Pittsburgh VS Cleveland (Erie, Valley View, Penn: skyscrapers, showing, hospitals)

[Katiana]

JoeP Cities like San Antonio are sprawling in annexed land area, so saying that it is less sprawling because a higher percentage lives within city limits is as useless as comparing city limits alone. Most of sprawling cities like San Antonio are not urban. These sprawling "cities" have small urban cores and have been fortunate to annex suburban development within their political boundaries.

Pittsburgh is an even odder one for this because a fair amount of the non city population lives in communities that are not suburbs, they are communities that were born from industry along the rivers well before cars were king.

I didn't say San Antonio was "less sprawling". I said some might use the statistics to support that postion. I actually said that I doubted it, though I have never been there.

Pittsburgh has an inner ring of suburbs that were not old mill towns, esp. in the north and south hills, Fox Chapel and Mt. Lebanon being one example in each area.

[boardmanite]

With this post, I intend to unequivocally end the Pittsburgh vs Cleveland debate. I was walking down Murray Ave in Sq Hill with my parents (and keep in mind that my dad has no fashion sense what-so-ever and my mom picks out his clothes), and we were discussing the whole Pittsburgh vs Cleveland thing. While we were waiting to cross at an intersection, my dad gets a serious look on his face, leans in, and says very softly: "You know, I'm not too crazy about Pittsburgh, myself. People from Cleveland dress A LOT better than what I'm seeing around here."

So there you have it! Cleveland is hands-down the better city because my dad, the fashion expert, thinks that Pittsburghers have no sense of style.

[Katiana]

I think you are correct. My DH, the Nebraskan, once said he thought people in Pgh dressed very "comfortably".

[barneyg]

Originally Posted by pittnurse70

I think you are correct. My DH, the Nebraskan, once said he thought people in Pgh dressed very "comfortably".

You guys obviously have never been to Providence

[Katiana]

Originally Posted by barneyg

You guys obviously have never been to Providence

Drove through it.

[supersoulty]

An honest assesment:

Topographically:

Pittsburgh is hilly and has three rivers... well, acctually, only two if you really think about it, but....

Cleveland is flat and has a lake, and one river, which once caught fire. No... if was not stuff floating on the river which caught fire... THE RIVER caught fire.

When you approuch Cleveland, you can literally see it coming for miles, as there is nothing to obstruct your view of the city... no hills, few trees. Pittsburgh hits you. One second there isn't much, then its just there.

But, that stuff is pretty obvious.

Climate: I lived in Erie, PA for 5 years, I figure Cleveland is very much the same. Basically, you get 4 beautiful months every year, during the summer and early autum. There is no Spring. The other 8 months are drab, dreary and either rainy or snowy.

The temperature doesn't acctually get cold enough to sustain snow until late December. This is because it takes that long for the lake to cool down. Once the lake does cool down, however, you usually get hit with one or two huge blizzards, this is because the risidual moisture in the atmosphere waits that long to cool into snow. Once it does, you get dumped on.

After that, you have the occational snow storm, but no blizzards. The frozen lake creates a sort of "frozen tundra" effect and you get very harsh winds that blow in off of it. It is not uncommon for the temperature to drop to below zero on the F scale.

As I mentioned, there is no Spring. Once the lake begins to heat back up in early April, you get one or two more "good bye" blizzards, which might happen as late as early May. Between March and June, temperature changes occur constantly, and without warning. A 55 degree morning can easily turn into a 30 degree afternoon.

Sometime around mid-June, the lake finally warms completely, and you have the four months of nice weather. The transition from "crappy and unpredictable" to "stable" summer weather usually happens in just a couple of days... in fact, you can usually march on the calander the exact day it took place.

Pittsburgh, on the other hand, has normal weather patterns.

Crime: Pittsburgh has a much lower crime rate.

Transit: Cleveland beats Pittsburgh here. The topography of Pittsburgh is very prohibitive, and that makes the city very hard to get around in. I have been going there my whole life (though I won't live there until December) and it is still the only city in which I find driving to be intimidating (and I have driven through Cleveland, Buffalo, Washington DC, New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore and several smaller cities). Many of the locals can't even find there way around very well. Public transit is improving, but is still lacking.

Health: Pittsburgh still has some problems with air pollution, but they aren't nearly as bad as they used to be. Cleveland has less air pollution, but, as I mentioned before, other forms of pollution are pretty bad. Pittsburgh is home to one of the best collection of hospitals and medical research centers in the world.

Population: Cleveland is a larger city, but, depending on how you measure, Pittsburgh has the larger metro area. There is currently a dispute over what counties should be included in the Pittsburgh metro... I have a feeling that the larger perspective will win out in the 2010 census.

Entertainment: Well, Pittsburgh has Kennywood, Sandcastle, and teams that have acctually won a championship or two in the last 20 years. Along with that, they have world class museums, orchestras, opera, theaters. Compared to Pittsburgh, Cleveland's are second rate, or, in the case of the Browns, third rate. If you acctually want to enjoy a football game in person, though, I would imagine it would be easier and cheaper to get Browns tickets... in fact, I don't imagine, I know, I had tickets to go to the game today, but couldn't make it.

Government: I dont know much about city government in Cleveland, but Pittsburgh's in a bit of a mess right now. Bob O'Connor was seen as a savior and, well, saviors die and unfortunatly, O'Connor died after about five seconds in office. Luke Ravenstal (Mayor Oppie) is unlikely to win re-election, being young enough to still be in college and having little in the way of an agenda or political backing. We'll have to see where that goes. It's also hard to get the City and the County to agree on anything.

Neighborhoods: Pittsburgh has a much higher diversity of neighborhoods than does Cleveland, and most have maintained their identity pretty well.

Nightlife: Ever since the project to reinvigorate the South Side started up the quality of Pittsburgh's nightlife has shot through the roof. There are all-kinds of different bars, eateries and clubs throughout the city, but particularly in that district. Cleveland is about average as cities its size go.

If I think of anything else, I'll post it.

[Katiana]

Cleveland is flat and has a lake, and one river, which once caught fire. No... if was not stuff floating on the river which caught fire... THE RIVER caught fire.

I believe it was the oil on top of the water that caught on fire.

Pittsburgh, on the other hand, has normal weather patterns.

Depends on how you define "normal". Pittsburgh does have a fabulous fall. Probably why I like fall so much, even though I don't live there any more. Per City-Data: Cleveland has more sunshine throughout the year than Pittsburgh, though it's still a pretty cloudy place. "Indian Summer" in Pittsburgh can last until well into November. Most winters are not harsh. I recall more rain than snow, and up and down temperatures. Short spring, warm to hot humid summer. Summer weather can last well into September.

Pittsburgh is better, though. It just is. LOL!

[guylocke]

I believe it was the oil on top of the water that caught on fire.

Yes, you would defy all science if you could ignite actual WATER. They've been trying for a long long time. But then....... ACTUALLY, as a pure and amazing coincidence as this is, I just read in today's Post Gazette a man from Erie using what he perceived to be some sort of cancer technology ignited salt water!!!

So many scientists called him full of crap until they saw and it and it's true!! This technology could change the world. And I'm talking CHANGE THE WORLD!! Let's hope all this research (which is now in conjunction with Pitt) stays local! My god, MY GOD, the possibilities.

Essentially, by accident, he found a way to separate and burn the hydrogen atoms off of the salt water at an amazing level of energy. I'm sure you will hear a lot about it soon.

Can you imagine using the most abundant resource on earth to power homes, cars, and anything else that currently requires any sort of fuel and as pure and clean energy?

[supersoulty]

Originally Posted by boylocke

Yes, you would defy all science if you could ignite actual WATER. They've been trying for a long long time. But then....... ACTUALLY, as a pure and amazing coincidence as this is, I just read in today's Post Gazette a man from Erie using what he perceived to be some sort of cancer technology ignited salt water!!!

So many scientists called him full of crap until they saw and it and it's true!! This technology could change the world. And I'm talking CHANGE THE WORLD!! Let's hope all this research (which is now in conjunction with Pitt) stays local! My god, MY GOD, the possibilities.

Essentially, by accident, he found a way to separate and burn the hydrogen atoms off of the salt water at an amazing level of energy. I'm sure you will hear a lot about it soon.

Can you imagine using the most abundant resource on earth to power homes, cars, and anything else that currently requires any sort of fuel and as pure and clean energy?

No... the composition of the river itself was acctually so heavy with flamable chemicals that the river did, indeed catch fire. Not just the top.

[supersoulty]

To clearify... when they went to investigate and try to put it out, they discovered that it was, in fact, buring from the river bottom to the surface.

Now, mind you, the time I am refering to was the first time it caught fire during the 1970's. It had caught fire in the 1930's, but then it was, as you said, just the stuff floating on the top. It also caught fire other times after the time I am refring to, but again, it was just the top layer.

This was not a top layer, as it continued to burn long after the top had burned off.