STLgasm wrote:--Milwaukee embraces its waterways -- wake up St. Louis!

St. Louis doesn't embrace the Mississippi River? In case you overlooked it, there's a gigantic arch on our riverfront. What more do you want? Casinos? Done! Restaurants and bars? Done! Hotels? Done!

STLgasm wrote:--The Third Ward is a wonderful restored warehouse district filled with funky art galleries and boutiques. To my surprise, it was not at all contrived or artificial. It felt very authentic and hip.



--While St. Louis blows Milwaukee away in terms of historic residential architecture (the Red Brick Mama can't be beat), Milwaukee kicks our ass when it comes to modern residential design. The city is filled with funky, contemporary condo developments.

Pictures?

STLgasm wrote:--There is a very palpable spirit of optimism in Milwaukee. People are proud of their city, and it shows. They are also much friendlier than St. Louisans, I have to say.

Up yours! Just kidding. I usually avoid making eye contact or saying hi to people downtown because they usually reply, "Can you spare some change?" How many times did you get begged for money in Milwaukee?

STLgasm wrote:--Downtown Milwaukee is a fully functional neighborhood with all the amenities and services to support it.

What kind of amenities and services do they have that Downtown St. Louis doesn't have? You're being extremely vague with your post.

Resurrectus wrote:

STLgasm wrote:--Milwaukee embraces its waterways -- wake up St. Louis!

St. Louis doesn't embrace the Mississippi River? In case you overlooked it, there's a gigantic arch on our riverfront. What more do you want? Casinos? Done! Restaurants and bars? Done! Hotels? Done!

I hope you were not serious on that one. The Arch may be there, but we have completely turned our backs on the river, including with the arch grounds.

MattnSTL wrote:

Resurrectus wrote:

STLgasm wrote:--Milwaukee embraces its waterways -- wake up St. Louis!

St. Louis doesn't embrace the Mississippi River? In case you overlooked it, there's a gigantic arch on our riverfront. What more do you want? Casinos? Done! Restaurants and bars? Done! Hotels? Done!

I hope you were not serious on that one. The Arch may be there, but we have completely turned our backs on the river, including with the arch grounds.

STLgasm is comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare the Mississippi River to Milwaukee Bay (pictured below).



What do you want built by the river that isn't already there?









Here's the Milwaukee Riverwalk. It's impossible to build anything like this next to the Mississippi River because it will be destroyed when the water rises.

I will chime in here. I agree with all the points STLgasm shared.



About the water-- St. Louis is the preeminent river city, yet we sure don't show it. The Arch is amazing, but the grounds around it are barren and devoid of any real excitement that would keep people there after they ride to the top. The casinos (in my opinion) are tacky and contrived and only succeed in taking visitors off the streets and keeping them inside. The levee should have a promenade, riverside cafes, street vendors, etc. Flooding is an issue, yes, but there are ways incorporate that concern into new attractions.



Friendliness-- actually, Resurrectus-- we did not encounter a single panhandler the entire time we were in Milwaukee. That is no exaggeration. I'm sure they're out there, but they did not approach us in downtown Milwaukee. People in Milwaukee are extremely friendly, often initiating conversation with complete strangers and asking if they're enjoying the city. St. Louisans keep to themselves in general and couldn't care less about outsiders. More on that later.



Downtown amenities-- Milwaukee has done a much better job keeping downtown as the center of activity. Granted, they don't have a Clayton to contend with, and Milwaukee is a much smaller metro area with less sprawl, less traffic, fewer freeways and shorter distances than STL. In downtown Milwaukee, you can find markets, drug stores, book stores, bars, restaurants, record stores, tattoo shops, art galleries and other amenities that one would need on a day-to-day basis. This is sorely lacking in St. Louis, although it is slowly getting better. But we have a long, long way to go. It is also worthy to note that downtown St. Louis is much larger than downtown Milwuakee, so it is a much bigger project, and St. Louis has numerous impressive neighborhoods such as Soulard, the CWE, the Hill, Lafayette Square, the Loop, South Grand and others that Milwaukee can't hold a candle to.



New development-- Milwaukee is riddled with brand new development projects all over downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. Better yet, they are contemporary; in St. Louis we mostly see faux-historic schlock that looks cheap and insulting. Unfortunately my camera has not been working so I have no pictures.



Overall-- St. Louis is a big mama compared to Milwaukee, and is has a more eastern feeling, if you can imagine. The hardcore brick in this city is something that we should never take for granted. It gives the whole city a much more mature, big-city feeling. Milwaukee is more focused on making downtown its center, while St. Louis is a more neighborhood-oriented city. That's all fine and good, but we need to work on filling in the gaps that separate our wonderful neighborhoods. Visiting other cities gives a really great glimpse into what we do right and what we do wrong. Milwaukeeans want to have sex with our MetroLink. They have all but given up hope that they will ever get a light-rail system. They think STL is so progressive!



Milwaukee opened my eyes a lot, but I love this city. It's great to be home.

I've spent a lot of time in Milwaukee over the years, and have always been impressed with the city. Great architecture and a great overall feel. Like you said, the Third Ward is very cool. The only problem is that it is severed from the rest of downtown by the highway.



Did you guys get a chance to check out the Beerline? It's a former industrial corridor along the river, west of downtown, that has been reborn with all new residential construction and lofts in renovated warehouses. Some of the new buildings are faux-historic schlock, but most of them are cool, modern designs.



Aside from their downtown, the East Side is very cool - sort of like our CWE/U. City area with Brady Street and lots of high-rises and other cool buildings. They're also fortunate in that UW-Milwaukee is actually right there in the East Side neighborhood. Imagine if UMSL was located in the city? It would be amazing.



Bay View is another funky little neighborhood on the city's south side that I like.

JivecitySTL wrote:I will chime in here. I agree with all the points STLgasm shared.

As usual, you guys offered some great observations...

About the water-- St. Louis is the preeminent river city, yet we sure don't show it. The Arch is amazing, but the grounds around it are barren and devoid of any real excitement that would keep people there after they ride to the top. The casinos (in my opinion) are tacky and contrived and only succeed in taking visitors off the streets and keeping them inside. The levee should have a promenade, riverside cafes, street vendors, etc. Flooding is an issue, yes, but there are ways incorporate that concern into new attractions.

I agree. What we have, as Resurrectus mentioned, is a start. However, the Landing has yet to realize its full potential, and there's so much that could be done with Leanor K. Sullivan Boulevard despite the challenges presented by the Mississippi River that never seems to move beyond wishful thinking. Danforth et al think a museum is the answer. Great. What about the simpler things you mentioned- promenades, sidewalk cafes, and vendors- things that would add more life to the riverfront than another museum since there's already a well-visited museum under the Gateway Arch anyway?

Friendliness-- actually, Resurrectus-- we did not encounter a single panhandler the entire time we were in Milwaukee. That is no exaggeration. I'm sure they're out there, but they did not approach us in downtown Milwaukee. People in Milwaukee are extremely friendly, often initiating conversation with complete strangers and asking if they're enjoying the city. St. Louisans keep to themselves in general and couldn't care less about outsiders. More on that later.

I've lived in St. Louis for 11 years, and I agree to an extent. I've found that many people are quite friendly and are willing to initiate conversation here, but there are just as many like you said that keep to themselves. I think it really depends on where you are within the metro area as it varies widely from place to place.

Downtown amenities-- Milwaukee has done a much better job keeping downtown as the center of activity. Granted, they don't have a Clayton to contend with, and Milwaukee is a much smaller metro area with less sprawl, less traffic, fewer freeways and shorter distances than STL. In downtown Milwaukee, you can find markets, drug stores, book stores, bars, restaurants, record stores, tattoo shops, art galleries and other amenities that one would need on a day-to-day basis. This is sorely lacking in St. Louis, although it is slowly getting better. But we have a long, long way to go. It is also worthy to note that downtown St. Louis is much larger than downtown Milwuakee, so it is a much bigger project, and St. Louis has numerous impressive neighborhoods such as Soulard, the CWE, the Hill, Lafayette Square, the Loop, South Grand and others that Milwaukee can't hold a candle to.

Take out "Milwaukee", and I could've sworn you were talking about Indianapolis.



I've been to Indy several times, and it's been ages since I've been to Milwaukee, so I'm going to take a wild guess and say that downtown Indy has more chains than downtown Milwaukee. Still, there are similarities, especially the feeling that Indy and Milwaukee have both done a better job of making their downtowns the regional center of activity. That said, people here are quick to forget that (1) our downtown's physical size is much, much bigger than its Midwestern peers and (2) we have many vibrant and interesting neighborhoods that places like Indianapolis and Milwaukee simply cannot touch.

New development-- Milwaukee is riddled with brand new development projects all over downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. Better yet, they are contemporary; in St. Louis we mostly see faux-historic schlock that looks cheap and insulting. Unfortunately my camera has not been working so I have no pictures.

That's one paradigm I'd love to shift here. I drove through Midtown and the Gate District yesterday and the suburban infill is so depressing.

Milwaukeeans want to have sex with our MetroLink. They have all but given up hope that they will ever get a light-rail system. They think STL is so progressive!

They might not get quite as excited if they knew how much our bus service was about to be slashed. And as much as I want Metrolink expanded and bus service restored (at least in the city/inner suburbs, which are experiencing some drastic cuts as well), I'm just as interested in seeing streetcars along Delmar Boulevard, and hopefully, Grand at some point as well.

with my work I deal with lots of folks from rural Wisconsin, and maybe Milwaukee is different, but while I consider them to be very nice people I wouldn't say they are outgoing or overly friendly to strangers. One of my best friends who went to UW-Madison said the same thing back when we were in college. We joked about a cabin mentality that can set in when it's freezing cold for a majority of the year. And in my travels it seems like the farther south you go the more friendly people get in general.



Like I said, I haven't been to Milwaukee since I was a kid. I do remember it being a clean city though. And their Summerfest looks like a good time.

Here's a shoddy camera pic from my travels to Milwaukee last summer. I have family from Miltown and have spent many a vacation up in Wisconsin. Whether it's spending time in Mequon, the neighborhoods surround UWM, staying at the Intercontinental downtown, or catching one of the many great acts at Summerfest, I would have to agree that Milwaukee's downtown is something they should be proud of. I believe a majority of the new modern residential is just north of downtown. They also have a damn cool art museum on the lake. (Quadracci Pavilion)

Their art museum is indeed an incredible building but you still have to pay to get inside. I prefer our free for all Beaux Arts masterpiece that I can go to whenever I want as opposed to theirs which might only be a once a year treat if I lived in Milwaukee. If you want great modern museum architecture then visit the Pulitzer which is also free to use.

Oklahoma City had no water feature downtown, so they created one out of nothing. They dug a canal starting in an ally in the old bricktown corner of downtown and eventually extended it meandering under an elevated interstate.







The link below is the view from google maps (which is a little old). There is development all along the canal including Sonic foods world headquarters, a Bass Pro Shop downtown, and Toby Keith's restaurant, . The Ford Center arena in the lower left is where the Mizzou won the Big 12 tournament Saturday. Downtown OKC is just off the upper left.



I don't the OK bricktown canal cost anywhere near the $1 billion dollars I keep hearing for the cost of Chouteau Lake. Chouteau Lake would be a lot better than the OKC Bricktown canal, and I think it would pay for itself, if someone could figure out the business plan and take a little risk. The County and State should kick in. OKC passed a region-wide 1 cent sales tax for 5 years targeted to downtown revitalization. They used part of it to build the canal. (& the Ford Center)



http://maps.google.com/maps?client=safa ... 13819&z=17

We scratch and claw for a 20 story office building to be built on about the most valuable piece of real estate in the region

i disagree. I think the most valuable land in STL is UNFORTUNATELY in downtown Clayton.

JCity wrote:i disagree. I think the most valuable land in STL is UNFORTUNATELY in downtown Clayton.

Nah, I still think it's the future site of a softball field and a parking lot!

I like OKC's Bricktown Canal - that city seems to have made some great strides in recent years.



Chouteau's Pond, on the other hand, will never happen. I wish McCormack Baron would concentrate on smaller developments that could be catalysts for additional development instead of wasting time, energy and money on this pipe dream.



I'd like to see some sense of urgency when it comes to development in this city. Stop (richard)ing around with these stupid silver bullet pipe dream projects and build some freaking office space. St. Louis needs development now, not 10-20 years from now.

DeBaliviere wrote:I'd like to see some sense of urgency when it comes to development in this city. Stop (richard)ing around with these stupid silver bullet pipe dream projects and build some freaking office space. St. Louis needs development now, not 10-20 years from now.

=D> (standing)



Amen! Oh, and it's a very good thing that I took a drink of my coffee before I read "richarding".

DeBaliviere wrote:I like OKC's Bricktown Canal - that city seems to have made some great strides in recent years.



Chouteau's Pond, on the other hand, will never happen.

It certainly won't happen with this typical St. Louisan attitude. Oklahoma City is 1/4 the size of our metro area. And downtown was a mess and run down. When people heard they were going to consider a canal with water taxi's, I'm sure the response there was [that] "will never happen".



I didn't think Forest Park revival would ever happen. Chouteu Pond should cost about the same but has the advantage that it can be paid back with new development on the shores, unlike Forest Park.



Why do I think the Koreans will change and reunite before St. Louisans will change thier attitudes about our town. I think it comes down to whether you believe the city's greatness is ahead of us or behind us.

^ Which is precisely why we need more Koreans in St. Louis.

Gary Kreie wrote:

DeBaliviere wrote:I like OKC's Bricktown Canal - that city seems to have made some great strides in recent years.



Chouteau's Pond, on the other hand, will never happen.

It certainly won't happen with this typical St. Louisan attitude. Oklahoma City is 1/4 the size of our metro area. And downtown was a mess and run down. When people heard they were going to consider a canal with water taxi's, I'm sure the response there was [that] "will never happen".



I didn't think Forest Park revival would ever happen. Chouteu Pond should cost about the same but has the advantage that it can be paid back with new development on the shores, unlike Forest Park.



Why do I think the Koreans will change and reunite before St. Louisans will change thier attitudes about our town. I think it comes down to whether you believe the city's greatness is ahead of us or behind us.

I believe that the city's best days are ahead of it; I just have different ideas of how we can get to those better days...sooner, rather than later.



I thought the Bottle District was a bad idea. I think much of Ballpark Village is a bad idea. I think Chouteau's Pond is a cool idea, but would rather see McCormack Baron address issues downtown that could be taken care of now.

I had to chime in as I have extended family in Milwaukee. I think that town is very cool. However, comparing the waterfronts is not appropriate. We have a gritty, muddy, river, while they have a clear blue (at times) lake, that resembles the ocean on sunny days. The towns north of downtown remind me of east coast towns. They had these awesome homes on bluffs overlooking the lake. The waves were crashing on the beach and a surfer in a wetsuit was catching a wave. I know our riverfront needs to be utilized more effectively, but it will never compare to Lake Michigan, different beast entirely. The two are not in the same category. Flooding is a HUGE reason for the lack of riverfront development. I think Memphis is a better comparison. Unfortunately, for St. Louis, we do not have nature on our side like Memphis. The riverfront their is higher up and the river is wider and more scenic, in my opinion. I think the Arch more than makes up for that, but a park like Memphis, where bikers, pedestrians etc, can really enjoy the river, is a more realistic expectation.



Back to Milwaukee, the immediate feel you get is that is it much smaller and spawls much less. It does not have the same feel as a big city. It does have a lot of personality and many unique aspects. The Lakefront is awesome. I highly recommend a Cards/Brewers game. Fans are tough on Cards fans, but very friendly, except for the occasional drunk that still hates STL from '82. They tailgate 'football style' at Miller park. It is very cool. Unless the roof is open (go later in the summer) Miller Park is bland. Also, hit the Specher Brewery. Small micro brewery with good beer, also make unique soda.



Just my take.