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.
How Buffalo is #1 is odd considering some of the other cities on that list. Ironically, it was on the most underrated list as well. Albany also surprised me and doesn't make sense, imo.
I feel like all these lists should be taken with a grain of salt, but don't understand when people claim that "the journalists have little to zero intelligence in Cities or the way they function". These people may not be the #1 experts on cities, but chances are they put in more research than any of us do. This is the job of these people...we're just doing this as a hobby.
Of course I do, I know more about cities than 99% of the people I know. I didn't study Geography and Urban Planning in College for fun. And, I don't make over 20 posts a day on this website because I know zero about cities.
I feel like all these lists should be taken with a grain of salt, but don't understand when people claim that "the journalists have little to zero intelligence in Cities or the way they function". These people may not be the #1 experts on cities, but chances are they put in more research than any of us do. This is the job of these people...we're just doing this as a hobby.
I highly doubt that. It's just ridiculous. In my Urban Planning classes we would often scoff at these Yahoo and Forbes lists. They just aren't done with any consistency or ideaologies.
I just read one that was "the best cities for jobs" and on that list was Duluth Minnesota. a) Duluth is dead. No jobs here. I live here. b) Duluth was on the list with same places like NYC and Los Angeles.
Let's make lists comparing a small regional hub of 85,000 people to a world city of 9 million.
Out of the ten cities on this stupid list, almost zero consistency.
You have cities like Flint, Allentown, Albany, Hartford, Atlantic City, Galveston...
...and then you have...
Buffalo, Cleveland, New Orleans, Detroit.
The way the top group of 6 function are completely different than the bottom 4. How can you make a realistic comparision or even a believable list.
They might as well throw in Duluth, Minnesota. The town had 115,000 in the 1960s and now has 85,000.... So, these "yahoo city geniuses" might as well have included Duluth on the same list as Detroit and Cleveland.
Rather than dogging Cleveland for 'dying' the city should be praised in it's effort to re-emerge as one of the first 'green' cities. The Cuyahoga (sp?) was on fire at one point. That's right. Water on fire. But it's now considered a dying city in the same category as Allentown, PA and Atlantic City, NJ???
Oh please, Hartford is not the 3rd fastest dying city in America. I mean 3rd? It's not even dying, but 3rd? Who wrote this? It lost something like 50,000 people since 1950, that's not exactly huge, especially compared to Detroit's more than half of it's almost 2 million. Not to mention, pretty much every city in the North lost population since the 50's and suburbanization, so that's not a special case. The city proper population started growing again in recent years and leveled off with the recession while the metro area continues to grow and has been since the 50's. And it lost some jobs, yeah, unlike every other city in the world in the last 2 years I guess. If this qualifies as dying, and 3rd best no less, we're all in trouble.
(Two topics on the same list, so I'll post twice lol)
Disagree. Cleveland died a few years ago and economically is bouncing back. It's unemployment rate is below the national average lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid Cann
Rather than dogging Cleveland for 'dying' the city should be praised in it's effort to re-emerge as one of the first 'green' cities. The Cuyahoga (sp?) was on fire at one point. That's right. Water on fire. But it's now considered a dying city in the same category as Allentown, PA and Atlantic City, NJ???
Agreed with that part, as well as it's diversification of jobs in the area. Cleveland has lost many people, but most just sprawled to the suburbs.
And in terms of the Cuyahoga River, it did catch on fire (a couple times actually), but many other rivers during that time period around the nation caught on fire as well. Cleveland was just the only one in the spotlight.
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.
