Really a shame. I asked for reasons why Milwaukee was a better town and received little response. Now The Economist chimes in with a piece that starts:
Quote:
When 250,000 bikers roared into this mid-western city to celebrate Harley-Davidson's centenary a few months ago, Milwaukee had a chance to recall its origins as a city of heavy industry and flowing breweries. What a difference a century makes. Today it boasts a lake-front art gallery designed by a Spanish architect, Santiago Calatrava, a dozen theatre companies, a river-front that lures tourists and residents to eat and play by the water (at least in the few warm months), and a former warehouse district full of art galleries and homes for young professionals.
The transformation is generally credited to John Norquist, a tall, outspoken intellectual who last month resigned from the mayorship after 16 years. The longest-serving mayor of a large American city, Mr Norquist espoused something called “new urbanism”— the idea that the potential of a city can be unleashed by good design and planning—and coupled it with a firm belief in free markets. He sought to put an end to monopolies, and kept on lowering taxes even while maintaining the city's services. He was, he explained to the world, a fiscally conservative socialist.
|
In a previous article, Norquist, who also wrote the book “The Wealth of Cities”, noted that Milwaukee did not have a homocide in seven years. This kind of security makes large towns desireable.
Quote:
|
Milwaukee has built 2,000 new housing units downtown in the past three years. Mayor Norquist tells the story (admiringly) of a developer who bought a downtown warehouse for $1m, turned it into 40 apartments, and sold all of them for $500,000 apiece.
|