Will Milwaukee ever get over its "inferiority complex"? (Madison: crime rate, how much)

[thequon]

As a transplanted Wisconsinite, I still follow Milwaukee news with regularity. It still seems the city is living under the shadow of Chicago and the politics have not progressed.

While smaller cities are building light-rail mass transit systems, the Milwaukee metro is mired in city v.s. suburban politics. Milwaukee has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the country and a dismal public school system. The city failed to build a sufficient size convention center to attract conventions. The Bucks play in one of the most outdated national arenas and attempts to attract an MLS team have been a complete failure.

Milwaukee is a great town that has many unique cultural features you wont find anywhere else in the country, but its small minded political attitudes keep Milwaukee from becoming world class.

My question is: does anyone else feel Milwaukee suffers from an inferiority complex? What can and should Milwaukee do about this problem to turn around the city?

[Nuclear_Art]

Originally Posted by thequon

As a transplanted Wisconsinite, I still follow Milwaukee news with regularity. It still seems the city is living under the shadow of Chicago and the politics have not progressed.

While smaller cities are building light-rail mass transit systems, the Milwaukee metro is mired in city v.s. suburban politics. Milwaukee has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the country and a dismal public school system. The city failed to build a sufficient size convention center to attract conventions. The Bucks play in one of the most outdated national arenas and attempts to attract an MLS team have been a complete failure.

Milwaukee is a great town that has many unique cultural features you wont find anywhere else in the country, but its small minded political attitudes keep Milwaukee from becoming world class.

My question is: does anyone else feel Milwaukee suffers from an inferiority complex? What can and should Milwaukee do about this problem to turn around the city?

Inferiority complex? About the only thing I agree with in your post is that the city is mired in city vs suburban politics. Everything else is just the stuff of urban legends. I'm curious where you get these ideas as I do hear them from time to time but they are out of touch with the realities of Milwaukee.

[EnjoyEP]

Wow...you cover actually several topics - I am not sure all of them relate to one another or your general point about Milwaukee having an inferiority complex, however, I will add my thoughts to your post.

First...your big/general point:

Originally Posted by thequon

My question is: does anyone else feel Milwaukee suffers from an inferiority complex?

Absolutely. I am a native Milwaukeean...lived in the SW for a few years...now am back with my young family (for an undecided time period). Milwaukee(ans) absolutely do - in very general terms - have an inferiority complex. I think this stems from many different items. I would relate some to these as contributors:

--The Chicago factor, although I think overall this is overblown as a reason why Milwaukee has an inferiority complex. Yes, we live in the geographic shadow of Chicago, however, I don't know if that really plays nearly as large a part in the Milwaukee inferiority complex as many think it does.

--Many, many metro Milwaukeeans are very non-transient. They are born, raised, and die here, and have roots quite deep here. Thus, their relationship to their home metro area is much more passionate in general than - oh, say a place like Phoenix where many have no roots to the area.

Thus, I find many almost have a subconscious fear to try to ever realistically consider living in another area/city...doing such, after all, would cut away their proverbial safety net (of being close to the roots of friends and family) and the safety net is their main reason of living here; they are afraid that they might indeed see that other regions offer quite positive aspects of living there (dare I say, perhaps even better aspects as it would relate to their likes and interests?). Thus, they spur and shun other cities/regions and poo-poo them, however, that then in turn kind of embitters them about the negatives of this region (the long winters being a classic example).

--Milwaukee doesn't have a great (it isn't really bad either) national reputation. Most around the nation have little knowledge of Milwaukee other than beer, "fat people"/brats, Laverne & Shirley/the Fonz. It is painted nationally - if painted at all - as a kind of stodgy, ultra-blue collar, backwards hick-like town. (When in reality, the folks that actually do make it up here to visit usually really like it). But thus, then, Milwaukeeans always have to listen to these either a) forgotten about opinions of the city in the media, or worse, b) the negative/well-outdated stereotypes. It wears on the psyche after awhile.

Or, the person that has relatives / business associates from out of town, etc., that would say, "you live in Milwaukee? Isn't snow on the ground 10 months out of the year there?" or "Milwaukee...isn't that just like 'Laverne & Shirley'?" This breeds the inferiority. It doesn't help Milwaukee being located in a far upper midwest state which leads to few travelers passing through it (unlike, say Denver, where even if you are not traveling to Denver, you often may pass through it on your way somewhere else, and get to see how nice a place Denver may be).

--Milwaukee's lack of a "niche". Milwaukee was a manufacturing town, however, that business climate is obviously changed in today's era. Milwaukee has yet to really hit its "niche" beyond the beer town niche. Chicago is a dominant US city. The Twin Cities have a good white collar/corporate-headquarters type of niche. The Bay Area region has the high-tech type niche.

Milwaukee is struggling to still find its new identity as it relates to the local economy or its niche. Certainly, the tax structure here is hurting the efforts, and thus, the news isn't always thrilling locally. This is another potential demoralizing aspect (eg: we aren't constantly hearing good, positive news about our city). Even the positive economic news (say, if a wealthy person donates quite a bit of $$ to a local university), it is usually tempered with comments like, "sure, the city isn't doing as great as it used to, but we think it can someday again"...it just, while probably realistic, paints a picture to locals that their city/region isn't on fire.

--Let's be honest. The "hot spots" in the nation are the Sunbelt, Florida, Texas, the Rocky Mountain west, and the Pac Northwest - and California / the East Coast area always common "hot spots" in the US relatively. The upper Midwest / rustbelt, outside of Chicago and the Twin Cities, just isn't perceived nationally as "sexy". This breeds more resentment on locals' parts.

--Milwaukeean's general personality as a city. It is - in very general terms - very down-to-earth, blunt, blue collar, etc. We don't "sell" or city/metro well nationally. We often are our own worst critics and often times are hardest on our metro area. This doesn't help things.

I could go on. There are many reasons for the inferiority complexes here - probably many reasons beyond what I cited - however yes, Milwaukee - at least for the past number or decades - has had a big inferiority complex historically, and I imagine it will likely continue.

Originally Posted by thequon

What can and should Milwaukee do about this problem to turn around the city?

I don't know if a general inferiority complex is a "problem" per se. It just is what it is. However, I would encourage residents of our area to: a) be much more positive and self-promoting about the good aspects of why they live in this area. Example: Nationally, instead of bemoaning our winters, note that our winters are no different than Chicago's (this gets folks to understand...they might not know about Milwaukee, but they'll know about Chicago) - and while that is long and cold - that our summers are some of the best in the entire US. Another example: Note that while we do not have mountains or 300+ days of sunshine, we have a gorgeous Great Lakefront setting and some of the most beautiful lakes, rivers, and bodies of water you'll find outside of the East and West coasts.

As for turning around the city, I don't know if I agree with that. I think the city / metro area is doing quite well for itself. Surely there is much that needs to be done (personally I think three key aspects are: 1) slashing the tax rates in the area to give much more of a financial incentive to live - or more importantly - do business here, 2) completely reverse the political nature locally of being somewhat anti-business and really embrace business, and 3) become Rudy Guiliani-NYC-esque in terms of being very aggressive and no-nonsense against any and all criminal behavior).

However, one only needs to see the amazingly great things happening Downtown, the Third Ward, the East Side, Riverwest, much of the Southside, to realize that this city is alive and well and doing quite well for itself.

Now...as for your other points...

Originally Posted by thequon

the politics have not progressed.

Agreed (but probably not for the same reasons you would cite). To me, the absurdly high tax rates are scaring off residents, contributing to brain drain of new graduates, and most importantly - scaring off any prospective businesses. The "big government" mentality of the region is one of its own worst enemies. Perceived corruption (such as the pension scandal) is another major issue, although that is seemingly an issue in most cities/states, sadly. We need Mayors/Police Chiefs also that are ready to get extremely aggressive and no-nonsense on crime.

Originally Posted by thequon

While smaller cities are building light-rail mass transit systems,

I cannot adequately state how opposed I am to building light-rail just for perception. I am not anti-light rail. However, there needs to be a real demand from the community to properly do it / make it not a financial scourge. Milwaukee just doesn't have the traffic problems - or enough population - or enough of anything to justify the ultra-expensive light-rail initiative. Businesses are not moving here not because of a lack of light-rail, they are moving here because taxes are too high. Increasing taxes to build light-rail surely wouldn't help.

There is this current national perception that cities should build light rail to be sexy, to keep up with the Joneses, etc., however, Buffalo, NY squandered 1/2-a-billion dollars building a really nice light-rail system, and now it is very underused. There just wasn't the demand there.

Denver is a good example of a city where light rail is an appropriate measure. Milwaukee just isn't there, and doing something like light rail here would actually be more counter-productive than productive.

It is all about supply and demand - the basic economic principle. As much as light rail lovers would like to change it (tear down freeways, build a pricey light rail system and create / force the demand by creating the supply), there really needs to be a demand from the public (which there really just isn't in metro Milwaukee) that would force the supply (light rail) to make it fiscally and operationally vital and successful.

Originally Posted by thequon

the Milwaukee metro is mired in city v.s. suburban politics. Milwaukee has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the country and a dismal public school system. The city failed to build a sufficient size convention center to attract conventions.

Agreed with all of these points and statements. These are all valid problems in the metro. Especially the absurd teen pregnancy rate (which is really a scourge on the whole populace), the woeful MPS system (yes, there are some exceptions, but overall MPS is a joke). The convention center is overall a very nice building and is aesthetically pleasing but should have been built bigger - again, another good example of not being forward thinking in terms of being pro-business.

Originally Posted by thequon

The Bucks play in one of the most outdated national arenas

You are dead-one right about this one. I could go on for pages about this...maybe that is a separate post! ...however, this is a huge issue that Milwaukee must face. Even those that hate sports/pro sports/the NBA, etc., do not realize how especially vital and important pro sports are to a city, especially to a city like Milwaukee. You take the Bucks or Brewers away from Milwaukee and we become perilously close in national perception to a Tulsa or a Louisville...just another mid-sized town with very little national attention (in a city that needs that attention for reasons stated above any way it can get it). I am not a big fan of symphony or theater, but I realize how important they are to Milwaukee.

It is just going to be tough. The Miller Park tax was extremely hard to get past the public, and the Brewers are more popular than the Bucks. Plus, with that tax being very recent, this town already well overtaxed, and this not being an affluent metro area, it'll be a nearly impossible sell to build a new arena. Yet, one is desperately needed. It is true that the Bradley Center was built somewhat recently and is still a nice building (adding to the tough sell), however, it was built mis-fortunately just previous to the era of the revenue-driving modern arena and thus is, as silly as it can sound, out of date. Also, the one big mistake in building the Bradley Center besides it ill-fated timing was building it geared towards hockey / a possible NHL team. Obviously the NHL never came here, and even if it had, the NBA is far more important a league for a city to have than the NHL in its weak/non-relevant state.

Originally Posted by thequon

and attempts to attract an MLS team have been a complete failure.

This is a non-issue to the discussion. Sure, maybe to local soccer fans this would be a nice addition, but truly, in the grand scheme of things to a city, there are three pro sports leagues that mean anything economically and viability-wise: the MLB, NFL, and NBA (and secondarily, mainstream NCAA sports - men's bball and football).

Wow, that was a book of a reply...I agree with much of what you say, disagree with quite a bit too, but you bring up good talking points.

[Milwaukee Ronnie]

Originally Posted by thequon

My question is: does anyone else feel Milwaukee suffers from an inferiority complex? What can and should Milwaukee do about this problem to turn around the city?

The inferiority complex has been as much a part of Milwaukee as Lake Michigan and the Brewers. It's always there, lurking under the surface of just about any serious political discussion in this city. We know all about the great strides Milwaukee has made in some areas, but we are always aware of the miles we have yet to go in other areas. We accentuate the negative and downplay the positive. We highlight in our own minds, and in our discussions with others that don't live here, all of the problems we have, as if they are insurmountable, and is if we are the only city that has these problems.

This inferiority complex is due to two factors: our Midwestern location and our proximity to Chicago. I have come to believe that every large Midwestern city has some form of an inferiority complex. Yes, this includes mighty Chicago, who, despite their status as a world capital, is always measuring itself against New York. Midwestern cities are always feeling judged, looked down upon, forgotten by our supposedly more sophisticated brethern on the coasts. We're always sensitive about being branded as "flyover country," and we're convinced that if only build the next big stadium, art museum or mega-mall, then, at long last, we will measure up as a city.

This feeling of inferiority shared by most Midwestern cities is ten times in worse in Milwaukee, because we're an hour train ride away from the urban center of the Midwest, America's Second City, and an undisputed rising star on the global stage. Once upon a time, Milwaukee and Chicago were about even with each other in the struggle for dominance in the Midwest. But the railroads came, Chicago had the natural advantage, and it's been a one-sided rivalry ever since. We once were competitors, us and Chicago, and they won, we lost. This feeling of being on the losing end of the proposition infects Milwaukee's mindset.

The dark side of the Milwaukee mindset holds that our problems are unsolvable, ours and ours alone, and anyone from the "outside" will never understand us. Of course, this is complete baloney. Our problems are daunting, but solvable. No matter how much we overlook it, almost every big city in the country struggles with a poor educational system, crime and poverty in the central city, and broken race relations.

There is an upside to our mindset, however. We don't follow national trends very much. As EnjoyEP has pointed out, it has become the Thing to Do for midsized cities to sink millions into train systems because that's the "sexy" thing to do. We haven't done this in Milwaukee. Many of us here point to our failure to put together a train system as evidence of our failure as a city. I read it differently. I think we have taken a look at our own situation, and, enough people have concluded that it makes more sense, for Milwaukee, to invest in expanding our bus system (one of the most comprehensive in the US) to serve more people better than to sink millions into a sexy train that will get "hip" East Siders downtown a little faster than a bus. We've gone for substance over the glamor.

Another case in which we didn't follow the crowd was in the renovation of the Pabst Brewery. We were asked to publically support turning the old Pabst Brewery into an entertainment center full of national chains. The rationale behind this was that it would draw more people to the City, because, well, lots of other cities had similar entertainment centers. We said, "no," and there was the usual Milwaukee hand-wringing about how turning this plan down was Milwaukee lacking "vision." I read it differently. I think we turned the plan down because we looked at our own situation, realized that this Pabst project was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and figured that we had better do it right the first time, and go for something beyond the usual cookie cutter development. And guess what. Now a new Pabst development is taking shape, one involving a mix of uses, a real neighborhood, job training. And in the end, we will thank ourselves for holding out for something better than a House of Blues and Sega Game Works.

[remixedkitty]

Well milwakee has 8.42% people aged 0-4 that is 2 points above us average. That means alot of people being born into poverty. that also could be the teen preg. rate as well. the rest of the bracket from 5-9 is 8.01 and the 10-14 is 8.01 as well. Alot of kids in this city. Not good since the crime rate is very high. 24% are under the age of 15!

[Globe199]

I don't know if it's a complex. It may be for good reason. Growing up in Eau Claire, we'd travel to Milwaukee once a year for Brewers games. My early memory of the city is that there was really no reason to be there. Couldn't say why, it's just how I felt.

Well, we visited this year for the first time in six years. It was really the first time in my life I'd dug deep into the city. We stayed for several days and did tons of driving around, checking out bars, restaurants, nightlife, campuses, the lake, etc. Also the second time I'd been to Miller Park, which is awesome (though I still prefer County Stadium, but that's another argument!).

I was not impressed. The city really has problems. One night in the hotel whilst my wife slept, I did some reading up on Wikipedia. Turns out Milwaukee's salad days were long ago -- it's seen a steady decline in population since the 1960s. Race problems and crime are huge in this city. The parks, mostly deserted, are a disaster: mothballed buildings, overgrown grass and weeds, dirty beaches, etc. The roads are totally awful. I can't tell you how many potholes we drove thru. And I thought the roads in the Twin Cities were bad. We did find some nice areas, but almost none of them were in the city. The Shorewood and Whitefish(folks) Bay area is nice, along the lake. Nice beaches there, but most of the property is private.

It's hard to believe that its proximity to Chicago has a lot to do with the problems, but maybe it really does. Although Chicago isn't really that nice either. It's got a great downtown, but the rest of the city isn't much different from Milwaukee. And they've got pisspoor schools too.

Our visit to Milwaukee was moderately fun, but for one time in my life, I actually appreciated where I live (Twin Cities). There was value in that.

[Empidonax]

Originally Posted by Globe199

I don't know if it's a complex. It may be for good reason. Growing up in Eau Claire, we'd travel to Milwaukee once a year for Brewers games. My early memory of the city is that there was really no reason to be there. Couldn't say why, it's just how I felt.

Well, we visited this year for the first time in six years. It was really the first time in my life I'd dug deep into the city. We stayed for several days and did tons of driving around, checking out bars, restaurants, nightlife, campuses, the lake, etc. Also the second time I'd been to Miller Park, which is awesome (though I still prefer County Stadium, but that's another argument!).

I was not impressed. The city really has problems. One night in the hotel whilst my wife slept, I did some reading up on Wikipedia. Turns out Milwaukee's salad days were long ago -- it's seen a steady decline in population since the 1960s. Race problems and crime are huge in this city. The parks, mostly deserted, are a disaster: mothballed buildings, overgrown grass and weeds, dirty beaches, etc. The roads are totally awful. I can't tell you how many potholes we drove thru. And I thought the roads in the Twin Cities were bad. We did find some nice areas, but almost none of them were in the city. The Shorewood and Whitefish(folks) Bay area is nice, along the lake. Nice beaches there, but most of the property is private.

It's true that the population has generally declined over the decades (though there's been a slight resurgence in the city's population lately), and it's true that crime stats are higher and deterioration has taken hold of an increasing number of neighborhoods and parks. But at least from what I've been told, Milwaukee has come a long way since the 1980s and early 1990s. This is not to say that the city's current problems aren't significant, but that there has been a successful attempt in certain parts of the city to revitalize the city and reverse some of the negative trends. Milwaukee still has a lot of work to do, especially in the face of some very overwhelming fiscal and demographic challenges, but it is trying.

It may be true that Minneapolis-St. Paul is overall more prosperous and well-tended, but that's probably because the metro has been able to position itself as a regional economic leader (for Minnesota and surrounding areas) and maintain that status; the only real rivalry there, that I'm aware of, is between the twin cities themselves. Also, Mpls and its metro benefit from the presence of Minnesota's state government and the flagship university.

Milwaukee, on the other hand, has been able to position itself as the main economic force for the state of Wisconsin, but that force fades as one nears Chicago or Mpls. As Milwaukee Ronnie pointed out, Chicago's ascent eclipsed Milwaukee's development. The Mpls area did not have to deal with such a situation.

Also, Wisconsin's state government and flagship university are based in Madison, about 90 miles away from Milwaukee. If these institutions had been situated within the state's most economically powerful city, we would be talking about a very different Milwaukee (and a very different Madison) today. Whereas Minnesota's power centers are highly concentrated in the Mpls area, Wisconsin's power centers are diffuse. This scenario, I believe, has hurt both Milwaukee and Madison to a large extent.

But in any case, Milwaukee is trying to surmount these and other obstacles by reinventing itself on the basis of its strengths. Many parts of the city are very walkable, so efforts are being made to promote the revitalization of neighborhoods that draw from this kind of landscape. Though the parks have generally seen better days, most are doing just fine, and many serve as connectors between neighborhoods. Perhaps the city in general has a grittier feel to it than Mpls and more prosperous places, but that's a legacy of the city's manufacturing past. But I suppose that if you don't like that sort of thing, then you probably wouldn't like similar cityscape features in Chicago, Pittsburgh, or Buffalo, either.

It's hard to believe that its proximity to Chicago has a lot to do with the problems, but maybe it really does. Although Chicago isn't really that nice either. It's got a great downtown, but the rest of the city isn't much different from Milwaukee. And they've got pisspoor schools too.

It depends on your aesthetic sensibilities, I suppose. I like many parts of Chicago for the same reason I like many parts of Milwaukee--there's a constant contrast, perhaps even a dialogue, between the old and the new, the rusty and the polished, the steel-girded and the chrome-plated. I grew up in California where this kind of aesthetic is not nearly as common; my world as a child was "new construction" and tidy ranch houses. But I've taken to the "Great Lakes" style of city---to me, cities like Milwaukee are all about texture, layers of history, not unlike complex geological formations. Sure, I'd like for many places here to be spruced up, but I don't want the past erased, either.

But potholes--well, that's an entirely other matter! Even Shorewood, a prosperous suburb here, has yet to fill an obnoxious pothole on the westbound lane of Capitol, at the intersection with Oakland Ave.!

Our visit to Milwaukee was moderately fun, but for one time in my life, I actually appreciated where I live (Twin Cities). There was value in that.

I hope to visit Mpls someday; it seems like an interesting place. I just hope that it hasn't erased its past in efforts look like any other city, and I hope that it's able to continue grappling successfully with its own problems of urban decay.

[Milwaukee Ronnie]

Originally Posted by Globe199

I don't know if it's a complex. It may be for good reason.

So, you're saying that Milwaukee doesn't just feel inferior. It actually is inferior.

Obviously I disagree with you, as would plenty of other people, but I really see no need to take the time to construct a counter-arguement. For some reason I feel that it would be like trying to argue with a brick wall. Moreover, the topic is about the inferiority complex, not whether or not Milwaukee actually measures up to other cities on various indicators. Feel free to start a seperate thread bashing Milwaukee, but I won't take part in that discussion.

Also, I actually find Chicago's neighborhoods (outside of the downtown) to be the best part of the Windy City. Downtown Chicago is exciting, vibrant, all of that, but my most memorable times spent down there have been in the many interesting, multi-textured neighborhoods that really make up the heart and soul of that city.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by thequon

As a transplanted Wisconsinite, I still follow Milwaukee news with regularity. It still seems the city is living under the shadow of Chicago and the politics have not progressed.

While smaller cities are building light-rail mass transit systems, the Milwaukee metro is mired in city v.s. suburban politics. Milwaukee has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the country and a dismal public school system. The city failed to build a sufficient size convention center to attract conventions. The Bucks play in one of the most outdated national arenas and attempts to attract an MLS team have been a complete failure.

Milwaukee is a great town that has many unique cultural features you wont find anywhere else in the country, but its small minded political attitudes keep Milwaukee from becoming world class.

My question is: does anyone else feel Milwaukee suffers from an inferiority complex? What can and should Milwaukee do about this problem to turn around the city?

I feel for Milwaukee's sake. With that said, it's not the only city. The so-called world class city of Atlanta has a similar problem. No cooperation between the suburbs and the city. Atlanta's public transportation system is abysmal at best. MARTA is a complete nightmare because the suburban areas don't want it due to "crime" coming in. The only thing going for Atlanta is the job opportunities and we do have good arenas for sports. However, I do understand because Atlanta is similar. It has an inferiority complex in a sense but it tries to pretend and make itself look good. The same city that had the 1996 Olympics has a piece of crap light-rail system. To me, Milwaukee has no pretentions. Atlanta is pretentious and it can afford to be that way. People from all over the world want to live near Atlanta Why else do we have on of the world's busiest airports(Hartsfield-Jackson International)? Atlanta uses all of that to "look" good while it fails to be world class in so many ways. That is the difference. Chicago has a busy airport and a much better transit system. Chicago has it's bad parts, but it is a world class city more so than Atlanta. In fact, Chicago should have the Olympics.

[EnjoyEP]

Originally Posted by Globe199

I don't know if it's a complex. It may be for good reason. Growing up in Eau Claire, we'd travel to Milwaukee once a year for Brewers games. My early memory of the city is that there was really no reason to be there. Couldn't say why, it's just how I felt.

I know you are stating this just as your honest opinion, and we surely are all entitled to do that so I respect that. However, I would feel the same way about going to Eau Claire (no reason to be there)...I think it is important to bear that in mind - with several Fortune 500 companies HQ'd here (for work), Lake Michigan (for boating, swimming, recreation), major league sports (Bucks and Brewers) and university sports (Marquette and recently UWM), great universities like UWM and Marquette, great restaurants, symphony, theaters, history, architecture, diversity, good beer, art, etc., many people have the opinion that there are quite a few reasons to be in Milwaukee!

Originally Posted by Globe199

One night in the hotel whilst my wife slept, I did some reading up on Wikipedia. Turns out Milwaukee's salad days were long ago -- it's seen a steady decline in population since the 1960s.

It is true that the city's population has declined since the '60s when it was up to like the 10th largest city in the US, part of that is part of the national trend of all northern, rust belt cities - note that the suburbs here are growing quite a bit (also part of a national trend).

But truly, the big thing I have a problem with here is that you are admitting to get quite a bit of information from Wikipedia! I cannot believe how many people believe information as authority from Wikipedia. Anyone - ANYONE - can add information, change information, delete information, add opinions as information, etc., to Wikipedia at any time. If I wanted to go in to Wikipedia right now and edit the Milwaukee page to say that "this city in a colossal boom period that is unrivaled in the US", blah, blah, blah, I could, and people would read it as factual info. Just a big word of warning - Wikipedia is what it is, and should be not taken as more than public opinion.

Originally Posted by Globe199

Race problems and crime are huge in this city.

With all due respect, what is your source for this? You note you just visited for a few days for the first time in six years. I couldn't even begin to tell you what race relations are like in Minneapolis even though I am a fairly regular visitor...I don't think that is something that can be stated if you've only recently visited the city for a few days and read Wikipedia.

Originally Posted by Globe199

The parks, mostly deserted, are a disaster: mothballed buildings, overgrown grass and weeds, dirty beaches, etc.

What??! Come on now. The parks are a great attribute of Milwaukee County. We have one of the nicest public golf course systems in our Milwaukee County parks. What are your examples of Milwaukee County parks being a "disaster"??

"Mothballed buildings"??? Sure, there are some in the bad parts of the city, but name a city that doesn't have some sketchier areas like this.

"Overgrown grass and weeds"?? "Dirty beaches"?? It seems like you might have spent a disproportionate time in the very worst sections of Milwaukee and not throughout the many booming, great parts of Milwaukee?

Originally Posted by Globe199

It's hard to believe that its proximity to Chicago has a lot to do with the problems, but maybe it really does. Although Chicago isn't really that nice either. It's got a great downtown, but the rest of the city isn't much different from Milwaukee. And they've got pisspoor schools too.

Our visit to Milwaukee was moderately fun, but for one time in my life, I actually appreciated where I live (Twin Cities). There was value in that.

Well, I just couldn't disagree with most of your observations more. We are all entitled to our own opinions, so I respect that, it just seems like some of these are such gross misrepresentations if not factual in the least. I am glad you enjoy the Twin Cities, I personally think they are nice too. I guess I actually far prefer Milwaukee to the TC - I prefer our more temperate weather than the TC's (cooler summers and warmer winters), being situated on a large body of water for the lakefront experience, having a metro of 1.7 million v. 3+ million for more manageable amenities, having less sprawl and traffic to contend with, more park space, etc. I guess it is good to have different strokes for different folks.