Chicago & Milwaukee discussion

[ChiPhi]

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

On a another topic, I was in Chicago's largest suburb last week: Milwuakee, and I got a height from blueprints for The Moderne; 315'-7" to the parapet on the mechanical penthouse and 299'-3" for the main roof. This is down from the 348' fgure previously reported, although the floor count grew from 30 to 31.

Milwaukee is a suburb? Gosh sprawl has spread pretty far north... I bet people from Milwaukee would disagree. I do like the Moderne, it is really very attractive. It is amazing how tall that building looks in Milwaukee compared to a 300' even in River North or the Sloop.

FYI, the Moderne has its own thread.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by ChiPhi

Milwaukee is a suburb? Gosh sprawl has spread pretty far north... I bet people from Milwaukee would disagree. I do like the Moderne, it is really very attractive. It is amazing how tall that building looks in Milwaukee compared to a 300' even in River North or the Sloop.

It's rapidly becoming a part of the same urbanized area. The Racine/Kenosha corridor along 94 is one of the hottest industrial markets in the Midwest right now and spec construction there hasn't slowed during the recession, expect a boom along 94 during the coming economic expansion.

[ChiPhi]

^^^ Good point. I had always thought of Milwaukee as a little sibling city, but never as a bedroom community, which is what I would consider a suburb. I feel as though milwaukee could survive if chicago disappeared. A suburb, even a big one (say Evanston or Naperville) would not. I wonder what percentage of Milwaukee economic machination (GDP, personal income of residents etc.) is tied to Chicago and what percentage of residents work in Chicago or a "Chicago Company" (Working at Mcdonald's or Kraft corporate HQ isn't technically in Chicago, but would count).

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ No, Milwaukee could survive just fine on it's own (it's been around longer than Chicago and was once much much bigger and more important than Chicago). My comments are only that the two areas are only becoming more and more interconnected, not necessarily more inter-reliant. Milwaukee definitely has it's own set of pillar industries like Northwestern Mutual Life, Harley Davidson, Manpower, Bucyrus, Johnson Controls, etc. that allow it to stand on it's own as a city. It's just that it is becoming such a short trip to Milwaukee that it may as well be considered an extension of Chicagoland (if it weren't for the obvious cultural differences). I can get from downtown Chicago to downtown Milwaukee in a hair over an hour if there is no traffic (85 MPH over 93 miles). I-94 will be 4 lanes from the Sears Tower to the US Bank building in about a year or so. There aren't a lot of other cities of this size where you go from one downtown to another without leaving a 4 lane freeway. The only other example I can think of is maybe 95 between Baltimore and DC, but I'm not even sure that is 4 lanes the whole way.

[Baronvonellis]

The Edens expressway is going to be widened to 4 lanes each direction South of Lake cook rd? When are they going to start that? Damn, you're driving 85 mph on the edens and Kennedy? Hope you don't get any tickets, that's 30 mph over the speed limit and a huge fine. Wish they would raise the speed limit to at least 65 mph though.

[ardecila]

Haha yea neither the Kennedy nor the Edens is 4 lanes, nor is anybody proposing to expand them.

A similar situation is between SF/Oakland/San Jose, or Orlando and Tampa.

[denizen467]

Right, there would also be expensive viaduct issues with widening the Edens. Or you could introduce some tortured argument that the western Kennedy plus I-294 up to the Deerfield junction should be counted in the number of lanes.

I haven't been on I-94 beyond Libertyville in recent years; is it 4 lanes all the way to the WI border? Beyond the border I do know there's a massive reconstruction project underway; didn't know it would be ready so soon though.

[ardecila]

^ I think it is still 3 lanes in a short segment between the border and the exit to 41. This segment is not controlled by the Tollway, so expansion has to wait for IDOT to find money.

The widened highway in Wisconsin looks pretty good, with attractively-designed overpasses and such. WI didn't want it to be just another highway, and they definitely made it distinctive.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

The Edens expressway is going to be widened to 4 lanes each direction South of Lake cook rd? When are they going to start that? Damn, you're driving 85 mph on the edens and Kennedy? Hope you don't get any tickets, that's 30 mph over the speed limit and a huge fine. Wish they would raise the speed limit to at least 65 mph though.

Eh, everyone goes about 80 when there is no traffic. I've only been pulled over once in Chicago and got a $75 ticket for going 70 MPH on LSD. I have both my drivers license and plates in WI so they can't take points or make me go to drivers school because WI doesn't have reciprocity with Illinois on that stuff.

I've actually gone all the way from downtown to the border without going below 90 or so before. I just wait for some really fast Audi's and BMW's and fall in behind them in my shitty old Accord.

Originally Posted by ardecila

Haha yea neither the Kennedy nor the Edens is 4 lanes, nor is anybody proposing to expand them.

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply the Edens or Kennedy was four lanes beyond the junction. I kinda call those sections of road "edens" or "Kennedy" and forget they have numbers as well. when I say 94 I mean I-94 after it no longer has a real name, i.e. north of Deerfield.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

milwaukee has been around longer than Chicago and was once much much bigger and more important than Chicago).

wrong and wrong.

chicago:
first non-native settler - 1780s (exact year that du Sable arrived is unknown)
fort dearborn constructed - 1803
city of chicago incoporation - 1837

milwaukee:
first non-native settler - 1785 (Alexis Laframboise)
solomon juneau arrived - 1818
city of milwaukee incorporation - 1846



population 1840
chicago - 4,470
milwaukee - 1,700

population 1850
chicago - 29,963
milwaukee - 20,061

population 1860
chicago - 112,172
milwaukee - 45,246

population 1870
chicago - 298,977
milwaukee - 71,440

population 1880
chicago - 503,185
milwaukee - 115,587

population 1890
chicago - 1,099,850
milwaukee - 204,468

population 1900
chicago - 1,698,575
milwaukee - 285,315

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply the Edens or Kennedy was four lanes beyond the junction. I kinda call those sections of road "edens" or "Kennedy" and forget they have numbers as well. when I say 94 I mean I-94 after it no longer has a real name, i.e. north of Deerfield.

I-94 has a "real name" for all of its parts from downtown to the WI border

starting at the circle interchange it goes:

the kennedy expressway
to the edens expressway
to the edens spur
to the tri-state tollway

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I-94 has a "real name" for all of its parts from downtown to the WI border

starting at the circle interchange it goes:

the kennedy expressway
to the edens expressway
to the edens spur
to the tri-state tollway

The tri-state tollway does not count as a "real name" as that is a broader term for a system of freeways that includes 94, 80, and 294. It is also not named after a person unlike every other freeway I am talking about. Finally, the entire point of the post you just replied to was to point out that I was NOT talking about the Edens or Kennedy or Edens Spur, but only the segment from the border to Deerfield. Therefore, no, the segment of 94 from the boarder to Deerfield does NOT have a real name besides I-94...

Who actually uses the term "Tri-State" in Chicago anyhow? If someone called you and said "hey where are you" and you replied with "I'm on the Tri-State" they would have no idea where the fuck you are because you could be anywhere from Wisconsin to Indiana which is why it's freaking called the Tri-State. If someone called you and you said "I'm on the Kennedy" Then they know you are on the NW side of the city somewhere between O'Hare and Downtown which is MUCH more useful.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

wrong and wrong.

chicago:
first non-native settler - 1780s (exact year that du Sable arrived is unknown)
fort dearborn constructed - 1803
city of chicago incoporation - 1837

milwaukee:
first non-native settler - 1785 (Alexis Laframboise)
solomon juneau arrived - 1818
city of milwaukee incorporation - 1846

I know you like copy and pasting Wikipedia, but what I said is valid. Up until the 1850's (and the completion of the canals and arrival of railways) Milwaukee was a much more prominent city than Chicago and, yes, larger than Chicago. The problem with your data (and the reason it cites a such a low population in 1840) is that Milwaukee didn't even exist as a unified entity until 1846. Up until then it was three separate settlements which, in total, were much more significant than Chicago was at the time. Up until their unification all three districts of Milwaukee were questionably stable government entities that would have been completely incapable of accurately reporting in a census especially considering they were in denial of the existence of each other at time (there was a point at which Walker's Point and Kilbournetown refused to even acknowledge the existence of Juneautown).

So yes, Milwaukee was the "gateway to the West" up until the canal and railroads came to Chicago as Milwaukee was the only way to get to the West from the East via anything but horse and buggy. Milwaukee had a real port and Chicago didn't. That's a fact and you can try to ignore it, but it's true. I'll admit all day that it was a brief period, but it still existed none-the-less. Milwaukee was larger and more important during the pre-steampower days when the Midwest was primarily accessed by schooners under power of sail.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Therefore, no, the segment of 94 from the boarder to Deerfield does NOT have a real name besides I-94...

that segment does have a real name. It's called "The Tri-State Tollway".

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Who actually uses the term "Tri-State" in Chicago anyhow?

i do, as does everyone in my family. i've always called it the "tri-state" because that's what i heard my parents call it growing up.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

I know you like copy and pasting Wikipedia, but what I said is valid. Up until the 1850's (and the completion of the canals and arrival of railways) Milwaukee was a much more prominent city than Chicago and, yes, larger than Chicago. The problem with your data (and the reason it cites a such a low population in 1840) is that Milwaukee didn't even exist as a unified entity until 1846. Up until then it was three separate settlements which, in total, were much more significant than Chicago was at the time. Up until their unification all three districts of Milwaukee were questionably stable government entities that would have been completely incapable of accurately reporting in a census especially considering they were in denial of the existence of each other at time (there was a point at which Walker's Point and Kilbournetown refused to even acknowledge the existence of Juneautown).

So yes, Milwaukee was the "gateway to the West" up until the canal and railroads came to Chicago as Milwaukee was the only way to get to the West from the East via anything but horse and buggy. Milwaukee had a real port and Chicago didn't. That's a fact and you can try to ignore it, but it's true. I'll admit all day that it was a brief period, but it still existed none-the-less. Milwaukee was larger and more important during the pre-steampower days when the Midwest was primarily accessed by schooners under power of sail.

if any of what you say was based in fact (as opposed to your misguided beliefs), then the federal governemnt would have built fort dearborn in milwaukee as opposed to chicago.

milwaukee is not older than chicago and it was not bigger than chicago at any point in its history.

[ChiPhi]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

if any of what you say was based in fact (as opposed to your misguided beliefs), then the federal governemnt would have built fort dearborn in milwaukee as opposed to chicago.

milwaukee is not older than chicago and it was not bigger than chicago at any point in its history.

This really need not be an argument. They are both really great city's, but incredibly different. In response to the rusting out of the midwest (so to speak) they have both responded in different ways and done better than other, nearby cities. Milwaukee, it seems, has focused more on HQs for "real" industries (Harley Davidson et al.) while chicago has built up the 4th largest financial system in the world (after NY, London and Tokyo) and other white collar jobs in Law and Finance. Milwaukee has a much more laid back feel.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

that segment does have a real name. It's called "The Tri-State Tollway".

By that logic "I-94" is a real name too. Sorry, but the Tri-State is not a single freeway, it is a complex of freeways and does not, by any measure, refer exclusively to I-94 or even the section of I-94 that I am clearly talking about. It is pretty obviously not a "real name" in the context I was obviously using the phrase in. The Tri-State =/= Dan Ryan, Eisenhower, Jane Addams, Kennedy, Stevenson, Etc. This is so obviously not a member of the same group as those other names that it could be on Sesame Street's like "One of these things is not like the others" song/segment.

You are basically saying "The word baked goods is just like the words bagel and donut because they all have flower and water" despite the fact that bagel and donut refer to specific things while baked goods refers to a group of things.

You are just being overly argumentative for no reason. And PS, Fort Dearborn wasn't built here because "Chicago was dominant", it was built here because Chicago was of Military significance. The first fort built west of the Mississippi was Arkansas Post in the bustling metropolis known as bumblefuck Arkansas. The construction of a fort doesn't mean shit about the economic importance of a location. Fort Dearborn was built because the Chicago River did go somewhere while the Milwaukee River goes absolutely nowhere is and is completely unnavigable because it drops rapidly in elevation which led to the construction of many dams and associated industrial uses. Why would they build a fort in Milwaukee when it wasn't a choke point for navigation or travel?

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

if any of what you say was based in fact (as opposed to your misguided beliefs), then the federal governemnt would have built fort dearborn in milwaukee as opposed to chicago.

milwaukee is not older than chicago and it was not bigger than chicago at any point in its history.

Fort Dearborn was built primarily because of the proposed canal route through mud lake that the french proposed way back in the late 1673. The Federal Government had their eyes on it in the early 1800s and turned the responsibility over to the new state of Illinois in 1818. The I&M Canal planning went through three different commissions before construction started in the 1830s under Commissioner Colonel William Archer, for whom Archer Avenue is named after.

Milwaukee also was in the process planning for a canal in 1836 and even began channelizing a stretch of the Menominee River. If it wasn't for the railroads a decade latter making Chicago a more logical place for moving and interchanging freight, Milwaukee could have been more of an economic powerhouse in the late 1800's than it actually was.

[Jelly Roll]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ No, Milwaukee could survive just fine on it's own (it's been around longer than Chicago and was once much much bigger and more important than Chicago). My comments are only that the two areas are only becoming more and more interconnected, not necessarily more inter-reliant. Milwaukee definitely has it's own set of pillar industries like Northwestern Mutual Life, Harley Davidson, Manpower, Bucyrus, Johnson Controls, etc. that allow it to stand on it's own as a city. It's just that it is becoming such a short trip to Milwaukee that it may as well be considered an extension of Chicagoland (if it weren't for the obvious cultural differences). I can get from downtown Chicago to downtown Milwaukee in a hair over an hour if there is no traffic (85 MPH over 93 miles). I-94 will be 4 lanes from the Sears Tower to the US Bank building in about a year or so. There aren't a lot of other cities of this size where you go from one downtown to another without leaving a 4 lane freeway. The only other example I can think of is maybe 95 between Baltimore and DC, but I'm not even sure that is 4 lanes the whole way.

Most of the East Coast of the US is setup so that I-95 runs from one downtown to the next. I might be missing something here but what are you talking about? As for Baltimore to DC there are at least 2 free ways that do what you are talking about and the travel time going the speed limit is less then an hour. If you are willing to go 20-30 mph over the speed limit you can get from downtown Baltimore to downtown Philly in an hour and 15 minutes which is a 97 mile distance. Then from downtown Philly to NYC is 93.3 miles and would take an hour and 15 minutes if you again go 20-30 mph over the speed limit. Both seem to be extremely similiar to the distance from Chicago to Milwaukee.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ChiPhi

This really need not be an argument. They are both really great city's, but incredibly different. In response to the rusting out of the midwest (so to speak) they have both responded in different ways and done better than other, nearby cities. Milwaukee, it seems, has focused more on HQs for "real" industries (Harley Davidson et al.) while chicago has built up the 4th largest financial system in the world (after NY, London and Tokyo) and other white collar jobs in Law and Finance. Milwaukee has a much more laid back feel.

trust me, i love milwaukee dearly, it's a fantastic city. i'm not disagreeing with nowhereman out of dislike for milwaukee, i'm disagreeing with him because what he said about the two cities isn't true.