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.
If you look at the part that says "population percent change, 2000-2010" you'll see a number that says "-1.5%". Again, "-1.5%".
I actually just drove from NYC to syracuse after flying into laguardia a week and a half ago (had to drop off a friend who's family lives in dewitt). A touch over 5 hours. And even if it were 3-4 hours, my point was that you can't exactly gander on down to philadelphia for the afternoon just because Syracuse is a little bit farther east than the other metros. That's like saying you'll go to NYC more often if you live in Rochester than syracuse. It's not "much closer".
RollsRoyce, in reference to the affluceny discussion; Highest-income metropolitan statistical areas in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (I realize that it's a wikipedia article, but it's just a table compiled with direct reference to census data to make it easier to read). Rochester MSA has a median household income of $43,955. Albany-schenectady-troy lies about two spots down at $43,250. Not a difference you would exactly notice walking around the two places, but it is the difference between #2 most affluent msa in NYS and 3#. Albany per capita income is about 1k higher than rochester, you can use that to say it's more affluent, I'm just with the crowd that usually uses median income per family instead of income per capita because I think that the dispersion of incomes in family units to different family members that may not be employed persay (kids, unemployed spouses etc.) better depicts actual wealth per person than per-capita income. If you add a substantially larger regional gdp with larger median family income, you get the numbers that many people (not just me) use to say rochester is the second wealthiest msa in NY, i'm not just throwing that phrase around. I don't know if you were suggesting that those salary-per-job statistics were in any way a good indicator of a region's affluence; since a huge chunk of actual wealth comes from personal stock portfolios, as well as propietary business ownership and other types of income that dont involve a salary the salary figures are useless to depict the wealth of a metro. When discussing rochester, buffalo and syracuse, Rochester lies about 60 cities ahead of the other two in terms of both per-capita income and median income. There's many ways to measure the distribution of weath. Nobody's arguing that if you applied a gini coeffecient to rochester personal or family median income levels you would see a particuarly egalitarian picture. That's just life in the US. I also don't think you should speculate on the origin of the wealth in rochester, claiming that Rochester's higher median family income levels come from "old money" that was "inherited" by people. There's no evidence to support that whatsoever; I feel like you based that statement on the age-old perception that Rochester is white-collar while other upstate cities are bluecollar-therefore there must be old, rich families of bluebloods all over the place. I can assure you that there aren't. Like Albany's impressive growth in the high-tech industrial sector, most of the money that sets rochester apart (albeit by a slim marigin) from syracuse and buffalo is a result of expansive medical, optics and other science and technology-related research funded by state grants and private endowments at UR and RIT. There are also quite a few high-paying jobs at Xerox, Bausch and Lomb and many other companies. Neither of those two larger ones are dead yet (Bausch and Lomb's private acquisition also saw increased profits and several hundred added jobs in Rochester and Xerox still maintains it's largest workforce at the tower in downtown rochester, it's just not headquartered there anymore). Idk why I'm even comparing rochester and albany, this thread is specifically titled "Buffalo-Rochester-Syracuse" and it's a WNY discussion...
Goodness that was a bit of typing lol. Anyways to wrap this up I wasn't claiming that rochester was rolling in riches, nor that it was really THAT much wealthier than it's neighbors in buffalo or syracuse, merely disputing the claim that it was poorer than those two just because kodak went under. I don't like to see people just assume that the fate of a 1 million+ strong metropolitan area is intertwined with that of one single company which hasn't even been profitable in thirty years; every single one of those years the MSA added people. I'm sure people from buffalo don't like the assumption that everyone there is an unemployed steel factory worker, and while I don't actually know what syracuse was famous for in its heyday i'm sure that the current state of the economy has little to do with whatever it was...
Everyone in Syracuse is an unemployed Franklin Car Company employee.
I think Syracuse will have a slight benefit long-term being closer to the east coast megalopolis cities over the other two. Whoever said Syracuse is 3.5 - 4 hours from NYC must have been driving 90 mph. Whether you take Route 17 up to I-81 or take the interstates, its 5 hours to NYC proper. Still Rochester is 6+ and Buffalo is 7+ and that makes a difference. Syracuse is 1.5 hours closer to the where all the wealth is concentrated, and is at the crossroads of 2 major interstates. Don't forget I-81 goes from Tennessee to Canada, and I-90 goes from Boston to Seattle; huge trucking routes. It matters. Even the Scranton Wilkes-Barre area, which is even closer, would be a Pennsylvania hick backwater coal area were it not for the fact that its 3 hrs from NYC and does get some limited spillover.
From the Holland Tunnel, I take I-78 West to Route 33 North in the Lehigh Valley. From there, I-80 West, to I-380 North, to I-81 North. Avoiding Route 80 in NJ is key- its a parking lot. Its also slow and twisty through the Delaware Water Gap. And Route 33 moves fast like an interstate, no lights. Best I've done in the middle of the night is 4 hours 50 minutes.
Sometimes I take Route 17 up to I-81, if I'm in no rush, as its pretty scenic.
If you look at the part that says "population percent change, 2000-2010" you'll see a number that says "-1.5%". Again, "-1.5%".
I actually just drove from NYC to syracuse after flying into laguardia a week and a half ago (had to drop off a friend who's family lives in dewitt). A touch over 5 hours. And even if it were 3-4 hours, my point was that you can't exactly gander on down to philadelphia for the afternoon just because Syracuse is a little bit farther east than the other metros. That's like saying you'll go to NYC more often if you live in Rochester than syracuse. It's not "much closer".
RollsRoyce, in reference to the affluceny discussion; Highest-income metropolitan statistical areas in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (I realize that it's a wikipedia article, but it's just a table compiled with direct reference to census data to make it easier to read). Rochester MSA has a median household income of $43,955. Albany-schenectady-troy lies about two spots down at $43,250. Not a difference you would exactly notice walking around the two places, but it is the difference between #2 most affluent msa in NYS and 3#. Albany per capita income is about 1k higher than rochester, you can use that to say it's more affluent, I'm just with the crowd that usually uses median income per family instead of income per capita because I think that the dispersion of incomes in family units to different family members that may not be employed persay (kids, unemployed spouses etc.) better depicts actual wealth per person than per-capita income. If you add a substantially larger regional gdp with larger median family income, you get the numbers that many people (not just me) use to say rochester is the second wealthiest msa in NY, i'm not just throwing that phrase around. I don't know if you were suggesting that those salary-per-job statistics were in any way a good indicator of a region's affluence; since a huge chunk of actual wealth comes from personal stock portfolios, as well as propietary business ownership and other types of income that dont involve a salary the salary figures are useless to depict the wealth of a metro. When discussing rochester, buffalo and syracuse, Rochester lies about 60 cities ahead of the other two in terms of both per-capita income and median income. There's many ways to measure the distribution of weath. Nobody's arguing that if you applied a gini coeffecient to rochester personal or family median income levels you would see a particuarly egalitarian picture. That's just life in the US. I also don't think you should speculate on the origin of the wealth in rochester, claiming that Rochester's higher median family income levels come from "old money" that was "inherited" by people. There's no evidence to support that whatsoever; I feel like you based that statement on the age-old perception that Rochester is white-collar while other upstate cities are bluecollar-therefore there must be old, rich families of bluebloods all over the place. I can assure you that there aren't. Like Albany's impressive growth in the high-tech industrial sector, most of the money that sets rochester apart (albeit by a slim marigin) from syracuse and buffalo is a result of expansive medical, optics and other science and technology-related research funded by state grants and private endowments at UR and RIT. There are also quite a few high-paying jobs at Xerox, Bausch and Lomb and many other companies. Neither of those two larger ones are dead yet (Bausch and Lomb's private acquisition also saw increased profits and several hundred added jobs in Rochester and Xerox still maintains it's largest workforce at the tower in downtown rochester, it's just not headquartered there anymore). Idk why I'm even comparing rochester and albany, this thread is specifically titled "Buffalo-Rochester-Syracuse" and it's a WNY discussion...
Goodness that was a bit of typing lol. Anyways to wrap this up I wasn't claiming that rochester was rolling in riches, nor that it was really THAT much wealthier than it's neighbors in buffalo or syracuse, merely disputing the claim that it was poorer than those two just because kodak went under. I don't like to see people just assume that the fate of a 1 million+ strong metropolitan area is intertwined with that of one single company which hasn't even been profitable in thirty years; every single one of those years the MSA added people. I'm sure people from buffalo don't like the assumption that everyone there is an unemployed steel factory worker, and while I don't actually know what syracuse was famous for in its heyday i'm sure that the current state of the economy has little to do with whatever it was...
CKThankgod never stated the population of the city of Syracuse increased over the past decade - he specifically noted that the Syracuse Metropolitan Area registered population growth (increase of 12,000 people). In your rebuttal, you conveniently omit population information encompassing the Syracuse MSA, and exclusively focus on the city, even though no one claimed that Syracuse was growing in population. By your own admission, you state Rochester's population has been sliding for decades, yet the overall MSA has grown and therefore Rochester is a growing area. I didn't see the memo that net population growth in the Syracuse MSA was not considered “growth†as well.
By the way, Syracuse only lost 0.9% of its population, due to a miscalculation involving one of the Census tracts that was accidently assigned to the adjacent town of DeWitt.
In regard to the purported affluence of the Rochester area - you do realize that the "Wikipedia" table containing median and per capita income by MSA you attached is from the 2000 Census and is therefore irrelevant.
I also checked the U.S Census Bureau's American Community Factfinder for median household income information using one and three year estimates (2010) and (2008-2010) According to the 2010 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S Census, the median household income in the Rochester MSA was just $50,211 compared with $55,796 in Albany. This is based on a one year estimate in 2010 inflation adjusted dollars. If you look at data that reflects an average of three year estimates (2008-2010), the median household income in the Rochester MSA is $51,424 compared with $57,559 in the Albany MSA. Both metrics show Rochester with a lower median household income. Take your pick.
Albany was mentioned in this thread because you made the inaccurate claim that Rochester was the second wealthiest MSA when you wrote the following in Post 26, "This is supported by the fact that greater rochester is the second wealthiest metro in the state after new york."
Per earlier statistics, this is no longer true. Albany now has that distinction. If you wanted this to be a "WNY forum" that didn't compare other metro areas in the state, than perhaps you should have made this post in the Buffalo or Rochester forums.
You stated earlier that I shouldn't speculate on the origin of wealth in Rochester as it relates to the region's current demographic picture. Historic information is sometimes pertinent to understand certain attributes of a metro area and the foundation of certain legacy industries, companies and institutions that continue to or no longer play a pivotal role. I never made a specific correlation that the current median household income is reflective of inherited wealth. To be honest, I gave the historic background of Rochester’s former industrial prominence to explain why some would assume the area is still classified as “wealthy†by upstate standards. There are certainly some nice suburbs and affluent enclaves in Greater Rochester, however anyone who has visited or lived in the wealthy suburbs surrounding major cities would hardly consider Rochester as being wealthy. I grew up in a town in Westchester County with considerably more wealth than Pittsford or Mendon. I actually prefer the suburbs southeast of Rochester and can certainly understand why successful professionals that want a more laid back existence would find Rochester to be an attractive place to live and raise a family. I had several; much older extended family members relocate to Rochester when the area had a larger concentration of corporate jobs . While they all ended up moving out-of-state, they really liked living in the area.
As to your opinion that people continue to have this perception that Rochester is teaming with bluebloods and other people that are independently wealthy – I suggest you get over yourself. The economic upheaval in Rochester and upstate New York over the past half century has led to the offspring of many of these wealthy families to relocate to major metropolitan areas and fast growing communities in the south and west. Some said families retain vacation homes in the Finger Lakes, Thousand Islands, and Adirondacks regions, but for tax purposes live elsewhere. Quite frankly, no one outside of some older blue collar folk in Buffalo and Syracuse and delusional cheerleaders like Sandy Parker believe Rochester is this vastly superior, highly affluent, major metropolitan area that for some inexplicable reason was placed in barren upstate New York near the “inferior†cities of Buffalo and Syracuse. The well entrenched, smug mentality that Rochester is “different†from all of upstate New York and the state’s horrible business climate, onerous taxes, flight of the best and brightest, and political corruption has not impacted the Flower City and its environs is humorous.
In the last year, Rochester has performed well economically and outpaced the state and nation in job growth. That being said, to put Rochester on this towering pedestal while at the same time mentioning that neighboring cities along the Thruway are vastly inferior (implicit or not) would be highly inaccurate. During Rochester’s heyday (and I wasn’t alive during that time), by all measures Rochester was far superior to any other city in upstate New York in almost every measure. The differences between Rochester and its neighboring Thruway cities of Buffalo and Syracuse have lessened in recent years, much to the chagrin of people like “EastofWest.â€
Mapquest lists Syracuse as 4½ to 5 hours from NYC.
I've found them to be pretty accurate on short trips like that. On longer trips it gets tough because gas, peeing and food take up time they don't factor.
Couple weeks ago I hit the home button on my GPS and it said 3100 miles to go. Time was like 1 day 23 hours or some such. Took abit longer then that.
That is within city limits. To use that to compare other cities in other parts of the country is apples vs. oranges, as many of those other cities can annex surrounding communities or land. I'm talking about metro areas, as many people are just moving to the suburbs. This is what I'm talking about: US2010
Cities like Watertown, Utica, Albany, Troy, Schenectady and Ithaca, along with some other smaller cities in Upstate Ny, actually added people within city limits between 2000-2010.
ckthankgod, the only thing i mentioned that was specific to city limits was the syracuse growth factor, in response to an earlier claim that the city of syracuse was growing in contrast to "other upstate cities". I mean most of these metros (except buffalo, i think) are growing while their urban core either shrinks or stagnates. All of the three major WNY cities, buffalo, rochester, and syracuse, experience population loss from 2000-2010.
I routinely get from syracuse to midtown in 3.5 hours, driving at 75mph (same for philly). If traffic is tough then an hour can easily be added, but on a clear day, 3.5 no problem. Not sure how it can take someone 5 hours in good weather and no traffic. I think mapquest has it at 4 hrs, 15 minutes or something like that - and thats at 65mph - so do a little simple math and theres your answer.
I routinely get from syracuse to midtown in 3.5 hours, driving at 75mph (same for philly). If traffic is tough then an hour can easily be added, but on a clear day, 3.5 no problem. Not sure how it can take someone 5 hours in good weather and no traffic. I think mapquest has it at 4 hrs, 15 minutes or something like that - and thats at 65mph - so do a little simple math and theres your answer.
Anyways, definately 3.5.
Ok, but that seems pretty quick. Google Maps puts the route I take at 4 hrs, 42 minutes, and like I said, I've done it in 4 hrs, 50 mins. Of course I like to drink a lot of Timmy Ho's Coffee on the way home, so I account for a few more bathroom breaks. I also usually do 60 - 65 because of all the deer.
ckthankgod, the only thing i mentioned that was specific to city limits was the syracuse growth factor, in response to an earlier claim that the city of syracuse was growing in contrast to "other upstate cities". I mean most of these metros (except buffalo, i think) are growing while their urban core either shrinks or stagnates. All of the three major WNY cities, buffalo, rochester, and syracuse, experience population loss from 2000-2010.
That's why I said to just use city limits as an indication of growth/decline for cities/areas not just in Upstate NY, but the Northeast due to limits put on them to annex, is apples to oranges in comparison to cities in other regions, for the most part.
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 06-13-2012 at 06:08 AM..
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.
