Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Back in Buffalo for the first time in three years, so I have an updated comparison base!
1. Weather is in favor of Richmond, easily...
2. I think scenery is a draw. Neither city is especially scenic, though both have scenic views in some respect. I can definitely say overlooking the city is more pleasurable in Richmond than in Buffalo...
3. This is a very vast umbrella, but Buffalo offers the Lake and pro sports events over Richmond. Richmond probably takes everything else, or at worst, most everything else with some topics being a draw...
4. Nightlife is also relatively a draw. I do think Richmond's is a bit more diverse (Richmond has lounges, rooftop locales, and isn't as beer and bar-centric). I won't make a declaration, but my hunch is that Richmond has a slight advantage...
5. This can go either way based on personal preference. I prefer Richmond...
6. Well, the economy is doing much better in Richmond. It is cheaper to live in Buffalo...
7. My final takeaway is that though these cities are comparable in size (metro, UA, city), Richmond is playing in a bigger field. Richmond feels larger, dowmtown-to-downtown, and it's inner city neighborhoods are very much on scale, or slightly higher, than its Buffalo counterparts. Richmond is a healthier city, has a much more diverse personality. They ARE comparable.....but Buffalo is the lesser city...
I'm assuming that it is in terms of land size, as Richmond is bigger in terms of city/urban area and metro area land size, but that would be a guess.
Nah, its safe for you to assume that when you hear me speaking about any city, I'm never talking about land area...
Damn ck, you've gone and fed the troll. She's never been to either city and has both an inflated view of Buffalo and a severe misperception of Richmond. She has no clue what she's talking about, and though it's all opinionated and I am far more familiar with Rich, at least I have familiarity with both. I will clarify my statements for you, though!
When I said Richmond is playing in a "bigger field", it is because by most measures, it is. I don't think they are in the same tier, unless we are using a very narrow categorization of cities. Any depth to a comparison shows that Richmond is a good step ahead of Buffalo, widening the space between the two...
So let me state what I think Buffalo does better. I think Buffalo certainly has a larger spread of urbanity (obviously it is the denser city). Buffalo is noticeably more ethnically and racially diverse. Buffalo has a more international presence about it based on its location, within its cuisine, and on the matter of food, I'd say Buffalo deserves a slight edge because it has a more notable local food culture and dishes. Buffalo offers pro sports in NHL and NFL and is definitely a more involved city on every level as a sporting community (just the other day Delaware Park was flooded with soccer games, tennis matches, cycling and jogging). UB (99) is a higher rated school than VCU (152), so Buffalo has the highest rated learning institution between the two cities. Buffalo also has a larger media presence, most of which is grandfathered in due to its status as a legacy city. Buffalo also has better transportation infrastructure for similar reasons as why it has a marginally larger media presence...
There are a couple, but I'd ask, which one of the previously mentioned arenas is of tantamount importance or would significantly increase a city's stature? This is about where the comparisons that favor Buffalo end...
They have relatively equal educational attainment. Park score gives them a virtually tied park score, and the outdoor recreation opportunities are equal in both. I think it is arguable that Richmond has a broader performing arts culture, though at worst, they are tied. Other than that, this is where the equal characterizations end...
They are not in the same tier economically. This much isn't debatable and is probably the biggest reason I say that Richmond belongs in a higher tier. First of all, the size of Richmond's GDP is nearly 25%/$20 billion larger than Buffalo's. That's a quarter the size larger; it's not insignificant. And that gap is continually widening, as Richmond's economy grew 44% faster than Buffalo's from 2015 to 2016, and has grown 10.5% faster since 2010. This creates a trickle-down effect that is seen and felt in other categories around the city. Richmond has far less poverty than Buffalo, offers far higher wages (has the higher MHI for the city and the metro), is more cosmopolitan and that is validated through the venues in each city, is much wealthier, has a substantially lower unemployment rate, has higher year-over-year job growth....about the only thing Buffalo can offer economically is the lower cost of living, but it also offers lower wages...
The employment sector is incredibly wider and more diversified in Richmond. This is a category that favors Richmond running away and is very significant telling the health of the cities, but this isn't all...
The aesthetics of the cities are not in the same tier. This is debatable, but I'll give my position. Richmond has the larger downtown, it is busier, it has a stronger allure and definitely is more alluring visually. Richmond has nearly twice the number of daytime commuters by percentage into downtown as Buffalo (31.0% to 17.2%), which equates to ~68,000 to ~44,000. The urban core, as has already been mentioned upthread, is more unified in Richmond; Richmond in fact does have higher peak densities and it is very much arguable that the core of Richmond is more urban than the core of Buffalo--the reverse (that core Buffalo is more urban than core Richmond) is inarguable. Buffalo has seven neighborhoods with a walk score of over 80, two of which are over 90. Richmond has ten neighborhoods with a walk score of over 80, six of which are over 90. Richmond just has the more cohesive, trafficked, denser, busier core. Richmond feels like a larger city, not dramatically so, but in fact would be the largest city in the state outside of The City if it were located in New York. These are things that are intelligible and perceivable to the eye when you are in both cities...
Personally, I believe that the architecture in Richmond is much more diverse than found in Buffalo, and is better, but that is contestable. Richmond has gentrified much better than Buffalo. Buffalo is better looking than I remember it last, but still has more abandonment than Richmond, more blight than Richmond. And while I know there is a notable arts class in Buffalo, the arts and creative sensibilities shine at a higher level in Richmond. This isn't really arguable; from the street murals, street scene, arts programs at VCU, the music, the personality of the populace, Richmond manages to have a personality that is educated, artistic, driven, and creative...
The geographies of the cities can be deemed a draw. They are the same rough distance from Washington and Toronto; they are the same rough distance from Norfolk and Rochester; Buffalo offers The Lake (which is spectacular in the Spring and Summer and full of activity), The Falls, mountain trips and smaller lakes within close proximity. Richmond offers a plethora of beaches, mountains, hiking, lakes, pretty much the same as Buffalo. Richmond has a hillier terrain. Aside from this, it would be pretty difficult to argue that Buffalo is more aesthetically pleasing than Richmond...
Their growth is not of the same tier. By itself, as in if this was the only advantage Richmond held over Buffalo, this wouldn't mean much. But clearly, Richmond holds strong advantages elsewhere, so this has to account for something. Buffalo doesn't feel like a city in decline, which is why it is surprising to hear that it continues to lose population at all levels--but it does have a stagnant, complacent feel. Richmond doesn't, and this much is backed up by higher growth rates at all levels--MSA, city, GDP, job growth, etc...
Their regional importance isn't of the same tier. Buffalo isn't even the second most important city in New York. That weight goes to Albany, and there is an argument to be made that Rochester has a wider sphere of influence than Buffalo. Richmond is the most important city in Virginia and is a much stronger center of government. True, Buffalo isn't a state capital, but there are several noteworthy cities that aren't state capitals that are political heavyweights within their states. Richmond isn't just important to the state, it is a more important center of federal government activity. Richmond has a reputation as a next-tier (not heavyweight like NY, DC, etc) city in advertising, insurance, and government arenas...
They are not of the same stature historically. Buffalo had a strong run as a Top 15 American city, longer than Richmond ever had at such a high level, and the remnants of that history are evident today, in the cultural fabric of the city. However, Richmond's incorporation as a city precedes Buffalo by nearly a century, and Richmond has been played a significant role throughout several periods of American history. That history is woven into the city through museums, historic buildings and districts, parks, monuments, at a higher level than is found in Buffalo. Richmond is probably one of the better cities that integrates its history with its present. With Buffalo, there is really just one period that stands out in which it was significant at an elite level. Though obviously today, neither city is at the upper echelon of American cities. Richmond is closer...
.....
I want to add that Richmond is very underrated in its nightlife and sports scenes. Richmond's nightlife is much more diverse than Buffalo's, and is on par with any comparably sized city besides New Orleans and maybe Louisville. On the matter of sports, I think American tendency is to regard cities that don't have Big League franchises in town as places with little to no sports culture. Buffalo is definitely more sports-centric; the feeling in Buffalo is that "the game" is generally the biggest show in town, though obviously, I've been to Buffalo, there are of course other stuff to do there....
Richmond has one of the biggest following of cycling, tennis, and golf in the nation. But this is a nation in love with team sports (I am too), so that defaults to Buffalo. Rich has a strong college basketball and soccer following, not sure how this would compare to Buffalo's. And there is no replacement for having an NFL and NHL team in-city, but both the Redskins and the Nationals are very popular, without a question. Just curious, who is Buffalo's default basketball and baseball rooting interests? And I know that soccer is extremely popular in Rochester, how would Buffalo compare?
Both cities are probably a relative draw in festivals. This is another area I've seen Richmond get slammed on, on this site, but Richmond has many, many events and festivals. I do think the Taste of Buffalo is the largest single festival in either city, but Richmond has at least four festivals that draw 100,000+ annually (Richmond Folk Festival, Carytown Watermelon Festival, Arts In The Park, River Rock). There may be another or few, and both cities are replete with smaller, locally popular festivals and events. Richmond compares well to other cities of comparable size here (besides New Orleans)....
Overall I would say there is some criteria in which they are virtually equal. This isn't a case of two cities that are neck-and-neck, though. Richmond is obviously the more well-rounded city, and it is more than fair to suggest that Richmond is in a higher tier than Buffalo...
I think Richmond and Buffalo are in the same tier, but Richmond just occupies a higher position within the tier than Buffalo. The way I categorize cities, the next tier up from Richmond would include cities like Charlotte, Orlando, Cincinnati, Sacramento, etc. and Richmond isn't on that level at this point overall.
Nah, its safe for you to assume that when you hear me speaking about any city, I'm never talking about land area...
Damn ck, you've gone and fed the troll. She's never been to either city and has both an inflated view of Buffalo and a severe misperception of Richmond. She has no clue what she's talking about, and though it's all opinionated and I am far more familiar with Rich, at least I have familiarity with both. I will clarify my statements for you, though!
When I said Richmond is playing in a "bigger field", it is because by most measures, it is. I don't think they are in the same tier, unless we are using a very narrow categorization of cities. Any depth to a comparison shows that Richmond is a good step ahead of Buffalo, widening the space between the two...
So let me state what I think Buffalo does better. I think Buffalo certainly has a larger spread of urbanity (obviously it is the denser city). Buffalo is noticeably more ethnically and racially diverse. Buffalo has a more international presence about it based on its location, within its cuisine, and on the matter of food, I'd say Buffalo deserves a slight edge because it has a more notable local food culture and dishes. Buffalo offers pro sports in NHL and NFL and is definitely a more involved city on every level as a sporting community (just the other day Delaware Park was flooded with soccer games, tennis matches, cycling and jogging). UB (99) is a higher rated school than VCU (152), so Buffalo has the highest rated learning institution between the two cities. Buffalo also has a larger media presence, most of which is grandfathered in due to its status as a legacy city. Buffalo also has better transportation infrastructure for similar reasons as why it has a marginally larger media presence...
There are a couple, but I'd ask, which one of the previously mentioned arenas is of tantamount importance or would significantly increase a city's stature? This is about where the comparisons that favor Buffalo end...
They have relatively equal educational attainment. Park score gives them a virtually tied park score, and the outdoor recreation opportunities are equal in both. I think it is arguable that Richmond has a broader performing arts culture, though at worst, they are tied. Other than that, this is where the equal characterizations end...
They are not in the same tier economically. This much isn't debatable and is probably the biggest reason I say that Richmond belongs in a higher tier. First of all, the size of Richmond's GDP is nearly 25%/$20 billion larger than Buffalo's. That's a quarter the size larger; it's not insignificant. And that gap is continually widening, as Richmond's economy grew 44% faster than Buffalo's from 2015 to 2016, and has grown 10.5% faster since 2010. This creates a trickle-down effect that is seen and felt in other categories around the city. Richmond has far less poverty than Buffalo, offers far higher wages (has the higher MHI for the city and the metro), is more cosmopolitan and that is validated through the venues in each city, is much wealthier, has a substantially lower unemployment rate, has higher year-over-year job growth....about the only thing Buffalo can offer economically is the lower cost of living, but it also offers lower wages...
The employment sector is incredibly wider and more diversified in Richmond. This is a category that favors Richmond running away and is very significant telling the health of the cities, but this isn't all...
The aesthetics of the cities are not in the same tier. This is debatable, but I'll give my position. Richmond has the larger downtown, it is busier, it has a stronger allure and definitely is more alluring visually. Richmond has nearly twice the number of daytime commuters by percentage into downtown as Buffalo (31.0% to 17.2%), which equates to ~68,000 to ~44,000. The urban core, as has already been mentioned upthread, is more unified in Richmond; Richmond in fact does have higher peak densities and it is very much arguable that the core of Richmond is more urban than the core of Buffalo--the reverse (that core Buffalo is more urban than core Richmond) is inarguable. Buffalo has seven neighborhoods with a walk score of over 80, two of which are over 90. Richmond has ten neighborhoods with a walk score of over 80, six of which are over 90. Richmond just has the more cohesive, trafficked, denser, busier core. Richmond feels like a larger city, not dramatically so, but in fact would be the largest city in the state outside of The City if it were located in New York. These are things that are intelligible and perceivable to the eye when you are in both cities...
Personally, I believe that the architecture in Richmond is much more diverse than found in Buffalo, and is better, but that is contestable. Richmond has gentrified much better than Buffalo. Buffalo is better looking than I remember it last, but still has more abandonment than Richmond, more blight than Richmond. And while I know there is a notable arts class in Buffalo, the arts and creative sensibilities shine at a higher level in Richmond. This isn't really arguable; from the street murals, street scene, arts programs at VCU, the music, the personality of the populace, Richmond manages to have a personality that is educated, artistic, driven, and creative...
The geographies of the cities can be deemed a draw. They are the same rough distance from Washington and Toronto; they are the same rough distance from Norfolk and Rochester; Buffalo offers The Lake (which is spectacular in the Spring and Summer and full of activity), The Falls, mountain trips and smaller lakes within close proximity. Richmond offers a plethora of beaches, mountains, hiking, lakes, pretty much the same as Buffalo. Richmond has a hillier terrain. Aside from this, it would be pretty difficult to argue that Buffalo is more aesthetically pleasing than Richmond...
Their growth is not of the same tier. By itself, as in if this was the only advantage Richmond held over Buffalo, this wouldn't mean much. But clearly, Richmond holds strong advantages elsewhere, so this has to account for something. Buffalo doesn't feel like a city in decline, which is why it is surprising to hear that it continues to lose population at all levels--but it does have a stagnant, complacent feel. Richmond doesn't, and this much is backed up by higher growth rates at all levels--MSA, city, GDP, job growth, etc...
Their regional importance isn't of the same tier. Buffalo isn't even the second most important city in New York. That weight goes to Albany, and there is an argument to be made that Rochester has a wider sphere of influence than Buffalo. Richmond is the most important city in Virginia and is a much stronger center of government. True, Buffalo isn't a state capital, but there are several noteworthy cities that aren't state capitals that are political heavyweights within their states. Richmond isn't just important to the state, it is a more important center of federal government activity. Richmond has a reputation as a next-tier (not heavyweight like NY, DC, etc) city in advertising, insurance, and government arenas...
They are not of the same stature historically. Buffalo had a strong run as a Top 15 American city, longer than Richmond ever had at such a high level, and the remnants of that history are evident today, in the cultural fabric of the city. However, Richmond's incorporation as a city precedes Buffalo by nearly a century, and Richmond has been played a significant role throughout several periods of American history. That history is woven into the city through museums, historic buildings and districts, parks, monuments, at a higher level than is found in Buffalo. Richmond is probably one of the better cities that integrates its history with its present. With Buffalo, there is really just one period that stands out in which it was significant at an elite level. Though obviously today, neither city is at the upper echelon of American cities. Richmond is closer...
.....
I want to add that Richmond is very underrated in its nightlife and sports scenes. Richmond's nightlife is much more diverse than Buffalo's, and is on par with any comparably sized city besides New Orleans and maybe Louisville. On the matter of sports, I think American tendency is to regard cities that don't have Big League franchises in town as places with little to no sports culture. Buffalo is definitely more sports-centric; the feeling in Buffalo is that "the game" is generally the biggest show in town, though obviously, I've been to Buffalo, there are of course other stuff to do there....
Richmond has one of the biggest following of cycling, tennis, and golf in the nation. But this is a nation in love with team sports (I am too), so that defaults to Buffalo. Rich has a strong college basketball and soccer following, not sure how this would compare to Buffalo's. And there is no replacement for having an NFL and NHL team in-city, but both the Redskins and the Nationals are very popular, without a question. Just curious, who is Buffalo's default basketball and baseball rooting interests? And I know that soccer is extremely popular in Rochester, how would Buffalo compare?
Both cities are probably a relative draw in festivals. This is another area I've seen Richmond get slammed on, on this site, but Richmond has many, many events and festivals. I do think the Taste of Buffalo is the largest single festival in either city, but Richmond has at least four festivals that draw 100,000+ annually (Richmond Folk Festival, Carytown Watermelon Festival, Arts In The Park, River Rock). There may be another or few, and both cities are replete with smaller, locally popular festivals and events. Richmond compares well to other cities of comparable size here (besides New Orleans)....
Overall I would say there is some criteria in which they are virtually equal. This isn't a case of two cities that are neck-and-neck, though. Richmond is obviously the more well-rounded city, and it is more than fair to suggest that Richmond is in a higher tier than Buffalo...
I think Richmond and Buffalo are in the same tier, but Richmond just occupies a higher position within the tier than Buffalo. The way I categorize cities, the next tier up from Richmond would include cities like Charlotte, Orlando, Cincinnati, Sacramento, etc. and Richmond isn't on that level at this point overall.
I definitely agree that Richmond isn't on the same tier as Charlotte, Cincinnati, etc. I guess I'm more anal in my "tiering" of cities, but I don't really disagree that they could be in the same tier, with Richmond at a higher position. If I was to tier cities, I personally would consider Buffalo on the cusp of the tier Richmond is in, but because of decline, it has fallen from that tier. It's not going to take much to get back into that tier because of some of the things already in place, but everybody should agree Buffalo's stature has certainly dropped through the years...
I think Richmond and Buffalo are in the same tier, but Richmond just occupies a higher position within the tier than Buffalo. The way I categorize cities, the next tier up from Richmond would include cities like Charlotte, Orlando, Cincinnati, Sacramento, etc. and Richmond isn't on that level at this point overall.
This saved me from writing much more than I wanted to.....
Buffalo is the second biggest city in NY State, would be if Richmond were in NY State and is still very important. Hence the "Buffalo Billion" invested into the city/area by the state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Billion
Another thing that gets overlooked is that Richmond is 22.5 square miles bigger in terms of land versus Buffalo(62.5 vs. 40.6). So, that may play a part in terms of abandonment/poverty, etc. in comparison, as if Buffalo was the same land size of Richmond, it would include some first ring suburbs.
To put this into perspective, Rochester, which is closer in population to Richmond is at 35.8 square miles, could add the towns of Irondequoit and Brighton and would only be about 5 square miles bigger than Richmond in terms of land size. Rochester if at the same size of Richmond in terms of land would have close to 300,000 people(Buffalo would be about at 330,000 and I dare say that Syracuse would have the same amount of people within the city if it were the size of Richmond). Rochester is another area that is also in that room with Richmond and is only about an hour/hour and 15 from Downtown to Downtown from Buffalo, which is shorter than Richmond to Norfolk. So, it makes sense in terms of shared importance within a smaller geographical area.
Otherwise, I'd say that the post is fair or debatable(same for aspects like crime, school systems/options, etc.).
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 05-23-2017 at 01:02 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
