Of course it doesn't. But over the years I have realized that most people that HAVEN'T been there think it "probably" does indeed. One must only visit other message boards to see this. Milwaukee has a very negative stigma about it.

This upsets me. It pisses me off, because some people just believe a lie or believe some pre-conceived notion without trying to research something. I know it isn't too big of a deal, because it is probably better to have a negative rep or a neutral rep and surprise people than the other way around. LA is a good example. If I had a nickel for every person who hasn't been there who thinks it is "the sh*t" and a dime for every person who HAS been there and thinks it totally blows, I could quit my job. It is a good example of a city overselling itself, not living up to its own hype.

I wonder if this is slowly changing with Milwaukee. I wonder if perception is changing. People that haven't been there seriously have no idea how cool the city is. I wonder why people that have never been to Milwaukee would think it sucks---where does this negative rep come from?

One thing for sure is that bad beers like Milwaukee's Best and Old Milwaukee do nothing but hurt the city's image. I know this sounds ridiculous but don't underestimate how much a cheap beer being sold as "Milwaukee's Best" severely hurts Milwaukee's image.

Any thoughts? Do you think this rep is changing? Anything you notice from people from other places on how they perceive Milwaukee and/or people who have been there / haven't been there and their opinions, pre or post-conceived notions, and maybe how this is or isn't changing?

The college kids of America love Milwaukee's Best and Old Milwaukee Beer. I know our college house spent about $150 a week on that crap.

I don't think that the beer bearing Milwaukee's name has anything to do with the City "sucking" in many people's minds.

Beside's Milwaukee's Best is a sponser on the World Poker Tour (which is huge right now) and Old Milwaukee has a new look...

http://www.oldmilwaukee.com/images/omNEWSRegScene.gif

Milwaukee is a hidden gem in the Midwest, and the really "with it" people know all the unique places for views, to catch a bite to eat, and so on and so forth. Someone who just bases a City on skylines or how new it looks may say Milwaukee sucks after visiting Chicago or Minneapolis. But it is the people that "look closer and deeper" and appreciate what you don't see only heading down 94 that really "get" the true geniune Milwaukee.

This is common for all cities. People base their opinions on the opinions of others, and therefore trends/notions tend to spiral out of control.

This is common for all cities. People base their opinions on the opinions of others, and therefore trends/notions tend to spiral out of control.

Bingo! Milwaukee and most other cities don't have broadcast studios like in Hollywood or Rockefeller Plaza to help promote them. Thus, they run the risk of being sized-up by a number of people who have no real clue about what it's like there.

I've never been to Milwaukee and some of the photo threads here have done more to give me an idea of what the city's like than anything I've seen in a newspaper article or heard through some babbling stranger with an axe to grind.

One thing for sure is that bad beers like Milwaukee's Best and Old Milwaukee do nothing but hurt the city's image. I know this sounds ridiculous but don't underestimate how much a cheap beer being sold as "Milwaukee's Best" severely hurts Milwaukee's image.

As an outsider, I disagree. I think Milwaukee's problem is that is seems like it is stuck in the 70's. Other than that fancy ballpark, nothing comes to my mind other than failing schools, failing fatal water systems, shady political tricks, & socialist politicians chasing away people & business to the suburbs. Bud Selig didn't help the image much either among baseball fans. The beer is the best thing going for Milwaukee's mainstream image IMO since the Packers left town.

---where does this negative rep come from?


Where do you think it comes from? It didn't just drop out of the sky one day.

As an outsider, I disagree. I think Milwaukee's problem is that is seems like it is stuck in the 70's. Other than that fancy ballpark, nothing comes to my mind other than failing schools, failing fatal water systems, shady political tricks, & socialist politicians chasing away people & business to the suburbs. Bud Selig didn't help the image much either among baseball fans. The beer is the best thing going for Milwaukee's mainstream image IMO since the Packers left town.

^That's the notion he's talking about. There's our stigma.

When Milwaukee is mentioned, many of the same things come to mind for most people, I don't blame them, Milwaukee's horrible at marketing itself (they recently made a huge investment to change that.)

But you proved his point COMPLETLY. You just listed off how most outsiders view the city. I grew up in Madison most of my life and Milwaukee was an hour a way, I still didn't know better. (I've heard from many long-time residents of Milwaukee that there was a reason for that, the city hasn't always been what it is today).

Milwaukee's a city that's changing right now, and in my opnion for the better. It's a mix of traditional and modern, trendy and generic, the city has everything.

I don't blame people for not noticing Milwaukee, the city's in a transforming period right now, major shifts are occuring, and maybe people will notice it when it's done.

If not, who gives a shit, it keeps my rent lower.

Where do you think it comes from? It didn't just drop out of the sky one day.

It's our history, we're a rust-belt gritty industrial kind of town, anyone who denies that is stupid.

The question is why Milwaukee still has its gritty Midwest image when cities like Minneapolis and Chicago have learned to break it.

We're not the same city we were 10 years ago, but we'll be a new one in 10 more years, is that why? We can't get rid of our old image because we're currently defining a new one (some cities have already done that in the midwest, some haven't).

I maybe wrong, but I think one of our problem is our metro area. IMHO, it SUCKS! Especially the southern area(Racine County). It's just to rural. I think our metro area is big enough to have a population of about 3.5 million, but right now, it's just too empty.

One of my favorite things to do is take people around town who have never really been here and watch as all of their pre-conceived notions fall away, one by one.

They think Milwaukee will be a dirty stinkhole. They're surprised when they see our clean, renovated Downtown, and the booming residential and commercial development along the river.

They think Milwaukee will be nothing but old Germans and divey bars. They're surprised when they see a great diversity in people, cultures, eating establishments and activities.

They think our stadium will be a dank tin can. They're surprised when they see that Miller Park is one of the finest ballparks in the US.

They think our lakefront will be polluted and disgusting. They're surprised when they see the lakefront packed with summertime crowds, enjoying pristine parkland -- jogging, biking, rollerblading, yes, swimming, and otherwise hanging out along the lakefront.

They think that the only African Americans living in Milwaukee live in squalor. They're surprised when I take them through neighborhoods of stately old homes and manicured lawns, populated almost entirely by well-off black folks.

This city is the victim of decades of bad press: crappy watered-down beer, dead alewives washing up in the spring (back in the '70s), dutch elm disease (which decimated the tree population in many Milwaukee neighborhoods), Jeffery Dahmer, the crypto sporidium outbreak, the worst stadium in Major League Baseball, racial tensions, "mob" beatings, sewerage spills, sausage attacks at the stadium.

All of these things mentioned above of course are factual events. But I've beleived for awhile that for some reason the press singles this city out for bad things that happen in many other cities.

For instance, when the national press does a story about troubled race relations in American cities, you can bet Milwaukee will be mentioned. They won't mention that the same measurement that calls us "one the nation's most segregated cities" also calls Chicago, Cleveland and St. Louis the same. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/housing_patterns/ch5.html
But you don't hear about their racial problems.

Milwaukee gets a lot of press for having an average of three sewerage leaks into the Lake yearly. This freaks a lot of people out, as it should. But what you don't hear in the press is the fact that Chicago spills 30% more sewerage than Milwaukee does, but in the opposite direction, into the Illinois River, which flows through actual populated areas.

You also don't hear that Milwaukee has one of the best track records of any major Great Lakes city in keeping the Great Lakes water basin free from pollution:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/jun04/239659.asp

And, you don't hear that scientists are split on what's causing high e coli levels in the Lake. The sewerage leaks may have something to do with it, but more likely it's the seagulls, and runoff from storm sewers, which carry rain water from streets, parking lots, and yards: http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/jan05/292916.asp

We're starting to get better national press. But given the fact that we're a relatively small city, and people remember bad things better than they remember good things, we've still got a long way to go to change our image.

Someone once told me it takes 20 years for the reality of something to catch on in the mind of the general public. I've met people who seriously think New York is a crime-ridden place, like it was 20 years ago. I've met people who think the Twin Cities are made up only of blonde white people, like it was 20 years ago. It takes a long time for people's perceptions to change.

^

Great post.

Its funny how cities like Milwaukee get lumped into being a sucky and bad city. Look at places like LA, Phoenix, New Orleans, Las Vegas, Miami, Tuscon, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta...These places have a variety of problems ranging from sprawl to pollution to crime, drugs and racism. However, do you see the American public having ANY problem with these places?

anyway...

Milwaukee has a number of problems that any resident can see. We have segregation, poor public schools, wasteful spending, government corruption, sewage concerns, and a high murder rate. We also have frigid winters and industrial blight which only add to these problems.

However...is that reason for the American public to hate on cities like Milwaukee, Detroit, or Cleveland? The fabulous NYC or LA has yearly homicides compared to those of American troops in Iraq. These cities both have tons of industrial hell. These places have wasteful spending, corrupt officials, enviromental issues..including much more pollution. I also dont hear about too many poor blacks, Mexicans, or Puerto Ricans having a view of Central Park or a place in the Hollywood hills. What right to coastal city dwellers have to look down upon us in the Great Lakes? Why are troubled Southern and desert cities not thought of to have problems?

Part of these perceptions are due to arrogance and ignorance. Even Minneapolis was once dubbed Murderapolis by the New York Times. Minneapolis is a great city..comparable to Seattle or Boston...but do you think the general population knows this? Do you think they even know anything about MSP...besides it being really cold? Reason for this? They just dont care. Dont get me wrong..there are some cool coastalites...but I would think the majority doesnt know or care whats going on in the Midwest. But really...who cares?

How many US cities would kill to have a lakefront like Milwaukee's? That only starts to answer how unsuckable Milwaukee is!

I like the Milwaukee Bucks 'cuz my boy T.J. is gonna lead them to the playoffs this year; but seriously, I just don't hear about Milwaukee that much, so I personally didn't have a negative preconception. The closest I've been is Kenosha in the summer, and I thought with the waterfront on Lake Michigan, it was a nice town.

Someone once told me it takes 20 years for the reality of something to catch on in the mind of the general public. I've met people who seriously think New York is a crime-ridden place, like it was 20 years ago. I've met people who think the Twin Cities are made up only of blonde white people, like it was 20 years ago. It takes a long time for people's perceptions to change.

All "stereotypes" have some truth to them. The Twin Cities still is one of the whitest metros in the country. Some parts of New York city still are crime-ridden. New York City is so big that there are enough crime-ridden parts area wise where they could cover the entire city of Minneapolis. Everything happens for a reason, including "stereotypes".

Its funny how cities like Milwaukee get lumped into being a sucky and bad city. Look at places like LA, Phoenix, New Orleans, Las Vegas, Miami, Tuscon, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta...These places have a variety of problems ranging from sprawl to pollution to crime, drugs and racism. However, do you see the American public having ANY problem with these places?

Uh, I think a lot of the American public could think of "problems" with some of those other places.

LA---dirty, smogged out, bloods & crips, crack, traffic, Rodney King, riots

Houston--dirty, smogged out, crime-ridden

Phoenix--see Houston

Miami--cocaine

Atlanta--crime

New Orleans--crime

Dallas = Crime, Local Government Corruption, Bad Schools, Gang Activity, and did someone mention the heat. Oiy, the heat is unbearable. One thing that people still talk about is the Kennedy Assasination. Bad things tend to stick with a City no matter how much progress or effort it has undertaken to rid itself from those notions and perceptions people have.

Having lived in both cities, the people in Dallas don't have the work ethic that the people of Milwaukee and Midwest do. There are some down here that will admit that as well. And it is improving because a number of Midwesterners are heading down here to live. Okay that may be a stretch - but when more than 10 people say it, including locals - it makes you think. Of course most people here think Milwaukee (and Wisconsin as a whole) is a place where people live in igloos, where plastic cheeseheads, and drink beer and eat brats. "The Frozen Tundra" is something that is said to me everytime I say I was born in Green Bay and lived in Milwaukee.

The sad thing is that no matter how much I tell them and show them pictures, they will never change their perception of Milwaukee unless they visit there and truly take a look around.

Not everyone is going to love Milwaukee - which is a good thing... because if a bunch of people move there it will drive up housing prices even more, congest our highways, take my seat at my favorite local tavern, and so on. So cool - more Milwaukee for me to love.

I'm not going to waste too much time being concerned over some person who is so ignorant that they judge a city on a particular band of beer, or a high-profile crime that happened 15 years ago, or the decisions made by a Major League Baseball commissioner, or the political leanings of mayors from several decades ago, a skyline, etc...

That goes for any city, whether I happen to be a resident there or not.

I don't think the heat is unbearable in TX; but I know I would consider temperatures below zero, and blizzard conditions to make a place uninhabitable. Weather isn't a good arguement against a city, IMO; it's all your preference, and what you are used to. Also, no one believes people live in igloos in Wisconsin, or has any other crazy preconceptions like that. However, I would think you know Texas is the state that has the most bizzare preconceptions on the face of the planet. When I visited Wisconsin/Illinois people were always shocked that I was from TX. They would ask where my cowboy hat and boots were; if I rode horses and lived on a ranch. People for some reason still believe that TX hasn't changed in the last 150 years. I mean probably 75% of our 20 million residents live in large urban areas, but the myth somehow persists.

I'm not going to waste too much time being concerned over some person who is so ignorant that they judge a city on a particular band of beer, or a high-profile crime that happened 15 years ago, or the decisions made by a Major League Baseball commissioner, or the political leanings of mayors from several decades ago, a skyline, etc...

That goes for any city, whether I happen to be a resident there or not.

The thing is though these negative perceptions have very real consquences.

hey nic, if u thought kenosha was nice you should stop by milwaukee one time youll be pleasantly surprised. and milwaukee is ten times the city that kenosha is . & Why not catch a bucks game when the season starts

Uh, I think a lot of the American public could think of "problems" with some of those other places.

LA---dirty, smogged out, bloods & crips, crack, traffic, Rodney King, riots

Houston--dirty, smogged out, crime-ridden

Phoenix--see Houston

Miami--cocaine

Atlanta--crime

New Orleans--crime

but do those things really have make peoples perception negative about these places? When the common American hears the word...Detroit...what do you think they would say. Now ask that question about a place such as New Orleans, LA, or Phoenix. Each of these cities have high crime rates...New Orleans having one of the higher murder rates in the U.S.A. People tend to overlook the problems in these cities...because they are fun and cool. However, when they hear KC, Detroit, Cincinatti, St. Louis, Milwaukee, or Indianapolis..they immediatly start using stereotypes to define what the city is like. I still hear people using Laverne and Shirley, Happy Days, and beer whenever Milwaukee is brought up. :)

Dallas = Crime, Local Government Corruption, Bad Schools, Gang Activity, and did someone mention the heat. Oiy, the heat is unbearable. One thing that people still talk about is the Kennedy Assasination. Bad things tend to stick with a City no matter how much progress or effort it has undertaken to rid itself from those notions and perceptions people have.

Having lived in both cities, the people in Dallas don't have the work ethic that the people of Milwaukee and Midwest do. There are some down here that will admit that as well. And it is improving because a number of Midwesterners are heading down here to live. Okay that may be a stretch - but when more than 10 people say it, including locals - it makes you think. Of course most people here think Milwaukee (and Wisconsin as a whole) is a place where people live in igloos, where plastic cheeseheads, and drink beer and eat brats. "The Frozen Tundra" is something that is said to me everytime I say I was born in Green Bay and lived in Milwaukee.

The sad thing is that no matter how much I tell them and show them pictures, they will never change their perception of Milwaukee unless they visit there and truly take a look around.

Not everyone is going to love Milwaukee - which is a good thing... because if a bunch of people move there it will drive up housing prices even more, congest our highways, take my seat at my favorite local tavern, and so on. So cool - more Milwaukee for me to love.


good post. lol..being a GB guy..you probally always hear about the Packers or cheeseheads.

Thats one of the things I like about the Midwest...its still under the radar. Chicago aside...none of our large cities is really trendy or uber popular with the nation. You have a place like Minneapolis with its low crime rate, high education and health, beautiful parks and location...etc. and its still pretty reasonable to live there. Now compare it to a city like Seattle, Boston, San Diego, etc.

As for Milwaukee...you can live in some of the coolest and most vibrant areas of the city for not to pricey. I can find a place on the East Side, Southside, Riverwest..etc. for quite a nice price. However, the Lakefront condos/apartments and Third Ward is pretty expensive.

I like the Milwaukee Bucks 'cuz my boy T.J. is gonna lead them to the playoffs this year; but seriously, I just don't hear about Milwaukee that much, so I personally didn't have a negative preconception. The closest I've been is Kenosha in the summer, and I thought with the waterfront on Lake Michigan, it was a nice town.

the Bucks are going to be awesome this year. I am so glad T.J. is going to play again!

The thing is though these negative perceptions have very real consquences.
That's true but it's already been pointed out that most cities have the very same problems that Milwaukee has to a greater or lesser degree. And the perception is that the midwest as a region is litered with these types of cities. Because people don't hear much about Milwaukee they perceive that Milwaukee is a typical rustbelt city and nothing is changing. The little news they do hear out of Milwaukee I admitt is usually negitive and this reinforces the perception.

The problem the way I see is that Milwaukee has no real profile to speak of outside the midwest. The only thing people outside the midwest know about Milwaukee is that it loves beer and brats and is a rustbelt city, that's it and there lies the problem. This notion that Milwaukee is often in the press and that it's always negitive is just that, a notion. The fact of the matter is Milwaukee gets little to no press at all whether it's negitive or positive. I'm sorry but I have to say it, Chicago and the other major cities in the midwest get all the headlines and top stories on the tv and because of this Milwaukee is looked at as being a very boring place with nothing going on and nothing to do. I do believe that perception is slowly changing however.

Now after saying all that please let me say this. I lived in California for a few years and can say that the little that people know about Milwaukee isn't always bad. Maybe it is with the upper class or edjucated that you all seem to worry about but when it comes to the average Joe, like me, whenever I talked about Milwaukee people were genuinely interested and some even fond of the place. Sometimes when all you know about a place is beer and motorcycles, it can't be all that bad right? Otherwise they know virtually nothing about the town and again, this did give them the perception that Milwaukee is boring.

For a side note: the beer "Milwaukee's Best" isn't named to signify the quality of the beer but is named after the founder of the recipe, Mr. Jacob Best. In fact the beer, not all that long ago, was named Jacob's best. When Miller bought it out they renamed it. Not sure when that was...I'm thinking mid 90s?

I moved to Milwaukee last summer after having been born and raised in Sacramento. I have to say that the culture here, the beauty, the wonderful people, and the vibrance that this city has always exhuded since the first time I came here is what brought me here. There is so much to do! There's the wonderful Museum of Modern Art, THE LAKE, all the summer festivals, Brewers(and Bucks) games. Not to mention the fact that I can drive around Milwaukee and be in awe of the wonderful marvel that is Milwaukee's architecture. There are so many different styles and so much beauty to find. I'm almost offended that someone wouldn't see that. But, as I've always said about Milwaukee....the people that we want to be here see it and the people we don't want to be here don't! So, love it or hate it, it's my home now and I'll take the cold temps, the church steeples, and did I mention the LAKE over heat, smog, and "keeping up with the Jones'" I'm better than you people.

Simple answer... no, it doesnt. I too had this perception that milwaukee was a shithole of a town. I had rarely ever gone there until the last year and i still thought it was a crappy city just from what i heard from peers and the general media. I joined these forums and remember posting a thread about how i had just returned from Charlotte,NC and thought it was much nicer and a lot of people on these boards flamed me for it. From that thread, some of the picture threads, etc, as well as the fact that I go to milwaukee a lot more often now, my opinion has taken a complete 180 and i love the city. I'm moving to Shorewood within the next few weeks because I'm attending UW-Milwaukee this fall and I get more excited by the second.

Milwaukee is a rustbelt, but a recovering one at that, and with some of the developement and proposals going on, I think they're doing a damn good job at the recovery. For those who take the time to visit and see the city first hand, they'll discover that Milwaukee is a gemm but since it gets very little positive press, let alone press at all, people simply make their judgements off what they hear from others and see occasionally on the computer/TV screen.

It's O.K. that they have they opinions. I just hope that they're open-minded enough to accept that Milwaukee is on the rise and will continue to do so, and of course for those of us living here (or planning to;)), we already know how great a city it is

This is an interesting topic, not only because of the focus on Milwaukee, but also because of the generic topic: how well known are our cities?

This nation has experienced an enormous amount of growth in the last half century and the number of cities in the country whose population exceeds 300,000 and whose metro areas exceed 1,000,000 is staggering.

How great of a perception do we have for most of them? You talk about Milwaukee's presence on the national stage and whether people preceive it is there, and if they do, that good things are happening there. But what about other places? Think about it. Fresno has developed into a good size city, but it is far less evocative than Milwaukee; I don't know about you, but personally i can't draw much of a picture of Fresno.

Our nation, whether we like it or not, will be relating more to global issues than domestic issues with each passing year. Many elements of the concept of nation will be lost in time. And on a global level, there are an incredible number of cities whose populations (and metro populations) are at staggering levels in the multi-millions. And a good percent of these, we not only lack an image of, but also have never heard of.

Relevancy to Milwaukee? Even with the national and global spheres, we tend to operate on a local level. Those of us interested in cities gravitate to this forum, but truthfully, more of our co-residents are less concerned with how others see our city and more interested in our city as it compares to itself, as it deals with the growth or decay that is inherent to that concept.

My perception on Milwaukee: this is a city that is very much going in the right direction. It is a city that benefitted from never having gone the tubes, so that much of its urban framework never was decimated. With its unique Germanic roots, the city is loaded with character. Meanwhile, when it comes to its setting on Lake Michigan, few cities can match. As I mentioned earlier, most US cities would die for Milwaukee's lakefront. Ask Fresno. Along with the lake, you did more than admirably with your riverfront. And with Summerfest and other such celebrations, unquestionably carved a very serious festival niche for yourself. You are also looking to the future with big ticket developments like Pabst City. And finally, as Milwaukee and Chicago become more interrelated, the s.w. Lk Michigan shoreline is beginning to act like a more unified megalopolis to benefit of all in our region.

You have enough people in your own metropolitan area who have discovered the city can be hot....and, as such, they are moving downtown. None of this is going to stop because some people think Minneapolis is a lot cooler than Milwaukee or that people tend to lump most midwestern cities in the same category and refuse to differentiate.

No, my sense is that Milwaukee has the ability to put itself in the position where it wants to be without the good wishes of other places. Hey, Milwaukee is your world; why give a shit about what outsiders think about it if you know it is a very good city....and is in the process of getting much better?

http://www.nbc.com/nbc/Late_Night_with_Conan_O'Brien/statequarters/sq_wisconsin2.jpg
;)

People tend to overlook the problems in these cities...because they are fun and cool.

They may overlook the "problems", but I'm sure people still realize they exist. Matter of fact, I think LA is probably more notorious and more stereotyped for it's issues than Milwaukee is. You're right about "fun and cool" being a factor in their popularity. I'm sure Milwaukee is a cool city, but it doesn't have the same "fun and cool" factors to offset the negative stereotype that say, LA, Miami, or New Orleans have.

That's true but it's already been pointed out that most cities have the very same problems that Milwaukee has to a greater or lesser degree. And the perception is that the midwest as a region is litered with these types of cities. Because people don't hear much about Milwaukee they perceive that Milwaukee is a typical rustbelt city and nothing is changing. The little news they do hear out of Milwaukee I admitt is usually negitive and this reinforces the perception.

The problem the way I see is that Milwaukee has no real profile to speak of outside the midwest. The only thing people outside the midwest know about Milwaukee is that it loves beer and brats and is a rustbelt city, that's it and there lies the problem. This notion that Milwaukee is often in the press and that it's always negitive is just that, a notion. The fact of the matter is Milwaukee gets little to no press at all whether it's negitive or positive. I'm sorry but I have to say it, Chicago and the other major cities in the midwest get all the headlines and top stories on the tv and because of this Milwaukee is looked at as being a very boring place with nothing going on and nothing to do. I do believe that perception is slowly changing however.

Now after saying all that please let me say this. I lived in California for a few years and can say that the little that people know about Milwaukee isn't always bad. Maybe it is with the upper class or edjucated that you all seem to worry about but when it comes to the average Joe, like me, whenever I talked about Milwaukee people were genuinely interested and some even fond of the place. Sometimes when all you know about a place is beer and motorcycles, it can't be all that bad right? Otherwise they know virtually nothing about the town and again, this did give them the perception that Milwaukee is boring.


The bad press and negative perceptions I was referring to were largely regional, not national. Some of the press is national, especially the very high-profile stories. Every once in awhile when I'm in a different part of the country some smart-ass asks me if I "knew Dahmer" when I tell them I'm from Milwaukee. For a good part of the Nineties our national profile was so tied up with that serial killer ... it did a lot of damage to our whatever national profile we do have.

Here's the thing -- we don't get in the national press all that often because we're relatively small. But when we do get in the national press it's almost always for something bad. Obviously most people in Arizona, say, aren't conciously thinking "Milwaukee is a bad place." But I would venture to say that 1. they know we exist and 2. the reason they know we exist is because of beer and bad press. So either way they're not thinking that the city is going places. This perception that Milwaukee is dead in the water does not have good economic ramifications.

This is an interesting topic, not only because of the focus on Milwaukee, but also because of the generic topic: how well known are our cities?

This nation has experienced an enormous amount of growth in the last half century and the number of cities in the country whose population exceeds 300,000 and whose metro areas exceed 1,000,000 is staggering.

How great of a perception do we have for most of them? You talk about Milwaukee's presence on the national stage and whether people preceive it is there, and if they do, that good things are happening there. But what about other places? Think about it. Fresno has developed into a good size city, but it is far less evocative than Milwaukee; I don't know about you, but personally i can't draw much of a picture of Fresno.

Our nation, whether we like it or not, will be relating more to global issues than domestic issues with each passing year. Many elements of the concept of nation will be lost in time. And on a global level, there are an incredible number of cities whose populations (and metro populations) are at staggering levels in the multi-millions. And a good percent of these, we not only lack an image of, but also have never heard of.

Relevancy to Milwaukee? Even with the national and global spheres, we tend to operate on a local level. Those of us interested in cities gravitate to this forum, but truthfully, more of our co-residents are less concerned with how others see our city and more interested in our city as it compares to itself, as it deals with the growth or decay that is inherent to that concept.

My perception on Milwaukee: this is a city that is very much going in the right direction. It is a city that benefitted from never having gone the tubes, so that much of its urban framework never was decimated. With its unique Germanic roots, the city is loaded with character. Meanwhile, when it comes to its setting on Lake Michigan, few cities can match. As I mentioned earlier, most US cities would die for Milwaukee's lakefront. Ask Fresno. Along with the lake, you did more than admirably with your riverfront. And with Summerfest and other such celebrations, unquestionably carved a very serious festival niche for yourself. You are also looking to the future with big ticket developments like Pabst City. And finally, as Milwaukee and Chicago become more interrelated, the s.w. Lk Michigan shoreline is beginning to act like a more unified megalopolis to benefit of all in our region.

You have enough people in your own metropolitan area who have discovered the city can be hot....and, as such, they are moving downtown. None of this is going to stop because some people think Minneapolis is a lot cooler than Milwaukee or that people tend to lump most midwestern cities in the same category and refuse to differentiate.

No, my sense is that Milwaukee has the ability to put itself in the position where it wants to be without the good wishes of other places. Hey, Milwaukee is your world; why give a shit about what outsiders think about it if you know it is a very good city....and is in the process of getting much better?


Great post.

This city is indeed thinking globally and acting locally, continuing to carve out a niche in the increasingly international marketplace, and at the same time making life better for those of us who live here.

On one level all of this "which city is cooler" is utter bullshit that doesn't matter one whit. But perceptions become reality when people act upon their perceptions. If Pabst City starts to become perceived as "unsafe," fewer people will go there, it will suffer economically, and then it's lack of safety and vitality becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Same thing for the city as a whole. If Johnson Controls, for instance, is having a hard time recruiting recent engineering grads from MIT because they are disinclined to relocate to Milwaukee, that has real ramifications for the health of the city and its future. The perception that Milwaukee is dead leads to Milwaukee being more dead if a talented engineer who just graduated from a school on the east coast passes up a position at a great company like Johnson Controls because she couldn't see herself living here.

http://www.nbc.com/nbc/Late_Night_with_Conan_O'Brien/statequarters/sq_wisconsin2.jpg
;)

I think it is a good thing that an entire generation is growing up who have never even really HEARD of Laverne and Shirley. I don't consider myself too young by any means (I'm 26), but even I am too young to relate to or even know about that show in any personal context.

Funny guys... I think that a lot of us including me UNDERESTIMATE the perception Milwaukee has. Maybe it was just a couple bad experiences on another forum I had, but Milwaukee's image to most people I think relates to beer and motorcycles, which can't be too bad.

But listen, this is kind of funny... Just watching ESPN and saw a K-Swiss commercial, where they have small 5 second clips of some guy/gal saying "I love my K-Swiss" and holding up their sneaker. Each clip in the commercial shows the name and the city they are from. Like "I'm Rick, and I love K-Swiss" and at the bottom of the clip is states Line 1: "Rick", Line 2: "Chicago, IL" or any other city. I was watching through this and they showed the usual suspects... LA, Chicago, Boston, Miami, New York, Seattle, etc. I was thinking of this thread and told myself "See, I bet you anything they will go through every city in the country before they do Milwaukee." And JUST as I said this to myself, the LAST clip of the commercial showed a couple young, hip-looking professionals saying "I love my K-Swiss's with stripes" or something like that.... and underneath their name? "Milwaukee, WI"

I smiled a big smile and think we may underestimate the good momentum and/or the current perceived notions that Milwaukee indeed has.

On one level all of this "which city is cooler" is utter bullshit that doesn't matter one whit. But perceptions become reality when people act upon their perceptions. If Pabst City starts to become perceived as "unsafe," fewer people will go there, it will suffer economically, and then it's lack of safety and vitality becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.


Maybe "fun and cool" weren't the right words. I guess what I was trying to say is that the reason why the other cities with problems that ReddAlert mentioned are still popular despite having crime problems, drug problems, pollution problems, etc. is because there are other things about those cities that are appealing enough to offset whatever negative image they might have. People want to go to LA and Miami because of the beaches, palm trees, warm weather, etc. People go to New Orleans for the history, food, and Mardi Gras. People go to Milwaukee for.......uh....I dunno....do people go to Milwaukee? Compared to some of the other cities mentioned, people don't go to Milwaukee. Why would someone from a different part of the country go to Milwaukee instead of going to LA, or Boston, or Miami, or even Chicago? There really isn't a good reason, and don't think I'm picking on Milwaukee because you could say the same thing about Minneapolis.

well in my opinion the name sucks....who names there city milwaukee.

sorry but the names kinda gives of a wierd dirty not cool feeling.

I like the fact that the name of the city reflects the Native Americans who were here long before the Europeans came and built the city as we know it.

The name is Algonquin for "gathering place by the water," an apt name considering that before Whites arrived, the location that is now Milwaukee was a thriving place with dozens of different native villages trading with each other. Many different tribes and languages were represented. It truly was a place where people gathered.

I like Milwaukee. I consider the city as Chicago's little brother.

we in milwaukee have a different opinion of chicago well alot of us, and it isnt a good one

but i'm saying that people usually like to visit places that either have easy names to pronounce or exotic names for example.

easy to pronounce---atlanta,hongkong,new york,london
exotic-rio de janiero,miami,and hawaii

milwaukee is not exotic or easy to pronounce,so in my opinion you guys should get rid of it.

what the hell? mad hatter a city should just change its name because some crazy dude in an forum on the internet that likes paris doesnt like the name ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

i know my opinion isn't worth shit but i in my opinion(which im entitled to )the name sucks.

p.s. just cuz i was in paris doesn't mean i like it.

we in milwaukee have a different opinion of chicago well alot of us, and it isnt a good one

Speak for yourself, most people from Milwaukee are going to disagree with you.

i know my opinion isn't worth shit but i in my opinion(which im entitled to )the name sucks.

That's awesome, keep your opinion to yourself though. Not for the reason that it offends anyone, moreso because it's worthless informaton that can't be applied to this discussion.

Well said, Eastsider! I see nothing but Milwaukee and Chicago as complimenting each other. Anybody who sees otherwise needs to wake up and start living in the 21st century! The border line between the two metros is becoming more blurred by the day anyhow and we are essentially already 1 big megopolis. I feel lucky to live in one of the greatest up and coming cities and in the shadow of THE greatest city on earth!

People go to Milwaukee for.......uh....I dunno....do people go to Milwaukee? Compared to some of the other cities mentioned, people don't go to Milwaukee. Why would someone from a different part of the country go to Milwaukee instead of going to LA, or Boston, or Miami, or even Chicago? There really isn't a good reason, and don't think I'm picking on Milwaukee because you could say the same thing about Minneapolis.

Well actually there are cruise ships that dock in Milwaukee. Markitect posted a story last week about how they building new docks for these ships. The arcticle also mentions a 450 passenger ship docking in Milwaukee in September. I also have heard that European and Japanese tourists visit Milwaukee by taking cruise ships.

Granted....we dont get tourists like New Orleans, Honolulu, Miami, or LA. It doesnt bother me that much though. I would rather have a liveable, nice city for the people of the city rather than for the tourists who flock to the beach resorts.

Milwaukee does get alot of regional tourists though. You cant drive anywhere in the city without seeing Illinois drivers...they are everywhere. As for the guy who said we dont like Chicagoians...your wrong in a way. Its not that we hate the people...its just somewhat of a rivalry issue between the two cities. :) We feel almost the same way about Minnesota.

You also see a ton of Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio....even Texas plates all over the lakefront. I also happen to see a ton of Asian and European tourists wandering the lakefront and the Milwaukee Art Museum.
Summerfest draws a good number of tourists..as do Brewers games, the Milwuakee Art Museum, Third Ward, the Zoo, and the other weekly ethnic festivals. The Harley rallies always bring in alot of people. The 100 aniversary a couple years ago drew bikers from every corner of the earth..no joke. I saw a huge group of Italian bikers hanging around this pizza resturant I worked that lol. The Harley Musuem that is going to be built soon is also going to draw a huge amount of Harley entusiasts yearly.

The way things are going..we will continue to draw these people,who hopefully come back or tell their friends about Milwaukee. Whats cool is that the city really doesnt need to draw people in with some typical amusement park shit.

we in milwaukee have a different opinion of chicago well alot of us, and it isnt a good one
Why?
Inferiority complex or something?

Well said, Eastsider! I see nothing but Milwaukee and Chicago as complimenting each other. Anybody who sees otherwise needs to wake up and start living in the 21st century! The border line between the two metros is becoming more blurred by the day anyhow and we are essentially already 1 big megopolis. I feel lucky to live in one of the greatest up and coming cities and in the shadow of THE greatest city on earth!

lol..yeah I feel the same way. There is no way a city of Milwaukees size can ever compete with Chicago..except in sports lol. Its the third largest city in the U.S....a economic powerhouse for christsake! Being connected to a city like Chicago is a very cool thing though. We also have alot of pretty cool cities along the way as well.

Why?
Inferiority complex or something?

nah...its mostly sports related rivalry in my opinion.

Milton doesn't speak for me or most people I know. I love Chicago, and I have many friends who are Chicago natives or have moved there.

nah...its mostly sports related rivalry in my opinion.

Well in that case, I always want the Brewers to beat up on the Cubs. I'm a Northside Sox fan.

Seriously, Chicago and Milwaukee will continue to strengthen ties in all aspects as the years go on. From downtown to downtown it's 90 miles in distance. From the farthest extent of Chicago's northern suburbs to Milaukee's southern suburbs, it's problably 15 miles or less. In fact in about another 20 years or so, we will be one metro area known as Greater Chicago/Milwaukee with about 14-15 million people.

Well in that case, I always want the Brewers to beat up on the Cubs. I'm a Northside Sox fan.

Seriously, Chicago and Milwaukee will continue to strengthen ties in all aspects as the years go on. From downtown to downtown it's 90 miles in distance. From the farthest extent of Chicago's northern suburbs to Milaukee's southern suburbs, it's problably 15 miles or less. In fact in about another 20 years or so, we will be one metro area known as Greater Chicago/Milwaukee with about 14-15 million people.

damn..thats pretty big if you think about it. 15 million would put us in the top 20...close to the size of Los Angeles, bigger than London, Paris, Moscow, Rio, and Bejing right now. We all know that Chicago has is much more global and economically important than cities like Kariachi, Jakarta, Dacca, or Manila. Somebody correct me if my figures are wrong..I assume Bejing will grow a ton more.

I hope we can get some fast rail service between the two downtowns. One of those superspeed bullet trains they have in Europe right now would be very cool. :)

damn..thats pretty big if you think about it. 15 million would put us in the top 20...close to the size of Los Angeles, bigger than London, Paris, Moscow, Rio, and Bejing right now. We all know that Chicago has is much more global and economically important than cities like Kariachi, Jakarta, Dacca, or Manila. Somebody correct me if my figures are wrong..I assume Bejing will grow a ton more.

I hope we can get some fast rail service between the two downtowns. One of those superspeed bullet trains they have in Europe right now would be very cool. :)

The Greater Chicago area is projected to grow from 9.7 million people today, to over 11.5 million by 2025. At the rate of current sprawl, Rockford, and the Milwaukee area will combine with Chicago by then. The Milwaukee area has about 2 million (say 2.4 million by 2025), Rockford 250,000 so, all together your pushing 14 million. As for high speed train services from the Loop to downtown Milwaukee, Metra, Chicagoland's mass transit rail service aside from the CTA, has already in the works to extend it's "last stop" Kenosha station all the way to downtown Milwaukee. It should be up and running in a couple of years.

Do you think Madison would become part of this metro in the near future? Milwaukee is a little closer to Madison than downtown Chicago I believe. Plus, Rockford is merged with Janesville-Beloit, which in the near future could merge with growing Madison.

Also...looking at this map...dont you think the Chicago-Milwaukee-Gary metro region is also defined enough?

http://img317.imageshack.us/img317/6952/imagemap202007ay.gif (http://imageshack.us)

I post this in the US forum... but I'll put it here too.

My offical thoughts about the Chicago metro sprawl as the years go on...
(ignore the X's)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v694/puiko/estimate.gif

Is this reasonable or am I crazy(again about the sprawl)

Do you think Madison would become part of this metro in the near future? Milwaukee is a little closer to Madison than downtown Chicago I believe. Plus, Rockford is merged with Janesville-Beloit, which in the near future could merge with growing Madison.

Also...looking at this map...dont you think the Chicago-Milwaukee-Gary metro region is also defined enough?

http://img317.imageshack.us/img317/6952/imagemap202007ay.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Yes, in the not to distant future, I would include Madison in a Chicago/Milwaukee/Gary....CSA. With regards to the map, the only non-developed land along the lakeshore between Chicago and Milwaukee is the area in between Kenosha (which is apart of the Chicago CSA) and Racine (which is apart of the Milwaukee metro). I've read on the Sierra Club website that that parcel of land is considered to be the 3rd most in-danger of being "urbanized" in the whole country. You are talking about less than 100 sq miles of developement which will be needed before the two regions join. Consider this, between 1990-2000, the Greater Chicago area urbanized over 365 sq miles of what was once farmland.

we in milwaukee have a different opinion of chicago well alot of us, and it isnt a good one

that's funny, miltown, from my experiences, the vast majority of Mlwaukeeans seem to like Chicago. a lot. and are very respectful of our city.

Redd,

my sense is that Madison is too close to Milw and Chgo and too special of a place not to be drawn into a regional link up among cities. If you eliminate climate, Madison may very well be the best mid-size city in America. There are few places like it.

yeah, its becoming quite an incredible city with all the stuff thats going on there. Its really quite nice having these three cities so close to each other..and some scenic forests and lakes in between.

I predict in 20 years you're going to see very little countryside on a drive between Milwaukee and Madison.

I predict in 20 years you're going to see very little countryside on a drive between Milwaukee and Madison.


I REALLY hope that happens.


BTW, like I said earlier, there's just to much contryside surrounding Milwaukee.

http://img317.imageshack.us/img317/6952/imagemap202007ay.gif

Look at a the yellowish brown surrounding Chicago(this picture doesn't show all of it, it goes further south and about 20 miles into Indiana). I'm pretty sure that the yellow brown parts of the map represent urbanized areas. And look at Milwaukee. Waukesha Coutnty is pretty rural. The far southern area of MILWAUKEE COUNTY is rural. (IMO, there sould be no countryside in a county that has a city of almost 600,000 people in it). About 80% of Racine County is rural. Same thing goes for Kenosha County. Even to the north of Milwaukee County (not visible in this picture), it still isn't very urban. About 50% (maybe more) of Milwaukee's metro area is rural! This really annoys me! Especially since there are cities in this coutry with a population of less than 500,000 (Miami, Atlanta, New Orleans, St. Louis) that have metros with about 3.5 million people. While Milwaukee only has 1.5 million.






and for the record, I'm not a big fan of rural areas :)

the farms and fields to the north of Milwaukee are beautiful...espeically in fall. Its cool driving from these areas into all the lights...something I experieced driving home from MATC North campus in Mequon.

I find this better than having strip malls, ghetto housing, ugly apartments, big box retailers etc..

This is something cool about Milwaukee...its not just one huge, endless city..it has nature, animals, agriculture immediatly outside of it as well as in the city itself.

Of course it doesn't. But over the years I have realized that most people that HAVEN'T been there think it "probably" does indeed. One must only visit other message boards to see this. Milwaukee has a very negative stigma about it.

This upsets me. It pisses me off, because some people just believe a lie or believe some pre-conceived notion without trying to research something.

I know what you feel. Living in Buffalo we deal with the same problem of nationwide ignorance. Get a little snow, next thing you know you're (Buffalo) the snow capital of the world. I can tell you for a fact that Milwaukee does NOT suck. I went there for the 1997 Irish Festival and I had an incredible time and have nothing but positive things to say about that city. The only potential negatives of Milwaukee are the same negatives as here in the Buff, Pitt, Clev, and Detroit...losing population etc.

Question (and I hope this does not come across offensive to the fourth): three of four cities (Chicago, Milwaukee, Madison) that are being drawn together regionally have a lot going for them and stand up pretty well on their own.

That really isn't true for the fourth (Rockford). Do you think Rockford, more than the others, will change the most and in the most dramatic way due to the fact it is has the least profile of the group?

********

another question: in this post industrial era, with Chicago and Milwaukee filling in the lakefront towards total link, what are the implications for the old industrial satelitte cities (Wauk, Ken, Rac) that lie smack in the middle of this linkage?

I post this in the US forum... but I'll put it here too.

My offical thoughts about the Chicago metro sprawl as the years go on...
(ignore the X's)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v694/puiko/estimate.gif

Is this reasonable or am I crazy(again about the sprawl)


I think your slighty crazy :)


IMO, "5 years" is very possible. "2015" might happen but I can't see it getting any further than that

Question (and I hope this does not come across offensive to the fourth): three of four cities (Chicago, Milwaukee, Madison) that are being drawn together regionally have a lot going for them and stand up pretty well on their own.

That really isn't true for the fourth (Rockford). Do you think Rockford, more than the others, will change the most and in the most dramatic way due to the fact it is has the least profile of the group?

********

another question: in this post industrial era, with Chicago and Milwaukee filling in the lakefront towards total link, what are the implications for the old industrial satelitte cities (Wauk, Ken, Rac) that lie smack in the middle of this linkage?

Smaller in-betweener cities like Kenosha, Racine, Waukesha--and yeah, even Rockford--have been experiencing the same revitalization efforts of their larger, more well-known neighbors (infill development, converting old industrial buildings to offices/residential, new civic projects like riverwalks, museums, transit improvements etc.). That isn't anything new, and has been going on for quite some time now. No doubt such progress will continue for them as it will for the regional cities that overshadow them.

Smaller in-betweener cities like Kenosha, Racine, Waukesha--and yeah, even Rockford--have been experiencing the same revitalization efforts of their larger, more well-known neighbors (infill development, converting old industrial buildings to offices/residential, new civic projects like riverwalks, museums, transit improvements etc.). That isn't anything new, and has been going on for quite some time now. No doubt such progress will continue for them as it will for the regional cities that overshadow them.

I have to be more careful with abreviations: actually it was Waukegan (not Waukesha) that I was lumping in with Racine and Kenosha.

For a side note: the beer "Milwaukee's Best" isn't named to signify the quality of the beer but is named after the founder of the recipe, Mr. Jacob Best. In fact the beer, not all that long ago, was named Jacob's best. When Miller bought it out they renamed it. Not sure when that was...I'm thinking mid 90s?

Jacob's best is a totally seperate beer and it is a Pabst brand. It's just as dirt cheap but it tastes way better! It is brewed by Miller, although I think the closest beer to it is a regional one sold in the south, but brewed at the same brewery as jacob's best (plank road brewery), called South Paw.

Anyway... I still don't get it, whats wrong with having the beer image? :)

"If you eliminate climate, Madison may very well be the best mid-size city in America. There are few places like it."

If you eliminate climate, half of Madison's appeal for me disappears. : )

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v694/puiko/estimate.gif



although i dont see your calculations happening so quickly, by your estimates, by 2041, i'll be living in the chicago metro area as i'm currently living halfway between madison and fond du lac. chicago is growing, yes, but not THAT fast. maybe 100 years down the road that will be true, but not 36.

can you imagine living in a metro where it takes you 2.5 hours to get to downtown? mindboggling.

Question (and I hope this does not come across offensive to the fourth): three of four cities (Chicago, Milwaukee, Madison) that are being drawn together regionally have a lot going for them and stand up pretty well on their own.

That really isn't true for the fourth (Rockford). Do you think Rockford, more than the others, will change the most and in the most dramatic way due to the fact it is has the least profile of the group?

********

another question: in this post industrial era, with Chicago and Milwaukee filling in the lakefront towards total link, what are the implications for the old industrial satelitte cities (Wauk, Ken, Rac) that lie smack in the middle of this linkage?

Take a trip to Racine and you'll see an old industrial burg of 90,000 people just beginning to emerge from the rust belt doldrums. Look closer and you'll see some the most innovative economic development efforts in the Midwest, such as an outfit that buys patents nationally for new products, and then sells them below cost to small Racine firms to produce the products.

I see nothing but positives for the future of Racine. It's a really neat little city that's slightly off the beaten path and relatively undiscovered.

Kenosha has a beautifully revitalized Downtown, complete with a working streetcar line (!). I see Kenosha as the lynchpin the future Chicago-Milwaukee megalopolis. Already it's the northernmost stop on the Metra, and serves partly as a bedroom community to Chicago, but has retained a lot its character.

can you imagine living in a metro where it takes you 2.5 hours to get to downtown? mindboggling.

Which is why Azn's map is most likely impossible. Metro areas are related to use...what major city do the satellites revolve around? Look at Racine and Kenosha. These two cities are very close together, yet they're in different metros. Why? Because more people from Racine work in Milwaukee, and more people from Kenosha work in Chicago. MSAs and CMSAs are essentially economic zones. So unless the good people of Fond du Lac start contributing to Chicago's economy, they won't be included in its metro population. That's not to say that a sprawl nightmare couldn'y eventually connect the Fox Valley to the Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago corridor...it's just to say that they wouldn't ever be considered one singular metro.

Unless, of course, transit methods improve to the point where someone from Manitowoc can actually make a reasonable commute to Chicago every day. But that, I think, is another thread.

there's just to much contryside surrounding Milwaukee.




and for the record, I'm not a big fan of rural areas :)

Don't know if you're serious or sarcastic, but you really want to replace thishttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v425/looksee/milwaukeeareabarnbeforedemol.jpg

with this?http://www.claremont.org/static/slide4.jpg

If you want to replace farmland/open space with suburban sprawl, you really belong on another site altogether. It's a mystery to me why libertarians come here. I suppose some are simply confused and think cities can exist independently of the centrifugal forces which drive modern American development. My hometown of Phoenix pretty much disproves that. Anything goes here, and believe me, it does - to the periphery. If tall buildings and vibrant cities excite you, then you'll be interested in taming this sprawl.

I've never seen any new suburb which is exciting, enlivening or even interesting. The reason we're here is because we know that. Cities are exciting, not suburbs. Get over the right-wing ideology of absolute property rights and you'll make a better, more interesting country.

I would rather have no growth in the Southern Wisconsin/Northern Illinois region than to have the kind of growth that would come along with filling up the rural breaks between our cities.

It seems some people here fall into the bigger-is-better, more-is-better, quantity-over-quality mentality, and have not really ever taken into consideration the ramifications of such actions that would actually create a super-duper-mega-metro like the one they envision. Who cares about that stuff when 14 million is greater than 9 million, and 20 million is bigger than 14 million; and the boundaries get further and further out--right?

As far as what it takes for the Census Bureau to actually do some metro merging, CG5 got it right. It is based on economic and commuting patterns. Perhaps that is another thing the super-duper-giant-humungous-really-really-really-big-mighty-metro-area supporters do not know about or understand (a point which always comes up whenever the metro-merging subject comes up here).

Here are a few small articles about how bad Milwaukee sucks from the Minneapolis Star Tribune this weekend:

http://www.startribune.com/stories/645/5523018.html

http://www.startribune.com/stories/645/5523021.html

You might have to register, so I'll just post them here:

A Milwaukee renaissance
Chris Welsch, Star Tribune
July 24, 2005 MITR0724OL




In 1845, Milwaukee consisted of two settlements ruled by two cantankerous pioneers, on opposite sides of the Milwaukee River.

As Kilbourntown and Juneautown grew, competition did, too. Byron Kilbourn deliberately set his streets askew from those in Solomon Juneau's settlement, just across the Milwaukee River. When Juneau built a bridge anyway, Kilbourn knocked it down overnight.

Eventually, civic order was imposed, but a grid never was. That explains the strange angles of some downtown bridges today.

Milwaukee has always been a gathering of disparate populations stubbornly clinging to their identities. Thirty years ago, that might have been a knock against a blue-collar town in decline. Now that diversity of communities -- bridged together at odd angles -- is the resurgent city's greatest strength.

Polish, French, Italian, African-American, Irish, Mexican, and most of all, German: Milwaukee spends the summer celebrating its many ethnicities. Next weekend it's German Fest; 100,000 partiers are expected to attend mit gemutlichkeit.

Lake Michigan is center stage for the festivals, but also for the daily life of the city. The lake's presence is much enhanced by Milwaukee's latest improbable bridge. Santiago Calatrava's addition to the Milwaukee Art Museum includes a broad pedestrian walkway over busy Lincoln Drive, connecting downtown to lakefront, and drawing all eyes to the sky and water. The museum floats between the two elements -- no building in the world seems less tethered to the ground.

All of Milwaukee has embraced the soaring addition as its new symbol. Fine architecture is a far cry from beer and bratwurst, although there's still plenty of both in Brew City.

A salute to Milwaukee's best
Chris Welsch, Star Tribune
July 24, 2005 MITR0724.BAROL
Page: 1 2




1. Milwaukee Art Museum

Fittingly, a building that so suggests motion actually does move. Each day, the recent addition to the Milwaukee Art Museum spreads its sun shading "wings" at opening, closing and noon. The building transforms from a sleek collection of angles, suggesting a bird at rest, into an expansive creature about to take flight.

As otherworldly as it is, the Quadracci Pavilion (named for a major funder) is wonderfully functional. With inviting open spaces facing downtown and the lakeshore, it's become the focal point of the city and a natural gathering place.

"There's something called the 'Milwaukee slows,' " said amateur historian Frank Matusinec, a native of the city. "It normally takes a long time to get people interested in moving on a project in this town. But when people saw this design, they couldn't open their checkbooks fast enough." The $121 million addition was completed in 2001.

The museum's permanent collection and exhibitions approach the quality and breadth of those at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, but whatever's on exhibit plays second fiddle to the pavilion, designed by Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava. (Admission is $8; 1-414-224-3220; www.mam.org.)

2. Lake Park

Frederick Law Olmsted left a trail of magnificent city parks across the United States (most famously, Central Park in New York). One of his masterpieces is the elegantly designed landscape that tops the bluffs just northeast of downtown Milwaukee. Lake Park is an excellent place to stroll, watch lawn bowlers on the weekends, and take in the broad view of Lake Michigan. Its 124 acres encompass wooded ravines, the North Point Lighthouse, regal statuary (lions, generals on horseback, etc.) and one of the best restaurants in the city. Bartolotta's Lake Park Bistro is housed in the Olmsted-designed park pavilion. Chef Adam Siegel, trained in France and Italy, prepares simple bistro-style dishes that emphasize fresh, quality ingredients and artful sauces. Filet mignon comes with puréed potatoes, snap peas and an ambrosial peppercorn Cognac cream sauce. (Dinner for two costs about $80; 1-414-962-6300.)

3. Summer festivals

In recent years, Milwaukee has made an industry of ethnic and artistic festivals. Where's one of the world's largest Irish festivals? In Milwaukee, naturally. More than 130,000 fans of Guinness and clogging will gather for Irish Fest, Aug. 18-21. The city also hosts what's billed as the world's largest music festival, Summerfest (ended July 10 this year). Festa Italiana is happening now. Next weekend, it's German Fest. Still to come: Mexican Fiesta, African World Festival and Arab World Fest. The events all take place at the Summerfest Grounds, on the shore of Lake Michigan in downtown Milwaukee (www.summerfest.com; or call Visit Milwaukee, 1-800-554-1448).

4. Brady Street

A longtime Milwaukee resident told me that what the city lacks in big splashy attractions, it more than makes up for in great places to hang out. The city's neighborhoods are full of cozy corner bars, coffeehouses, bakeries and cafes.

Brady Street is a good place to start. A more intimate version of Minneapolis' Uptown, the several-block-long stretch of Brady just north of downtown is the premier avenue for Milwaukee's hipsters, college students and shopping yuppies.

It's also a great place to sample the culinary fruits of Milwaukee's Italian heritage.

Start at Vucciria's, a mod pizza emporium serving up artfully arranged thin-crust pies. The front opens onto the street for excellent people watching. For dessert, head two blocks west to Peter Sciortino's, a classic Italian bakery with delectable cannoli (stuffed with fresh, fluffy ricotta) and blessedly rich tiramisu. Sip coffee, see and be seen at Rochambo or Brewed Awakenings. Sit outside and drink beer at the Nomad. Clothes hounds find fine threads at Three Graces (for women) or Aala Reed (for men).

5. Historic Milwaukee

Thanks to Frank Matusinec, I know where Liberace broke in as a piano player for a temperamental lounge singer. I know why some of the bridges in downtown Milwaukee are crooked. I know that this city is windier than Chicago ("Everyone knows most of the wind there comes from politicians," he said).

Matusinec is one of the guides with Historic Milwaukee, a nonprofit organization dedicated to telling the stories of the city. Walking tours last about an hour and a half and introduce the history, architecture and cultures of several neighborhoods. No need to reserve a spot: Just show up at the time and place of the tour you're interested in ($7 for adults, $2 for students; 1-414-277-7795; www.historicmilwaukee.org;).

6. Pabst Theater

Contrary to stereotype (again), Milwaukee has a vibrant fine arts scene. "Within the metro area, there are 60 cultural performance groups," said Sandy Ackerman, director of Historic Milwaukee. "We even have our own ballet company. Not even Chicago has a ballet."

Choose your performance according to what's in town, but any show at the Pabst Theater deserves extra consideration. Built in 1895 by brewing baron Frederick Pabst, the theater evokes the glories of the Hapsburg empire with its gilded Baroque plasterwork, Austrian crystal chandelier and grand Carrera-marble staircase. I caught a Brahms recital by the local "Frankly Music" string quartet (unfortunate name, excellent performance). The theater acoustics are superb (1-414-286-3663; www.pabsttheater.org).

7. Miller Park

Catch a Brewers game, and you'll be watching ball in an outdoor stadium with a retractable roof. For the record, the park, completed in 2001, has its detractors. It came in at $400 million, way over its $250 million budget. The roof, which cost millions more, suffers technical problems. The location, miles west of downtown, leaves much to be desired. That said, it's outside (unless its raining), and it's Major League Baseball. Beer fanciers take note: The only brew on tap is Miller, but the bratwursts can't be beat (1-800-933-7890; www.milwaukeebrewers.com).

8. Joan of Arc Chapel

Strange to find a medieval French chapel on the campus of otherwise modern Marquette University. Stranger still that the French government let this national treasure leave its shores in 1927, when the daughter of railroad magnate James J. Hill bought it and had it moved to her Long Island estate. Time passed, the estate changed hands, and eventually the chapel was bequeathed to Marquette and moved, stone by stone, to the Milwaukee campus in 1964.

The tiny stone structure, surrounded by flower beds and flowering crab-apple trees, is most famous for the Joan of Arc Stone. Legend has it that Joan stood on this stone while praying to a statue of Mary, then sealed her prayer by kissing the stone. Ever since, the stone has been colder than those around it, Marquette alumni say. I visited the chapel twice hoping to test the temperature; it was closed the first time, and the second time I ended up attending mass. The chapel is open 10 to 4 Mondays through Saturdays and noon to 4 on Sundays. Half-hour tours of the chapel can be scheduled by calling 1-414-288-6873.

9. Oriental Theatre

Another relic from a bygone era, the Oriental is a movie palace from the glory days of Hollywood. Built in 1927, the exterior boasts minarets, and the interior is a cheerful East Indian temple seen through the distorting lens of Hollywood (temple lions, elephants, stained-glass chandeliers). Six larger-than-life seated Buddhas gaze on the audience with glowing emerald eyes, adding an aura of enlightened calm to any movie-going experience. A Kimball Theatre Pipe Organ heralds the start of the 7 p.m. shows on Fridays and Saturdays. It's a Landmark Theater showing art-house movies (1-414-276-8711).

10. Roots

A relatively new restaurant on rapidly gentrifying Brewers Hill, Roots specializes in organic, locally grown cuisine; one of the three owners is an organic farmer, so the path from dirt to plate is direct. The menu changes frequently, but on my visit highlights included a creamy pumpkin soup and rock shrimp with wasabi rice cakes. Perched on a hill, Roots provides a stunning view of Milwaukee, especially at night (1-414-374-8480; www.rootsmilwaukee.com).

11. Maders

One of Milwaukee's most popular German restaurants is also America's largest seller of Hummel figurines. If you need a big stein of beer, some sauerbraten and a ceramic statuette of a cute kid in lederhosen, look no further (1-414-271-3377).

12. Soup Brothers

For a truly strange dining experience, head to Soup Brothers. Don't let the cramped, homely building put you off. Don't let the cramped, homely interior put you off, either. Or the fact that the tables are stacked high with toy trucks, dolls and other odds and ends. Or the fact that the owner might merely appear as the digital camera lens and speaker mounted over the cash register. Just read the menu board and be ready to order. The Thai market broth, creamy with coconut milk and spicy with red pepper, is a good place to start (1-414-270-1040).

Wow..we really are getting some good attention from major newspapers. The MSTribune, NYTimes, Chicago Tribune..etc. I have to say I am kind of excited about these writers saying good things about our city. I hope this kind of stuff will make others think more highly of Milwaukee. Its nice sometimes to not only be known for beer and brats. :)

BTW..I think we should be really impressed with our Riverwalk. I have seen a couple times where forumers on SSC and SSP refered to it as being somewhat like Venice.

Also Markitect, like usual :) , makes good points. Having suburban sprawl is a bad thing regardless. It would be cool if we saw some smarter development when this happens. Speaking of smarter development..what woudl be the best way to do it in our instance?

http://www.claremont.org/static/slide4.jpg

Just so there's no misunderstanding about the origin of this picture, here's the caption and some of the essay that accompanied it:

"[Slide 4]
The foremost physical characteristic of sprawl is the separation of uses by function into conglomerations of single-use activity that urbanists characterize as "mono-cultures." Here is a single use mono-cultural sprawl settlement of housing."

" "New Urbanism: Friend or Foe of Property Rights?" At one level, to even question whether New Urbanists are opponents of private property (and by inference, free markets) borders on the absurd. New Urbanists make their living working with developers; and New Urbanism originates and operates in and presumes a market economy. Everything about New Urbanism presumes that whatever else partially constitutes its success, it must be successful in a marketplace and culture that value private property as a public good—a marketplace and culture in which New Urbanists themselves are participants and commonly property owners. Indeed, this is one of the primary reasons why New Urbanism, for all its favorable reception in disparate quarters of American culture, has been least welcomed in the architectural academy and among the architectural avant gard: New Urbanism is too closely associated with middle-class American values. Nevertheless, private property always co-exists with a better or worse public realm; and sprawl culture is singularly indifferent to and incapable of creating a good public realm. In contrast, the primary interest of New Urbanists is with the public realm, which is the formal manifestation of any culture's understanding of their common good. For New Urbanists therefore, private property is a good but it is not the good; and even if property rights are inalienable, property rights are not absolute. Private property and its attendant rights exist for the sake of the good life for human beings; but precisely for the sake of the good life for human beings property rights may be more or less circumscribed by both customs and laws that express communal will acting for the sake of the common good."
http://www.claremont.org/projects/local_gov/essays/prconfbess.html
(the whole essay is too cold-blooded and schematic for my tastes, but it did provide just the right photograph)

Don't know if you're serious or sarcastic, but you really want to replace thishttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v425/looksee/milwaukeeareabarnbeforedemol.jpg

with this?http://www.claremont.org/static/slide4.jpg

No. Not if it looks like that. Does sprawl always have to be that ugly?

They may overlook the "problems", but I'm sure people still realize they exist. Matter of fact, I think LA is probably more notorious and more stereotyped for it's issues than Milwaukee is. You're right about "fun and cool" being a factor in their popularity. I'm sure Milwaukee is a cool city, but it doesn't have the same "fun and cool" factors to offset the negative stereotype that say, LA, Miami, or New Orleans have.

But, guess what?!?! We have something that those cities DON'T have...REAL PEOPLE!!! Those cities are full of plastic people with plastic problems and they live in plastic houses that are torn apart by wonderful things like hurricanes(with the exception of LA). But, what we have is far greater than those places....LIVEABILITY! So, stay over there with your Mall of America because I don't think we want you or your opinions about Milwaukee. Because you really just don't "get it"!

But, guess what?!?! We have something that those cities DON'T have...REAL PEOPLE!!! Those cities are full of plastic people with plastic problems and they live in plastic houses that are torn apart by wonderful things like hurricanes(with the exception of LA). But, what we have is far greater than those places....LIVEABILITY! So, stay over there with your Mall of America because I don't think we want you or your opinions about Milwaukee. Because you really just don't "get it"!

Oh come on. What a load of shit. "We have real people....bla bla bla" Do you think everyone in LA is a movie star or wants to be one? Do you think everyone in LA lives in Beverly Hills and has gotten plastic surgery? LA has more real people than Milwaukee simply because it's about 10 times the size. LA, Miami, and New Orleans are more popular nationally and have more pull than Milwaukee and that has nothing to do with my opinion or the Mall of America.

Oh come on. What a load of shit. "We have real people....bla bla bla" Do you think everyone in LA is a movie star or wants to be one? Do you think everyone in LA lives in Beverly Hills and has gotten plastic surgery? LA has more real people than Milwaukee simply because it's about 10 times the size. LA, Miami, and New Orleans are more popular nationally and have more pull than Milwaukee and that has nothing to do with my opinion or the Mall of America.

I didn't read Anti-Cheesehead's comments as an attack on Milwaukee. He's just stating a fact that LA and Miami have a pull on the American imagination that Milwaukee does not have. I don't see this as a dis, I see it as a fact.

LA and Miami have something that no Midwestern city has -- glamor.

Of course not everyone in LA is a wannabe movie star, but there is a certain obsession with image and fame in Los Angeles that Midwestern cities don't have. For me personally, I could seriously give a shit about glamor. I have seen famous people, from TV and movies, and when I have I just kept on walking, because I frankly don't give a shit that the dude from "Will & Grace" is sitting in the same restaurant that I am. I'm not one of these people who's going to stand outside Rockefeller Center on a weekday morning just to catch a glimpse of Katie Couric and Al Roker. Because, while I'm sure they're nice people, Katie and Al have absolutely no impact on my life whatsoever.

I have noticed a certain trend among my friends that have moved to New York and Los Angeles. They go on and on about how their boss's dog groomer also grooms Kevin Spacey's dog, and the other day they saw Ashton Kucher at the store. I just nod and feign interest.

LA, Miami, and New Orleans are more popular nationally.

True. Warm, party cities tend to have lots of pull.

True. Warm, party cities tend to have lots of pull.

That's all I'm saying. ReddAlert wanted to know why those cities seem to be forgiven despite having crime problems, pollution problems, etc. I honestly believe that LA's reputation is worse than Milwaukee's when it comes to crime and pollution.......but LA has mountains, the ocean, palm trees and warm weather year round so people let it off the hook. Miami and New Orleans have things to make people overlook their problems too. Milwaukee and most midwestern cities don't really have anything to make up for whatever problems they have so they're pretty much SOL and stuck with the stereotypes.

Oh come on. What a load of shit. "We have real people....bla bla bla" Do you think everyone in LA is a movie star or wants to be one? Do you think everyone in LA lives in Beverly Hills and has gotten plastic surgery? LA has more real people than Milwaukee simply because it's about 10 times the size. LA, Miami, and New Orleans are more popular nationally and have more pull than Milwaukee and that has nothing to do with my opinion or the Mall of America.
:soapbox:
Did I mention that I LIVED in California for 25 years. How long did you live there? I moved here to Milwaukee to get away from people who are fake and trying to be better than everyone else...and guess what?!? I found it! There may be some real people in California. But, mostly they live in San Francisco or up north where it's rural and there's not too many people. So, yes, I would say the majority of the people, in some way or another are FAKE!...Fact is, I would know, you wouldn't. So, get over yourself!!!

:soapbox:
Did I mention that I LIVED in California for 25 years. How long did you live there? I moved here to Milwaukee to get away from people who are fake and trying to be better than everyone else...and guess what?!? I found it! There may be some real people in California. But, mostly they live in San Francisco or up north where it's rural and there's not too many people. So, yes, I would say the majority of the people, in some way or another are FAKE!...Fact is, I would know, you wouldn't. So, get over yourself!!!


The majority of the 32 million people that live in California are "fake" (define fake) in one way or another?.......and you know this for a fact because you lived there? No, no generalization there. It's funny that you left to get away from people who are "trying to be better than everyone else" yet you yourself think you're better than all of the "fake" Californians. Ironic. Nevermind that there are millions of Californians that aren't native to the state. And I need to get over myself? California won't miss you. Too bad for Milwaukee.

Well, all I know is I'm real. Just to make sure I ran headlong into a wall the other day. I mean, if I wasn't real, you'd think I'd pass right through the wall like a hologram or something. Nope, I'm real.

Are you sure you're a real boy and not a little wooden puppet?

Wow, well there are those that think Milwaukee sucks. Good for them, I could care less. I'm sure there are numerous people out there that think Miami sucks, and LA sucks, and Minneapolis sucks, and the list can go on and on and on. Every City anywhere will have at least one person that does not have a favorable opinion of it.

So what - we blame the media or newspapers for Milwaukee being shown in a bad light? I've seen more positive articles recently on how Milwaukee is changing for the better in major areas such as Chicago, New York, Minneapolis - so it really can't be the national media. I mean, like New York, LA, or Miami care about how many homicides Milwaukee has had this year. That's a good quiet night in some of these places.

The weather. Again - mute point. People can't take the cold. Tough shit. I can't take the heat, I don't want to live where there are hurricanes, mudslides, forest fires, floods, or earthquakes. So all in all, again we all deal with something - and the cold is the least of the worries there.

No coastline. Well maybe not an ocean or a gulf but Lake Michigan not a coast? BS. Chicago is praised for it's lakefront. Well, Milwaukee is on the same lake and has a very decent lake front.

Not enough glitz and glam... Okay. You got us. Us Wisconsinites do not flash our money around like other people around the country do. But people are buying multi-million dollar condo's and can afford mansions on the lakefront. So there are rich people in Milwaukee. You don't see many Lambo's or Ferrari's here because it isn't practical. They would rather have a 4X4. We have Door County, Lake Geneva, and the northwoods within a couple hours, where I may be mistaken but half the population of the Chicago metro area invades every year for vacations. We do like the simple things. So we don't have a great deal of upscale stores like Hollywood or Rodeo Drive. Yup, so don't a lot of major cities the last time I checked.

So Milwaukee is, what Milwaukee is. Trying to compare it to New York, Chicago, or LA is hilarious! :rofl: Again, Miami and New Orleans are again in a different ball park (southern coastal cities).

You know what, I think this thread sucks. :wtf:

Are you sure you're a real boy and not a little wooden puppet?

As far as I know I don't have a man's hand up my ass, so, no.

I admit I've probably spent far too much time worrying about what the outside world thinks of Milwaukee. I guess when my college friends all moved to other less "sucky" places and I moved back to supposedly "sucky" Milwaukee, well, that sucked.

Are you sure you're a real boy and not a little wooden puppet?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/solar_manifestation/Pinocchio.jpg

"Oh shoot I've dropped my glasses. By the way, Pinocchio, there was a cookie missing from the jar. Did you take it by any chance?"

"Yes Pappa Gepetto. I'm sorry."

"Are you sure you took it, because uhh.. I'd believe you if you said you didn't."

"No, I took it Pappa. I wouldnt lie to you."

"You could try. Who knows, you might get away with it."

:rofl:

I love family guy. Sorry for the off topic post.

Anyway back on topic, what's with all this real vs fake talk. Not everyone who lives in LA is fake. The average person like you I is as real as anywhere else. and just like anywhere else, the extra wealthy are always full of themselves. big money = big ego's. you cant possibly say the only reason they're so self-aggrandized is because they live in a specific city.

That's all I'm saying. ReddAlert wanted to know why those cities seem to be forgiven despite having crime problems, pollution problems, etc. I honestly believe that LA's reputation is worse than Milwaukee's when it comes to crime and pollution.......but LA has mountains, the ocean, palm trees and warm weather year round so people let it off the hook. Miami and New Orleans have things to make people overlook their problems too. Milwaukee and most midwestern cities don't really have anything to make up for whatever problems they have so they're pretty much SOL and stuck with the stereotypes.

Well...glamour and tourism always seem to blind the average man from the cities problem. As for the public perception issue...who cares really? It bothers me a little but what are you going to do. There are alot of people on the site who are stuck with awe on how much cities like Milwaukee, MSP, Detroit, Cleveland, Indy, Stl, KC..etc. actually look as compared to their negative stereotypes. Like I said before...we dont have to deal with this trendy bullshit that makes places more uncool. Each city is improving and down the road...may be better than their Southern and Western counterparts. Phoenix and Las Vegas will be such a mess in 20 years with the water problems they are going to face.

I admit I've probably spent far too much time worrying about what the outside world thinks of Milwaukee.

This brings us back on topic. I think whoever thinks that Milwaukee has this horrible national reputation is just paranoid. Most people in the US don't think about Milwaukee at all. As far as most people on the coasts are concerned, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Cleveland, Indianapolis, etc. are all the same thing and don't have bad or good reputations.........they don't have any reputation, they're just cities on a map in the midwest.

I wonder what percentage of the adult American population knows that Milwaukee is on Lake Michigan? I'd say maybe 50%.

Of course Milwaukee hasn't much of a national rep. If it were not for major league baseball and beer few people would even know the city exists. To people on the coasts (whose opinions for some reason seem to be the topic of great discussion on this post, versus the opinions of the country as a whole) it's all the same -- "Milwaukee .. isn't that somewhere in Minnesota?" Once I had a conversation with an educated city planner in New York who thought that the "Twin Cities" were Minneapolis and Milwaukee.

I would venture to say the city has a Midwest rep, however, and that nearly 90% of the adult population in the Midwest is aware that the city of Milwaukee is on Lake Michigan. And, from what I have observed, our regional reputation, among the states of Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, etc, is not too favorable. This has little to do with being a "ghetto" city or even a dive city. It has to do with the perception that the city is a backwater. That Milwaukee "sucks."

In my original, overly-verbose post, which I regret ever writing, I should have pointed out that these perceptions were held among our neighboring states, not among people in New York or Los Angeles or Florida or Seattle.

All I can say is that it was a slow Friday at work and instead of going home early like I usually do in the middle of summer, I stuck around and let the thoughts fly through the keyboard.

So go ahead, say Milwaukee sucks. Or say it doesn't suck. I really don't give a shit anymore.

So go ahead, say Milwaukee sucks. Or say it doesn't suck. I really don't give a shit anymore.

Well, I do. :soapbox:


anyway, what can Milwaukee do to change it's image? Because, like it or not, image is important to a city. There are too many dumb people who rely on sterotypes for it not to matter.

Milwaukee just shot down one the(if not THE) biggest proposals within the last 10 years. I'm sure this doesn't help our image in the eyes of developer who are(or were) interested in this city

I wonder what percentage of the adult American population knows that Milwaukee is on Lake Michigan? I'd say maybe 50%.

well, then, maybe that's their problem, anti-cheesehead, and not Milwaukee's. If they bothered to know, Milwaukee is not only on Lake Michigan, it has maximized its location there with a totall spectacular lakefront, a waterfront most cities would die to have.

As if that weren't enough, Milwaukee managed a second great waterfront on its river....a great place to wine and dine or take a boat.

Truth is, Minneapolis is a terrific city, too, but you don't have a waterfront (be it Mississippi River or Lake Calhoun or any of them) that matches Milwaukee's lakefront.

What still amazes me is how far you carry those anti-Milwaukee sentiments endlessly for no reason. If I may be so blunt in asking.....what the fuck for?

well, then, maybe that's their problem, anti-cheesehead, and not Milwaukee's. If they bothered to know, Milwaukee is not only on Lake Michigan, it has maximized its location there with a totall spectacular lakefront, a waterfront most cities would die to have.

As if that weren't enough, Milwaukee managed a second great waterfront on its river....a great place to wine and dine or take a boat.

Truth is, Minneapolis is a terrific city, too, but you don't have a waterfront (be it Mississippi River or Lake Calhoun or any of them) that matches Milwaukee's lakefront.

What still amazes me is how far you carry those anti-Milwaukee sentiments endlessly for no reason. If I may be so blunt in asking.....what the fuck for?

Huh? How am I carrying anti-Milwaukee sentiments? I'm guessing that a good chunk of the American public doesn't know Milwaukee is on Lake Michigan. I never said that was Milwaukee's problem, it's just a guess based on my experiences with people from people not in the midwest.

Why the Minneapolis comparison?

Is edsg25 reading too much into my statement and being overly dramatic, or did anyone else think my comment was a dig on Milwaukee? The comment I'm talking about is this one:

I wonder what percentage of the adult American population knows that Milwaukee is on Lake Michigan? I'd say maybe 50%.

I personally don't feel like that statement was knocking Milwaukee, it's a pretty neutral statement.

This is the second time edsg25 has accused me of having something against Milwaukee. He ducks in here, accuses me, baits me with a Minneapolis comparison, then finishes up with a cuss word.

The only time I've really commented on Milwaukee was when a certain forumer from there called downtown Minneapolis "tumbleweeds".

Is edsg25 reading too much into my statement and being overly dramatic, or did anyone else think my comment was a dig on Milwaukee? The comment I'm talking about is this one:

I wonder what percentage of the adult American population knows that Milwaukee is on Lake Michigan? I'd say maybe 50%.

I personally don't feel like that statement was knocking Milwaukee, it's a pretty neutral statement.

This is the second time edsg25 has accused me of having something against Milwaukee. He ducks in here, accuses me, baits me with a Minneapolis comparison, then finishes up with a cuss word.

The only time I've really commented on Milwaukee was when a certain forumer from there called downtown Minneapolis "tumbleweeds".

First off - I still say Milwaukee does not suck.

Secondly - I didn't take the comment about the lack of geography knowledge in America as a dig against Milwaukee. It's sad, very sad - but true.

Lastly - Anyone that says a City sucks but has only been there a short time or driven past does not have a leg to stand on. I've been in Minneapolis, and I like it for different reasons. In my opinion - "AND LET ME STRESS - MY OPINION", I like Milwaukee better for various reasons. And I'm sure Minneapolis people would say the same about their town. Is Minneapolis better than Milwaukee in some cases - yes, is Milwaukee better than Minneapolis in some cases yes. The same argument can be made for almsot every city. But does that make one of the cities suck? No. It is which City would you prefer to live in because of (insert points here). The Midwest is a region right now where a lot of people see it as is Chicago and everybody else. We're all in the same boat and damn proud of Milwaukee, The Cities, Omaha, Detroit, Indy, St. Louis, and the list goes on...

Milwaukee can market the Art Museum (which has shown up in a number of places) as well as the festivals, and on and on... People that don't realize the Midwest is cultured and has a lot of positives going for it and think it is just a cold place - just plain.... suck.

Weak Skyline, No LTR, backwards thinking, selfish city government other then that I love it!!!! What can't you do for entertainment in Milwaukee that other cities offer?

Looming Total Riot?

Lakefront Tire Recycling?

Late Term Ringworm?

Loose Trash Receptacles?

Lame Tripled Responses?

Looming Total Riot?

Lakefront Tire Recycling?

Late Term Ringworm?

Loose Trash Receptacles?

Lame Tripled Responses?

long term relationships

leisure time rentals...

I'm assuming something to do with Rapid Transit...

Weak Skyline, No LTR, backwards thinking, selfish city government other then that I love it!!!! What can't you do for entertainment in Milwaukee that other cities offer?

I've come to the conclusion that 1/3 of Milwaukeeans are backwards thinking, 1/3 are progressive-minded, and 1/3 are somewhere in the middle.

I'm assuming something to do with Rapid Transit...

He must have meant Light Rail Transit.

www.milwaukeeconnector.com

That guided bus tram will never happen. Neither will a light rail

The Connector could happen, although it faces an uphill battle with Scott Walker still in charge of the County. The Federal money to help pay for it is there.

Sometime this fall we should hear more about the Milwaukee Connector, when the locally prefferred alternative is formally announced.

why are people always saying Milwaukee has a weak skyline? What is so bad about it? Believe it or not..its actually better than alot of other cities skylines...even ones with taller and more buildings.

why are people always saying Milwaukee has a weak skyline? What is so bad about it? Believe it or not..its actually better than alot of other cities skylines...even ones with taller and more buildings.

People always look at it from the wrong angle. Our skyline doesn't face the lake. People just don't seem to get that. The best angle I've ever seen is from the Miller Park area, facing northeast.

I don't believe in skylines.

I don't believe in skylines.

yeah, they can be overrated at times. Where's DC's skyline?

I'll say this much: Milwaukee's skyline is a BITCH to get a good photo of. You can get good shots of parts of the skyline, but the damned thing is so decentralized and stretched out that by the time you can fit it all in the frame USBank is ten pixels tall. The one really great angle you can get without a helicopter or a dynamo zoom is from North Ave by the resivoir, and you can only take that picture so many times before it starts to get tired.

I don't believe in skylines.

That's not surprising. People from Milwaukee, St. Louis, London, etc. don't care about skylines and think they're over rated. People from Chicago, NYC, etc. are super proud of their skylines. People from the north love 4 seasons snow, and cold. People from the south can't stand the cold.

It doesn't matter what city someone is from, whatever that city is good at is important, whatever the city is not very good at isn't important. That's always the way it is in here.

That's not surprising. People from Milwaukee, St. Louis, London, etc. don't care about skylines and think they're over rated. People from Chicago, NYC, etc. are super proud of their skylines. People from the north love 4 seasons snow, and cold. People from the south can't stand the cold.

It doesn't matter what city someone is from, whatever that city is good at is important, whatever the city is not very good at isn't important. That's always the way it is in here.

Your sweeping generalizations are not applicable to everybody. I don't believe in skylines because they are not what makes a city a city...not because my city isn't "good at it."

Your sweeping generalizations are not applicable to everybody. I don't believe in skylines because they are not what makes a city a city...not because my city isn't "good at it."

I know a skyline doesn't make a city a city. I think the "generalization" I made pops up all the time on this site.

It goes something like this:

Bob: "You're city doesn't have (fill in the blank)"

Bill: "Well, I don't care if my city doesn't have (fill in the blank) because (fill in the blank) isn't important and I don't even like (fill in the blank). (Fill in the blank) is over-rated. (Fill in the blank) isn't what makes a city a city.

The real reason Bill doesn't care about (fill in the blank) is because his city doesn't have, or isn't good at (fill in the blank).

And I'm not saying that "fill in the blank" always means skyline. It could be anything.

I think people who "don't believe in skylines" or think that skylines are "overrated", especially people who frequent a site like this, more often than not live in cities that don't have the greatest skyline.

You cannot tell me that if all of the sudden Milwaukee had a residential and office tower boom that would significantly improve the skyline that you wouldn't be happy because you "don't believe in skylines".

People always look at it from the wrong angle. Our skyline doesn't face the lake. People just don't seem to get that. The best angle I've ever seen is from the Miller Park area, facing northeast.

the best angle is coming off the Hoan Bridge/Lake Parkway in my opinion. This is the best area to see all of the skyline. Its actaully quite large and dense contrary to popular belief. The problem is that our buildings are all spread out with gaps in between...unlike Minneapolis, Seattle, Philly..etc that have one big cluster.

Here is what im talking about. I wish I could get a panorama on this because the skyline strectches farther on both sides...plus you cant see Lake Michigan in the pic on the left.

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/39/0116397iu9hh.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

You cannot tell me that if all of the sudden Milwaukee had a residential and office tower boom that would significantly improve the skyline that you wouldn't be happy because you "don't believe in skylines".

I cannot? Because you know for sure what I would think? And it differs from what I know I would think? That's some power you've got there.

I cannot? Because you know for sure what I would think? And it differs from what I know I would think? That's some power you've got there.

It's not "power", it's common sense.

So you're telling me that you'd be disappointed if Milwaukee had a few more towers to fill in the skyline? And at the same time, you frequent a skyscraper forum? Uh, OK, I guess.

I like Milwaukee's skyline. Just because it doesn't have the imposing buildings from afar that other cities may have, the real treat is in the architecture downtown. The little details that you don't see in a picture taken 1/2 mile away. You could spend days wandering around downtown and not see every detail that some of the older building have to offer if you don't have a guide book.

The people I can't stand on these threads are the one's that say - well my skyline is bigger than yours so that instantly means my city is better than yours.

The pre-occupation with size obviously has something to do with it. Maybe you should read Sigmund Freud??? Skyscraper City is more than just about skyscrapers in case you haven't noticed...

It's not "power", it's common sense.

So you're telling me that you'd be disappointed if Milwaukee had a few more towers to fill in the skyline? And at the same time, you frequent a skyscraper forum? Uh, OK, I guess.

I did not say I would be disappointed if any city, let alone Milwaukee, had a few more towers to fill in their skylines. I simply said skylines and skyscrapers are not what impresses me about cities.

I frequent this website because it is about cities, not skyscrapers. And cities are more than just skyscrapers--they are about buildings of all kinds; they are about people; they are about neighborhoods; they are about architecture; they are about development; they are about transportation networks; they are about cultures... This website is here so we can learn about all of those things from other people, and to teach other people about all of those things, for our own hometowns to places we've never been before, from big megalopoli to small towns. Other poeple have their own reasons for coming here, and that's fine. But this is why I come here...so do not presume that you know what and how I think.

I did not say I would be disappointed if any city, let alone Milwaukee, had a few more towers to fill in their skylines.

You wouldn't be happy, you wouldn't be disappointed either, so you'd wouldn't care one way or the other?

I simply said skylines and skyscrapers are not what impresses me about cities.

Do you think Chicago and Manhattan's skylines are impressive parts of each city? Would Chicago be as impressive as it is without skyscrapers?


I frequent this website because it is about cities, not skyscrapers.

If it's not at all about skyscrapers, then someone needs to tell the creators of this site to change the name.

And cities are more than just skyscrapers.

Obviously cities are more than just skyscrapers and a skyline......but, having nice skyscrapers and a nice skyline certainly isn't a bad thing for a city.

You're just going to take this football:

I don't believe in skylines.

and run with it as far as you can, huh?

You're trying to get Markitect to say that skyscrapers are a bad thing, that he'd be upset if all of sudden Milwaukee got more of them, so then you can jump and down say "see?? I told you!! You're not impressed with skylines because your city does not have one!! Gotcha!"

I guess my question here is: why?

Why take a perfectly benign statement and twist it around to mean what you want it to? Are you running for office or something?

So what if someone is more impressed with the active streetlife of Manhatten than he is with with the height of its buildings? I'm not impressed with the NHL because I don't care for hockey, not because Milwaukee hasn't an NHL team.

Would Chicago be the same without its skyline? Of course not. The Chicago skyline is part of the all around experience of that city. But does that mean to be a vibrant and exciting city you absolutely must have a skyline that strikes awe in the hearts of mere mortals? That's like saying without tuna salad it's just simply not a sandwich. A great thing to say if you're selling tuna, but a ridiculous thing to say if you're an afficianado of all sandwiches of all varieties.

If you think Milwaukee sucks and we're all dorks for liking it, fine. Why don't you just say that then instead of baiting?

Great pic ReddAlert! I enjoyed that view everyday as I went to my summer class.

Why take a perfectly benign statement and twist it around to mean what you want it to? Are you running for office or something?



What do you interpret the statement "I don't believe in skylines" to mean? Keep in mind the context in which the statement was made. People were discussing the Milwaukee skyline (not me) and whether or not it "sucks", and in the middle of the discussion we get: "I don't believe in skylines" What do you interpret that to mean? Frequenting a site called "skyscraper city" and saying "I don't believe in skylines" doesn't reconcile with me very well.

I say:

"You cannot tell me that if all of the sudden Milwaukee had a residential and office tower boom that would significantly improve the skyline that you wouldn't be happy because you "don't believe in skylines"."

Markitect responds:

"I cannot? Because you know for sure what I would think? And it differs from what I know I would think? That's some power you've got there."

I take that to mean that Markitect wouldn't be happy with more skyscrapers in Milwaukee. Where did I go wrong?

What do you interpret the statement "I don't believe in skylines" to mean?

I take it to mean that Markitect thinks Milwaukee is a great city whether or not people think the skyline is weak. And I agree with him.

I take it to mean that Markitect thinks Milwaukee is a great city whether or not people think the skyline is weak. And I agree with him.

If that's what he actually said, then I would have never commented on it.

I do believe in skylines, that's why I'm here. I am impressed by the skyline when I go to New York or Chicago. You can see Manhattan from 20 miles away. That's impressive to me. Skylines and skyscrapers are interesting to me.

Skylines and skyscrapers are interesting to me.


I'm sure Markitect is interested in skylines and skyscrapers too, but he's made it quite clear that that isnt all that matters to him in a city and its only a minor detail in what makes a city.

stop reading only the words and read between the lines too.

Great pic ReddAlert! I enjoyed that view everyday as I went to my summer class.

thanks! I am pretty proud of it because I took it while driving :)

I like this angle:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v132/suburbanmonkey50/38.jpg

I love this angle:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v132/suburbanmonkey50/MKE%20-%20Jackson-Lakefront/tn_PB060053.jpg

This is most peoples' favorite:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v132/suburbanmonkey50/MKE%20-%20Spring%20at%20last/073.jpg

But this is my favorite:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v132/suburbanmonkey50/MKE%20-%20Spring%20at%20last/046.jpg

It all depends on how you look at things, right? ;)

Even though the name is SkyscraperCity..I think more about the City than the Skyscraper.

I also come on here for the same reason Markitect does. Sure tall buildings are nice....but its whats on the ground that makes a city. They are going to build a condo tower that I will never be able to afford to live in or an office tower that I will never have the education to work in....its the same for 90 pecent of the people who live here.

I think we all agree that Milwaukee's low/med rise architecture is where the city shines. Ill take the Mitchell Building, City Hall, Milwaukee Art Museum, and the Cudahy Tower any day over Kilbourn Tower, University Club Tower, Taipei 101, or the Nicolet.

great photos CG! I really like the expanded one off the Hoan Bridge.

Um, I wouldn't put Kilbourn Tower in that group. It's as good as any of the lowrise stuff we have.

great photos CG! I really like the expanded one off the Hoan Bridge.


Thanks. It would have been less blurry, but I saved it in jpeg twice because I was editing out the damned 40000000-foot high lightpoles.

I can't take credit for this panorama, but here is the website that deals with Milwaukee Architetcture. It was taken by Dr. Steven Reyer.

http://people.msoe.edu/~reyer/mke/

This doesn't include Kilbourn Tower, but would be a great angle for a downtown skyline shot when UTC is complete as well... And still includes the Park East Freeway which is now gone. When those developments fill in, possibly Ovation Tower (if built) - this should be a spelndid shot - if one could still manage to be able to take it.

Follow this link to see the picture I'm talking about...

http://people.msoe.edu/~reyer/mke/panorama2a.jpg

Also, I am partial to the view from MacArthur Square as well. There is a book that shows some photos from the view as well - Milwaukee Architecture by Joseph Korom. It was avilable at the UWM Architecture Book Store a couple of years ago when I was a student and one of the best purchases I have made to date. I wish it would be updated.

Also, an older picture in a book called Wisconsin - A Picture Memory taken by Bill Harris shows a great view of downtown. It is an older picture with the Milwaukee Center still under construction and the 100 East not even up yet but still shows how spread out the buildings are. I suggest looking in the library for this one.

The reason these angles work for me is the the US Bank Tower does not look out of place. There are pockets of downtown where historical low rise buildings occupy space, thus creating the illusion that Milwaukee's skyline is so "weak" - when in fact it is not.

Um, I wouldn't put Kilbourn Tower in that group. It's as good as any of the lowrise stuff we have.

Its a cool and sleek tower dont get me wrong..but its nothing you wouldnt find anywhere else. It actually kind of looks like the Nicollet Tower in MSP.

I think people are wise enough to judge cities based on things other than skyline. Many people think Madison is cool, for instance, because it has incredible street level density and is very walkable. But there is no skyline that impressed you.

Anyone who judges a city based on skylines hasn't been to Europe. Some of the greatest if not THE greatest cities in the world, like London, have smaller skyline than even a place like Minneapolis.

People are not stupid. Even if you are just "driving through," density or lack thereof is right there in your face as much as how tall some of the buildings are.

Milwaukee will NEVER be able to say it has a "great skyline" because just an hour south of it is probably the world's greatest one, making it look puny by comparison. If anything Milwaukee has to work on what it does well, keep things dense and low-rise. The more European Milwaukee gets the happier I'll be, and low-rise and dense is the way to go.

Milwaukee will NEVER be able to say it has a "great skyline" because just an hour south of it is probably the world's greatest one, making it look puny by comparison. If anything Milwaukee has to work on what it does well, keep things dense and low-rise. The more European Milwaukee gets the happier I'll be, and low-rise and dense is the way to go.

I agree with you about low-rise and dense having a lot to offer and interestingly, even with your mention of Chicago's massive skyline, much of the city remains low-rise and dense (and many, many Chicagoans love it just that way). To me, one of the great things about Chicago is all the areas in the city that we don't want high rises!

Meanwhile, as I've said so many times, Chicago and Milwaukee do a very good job of complimenting one another. Milwaukee doesn't try to compete with Chicago in the number of urban attractions he has and Chicago knows damned well it can not deliver an fine, but exceedingly easy-to-use urban environment the way that Milwaukee can.

In other parts of the midwest (i.e. Twin Cities, Detroit) where two major cities aren't close by as in the cae of Milw and Chgo, that concept of complimenting each other is hard to grasp. As such, I'll go out on a limb and say Chicagoans are more likely to like Milwaukee than folks in Mpls. Or, at least that's the impression I get on this board.

I agree with you about low-rise and dense having a lot to offer and interestingly, even with your mention of Chicago's massive skyline, much of the city remains low-rise and dense (and many, many Chicagoans love it just that way). To me, one of the great things about Chicago is all the areas in the city that we don't want high rises!

Meanwhile, as I've said so many times, Chicago and Milwaukee do a very good job of complimenting one another. Milwaukee doesn't try to compete with Chicago in the number of urban attractions he has and Chicago knows damned well it can not deliver an fine, but exceedingly easy-to-use urban environment the way that Milwaukee can.

In other parts of the midwest (i.e. Twin Cities, Detroit) where two major cities aren't close by as in the cae of Milw and Chgo, that concept of complimenting each other is hard to grasp. As such, I'll go out on a limb and say Chicagoans are more likely to like Milwaukee than folks in Mpls. Or, at least that's the impression I get on this board.

Good post. I agree with the Chi-Mil comparison.

Milwaukee probally wouldnt have ever had a major skyline or even been a major city. Correct me if I am wrong..but why come to Milwaukee with your business if you can go to Chicago..which is only 90 miles south? Chicago is in a much better location. Its connected to the Mississippi River, Lake Michigan, and is also in a much better location with the railroad.

I personally dont understand why people bitch about skylines and such. We are just north of one of planet Earths greatest skylines. :)

Its a cool and sleek tower dont get me wrong..but its nothing you wouldnt find anywhere else. It actually kind of looks like the Nicollet Tower in MSP.

You can't find buildings that are architecturally similar to Cudahy Tower in most other cities? Or Mitchell? And this may seem nitpicky, but the Nicollet Tower looks like Kilbourn, if anything. ;)

In other parts of the midwest (i.e. Twin Cities, Detroit) where two major cities aren't close by as in the cae of Milw and Chgo, that concept of complimenting each other is hard to grasp. As such, I'll go out on a limb and say Chicagoans are more likely to like Milwaukee than folks in Mpls. Or, at least that's the impression I get on this board.

How are the Twin Cities unlikely to grasp the concept of complimenting each other?

Correct me if I am wrong..but why come to Milwaukee with your business if you can go to Chicago..which is only 90 miles south? Chicago is in a much better location. Its connected to the Mississippi River, Lake Michigan, and is also in a much better location with the railroad.

You're essentially arguing against the existence of the city there. Which I find confusing. And as for rail/water connections, these are far less important in the information age than, say, the early 1900's. Especially to a white-collar facility like a corporate headquarters. Look at Boeing in Chicago for an example close to home.

Chicago is still the largest rail hub in the world. Since fiber optic cables are usually laid along railroad rights-of-way, it's also a major electronic nerve center. An email sent fron Tokyo to Soeul might just go through Chicago.

But I digress, back to the topic at hand. Does Milwaukee suck? Hell no.

Good post. I agree with the Chi-Mil comparison.

Correct me if I am wrong..but why come to Milwaukee with your business if you can go to Chicago..which is only 90 miles south?

True, Redd, but I have often suggested to out-of-towners to include a day trip to Milwaukee when they're here. Some people on this thread don't get it. Milwaukee offers a nice alternative to Chicago in the sense that it has a rich, urban fabric but one that can be easily accessed. Don't ever downplay such an asset. There are many wonderful things to do in Milwaukee, downtown and in the neighborhoods, that can be a pain in the ass to do in Chicago. Milwaukee and cities like it offer a wonderful opportunity to experience cities...without having to write a three page plan on how to do so.

Y
How are the Twin Cities unlikely to grasp the concept of complimenting each other?

because they are the same metro area, not adjacent ones. Much of the discussion generated here includes Milwaukees (and Chicagoans and Twin Citians) who live in the suburbs, not the central city. So we're tending to look at our metro areas on the whole.

Of course, Mpls and StP compliment each other, but that's internal thing in your metro area....and has little to do with how your metro relates to others. So, yes, I'll stick with my original point: Chicago and Milwaukee are the only metros in the midwest that are in the same neck of the woods.

There is nothing in Mpls, KC, StL, Indy, Det, Clev, Col, or Cincy that is comparable.

I ask the following question in sincerity (because I don't know the answer) and without the desire to flame (I think Milwaukee and Mpls/St. Paul are both great places):

Do the Twin Cities have some kind of a spur up their collective asses in regard to Milwaukee?

Unless I'm mistaken (and I may be), I pick up a Twin Cities' desire to put Milwaukee in its place as this minor, not-so-real, not high rise city far too close to Chicago to be taken seriously.

If I'm wrong, I apologize, but that seems to be the prevalanet attitude I'm picking up reading between the lines.

Unless I'm mistaken (and I may be), I pick up a Twin Cities' desire to put Milwaukee in its place as this minor, not-so-real, not high rise city far too close to Chicago to be taken seriously.

If I'm wrong, I apologize, but that seems to be the prevalanet attitude I'm picking up reading between the lines.
I don't think it's a "Twin Cities desire" at all, but that attitude does come across by one or maybe two forumers. I happen to know of several Twin Cities forumers who have come and gone that were in tune to Milwaukee enough to know that not only is it often overlooked because of it's big brother Chicago but it is a special place in it's own right. They generally like the town very much.

edsg25, don't let one or two forumers from a city give you the general impression on the psyche of the city. I think you may be right about one of the forumers though

When in the Twin Cities I have noticed an all-around feeling of superiority over the state of Wisconsin among many members of the population.

When in the Twin Cities I have noticed an all-around feeling of superiority over the state of Wisconsin among many members of the population.
But does that mean that they believe the state of Wisconsin and or the city of Milwaukee sucks? I'm sure some do but does that mean everyone? I've been to the Twin Cities myself and have gotten the impression that most of the people love their city and state and are proud of it. They feel their little corner of the world is better than our little corner of the world but I never got the impression that they believe our corner of the world totally sucks. There is a difference between them feeling superior and believing Wisconsin sucks. Could it be that they just believe Wisconsin is alright but they got it even better? If not, fine, but that's the attitude I see from them and that's alright with me because I have the same attitude. I believe Minnesota is alright but I got it better right where I'm livin.

I wish this question was put as a poll.

milwaukee does not suck. never has, never will.

about the earlier deabte regarding the importnace of skylines, i would say that skylines are great assests for a city, but certainly not an neccessary ingredient. if a city has a great and mighty skyline, that can be a big plus to a city, but other things can be big bonuses to a city as well, such as milwaukee's beautiful lakefront. most cities would kill to have such a nice shoreline along a beautiful body of water like lake michigan, but just because a city doesn't have a nice lakeshore, that doesn't mean that it's less of a place.

it's like this, milwaukee may not a have a tall and impressive skyline like minneapolis, but minneapolis doesn't have the gorgeous lakefront that milwaukee has. and this example can be used for thousands of other places. i'd say that skylines can be very important for certain cities, but they aren't the make or break point either. a city, any city, is so much more than just the collection of tall buildings it has managed to assemble for itself.

milwaukee does not suck. never has, never will.

about the earlier deabte regarding the importnace of skylines, i would say that skylines are great assests for a city, but certainly not an neccessary ingredient. if a city has a great and mighty skyline, that can be a big plus to a city, but other things can be big bonuses to a city as well, such as milwaukee's beautiful lakefront. most cities would kill to have such a nice shoreline along a beautiful body of water like lake michigan, but just because a city doesn't have a nice lakeshore, that doesn't mean that it's less of a place.

it's like this, milwaukee may not a have a tall and impressive skyline like minneapolis, but minneapolis doesn't have the gorgeous lakefront that milwaukee has. and this example can be used for thousands of other places. i'd say that skylines can be very important for certain cities, but they aren't the make or break point either. a city, any city, is so much more than just the collection of tall buildings it has managed to assemble for itself.

Minneapolis is less of a place than Milwaukee in terms of waterfronts. I'd trade the Mississippi for Lake Michican. It's not like I don't believe in nice waterfronts because we don't have one. :) Would people in Milwaukee trade their skyline for Minneapolis's? Or is the whole not believing in skylines not just a Markitect thing, but a Milwaukee thing?

Minneapolis is less of a place than Milwaukee in terms of waterfronts. I'd trade the Mississippi for Lake Michican. It's not like I don't believe in nice waterfronts because we don't have one. :) Would people in Milwaukee trade their skyline for Minneapolis's? Or is the whole not believing in skylines not just a Markitect thing, but a Milwaukee thing?

A building is just a building.

I know when I'm walking around downtown Dallas at times, I'm sure the vast amount of people are not walking around going "we have a great skyline, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside"... No that is the heat and the fact you are on your sixth Starbucks.

If it is that important to live somewhere, where the determining factor on if it sucks or not is the skyline - I have a simple solution. MOVE THERE!!!

Plus an interesting point about the lakefront. If the lakefront wasn't there, I'm sure you would see a lager Milwaukee Metro area since it could sprawl on more naturally like, let's say the twin cities - thus potentially creating the demand for more office space which in turn may spark a need for a building over 601 feet.

A building is just a building. There is no way I would ever trade the lakefront for the Minneapolis' skyline. I would have to be on some serious crack to get hosed on a deal like that.


No, not trading the lakefront, trading the Milwaukee skyline for the Minneapolis skyline and you keep the lakefront. Yes? No?

I guess the answer depends on whether or not you believe in skylines.

No, not trading the lakefront, trading the Milwaukee skyline for the Minneapolis skyline and you keep the lakefront. Yes? No?

I guess the answer depends on whether or not you believe in skylines.

Yes I didn't read your question correctly and thus was editing my response when you quoted me...

See my answer above. Same basis.

Yes I didn't read your question correctly and thus was editing my response when you quoted me...

See my answer above. Same basis.

I don't see an answer in that edited post.

Would you trade the Milwaukee skyline for the Minneapolis skyline and you keep the lakefront. Yes or no? Could anyone photoshop a few Minneapolis towers into a Milwaukee lakefront photo?

If it is that important to live somewhere, where the determining factor on if it sucks or not is the skyline - I have a simple solution. MOVE THERE!!!


Nobody is saying that the determining factor of whether or not a city sucks is the skyline. I'm not saying that.

I don't see an answer in that edited post.

Would you trade the Milwaukee skyline for the Minneapolis skyline and you keep the lakefront. Yes or no? Could anyone photoshop a few Minneapolis towers into a Milwaukee lakefront photo?

I see an answer.

But to make it simple... NO.

It really isn't important to me at all. Sure skyline photography is pretty neat, and yes I have James Blakeway's Milwaukee skyline picture in my gameroom.

Milwaukee is adding buildings that are taller that will impact the skyline. But as I've stated before - it has a lot of low rise historical buildings that make up a lot of the blocks around downtown that you can't see from a 1/2 mile away in a skyline shot. I am more proud of these buildings than 100 East... They have stood the test of time and have a story to tell.

If you put the US Bank Building, 100 East, Milwaukee Center, 411 Building, Kilbourn Tower, Univ. Club Tower, NWML Data Center all within 1 block of each other it would make Milwaukee's skyline appear dramatically different. But it is what it is. We appreciate what we have and that's what is important to me at least.

Would people in Milwaukee trade their skyline for Minneapolis's? Or is the whole not believing in skylines not just a Markitect thing, but a Milwaukee thing?

I wouldn't trade Milwaukee's skyline for Minneaspolis's. That would be like trading our local flavor for that of San Francisco. We could go and do that, and maybe it would be an improvement, but Milwaukee really wouldn't be Milwaukee anymore.

Would I be happy if Milwaukee doubled its skyline? Sure, because that would be a sign of a booming economy. But if I had to choose between a new skyline or healthy, attractive neighborhoods, good schools, and a happy, productive citizenry, I would go with the latter.

Milwaukee's neighborhoods are improving, and that makes me happy. Our skyline remains lackluster, but I don't get too depressed about that.

it has a lot of low rise historical buildings that make up a lot of the blocks around downtown.

So does Minneapolis. But anyway, how about you keep the best low rises that you have now, and you trade Milwaukee's towers for Minneapolis's. IDS, 225 S. 6th, Wells Fargo, etc. all on Lake Michigan. Yes or no?

Nobody is saying that the determining factor of whether or not a city sucks is the skyline. I'm not saying that.

point taken. I wasn't saying you did. just becasue I quoted you doesn't mean that I cannot have thoughts of my own unrelated to your question in my post. if that is a rule, then i have broken that rule and deeply apologize for any pain that i caused you. i will make sure in the future that for each new thought i may have, i will post a new reply.

thanks for the debate, i quite appreciate it.

But if I had to choose between a new skyline or healthy, attractive neighborhoods, good schools, and a happy, productive citizenry, I would go with the latter.


I never asked anyone to choose between those options. I was talking about trading skylines or towers.

So does Minneapolis. But anyway, how about you keep the best low rises that you have now, and you trade Milwaukee's towers for Minneapolis's. IDS, 225 S. 6th, Wells Fargo, etc. all on Lake Michigan. Yes or no?

no.

Milwaukee is Milwaukee. It is evolving and I am excited for the future. It is nice to think of "what if's" and "I wonder's" - but that is not reality. I am a realist, so I may not be as fun at this game as you would have liked.

I would trade all of our crime for the IDS building, though. so there I made a trade.

Milwaukee is one of the nation's best cities.

Milwaukee is better than Minneapolis.

OK, fine. I give in. I want the IDS Tower, Wells Fargo tower, and that other cylinderical one in Milwaukee. I wish all of Minneapolis' skyscrapers had been built in Milwaukee instead. Sometimes I close my eyes and just imagine if Minneapolis' skyline was actually Milwaukee's. I then open my eyes and see what our skyline actually looks like, and get despondent. I then go to a tavern in my neighborhood and drink till I pass out. This is my life.

Milwaukee is one of the nation's best cities.

Thanks for the complement.

Milwaukee is one of the nation's best cities.

Milwaukee is better than Minneapolis.

Nah uh. No way.

Minneapolis in one of the nation's best cities.

Minneapolis is better than Milwaukee and Buffalo combined.

nana nana boo boo. So there.

OK, fine. I give in. I want the IDS Tower, Wells Fargo tower, and that other cylinderical one in Milwaukee. I wish all of Minneapolis' skyscrapers had been built in Milwaukee instead. Sometimes I close my eyes and just imagine if Minneapolis' skyline was actually Milwaukee's.

I believe this much.

I think a nice waterfront is over-rated. A waterfront isn't what makes a city. Just because a city doesn't have a nice waterfront, doesn't mean it sucks.

I don't believe in waterfronts.



Now, doesn't that sound a little ridiculous? Doesn't it sound like someone is a little sour?

Or is the whole not believing in skylines not just a Markitect thing, but a Milwaukee thing?

i wouldn't know, i'm a chicagoan, and i certainly believe in skylines, they definitely exist, but an urban environment can be magnificent without them just the same. visit europe if you doubt this.

but an urban environment can be magnificent without them just the same. visit europe if you doubt this.

I don't know why people keep saying things along these lines in this thread because I'm not debating that point and I don't think anyone else is either.

I haven't been to Europe, but I've been to DC. I'd rather live in San Diego over Minneapolis, even though Minneapolis's skyline is larger. I understand that a skyline doesn't necessarily make the city, so everyone, feel free to stop pointing it out.

I don't know why people keep saying things along these lines in this thread because I'm not debating that point and I don't think anyone else is either.

I haven't been to Europe, but I've been to DC. I'd rather live in San Diego over Minneapolis, even though Minneapolis's skyline is larger. I understand that a skyline doesn't necessarily make the city, so everyone, feel free to stop pointing it out.

Then why did you ask so many times if we would trade a certain skyline for another one and what not?

Were you testing us???

Then why did you ask so many times if we would trade a certain skyline for another one and what not?


Because I don't understand why someone wouldn't believe in skylines. I don't understand why any city wouldn't want to improve on their skyline.

IMO, adding the Wells Fargo tower, the IDS, and 225 S. 6th would be an improvement on Milwaukee's skyline. IMO, if you don't agree with that, you're letting your pride get in the way.

I'm not like that though. I'm capable of voting against my home city in a poll. I'm not too proud to say that I'd prefer a Lake Michigan waterfront to a Mississippi river waterfront.

I don't know why people keep saying things along these lines in this thread because I'm not debating that point and I don't think anyone else is either.

I understand that a skyline doesn't necessarily make the city, so everyone, feel free to stop pointing it out.

then what are you saying? if we all agree that a city cannot and should not be measured by its skyline, then what the hell are we debating?

Because I don't understand why someone wouldn't believe in skylines. I don't understand why any city wouldn't want to improve on their skyline.

IMO, adding the Wells Fargo tower, the IDS, and 225 S. 6th would be an improvement on Milwaukee's skyline. IMO, if you don't agree with that, you're letting your pride get in the way.

I'm not like that though. I'm capable of voting against my home city in a poll. I'm not too proud to say that I'd prefer a Lake Michigan waterfront to a Mississippi river waterfront.

It has nothing to do with pride. It is reality. As I stated before... I am excited about Milwaukee's future. But pretending or playing make believe is just not something that I am all that intetrested in. Yes it would be great to have those buildings on Milwaukee's skyline. There I said it. *poof* it just happened. Seriously they are now located in Milwaukee. Wow, doesn't Minneapolis' skyline suck? Double Wow, the Milwaukee office vacancy rate just shot through the roof.

See... pointless.

Because I don't understand why someone wouldn't believe in skylines.
Well, if you still don't understand after all the bandwidth that's been applied replying to your repetitive befuddlement, I guess we'll all have to draw our own conclusions about your lack of vision.

then what are you saying? if we all agree that a city cannot and should not be measured by its skyline, then what the hell are we debating?

I'm saying that when someone says "I don't believe in skylines" that they really don't mean that. It's really just a case of sour grapes. Instead of accepting that the skyline might not be one of Milwaukee's strong points, someone has to "not believe in skylines". It's understandable that someone would want to deny thinking like that, but I believe that's the way it is. I must've really hit a nerve considering that some people are taking this personally and are starting in with the personal attacks.

It'd be the same thing if someone mentioned that Minneapolis's Mississippi waterfront leaves a lot to be desired and then I go and say something like: "Oh yeah, well I don't believe in waterfronts anyway".

Nice post morphing looksee. It's good that you realized that you might want to tone it down a little. :)

True, Redd, but I have often suggested to out-of-towners to include a day trip to Milwaukee when they're here. Some people on this thread don't get it. Milwaukee offers a nice alternative to Chicago in the sense that it has a rich, urban fabric but one that can be easily accessed. Don't ever downplay such an asset. There are many wonderful things to do in Milwaukee, downtown and in the neighborhoods, that can be a pain in the ass to do in Chicago. Milwaukee and cities like it offer a wonderful opportunity to experience cities...without having to write a three page plan on how to do so.

I think its cool that you recommend visiting Milwaukee. You probally dont see to many New Yorkers telling visitors or friends from out of town to visit Boston or Philladelphia.

This kind of works like the bad experience/good expeience analogy you hear about resturants or other businesses. If you tell someone that Milwaukee was a horrible place and shouldnt visit...than more than likely they will judge it completly based on your one visit. They will probally tell more of their freinds too...which leads to a bad rep. If you say good things about the place..than they probally will have more of a postive view on the city.

Its really like this with Detroit. Everyone judges it on stereotypes and homicide charts...without ever actually visiting the city and seeing for themselves. People on here rip Tampa to pieces...but I actually liked it.

Going back to my point about Chicago. Chicago would have naturally become the larger, more important city. Correct me if I am wrong, but Milwaukee grew because it was in a better location for the fur trade than Chicago. The Milwaukee, Menomonee, and KK rivers flowed from forest wilderness to Lake Michigan and present day Milwaukee. This made the city an ideal port.

Chicago also is in a great location for doing business. Its the largest rail hub in the world..which cant hurt. It also connects to the Mississippi River..which also cant hurt. Plus its on the far end of Lake Michigan which made it more centralized than Milwaukee. This things probally lead to its massive growth..making it into the future economic powerhouse we all know and love to this day. :)

Nice post morphing looksee. It's good that you realized that you might want to tone it down a little. :)
Do you have a clue how dictatorial, intolerant, inquisitorial and just plain greedy you appear to be? To say nothing of thickheaded.

If Minneapolis looks down on the state of Wisconsin, I've got to laugh my head off.

Do they realize that is the exact opposite of Chicago's relationship with Wisconsin. Chicago relates to Wisconsin more than any other state in the union....including Illinois. If we leave the Chicago area by car for anything, we are far more likely to be going somewhere in Wisconsin than in Illinois. Chicago tends to look at Wisconsin as its major playground.

Do with know something Minneapolitans do not?

I think its cool that you recommend visiting Milwaukee. You probally dont see to many New Yorkers telling visitors or friends from out of town to visit Boston or Philladelphia.


when folks are visiting chicago from outside the region, i ALWAYS recommend that they take a side trip up to milwaukee. in fact, over the years i've actually personally taken about 20 people (many of them from overseas) up to see milwuakee because i thinks it's that important for people to see it. all the people that i have brought to milwaukee have come away with a FAR better impression of the place than they had before. some of the foriegners didn't even have an impression of milwaukee to begin with.

if someone is coming to chicago for a visit, there is no reason in the world not to take the side trip 90 miles north to see the other big game in our region.

If Minneapolis looks down on the state of Wisconsin, I've got to laugh my head off.

Do they realize that is the exact opposite of Chicago's relationship with Wisconsin. Chicago relates to Wisconsin more than any other state in the union....including Illinois. If we leave the Chicago area by car for anything, we are far more likely to be going somewhere in Wisconsin than in Illinois. Chicago tends to look at Wisconsin as its major playground.

Do with know something Minneapolitans do not?

No, lots of people from the Twin Cities have cabins in NW Wisconsin.

CAN

WE

DECLARE

MILWAUKEE

SUCK-PROOF -

AND

END

THIS

CHARADE

!?!?!

when folks are visiting chicago from outside the region, i ALWAYS recommend that they take a side trip up to milwaukee. in fact, over the years i've actually personally taken about 20 people (many of them from overseas) up to see milwuakee because i thinks it's that important for people to see it. all the people that i have brought to milwaukee have come away with a FAR better impression of the place than they had before. some of the foriegners didn't even have an impression of milwaukee to begin with.

if someone is coming to chicago for a visit, there is no reason in the world not to take the side trip 90 miles north to see the other big game in our region.

That's nice to hear. I always thought that Milwaukee should position itself to be the New Orleans of the Midwest ... a fun loving city where people come to cut loose and relax. Beer and polka might not be as exotic as cajun and zydeco, but hey, the city already has a good party reputation, and it is exceptionally easy to get around Milwaukee.

I just got back from the Art Museum (special late hours on Thursdays) and there was a crowd of tourists, many of them international, watching the wings go down for the night, their cameras clicking away at the spectacle. They came not just for the building but for the art, which is much, much better than anything being shown in Milwaukee even five years ago (www.mam.org).

I'm saying that when someone says "I don't believe in skylines" that they really don't mean that. It's really just a case of sour grapes. Instead of accepting that the skyline might not be one of Milwaukee's strong points, someone has to "not believe in skylines". It's understandable that someone would want to deny thinking like that, but I believe that's the way it is. I must've really hit a nerve considering that some people are taking this personally and are starting in with the personal attacks.

It'd be the same thing if someone mentioned that Minneapolis's Mississippi waterfront leaves a lot to be desired and then I go and say something like: "Oh yeah, well I don't believe in waterfronts anyway".

TOUCHDOWN!

You win, now go away and spend your summer vacation doing something outside. Are you starting high school in the fall? That's an exciting time for any kid. Just don't let those upper classmen give ya hard time, 'kay kiddo?

^Must've struck a nerve with you too, huh?

Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me.......

Time to go outside and play.

I know this thread is now dead, or at least it should be, but I have to put in my two cents...forgive me...

Because I don't understand why someone wouldn't believe in skylines. I don't understand why any city wouldn't want to improve on their skyline.

Your arguement isn't with the city of Milwaukee but with one man. A man who said he doesn't believe in skylines. I know Markitect and what he said he truely believes, trust me, he doesn't believe in skylines and it isn't because of sour grapes. Many of us, not all, Milwaukee forumers have argued this with him and to no avail. If you wanted to argue this out with him you should've learned something about the man first instead of falsely accusing him of having sour grapes and being jealous of cities with higher skylines. You were simply barking up the wrong tree.

The man is interested in one thing and one thing only and that is discussing how to make cities, namely Milwaukee, a better place to live, work, and play. Architecturally he is only interested in whether the building functions in the way it was meant to and how it fits in with it's surroundings. He is only interested in the overall design of the building, not in the height.

I'm more like you though. I can't help it but I love skyscrapers and I wish Milwaukee had more of them. To Markitect this is nonsense, to you it's sense. As for me I see both points of view and agree with both.

I love some of the Minneapolis skyscrapers but do I wish Milwaukee had some of them? No, you can keep the ones you have but I do wish Milwaukee would build some of their own, I happen to like Milwaukee's style. As for Markitect, I have to respect him because I know he believes and means what he says and when he says he doesn't believe in skylines you can take that to the bank!

Anti-Cheesehead, I was on craigslist and I saw this posting for a waterfront property...I know that you're not into waterfronts, but even you've got to appreciate this. It's just DARLING. It looks like a great place to raise little...oh, what does your kind call children? Troll-lings? I don't know...whatever they are. Your spawn. There.

http://www.consult-eco.ndirect.co.uk/lrc/graphics/under%20bridge%201.jpg

Yes, there are some pesky people in the picture, but that's just to show scale. AND, if they come back, it says in the lease that you can eat them!

:)

Not that it matters, but anti chessehead - I mean the name somewhat says it all don't you think?

People are entitled to their point of view. And although you you seem to be very strong in your opinions regarding what we should all think - it does not mean that you are right. I enjoyed the lively debate that we had yesterday, but in the end it just didn't seem to sink in. I'll agree with you, some people may find Milwaukee's skyline, well as an underachiever. But it is the City that makes the City. And I think to most people who live there or elsewhere in this nation - that trumps anything.

I was born and raised in Green Bay. I saw cities of comparable size getting taller buildings in their downtown and was like "what?"... But as I "grew up" I started to realize all of the positives about my hometown that didn't revolve around the downtown area and tall buildings. Now my hometown has two proposals for what we in Green Bay would call "skyscrapers", while others would coin the term "mid-rise buildings" at 17 stories each. But if those proposals are never built, will I be disappointed??? Not really. Do I think it is a good oppurtunity to strengthen the downtown region. Yes. More so because of the look of the buildings and the uses that make up the proposals rather than how tall they both are. How buildings fit into the fabric of a community and play off of each other is important to me as well as how the buildings address the needs of the business and personal world who inhabit them.

When I moved to Milwaukee, the same thoughts of seeking out the positives of a city were as true as when I was back home. So, although I do appreciate skylines - they are not as important to me as other things a city may have to offer. I love Milwaukee and I love Green Bay. I moved to Dallas and although the skyline is impressive (more so than Milwaukee's), I absolutely hate it here. So basically, a skyline is not as important to me as a number of other things. But my job keeps me here. I miss the positives I found back home that I do not find here. That is why skylines do not matter or are cared about to some people as much as schools, crime, healthy economy, leisure activities, and so on.

Do I kick myself when Des Moines, IA or Omaha, NE have taller buildings than Milwaukee? No. I have more important things to concern myself. When you realize that people may actually think that way and it is not just because they think that aspects of their cities are not up to par with other cities - so it isn't important to them, then it may just all click.

Till then good luck.

Your arguement isn't with the city of Milwaukee but with one man. A man who said he doesn't believe in skylines.

Thank you for understanding and not taking what I say personally.

For the record, my argument is not just with one man, it's with anyone who thinks like that.

I'll take your word for it about Markitect truley not believing in skylines. When I read that statement though, I just had to comment. It's not the first time I've read things like that, and most of the time, when I see things like that, it is sour grapes. It's the Londoners that have to put down New York because it has a skyline that they don't have. It's the people in LA that feel like they need to hammer this into your head: "A skyline isn't everything" because Chicago's skyline is much more impressive. Basically, it's putting down something you can't have, don't have, or don't understand. It doesn't even need to be about skylines, sour grapes can happen for any reason, and I can't stand that shit.


Not that it matters, but anti chessehead - I mean the name somewhat says it all don't you think?

Not really. My screen name is supposed to be a joke. It comes from when I went to college in Wisconsin and lived next to a house full of people from Green Bay. We were friends except on game day.

For certain people though, my name is not a joke, especially after this thread.

Some people actually don't believe in skylines. Some people think that the European low-rise model is preferable, because it leads to a more pleseant street experience for the pedestrian. This is a relatively common viewpoint among those of New Urbanist bent. I happen to beleive that what really matters in a city is energy and vitality, which come from density. In American cities, density usually goes hand in hand with skyscrapers. But it doesn't have to. When a Milwaukeean says he prefers his city without a towering skyline, he may actually mean that he prefers a low or mid rise ciy to a high rise one.

I for one want more density in Milwaukee's downtown, both residential and commercial. If this means lots of five story projects rather than a few thirty story projects, I am fine with that. In fact, I can see how someone could prefer lots of five story projects over a few thirty story projects, without accusing the person of sour grapes.

You latch onto this "I don't beleive in skylines" comment. This was a wry way of impugning this almost religious belief that to be a great city, you need a towering skyline. Apparantly you don't get irony. Where did you go to college in Wisco? Please don't say Madison, otherwise I'l have to reconsider the quality of the education I received there.

The anti-cheesehead, the thing I wish you would've noticed right off the bat is that Markitect didn't actually put down or bash cities with higher, more impressive skylines. His posts are a ways back so I don't feel like checking the actual quotes out to make sure but going off of memory he simply said that he didn't believe that skylines were the only or major indicator of how lively a city is, in fact that's all anybody here has been trying to tell you. You saw him and the others here right away bashing cities with higher skylines when they were not. Maybe Londoners resort to that kind of thing but I really haven't seen evidence of that here in this thread. If there was it was only caused by the heat of the arguement.

Take it or leave it but here's a little free and friendly advise. Be careful not to place everyone in the box that you have created for them. Not everybody that passes your way is going to fit in that mold. I don't visit these forums to make enemies but I know it can be easy to do. So with that I think I'll lift my can of Miller High Life and give a toast to good ole Minny...Here's to Minneasota guys!

P.S. The cheese, when you gunna come down to visit Milwaukee, you know deep down she's calling yah. I promise, you wont be disappointed!

I've been to milwaukee twice to visit my cousin. it's the DEADEST city i've ever seen. (and that's an understatement). i could NEVER live there.

I've been to milwaukee twice to visit my cousin. it's the DEADEST city i've ever seen. (and that's an understatement). i could NEVER live there.

Im sure most people feel the same way about Baltimore.

I've been to milwaukee twice to visit my cousin. it's the DEADEST city i've ever seen. (and that's an understatement). i could NEVER live there.

I'm curious: when was the last time you were in Milwaukee?

I've been to milwaukee twice to visit my cousin. it's the DEADEST city i've ever seen. (and that's an understatement). i could NEVER live there.

I'm sorry, I know this guy may be talking from his ass, but I laughed out loud when I read his post. Way to get to the point...that was awesome.

I've been to milwaukee twice to visit my cousin. it's the DEADEST city i've ever seen. (and that's an understatement). i could NEVER live there.

Milwaukee, on a Friday or Saturday night, is perhaps the most lively city I have EVER seen for a metro of its size. It's too bad you didn't know where you were going and had a bad tour guide.

Im sure most people feel the same way about Baltimore.

nope, i don't believe i can say that, sir...lol. it's obvious that u've never been here. businesses and developments are BOOMIN' here if i must say so myself. By the way Michael Redd, has anyone told u that u need to pass the ball more? have a great evening & learn to be a team player.

I'm curious: when was the last time you were in Milwaukee?

a year ago.

i hope i didn't offend u in my statement, milwaukeeunseen. just merely speaking my opinion.

I'm sorry, I know this guy may be talking from his ass, but I laughed out loud when I read his post. Way to get to the point...that was awesome.

i really didn't mean any harm, EastSider. i was just merely speaking my opinion.

When i look at where i'm from and look at milwaukee, you guys are a lakefront city like baltimore is. i just figured that milwaukee could take advantage of that beautiful waterfront with tons of development, but i guess milwaukee doesn't see it that way. i guess when i made my comment, i was speaking from just the downtown area (which in most cases is the core of MOST cities' fun and excitement). but i must say, i love that white building on the water with the futuristic look. i think it's a gallery of some kind. that looks really nice. & u guys have the best beer in the world. i also forgot to mention that when i visited out there, it was in january i believe, so i really didn't get to see the full extent of what u guys had to offer. i stepped off the plane at mitchell airport & the temperature was 1 i believe.....lol. Baltimore NEVER gets that cold. "WOW" was all i could say.

When i look at where i'm from and look at milwaukee, you guys are a lakefront city like baltimore is. i just figured that milwaukee could take advantage of that beautiful waterfront with tons of development, but i guess milwaukee doesn't see it that way.

Milwaukee does take advantage of its lakefront with tons of development...it's just elevated up atop the bluff overlooking the lake, which allows the immedate shoreline area at the bottom of the bluff to be devoted to public uses--miles of lakefront parkland, beaches, recreational fields and natural areas for all people to use. It is our "front yard" so to speak, our great recreational gathering space; it's not supposed to be cluttered up by lining the shoreline with a bunch of private development. Luckily, our City, County, and State leaders realized what a tremendous asset our lakefront was, and took measures to prevent it from becoming entirely privately developed and limited the amount of public development that can occur there as well.

& u guys have the best beer in the world.

One day you too will be able to enjoy a cold one in Milwaukee.... come back and visit us when you turn 21 ... in 2013.

One day you too will be able to enjoy a cold one in Milwaukee.... come back and visit us when you turn 21 ... in 2013.

lol......right. sounds good to me. but i turn 21 in a year, so it'll be sooner than u expect.

Milwaukee does take advantage of its lakefront with tons of development...it's just elevated up atop the bluff overlooking the lake, which allows the immedate shoreline area at the bottom of the bluff to be devoted to public uses--miles of lakefront parkland, beaches, recreational fields and natural areas for all people to use. It is our "front yard" so to speak, our great recreational gathering space; it's not supposed to be cluttered up by lining the shoreline with a bunch of private development. Luckily, our City, County, and State leaders realized what a tremendous asset our lakefront was, and took measures to prevent it from becoming entirely privately developed and limited the amount of public development that can occur there as well.

cool

^Every month we have one of you. The type that just writes down some comment to get people angry. You have to realize that you're not an original, someone like you comes in once every month-and-a-half and says some absurb comment about Milwaukee. You'll be just like the others, you'll get educated on the topic (by these forums) and then realize you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

nope, i don't believe i can say that, sir...lol. it's obvious that u've never been here. businesses and developments are BOOMIN' here if i must say so myself. By the way Michael Redd, has anyone told u that u need to pass the ball more? have a great evening & learn to be a team player.
I have been both to Milwaukee and Baltimore. All I can ask what happenned to Baltimore. Milwaukee walks all over Baltimore especially the neighborhoods. Milwaukee is still intact.

^Every month we have one of you. The type that just writes down some comment to get people angry. You have to realize that you're not an original, someone like you comes in once every month-and-a-half and says some absurb comment about Milwaukee. You'll be just like the others, you'll get educated on the topic (by these forums) and then realize you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

FIRST of all, you don't know me from an apple to an orange. SECOND of all, i've been to milwuakke MANY times and my view still ill never change. THIRD of all, i'm more educated about milwaukee than u'll ever know. so, in terms of your statement, YOU don't know what the hell you're talkin' about. And for the record, i wasn't trying to get ANYONE angry. Those comments weren't neccessary. like i said before, it's merely my opinion (love it or hate it). so DEAL WITH IT!!!!!!!!

I have been both to Milwaukee and Baltimore. All I can ask what happenned to Baltimore. Milwaukee walks all over Baltimore especially the neighborhoods. Milwaukee is still intact.

Hell, i've been to chicago too....LOL!!!!!!!!!! You guys aren't ever close to the cream of the crops. Not hardly. The only thing Chicago has going for them is size. nothing more. now, if u guys could learn how to eventually utilize that properly, THEN u could talk, qwerty1324.

:bash:

FIRST of all, you don't know me from an apple to an orange. SECOND of all, i've been to milwuakke MANY times and my view still ill never change. THIRD of all, i'm more educated about milwaukee than u'll ever know. so, in terms of your statement, YOU don't know what the hell you're talkin' about. And for the record, i wasn't trying to get ANYONE angry. Those comments weren't neccessary. like i said before, it's merely my opinion (love it or hate it). so DEAL WITH IT!!!!!!!!

I'm so mad I choked my computer.

FIRST of all, you don't know me from an apple to an orange. SECOND of all, i've been to milwuakke MANY times and my view still ill never change. THIRD of all, i'm more educated about milwaukee than u'll ever know. so, in terms of your statement, YOU don't know what the hell you're talkin' about. And for the record, i wasn't trying to get ANYONE angry. Those comments weren't neccessary. like i said before, it's merely my opinion (love it or hate it). so DEAL WITH IT!!!!!!!!

FIRST of all I'm getting REALLY mad. SECOND of all I cannot TAKE it any MORE. THIRD of all I THINK I'M GOING TO WRITE EVERYTHING IN CAPS SO THAT EVERYONE CAN SEE HOW PISSED OFF I AM!! THEN I'M GOING TO THROW IN PLENTY OF EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND USE A BIGGER FONT,AND WRITE IN RED, AND THROW IN SOME OF THESE LITTLE ANIMATED THINGS :bash:

woah, sorry about that guys. I really lost control there. I apologize.

In all fairness, when you start a thread entitled "Does Milwaukee Suck?", you should be expecting someone to say yes. Even though this is located in the Midwestern forum, and it has been flooded with Milwaukee forumers trying to explain why Milwaukee doesn't suck, doesn't mean there isn't going to be a person or two who doesn't care for Milwaukee. You can't expect everyone to like your city. It would be both rude of someone and off-topic to come on, say the Milwaukee Development Thread, and state that Milwaukee sucks. But once again, look at the thread title. Not only are his comments not rude, but they're completely on topic.

Be proud of your city, and even try to convince forumers why you feel they would like Milwaukee, but don't attack his character simply because he answered the question that was posed.

you're a LIFESAVER, mr. smith!!!!!!!!!! i think the people in this thread were about to eat me alive in this thread & send me back to baltimore in a crate or something...lol

THANK YOU petersmith!!!! you hit the nail on the head. when u name a thread "DOES MILWAUKEE SUCK", you should've saw the criticism looming on the horizon & ready to come at you full steam, and that's what i did. atleast i wasn't disrespectful in the manner of cursing and profanity, etc. and anyway, what kind of pride is in asking does your OWN city suck? that's no different than when i was looking through the threads and seeing other threads that said "IS MINNEAPOLIS OVERRATED" or "IS PITTSBURGH DEAD". THOSE cities should also expect tons of criticism on the way. same concept. like petersmith said, i was WELL on the topic. so if u guys don't mind, i'll gladly take a bow....LOL.

:bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:

do you guys ever get amazed by the number of douche bags there are in the world?

THANK YOU petersmith!!!! you hit the nail on the head. when u name a thread "DOES MILWAUKEE SUCK", you should've saw the criticism looming on the horizon & ready to come at you full steam, and that's what i did. atleast i wasn't disrespectful in the manner of cursing and profanity, etc. and anyway, what kind of pride is in asking does your OWN city suck? that's no different than when i was looking through the threads and seeing another thread that said "IS MINNEAPOLIS OVERRATED". THEY ALSO should expect tons of criticism on the way. same concept. like petersmith said, i was WELL on the topic. so if u guys don't mind, i'll gladly take a bow....LOL.

:bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:

My two cents.

I did not name this thread, so even though someone else names the thread "Does Milwaukee Suck" and they should expect the criticism looming as you put it - if some of us take offense to it, we have a right (because we did not name the thread but are only responding to the criticism). I haven't said much of anything because it is almost pointless to try sometimes. But felt compelled to in this case.

So yes I'll agree - you were on target... somewhat.

I would love to hear what exactly you did when you came to Milwaukee, where you went, where you ate, what you saw, the time of year, if your cousin and you played play station all night, etc. So that I can evaluate "your opinion" on how Milwaukee is "dead" and has no night life.

If someone comes in guns blazing says a place sucks just because they were there for ???, doesn't hold a lot of water in my book. I surely don't go into the Minneapolis, Detroit, or St. Louis threads and post (you can look) and spout off on how horrible the cities are in my opinion because I drove through on the Interstate and it looked like a hole without really looking around and pulling up a chair and staying awhile.

I like facts to back up claims. So before you take a bow and ride off into the sunset, please back up your claim on Milwaukee's Dead Life and let us know what you did.

I'm not on your back - I'm just curious. I somewhat value your opinion and am somewhat amazed you at least made an attempt to visit Milwaukee. At least you're a step ahead of those who have an opinion because they can read or look at pictures.

^^I think the guy is just trying to piss people off. Like EastSider said, we get a poster like that every month or so, it's nothing new.

My two cents.

I did not name this thread, so even though someone else names the thread "Does Milwaukee Suck" and they should expect the criticism looming as you put it - if some of us take offense to it, we have a right (because we did not name the thread but are only responding to the criticism). I haven't said much of anything because it is almost pointless to try sometimes. But felt compelled to in this case.

So yes I'll agree - you were on target... somewhat.

I would love to hear what exactly you did when you came to Milwaukee, where you went, where you ate, what you saw, the time of year, if your cousin and you played play station all night, etc. So that I can evaluate "your opinion" on how Milwaukee is "dead" and has no night life.

If someone comes in guns blazing says a place sucks just because they were there for ???, doesn't hold a lot of water in my book. I surely don't go into the Minneapolis, Detroit, or St. Louis threads and post (you can look) and spout off on how horrible the cities are in my opinion because I drove through on the Interstate and it looked like a hole without really looking around and pulling up a chair and staying awhile.

I like facts to back up claims. So before you take a bow and ride off into the sunset, please back up your claim on Milwaukee's Dead Life and let us know what you did.

I'm not on your back - I'm just curious. I somewhat value your opinion and am somewhat amazed you at least made an attempt to visit Milwaukee. At least you're a step ahead of those who have an opinion because they can read or look at pictures.

as bad as i want to respond to your statements, the time is now 5:30 & the office where i work is now closing up, so i have to go. but i assure u that i will give u a "fully-detailed" report of what i did in the 2 days that i was there when i'm available. thanks for showing your concern in a respectful demeanor and willing to hear me out as opposed to jumping down my throat like some people i know (qwerty1324, milwaukeeunseen, ReddAlert, and now neqquah). talk to ya' soon.

do you guys ever get amazed by the number of douche bags there are in the world?

No, but I am often amazed by the way Milwaukee threads seem to attract a disproportionate number of said douche bags to flail their arms about and scream about dead lakefronts.

As for Masons, here...well, you guys seem to have this shit under control for now. I won't even bother. Keep up the good work. ;)

Note to Masons, in your upcoming report about Milwaukee, be sure to iron out this glaring inconsistency in everything you've told us so far:

I've been to milwaukee twice to visit my cousin.

SECOND of all, i've been to milwuakke MANY times and my view still ill never change

i assure u that i will give u a "fully-detailed" report of what i did in the 2 days that i was there when i'm available

as bad as i want to respond to your statements, the time is now 5:30 & the office where i work is now closing up, so i have to go. but i assure u that i will give u a "fully-detailed" report of what i did in the 2 days that i was there when i'm available. thanks for showing your concern in a respectful demeanor and willing to hear me out as opposed to jumping down my throat like some people i know (qwerty1324, milwaukeeunseen, ReddAlert, and now neqquah). talk to ya' soon.

I'm looking forward to it.

BTW - It doesn't need to be "fully-detailed". I don't want to know everything that you did... if you catch my drift.

hiccup

I'm looking forward to it.

BTW - It doesn't need to be "fully-detailed". I don't want to know everything that you did... if you catch my drift.

Oh, I sure as hell want a FULLY detailed report. As in, landed at airport at 6:25:35 PM. Entered Noodles & Company for dinner at 8:35:42 PM. Ate the "Wisconsin Mac n Cheese." Left establishment at 9:25:15 PM. Inquired about local prostitutorial services from man on corner of 35th & North at 10:03:35 PM... that kind of thing. I want to see this kid itemize the HELL out of his visit.

Also, I'd like to add that my initial question to Masons from Baltimore was also out of curiosity .. (when was the last time you were here?) .. not contempt.

Oh, I sure as hell want a FULLY detailed report. As in, landed at airport at 6:25:35 PM. Entered Noodles & Company for dinner at 8:35:42 PM. Ate the "Wisconsin Mac n Cheese." Left establishment at 9:25:15 PM. Inquired about local prostitutorial services from man on corner of 35th & North at 10:03:35 PM... that kind of thing. I want to see this kid itemize the HELL out of his visit.

Also, I'd like to add that my initial question to Masons from Baltimore was also out of curiosity .. (when was the last time you were here?) .. not contempt.

I mean if it is like, borrowed cousin's "over 40" porn mag did not come out of bathroom for 2 days... I just don't think I want to know that.

nope, i don't believe i can say that, sir...lol. it's obvious that u've never been here. businesses and developments are BOOMIN' here if i must say so myself. By the way Michael Redd, has anyone told u that u need to pass the ball more? have a great evening & learn to be a team player.


lol...im making 90 million though aint I? Why pass the ball when I have one of the best shots in the NBA? :)

Oh for the record..developments are booming here as well. I guess news of what happens in our villages doesnt make it to the glamourous East Coast.

lol...im making 90 million though aint I? Why pass the ball when I have one of the best shots in the NBA? :)

Oh for the record..developments are booming here as well. I guess news of what happens in our villages doesnt make it to the glamourous East Coast.

u sound like the "typical" NBA player of today. whatever happened to the old, appreciated rivalries back in the day? (bad-boy pistons vs. the showtime lakers, boston vs. showtime lakers, bird vs. magic, jordan vs. isiah, ewing vs. mourning). now THOSE were classical matchups. it's all about $$$$$$$$$ nowadays. oh well, players will be players....lol.

and i wouldn't care if u made $900,000,000. your heart's not in the right place to play in the league for MANY years. you just showed me that in that one statement u made (Why pass the ball when I have one of the best shots in the NBA?). and ontop of that, i never thought your game was all that good. as a fellow ohio state alumni, you're making us ALL look bad (but not worse than maurice clarrett, of course....lol).

tsk tsk tsk..................selfish, arrogant, & big-headed. typical. i feel for ya'!!!!

I mean if it is like, borrowed cousin's "over 40" porn mag did not come out of bathroom for 2 days... I just don't think I want to know that.

lol....it be "FULLY-DETAILED". i assure u.

Oh, I sure as hell want a FULLY detailed report. As in, landed at airport at 6:25:35 PM. Entered Noodles & Company for dinner at 8:35:42 PM. Ate the "Wisconsin Mac n Cheese." Left establishment at 9:25:15 PM. Inquired about local prostitutorial services from man on corner of 35th & North at 10:03:35 PM... that kind of thing. I want to see this kid itemize the HELL out of his visit.

Also, I'd like to add that my initial question to Masons from Baltimore was also out of curiosity .. (when was the last time you were here?) .. not contempt.

if u wouldv'e bothered to have read it, u wouldv'e seen that we've had this conversation already, mister.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milwaukeeunseen
I'm curious: when was the last time you were in Milwaukee?



a year ago.

i hope i didn't offend u in my statement, milwaukeeunseen. just merely speaking my opinion.

you're sad, milwaukeeunseen....lol

if u wouldv'e bothered to have read it, u wouldv'e seen that we've had this conversation already, mister.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milwaukeeunseen
I'm curious: when was the last time you were in Milwaukee?



a year ago.

i hope i didn't offend u in my statement, milwaukeeunseen. just merely speaking my opinion.


I really don't understand the point of this post.

What the hell is going on here?

Also Masons, does your "office" know you spend all day on your computer writing jibberish???

sweetkisses, get a MAJORlife.

^ Dont you think youre being a little boorish?

What the hell is going on here?

Also Masons, does your "office" know you spend all day on your computer writing jibberish???

lol......let it go, fellas. milwaukee sucks & that's final. milwaukee's so dead, MY presence in this thread has actually lightened it up quite a bit. so in retrospect, YOU guys should be giving me a bunch of "THANK YOU'S". i'm actually starting to have fun with this. and for your info avissers, i'm caught up on my work & i'm taking a minibreak. you guys are killing me with too much laughter.....LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. milwaukee sucks. sucks HORRIBLY. bottom line. this will be my LAST post in this thread & i'll miss u guys. it's been fun!!!

the end. MasonsInquiries@copyright 2005

bravo, bravo!!! no applauses needed.
:bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

Youre the one thats spending your time at YOUR job replying on this thread. Youre telling me to get a life. Yea ok....

Youre the one thats spending your time at YOUR job replying on this thread. Youre telling me to get a life. Yea ok....
A job that pays VERY well i mad add (loser...lol)

I thought you said that was your last post?

Wait a minute, Masons responded to Sweetkisses before sweetkisses posted anything on this thread. I'm confused.

well, masonsinq edited his/her post after sweetkisses posted, so quite possibly just edited to repond to a post that was posted underneath it - oh my god, I just went crosseyed.

MasonsInq still waiting for the detailed report that you promised yesterday...

What a tool.

u sound like the "typical" NBA player of today. whatever happened to the old, appreciated rivalries back in the day? (bad-boy pistons vs. the showtime lakers, boston vs. showtime lakers, bird vs. magic, jordan vs. isiah, ewing vs. mourning). now THOSE were classical matchups. it's all about $$$$$$$$$ nowadays. oh well, players will be players....lol.

and i wouldn't care if u made $900,000,000. your heart's not in the right place to play in the league for MANY years. you just showed me that in that one statement u made (Why pass the ball when I have one of the best shots in the NBA?). and ontop of that, i never thought your game was all that good. as a fellow ohio state alumni, you're making us ALL look bad (but not worse than maurice clarrett, of course....lol).

tsk tsk tsk..................selfish, arrogant, & big-headed. typical. i feel for ya'!!!!

not at all. I, Michael Redd, carried the Bucks last year. If the ball wasnt in my hands, whose should it be? If I didnt have the ball most of the time, the Bucks would have been the Kansas City Royals of basketball. My game not that good? I was an all star who got drafted at number 43. Number 43 and probally no team in the NBA would turn me down. How much money should I be asking for? A couple million for the star of a franchise? Nope. I am a bonefide star now with a team behind me this year. I have one of the sweetest shots in the league, I am young, talented, a nice guy...why dont I deserve the money. :)

you're sad, milwaukeeunseen....lol


I'm more depressed by the idea of a "highly paid professional" still using the "u" abbreviation for the word "you" (a habit one is supposed to tire of between the ages of twelve and fifteen) and considering "Your city SUCKS! Period! I said so it SUCKS and U SUCK!!!" to be a well written, detailed summary of their trip (much less an actual argument) than I am by the idea of a well-worded young professional in the urban planning field getting frustrated by the constant, mindless belligerance of a punk-ass kid from some outer ring upper crust suburb of Norfolk who visited Baltimore once and now calls it "his city" in an effort to validate himself and give his online persona urban credentials.

lol......right. sounds good to me. but i turn 21 in a year, so it'll be sooner than u expect.

Birthday:
November 11, 1980


doesnt that make you... 24

I'm more depressed by the idea of a "highly paid professional" still using the "u" abbreviation for the word "you" (a habit one is supposed to tire of between the ages of twelve and fifteen) and considering "Your city SUCKS! Period! I said so it SUCKS and U SUCK!!!" to be a well written, detailed summary of their trip (much less an actual argument) than I am by the idea of a well-worded young professional in the urban planning field getting frustrated by the constant, mindless belligerance of a punk-ass kid from some outer ring upper crust suburb of Norfolk who visited Baltimore once and now calls it "his city" in an effort to validate himself and give his online persona urban credentials.

agreed.. that and he ends everything with "... lol"

then his msn address.. um. isnt that a show for 5 year olds.

MSN:
BobbysWorld86@hotmail.com

Occupation:
teacher

then his occupation???? what happened to the "well paying office job?"

i'm so lost. this guy is full of lies.

maybe along with your detailed summary of your trip you could explain... all this

Of course it doesn't. But over the years I have realized that most people that HAVEN'T been there think it "probably" does indeed. One must only visit other message boards to see this. Milwaukee has a very negative stigma about it.

This upsets me. It pisses me off, because some people just believe a lie or believe some pre-conceived notion without trying to research something. I know it isn't too big of a deal, because it is probably better to have a negative rep or a neutral rep and surprise people than the other way around. LA is a good example. If I had a nickel for every person who hasn't been there who thinks it is "the sh*t" and a dime for every person who HAS been there and thinks it totally blows, I could quit my job. It is a good example of a city overselling itself, not living up to its own hype.


Hello from Croatia!

I'm very surprised to learn that people have a negatve opinion about this town. I was there in 1999 and even though it was winter and very cold I got an impression Milwaukee was a very warm city. I saw some photos of old Milwaukee and it used to look like a European city untill they got rid of the trams and demollished some of the old buildings. But still, Milwaukee doesn't have that cold look of some other American cities. You should just open more street caffes in the town's centre (or how you in USA say "in downtown").

Many greetings from Osijek, Croatia!

Hello from Croatia!

I'm very surprised to learn that people have a negatve opinion about this town. I was there in 1999 and even though it was winter and very cold I got an impression Milwaukee was a very warm city. I saw some photos of old Milwaukee and it used to look like a European city untill they got rid of the trams and demollished some of the old buildings. But still, Milwaukee doesn't have that cold look of some other American cities. You should just open more street caffes in the town's centre (or how you in USA say "in downtown").

Many greetings from Osijek, Croatia!

Thanks, esseker. Since 1999 our Downtown has rebounded in a big way, adding more Downtown housing units than any city in the region outside Chicago. (This may not be true anymore since Mpls has a lot of high rise condos on tap....) I hope you can come back and visit us soon, this city has changed quite a bit in the last five years and continues to do so. But we haven't lost that European charm you speak of.

I'm glad to hear Milwaukee is changing and towards better. It is a very nice town and I'm glad I had a chance to visit it. Hopefully I will come again in the next few years since I have some relatives living there.

You know it would be nice to see trams on Milwaukee's streets again, it's a big trend in the world again. They would help the town to keep it's European charm :)

i am from milwaukee. i've lived in the area my whole life, and i can personally tell you that milwaukee sucks. the only corner of milwaukee where anything actually happens is the lower east side. the whole city crazy dangerous, arguably one of the most segregated and racist cities in the US, and its so cold in the winter that its impossible to do anything. people drink beer in milwaukee. thats all they do. and go to brewers games. if you go downtown on a weekend night, no one is out and about, everyone is an a pub. and if you want to hear music? you can go see one of the few bands who tour, or you can see 70s pop covers done by your dads overweight uncle and his terrible band. don't believe me? just check out these guys: http://www.brewcityrockers.com/TheBrewCityRockers.com/Images/Bios/Bio_Page.htm . they play at restaurants all over the area. if you want to check out a cool new restaurant serving thai food? good luck with that. theres an asianas in waukesha but they suck. would you like to shop at a non big box/chain store that carries clothes you, and NOT your grandma would wear? good luck. theres a skate clothes shop in the third ward thats open 4 hours a week and sells clothes for 14 year olds. thats about it. would you like to meet a girl whos attire consists of more that hoodie, packers sweat pants and uggs? then don't move to milwaukee. would you like to feel like you live in the year 2011, and not the year 1970? then don't ever move to milwaukee. ever. the only thing that redeems milwaukee is the lakefront. too bad there was just a sewage spill in it last summer....
i effing hate milwaukee.
people i meet who like milwaukee have generally never been anywhere else, or they really REALLY love their sports teams and beer culture.
just my snob opinion. no offense milwaukee. its a personal thing.

i am from milwaukee. i've lived in the area my whole life, and i can personally tell you that milwaukee sucks. the only corner of milwaukee where anything actually happens is the lower east side. the whole city crazy dangerous, arguably one of the most segregated and racist cities in the US, and its so cold in the winter that its impossible to do anything. people drink beer in milwaukee. thats all they do. and go to brewers games. if you go downtown on a weekend night, no one is out and about, everyone is an a pub. and if you want to hear music? you can go see one of the few bands who tour, or you can see 70s pop covers done by your dads overweight uncle and his terrible band. don't believe me? just check out these guys: http://www.brewcityrockers.com/TheBrewCityRockers.com/Images/Bios/Bio_Page.htm . they play at restaurants all over the area. if you want to check out a cool new restaurant serving thai food? good luck with that. theres an asianas in waukesha but they suck. would you like to shop at a non big box/chain store that carries clothes you, and NOT your grandma would wear? good luck. theres a skate clothes shop in the third ward thats open 4 hours a week and sells clothes for 14 year olds. thats about it. would you like to meet a girl whos attire consists of more that hoodie, packers sweat pants and uggs? then don't move to milwaukee. would you like to feel like you live in the year 2011, and not the year 1970? then don't ever move to milwaukee. ever. the only thing that redeems milwaukee is the lakefront. too bad there was just a sewage spill in it last summer....
i effing hate milwaukee.
people i meet who like milwaukee have generally never been anywhere else, or they really REALLY love their sports teams and beer culture.
just my snob opinion. no offense milwaukee. its a personal thing.

LOL

i am from milwaukee. i've lived in the area my whole life, and i can personally tell you that milwaukee sucks. the only corner of milwaukee where anything actually happens is the lower east side. the whole city crazy dangerous, arguably one of the most segregated and racist cities in the US, and its so cold in the winter that its impossible to do anything. people drink beer in milwaukee. thats all they do. and go to brewers games. if you go downtown on a weekend night, no one is out and about, everyone is an a pub. and if you want to hear music? you can go see one of the few bands who tour, or you can see 70s pop covers done by your dads overweight uncle and his terrible band. don't believe me? just check out these guys: http://www.brewcityrockers.com/TheBrewCityRockers.com/Images/Bios/Bio_Page.htm . they play at restaurants all over the area. if you want to check out a cool new restaurant serving thai food? good luck with that. theres an asianas in waukesha but they suck. would you like to shop at a non big box/chain store that carries clothes you, and NOT your grandma would wear? good luck. theres a skate clothes shop in the third ward thats open 4 hours a week and sells clothes for 14 year olds. thats about it. would you like to meet a girl whos attire consists of more that hoodie, packers sweat pants and uggs? then don't move to milwaukee. would you like to feel like you live in the year 2011, and not the year 1970? then don't ever move to milwaukee. ever. the only thing that redeems milwaukee is the lakefront. too bad there was just a sewage spill in it last summer....
i effing hate milwaukee.
people i meet who like milwaukee have generally never been anywhere else, or they really REALLY love their sports teams and beer culture.
just my snob opinion. no offense milwaukee. its a personal thing.

Sorry man, Milwaukee must really suck.

Please don't feed the trolls! :bash:

^^

That post is a bit too in depth to be trollish, maybe he just doesn't like Milwaukee. Not everyone is gonna like a city, I know for a fact that not everyone likes mine. I personally have never been to Milwaukee so I can't judge.

Please don't feed the trolls! :bash:

Seriously, it's pretty apparent the most recent troll doesn't actually live in MKE but in a low class suburb. It begs the question why they haven't moved on, parent's basement or bitter incompetance?

I think the only thing that bleubird will have accomplished in resurrecting an almost seven-year-old thread with his first post will be the locking of this thread.

Seriously, it's pretty apparent the most recent troll doesn't actually live in MKE but in a low class suburb. It begs the question why they haven't moved on, parent's basement or bitter incompetance?

I think your ad hominum attacks reveal a lot about you and your insecurities about Milwaukee...:cheers: