U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Richmond, VA vs Buffalo, NY
Richmond, VA 84 59.15%
Buffalo, NY 61 42.96%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 142. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-02-2017, 03:36 AM
 
Location: California x North Carolina (soon)...
3,362 posts, read 2,264,488 times
Reputation: 3698

Advertisements

People keep talking about how Buffalo used to have 580,000 people...used to being the key words in there. The Buffalo I've had the pleasure of learning and enjoying over this decade doesn't feel larger than any city over 1.1 million metro population. Not a single one. Birmingham and Norfolk and Buffalo are probably the smallest "feeling" cities in that weight class and neither feels larger or smaller than the other...

If Richmond doesn't feel larger than Buffalo to some people, that's fine. I think we get different vibes and that's cool because we're all different people. But also further upthread someone said Buffalo felt larger, which is almost certainly unexplainable if you've been to both recently, even within the decade. It's not 1975 anymore and we aren't comparing the 1975 versions of the cities...

Objectively, Richmond does have the larger downtown and the denser, more built in/up core. These aren't opinions. When I have more time I'd love to trace out the inner 9-14 square miles of both cities...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-02-2017, 08:20 AM
 
52,746 posts, read 75,683,460 times
Reputation: 11641
Quote:
Originally Posted by murksiderock View Post
People keep talking about how Buffalo used to have 580,000 people...used to being the key words in there. The Buffalo I've had the pleasure of learning and enjoying over this decade doesn't feel larger than any city over 1.1 million metro population. Not a single one. Birmingham and Norfolk and Buffalo are probably the smallest "feeling" cities in that weight class and neither feels larger or smaller than the other...

If Richmond doesn't feel larger than Buffalo to some people, that's fine. I think we get different vibes and that's cool because we're all different people. But also further upthread someone said Buffalo felt larger, which is almost certainly unexplainable if you've been to both recently, even within the decade. It's not 1975 anymore and we aren't comparing the 1975 versions of the cities...

Objectively, Richmond does have the larger downtown and the denser, more built in/up core. These aren't opinions. When I have more time I'd love to trace out the inner 9-14 square miles of both cities...
I think the issue may be that Buffalo still has about 35,000 or so more people in 23 less square miles.

Another thing I noticed is that most of Richmond's high density areas go from the western portion of Downtown into the Fan District, Museum District and Carytown up to I-195. There are about 6 or 7 census tracts with about 10-22,000 people/square mile(2 are in the 20-22k range). There are a couple south of 195 in the 9-10k range and one just north of I-64 at 11k. So, it appears that its area of high density is directional as well.

Buffalo has about 11 census tracts with about 10-17,000 people/square mile going north/NW of Downtown through Allentown, Elmwood Village and a good portion of the inner West Side. Buffalo also has another 6 census tract continuous area in North Buffalo/Kenmore that has densities of just under 10 to just under 14,000 people/square mile. So, Buffalo may be relatively multimodal in comparison as well.

That would probably be continuously around/above 10k/square mile if 198 and Delaware Park weren't located in between those 2 areas. There are a couple of tracts in between the 2 areas in the 5-under 7k range.

Last edited by ckhthankgod; 09-02-2017 at 09:39 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2017, 02:46 PM
 
34 posts, read 13,358 times
Reputation: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by murksiderock View Post
People keep talking about how Buffalo used to have 580,000 people...used to being the key words in there. The Buffalo I've had the pleasure of learning and enjoying over this decade doesn't feel larger than any city over 1.1 million metro population. Not a single one. Birmingham and Norfolk and Buffalo are probably the smallest "feeling" cities in that weight class and neither feels larger or smaller than the other...

If Richmond doesn't feel larger than Buffalo to some people, that's fine. I think we get different vibes and that's cool because we're all different people. But also further upthread someone said Buffalo felt larger, which is almost certainly unexplainable if you've been to both recently, even within the decade. It's not 1975 anymore and we aren't comparing the 1975 versions of the cities...

Objectively, Richmond does have the larger downtown and the denser, more built in/up core. These aren't opinions. When I have more time I'd love to trace out the inner 9-14 square miles of both cities...
Yes, Buffalo's current population is less than one half of its peak population but most of the infrastructure from that peak population is still intact. This is probably the main reason why Buffalo seems larger to some, even if it has much less people in it's city limits than in 1950 or 1975. The maps provided by the knowledgeable poster above clearly show Buffalo having the larger and more developed city and inner suburb infrastructure over Richmond. It doesn't even look close.

Last edited by T.Biddle; 09-02-2017 at 03:44 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2017, 05:07 PM
 
Location: California x North Carolina (soon)...
3,362 posts, read 2,264,488 times
Reputation: 3698
Quote:
Originally Posted by T.Biddle View Post
Yes, Buffalo's current population is less than one half of its peak population but most of the infrastructure from that peak population is still intact. This is probably the main reason why Buffalo seems larger to some, even if it has much less people in it's city limits than in 1950 or 1975. The maps provided by the knowledgeable poster above clearly show Buffalo having the larger and more developed city and inner suburb infrastructure over Richmond. It doesn't even look close.
Sure...and then one actually goes to both cities and can clearly see that Richmond has comparable infrastructure in place. You go to both cities and clearly, within the core, Richmond is busier, denser, and built like a larger city. There persists an image of what people wish Buffalo were and what it actually is...it has the bones of a larger city but especially compared to Richmond, lacks the vibrancy and structural density within the inner city core. Not that it isn't there, just that it pales compared to Richmond. The recent comments in this thread are showing a servere lack of and underappreciation for Richmond. It's extremely clear...

Again, we're comparing the modern versions if the cities...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ckhthankgod View Post
I think the issue may be that Buffalo still has about 35,000 or so more people in 23 less square miles.

Another thing I noticed is that most of Richmond's high density areas go from the western portion of Downtown into the Fan District, Museum District and Carytown up to I-195. There are about 6 or 7 census tracts with about 10-22,000 people/square mile(2 are in the 20-22k range). There are a couple south of 195 in the 9-10k range and one just north of I-64 at 11k. So, it appears that its area of high density is directional as well.

Buffalo has about 11 census tracts with about 10-17,000 people/square mile going north/NW of Downtown through Allentown, Elmwood Village and a good portion of the inner West Side. Buffalo also has another 6 census tract continuous area in North Buffalo/Kenmore that has densities of just under 10 to just under 14,000 people/square mile. So, Buffalo may be relatively multimodal in comparison as well.

That would probably be continuously around/above 10k/square mile if 198 and Delaware Park weren't located in between those 2 areas. There are a couple of tracts in between the 2 areas in the 5-under 7k range.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2017, 11:12 AM
 
Location: The mountain of Airy
5,149 posts, read 4,999,545 times
Reputation: 3418
Quote:
Originally Posted by murksiderock View Post
Sure...and then one actually goes to both cities and can clearly see that Richmond has comparable infrastructure in place. You go to both cities and clearly, within the core, Richmond is busier, denser, and built like a larger city. There persists an image of what people wish Buffalo were and what it actually is...it has the bones of a larger city but especially compared to Richmond, lacks the vibrancy and structural density within the inner city core. Not that it isn't there, just that it pales compared to Richmond. The recent comments in this thread are showing a servere lack of and underappreciation for Richmond. It's extremely clear...

Again, we're comparing the modern versions if the cities...
I don't think anyone is failing to show appreciation for Richmond. I think most of us just disagree with how stark you think the difference is between the two. Richmond is not all that vibrant outside of a few pockets like Carytown, Shockoe Slip, Shockoe Bottom, etc. I mean specifically outside of main business hours, because both cities have more vibrancy during those hours than outside of those hours. And yes, Richmond out-performs for a city of its size (in the USA). But, Buffalo has districts that are just as vibrant. And while the Fan and Museum Districts are somewhat vibrant/dense, Buffalo has areas that can match them.

The point I'm trying to make is that you are right in that Richmond has a more promising future, a larger/faster growing metro area, and some good vibrant neighborhoods. BUT, I feel like you're talking past the fact that Buffalo has some assets from its role as a bigger city that still exist and provide value, AND that the numbers are skewed because Richmond's city and metro areas consume more square mileage to achieve their numbers.

All in all, there is no right answer. Both are nice cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top