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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-01-2010, 04:21 PM
 
Location: St Paul, MN - NJ's Gold Coast
5,256 posts, read 11,956,143 times
Reputation: 3079

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 66nexus View Post
I mostly agree (and the potential is staggering). I definitely think the downtown has a lot of life in it...but perhaps not the kind of life that downtown wants lol.

But I must say, the kind of foot traffic that that Prudential arena brings in is more in Newark that I've ever seen in my life.
Definitely, The Prudential center and NJPAC are the anchor of Newark's visitors (other than commuters). Ironbound is awesome too and is gets a big college crowd. (Me included)

I wish Newark would provide a more scenic river walk area along the Passaic river. The Newark bay is already taken over by ugly shipping ports and crates, but Minish Park along the Passaic river is PATHETIC and ugly. I wish I was able to do something to beautify that "park", maybe I will someday .

Anything west of MLK Blvd is the big contributor to the high crime rate, and there's basically nothing there worth seeing/visiting. It is gradually getting better, but to be honest, a miracle would have to take place for people to look at Newark with a brighter perspective.. I have yet to meet someone in real life that knew anything positive about Newark. It's really a shame.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-01-2010, 07:35 PM
 
Location: The canyon (with my pistols and knife)
13,217 posts, read 17,945,732 times
Reputation: 14655
Three cities that drove me mild

1. San Diego, CA

Of all cities I've been to, San Diego fell shortest of my expectations. It seemed to be too low-key for a city its size, as if Los Angeles stole a lot of its ambiance.

2. Raleigh, NC

(I'd add Durham and Chapel Hill to this list as well.) If you turned all three cities in the Research Triangle into one larger city, then maybe it would work. As it is, everything is too decentralized, and even the college campuses underwhelmed me -- particularly Duke University.

3. Cincinnati, OH

Cincinnati reminds me of Pittsburgh in a lot of ways, but the one way it doesn't is the ambiance -- or in Cincinnati's case, the lack thereof.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2010, 08:27 PM
 
Location: The canyon (with my pistols and knife)
13,217 posts, read 17,945,732 times
Reputation: 14655
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock View Post
Why does NYC and Chicagos bad sections of their respective cities get overlooked yet Philadephias seem to get magnified, somehow erroneously swallowing the entire city?
My theory is that in New York and Chicago, you have large, cohesive swaths of "good" neighborhoods and large, cohesive swaths of "bad" neighborhoods. This not only makes it easier to avoid all the bad neighborhoods in each city, but it also makes the good neighborhoods look even better because they cover a whole lot of real estate in one very large section of town. In order to get from the good neighborhoods to the bad neighborhoods (and vice versa) in New York and Chicago, chances are you'd have to use a highway.

On the other hand, it's not that simple in Philadelphia. There are plenty of good and bad neighborhoods in Philadelphia just like there are in New York and Chicago, but the cohesion isn't (yet) there. In Philadelphia, it's possible to walk a few blocks and find yourself in a neighborhood that's either much better or much worse than the one you just left. Because of this, it's harder to avoid the bad neighborhoods in Philadelphia, and the good neighborhoods don't all exist in a bubble. In other words, gentrification in Philadelphia is much more geographically random than it is in New York or Chicago, where it's more geographically focused.

I think that if Philadelphia had an entire half of town that was good and and entire half of town that was bad, then more people would consider it "Chicago's little brother," but since the gentrification process in Philadelphia is so random and decentralized, most people still consider it "Baltimore's big brother." It also helps that New York and Chicago had head starts in gentrifying, being that they're regional hubs. Philadelphia's gentrification didn't begin in earnest until about 10 years later.

Last edited by Craziaskowboi; 07-01-2010 at 08:38 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2010, 08:32 PM
 
4,811 posts, read 8,809,417 times
Reputation: 2764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnutella View Post
Three cities that drove me mild

1. San Diego, CA

Of all cities I've been to, San Diego fell shortest of my expectations. It seemed to be too low-key for a city its size, as if Los Angeles stole a lot of its ambiance.
.
I'm suprised this is number one.

I forgot to add

San Francisco
Pittsburg, pensylvania
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2010, 08:42 PM
 
1,250 posts, read 2,115,798 times
Reputation: 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnutella View Post
My theory is that in New York and Chicago, you have large, cohesive swaths of "good" neighborhoods and large, cohesive swaths of "bad" neighborhoods. This not only makes it easier to avoid all the bad neighborhoods in each city, but it also makes the good neighborhoods look even better because they cover a whole lot of real estate in one very large section of town. In order to get from the good neighborhoods to the bad neighborhoods (and vice versa) in New York and Chicago, chances are you'd have to use a highway.

On the other hand, it's not that simple in Philadelphia. There are plenty of good and bad neighborhoods in Philadelphia just like there are in New York and Chicago, but the cohesion isn't (yet) there. In Philadelphia, it's possible to walk a few blocks and find yourself in a neighborhood that's either much better or much worse than the one you just left. Because of this, it's harder to avoid the bad neighborhoods in Philadelphia, and the good neighborhoods don't all exist in a bubble. In other words, gentrification in Philadelphia is much more geographically random than it is in New York or Chicago, where it's more geographically focused.

I think that if Philadelphia had an entire half of town that was good and and entire half of town that was bad, then more people would consider it "Chicago's little brother," but since the gentrification process in Philadelphia is so random and decentralized, most people still consider it "Baltimore's big brother." It also helps that New York and Chicago had head starts in gentrifying, being that they're regional hubs. Philadelphia's gentrification didn't begin in earnest until about 10 years later.
How many cities and metros are set up where the good and bad areas are random and those where it is clearly defined? I would think the latter might be more prominent nearly by design.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2010, 09:09 PM
 
Location: The canyon (with my pistols and knife)
13,217 posts, read 17,945,732 times
Reputation: 14655
Quote:
Originally Posted by imperialmog View Post
How many cities and metros are set up where the good and bad areas are random and those where it is clearly defined? I would think the latter might be more prominent nearly by design.
In Chicago it's not. Virtually every neighborhood north of I-290 is in good shape, while virtually every neighborhood south and east of I-55 is in bad shape. There seems to be a pretty strong dividing line across Chicago that separates the good neighborhoods from the bad.

As for New York, generally, the closer the neighborhoods are to Manhattan, the better, and the farther away they are from Manhattan, the worse.

In Philadelphia, the good neighborhoods are scattered all over the place, and so are the bad neighborhoods. This makes the bad neighborhoods harder to avoid than in New York and Chicago, and also makes the good neighborhoods seem like they're at risk even if they're not, because "OMG! Look at how trashy that nearby neighborhood is!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2010, 09:51 PM
 
Location: USA
2,779 posts, read 6,683,064 times
Reputation: 1866
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcee510 View Post
What do you mean SF seemed so old? It's the oldest city on the West Coast, ofcourse the city is old lol.

There is much much more to SF than Fishermans wharf. You have the Golden Gate Bridge, Golden Gate Park, Alcatraz, Union Square, China Town (the largest of it's kind in the nation), The De young, Cable Cars..... Seems like you really didn't do much while you were there.
Oh, I did all those things-they were fine. I did enjoy China Town, Union Square, etc. I only had 3 days there; it was a packed trip. I just thought that SF would look more like LA or SD or even Sacto, HaHa! My bad; I will admit I was pretty young at the time like around 33 or so. SF being the oldest city on the west coast does indeed live up to its reputation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2010, 05:24 AM
 
1,250 posts, read 2,115,798 times
Reputation: 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnutella View Post
In Chicago it's not. Virtually every neighborhood north of I-290 is in good shape, while virtually every neighborhood south and east of I-55 is in bad shape. There seems to be a pretty strong dividing line across Chicago that separates the good neighborhoods from the bad.

As for New York, generally, the closer the neighborhoods are to Manhattan, the better, and the farther away they are from Manhattan, the worse.

In Philadelphia, the good neighborhoods are scattered all over the place, and so are the bad neighborhoods. This makes the bad neighborhoods harder to avoid than in New York and Chicago, and also makes the good neighborhoods seem like they're at risk even if they're not, because "OMG! Look at how trashy that nearby neighborhood is!"
I know in St. Louis it tends to be more like New York and Chicago in thie regard, it also carries over into the suburbs. I am guessing that sort of pattern is the more common pattern at play. I don't know if this is a legacy of past housing practices at work in this but it would likely be not coincidental.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2010, 08:27 AM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
1,954 posts, read 4,503,111 times
Reputation: 1817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnutella View Post
My theory is that in New York and Chicago, you have large, cohesive swaths of "good" neighborhoods and large, cohesive swaths of "bad" neighborhoods. This not only makes it easier to avoid all the bad neighborhoods in each city, but it also makes the good neighborhoods look even better because they cover a whole lot of real estate in one very large section of town. In order to get from the good neighborhoods to the bad neighborhoods (and vice versa) in New York and Chicago, chances are you'd have to use a highway.

On the other hand, it's not that simple in Philadelphia. There are plenty of good and bad neighborhoods in Philadelphia just like there are in New York and Chicago, but the cohesion isn't (yet) there. In Philadelphia, it's possible to walk a few blocks and find yourself in a neighborhood that's either much better or much worse than the one you just left. Because of this, it's harder to avoid the bad neighborhoods in Philadelphia, and the good neighborhoods don't all exist in a bubble. In other words, gentrification in Philadelphia is much more geographically random than it is in New York or Chicago, where it's more geographically focused.

I think that if Philadelphia had an entire half of town that was good and and entire half of town that was bad, then more people would consider it "Chicago's little brother," but since the gentrification process in Philadelphia is so random and decentralized, most people still consider it "Baltimore's big brother." It also helps that New York and Chicago had head starts in gentrifying, being that they're regional hubs. Philadelphia's gentrification didn't begin in earnest until about 10 years later.
I think this is very true, and it's a fundamental difference I have noticed between Chicago and Philly. In Chicago it is almost impossible to stumble into a bad area from a good one. Philly gives me the impression that there are good and bad pockets all mixed together. New York is probably more like Chicago in this regard, but not as extreme to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2010, 09:36 PM
 
2,560 posts, read 5,268,449 times
Reputation: 764
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongHornGuy86 View Post
San Antonio, Texas: The Riverwalk is nice, downtown is nice and historic but the roads, highway system, and general layout is the WORST I've seen out of any city I've been in. The city is over run by Mexicans (many illegal), and it's just nothing but fields and fields outside city limits. It's a nice, slow, country place.

Cleveland, Ohio: Was at one point nice but slowly deteriorated

Detroit, Michigan: Can you say ghetto? Try not to get shot at, or carjacked, or robbed within a five mile radius of downtown. If you do make it out, try and avoid aggressive drivers (my parents almost died on three separate occassions driving through Detroit).
?
Gary, Indiana: Enough said.


San Antonio's freeway system is huge, one of the largest and is well maintained, not sure how you can say the layout is bad. The only bad thing would be that there always seems to be construction going on.

Yes there are lots of Mexican-Americans here, I'm one of them! Mexican Americans that contribute to San Antonio's sucess!

Fields and fields outside city limits? Possibly to the far south side where development is just taking off.
Bexar County, is the 19th most populous county in the U.S. and the county seat of San Antonio and it's core suburbs.
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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