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.
Seattle. That city has been in the dumps and pulled itself out many many times in its history. I can't think of any city that has had as many terrible lows and wonderful heights as Seattle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago60614
Seattle's dark days were like a runny nose compared to places that really had it rough.
Looking at cities 60 years ago after the war compared to today is unreal. If only we could turn some of our cities around like others have.
Tokyo 65 years ago
Berlin 65 years ago
Those are not American cities.
But for American cities compared to them, using 60 years I think we have. Only it hasn't been done the same. We have still done much of the same building and growth. Only people moved to places and such. The rebuilding wasn't needed since the war was in Europe and Asia, but building was still needed. And just as much building and growth has happened.
For example at the same time as those cities you are referencing in the photos were taken (during WWII) Austin was a small college town of 50,000 people. Now it is a large metro of 1,850,000 people. That is a lot of building and growth.
I've never been there, but I read an article a few years ago about how Philadelphia has been making a comeback due to arts and upgraded neighborhoods. Can anyone on here atest to that?
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,825,297 times
Reputation: 2501
Quote:
Originally Posted by BevoLJ
Seattle. That city has been in the dumps and pulled itself out many many times in its history. I can't think of any city that has had as many terrible lows and wonderful heights as Seattle.
Those are not American cities.
But for American cities compared to them, using 60 years I think we have. Only it hasn't been done the same. We have still done much of the same building and growth. Only people moved to places and such. The rebuilding wasn't needed since the war was in Europe and Asia, but building was still needed. And just as much building and growth has happened.
For example at the same time as those cities you are referencing in the photos were taken (during WWII) Austin was a small college town of 50,000 people. Now it is a large metro of 1,850,000 people. That is a lot of building and growth.
I'm sorry, but can you enlighten us as to Seattle's "terrible lows" that compare to other American cities who've truly suffered, such as Philly, Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, etc., etc., etc? I'm not even sure Seattle was greatly affected by Urban Renewal as much as Midwestern and Northeastern cities did, let alone a catastrophic industrial collapse like the Rust Belt incurred.......I've never heard of Seattle's "plight", but may need some enlightening.
I'm sorry, but can you enlighten us as to Seattle's "terrible lows" that compare to other American cities who've truly suffered, such as Philly, Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, etc., etc., etc? I'm not even sure Seattle was greatly affected by Urban Renewal as much as Midwestern and Northeastern cities did, let alone a catastrophic industrial collapse like the Rust Belt incurred.......I've never heard of Seattle's "plight", but may need some enlightening.
The great Aerospace jobs bust of 1969-72. Will the last person leaving Seattle please turn off the lights? That was when Boeing laid off a large chunk of employees.
Cincinnati deserves to be on that list. We had some tuff times with crime but now its getting better with a new casino, new tower, new musem,new park, actualy two new parks and a streetcar system currently on construction.
This list made me laugh so hard. El Paso? Denver? Arlington? Then you've got DC and Boston which have never not been popular cities, to name a few.
DC was not popular to move to untill the last 8-10 yrs, if that. its definitely a more attractive city now then years past with all the gentrification and luxury condo/apts/buildings being developed. the image of the city has changed dramaticlly. in the 80s/90s to many DC was just known for politics and being the murder capital
but i still wouldnt call it a comeback city.. cuz it was never the "it" city to begin with
I am not a troll for a post describing what Detroit is really like. You cannot deny Detroit is 1/3 abandonded or that it is filled with corruption and crime. You cannot deny that the real Detroit is in its suburbs, that is where the life is, that is where things are built, that is where good law abiding/productive people live. For a city to be considered as being a comeback city the inner core of the city must be on the mend. Detroit is far from that, and its future looks very bleak. Some have even suggested that in 50 years it will be nearly completly abandoned. ( although even I doubt that valuable river frontage will be forgoten) If you want to see what a true revival city looks like visit Cleveland or Pittsburg. Those cities are revival cities, Detroit on the other hand is more of a warning to other troubled towns on how bad things can get. Any one who doubts what I am posting need only to google "the ruins of Detroit" and there will be youtube videos displaying the mayhem and wreckage that is modern Detroit.
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.
