Better of the two in all the things that count.

Milwaukee wins livability, but Detroit is...fucking huge.

LOL plz.....

Much love to Milwaukee but Detroit is in a whole different league.

Agree. Milwaukee doesn't have as much urban decay, but Detroit is a big shot. Not only that, but Detroit has got its influence in the music industry--hip-hop, motown, and Electronica!

Maybe i should have made this a Milwaukee vs Buffalo Thread. They both have roughly the same metro size.

Detroit clearly has the better skyline and is clearly the larger economic and cultural powerhouse, but I still have to vote for Milwaukee only because the culture and lifestyle of that city are very close to my heart.

Comparing Milwuakee and Detroit is like comparing Providence and Boston.

You can't unseat one of the Top 3 of the Midwest.

what exactly is the criteria here? Culture? Size? Liviability? Either way, I'll take the less depressed of the two cities, Milwaukee.

If we're talking about potential and lifestyle then of course Milwaukee, Detroit has no contest.

Potential?! Detroit has so much more potential considering the incredible amount of things it lost. It was one of the big American cultural centers, and still maintains high ranking there.

Detroit, for the simple idea that it probably will always be the underdog in any comparison when in fact it is probably better than what most think.

In my opinion, I would think Milwaukee would have an overall better feel, just because it is smaller and is doing very well, whereas Detroit has suffered more and is larger, and therefore has more to fix. In all fairness, Detroit is the "greater" of the two cities and is coming out of its slump more significanly than Milwaukee. The reason I say this is because it DID suffer more.

How is Detroit coming out of its slump more significantly than Milwaukee?

you smell CG5 and so does milwaukee

Yay another pointless vs thread for a pathetic forum.

well pope...you...smell worse! So there!!


Citylover, have another lemon.

well uh......you guys are just upset your comerica-look-a-like isn't as cool as ours!

thbbbt! (in the spirit of bill the cat)

Seems to be a silly comparison.

I choose the city where I am least likely to get murdered, Milwaukee.

That Johnson-Burgee thing in your skyline is a rip-off of our building! Check the completion dates, fool!

^we just made it better

just like we did to the westin peachtree in atlanta too!

You HO! I'm gonna go tell the Atlantans about this thread, and you're gonna GET IT!

noooo!

not the atlantanians!

I vote for Kankakee.

Detroit, for the simple idea that it probably will always be the underdog in any comparison when in fact it is probably better than what most think.

Detroit probably will always be looked down upon even if it becomes successful because of its lingering but not entirely unfounded bad reputation.
Nevertheless, if the issue here is potential for being a successful city Detroit definitly has the advantage. I feel that Milwaukee, fantastic and unique as it is, will always be economically overshadowed by Chicago. Whereas Detroit is a more stand alone city that could build itself back up if it just finds itself a niche in the national economy.

As far as the current state of affairs go I stand by my vote for Milwaukee. :)

I'd be really curious how many of the people voting for Milwaukee on this poll have been to both cities and actually "know" them. Honestly now.....

It's very tiring when u have people constantly saying your city is shit. Those of us who know Detroit know that these people have no credibility at all. Ignorance is one ugly characteristic. If you don't know anything, don't say anything! It's just noise and uneducated noise at that. I've never been to San Diego....... Guess what, I'm not gonna comment on it then and hope that others think I somehow know something about it. ANYBODY who says Milwaukee has ANY edge over Detroit overall is kidding themselves and those of us that know both cities very well can see rite thru that.

I live in dwntwn Detroit and I've visited Milwaukee 10-15 times over the years. I love urbanity and history. Both cities have their positives and negatives but this comparison is just idiotic. Cut out the best half of Detroit and maybe then there'd be some sort of true debate.



***Kinda funny too..... I've lived in the Detroit area for most of my life and dwntwn for 4 years and have never been attacked (gasp) or even heard of anyone around my area being accosted. Go figure ;)

Haven't been to Milwaukee?

Click here (http://www.skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=56309)

It's very tiring when u have people constantly saying your city is shit.


It's also very tiring when people won't just SPELL WORDS LIKE "YOU" AND "THOUGH." GAHAAHAAAAHHHHHHHH!

Milwaukee all the way...

Current state: Milwaukee
Potential [because of what's occuring now, not what could be :) ...]: Milwaukee

and ps I've been to both

I just think that Detroit has been dealt the biggest loss out of all of America's largest cities. Once the 4th largest, now the 10th?

It almost always seems as if the odds are against Detroit, and yet as a minority, I still find it the most desirable community to live in in Southeast Michigan, despite it being one od the poorest, most run down, most corrupt, dirty, grimey, sporatic, yadda yadda communities in the nation.

What is Detroit's saving grace? I really couldn't identify anything other than a soul that won't ever leave.

The only thing I really have right now about the D, is the people in these forums. Everytime someone so much as mentions the word...Detroit...Detroitians(i think thats what your called lol) go all up in arms about how great it is. I suppose Chicago overhyped alot too,however both cities do live up to it in most instances. About my problem with the Detroit formers, someone was talking about Minneapolis and said that it was a important midwest city. Right away somebody from Detroit went off about how Detroit is better and the 2nd city of the Midwest. It probally is, but chill dude, we only talking cities here.

2 posts, huh?
Ok, you can sit down now!
You aren't talking much with 2 posts.

BTW: It's Detroiter.

No someone said Minneapolis was second in the Midwest after Chicago and Boston was second in the Northeast after New York. I simply stated Detroit and Philadelphia were the respective secondary cities in their regions. I in no way stated Detroit was superior to Minneapolis. Granted as soon as someone from Minneapolis picked up on that, it all snowballed.

Detroit is one of our nations largest cities and historically very significant. To compare these two is AN ATROCITY and a penis contest :) Milwaukee is a tight town, but Detroits got it.

What kinds of atractions are there in Detroit, because im considering visiting sometime?

By attractions what do you mean? Tourist Attractions? Underground Attractions?

Museums
The Detroit Institute of Art - The Fifth largest fine art museum in the U.S.
The Henry Ford Museum - One of the largest museums of its type in the world.
Greenfield Village - An outdoor exhibit of early american life.
African American History Museum - The largest black history museum in the U.S.
Detroit Science Center - A Hands-on museum featuring scientific fun for people of all ages.
Detroit Historical Museum - A museum featuring the unique history of Detroit.
Holocaust Memorial Center - A center displaying the Jewish culture and the effect the holocaust had on it. (The oldest of its kind in the U.S.)
Automotive Hall of Fame - Self-explanatory...
Motown Historical Museum - Home to the Motown sound, this museum features artifacts from the Motown artists in the original setting of Motown Records.
Henry Ford Estate - Features tours of the Henry Ford mansion and surrounding estate.

Theaters
The Fox Theater - The largest surviving movie-palace of the 1920's, this is easily one of the most opulent theaters in the world. Featuring live broadway musicals, family events, concerts, and movies it is consistently one of the top-grossing theaters in the country. The Radio City Christmas Spectacular is playing through the month of December.
The State Theater - Mainly used as a concert venue.
The Fisher Theater - Mainly used for traveling performances of broadway plays. Upcoming performances include The Full Monty, Evita, and The King and I.
Masonic Temple Theater - Mainly used for traveling performances of broadway plays. Upcoming performances include Scrooge: The Musical, Rent, Phantom of the Opera, and Hairspray.
Detroit Opera House - Used both for Opera and Ballet, upcoming performances include Faust, Tosca, The Nutcracker, and Cinderella.
The Majestic Theater - Mainly used as a concert venue.

Stadiums
Ford Field - Home of the Detroit Lions.
Comerica Park - Home of the Detroit Tigers.
Palace of Auburn Hills - Home of the Detroit Pistons.
Joe Louis Arena - Home of the Detroit Red Wings.
Tiger Stadium - Former home of the Detroit Tigers.
Pontiac Silverdome - Former home of the Detroit Lions.
Cobo Arena - Former home of the Detroit Pistons.
Michigan Stadium - Home of the Michigan Wolverines.

There are also the four casinos: Casino Windsor, Motor City Casino, Greektown Casino, and MGM Grand Casino.

The nightlife is all in the suburbs. Check out Hamtramck, Royal Oak, Birmingham, Ferndale, Wyandotte, Mount Clemens, Ann Arbor, Dearborn, Pontiac, Ypsilanti, etc.

If you want shopping check out: The Somerset Collection in Troy, Fairlane Center in Dearborn, Great Lakes Crossing in Auburn Hills, Twelve Oaks in Novi, and Briarwood in Ann Arbor.

There are great restuarants all over the area including many in Downtown, Royal Oak, Dearborn, and Ann Arbor.

I think there is one factor that affects this whole Detroit-Milwaukee comparison. While it is true that Detroit, as a city and a metro area, has more attractions than Milwaukee and vicinity,you need to bring in the Chicago factor here.

Milwaukee's proximity to Chicago means that Milwaukee shares, to a degree, Chicago's attractions. While Milwaukee and Chicago are two separate metropolitan areas, they are very close (90 miles) and the area between them has filled in. Going between the two cities is not really considered a trip.

I find that Milwaukee has a lot of attractions for a city its size and these are more than augmented by Chicago being near by.

Detroit vs. Milwaukee as far as quality of the cities. I'd have to say: no contest. I find Milwaukee to be in far better shape, more inviting atmosphere, and a more beautiful setting (on Lake Michigan) than is Detroit. That's no knock against Detroit. Milwaukee tends to be a very underrated city.

You can't use Chicago as a reason for why Milwaukee is better! That's like Philadelphia using New York.

I guess South Bend, Indiana is better than Detroit, because it too is only 1.5 hours from Chicago.;)

You can't use Chicago as a reason for why Milwaukee is better! That's like Philadelphia using New York.

I guess South Bend, Indiana is better than Detroit, because it too is only 1.5 hours from Chicago.;)

No, South Bend is not better than Detroit. It's not better than Bloomington, Iowa City, Ann Arbor, Evanston, or Madison either.

But Milwaukee is NOT South Bend. It has plenty of attractions. And it is tied in with Chicago in so many ways. Why is that important? Milwaukee can enjoy some pretty nice attractions that it offers as a middle size city, yet still draw from Chicago. In the long run, not a bad set-up for the city. And Chicagoans, with their huge numbers, go to Milwaukee for fun, too, thus creating a base of folks that can help make that city work.

I don't see why proximity to Chicago cannot be included in Milwaukee's assets; I'd definitely include Niagara Falls among Buffalo's.

Because Niagara Falls is like a 20 minute drive from Buffalo, and is a natural attraction that people who visit Buffalo would generally want to see. Chicago is over 1.5 hours from Milwaukee.

In fact, by using the Chicago card, it's almost an insult to Milwaukee. That's like having a brochure advertising for Milwaukee saying: "You're only 1.5 hours away from these great Chicago attractions!"

^ Precisely.

Milwaukee has its own attractions and experiences. Chicago has its own attractions and experiences. They are completlely separate, despite being roughly 90 miles apart.

Nobody ever says they had a good time seeing a concert at Summerfest, taking a tour of the Miller Brewery, checking out Navy Pier, and shopping on Michigan Avenue on their trip to Milwaukee. Likewise nobody ever says they had a good time seeing a concert at Summerfest, taking a tour of the Miller Brewery, checking out Navy Pier, and shopping on Michigan Avenue on their trip to Chicago.

mini-poll:

are any milwaukeans (correct word?) or detroiters even taking this seriously?

Potential?! Detroit has so much more potential considering the incredible amount of things it lost. It was one of the big American cultural centers, and still maintains high ranking there.

Come on... please. Also, I don't agree Detroit's skyline is better. Those Ford or whatever towers are dark and evil looking- they look like they are the HQ of some evil empire.

Milwaukee could really use a skyline improvement, though.

> Milwaukee could really use a skyline improvement, though.
Already happening. Kilbourn, UV Club, US Bank Part 2.

somebody have pics please

Milwaukee is very nice, but Detroit is a national powerhouse on a totally different level.

ah, this old gem. This is like where I had my 1st or 2nd post--and got grilled for it! Memories........

Milwaukees skyline is much improving. Kilbourn Tower is nearly completed. University Club Tower will be complete around the same time next year. There are also talks of building an equal or tallest building next to the U.S Bank Tower (the tallest)
Milwaukees skyline is so underated....its actually quite sizable and pleasing to the eye---unlike so many of peoples "better" skylines such as New Orleans or Columbus.

As for the cities..
Liveablity, I would probally say Milwaukee. Milwaukee has a decent sized crime rate..but nothing compared to Detroit. Then again, crime is overrated. People pump Chicago up on this site..yet boasts many murders a year. Does crime taint Chicago...hell no...Chicago is still the 2nd best city on this continent (sorry TO)
I also love Milwaukee's location. Many may not agree with me (especially Kansan) but I think Lake Michigan is much nicer that St. Clair. Theres so much to do and see on Milwaukees coastline. I have seen some pics of Detroits renovations on its waterfront that simply look stunning.
I prefer Milwaukees architecture...but thats always in the eye of the beholder.

The thing that Milwaukee doesnt have is a mystique like Detroit has. Detroit, to some, is a scary and hellish place that one could never think of living in. I personally think this is kinda cool...because its not accurate really. I think this mystique, while not that good, stilll makes the city very unique and cool in a way. Detroit also has probally one of the best music scenes in the Midwest..maybe the country. That electronic music festival is supposed to be pretty cool. Milwaukee has its weekly ethnic festivals that blow any cities festival season out of the waters IMO. There is so much to do here in summer....if you cant find something to do to have fun--then your a boring person that I wouldnt wanna hang out with anyway. The amount of ethnic festivals, bars, church fairs, concerts (Summerfest, the biggest in the nation), air shows, boat races, fireworks, resturants, sports, recreation, parks...is huge and has to count alot for Milwaukee. The first post is correct..Milwaukee in liveablity, but Detroit is fucking huge is a good one. Detroit has so much to offer, yet has alot bigger problems than Milwaukee.

I don't understand how a city can't be "liveable". Especially if you have the wealth to make it "liveable". Sure Detroit isn't liveable if you're poor and can't get a foot in the door of life. But if you even have a modest income, you can do pretty well in the city. Hell, you can even raise a kid in the city, assuming you want to pay for private schooling.

I can buy a large brick house in Detroit in a safe neighborhood, with access to good schools for as little as $60,000.

This house costs $61,900:
http://idx.prudentiallandmarkproperties.com/listings/047R/024/024155/024155165.jpg

This house (in a neighboring city) costs $629,900:
http://idx.prudentiallandmarkproperties.com/listings/047R/024/024142/024142413.jpg

The funny thing is that these two houses are less than 1/2 mile from each other!!

http://www.downriverdetroit.net/housingdisparity.jpg

yeah, I think that Detroits suburbs and small cities have great housing...I dont know too much about the downtown areas.

BTW..My friend visited Detroit awile back. I told him that Ive seen all kinds of pics on this website and it looked like a really cool and lively city. He responded by saying when he visited...the city looked dead. He said he drove around and there was absolutely no one walking around or on the streets. He said it was pretty odd...especially during the day. I doubt he was in downtown...but are there areas around the city that just nobody wants to be walking around in or drive through? He said it was weird..ghost townish..or like Cherynobyl.

He was feeding off of a tired stereotype. Because he was in Detroit he was looking for reinforcements of his belief. That's usually how it works. Because he had already made his decision that the city was a "ghost town" or "like Cherynobyl" before even going in, it was easier to imagine it as being such. The pedestrian traffic outside the downtown is no different in Detroit than any other city. In fact, I'd almost think there would be more pedestrian traffic as those who ride the bus have to walk home from the bus station. What was he expecting? A parade?

yeah, I think that Detroits suburbs and small cities have great housing...I dont know too much about the downtown areas.

That first house is in the city... It may be suburban, but its in the city limits.

He was feeding off of a tired stereotype. Because he was in Detroit he was looking for reinforcements of his belief. That's usually how it works. Because he had already made his decision that the city was a "ghost town" or "like Cherynobyl" before even going in, it was easier to imagine it as being such. The pedestrian traffic outside the downtown is no different in Detroit than any other city. In fact, I'd almost think there would be more pedestrian traffic as those who ride the bus have to walk home from the bus station. What was he expecting? A parade?

lol...I dont know.....then again..he told me he wasnt impressed that much by Vancouver!

Detroit. :)

Milwaukee has highest rate on property taxes.

Then again, crime is overrated. People pump Chicago up on this site..yet boasts many murders a year. .

the murder figures are highly skewed by all the suicidal Cub fans every season. Steve Bartman alone was responsible for 20,000 suicides.

:bash: :hilarious

Come on... please. Also, I don't agree Detroit's skyline is better. Those Ford or whatever towers are dark and evil looking- they look like they are the HQ of some evil empire.

Milwaukee could really use a skyline improvement, though.

Huh? Have you ever been to the DIA (Detroit Institute of Art), heard of the Detroit Symphony Orchestra, heck, even visited Detroit's cultural center? There are some of the finest institutions in this country despite the decline. That shows the true staying power of the city.

Here we go again...yet another person having no idea outside of the tired, old stereotypes. What else is new? That would be like me thinking that Milwaukee was a cow, beer, and cheesetown. How stupid.

Give me Detroit, it might be old and rundown and poor and ghettoish, but so is my hometown (Kansas City, Kansas).

This is tough, I hear great things about Milwaukee, but I just love Detroit, so it's Detroit for me.

it is an unfair comparison really...You have Chicago which is untoucable pretty much,except for NYC and LA. In the Midwest its Detroit/ MSP, Milwaukee/KC/Indy and St Louis/Cleveland...so on. I dont know to much about the rest..but I guess it would be Columbus/Cincy/Louisville. We cant really compare Milwaukee to Detroit...because obvioulsy its smaller in population and metro--however we are soon catching up to Detroit...or is it Detroit is catching up to us....whatever. Personally, I like Milwaukee.....but I dont speak for everyone.

Detroit is at nearly 6 million people and growing...

Detroit is at nearly 6 million people and growing...

The median income in Detroit is some 29,000. That is the lowest for Metro's its size.

There's a reason this thread died out a long time ago, let's keep it that way. This thread is so old I've changed my views on Detroit since the first time I replied in it.

The Median Household income for Metro-Detroit counties:
Livingston: $67,000
Oakland: $62,000
Macomb: $52,000
Washtenaw: $52,000
Lapeer: $52,000
Monroe: $52,000
St. Clair: $46,000
Lenawee: $46,000
Genesee: $42,000
Wayne: $41,000


The Median Household income for Metro-Milwaukee counties:
Ozaukee: $63,000
Waukesha: $63,000
Washington: $57,000
Racine: $48,000
Milwaukee: $38,000

Detroit clearly has the better skyline and is clearly the larger economic and cultural powerhouse, but I still have to vote for Milwaukee only because the culture and lifestyle of that city are very close to my heart.

In a couple years, Milwaukee will surpass Detroit in skyline points the way they are going!

Detroit is doing better than Milwaukee? You`re crazy!

In a couple years, Milwaukee will surpass Detroit in skyline points the way they are going!


I dont know about that, man.

I beg to differ:
http://www.doblevych.com/photos/detroit/800x600_detroit_low_windsor.jpg
http://www.doblevych.com/photos/detroit/800x600_detroit_downtown_deroy.jpg

Yeah, Milwaukee is a looong way from being able to compete with Detroit's skyline. And it will never be able to hold a candle to Detroit's collection of high-rise historic architecture--one of the best.

http://www.doblevych.com/photos/detroit/800x600_detroit_downtown_deroy.jpg


I think this is one of the best pictures taken of Detroit...I know it sounds weird, but it kinda just makes me want to jump in.

........Coming from someone who has had the opportunity of living in many cities, Detroit's problem is not its blight or its crime; but, rather its image. Detroit has, undeniably, gone to hell and back within the past 50 years. But the city's momentus efforts have, thus far, been negated. Detroit is, and always has been, a livable city. The quality of its livability might not be the best in the world; but, it isn't the worst; not any less livable than Millwaukee.

........I've been to Milwaukee a couple times; and, honestly, there really isn't much comparison. Detroit is one of the nation's major cities, home to a 5 million+ metro pop., The world's largest car company; and, NA's busiest border crossing. There's a lot for Milwaukee to achieve if it wants to be fairly compared to Detroit.

There's a reason this thread died out a long time ago, let's keep it that way. This thread is so old I've changed my views on Detroit since the first time I replied in it.Although my views haven't changed on Detroit, it's one of Americas greatest cities, all your other points still are true today.

I can't say that without saying that that pic of Detroit's skyline is the best I have ever seen. Thanks hudkina!

Yeah, Milwaukee is a looong way from being able to compete with Detroit's skyline. And it will never be able to hold a candle to Detroit's collection of high-rise historic architecture--one of the best.
But don't be sidetracked. Milwaukee has hugged many of its historic beauties...is it the courthouse or city hall that I drool over everytime I see pictures? In many cases, Detroit just ruthlessly destroyed many of its historical masterpieces without any sort of conscience. To make matters worse, we're still doing it...and illegally, might I add.

Seriously, both GREAT cities!

But don't be sidetracked. Milwaukee has hugged many of its historic beauties...is it the courthouse or city hall that I drool over everytime I see pictures? In many cases, Detroit just ruthlessly destroyed many of its historical masterpieces without any sort of conscience. To make matters worse, we're still doing it...and illegally, might I add.

Seriously, both GREAT cities!

You probably drool over both of them. The Courthouse and City Hall are fucking fantastic.


As for the debate, someone kill it. Please.

Just send it to the Detroit Historic Commission. They'll kill it for us! UGG...

I would really like to know what all this talk about Milwaukee's skyline improving is? Everyone from Milwaukee talks like there is this huge building boom going on. There are 2 buildings being built. And they are being built right on top of each other.

I've always looked at Milwaukee as Detroits little brother. Both ghettos, one's just much bigger. Both continue to shrink though.

That's pretty ignorant. I live in the heart of Detroit, and I don't live in the ghetto. I've seen Milwaukee, and it is not ghetto. Are you sure you're not talking about some cities in Paraguay er something?

Michi, look at his username and sig-line. He's a troll.

I would love to see Detroit to make a huge comeback .
Richardson you are an ass.

oh, don't worry...it will...

I would really like to know what all this talk about Milwaukee's skyline improving is? Everyone from Milwaukee talks like there is this huge building boom going on. There are 2 buildings being built. And they are being built right on top of each other.

I've always looked at Milwaukee as Detroits little brother. Both ghettos, one's just much bigger. Both continue to shrink though.

For a city like Milwaukee...a two skyscraper condo boom is pretty big. Especially considering these condos are fetching over a couple million. Not to forget all the other condos being developed/built all around the city. They may not all be high rises..but they are an improvement over abandoned factories, warehouses, and open space. Alot is happening here and in Detroit.

Detroit and Milwaukee both have their crime problems. Detroits a little worse than Milwaukees I would think. However, that shouldnt be a reason to hate on a city. Mexico City, Rio, Chicago, Johanesburg, Sao Paulo, Los Angeles etc. all have some pretty nasty crime and murder rates....but that doesnt stop them from being world class cities. Detroit got hit hard as did the other Great Lake cities. It will take alot of work to get them back to being great again. In my opinion it will be more exciting to watch the cities with problems develop as opposed to the flashy new ones such as Dubai or Las Vegas.

Having been born and raised in Detroit, and gone to high school in Milwaukee... Milwaukee's a nice place to visit and that, but living there is a bore. Except for its closeness to Chicago, I didn't know what I would've done to stay sane.


Big props to Milwaukee to its architecture, which is some of the best preserved in the Midwest, or even country, but Detroit wins in all respects, including this.

For a city of its size, Detroit projects an aura of sheer urbanity the size of NYC. It has a huge share of haters, but unless you actually live in Detroit, you have no idea how much fun it really is. It's a gritty, strait gully fun to be sure, but I sure as hell wouldn't have it any other way.

So the big D gets my vote.

http://img88.exs.cx/img88/5773/481sz.jpg

http://img95.exs.cx/img95/1278/423in.jpg

http://img35.echo.cx/img35/6251/534nw.jpg

with the departure of denvernative, this sub-forum has been in dire need of a resident jack-ass. well, i guess that role has now been filled.

Having been born and raised in Detroit, and gone to high school in Milwaukee... Milwaukee's a nice place to visit and that, but living there is a bore. Except for its closeness to Chicago, I didn't know what I would've done to stay sane.


]

I cant imagine any other Midwest city, outside Chicago, being more excting than Milwaukee. I really am starting to appreciate this place now.

really though...how could you find this place boring in the summer? Theres not one night or day that there isnt something to do. :)

Seems like the same could be said for Minneapolis, St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, and maybe Indianapolis? ;)

^Yep, especially the cities experiencing major shifts in culture and development.

Where is the option of "Neither" in the poll?????

Ive never been to Detroit. Would you say its similar, or very different?

Ive never been to Detroit. Would you say its similar, or very different?

I would hate to answer that because I would be shot my some folks who lives north of me. LOL!

I've never been to Milaukee, but just from pictures and understanding the layout and history of the city both seem very different. Detroit exploded with growth much later than most historic cities so there are large swaths of tract housing (though much of it nice) on normal grids outside of the old city.

Hey girls in Toledo, OH are really pretty!!! Just look at Kate Holmes!

BTW I go with Milwaukee, but love Detroit also specially for its long history that can be traced down to more than 300 years ago!

Where is the option of "Neither" in the poll?????
It's in Toledo.

LMich, Detroit has always been the larger city, though from about 1850 until about 1900, they were pretty evenly matched. In any case, Milwaukee never was a larger city.

1850
Detroit - 21,019
Milwaukee - 20,061

1860
Detroit - 45,619
Milwaukee - 45,246

1870
Detroit - 79,577
Milwaukee - 71,440

1880
Detroit - 116,340
Milwaukee - 115,587

1890
Detroit - 205,876
Milwaukee - 204,468

1900
Detroit - 285,704
Milwaukee - 285,315

1910
Detroit - 465,766
Milwaukee - 373,857

1920
Detroit - 993,078
Milwaukee - 457,147

1930
Detroit - 1,568,662
Milwaukee - 578,249

1940
Detroit - 1,623,452
Milwaukee - 587,472

1950
Detroit - 1,849,568
Milwaukee - 637,392

1960
Detroit - 1,670,144
Milwaukee - 741,324

1970
Detroit - 1,511,482
Milwaukee - 717,099

1980
Detroit - 1,203,339
Milwaukee - 636,212

1990
Detroit - 1,027,974
Milwaukee - 628,088

2000
Detroit - 951,270
Milwaukee - 596,974

Also note how they stayed pretty much even right up until the automobile showed up on the scene.

yeah I never knew the populations were that close before..almost like twin cities. Its quite amazing how high the population jumped in those few years.

It should be noted, though that when Detroit started pulling away, it was only because it began expanding its borders. For instance, in 1910, Detroit was about 41 squares miles, while Milwuakee was only 23 square miles. However, most of the 41 sq. mi. that Detroit covered in 1910 were yet to be developed.

But don't be sidetracked. Milwaukee has hugged many of its historic beauties...is it the courthouse or city hall that I drool over everytime I see pictures? In many cases, Detroit just ruthlessly destroyed many of its historical masterpieces without any sort of conscience. To make matters worse, we're still doing it...and illegally, might I add.

Seriously, both GREAT cities!

Sorry, I didn't mean to say that Milwaukee doesn't have any good historical architecture compared to Detroit. I was speaking strictly in terms of "high-rise" historical architecture. Sorry for any confusion.

Also note how they stayed pretty much even right up until the automobile showed up on the scene.


ALSO note that Detroits pop seems to be falling quite rapidly while Milwaukee's is on the rise once again. :cucumber:

Well don't worry, Detroit's population will turn around in the next decade or so.

Wait, Milwaukees population is on the rise? That's news to me.

According to the Census 2003 estimates it had a noticeable loss, as well since 2000. Neither of these cities are out of the water yet in terms of large scale bleeding.

586,941

^I agree, although I don't believe populations estimates are often too accurate (look at Chicago).

Milwaukee is at the point now where the pop. loss has dramatically slowed, frozen, or is reversed, we're all waiting to see. Dowtown population is booming, but that doesn't mean much on the estimates.

That can be said for just about any of the major, declining rustbelt cities, and many of the medium to smaller ones, actually.

Yeah, there's no rustbelt city that's really losing population like it did in the '70s and '80s.

Population estimates vary depending on who you ask and what methods they use to calculate. For example, last year the Wisconsin Department of Administration estimated Milwaukee had a population of 593,920 people as of January 2004, a decline of 0.5% since 2000.

It's quite likely that your own state's agencies also conduct annual population estimates, which are used by local and state officials to determine such things as state-aid payments and the like. It's quite likely that the estimates done by your state agenmcies could differ from the Census Bureau's esitmates, as well.

It's quite likely that the estimates done by your state agenmcies could differ from the Census Bureau's esitmates, as well.
i'd also say that it's quite likely that population estimates done by state or local agencies are more accurate than census bureau estimates. the cenusus bureau doesn't sem to know dick about how to track population in cities.

Precisely.

Well, that's pretty obvious. Southeast Michigan's local estimator had Detroit 10,000 or so above the census estimate in 2003. It still doesn't change that both cities are still losing population.

Just not as much as everybody might think...that's the point we're making (except for D-res' misinformation).

where did I hear that Milwaukee is predicted to grow back to 630,000 by 2025?

where did I hear that Milwaukee is predicted to grow back to 630,000 by 2025?

Milwaukee population projected to increase
State says Wisconsin to gain 1 million by 2030
Associated Press
Posted: March 4, 2004
Madison - Milwaukee will reverse its population decline, and the state will gain 1 million residents by 2030, state officials said Thursday.

Gov. Jim Doyle released projections made by the Demographic Services Center in the state Department of Administration, showing the population climbing to 6.42 million in 2030, or 19.8% more than the 2000 total of 5.36 million.

"Of the projected growth, more than 360,000 people are expected to move to Wisconsin from other nations and states by 2030," Doyle said.

The city of Milwaukee is projected to reverse a 30-year population decline and grow from 597,000 residents in 2000 to 623,000 in 2025, fueled in part by the immigration of people of Hispanic heritage.

The projections show Milwaukee County surpassing the 1 million mark after 2015 and increasing to 1,031,000 residents in 2030 - remaining Wisconsin's most populous county for the foreseeable future.

The state's 10 fastest-growing counties during the 30-year period are expected to be St. Croix, Calumet, Dane, Outagamie, Kenosha, Brown, Washington, Walworth, Dunn and Sauk - all located within or adjacent to major metropolitan areas.

The 10 slowest-growing counties are expected to be Price, Iron, Rusk, Marinette, Forest, Florence, Wood, Green Lake, Lafayette and Door - all in generally rural areas.

St. Croix County is expected to experience the fastest rate of growth, 67.9%, during the 30-year period.

The DOA projections indicate various age groups will grow at different rates:

The total of those 17 or younger will decrease slightly, from 1.37 million in 2000 to 1.34 million in 2010, and then increase steadily to 1.45 million in 2030.

The working-age population, ages 18 to 64, will peak in 2015 at 3.70 million and then decline slightly to 3.63 million by 2030.

The number of those 65 and older will increase slowly to 2010 and then grow dramatically, nearly doubling over the 30-year period to 1,336,000 in 2030. Senior citizens made up 13% of the state's total population in 2000, but the percentage is projected to hit 21% in 2030.




I partially agree with Lmich, Steely, markitect, et al, who believe that estimates and projections are worth shit because as trained as they are, sociologists and demographers can rarely accurately predict population trends on such a large scale in such a large time frame, even local ones.

Who could have predicted, in the 1940's, that sun-belt cities such as Phoenix, Dallas and Atlanta would be some of the nation's largest metros in 30 years or so? Those are factors that throw off the control of the whole "experiment" and make projections useless. It is nice to imagine, though, and I am optimistic that Milwaukee's (and Detroit's) population will increase with time.

Just not as much as everybody might think...that's the point we're making (except for D-res' misinformation).


It was more opinion than misinformation. I think the article the fiddlerontheruf showed kind of backs up my claim, although i dont know about Detroit as i havent researched it by any means. Its tough to think milwaukees population is still steadily declining like the last 30 years when its attracting some of the businesses and developement it is.

Just an observation...

Because even though a new development may bring 1 or 2 new people into the city, a family of 5 from down the street just moved to the suburbs.

And not just that, but we see a lot of cranes, and construction equipment within the central city and near-surrounding neighborhoods, and figure this must be going on everywhere. Often times, the outer-neighborhoods are still declining even while the inner-neighborhoods are being transformed.

Even the largest loft developments only add a few hundred units at a time.

It was more opinion than misinformation. I think the article the fiddlerontheruf showed kind of backs up my claim, although i dont know about Detroit as i havent researched it by any means. Its tough to think milwaukees population is still steadily declining like the last 30 years when its attracting some of the businesses and developement it is.

Just an observation...

Fiddler's article talks about future population projections. It says that the state Dept. of Admin. in projecting (guessing, predicting) Milwaukee's population will increase to 623,000 by 2025. It does not say that Milwaukee is actually gaining people yet, however.

Also keep in mind the points Hudkina and Lmich have brought up. Even though we can look around our cities and see new projects getting built, that does not automatically mean our populations are definitely on the rise.

Cook County, Illinois lost the most population of any US county between 2000 and 2004. That's proof that even a booming city with tons of development (Chicago) can still lose population. We tend to notice new construction; usually you can't "see" people leaving.

^ dude, those are meaningless census burea stats. as has been pointed out many times in this thread already, the census bureau has a hell of a time trying to guesstimate urban populations. they've been VERY wrong about chicgao in the past and i'd bet my entire 401k plan that they're completely wrong about it this time around as well.

Yeah, for some reason Chicago seems to be a glarring exception. Though, I wouldn't be surprised if Cook County would be losing population, yet Chicago would be growing. It's possible and seems likely.

I was trying to reiterate markitekt's point that the number of cranes and building projects you see going on do not neccessarily indicate population loss or gain.

Look at Chicago's booming skyline, and all the residential development going on Downtown, and you'd think that it's one of the fastest growing cities in the US. Census bureau irregularities aside, I don't think anyone would claim that Chicago is growing at a rate comparable to a Las Vegas or a Tuscon.

Someone earlier put it very well -- a couple might move into a Downtown condo, but a family of five has moved to the suburbs. In the end you're down three people.

Central cities in the Sun Belt are growing because they have elastic borders. People who move further out of the core can be "captured" by the City of Las Vegas (Tuscon, Pheonix, etc..) annexing that land.

Milwaukee's borders have been frozen in place (by Zeidler's "iron ring" of incorporated suburban municipalities) for thirty years. The City cannot grow as long as people, families mostly, opt for the supposed "greener pastures" of the suburbs. And the Downtown condo boom going on in most American cities is just a drop in the bucket compared to the tidal wave of Americans continuting to suburbanize.

steely, check your PM box.

Yeah, for some reason Chicago seems to be a glarring exception. Though, I wouldn't be surprised if Cook County would be losing population, yet Chicago would be growing. It's possible and seems likely.

i certainly wouldn't say such a scenario isn't possible, but i think it's far from likely.

ive been to detroit all the one way streets downtown im suprised any one can find thier way out, better for tourist $$$ i guess. Milwaukee traffic moves much better even without a big mass transit system

Well, it's not necessarily related to tourist dollars, however, it IS good for when foot traffic picks up. People will want to walk more downtown than drive because the street layout is so confusing.

When my parents come to town to visit, they always have me drive them around because they have no idea what the street pattern is downtown. They always tell me they thought something was "this way" or "shouldn't we have gone that way?" The downtown streets are curvy and twisted off of the main blvds and avenues, so it's easy to get turned around if you're not familiar.

I must be the only one who doesnt find the layout confusing. Since the first time I was down there Ive always known how to get around. I definitely see how it could be confusing for some people though. I personally love it.

I don't think it's that hard to navigate either. In fact, the Harmonie Park area is really the only area of Downtown that I found confusing when I first started to drive around downtown.

Coming in off the Lodge onto Grand River into downtown threw me for a loop a few times.