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.
Nobody is doing what you think they've done. I'm not answering anymore questions about why gatekeeping is annoying. Why are you asking that question?
I was just curious that's why I asked. Tell me where I'm wrong is saying what I've think they've done. Gate keeping can be annoying and tasteless, but it's also tasteless for people to tout that they moved from one city to another and they'll never return to their former city. To me, that comes off as egotistical, insecure and having a superiority complex. Plus, those people trash their old city to the people in their new city. How can you make somebody fall in love with a city when you don't even love it?
As far as Amazon goes, there was an article saying that the HQ's moving to NYC and DC are gonna make a lot of people homeless.
Last edited by QCongress83216; 11-17-2018 at 05:19 PM..
E.g., however, consider that the likes of the Wright Brothers amazed the scientific world just on the basis of superior public high school educations, no longer highly valued by many Ohioans including our political leaders. Have you visited the Wright building at Carillon Historical Park, part of the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park?
While you're quite right, about the parlous state of American public education, the Wrights are a bad example. Not only were they almost entirely self-taught, but their engineering was qualitative (non-mathematical) and in some cases led to dead-ends. They were able to succeed because of dogged persistence and attention to detail. Their basic ideas on airfoils were flat out wrong, and their whole notion of airplane stability and control was detrimental to airplane development for decades to come.
Indeed, the reason that places like Dayton did so well in the early 20th century, was that engineering of the day, was not scientifically rigorous. One didn't need a PhD from Case Western to be at the forefront of research and of the state of the art. It was widely believed, that formal education is the effete purview of the idle aristocracy, while the "real people" could rely on common-sense and basic ingenuity. Well, for a while it worked. It worked for several generations, throughout the 19th century and well into the 20th. But as engineering came to be professionalized, the homespun garage-tinkering no longer worked. Cities like Dayton, who built their success on the hardscrabble smart kid working in his garage to invent the next wondrous widget, could no longer compete.
I also note that public education in America's "cool cities" is notoriously bad. Consider for example schools in Los Angeles. Were I to have had children, I'd actually rather live in the typical Ohio city, maybe in a nicer suburb, and send my children to school there, than in Los Angeles. LA is doing well in spite of its bad schools, and not because of them. Most other American big cities are similar.
What's wrong with cool cities:
LA: running out of water, earthquake coming, crowded, forest fires spreading into the suburbs, stupid expensive housing prices out of control, 1hr+ commutes, pollution in the air, pollution in the ocean. I was there last week visiting family.
San Fran: same as above except the smoky air in downtown obscured the view of the Transamerica Pyramid building from China town (China Town is in downtown also.) Many people wearing face masks due to the smoke.
California is a great place to visit and then come back home. If on the other hand you want that rat-race, move there.
Dallas: The earth is flat and plastered with suburbia to the edges. There's really no significant forests or parks that you would want to visit, its hot in the summer and its not so warm in the winter (its not Florida warm), its crowded, prone to nasty thunderstorms and torrential rains, commute times are rising due to the ever expanding suburbia. Lived there in the 80s and go back every now and then to see family.
Now there are some good points to these cities but I'm not doing a fair and balanced comparison, the OP wanted only what was wrong.
I get it. I have relatives in LA and a friend in SFO. Loved to visit and it was easy when I lived in Portland. Would I want to live in either place? Not in your Nellie. Even when I was young. I loved a lot of things about those places but as any other city they had their drawbacks. The more recent problems you mention just adds to them.
There is a lot of baloney posted here about those cities by people I suspect who have never even been there. They buy into the hype and think everyone else does too.
Hey, my philosophy is love your city or don't live there. Cool for you might not be cool for me and vice versa. Good for me, bad for you and vice versa. Making comparisons is the biggest waste of time unless you're planning to relocate and are weighing your options.I
I don't want Cleveland to be another LA or SanFrancisco. Not in any manner. Economically of course I would like to see improvement. But drop the "cool" stuff. What the heck is it supposed to mean anyway? I never met anyone in LA or SanFrancisco who called themselves or their city "cool."
While you're quite right, about the parlous state of American public education, the Wrights are a bad example. Not only were they almost entirely self-taught, but their engineering was qualitative (non-mathematical) and in some cases led to dead-ends. They were able to succeed because of dogged persistence and attention to detail.
Your claim emphasized in boldface and underlined is entirely inaccurate. Why do persons post statements of fact in social forums before doing any research?
You've obviously never visited the Wright exhibit at Carillon Historical Park, nor read a decent biography of the Wrights. They are famed for their various experiments, including the use of a wind tunnel, to develop mathematical formulas far advanced compared with their peers. They were accomplished adherents to the scientific method. Probably no Americans ever put their high school algebra and trigonometry classes to better use.
Their basic ideas on airfoils were flat out wrong, and their whole notion of airplane stability and control was detrimental to airplane development for decades to come.
The absurdity of this claim is well illustrated by the Wrights' propellers, the technological brilliance of which was essential to their development of the first airplane. Unlike you and their competitors for first flight, the Wrights recognized that propellers were rotating wings, and proceeded to develop the best propellers in the world, even more efficient than the naval propellers of the time. And the Wrights developed their own quadratic equations to perfect their propellers.
The total absurdity of your claim is that IF the Wrights ideas about airfoils were "flat out wrong," they never, ever could have developed a flying machine that greatly eclipsed anything that the world had ever seen.
If you're confusing the Wrights use of wing-warping instead of ailerons, even the patent courts ruled that the Wright airplane patent covered ailerons.
Indeed, the reason that places like Dayton did so well in the early 20th century, was that engineering of the day, was not scientifically rigorous. One didn't need a PhD from Case Western to be at the forefront of research and of the state of the art. It was widely believed, that formal education is the effete purview of the idle aristocracy, while the "real people" could rely on common-sense and basic ingenuity. Well, for a while it worked. It worked for several generations, throughout the 19th century and well into the 20th. But as engineering came to be professionalized, the homespun garage-tinkering no longer worked. Cities like Dayton, who built their success on the hardscrabble smart kid working in his garage to invent the next wondrous widget, could no longer compete.
Your ignorance is astoundingly profound. Have you never heard of Delco? Do you know nothing of the brilliance of Charles Kettering and the profound impact that he had on Dayton's economy?
So you're basically arguing for a national value-added tax? You think that a VAT would reverse the decline of American manufacturing?
The Canadians and the Chinese have used VAT systems to develop their manufacturing industries, largely at the expense of American industry. The Canadians and the Europeans largely use VAT revenues to pay for national healthcare.
When Canadians export goods to the U.S., the VAT is rebated, so Canadians goods purchased in the U.S. carry none of the burden of healthcare. In the U.S. employer pay for healthcare. When U.S. goods are exported, these medical costs are not rebated. In fact, the Canadians, Europeans, etc. add their VATs to imported American goods. So American goods sold elsewhere in the world include the cost of U.S. healthcare and the cost of healthcare in the importing nation. You don't see the problem???
I always heard that Ohio was a nice place to live. And I never really understood what that meant (when people from outside of Ohio say it) but I'm older now and I think I get it. Relative to the problems they have in other states Ohio is a very nice place to live. But is a lot deeper than simple things like crime, schools, or job opportunities. It is a lot of other stuff you don't see until you've lived other places, and you see where things were just different in Ohio. They made sense to you there, the way that they are done in Ohio. Everything else continues to seem foreign even though you are never going to move back to Ohio. But they don't mean what Ohioans mean when they are looking at it as a nice place to live. If that makes any sense whatsoever. Because they don't have Ohioans perspective and they don't have their experiences.
Yes Cleveland has a lot of good and bad and that good and that bad has evolved over the years. Cleveland is always going to have the good and bad that goes along with big cities. And your mileage is going to vary depending on what you can afford; but, being Ohio and all, your mileage is going to be experienced in different ways than it is anywhere else. Cleveland had cultural amenities for longer than anyone on this board is alive. Cleveland had diversity, and pretty much anyone that feels any type of way about anything will find a home in Cleveland. It is a rough city but there is plenty to love, or love to hate, or hate to love, however one feels about it.
Amazon wanted a solid business decision but it also wanted something that fits in with the identity of a city and I don't think that Cleveland fits that bill. I think that it's distribution centers and whatever logistics or operations that concern that do but the stuff that people are getting excited about, I don't know. Both New York and Northern Virginia have a more proven track record with what Amazon is bringing there.
Personally I think the disappointment and disillusionment of the OP is that it feels like an indictment on Cleveland. But it shouldn't. Cleveland is going to continue to evolve and prove itself as it always has. But it may not need a single employer with 50,000 jobs. That type of thing is part of the reason why it is in the mess that it is. Cleveland needs 50 employers with a thousand jobs. That is a stronger economy, less disruptive, and healthier, than the vaccine shot in the arm that a huge Amazon headquarters is going to bring. Someone in Cleveland may build the next Amazon. Someone up there has the next big idea. It happened before and it can easily happen again. Ohio's reliance on the automobile industry and steel, rubber, glass and other auxiliary industries; what happens when those industries are disrupted is a huge reason why I never want to see large employers giving out hundreds of thousands of jobs there again. A lot of great cities did not get picked. I don't think those cities are necessarily any more or less capable sure we love Cleveland for obvious reasons but a lot of good cities did not make the cut.
Unless Amazon is going to build out everything a city goes into debt trying to appease them and then they have wait several years for a return on their investment. How many years is it going to take Queens and Alexandria to collect on whatever tax or land concessions they made to Amazon? It might not be a problem that Cleveland wants to have.
People want Cleveland to return to some former glory or be seen some type of way and I don't think that will ever happen. Rust belt cities have been beat up on for longer than I have lived. Middle America is not supposed to be exciting. Some get it but most never will.
Why is Amazon moving to NYC and Northern Virginia? It isn't even a question that needs to be asked; the same reason why thousands of people continue to move to both places every day.
A lot of great cities did not get picked. I don't think those cities are necessarily any more or less capable sure we love Cleveland for obvious reasons but a lot of good cities did not make the cut.
Unless Amazon is going to build out everything a city goes into debt trying to appease them and then they have wait several years for a return on their investment. How many years is it going to take Queens and Alexandria to collect on whatever tax or land concessions they made to Amazon? It might not be a problem that Cleveland wants to have.
People want Cleveland to return to some former glory or be seen some type of way and I don't think that will ever happen. Rust belt cities have been beat up on for longer than I have lived. Middle America is not supposed to be exciting. Some get it but most never will.
Why is Amazon moving to NYC and Northern Virginia? It isn't even a question that needs to be asked; the same reason why thousands of people continue to move to both places every day.
I would argue that history itself is the result of a small number of influential individuals making particular (and spectacular) decisions. That doesn't make said individual righteous, wise or exemplary. But it does mean that billions don't matter; what matters is the willpower of the few.
...
No amount of middle-class steady workmanship would build a new Cleveland, or a Rome, or Paris, or Baghdad or Ctesiphon.
...
What we're witnessing now, is less the death-throes, than a return to a more stable society. It was the mid-20th century "middle class" prosperity that was unstable. The 21st century will more resemble the 19th.
...
American exceptionalism probably appalls me even more than it does you. Rather, I think that most other societies are more honest about the inevitable reality of civilization: most people will live in hardship in degradation, so that the top of the pyramid does well. This isn't the most moral scenario, or the most desirable. It is simply inevitable. With every revolution that throws out the current masters, new ones immediately arise - and typically the new are more brutal and sadistic than the old. It is a glaring American naivete, to believe that we can build a truly egalitarian, meritocratic society.
...
Quote:
To me, of great importance is to have my property appreciate. I'd rather live in a threadbare shack, whose market-value rises over the decades, than in a sumptuous palace, whose value declines. To me, an enormous benefit of living in a "cool city", is a rising housing market. I view property foremost as an investment, and its being a place to live, is entirely secondary. If my investment does poorly, then neither high culture nor clean water nor good schools matter. The real cost of living in an "uncool" city is not the prevalence of Cracker Barrel over Whole Foods, of country "music" over classical music, but of how the housing market is getting savaged.
There is a lot of talking out both sides of your neck here (and throughout this entire post). Not sure what point you're trying to even get at. That a vastly polarized and out-of-balance world is more stable? How does any of this make sense?
I guess what you're saying is that... the natural order to things is chaos and learning to ride that wave is where we find order? That would be an interesting point. However, in no way would I equate that to "societal stability"! Nor do I think egalitarianism or appeals to meritocracy are conceptual fluff born out of naivete. To the contrary, they are born out of deep, real-world experiences with unjust struggling at the hands of greed-laden, shallow men of little virtue and empathy.
Where again do you live? I thought it was somewhere outside of Dayton? So... You'd rather live for decades in a shack in LA as long as it's value doubles? Triples? Why? So you can then do what? Sell it and move somewhere cheaper? Like Dayton?
And to that point, a primary residence should never be viewed as "an investment", regardless where you are located and where we are in the market. That's ECON 101... at least for us in the 21st century.
Look... I'd be happy if my home appreciated by 300% like my parents house did. They got to retire early and move into a fairly decent little condo way out in the suburbs. Certainly isn't in the "cool part of the city", but it's a good life in a beautiful area and they got really lucky. For us to buy a house anywhere in the general vicinity of them, well... we couldn't. Period.
And neither can my buddies working as DevOps and Programmers for Google and Apple. Getting paid 135k a year, paying 4.5k in rent for a small house in an unimpressive neighborhood, while working 70hr wks in a high stress, high cost, uber-competitive environment? NO THANKS! I also have friends/family further out, where it's (a tad bit) more "affordable", but they do 2-2.5hrs a day in commuting. AGAIN, NO THANKS!
Living in, and raising kids in, a tiny shack for "decades"... as an investment strategy? BIG NO THANKS!
Quote:
While I also disagree with the rankings on that site, discussion of rankings exposes an important point. How do we feel about the global significance of our particular city? Do we take this personally? Do we feel affinity to “our team”, where if said team is of low importance, we ourselves feel to be of low importance? Or, is all that matters, the more tangible things, like good schools in our particular district, clean water, ample public parks, well-swept streets and clean air?
To your point here, it goes both ways. Do high global rankings make people feel disproportionately positive about their city? Are they more likely to overlook the negatives? Will good schools, clean water/food, ample park space, commute times, cost of living and clean streets all become of secondary importance to house values, job markets and "coolness"? Yes and yes.
Quote:
I don’t feel any need to live downtown, or even within city limits. I’m OK with having to drive everywhere, with having relatively poor amenities or social services in my immediate environs. When thinking about NYC, I’m OK will living in the eastern Pennsylvania suburbs, or well “upstate” of NYC. When thinking about LA, I’m OK with the desert expanses east of LA – maybe even San Bernardino County. But so long as I’m within the general locale, I maintain this tribal sense of kinship to “my team”. It is personally important, it is psychologically important, that “my team” is a leading team, even if I’m only a peripheral member, a back-bencher and a peon.
Well... okay. That's your prerogative! To us, what matters more than tribal adherence or kinship to a "cool city", are things that tangibly make our lives better. Things that DO contribute to stability and long-term REAL wealth. For us, that doesn't mean becoming urban-dwelling millionaires.
. I don’t feel any need to live downtown, or even within city limits. I’m OK with having to drive everywhere, with having relatively poor amenities or social services in my immediate environs. When thinking about NYC, I’m OK will living in the eastern Pennsylvania suburbs, or well “upstate” of NYC. When thinking about LA, I’m OK with the desert expanses east of LA – maybe even San Bernardino County. But so long as I’m within the general locale, I maintain this tribal sense of kinship to “my team”. It is personally important, it is psychologically important, that “my team” is a leading team, even if I’m only a peripheral member, a back-bencher and a peon.
But you are not in the tribe you are not in the city. It's been my observation having lived in one of those so-called "cool cities" you have to be in it to be a part of it. There is quite a bit of snobbery about this. The general locale may not count if you want to fit in socially. This is why people double and triple up with roommates in these places.
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.
That's your prerogative! To us, what matters more than tribal adherence or kinship to a "cool city", are things that tangibly make our lives better. Things that DO contribute to stability and long-term REAL wealth. For us, that doesn't mean becoming urban-dwelling millionaires.
