles of water, due to the entire eastern border of the state consisting of Lake Michigan. That's hard to beat.
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.
