St. Louis

Spent a nice weekend in St. Louis with the Mrs. and our son and his roommate.  I really like St. Louis.  I can remember vacationing there as a kid, and vacationing there with my kids, heck the Mrs. and I even honeymooned there (saw a Ray Charles concert under the Arch--incredible!).  Decided to take a little time here to compare and contrast Milwaukee and St. Louis--the place I live and one of my favorite places to visit. 

Guess I'll start with some of the obvious---both cities are beer towns.  Probably the two biggest in the country.  Now it is down to just the two big boys, and neither is locally owned anymore.  Milwaukee has Miller/Coors, and St. Louis has Budweiser.  Both have eliminated the local competition over the years, but now both have been bought by larger companies.  It's close, but I give the nod to Miller---they have Leinenkugel, and didn't screw up Michelob.

Milwaukee has the Brewers.  St Louis has the Cardinals.  Brewers are a nice team, Cards are the Cards.  Big edge to St. Louis.  St. Louis has the Rams.  Milwaukee has the Packers (don't start!).  Big edge Milwaukee.  Both cities at one time had the NBA Hawks, now neither does, but Milwaukee has the Bucks.  But St. Louis has the Blues--one of the great teams names.  Call it a push.

Milwaukee has Summerfest, and all the other festivals.  St. Louis has Veiled Prophet Fair, Taste of St. Louis, bunch of other festivals.  Summerfest is world class.  Easy edge to Milwaukee.  Milwaukee has the Calatrava.   St. Louis has the Gateway Arch.  Easy edge to St. Louis.  Both cities have all kinds of ethnic neighborhoods and the foods and fests that go with them.  No advantage there.  St. Louis is on the Mississippi.  Milwaukee is on Lake Michigan.  Both could probably be utilized more.

St. Louis has Ted Drews, on historic Route 66.  Milwaukee has Leon's, on Highway 41.  One would have taken you all the way to Arizona in it's day, the other to the tip of Florida.  Both have great custard and history.  I highly recommend both, it's a push. St. Louis has the Fox.  Milwaukee has the Riverside.  I think they both use tye same booking agent.  Another Push.

Both of these cities have wonderful zoos, museums and park systems.  A good number of years ago the people of St. Louis voted to tax themselves to pay for the parks and zoo and museums, and they continue to this day.  I think this is a wonderful thing, and the current residents of St. Louis owe a big thank you to those who originally taxed themselves.  I have seen the increase of admission fees to different attractions in Milwaukee and what I see as a decline in the park system here.  It saddens me that things become out of reach for some and the quality declines in other areas. Edge to St. Louis.

Milwaukee has Marquette.  St. Louis has St. Louis University.  Both urban Jesuit schools.  Both Division 1 schools.  Both have worked hard to revitalize their neighborhoods. Both fine institutions.  Edge, easily, to SLU, because campus is more complete (athletic facilities, dorms, etc.), I know more people who go there, and a Billiken is better than a Golden Eagle.  Now if they were still Warriors......

Sadly, both of these cities have probably seen better days.  Many industries have moved from these cities over the years, taking jobs with them.  They both have plenty of urban blight.  Both have high unemployment, and high crime rates.  Both have work to do on these issues, no advantage here.

I like both these towns.  Dig a little bit and you can find plenty to do in both of them.  Hate to say it, but the deciding factor may be the weather.  Milwaukee gets hot, but St. Louis gets hot AND humid.  Quite.  I think the winter weather last longer in Milwaukee, but more tornadoes in St. Louis.  Guess you'd have to pick your poison there.  A person could make many arguments about why one of these cities is better than the other, but they could be countered.  A lot of it would probably come down to civic pride, where you're from, where your people are.  Objectively?  I gotta' go with