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.
Really, the only way to know is if you've been to every one of these cities, which probably 95% of us on this board (including myself) have not been to.
I've been to Detroit, Camden, and New Orleans on that list. Unfortunately out of the three I've been to, Camden has the disadvantage of being a smaller, suburban city but even it had some redeeming qualities and I love Metro-Philly.
As far as Detroit and New Orleans go, there's more I like about both of those cities than dislike. I'd return to or live in either of them before I'd go back to or live in many other "safer" cities that I've been to.
So, out of the three I've been to Id have to say Camden, but it's not the worst city I've been to and it's certainly got obvious disadvantages (aside from crime) when compared to the other two.
From that list I'd say Gary, In...there's just nothing there. At least with New Orleans, Detroit, St. Louis, Oakland, Richmond, there are attractions and other alternatives for things to do or see within the metro area or at least within a short drive. Not so with places like Gary or Flint. I've been to 8 out of the 10 on the list.
I've never been there, but from everything I've heard, Flint sounds pretty depressing. One industry towns usually fare poorly when the one industry dies.
I think Michael Moore's movies haven't helped his hometown much either, since he usually profiles it as an example of a city in decline.
From that list I'd say Gary, In...there's just nothing there. At least with New Orleans, Detroit, St. Louis, Oakland, Richmond, there are attractions and other alternatives for things to do or see within the metro area or at least within a short drive. Not so with places like Gary or Flint. I've been to 8 out of the 10 on the list.
True, East St. Louis makes everywhere look nice, but at least St. Louis has breweries, ballparks, dining and nightlife, music, history and the Arch. Gary has nothing that appeals to the average resident or tourist.
True, East St. Louis makes everywhere look nice, but at least St. Louis has breweries, ballparks, dining and nightlife, music, history and the Arch. Gary has nothing that appeals to the average resident or tourist.
I'm a bit confused by this. Yes, St. Louis, Missouri has all those attractions, but within the technical city boundaries of East St. Louis, Illinois, there is absolutely nothing. Granted, it's only roughly a three-mile hop across the river, but within the city proper those attractions don't exist, close as they may be. One can't claim the attractions in Chicago as assets to being in Gary.
Having said that, and having seen both Gary and East St. Louis, I do think it's a toss up which one I "like least" (that topic is oddly phrased, by the way). Gary is much larger than East St. Louis, and the presence of gangs, drugs, and violence is undeniable. There are certainly a few attractions in Gary worthy of mention, but not many. Neverthless, victimization by violent crime is always a concern. East St. Louis, by comparison, seems almost abandoned.
Flint made the list and not Miami Gardens Florida?
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.
