U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [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 09-17-2019, 01:39 PM
 
Location: Greater Boston (Formerly Orlando and New York)
697 posts, read 270,660 times
Reputation: 716

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25 View Post
the aim may definitely be in demeaning. The action of doing so is actually and ironically very complimentary, the reverse of what one's stated opinion. You and I both know we can find numerous things to be critical about New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles; no place as no person is immune from that.

The problem is that when you say "New York is a dump", "Chicago is going down the tubes", "Los Angeles is where the dregs of society go to live on the streets", things like that...you are not putting down those cities but in fact show others that you are obsessed with them, that you are driven to put them down. And when you say such things, you are not telling anything about those cities but you are telling an awful lot about yourself. Keeping in mind that "There is no greater S**thole in the world than _______, a disgusting mix of crime, poverty, filth, decline and 40 other things I did not mention", you can fill in the blank with any-city-of-your-choice and you're still going to come out as a jerk.

"There is no such thing as bad publicity" has a definite ring of truth to it. Newyorkphobes, Chicagophobes, and Losangelesphobes put those three cities at the forefront.

If you wish to know which people anywhere on the board are most impressed by a city, look at the trolls. Find the ones that are harping on a particular way, who seem almost obsessed with it. These guys are jealous and they make it very obvious. They give endless exposure to cities they claim to dislike and have no real interest in.
THis is a why is Person A leaving City A, B and C. Those are the main reasons why they are leaving? Given LA and Chicago are to of my favorite cities, I can hardly get where you are coming from.

And as a person who moved out of NYC, The three reasons I did it were because it was way too dirty, the MTA was too unreliable from where I was living in Queens, The COL was way too high, and job in my field were more abundant in Boston or DC. So leaving NYC were of those reasons. Paying $2,300 for a 2 bed 1 bath wasnt exactly ideal for 2017 especially given the quality that was present.

You might say well nto everyone lives in those conditions, what about the people who live in Upper East Side/FiDi!! Well thats all subjective, but like any city the vast majority are living in Middle Class or not living in the ideal parts of every city. Not everyone in Boston lives in the Back Bay/Seaport. Not everyone in New York lives in the UES, Fidi or Soho. Not every LAite lives on the part of LA close to Beverly Hills and not every Chicagoite lives in Downtown Loop or the Uppity North Shore. People arent moving from those places. In Chicago, people are moving from the South Side, which is a declining place. In Los Angeles, The sturggling East Side and Central LA is shedding the most people. In New York, Queens and Brooklyn shed the most people even though all five boroughs lost people. So yes, people who leave NYC are calling it disgusting because frankly, those areas they are leaving arent exactly .. not disgusting.

Sorry if that offends you, but until you actually live in one of those three cities you really have no room to say. I dont think that about every city, but those are the general reasons why.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-17-2019, 01:52 PM
 
Location: Houston for Living/Los Angeles for Work
1,385 posts, read 505,576 times
Reputation: 1917
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
There is little evidence to suggest AAs are moving in significant numbers to the South, .
Are you joking? There is a ridiculous amount of evidence.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2019, 03:05 PM
 
Location: Chicago
6,341 posts, read 6,782,529 times
Reputation: 5705
Quote:
Originally Posted by masssachoicetts View Post
THis is a why is Person A leaving City A, B and C. Those are the main reasons why they are leaving? Given LA and Chicago are to of my favorite cities, I can hardly get where you are coming from.

And as a person who moved out of NYC, The three reasons I did it were because it was way too dirty, the MTA was too unreliable from where I was living in Queens, The COL was way too high, and job in my field were more abundant in Boston or DC. So leaving NYC were of those reasons. Paying $2,300 for a 2 bed 1 bath wasnt exactly ideal for 2017 especially given the quality that was present.

You might say well nto everyone lives in those conditions, what about the people who live in Upper East Side/FiDi!! Well thats all subjective, but like any city the vast majority are living in Middle Class or not living in the ideal parts of every city. Not everyone in Boston lives in the Back Bay/Seaport. Not everyone in New York lives in the UES, Fidi or Soho. Not every LAite lives on the part of LA close to Beverly Hills and not every Chicagoite lives in Downtown Loop or the Uppity North Shore. People arent moving from those places. In Chicago, people are moving from the South Side, which is a declining place. In Los Angeles, The sturggling East Side and Central LA is shedding the most people. In New York, Queens and Brooklyn shed the most people even though all five boroughs lost people. So yes, people who leave NYC are calling it disgusting because frankly, those areas they are leaving arent exactly .. not disgusting.

Sorry if that offends you, but until you actually live in one of those three cities you really have no room to say. I dont think that about every city, but those are the general reasons why.
good points. Also we need to consider this: for quite some time now, if you were dealing in strictly native born population and its off spring, both New York and Chicago's population have both been in decline for quite some time. Immigration numbers were high enough to more than off set the loss of Americans from these cities.

Reality tells us that both New York and Chicago are both (1) mature and (2) northern/cold winters and are not areas of growth. Nor will they be.

But you can run into a real problem if you look at population numbers as a metric. Population is highly flawed and is not some kind of linear comparison where more is always good, less is always bad and nobody "stands still".

This should be obvious. New York will never be anywhere near the world's largest city or the one with the tallest building(s). And that matters little. There are cities that can show success (at in defining it one way) by losing population. Manhattan's loss of population over the years from its 2,000,000 peak at the turn of the century generally suggests prosperity: lots of people with money but with few children, lots of households but they are small. Children are practically non-existient in San Francisco. That very successful city never has and never will go over a million in population; same is true with its east coast counterpart, Boston. And nobody in SF or Boston gives a rat's ass about what their population is. And you're not going to find a San Franciscan or Bostonian who consider San Jose, Phoenix, Indianapolis or Houston to be greater cities than their own. Sure, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but both SF and Bos can back up their arguments quite well.

Chicago loses population and gains in wealth and the idiots think the sky has fallen. It gets a bit tiring, but I don't think people in New York, Chicago, Boston, or San Francisco care much about what others think; they know they've got a great deal in their cities that they have a no need to compare.

While New York and Chicago are decidedly not Sun Belt, Los Angeles is....so it has a built in advantage over the other two. It is also an immigrant mecca. LA loses people on a general dissatisfaction of California in general and probably because LA has become too urban for the liking of many....people who migrate to other western states where the natives don't want any part of their californication.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2019, 03:49 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,536 posts, read 26,679,445 times
Reputation: 11930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pine to Vine View Post
The premise of the OP is completely wrong. America's 3 biggest metros are not shrinking.
Actually, the Census does show metro NYC's population declining YoY.

2016: 20,016,916
2017: 19,998,951
2018: 19,979,477
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2019, 06:59 PM
 
Location: Jersey City
2,739 posts, read 1,034,591 times
Reputation: 1955
I don’t really see this as a problem. It’s like when people say “oh no birth rates in x country are declining!”....and?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2019, 05:30 AM
 
Location: Chicago
6,341 posts, read 6,782,529 times
Reputation: 5705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valhallian View Post
I don’t really see this as a problem. It’s like when people say “oh no birth rates in x country are declining!”....and?
the only conclusion I can draw from this is that Country X is a strange thing to name a nation (although a highly appropriate flag could be designed for it). Then again, I would never name my child "John Doe'
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2019, 09:53 AM
 
128 posts, read 47,553 times
Reputation: 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade View Post
average economies, reaching capacity. crowded. lessened immigration/dispersed immigration/critical mass immigration in other metros

Why go to LA if you can go to cheaper, no traffic San Bernadino or Vegas?

Why go to NYC if you can go to cleaner, better economy Boston? Or cheaper, Philly?

Why go to Chicago if you can go to Safer, better economy Minneapolis?
LOL.... no one considers Minneapolis when considering Chicago. They consider exburbs in Indiana. Additionally, no one considers Boston when considering NYC. They consider NE Jersey. Your LA comparison is accurate.

Telecommuting, remote working and satellite offices have decreased the need to live within city and metro boundaries.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2019, 10:27 AM
 
Location: Greater Boston (Formerly Orlando and New York)
697 posts, read 270,660 times
Reputation: 716
Quote:
Originally Posted by innocentIpromise View Post
LOL.... no one considers Minneapolis when considering Chicago. They consider exburbs in Indiana. Additionally, no one considers Boston when considering NYC. They consider NE Jersey. Your LA comparison is accurate.

Telecommuting, remote working and satellite offices have decreased the need to live within city and metro boundaries.
I cant speak for Chicago or LA to an extent... but the #1 city New Yorkers are looking into moving to is Boston. In all fairness, Boston is doing a lot better right now than New York and that was the first place I looked into when leaving New York. A lot of New Yorkers consider Philly too for a low COL while still being near home. Additionally, When I went to college in NY a few years ago (less than 5), many people would be stuck between Boston or NY to move to for jobs. Even friends back home consider NY when considering to move to Boston as well. The cities are very close to eachother and residents weigh out the two much more than you might think.


Again, you really cant make these claims if you havent lived in / experienced the city you are talking about.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2019, 10:43 AM
 
Location: Miami, The Magic City
3,030 posts, read 2,124,700 times
Reputation: 2066
Fair article:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.for...yre-going/amp/

State-wise, seems like more NY’ers are moving to FL than MA:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/streete...ve-places/amp/
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2019, 01:08 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
5,394 posts, read 13,094,974 times
Reputation: 5428
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade View Post
average economies, reaching capacity. crowded. lessened immigration/dispersed immigration/critical mass immigration in other metros

Why go to LA if you can go to cheaper, no traffic San Bernadino or Vegas?

Why go to NYC if you can go to cleaner, better economy Boston? Or cheaper, Philly?

Why go to Chicago if you can go to Safer, better economy Minneapolis?
In these cases you get what you pay for. In the case of San Bernadino, it's not safer than LA. Little to no public transportation, traffic is a mess out there too. Much hotter. Cheaper housing but I wouldn't want to live 63 miles from LA.
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.


 

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.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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