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)
 
Old 07-26-2017, 02:27 PM
 
Location: Cleveland, OH
987 posts, read 489,366 times
Reputation: 545

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavePa View Post
Please double check the post you try to shorten that they take correctly. To respond keeps it hard to try to fix.

People today know if its something that happened decades ago and not true today. Some posters do far worst posting negatives then any old perceptions. People know the river isn't burning today. It's not promoted today just if a mention occurs.... I watch a ball game from Cleveland? I see a nice city and stadium and happy people in the stands to be there.

Cleveland rarely makes the national news today for crime and other negatives. Sometimes just not in the limelight is a good thing. Unless our economy spirals downward? Cleveland will have a decent future and could have boom periods again. I certainly have no bone to pick on it.

No one should keep dogging on any city or their former cities...... it gets old and a poor agenda.

Only NYC gets real passes because ...... its New York. Other cities very little chance visitors will overlook something they see as a negative.

A lot of people do, but some still cling on to the old stereotypes (i.e. Mistake By the Lake, Hastily Cleveland Tourism Video on YouTube) die hard because most people are victims of mesofacts, which is no matter if something has changed people will still perceive it as the same. Plus, I say that Cleveland doesn't get any pass because it's been maligned for a long time by the media, stand-up comics, movies and TV shows. I know when you see a game from Cleveland on TV that you see a nice city and stadium with happy people in the stands. But, there's a segment of the national media that hate coming to Cleveland especially with the Cavs being in 3 straight Finals and winning an NBA Championship. Why do you think it's their wet dream to see LeBron in L.A.?

I agree that no should constantly put down a city or dog their former city because it does get old after awhile. Most people who put down Cleveland are people who have to do it so they can feel better about where they live. Also, to them putting Cleveland down is easier to do because they feel that Cleveland and the "Rust Belt" America's whipping boy. It seems like the "glamour" cities get more cover for their shortcomings.

Last edited by QCongress83216; 07-26-2017 at 02:35 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-29-2017, 08:51 AM
 
Location: Cleveland, OH
987 posts, read 489,366 times
Reputation: 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Buster View Post
I don't think Cleveland really has that bad of a reputation, most people still think of Detroit as being the worst. Or runner-up Baltimore. It can turn around fairly quickly, look at what were considered some of the worst big cities in past decades, in the 80s and 90s this was probably considered to be Pittsburgh, Philly, and DC. All now have a much better rep as places to live.

Cleveland does get a bad rep especially from the national media. When Cleveland was selected for the RNC in 2014, there was all kind of snarky Tweets from a lot of the national media especially the Beltway media with old dumb jokes. I'll admit some of the sports-related jokes were funny, but the rest were cliched and full of malice. Yeah, Detroit gets a horrible rep, but I thought Baltimore got more of pass because it's close to DC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2017, 09:11 AM
 
Location: The Left Toast
1,086 posts, read 1,343,035 times
Reputation: 744
Quote:
Originally Posted by QCongress83216 View Post
A lot of people do, but some still cling on to the old stereotypes (i.e. Mistake By the Lake, Hastily Cleveland Tourism Video on YouTube) die hard because most people are victims of mesofacts, which is no matter if something has changed people will still perceive it as the same. Plus, I say that Cleveland doesn't get any pass because it's been maligned for a long time by the media, stand-up comics, movies and TV shows. I know when you see a game from Cleveland on TV that you see a nice city and stadium with happy people in the stands. But, there's a segment of the national media that hate coming to Cleveland especially with the Cavs being in 3 straight Finals and winning an NBA Championship. Why do you think it's their wet dream to see LeBron in L.A.?

I agree that no should constantly put down a city or dog their former city because it does get old after awhile. Most people who put down Cleveland are people who have to do it so they can feel better about where they live. Also, to them putting Cleveland down is easier to do because they feel that Cleveland and the "Rust Belt" America's whipping boy. It seems like the "glamour" cities get more cover for their shortcomings.

I swear I don't get the whole " It's gonna suck" if such & such team's in the playoffs aren't in A, B, or C city." Or D, E, & F city need to make a run at such & such a player because he's wasting his talent playing in the town he's in now." Even though that team's playing with a winning record compared to the losing squad they'd like to see him on."

I've called radio stations and complained about that when I'd hear the host say something like., "OKC & Cleveland" is gonna be a ratings nightmare."

It's about the best teams being able to put the best product on the field/court/rink/etc;....It's NOT only about LA, Miami, New York, Boston, Philly, Detroit, etc; being the only markets worthy of the playoffs and the other 30 teams are just a pro version of the New Jersey Generals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2017, 09:15 AM
 
Location: The Left Toast
1,086 posts, read 1,343,035 times
Reputation: 744
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4 View Post
I'm not saying that the Rust belt is bad, but in a lot of ways, the cities are just as similar to the Sunbelt as they are to the Northeast, clearly Atlanta isn't a terrible city because it isn't all that dense, but Atlanta's Density is much closer to Cleveland's than Cleveland is to say Providence.

and I think its more about Sunbelt cities not getting enough credit than Rust Belt towns getting too much credit. A good example is MARTA nor LA's subway ever gets mentioned when talking about those cities, while the MBTA and SEPTA for example are always mentioned when Philly or Boston are brought up.
That's because they..........SUCK. LA (Metro) & ATL (MARTA)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2017, 09:39 AM
 
Location: New Mexico
5,097 posts, read 2,913,065 times
Reputation: 9408
The 'mythic' cities get a pass with visitors because people know their faults but overlook them. Since it takes time to build up the myth, maybe generations, it is more likely to be legacy cities than others. These tend to be walkable places that can be explored on foot...at least the core will be. There might be nut-case street people talking to bushes but nobody notices. People hear about shootings in Chicago but still head out the door. NYC might be trashy and smell awful but that's NYC. Mark Twain supposedly said "The coldest winter I ever saw was the summer I spent in San Francisco"...but nobody cares because it comes with the territory.

Other places like Houston or Phoenix or Charlotte or even Atlanta don't seem to be there yet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2017, 10:18 AM
 
8,638 posts, read 8,771,906 times
Reputation: 5185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenses & Lights. View Post
That's because they..........SUCK. LA (Metro) & ATL (MARTA)
MARTA is better than Detroit, Seattle, The Twin Cities, and other "urban" cities transit systems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2017, 10:39 AM
 
Location: Cleveland, OH
987 posts, read 489,366 times
Reputation: 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenses & Lights. View Post
I swear I don't get the whole " It's gonna suck" if such & such team's in the playoffs aren't in A, B, or C city." Or D, E, & F city need to make a run at such & such a player because he's wasting his talent playing in the town he's in now." Even though that team's playing with a winning record compared to the losing squad they'd like to see him on."

I've called radio stations and complained about that when I'd hear the host say something like., "OKC & Cleveland" is gonna be a ratings nightmare."

It's about the best teams being able to put the best product on the field/court/rink/etc;....It's NOT only about LA, Miami, New York, Boston, Philly, Detroit, etc; being the only markets worthy of the playoffs and the other 30 teams are just a pro version of the New Jersey Generals.

I totally agree that are certain people in the media that feel that sports such as the NBA is only great when cities like New York, L.A., Chicago and Miami are good. Or, the MLB, especially around playoff time, the media feels that it should only the Yankees and Red Sox in the ALCS every year. Last year, the national media was rooting hard for a Cubs-Red Sox World Sox or Red Sox-Dodgers World Series. They feel that teams in those cities outside of the mentioned cities are bad for the sports. I never felt that way, a great team is a great team no matter what city they're in. The Spurs have won 5 NBA titles in an 18-year period while playing in San Antonio, which is a very small market. If the Cavs and Thunder would've faced off in The Finals two years ago, I think it would've had some pretty good ratings because of the matchups: LeBron vs. KD, Kyrie vs. Westbrook.

Also, a certain group of the media feels that Cleveland doesn't deserve a player like LeBron for various reasons. They feel that he's too big for Cleveland, he brought them a title now he should move on, he's wasting his talents in Cleveland, Cleveland isn't glamorous as NY, L.A., Chicago, etc., or they want to be in L.A. or Miami all the time. Most of the national media are people from the coastal cities or Chicago and are only bias for their cities. A lot of them didn't want him to go back to Cleveland. They were hoping he stayed in Miami. They feel only star players should play in big cities. I say a star player should be able shine based on his talent, not the city they play in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2017, 03:47 PM
 
Location: The Left Toast
1,086 posts, read 1,343,035 times
Reputation: 744
Quote:
Originally Posted by QCongress83216 View Post
I totally agree that are certain people in the media that feel that sports such as the NBA is only great when cities like New York, L.A., Chicago and Miami are good. Or, the MLB, especially around playoff time, the media feels that it should only the Yankees and Red Sox in the ALCS every year. Last year, the national media was rooting hard for a Cubs-Red Sox World Sox or Red Sox-Dodgers World Series. They feel that teams in those cities outside of the mentioned cities are bad for the sports. I never felt that way, a great team is a great team no matter what city they're in. The Spurs have won 5 NBA titles in an 18-year period while playing in San Antonio, which is a very small market. If the Cavs and Thunder would've faced off in The Finals two years ago, I think it would've had some pretty good ratings because of the matchups: LeBron vs. KD, Kyrie vs. Westbrook.

Also, a certain group of the media feels that Cleveland doesn't deserve a player like LeBron for various reasons. They feel that he's too big for Cleveland, he brought them a title now he should move on, he's wasting his talents in Cleveland, Cleveland isn't glamorous as NY, L.A., Chicago, etc., or they want to be in L.A. or Miami all the time. Most of the national media are people from the coastal cities or Chicago and are only bias for their cities. A lot of them didn't want him to go back to Cleveland. They were hoping he stayed in Miami. They feel only star players should play in big cities. I say a star player should be able shine based on his talent, not the city they play in.
Correct.....Bill Walton (40 years later) STILL says "People seem to forgot.., we WON that '77 Finals" not Philadelphia!" lol

Remember when Vince Carter became a surprise media breakout sensation? For the next 2 weeks nearly all you heard was "The league needs to get him out of Canada.., The Lakers have Kobe, Philly has Iverson...a stud like him belongs on the Knicks.., he would just FLOURISH in the limelight in the Big Apple." lol

Can you imagine if the GS Warriors players were instead on the Lakers???? OMG!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2017, 11:04 PM
 
3,568 posts, read 2,014,636 times
Reputation: 3288
The networks rely on ratings. And they want teams in the playoffs that either (a) are from very large cities, (b) teams with national followings, and (c) teams with the top superstars.

I have a feeling the networks were ecstatic about SF vs. Cleveland. Cleveland had two of the three keys. GS had all of them.

The NBA is a star-driven and playoff-driven league. It's apparently less important that many teams don't have real shots at championships and many regular season games aren't terribly meaningful, but they definitely want some top teams to focus on, and they want those to be the biggest cities. That said, they'd be ok with a Green Bay type city if it also had a national following.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2017, 06:03 PM
 
Location: Cleveland, OH
987 posts, read 489,366 times
Reputation: 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunGrins View Post
The 'mythic' cities get a pass with visitors because people know their faults but overlook them. Since it takes time to build up the myth, maybe generations, it is more likely to be legacy cities than others. These tend to be walkable places that can be explored on foot...at least the core will be. There might be nut-case street people talking to bushes but nobody notices. People hear about shootings in Chicago but still head out the door. NYC might be trashy and smell awful but that's NYC. Mark Twain supposedly said "The coldest winter I ever saw was the summer I spent in San Francisco"...but nobody cares because it comes with the territory.

Other places like Houston or Phoenix or Charlotte or even Atlanta don't seem to be there yet.

Yeah, but tourists don't go to the trashy parts of NYC, or the South Side, West Side or East Side of Chicago. They mostly stay Downtown or the surrounding suburbs. They only go to the tourist parts of the city so they don't care about the bad parts of those cities, so most tourists don't know the faults for the city because they're not going to stay there that long. I think those cities get more of a pass because they get the most media attention and most of them (except Chicago) are on the Coasts.
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