what city has the best waterfront in your opinion? what city has the best riverfront? what city has the best general waterfront (whether it be the ocean, a great lake, a large bay, etc)? what city has a small lake nearby that they have utilized? what city has the potential to have a great waterfront? do you think a city is better off having a waterfront focused on a river or on something bigger like a bay or a lake?

as usual, pictures will make this thread even better.

While maybe not the best riverfront now, Louisville I think has tons of potential for a truely awesome waterfront.

Waterfront Park:

http://louisvillewaterfront.com/Graphics/pictures/louisvillefall.jpg

http://louisvillewaterfront.com/Graphics/pictures/river%20path%20east.jpg

http://louisvillewaterfront.com/Graphics/web%20brochure%20pics/wriver%20walking.jpg

http://louisvillewaterfront.com/Graphics/web%20brochure%20pics/wJG%20plaza%20river%203in.jpg

http://louisville-waterfront-park.visit-louisville.com/louisville-skyline1.jpg

Everything but phase III and the conversion of an old railroad bridge into a pedestrian and biking bridge is completed.

http://louisvillewaterfront.com/Graphics/web%20brochure%20pics/wWDC_Big%204_17.jpg

http://louisvillewaterfront.com/Graphics/park%20plan%20large.jpg

RiverPark Place will be almost a continuation of Waterfront Park, with two main residentional towers (among lots of smaller 6-5 story towers), retail and a marina.

http://ohioboating.net/b2/media/louisvilleriverparkplace1.jpg

I'm impressed with Louisville's progress and future plans.

From what I've seen, for a city its size, Chattanooga has utilized its riverfront extremely well.

I love Charleston's waterfront. Downtown Charleston on the water is just picture perfect.

The Battery
http://k41.pbase.com/o4/37/494537/1/58187686.Battery1Small.jpg

http://i.pbase.com/o4/37/494537/1/58187687.Battery2Small.jpg

http://mishami.image.pbase.com/g3/33/597633/2/53554304.fourhousesontheBatterya.jpg

Waterfront Park
http://misheli.image.pbase.com/u32/merriwolf/upload/37613753.CharlestonWaterfrontPark_0859.jpg

http://i.pbase.com/o4/37/494537/1/58187936.Trees1Small.jpg

http://i.pbase.com/u8/merriwolf/upload/37384369.WaterfrontFountainSunrise_1139.jpg

http://mishami.image.pbase.com/v3/83/216883/1/48914334.charleston_waterfrontpark.jpg


As far as potential goes, I give the nod to Columbia, SC for riverfront development.

As is:
http://www.myonlineimages.com/Members/antical79/images/waterfrontnow.jpg

What shall be:
http://www.myonlineimages.com/Members/antical79/images/innovistaaerial.jpg

http://www.myonlineimages.com/Members/antical79/images/towpath.jpg

http://www.myonlineimages.com/Members/antical79/images/waterfrontpromenade.jpg

http://www.myonlineimages.com/Members/antical79/images/amphitheatre.jpg

Miami Beach?

Baltimore has a nice harborfront, as people know.

I personally love Chicago's waterfront, the stretch of park running almost the entire lenght of the city

does charleston have a good flood wall? those homes look awefully close to the edge.

What shall be:
http://www.myonlineimages.com/Members/antical79/images/innovistaaerial.jpg


why is the stadium facing away from the river? this is something they did in harrisburg, pennsylvania, with their stadium, and people now with that the stadium faced the susquehanna river and the harrisburg skyline on the other side of the river, instead of to a grove of trees and a parking lot.

San Francisco is surrounded by water on three sides, by the bay to the east and north and the pacific to the west. There are lots of activities right on the waterfront-you have fishermans wharf as well as The Embarcadero Area in front of the Financial District-not to mention AT&T Park, where the Giants play, also right on the waterfront. On the north you have aquatic park, chrissy field and the Marina District. Right past the Golden Gate Bridge you have the rugged coastline, china beach, baker beach and ocean beach on the coast. Locals like it.
http://sonicspike.net/flying-pictures/albums/58/images/10176-IMG_2213.JPG

double post.

why is the stadium facing away from the river? this is something they did in harrisburg, pennsylvania, with their stadium, and people now with that the stadium faced the susquehanna river and the harrisburg skyline on the other side of the river, instead of to a grove of trees and a parking lot.

The stadium will be facing the skyline (look carefully at the top of the graphic). The other side of the river is another municipality (actually two), and there's not enough available riverfront property on the other side. Furthermore, the ballpark will be incorporated into USC's research campus being built downtown; the campus combines economic development and academic research with urban development. Here's how it will look at ground level:

http://www.MyOnlineImages.com/Members/antical79/images/ballpark.jpg

I think it will be a smash.

^^
A smash indeed! All that Columbia development looks awesome! :okay:
How much land is that? Is everything there already just going to be flattened?

All of that land is actually undeveloped. A significant portion of the land is owned by a family that has roots in the area; they wanted to hold out until something really grand was built there, something that would do the entire community good (and also give the family name some shine no dbout). An assortment of private landholders constitute the majority though. All together the research campus will be spread out over 200 acres. A lot of the land closer to downtown is held by the USC Foundation, which is a private foundation.

does charleston have a good flood wall? those homes look awefully close to the edge.

Good question and I don't know.

How wonderful to see how US cities are redeveloping their waterfronts for recreational use today. But how about a city that thought about doing so a 100 years ago....and succeeded on a massive, massive scale. The city? Of course Chicago. Our lakefront is a gem, open to the public with inviting parkland and beaches from virtually the whole length of the city...including the vast majority of land on the North and South sides and the entire downtown area. No city today could put together such a massive stretch of waterfront. And the city keeps making this treasure greater and greater all the time.

Doublely blessed, our "second waterfront" on the Chicago River is becoming an urban jewel. Nowhere on the planet does such a fascinating river exist, a manmade canyon with high rises lining the banks of both sides of the river's main channel and south branch. The architecture is magnificent and the city is enhancing this environment with a river walk that, when finished, will easily rival our lakefront.

IMHO, no city embraces water to degree that Chicago does.

The stadium will be facing the skyline (look carefully at the top of the graphic). The other side of the river is another municipality (actually two), and there's not enough available riverfront property on the other side. Furthermore, the ballpark will be incorporated into USC's research campus being built downtown; the campus combines economic development and academic research with urban development. Here's how it will look at ground level:

http://www.MyOnlineImages.com/Members/antical79/images/ballpark.jpg

I think it will be a smash.

that makes sense now. it's almost exactly the same way our baseball stadium is here in wilmington. back when the riverfront plans were put on the table at around 1990 or so, the plan was for a stadium to face the christina river. but instead of building the stadium facing the river, the stadium was turned 90º so that it faces the skyline. the result is a great view of the wilmington skyline. another interesting outcome is something like a "freeway monster"; just beyond the left field fence is the elevated i-95, and it towers over left field kind of like the green monster in boston. no one has ever hit a ball onto i-95 though (it would take a home run over 500 feet long to even ceom close to the deck of i-95).

the wilmington skyline from daniel frawley stadium, circa 2004 (our skyline has gotten a little bigger since then):

http://img424.imageshack.us/img424/4170/dscf0128a9bu.jpg

let me think...Chicago & Chicago.

I'm impressed with Columbia, SC. That will be a very nice water front upon completion. Who plays in that baseball stadium?

xzmattxz, that's a pretty good view. I'm sure no one regrets that decision.

SNL, USC's baseball team will play there, but has been some speculation that it may become a joint-use stadium with a minor league team. I sure hope so.

How wonderful to see how US cities are redeveloping their waterfronts for recreational use today. But how about a city that thought about doing so a 100 years ago....and succeeded on a massive, massive scale. The city? Of course Chicago. Our lakefront is a gem, open to the public with inviting parkland and beaches from virtually the whole length of the city...including the vast majority of land on the North and South sides and the entire downtown area. No city today could put together such a massive stretch of waterfront. And the city keeps making this treasure greater and greater all the time.

Doublely blessed, our "second waterfront" on the Chicago River is becoming an urban jewel. Nowhere on the planet does such a fascinating river exist, a manmade canyon with high rises lining the banks of both sides of the river's main channel and south branch. The architecture is magnificent and the city is enhancing this environment with a river walk that, when finished, will easily rival our lakefront.

IMHO, no city embraces water to degree that Chicago does.

Nah.......the problem with Chicago's waterfront is that it is cut off from the surrounding city by Lake Shore Drive and though it is beautiful to look at, it is fairly difficult to get to and seems separate from downtown and the parks. In short, the lake, beautiful as it is, just doesn't seem integrated with the rest of the city.

I think San Francisco's waterfront since the freeway fell down is much nicer, more amusements directly on the water. A trolley line just away from the shore. that great food court near the ferry building, the Circus, the piers, the seals, the crush of people. Giardelli square, the cable cars that come right down to the water, the outdoor food vendors, and the fact that its usable twelve months a year is really very hard for Chicago to compete with.

I think San Diego with its double harbor, lighthouse, islands, recreational areas, Coronado Island, the peninsulas, restaaurants, beach communities, access to the San Diego Trolley, and easy walking to San Diego Old Town and La Jolla also trump Chicago. I tend to prefer Seattle's lakes and Ocean combination as well and when you combine that with the Washington State ferry system......I could also mention Miami, St. Petersburg, and Fort Lauterdale, but you probably catch my drift.

I know you really love Chicago. So do I. Its where I grew up. (I spent a lot of summers on Morse beach.) And it does have a beautiful waterfront, but not the best in the country.

Giradelli Square??? Come on! not nearly as many people have heard of that place as they have heard of Navy Pier. You can't even compare the two cities. Since Chicago is the most bicycle friendly city around, there are multiple bridges going over LSD. Including a very nice bridge designed by Ghery. San Diego...sounds like you're a Cali homer.

In fact, 10x as many people visit Navy Pier as they do Giradelli square...whatever that place is. Do they make sandwiches there?

Chicago is America's greenest city. thus it is common sense their lakefront, littered with parks, is the most beautiful. it's no contest really.

Also, you are very narrow minded. You seem to resent non-tropical/hot climates. Do you not think cities up North can have beautiful lakefronts? Perhaps, you need to grow some balls and visit some colder climate cities. Florida and Cali...that's all that seems to exist in your world. ;)

Milwaukee has a damn fine waterfront..one of the best I think. Much like Chicago--it has long parkland on its lakefront, complete with forests, beaches, piers, open fields, bluffs, etc. Like Chicago, it also has a dense riverfront with some nice stuff.

http://img321.imageshack.us/img321/258/5th3rd235fl.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/51/0719171hr.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/8015/0815535gk.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/854/08241266uk.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/3501/0602457xh.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/73/08241485xq.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Giradelli Square??? Come on! not nearly as many people have heard of that place as they have heard of Navy Pier. You can't even compare the two cities. Since Chicago is the most bicycle friendly city around, there are multiple bridges going over LSD. Including a very nice bridge designed by Ghery. San Diego...sounds like you're a Cali homer.

In fact, 10x as many people visit Navy Pier as they do Giradelli square...whatever that place is. Do they make sandwiches there?

Chicago is America's greenest city. thus it is common sense their lakefront, littered with parks, is the most beautiful. it's no contest really.

Also, you are very narrow minded. You seem to resent non-tropical/hot climates. Do you not think cities up North can have beautiful lakefronts? Perhaps, you need to grow some balls and visit some colder climate cities. Florida and Cali...that's all that seems to exist in your world. ;)

Hey Homer,

I grew up in Chicago and lived there for the first twenty five years of my life. and though I live in CA, I don't live in SF or San Diego. If you read my post, I said that Chicago's lakefront is beautiful. No denying. Its just not the A number one best waterfront in a country that's loaded with beautiful waterfronts. And the fact that the lakefront is freezing cold three to four months a year, is a disadvantage. But you might enjoy icefishing more than me. And it is true that you can't ice skate on San Francisco Bay.

As for Navy Pier, I went to school there! and have seen it both before and after its rebirth. Sorry, its just not in the same league as San Francisco. It's nice. It has a nice ferris wheel if you only want to go around once, slowly. But by and large, if I had some time to spend in Chicago, I would prefer to spend it with my cousins. I don't had the figures but I really doubt more people visit Navy Pier than Fisherman's Wharf.

I'm not sure what you mean by Chicago is America's greenest city, maybe in recycling, but believe me, Seattle is greener. I can't say much for bicycle riding in Chicago. I haven't done much since my last bike was stolen outside of the Chicago Historical Society.

As for being a homer, myself, I would only mention that I didn't even mention my current home town of Santa Monica which has a pretty nice beach and a nice Ferris wheel too, but doesn't have enough urban access to qualify as the number one best waterfront in the country.

I hope when you get older you have the opportunity to travel enough to actually see what a beautiful country (and world) this is, and to get a little perspective.

Milwaukee has one of the best lakefronts, which also holds the world's largest music festival later this month!!!

(pics by exit_320)
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g240/mbarutt/mke8.jpg
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g240/mbarutt/mke12.jpg
http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics%5CUserphotos%5C24%5CMar06/3019_large.JPG
http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics%5CUserphotos%5C19%5CJul05/586_large.JPG
http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/news/img/may05/wallpaper/51105/skyline800.jpg

and this right here is what makes milw. lakefront:
http://www.20six.co.uk/pub/simplelsie/Art_Museum-Milwaukee.jpg

Hey Homer,

I grew up in Chicago and lived there for the first twenty five years of my life. and though I live in CA, I don't live in SF or San Diego. If you read my post, I said that Chicago's lakefront is beautiful. No denying. Its just not the A number one best waterfront in a country that's loaded with beautiful waterfronts. And the fact that the lakefront is freezing cold three to four months a year, is a disadvantage. But you might enjoy icefishing more than me. And it is true that you can't ice skate on San Francisco Bay.

As for Navy Pier, I went to school there! and have seen it both before and after its rebirth. Sorry, its just not in the same league as San Francisco. It's nice. It has a nice ferris wheel if you only want to go around once, slowly. But by and large, if I had some time to spend in Chicago, I would prefer to spend it with my cousins. I don't had the figures but I really doubt more people visit Navy Pier than Fisherman's Wharf.

I'm not sure what you mean by Chicago is America's greenest city, maybe in recycling, but believe me, Seattle is greener. I can't say much for bicycle riding in Chicago. I haven't done much since my last bike was stolen outside of the Chicago Historical Society.

As for being a homer, myself, I would only mention that I didn't even mention my current home town of Santa Monica which has a pretty nice beach and a nice Ferris wheel too, but doesn't have enough urban access to qualify as the number one best waterfront in the country.

I hope when you get older you have the opportunity to travel enough to actually see what a beautiful country (and world) this is, and to get a little perspective.

I've been to Fisherman's wharf and it just doesn't live up to the hype. And I love SF. I really do. The city has the best views on the planet (save for Hong Kong). I remember I was driving in SF less than 5 years ago and an african american woman (obese) starting chasing around this little african american man with her shoe yelling obscenities. It wasn't exactly the lasting impression I wanted to have of one of the World's Beta cities.

We can agree to disagree on this one. It's a tough question and better left to the rest of skyscrapercity's wonderful posters to decide. good day. I said good day!


Speaking of underrated, two cities come to mind. Minneapolis and Milwaukee. Amazing photos. :eek2:

Awesome Milwaukee pics!

What about Madison?

Wow. Milwaukee looks sweet. That waterfront does look really cool. Can you swim right there?

The Fisherman's Wharf I visited had a decaying walk-in mall with all empty storefronts besides an in&out Burger, a chocolate factory that sold the same chocolates available in stores for a higher price, and a Chicago themed restaurant.

And complaining about the cold in the face of the freezing pacific ocean is backwards. Its nice to have water, but only a few brave souls venture in it. Now compare it to Chicago on a hot day:

http://www.streetsandsoul.com/roundup/roundup214.jpg

And this is not the Air Show crowd either. The "cut-off from the lakefront" argument is tired also, there are no levels of being cut off that somehow facilitate crowds like the ones above; either its cut-off or its not. Overall I think its a toss-up between Miami and Chicago.

The Fisherman's Wharf I visited had a decaying walk-in mall with all empty storefronts besides an in&out Burger, a chocolate factory that sold the same chocolates available in stores for a higher price, and a Chicago themed restaurant.

And complaining about the cold in the face of the freezing pacific ocean is backwards. Its nice to have water, but only a few brave souls venture in it. Now compare it to Chicago on a hot day:

http://www.streetsandsoul.com/roundup/roundup214.jpg

And this is not the Air Show crowd either. The "cut-off from the lakefront" argument is tired also, there are no levels of being cut off that somehow facilitate crowds like the ones above; either its cut-off or its not. Overall I think its a toss-up between Miami and Chicago.

I just used the Fisherman's wharf analogy because of numbers. The San Francisco waterfront includes the bay and the ocean, has two ball parks, a national recreation area, off shore islands, ferry boats, one of the most beautiful bridges in the country, touches several city parks, has lots of good restaurants, wildlife, cable cars connecting it to the city, historic boats, and spectacular views. Its only my opinion, but no city that freezes down four months a year can come close. I grant the lake water in Chicago is better for swimming in July. But the point is that the San Francisco waterfront is much more than Fisherman's wharf.

You know there is no disgrace in being beautiful but not number one. Chicago is a great city, but it is not the best in absolutely everything. I'm not even sure Chicago has the best waterfront on the great lakes. It clearly beats Detroit and Cleveland, but Milwaukee and Toronto have very nice lakefronts as well. And the most spectacular feature on the lakes is probably Niagra falls.

But try this test if you still think Chicago has the best waterfront in the country. Ask a group of New Yorkers, Iowans, Texans, and Coloradans, that if they won a two week vacation to spend near the water, and they had their choice of Miami, Honolulu, California, or Chicago, where would they choose to go? How many of them would actually pick Chicago?

^

Chicago's totally man-made waterfront includes 14 beaches, 5 museums, a golf course, a 14 mile continous bike and pedestrian path, baseball fields, basketball courts, bike rentals, restaurants, cafe's, Millennium Park, Navy Pier, a convention center, Soldier Field, the largest municipal harbour system in the world, a country club, numerous lagoons, a free zoo, a skate park, a constant view of the greatest skyline, is right down the block from the 2nd largest shopping district in the US, and connects to a citywide system of parks that extends well into the into the city.......lets not go there:

http://www.streetsandsoul.com/emaraldnecklace.jpg

That last tidbit you said is a useles fact, nobody visits Chicago anyways. Besides, people visit cities for the most innane reasons, and never step out into the real cities. Tourist crowds are not the indicator as to the sucess of recreation in the city, how it works for its residents is. Not only do the crowds of Chicagoans rival any tropical city, the urban fabric of the entire city gravitates towards it, which can only be said about two cities in the US, Chicago and Miami.

^^ if you think Miami and Chicago are the only US cities where residents truly embrace their waterfront and natural surroundings then you're a true SSC dork. Give it up already.

^ nah, they just do it in the most extreme form. (Honolulu also, if you include outside the mainland)

Charleston looks really nice.

I truly do not know why the Chicagoans in these forums insist on being the bride at every wedding, the lead float in every parade, the marching band at every halftime, and the bull goose looney in every asylum. Its a big country out there. Give everyone else a chance.

svs, you've been owned.

goonsta 1 svs 0

Charleston looks really nice.

You should visit (http://www.charlestoncvb.com); it's even nicer in person.

^ nah, they just do it in the most extreme form. (Honolulu also, if you include outside the mainland)

Whoever said Chicago boosting is getting out of hand lately, I now believe it.

so now you're playing dumb like I didn't just give Miami props also?

And oh my god, people are boosting in a thread asking what city has the "best" of something????!!!!!!! YOU DON'T SAY!! OH MY!! This is shocking!!

that seems all the skeptics can do is play dumb. it's a role they're used to. ;)

You're just going to have to deal with it. Understand Chicago is a great city and when you ask questions asking of who is the best, Chicago will naturally come up in many topics. Such as the best waterfront. And it's absurd to doubt it. There wouldn't be a need for Chicago boosterism if there weren't so many chicago haters/clueless fucks running a muck. :cheers:

Haven't really payed attention to those stuff so can't have an opinion about that.

I really like Chicago's lakefront.

I love the San Francisco waterfront, but the city itself has done little to develop it; much of its beauty is natural and comes from the views it offers across the bay. Meanwhile, the really beautiful part of the waterfront misses (IMHO) much of the city.

The beautiful part to which I refer goes from Cliff House to China Basin. Ocean Beach south of Cliff House is hardly the most inviting California coastline. And from China Basin to Hunters Point is hardly a spectacular stretch of bayfront.

The city itself should get high marks for how it has redeveloped the Embaracadero (and removed the freeway) in quality urban development. On the north waterfront, I think the Marina Green is the city's only major contribution to creating a quality waterfrtont. From Pier 39 to Ghirardelli, its the views that make the waterfront beautiful. And along the shores of the Presidio, it is the natural beauty of cliffs heading down to the Golden Gate and the ocean that create the beauty.

On the north waterfront, I think the Marina Green is the city's only major contribution to creating a quality waterfrtont. From Pier 39 to Ghirardelli, its the views that make the waterfront beautiful. And along the shores of the Presidio, it is the natural beauty of cliffs heading down to the Golden Gate and the ocean that create the beauty.

^^
Don't forget Crissy Field from the Marina Green to the Golden Gate Bridge!

Chicago. The waterfront is perfection, and I can enjoy it whenever I want. It's a mere 30 second walk away. THe beach may not be used for a few months, but there's more to our waterfront than that. It has substance, if you can't enjoy the water, you can enjoy the parks, the zoo, the museums, etc. etc.

Chicago. The waterfront is perfection, and I can enjoy it whenever I want. It's a mere 30 second walk away. THe beach may not be used for a few months, but there's more to our waterfront than that. It has substance, if you can't enjoy the water, you can enjoy the parks, the zoo, the museums, etc. etc.

That is true but what are you talking about "Beach"? You all only have the lakes...You don't have a beach unless you consider the lakes the beach...

That is true but what are you talking about "Beach"? You all only have the lakes...You don't have a beach unless you consider the lakes the beach...

There are several beaches along the lakefront inside the city. BTW, you are very bright, are you? :cheers:

That is true but what are you talking about "Beach"? You all only have the lakes...You don't have a beach unless you consider the lakes the beach...

Umm, why can't a lake have a beach? The Chicago lakefront is full of beaches.

:stupid:

goonsta just posted this picture, it's of Lake Michigan

http://www.streetsandsoul.com/roundup/roundup214.jpg

there's no denying that the best beach experiences (Near LA, obviously Hawaii, Florida, Carolinas, ect.) consist of ocean beaches. but lake michigan ain't so tiny...

Observing the fact that several other cities (SF, SD, Honolulu, Miami, etc.) have better waterfronts than Chicago does not make me a CHicago hater. If you bother to read, I have only praised Chicago. But everyone else can decide what they want.

Are there any forum members from outside Chicago who actually believe Chicago has the best waterfront in the country?

I will vouch for the beaches in Chicago. They are really nice in the summer. And we haven't had an alewife die off in a long time.

svs, you've been owned.

goonsta 1 svs 0

Only if Chicago machine politicians are counting the ballots.

Chattanooga (http://www.waterfrontchattanooga.com/)’s civic leaders initiated a strategic planning process for downtown in 1987. The strategy’s primary goal was to make a walkable connection to the Tennessee River, and there were 14 task forces set up to make it happen. These task forces focused on building the world’s largest fresh water aquarium, improving the streetscape, obtaining specialty retail, putting in place a “clean” circulator bus system, building parking garages, introducing housing, building a children’s museum and, most importantly, creating a river walk to integrate the downtown with the Tennessee River. Since then, Chattanooga has continued with ever more ambitious strategic plans, and implementation success, including new baseball and football stadiums, an ambitious and successful affordable housing program, a new neighborhood in an abandoned industrial area, two new public schools, another phase of the aquarium, hotels, more retail, a multiplex movie theater, and many other improvements.

A pano of the redeveloped Chattanooga riverfront by forumer Lexy:

http://i.pbase.com/o4/04/645104/1/60522229.achattariverfront.jpg

^^ if you think Miami and Chicago are the only US cities where residents truly embrace their waterfront and natural surroundings then you're a true SSC dork. Give it up already.


mongozx, of course chicago is not rare among cities for embracing its waterfront. however, it would be hard to ignore no US city has come close to chicago in the length of time it has valued its waterfront and the extent that it has been developed.

chicago is unique...a century of creating a lakefront open to public use and enjoyment as set out and implemented from the burnham plan. and what other city has come close to developing its virtually the entire waterfront to parkland and beach?

chicago got into the game of waterfront development before the game even existed. IMHO and partisan though i might be (i am), no city can touch what chicago did with its waterfront in length of service to length of shoreline.

and that the magnificent waterfront developed is spectacularly located on beautiful lake michigan hasn't hurt a bitt either.

Awesome Milwaukee pics!

What about Madison?

thanks buddy!

Madison--

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/3922/madisonskyline8bc.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/7507/monona20terracelake20front1pp.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/7346/mad28og.png (http://imageshack.us)
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/2586/unionterracenight96106le.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Wow. Milwaukee looks sweet. That waterfront does look really cool. Can you swim right there?

thanks! Yeah, you can swim at the Lake. Its not the most popular thing to do down there, but its alright. You can also surf too...not as big as where you come from though! :cheers:

I dig Madison. Cities built on an isthmus are pretty rare, at least in the US.

I found these awesome aerials of Louisville waterfront:

http://skyshotsblimpcam.com/db2/00172/skyshotsblimpcam.com/_uimages/waterfront_lg.gif

http://skyshotsblimpcam.com/db2/00172/skyshotsblimpcam.com/_uimages/slugger_lg.gif

http://skyshotsblimpcam.com/db2/00172/skyshotsblimpcam.com/_uimages/falls_ohio_lg.gif

Few others I found:

http://www.sturmphoto.com/data/media/8/riverfront1.jpg

http://belleoflouisville.org/images/photogallery/Belle-highwaynight.jpg

http://www.ronsaari.com/stockImages/bridges/Louisville.jpg

thanks! Yeah, you can swim at the Lake. Its not the most popular thing to do down there, but its alright. You can also surf too...not as big as where you come from though! :cheers:

You mean surf behind a boat, right? How warm does the water get in the summer?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/Citysky/Buffalo%20Waterfront%20and%20Erie%20Basin/127_2707.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/Citysky/Buffalo%20Waterfront%20and%20Erie%20Basin/IMG_2913.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/Citysky/Buffalo%20Waterfront%20and%20Erie%20Basin/IMG_4029.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/Citysky/Buffalo%20Waterfront%20and%20Erie%20Basin/IMG_5606.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/Citysky/Buffalo%20Waterfront%20and%20Erie%20Basin/IMG_6463.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/Citysky/Buffalo%20Waterfront%20and%20Erie%20Basin/IMG_6471.jpg

Buffalo, always better than expected. :)

Lake Michigan is probably warmer in summer than is the water off of LA year-round. And yes you can surf Lake Michigan, but you must be patient and it helps to be on the Michigan Side, better waves....

http://adaywithba.com/lake_michigan/images/TwangStall.jpg

and from up behind the cheddar curtain

http://surfermag.com/features/onlineexclusives/Mongo_300.jpg

an article from Surf Magazine below

UNSALTED: Fresh water barrels on the Great Lakes
Californians Steven “Slidawg” Chew, Tristram “Mongo” Miller, and Jason Watson “Watto” get barreled in an unlikely place.

By
Brandy Faber

A long way from Three Arch Bay.

“Yaaaoooo! What’s up bro? How’s Santa Cruz? Watto, Mongo and I are in Sheboygan, Wisconsin getting ready to surf.” This was a phone message I received a few weeks ago from my buddy Slidawg. A combination of party noise and static abruptly ended Sli’s message.

I listened to the message intently while sitting at Steamer Lane during the flat spell of the Cold Water Classic—a spell which ended up forcing cancellation of the event—and was as skeptical of Sli’s message as I was of seeing a rideable wave come through at the Slot. The party noise that filled the background of Sli’s message was obviously associated with a bar. I figured they were raising the roof somewhere and needed to raze me a bit. Little did I know Sli and the boys were actually in the heart of cheese-head country tipping-back a few, and they were about to go surfing. The joke was on me.
Not exactly cheesy.

It turns out some talent was needed for a new movie entitled “Unsalted" (a new film presented by Op). The movie crew had been tracking a swell-producing storm that was headed towards Lake Michigan. The boys from Laguna were recruited and flew back to meet the impending swell. I caught up with Sli and Watto upon their return, and here is what they had to say regarding their Lake Michigan surf experience.

- advertisement -


The images are stills from the upcoming movie and clips can be seen at http://www.unsalted.tv.

Watto: On the way out there I anticipated that maybe we would get some flat mushy waves. Nothing with any punch; nothing over waist-high; chest-high max! I brought a fish and a short board. I ended up riding my 5’7” fish.

Sli: I almost brought my Doyle out there thinking that we wouldn’t see much surf but they were claiming 6-8ft. And I was thinking, what, like a 6-to-8 foot ride in distance. I ended up bringing my short board and I’m glad I did. There was gapping barrels coming off this slab reef. After a terrible summer, I hadn’t gotten barreled in months and next thing I know I’m getting shacked in Sheboygan, Wisconsin. Crazy!

Watto: It was insane that we ended up getting fully shacked! You know it’s a lot different surfing in fresh water than salt water cause you don’t float as well. It was really hard to paddle into the waves, catch them, and do hard carving turns. On my first few waves I saw barrels setting up and I ended up getting beat ‘cause I wasn’t getting into them early enough. I’ll tell you one thing, you get beat pretty hard in fresh water: it seems heavier and you don’t come up from hold-downs as quickly.

Sli: Yeah, the beatings were a lot gnarlier. You don’t come up as quick and it felt like you’re trying to paddle out of quicksand. You just don’t float as well.

Watto: And the swells usually last only about a day so you have to be on it. We surfed for like five hours and then it was gone.

Sli: The locals have it down to a science and know when storms that could produce swells are heading their way so they are pretty on it ‘cause the swells come and go quickly.

Watto: The local surf crew there is all time also. They have a surf club that is sponsored by Blatz Brewery in Milwaukee. When those guys get a swell, they celebrate with some brews. One of the members-coincidentally-said when you puke, that’s the sound it makes when it hits the ground – Blat! Classic guys though.

Sli: They were in Step Into Liquid. They all have team jackets with their nicknames on them and waves are cause for a party. I wish I was sponsored by Blatz.

How wonderful to see how US cities are redeveloping their waterfronts for recreational use today. But how about a city that thought about doing so a 100 years ago....and succeeded on a massive, massive scale. The city? Of course Chicago. Our lakefront is a gem, open to the public with inviting parkland and beaches from virtually the whole length of the city...including the vast majority of land on the North and South sides and the entire downtown area. No city today could put together such a massive stretch of waterfront. And the city keeps making this treasure greater and greater all the time.

Doublely blessed, our "second waterfront" on the Chicago River is becoming an urban jewel. Nowhere on the planet does such a fascinating river exist, a manmade canyon with high rises lining the banks of both sides of the river's main channel and south branch. The architecture is magnificent and the city is enhancing this environment with a river walk that, when finished, will easily rival our lakefront.

IMHO, no city embraces water to degree that Chicago does.



HEAR, HEAR, edsg even if you think I am a schliemiel.

If Chicagoans were to claim they had the best weather, subway system, art galleries, cajun food, fishing, hills, mountains, waterfalls, etc....than that would be unwarranted boosterism.

But for them not to claim with complete assuredness that Chicago has the country's if not the world's greatest urban waterfront....they'd be bald-faced liars.

By the way, something not mentioned yet in the thread is that Chicago has more harbor slips than any other American city.

Trust me, If you have ever biked or rollerbladed the entire lakefront on a sunny Saturday in early September, along with 2 million or so fellow Chicagoans, with literally thousands of sail boats dotting a crystal blue horizon..... it would be hard not to feel that it is the world's greatest urban waterfront.

That is true but what are you talking about "Beach"? You all only have the lakes...You don't have a beach unless you consider the lakes the beach...

apparently panamaboy is a dumb ass

I just used the Fisherman's wharf analogy because of numbers. The San Francisco waterfront includes the bay and the ocean, has two ball parks, a national recreation area, off shore islands, ferry boats, one of the most beautiful bridges in the country, touches several city parks, has lots of good restaurants, wildlife, cable cars connecting it to the city, historic boats, and spectacular views. Its only my opinion, but no city that freezes down four months a year can come close. I grant the lake water in Chicago is better for swimming in July. But the point is that the San Francisco waterfront is much more than Fisherman's wharf.

You know there is no disgrace in being beautiful but not number one. Chicago is a great city, but it is not the best in absolutely everything. I'm not even sure Chicago has the best waterfront on the great lakes. It clearly beats Detroit and Cleveland, but Milwaukee and Toronto have very nice lakefronts as well. And the most spectacular feature on the lakes is probably Niagra falls.

But try this test if you still think Chicago has the best waterfront in the country. Ask a group of New Yorkers, Iowans, Texans, and Coloradans, that if they won a two week vacation to spend near the water, and they had their choice of Miami, Honolulu, California, or Chicago, where would they choose to go? How many of them would actually pick Chicago?


Yeah, svs and your logic is non-pariell......ask 100 billion assholes who has the best hamburgher and they will tell you Mc'D's .......man you have flown so far from your roots to be infected by the volume is best virus.....

Nah.......the problem with Chicago's waterfront is that it is cut off from the surrounding city by Lake Shore Drive and though it is beautiful to look at, it is fairly difficult to get to and seems separate from downtown and the parks. In short, the lake, beautiful as it is, just doesn't seem integrated with the rest of the city.

I think San Francisco's waterfront since the freeway fell down is much nicer, more amusements directly on the water. A trolley line just away from the shore. that great food court near the ferry building, the Circus, the piers, the seals, the crush of people. Giardelli square, the cable cars that come right down to the water, the outdoor food vendors, and the fact that its usable twelve months a year is really very hard for Chicago to compete with.

I think San Diego with its double harbor, lighthouse, islands, recreational areas, Coronado Island, the peninsulas, restaaurants, beach communities, access to the San Diego Trolley, and easy walking to San Diego Old Town and La Jolla also trump Chicago. I tend to prefer Seattle's lakes and Ocean combination as well and when you combine that with the Washington State ferry system......I could also mention Miami, St. Petersburg, and Fort Lauterdale, but you probably catch my drift.

I know you really love Chicago. So do I. Its where I grew up. (I spent a lot of summers on Morse beach.) And it does have a beautiful waterfront, but not the best in the country.



Dude

it is certainly not cut off from the city....if anything it is among the most integrated urban beaches going.....


....by the way...not sure but I don't know anyone who ever hung out at Morse beach.......Farwell pier was much more popular, as was columbia or simply Pratt


shit I have been going down there since I was 2 and now I am well lets just say its been more than two decades



svs......you seem to have this avuncular tone.........well sorry wake up Chi has changes since the the late 60'sand early 70's ......and I don't care how many cousins you have still here......I probably have more living in RP than you do have living in some suburban morass .........


....I am not saying saying Chi has the best waterfront.....but at the very least it is vastly underated.....the makcinac is in a few weeks


if anyone wants to meet me I'll be at ALbion beach flying a big American FLag

Haven't really payed attention to those stuff so can't have an opinion about that.

that doesn't surprise anyone becaue by your comment you are a dumbass

I truly do not know why the Chicagoans in these forums insist on being the bride at every wedding, the lead float in every parade, the marching band at every halftime, and the bull goose looney in every asylum. Its a big country out there. Give everyone else a chance.

I really don't understand why former self - loathing midwesterners.....now living in the golden state...have to feel an ingrained need to subvert thier "hometown"......


.....SVS has historically been a backhanded chgo knocker and CA booster......




.......he is overly tanned, crinckled and generally pissed off


......but you know what he can drive his car(s) as much as he wants and he can fantasize about driving them along Lake, Cook, Kane, and Mchenry county roads for as much as his over-carburated 8cylinder sucking, i love wasting gas, because I am a slave to non-sense idiocy 60's shape-my-brain rock-can't-think-for-myself-marching, oh what a nice breeze it is I am so happy to be surrounded by gold here in california......oh but I am really old self

let's not lose sight that this is an opinion thread,not factual. you can't win the battle of who has the best waterfront because it is a matter of opinion.

unlike svs, i wouldn't be interested in taking a poll on the subject. the vast majority of americans couldn't find san francisco, chicago, or miami on a map. and an even bigger percentage have never visited all the major US waterfronts.

does chicago have the best waterfront in the US? I think so, but that's just my opinion. does chicago have the longest history of extensively lavishing its waterfront than any US city? it would be hard to argue otherwise. has chicago devoted a bigger percentage of its waterfront to recreational use than any other US city? Undoubtedly...no city could come close.

like svs, i love the san francisco waterfront. it's beautiful. but the city of san francisco has done little to make it that way. SF's waterfront was going to be a winner no matter what San Franciscans did; the geography and topography of the city willed it to be so.

but, svs, you mention weather....for how many dreary summer months, when fog socks in the Richmond, Sunset, and other ocean front neighborhoods with fog is Ocean Beach an uninviting place? And what is inviting about SF's waterfront south of China Basin down south to Candlestick Point and city limits? It is defnitely rough edged and industrial for virtually the entire east edge of the city. Happily as you noted, the Embaracero Freeway is history, but the Embarcadero, still lined with ancient piers, is hardly an open and inviting waterfront. The north waterfront has its gems: Ghirardelli is a delight and the Cannery is also quality construction. But let's face it...from Pier 39 west to the start of Aquatic Park, much of the wharf are is incredibly tacky and blatantly tourist oriented. West of that point, the city has done an admirable job of refurbishing Fort Mason and a spectacular one on the Marina Green. West from there, no question that the Presidio's waterfront is eye popping...but mostly from well above ocean or GG level...access is limited to the waterfront itself.

chicago meanwhile has dedicated its waterfront to its people...like it or not. and, no, svs, lake shore drive hardly cuts the city off from the waterfront....numerous tunnels and bridges cross under and over the drive.

and while we're at it, how about the chicago river for a great waterfront...the only man made canyon river in the world, lined with spectacular architecture, and well on the way towards the type of river walk that will truly open it up to the public...in downtown and the neighborhoods.

so is chicago the best waterfront? again, a matter of opinion. but if i were a city planner and i wanted to find the model for developing a quality waterfront, i can't imagine how they could find a better city to learn than chicago.

^ Chicago does have an amazing setting along the lake. I don't think many places can compare. When I first went to Chicago I was blown away by the access to the water and the urbanity side by side. It's pretty unique. And I guess the water is warm in the summer--not that it really matters.

Wow, I really seemed to have touched a nerve here.

Let me break it down. I never said Chicago had a bad waterfront. Chicago has a very nice waterfront. I do not hate Chicago. I actually consider myself a Chicago booster, though I admit to being even more of a California booster. I also consider myself a USA booster, in general. I believe the country as a whole is quite beautiful, that most Americans unfortuanately get to see very little of it, and their ignorance of the country as a whole is very unfortunate.

As edgs says this is opinion. Opinion should not be threatening. Does Chicago deserve a lot of credit for developing its lakefront? Obviously. I am going to keep my opinion that Lake Shore Drive does cut the watefront off from the city proper even if there are bridges and overpasses to get by. There are overpasses over the Dan Ryan too, but I would certainly not pretend it doesn't form a block. And by the way the old embaracadero freeway in SF was often criticized for cutting off the waterfront as well. The freeways in Los Angeles form hideous blockages as well. Its the nature of the beast.

I think the only place the waterfront really comes up to the city of Chicago is around Oak Street Beach.

I'm sorry that my opinion that San francisco has a better overall waterfront than Chicago is being taken as criticism of Chicago. It is certainly not meant that way, although folks on this forum seem to keep looking for a fight. I agree with edgs that much of San Francisco's charm is god given rather than man made. But the Western edge of SF and Golden gate park in particular were created (in large part by a guy named MacLaren I believe).

San Francisco happens to sit in a spectacular location on a peninsula surrounded by the ocean and the bay. The numerous hills keep the water in view from most of the city. The cable cars, BART, and the best working fleet of streetcars in the country all service the waterfront, as do ferries to Sausalito, Tiburon, Oakland, Alameda, Angel Island and Alkatraz. Colonies of seals live in clear view of the shore. Working fisherman still land their catches. There are more than 50 piers with activities, restaurants, a circus, and you can smell the salt water in the air. The whole west side of the peninsula is beach. Half of the northside is part of the Golden Gate National recreation area. Golden Gate park, generally considered one of the two best urban parks in the country extends to the shore. And a real working port on the southest side of the city.

And yes, the waterfront is usable the whole year around, even if sometimes, there is fog. We can go on forever, but why try.

There is a guy named Silverlake on the LA forum who gets a lot of criticism for mindless boosting of LA. How many "Silverlakemichigans" can there be in Chicago?

I wish there were more posters like edgs25 on this forum. At least, he seems to understand what I am trying to say most of the time, understands the difference between opinion and fact and doesn't take things personally. And I do agree that most cities could learn quite a bit about planning from Chicago's example. Still that doesn't equal "best".

Please understand, I don't bash Chicago. I love it for what it is, warts and all. And like every other city in the world, it does have some.

Five posts in a row! :shocked: That must be a forum record. Way to go Forumly Chgoman. Anyhow, I still maintain that Miami Beach has the best -- and if not the best, certainly one of the best -- waterfronts in the US.

xzmattzx,

Miami has a great beach front. Also Lauderdale especially driving through with the beach view looking East. I would have to say Lauderdale even though Cali Beaches are nice as well. There's very few things in this world better than driving drop top ferrari or other high end sports car with salt water in the air, pretty girls, sunny day and a great beach front. One thing about south Florida it's one of the few places where other people come out to play. On one occassion rolling through their on the beach scene I've seen a Mclaren F1, Porsche 911 TT, Bently Sport Coupe and XJ220 roll with me all along the strip just fantastic.

svs you have a passive way of actually bashing a city. I don't buy it. Personally I think SFs waterfront is a big tourist trap. Locals avoid it at all costs. Chicago's to me feels like it is part of the city. In this way it seems much more real than SFs.

I think Miami? But after Miami, I'd probably pick San Diego and then Chicago. I think all the cities on the Great Lakes have nice waterfronts. Chicago, Cleveland, Buffalo... Buffalo has a nice peninsula that sticks out into the lake with restaurants and nice condos and you can see the skyline. It also has a tower that you can go up in and look out at the lake, see Canada, and the skyline. I have to admit Buffalo is a nice city.

Baltimore has a nice harborfront, as people know.
i've seen MANY MANY MANY nice pics on here of many different waterfronts, but NO waterfront is better than baltimore's. we're one of the top 10 destinations in the WORLD. need i say more?

Baltimore has a nice waterfront. It kinda reminds me of Boston's. NYC might have one of the worst waterfronts in the world. Nobody really ever goes to the waterfront in NYC because that's just not where everything's at in NYC. I've never been to Tampa. Does tampa have a nice waterfront?

Galveston has a nice waterfront.

I think Miami? But after Miami, I'd probably pick San Diego and then Chicago. I think all the cities on the Great Lakes have nice waterfronts. Chicago, Cleveland, Buffalo... Buffalo has a nice peninsula that sticks out into the lake with restaurants and nice condos and you can see the skyline. It also has a tower that you can go up in and look out at the lake, see Canada, and the skyline. I have to admit Buffalo is a nice city.

I would agree that Miami Beach has done a pretty good job with its waterfront (especially south of 15th street) but the City of Miami side hasn't done as good of a job, especially given the great bay/river system it has to work with. Luckily that is changing with the construction of a riverwalk along the Miami River and more of the new bayfront condos going up along the bay having public access to the water (as they are now required to do). Unfortunately the older waterfront clogging buildings still exist (see the southern Brickell Avenue condo palaces). A good thing about the fact that the Miami River was shunned by developers for so long is that it now allows a clean slate for new development that does appreciate the waterfront.

svs you have a passive way of actually bashing a city. I don't buy it. Personally I think SFs waterfront is a big tourist trap. Locals avoid it at all costs. Chicago's to me feels like it is part of the city. In this way it seems much more real than SFs.

No. I can be quite nasty and actively bash something if I want to. There is nothing about Chicago's waterfront that deserves to be bashed, and much to be praised. Some of the reasons I would not consider it the best are beyond the control of man and Mayor Daley.

It just isn't the very best waterfront in the country IMHO. You of course are entitled to your opinion.

It's just so immature to expect to be considered the best in everything by everyone. It's really okay to get an occasional B on your report card or to win a bronze metal in a judged event.

Madison has a spectacular waterfront. After my first visit there to my cousin's wedding, I was very impressed.

You mean surf behind a boat, right? How warm does the water get in the summer?

I am not to sure about the temperature, but you can surf. Obviously, its nothing like in Hawaii or Southern California. However, some days the waves get pretty sizeable for a lake and I see people out there with surfboards, wakeboards, kiteboards and other crap you would usually only see at the ocean. Sheboygan, just north of Milwaukee, has an annual surfing competition--the largest gathering of fresh water surfers in the world. It is considered one of the top spots for freshwater surfing--especially on the Great Lakes. I read an article that said it even appeared in some surfing documentary that was highly regarded. I also have read that freshwater surfing is more difficult (the article I read said that the waves were harder and compared the water to quicksand for trying to get out) and some Pacific surfers try it out for a new challenge.

i've seen MANY MANY MANY nice pics on here of many different waterfronts, but NO waterfront is better than baltimore's. we're one of the top 10 destinations in the WORLD. need i say more?

that seems quite a stretch....that last part I mean. :)

I am not to sure about the temperature, but you can surf. Obviously, its nothing like in Hawaii or Southern California. However, some days the waves get pretty sizeable for a lake and I see people out there with surfboards, wakeboards, kiteboards and other crap you would usually only see at the ocean. Sheboygan, just north of Milwaukee, has an annual surfing competition--the largest gathering of fresh water surfers in the world. It is considered one of the top spots for freshwater surfing--especially on the Great Lakes. I read an article that said it even appeared in some surfing documentary that was highly regarded. I also have read that freshwater surfing is more difficult (the article I read said that the waves were harder and compared the water to quicksand for trying to get out) and some Pacific surfers try it out for a new challenge.

Thanks. I have got to do a summer trip around the Great Lakes. It sounds so cool.

i've seen MANY MANY MANY nice pics on here of many different waterfronts, but NO waterfront is better than baltimore's. we're one of the top 10 destinations in the WORLD. need i say more?

Say what??? Baltimore is nice waterfront, but not compared to Chicago. Its 25 miles of parkland and beaches along open water of Lake Michigan, with dense, walkable neighborhoods behind it pretty much the entire way. Baltimore is in a harbor, in a small area. Navy Pier is more vibrant than The Inner Harbor by itself. North Avenue Beach (2-3 miles long) gets as crowded on summer weekdends as any east coast beach town. Outside of the commerical Navy Pier, Chicago's waterfont is stunningly beautiful. It is miles of park space, with no industrial eyesores to be seen (unlike Baltimore).

Baltimore is not a top 10 WORLD desitination either. It doesnt even crack the United States top 10. AND this thread has not shown any pics of Chicago's magnificent lakefront.

i've seen MANY MANY MANY nice pics on here of many different waterfronts, but NO waterfront is better than baltimore's. we're one of the top 10 destinations in the WORLD. need i say more?
*laugh laugh laugh*

Who told you that?
No, you needn't say more. I've made my judgement. ;)

HAH I kid, but you ought to check your source. I think wikepedia lied to you about this one.

Who wants to be on a beach with two million other people?

Thanks. I have got to do a summer trip around the Great Lakes. It sounds so cool.

Yeah, I think you would enjoy it! There is so much to see in terms of cities, landscapes, local culture, and outdoor activities. Truly underated.

The Great Lakes provides an array of amenities at your disposal, you wont be dissappointed.

And as for Baltimore being a world destination, I saw that list. Tulsa was first, followed by Baghdad. ;)

Baltimore is great and all, but Chicago's lakefront is unbeatable! just as the chicago river is unbeatable! Its an urban lover's dream setting... btw, nothing against baltimore - i love that city and who looks at top ten destinations anyways...its just a magazine writers opinion or wikepedia's opinion!

I don't know about being a top ten destination, but Baltimore's Inner Harbor is a success story in itself.

So does anyone know of any city that has a waterfront yet to have its potential realized? That was a question asked in the original post.

Philadelphia Waterfront

http://www.geocities.com/phillyphilly3000/artmus1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/phillyphilly3000/waterfrnt.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/phillyphilly4000/GOOD_PHL.JPG
http://www.geocities.com/phillyphilly4000/navyard3.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/phillyphilly4000/penn.jpg

East philadelphia (pop. 1 million)
http://www.geocities.com/phillyphilly5000/camdsky.jpg


Penns Landing
http://www.geocities.com/phillyphilly5000/0058.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/phillyphilly5000/PennsLanding.jpg

Buffalo, NY waterfront. I've only been to Buffalo once and it seemed like a really nice city. I'll definitely go back.
Downtown waterfront
http://www.jcu.edu/alumni/REGIONS/buffalo/water.jpg

Kind of hard to see
http://www.lifetimehealth.org/images/recruitment_buf_waterfront.jpg

There's even surfing in Buffalo? I saw a lot of surfers on Lake Erie when I was there.
http://www.yourexpedition.com/umbrella_images/gl_images/surf.jpg

I truly do not know why the Chicagoans in these forums insist on being the bride at every wedding, the lead float in every parade, the marching band at every halftime, and the bull goose looney in every asylum. Its a big country out there. Give everyone else a chance.
It's called I-N-S-E-C-U-R-I-T-Y

Nice try, but when it comes to waterfronts, every Chicagoan knows it is 2nd to none.

I don't know about being a top ten destination, but Baltimore's Inner Harbor is a success story in itself.

So does anyone know of any city that has a waterfront yet to have its potential realized? That was a question asked in the original post.

this has nothing to do with being the best, but green bay,wisconsin has great potential in its waterfront. Otherwise, mobile, alabama?

It's called I-N-S-E-C-U-R-I-T-Y

Whether that's true or not, it's not like they don't have reason to be insecure, considering Chicago's gritty, dirty reputation around the country.

It's called I-N-S-E-C-U-R-I-T-Y

aw, shucks, we're just a miserable, unimportant, ol' midwestern city, falling apart at the seams; no wonder we're so insecure!

If I had to choose one, I'd choose Miami. Nice beaches, with lit up buildings, and palm trees, while sitting on a yacht. It can't get any better than that. Can't wait to go down there again.

"we're just a miserable, unimportant, ol' midwestern city, falling apart at the seams"

It may not get enough respect, but there aren't a whole lot of people who think this way.

True, but it's not like they don't have reason to be insecure, considering Chicago's gritty, dirty reputation around the country.

You need to check tourist web sites and how high Chicago ranks in travel magazines polls before you think the nations thinks it is gritty or dirty. Thats not true at all. Maybe in the 1970s this was true.

You need to check tourist web sites and how high Chicago ranks in travel magazines polls before you think the nations thinks it is gritty or dirty. Thats not true at all. Maybe in the 1970s this was true.

Not the whole nation, certainly not the majority, but MUCH of the nation still thinks of gangsters when they think of Chicago.

Gangsters and industrialize factories on our lake front...

Both Miami and Baltimore have excellent Lakefronts... even Milwaukee, but their I-794 on the Lake front should be demolish!!!

Gangsters and industrialize factories on our lake front...

Both Miami and Baltimore have excellent Lakefronts... even Milwaukee, but their I-794 on the Lake front should be demolish!!!

nah, I dont know about that one. 794 doesnt run by the good parts of the lakefront and is useful for getting people downtown to the airport very quickly. Plus, we would lose the Hoan Bridge--one of the top 5 symbols of the city! :)

^^ But isn't the I-794 just less than one mile away from I-94/ I-43 and run on the Lakefront...any plans to change it like Chicago's Lake Shore Drive and put parks and beaches on both sides of the highway? Because, the I-794 is to Milwaukee as the Gardenir expressway as to Toronto. Both have huge truck highways on their lakefront...

^^ But isn't the I-794 just less than one mile away from I-94/ I-43 and run on the Lakefront...any plans to change it like Chicago's Lake Shore Drive and put parks and beaches on both sides of the highway? Because, the I-794 is to Milwaukee as the Gardenir expressway as to Toronto. Both have huge truck highways on their lakefront...

yeah, it is right off 94 and 43 and going through downtown--it wouldnt be so bad knocking it down and making it into a boulevard....opening up more land.

Getting rid of it would be virtually impossible I heard. It would be a nightmare for commuters, especially from the Southside who would instead have to drive through denser areas--leading to major jams. Right alongside the 794 at the Lake is Summerfest, the Third Ward, and the Port of Milwaukee (which takes up much of the area)....so putting parks and stuff wouldnt really be possible. Getting rid of it really wouldnt improve too much I think. And I dont really think many people think of it as an ugly hassle.

yeah, it is right off 94 and 43 and going through downtown--it wouldnt be so bad knocking it down and making it into a boulevard....opening up more land.

Getting rid of it would be virtually impossible I heard. It would be a nightmare for commuters, especially from the Southside who would instead have to drive through denser areas--leading to major jams. Right alongside the 794 at the Lake is Summerfest, the Third Ward, and the Port of Milwaukee (which takes up much of the area)....so putting parks and stuff wouldnt really be possible. Getting rid of it really wouldnt improve too much I think. And I dont really think many people think of it as an ugly hassle.

i commute on the 794, and its smooth as can be. eliminating it would be bad! bad! ...but a good thought.

Whether that's true or not, it's not like they don't have reason to be insecure, considering Chicago's gritty, dirty reputation around the country.

I don't really think Chicago has a "dirty, gritty" reputation. Most Americans admire Chicago. They have nothing to be insecure about. They just have this neurotic need to be the prize in every box of Crackerjack. I think its the "middle child syndrome" between NYC and LA.

I don't really think Chicago has a "dirty, gritty" reputation. Most Americans admire Chicago. They have nothing to be insecure about. They just have this neurotic need to be the prize in every box of Crackerjack. I think its the "middle child syndrome" between NYC and LA.

I'm not defending the behaviour you believe you are seeing, but I guess, from my experiences, many DO associate Chicago with gangsters,drugs etc. JMHO. Besides, I see just as much Dubai boosterism, New York boosterism and Tokyo boosterism as I do Chicago.

i commute on the 794, and its smooth as can be. eliminating it would be bad! bad! ...but a good thought.

yeah, its not so bad. I like the divide it creates between downtown and the Third Ward.

this has nothing to do with being the best, but green bay,wisconsin has great potential in its waterfront. Otherwise, mobile, alabama?

Mobile is definitely a candidate here.

Nah.......the problem with Chicago's waterfront is that it is cut off from the surrounding city by Lake Shore Drive and though it is beautiful to look at, it is fairly difficult to get to and seems separate from downtown and the parks. In short, the lake, beautiful as it is, just doesn't seem integrated with the rest of the city.

I don't care whther Chicago's waterfront is better than SF'S however it very much IS a integral part of the city.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c389/Hecago/100_16052.jpg

http://neighborhoods.chicago.il.us/a/Gold_Coast/p0013.600x600.jpg



Also, it's by no means "cut off" and not "difficult to get to" either, the city is directly connected to the beach through short pedestrian/bike underpasses like this,:

http://www.chicagosnapshot.com/cs/archives/hydepark/081904_hyde002.jpg

And bridges like this:

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c389/Hecago/100_1602.jpg

On a side-note, I will give SF the edge because of more reliable weather.

Gangsters and industrialize factories on our lake front...

Both Miami and Baltimore have excellent Lakefronts... even Milwaukee, but their I-794 on the Lake front should be demolish!!!

I wasn't aware Miami and Baltimore were built on lakes? :laugh: The correct term in both cases in Bayfront (though Miami has a Riverfront, Bayfront (2 of them actually...Miami side, Miami Beach side) and an Oceanfront).

Thats bull. Im from the East Coast, and Chicago is loved over there. When I told people I was moving to Chicago, not one person said "Its a bunch of gangsters, running around a dirty, gritty city".

Thats bull. Im from the East Coast, and Chicago is loved over there. When I told people I was moving to Chicago, not one person said "Its a bunch of gangsters, running around a dirty, gritty city".

Like I said it's just the impression I get from MY experiences, not yours.

"Whether that's true or not, it's not like they don't have reason to be insecure, considering Chicago's gritty, dirty reputation around the country."

Why didnt you put in "my experiences" in your first comment?
You said much of the nation, I didnt realize you knew much of US population. Im thats what you have heard, but I have heard people say silimar things about NYC too. Dirty, gritty, blah blah. Do I say most of the Nation or "much"? No, because thats is BS. I dont know, and you dont either.

Not that people routinely think of Chicago as gangsters, even if they did, that's a long time ago. NYC is more known for gangsters and LA is known for gangs. We have some pretty decadent cities on the east coast too, so even if people know that Chicago is pretty gritty in areas, that it's also not necessarily a bad thing considering it's the same thing over here.

I'd say Chicago is more known for big buildings and maybe the Bulls than anything else. The other midwestern stereotypes exist, but are way down there, people don't know how much the city offers, but most people know it's no slouch too.

LA's gang sterotype is too big. People think there are gangs running around everywhere. When I went for Spring Break, people kept on asking me if I saw gangs all the time. I just said no and that it is not like the movie Colors. There are bad areas, and we left Hollywood bu dark to make it back to Perris, but overall, I didn't see LA as a gang-ridden city. That some people make it out to be.

We have some pretty decadent cities on the east coast too, so even if people know that Chicago is pretty gritty in areas, that it's also not necessarily a bad thing considering it's the same thing over here.


Hate to break it to ya, but Ann Arbor in not on the east coast. :weirdo: you're a great lakes state and should be proud.

I go to school in Ann Arbor, but like many other students here, I'm from the east coast, I suppose I should change my location though.

I have to say, as a west coast person, that my impression of Chicago is very positive. Of course parts are gritty. To not understand/acknowledge that about such a complex city with a huge history is naive. But today Chicago feels like a place that is dynamic and full of opportunity. To me it gives the impression of opportunity and is a place of tough, hard-working people. Indeed, the skyline exudes this feel--it's the city of big shoulders. My only problem with Chicago is that every time I go there I have too much fun and can't get any work done. There's just too much to do that's far too accessible. Chicago rocks!

^ Let me add that if you want to talk about gritty then let's talk LA. Of course, most people completely fail to realize this and think of it as a glam town.

let me clarify that the intent of this thread was to discuss the nice waterfronts around the country, not to talk about 2 of them and then start yelling at each other about which of the two is better.

^ Let me add that if you want to talk about gritty then let's talk LA. Of course, most people completely fail to realize this and think of it as a glam town.

LA's got some grit, but it's all relative. It's pretty new and clean looking compared to some Midwestern or Eastern cities. I can see how people feel that some "grit" adds character to a city, but I guess it depends on what is considered grit. If you're a homeowner (which I bet most on this site aren't), real "grit" sucks if it's in your neighborhood. Nobody on this site seems to consider real life things like property values, they seem overly concerned about how "street" or "hood" or "real" an area looks, therefore, the grittier, the better. I'd bet most of the people on this site that think "grit" is so cool don't live anywhere near real "grit". The fascination with "grit" on this site is amusing considering all of the young suburbanites on this forum.

There's a few gritty looking buildings in my neighborhood and I wish someone would fix them up so that they weren't gritty looking. Most people on this site would love those buildings, I think they look like shit and so would a potential homebuyer. They don't look good in a neighborhood.

Back to LA though, I think LA is the most stereotyped, misunderstood, big city on this site. People seem to be more ignorant about LA than any other city.

Actually, people tend to be pretty ignorant of most places, unfortunately.

Visited LA for the first time about a year and a half ago and loved the place. Rolled through South Central and went downtown (at night); didn't really have the best impressions there, but overall, I love me some LA. I'm thinking about attending grad school out that way.

Anyway, back to waterfronts...

To me grit in LA is a feel. It's a place where lots of people are trying to get a start in some way. In that sense to me it is a very gritty place. But then so is Chicago. Anyways back to the point: Chicago has an insane waterfront. To me what makes it so great is how integrated it is w/the city. I know some have said otherwise but my impression/feel is that the lake is part of the average person's life. Even in the winter.

Actually, people tend to be pretty ignorant of most places, unfortunately.

Yeah, I know, that's why I said: "People seem to be more ignorant about LA than any other city"

"Whether that's true or not, it's not like they don't have reason to be insecure, considering Chicago's gritty, dirty reputation around the country."

Why didnt you put in "my experiences" in your first comment?
You said much of the nation, I didnt realize you knew much of US population. Im thats what you have heard, but I have heard people say silimar things about NYC too. Dirty, gritty, blah blah. Do I say most of the Nation or "much"? No, because thats is BS. I dont know, and you dont either.
I made a statement, then i clarified that statement, okay? Don't have an ulcer.

Baltimore's is nice:

http://www.tbrpc.org/waterfront/images/harborplace2.jpg

http://www.baltimore.to/Amphitheater/images/AmphitheaterFromLtStb.jpg

http://www.baltimore.org/cmt_media/images/press/144.gif

Back to LA though, I think LA is the most stereotyped, misunderstood, big city on this site. People seem to be more ignorant about LA than any other city.


that's because many people from LA tend to be ignorant about the rest of the country. atleast this holds true in sports (lakers and kobe groupies). :)

I wasn't aware Miami and Baltimore were built on lakes? :laugh: The correct term in both cases in Bayfront (though Miami has a Riverfront, Bayfront (2 of them actually...Miami side, Miami Beach side) and an Oceanfront).

You know what I meant :lol: !!!

I was going to write waterfront, but I was thinking of Milwaukee...

I'm not sure if any other North American city could beat Chicago's riverfront!

http://www.photo-mark.com/webpix/ds/ULIL00372.jpg

It may be one of the best in the world!

I really like Chicago and Baltimore's waterfronts. Chicago's is the standard for the big city while Baltimore's is the standard for the smaller cities.

Not bad for a city in the middle of a continent.......


http://static.flickr.com/39/124729011_0d0c6dfc2d_b.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/13/19687208_31916ef657_o.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/30/37165754_d9844a99c4.jpg?v=0
http://static.flickr.com/27/57133737_b99c87b304.jpg?v=0
http://static.flickr.com/50/130610662_4d6ec97c43_o.jpg

As much as I like Chicago's waterfront, I enjoy Milwaukee's more. It just seems so much more natural and peaceful. There aren't many places along Chicago's lakefront that I feel like I can get some peace and quiet, due to LSD. But I guess the Japanese gardens near Jackson Park makes up for it. That said, there is no wear I have ever seen on earth as active as Chicago's lakefront on any given summer Saturday. It is almost too intense for me. We're probably talking hundreds of thousands of people either on the beach, biking, walking, jogging, playing volleyball, softball, etc.

^ Those pics are money. Amazing waterfront.

Can I ask you a question LA Guy? Do people on the west coast realize how large Lake Michigan is or that it is blue? The only reason I ask is that from my "online travels" on various forums, mostly this one and the other skyscraperpage, newbie posters usually seem like they are almost totally shocked that there are beaches, that the water is blue, and that you can't see across it. I was even accussed on one forum, when we were discussing cities, of photoshopping and doctoring some pictures of Chicago I found online because the water was so blue. It really threw me for a loop and was a comment that was totally unexpected.

Not a big deal, I'm just trying to imagine what some people like this are actually thinking the Lake looks like. I guess green with the opposite shore in sight, all lined with just mud and grass or something? Hehe...

Haha I have been accused of the same thing, photoshopping to make the lake look blue.

this was the pic:

http://www.growingchicago.com/images/mypicsII/chi2111.JPG

yoyoniner let me be a little more clear-- when I say amazing waterfront I don't mean it to seem like those pics are the first time I've ever seen the lake. I just mean to back up what I know about the lake, so far. Indeed, as I continue to visit Chicago I become more fascinated by the lake and want to check it out more. I want to do a summer trip starting in Chicago and then head up into Michigan which I hear is awesome. Lots of great places to stop and hang and then move on, right? As for people out here, I think many realize the size of the lake but what is probably totally lost (in general) is how much there is to it beyond just being a big body of water to look at. I think the metality is that you guys are basically stuck and don't have the outdoor opportunities we do. But I'll say that Chicago's waterfront (and probably Milwaukee's too--don't know it) can hang with any on the west coast. In fact, it's probably fair to say that it's the top. And I'll admit that I am learning that there is a ton more to do beyond just the city waterfronts and that you guys don't need to come out here to vacation.

what city has the best waterfront in your opinion? what city has the best riverfront? what city has the best general waterfront (whether it be the ocean, a great lake, a large bay, etc)? what city has a small lake nearby that they have utilized? what city has the potential to have a great waterfront? do you think a city is better off having a waterfront focused on a river or on something bigger like a bay or a lake?

as usual, pictures will make this thread even better.
Best...

riverfront- Chicago

great lake waterfront- Chicago

large bay waterfront- San Francisco

small lake utilization (this could be highly debatable but based on the
cities that I have been to I would say)- Oklahoma City
Lake Hefner, Lake Overholser, and Lake Stanly Draper are very well utilized as beach and parkland by a city that desperatly needed both.

waterfront potential- Manhattan (they need more waterside parkland, which they are getting)

general waterfront- again this is highly debatable but I am going to buck the trend here and say Los Angeles

Best...

riverfront- Chicago

great lake waterfront- Chicago

large bay waterfront- San Francisco

small lake utilization (this could be highly debatable but based on the
cities that I have been to I would say)- Oklahoma City Lake Hefner, Lake Overholser, and Lake Stanly Draper are very well utilized as beach and parkland by a city that desperatly needed both.

waterfront potential- Manhattan (they need more waterside parkland, which they are getting)

general waterfront- again this is highly debatable but I am going to buck the trend here and say Los Angeles

as madison grows, like it is, it will be a strong small lake city. (mendota,monona). do you have any okcity pics of the lake?

Chicago is definitely a contender for best riverfront.

http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/647/chicagorivercanyonbest7qf.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

I don't really think Chicago has a "dirty, gritty" reputation. Most Americans admire Chicago. They have nothing to be insecure about. They just have this neurotic need to be the prize in every box of Crackerjack. I think its the "middle child syndrome" between NYC and LA.

by the way, Crackerjacks are from Chicago :)

It's only appropriate that we have a neurotic need to be surrounded by lip-smacking caramel corn.

If we have a middle-child syndrome (Marsha Marsha Marsha)....maybe it's a good thing.....from Dr. Spock's website


Oldest and youngest children can usually find reasons to be glad about their place in the family. Not so middle children. They often aren't the biggest and strongest, they aren't the babies who get away with murder, they aren't really anything special, at least in their own minds. Sometimes they feel invisible.

But this uncomfortable feeling of not having a defined place in the family may actually turn out to be an advantage. Unlike first children, who often define success by their ability to meet their parents' expectations, middle children are more prone to rebel against the status quo. This observation is the main point of a fascinating book, Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics, and Creative Lives, by Frank J. Sulloway. The book also argues that birth order--the middle position in particular--is one of the prime forces behind the scientific and social revolutions that drive history forward. I'd wager that most middle children had no idea that they were so important.


No wonder then that Chicago is so darn creative :)

as madison grows, like it is, it will be a strong small lake city. (mendota,monona). do you have any okcity pics of the lake?
I was thinking about madison, but I have never been there so I couldn't rightfully say it has the best small lakefronts IMO.

I don't have any personal pics of the Oklahoma city lakes but I did find a couple of Lake Hefner on the internet. They are really better appreciated in person.
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g34/Jeramie_Hurt/156899626_e276dc39e0.jpg
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g34/Jeramie_Hurt/Acclaim_Images_0090-0507-2213-0217.jpg
I can't get over the fact that Lake Hefner is entirely within the city limits of OKC. :runaway:

^^ I would thought that was in Upper Minnesota or UP of Michigan

Chicago is definitely a contender for best riverfront.

http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/647/chicagorivercanyonbest7qf.jpg (http://imageshack.us)



hey imagine if we add this to picture in less than 3 years...

http://ladefense.free.fr/chicago/waterview02.jpg

I agree Chi Town has a Nice Riverfront and is definately a contender. Also Lauderdale with the Intercoastal where you can ride a boat to the back of your home. Even though they are categorized as canals they look like rivers. Here's another contender for rivers Philadelphia.

Tranquility in the middle of the Concrete Jungle

http://www.geocities.com/phillyphilly6000/Boating.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/phillyphilly6000/boathouseRowAtNight.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/phillyphilly6000/fairmount.jpg


http://www.geocities.com/phillyphilly6000/pschuyk.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/phillyphilly7000/riverview.jpg


http://www.geocities.com/phillyphilly7000/philadelphia9.jpg

East Philadelphia View (Camden and the Ben Franklin)
http://www.geocities.com/phillyphilly7000/camdenpark.jpg

Concert Venues at Penns Landing
http://www.geocities.com/phillyphilly7000/geg-singer-songwriter-inset.jpg

yoyoniner let me be a little more clear-- when I say amazing waterfront I don't mean it to seem like those pics are the first time I've ever seen the lake. I just mean to back up what I know about the lake, so far. Indeed, as I continue to visit Chicago I become more fascinated by the lake and want to check it out more. I want to do a summer trip starting in Chicago and then head up into Michigan which I hear is awesome. Lots of great places to stop and hang and then move on, right? As for people out here, I think many realize the size of the lake but what is probably totally lost (in general) is how much there is to it beyond just being a big body of water to look at. I think the metality is that you guys are basically stuck and don't have the outdoor opportunities we do. But I'll say that Chicago's waterfront (and probably Milwaukee's too--don't know it) can hang with any on the west coast. In fact, it's probably fair to say that it's the top. And I'll admit that I am learning that there is a ton more to do beyond just the city waterfronts and that you guys don't need to come out here to vacation.

I wasn't implying you meant anything by your posts, I was just curious about your thoughts to my question.

^ I didn't think so but I was just trying to be clear.

by the way, Crackerjacks are from Chicago :)

It's only appropriate that we have a neurotic need to be surrounded by lip-smacking caramel corn.

If we have a middle-child syndrome (Marsha Marsha Marsha)....maybe it's a good thing.....from Dr. Spock's website


Oldest and youngest children can usually find reasons to be glad about their place in the family. Not so middle children. They often aren't the biggest and strongest, they aren't the babies who get away with murder, they aren't really anything special, at least in their own minds. Sometimes they feel invisible.

But this uncomfortable feeling of not having a defined place in the family may actually turn out to be an advantage. Unlike first children, who often define success by their ability to meet their parents' expectations, middle children are more prone to rebel against the status quo. This observation is the main point of a fascinating book, Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics, and Creative Lives, by Frank J. Sulloway. The book also argues that birth order--the middle position in particular--is one of the prime forces behind the scientific and social revolutions that drive history forward. I'd wager that most middle children had no idea that they were so important.


No wonder then that Chicago is so darn creative :)

PS. I know that Crackerjack is from Chicago. I toured the old factory twice when I was in grammar school. Is it still there? Haven't been in that neighborhood in decades.

My main point which few Chicago forumers seem to understand, is that although Chicago is a wonderful city, it is part of a vast and wonderful country. And that there are wonderful and beautiful things to see all over the country and that a little graciousness to the other cities and a little respect for other opinions would not be amiss.

(This does not apply to all Chicago forumers of course, but the number of "Silverlake michigan" boosters out there who confuse praise of any other city with criticism of Chicago is just appalling.)

Milwaukee has a great river scene, but chicago still has a large edge on us w/ the scraper valley
i have to post alot of pics to give you an idea. its loaded with alot of low-rise housing

(boatnerd)
http://www.boatnerd.com/news/newpictures03/Milw.-river-7-18-al.jpg
http://www.consultwebs.com/ncphotos/images/milwaukee/milwaukee_4281_550_dropwm.jpg
my shots:
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c123/jaymack2k6/Milw_May/May_44.jpg
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c123/jaymack2k6/Day%20in%20mke/Jan_14_23.jpg
google
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2005/04/03/tr_all_travel_milwaukee01.jpg
http://www.elpcd.com/spirit/08.jpg

I'll say it now and I'll say it again, Milwaukeee is one of the most underrated cities in the country.

^ No doubt. I have not been there but those pics look really cool especially the river running through what looks like downtown

I agree, it is massively underrated. I believe that is changing though. Milwaukee's image seems to be following the same trajectory as Chicago's did in the preceding 10 years. One thing that is better about Milwaukee's lakefront is that it has some elevation/topography within the city, which Chicago has only on the N/S shores.

I agree, it is massively underrated. I believe that is changing though. Milwaukee's image seems to be following the same trajectory as Chicago's did in the preceding 10 years. One thing that is better about Milwaukee's lakefront is that it has some elevation/topography within the city, which Chicago has only on the N/S shores.

Yeah, one of the things I prefer about Milwaukee over Chi-town. The other of course is tranquility--then again, we arent a massive city like Chicago.

The bluffs overlooking the lakefront offer some great views. I guess its all a matter of preference...looking at the water from hills or a thousand foot skyscraper!

:okay: Philly is great as usual, chicago too. Milwaukee nice but a little too small. I like the pictures.

Yeah, one of the things I prefer about Milwaukee over Chi-town.

never heard of Chi-town, where it is? :eek2:

never heard of Chi-town, where it is? :eek2:

90 miles South of Mil-town. :)

I'll say it now and I'll say it again, Milwaukeee is one of the most underrated cities in the country.

and one with an incredibly unique personality all its own.

^^ even though there is a huge city just 90 miles down the road...