Milwaukee: comeback city
Milwaukee's on the comeback, and individuals interested in heading to our revitalized city better "move now, before housing costs skyrocket and entrepreneurs start elbowing each other for market space," according to Men's Journal.
The June 2008 issue of Men's Journal (the print edition has Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson on the cover) includes an article called the "Best Places to Live." The magazine selected Portland as its top city, but also gave nods to Bloomington ("Best College Town"), Leadville, Colo. ("Best Adventure Mecca"), and others.
Milwaukee gets national credit in the story's sidebar titled "Best Places: The Comebacks." These are cities that were once great, "fell into decline" but are now "poised to top our list in the next few years."
Men's Journal had this to say about Milwaukee: "The home of Harley-Davidson has seen its per capita income rise sharply, thanks to an influx of tech jobs. And $500 million in Downtown condo investment has sparked a reverse migration. With its Great Lakes-side real estate, the city has always offered after-work water rec, but new in the past decade: Milwaukee Riverwalk and a new addition to the art museum."
Included in the print edition is a picture of the Milwaukee Art Museum.
Also on the comeback list are Richmond, Denver, Spokane, Baltimore, The Dalles, Oregon and Providence.
Jason - although I agree with you that it would be nice if Milwaukee is smoke free, I do not think the city should decide for everyone. Further and more importantly, being smoke free is hardly the most important criteria for what makes a city great or is an indicator that it is on the rebound. If the city wants to attract more residents and businesses that provide quality jobs (true indicators that the city is making a comeback) then it needs to reduce property and corporate taxes. If 1 in 5 businesses either have or are considering moving, that does not bode well for the city's long-term sustainability. Think about it - people follow the jobs. If a person's job leaves the area, people will leave as well. However, with gas prices as high as they are, it isn't unreasonable to think people would be willing to live closer to their jobs (i.e. downtown) if: 1) the jobs were present; 2) enough retail businesses were in their vicinity; and 3) the property taxes didn't prohibit homeownership. I recognize the fact that the high price of gas is a more recent phenomonom, but it is probably here to stay. As an aside, homeownership is a reliable indicator that an individual is more likely committed to the city vs. renters which are typically more transient. When the city makes it a disadvantage to own versus rent, it is sending the wrong message. Clearly, whether or not a city is smoke free does not make it great or less than great; there are other much more important factors.
Well fortunately for you Jason there are literally dozens and dozens of great restaurants and a growing list of bars that have chosen ON THEIR OWN to go smoke free. Why is it so hard for you to choose to patronize those places that are smoke-free? Don't you think that business-owners would get the hint that going smoke-free is good for their particular business? Government sticking their nose into the business practices of privately-owned business will NOT make this city great.
2 comments about this article.
Post a comment / write a review.
Disclaimer: Please note that Facebook comments are posted through Facebook and cannot be approved, edited or declined by OnMilwaukee.com. The opinions expressed in Facebook comments do not necessarily reflect those of OnMilwaukee.com or its staff.