Rochester vs. Brooklyn - Where should we go? (New York, Greece: for sale, rent)

[sweetclimber]

Don't listen to shibanu, he/she has alot of bitterness for whatever reason. Pick Rochester over Brooklyn, Rochester is a great area, all the suburbs have excellent schools although the inner city could use definite improvement! The weather here, contrary to some is great most of the year, although snowy December through March. Tons of great things to see and do, culture and outdoors. The economy is kind of slow and the property taxes are high, but you would be in one of the best places to live in the country, better than Brooklyn or especially gasp! North Carolina.

[shibainu]

Originally Posted by jbertol2

Shibainu is just one of the naysayers that plague the Rochester area. This group of people is absolutely certain that Rochester is dying and forever will be. They are positive that Rochester is terrible, and have made it their personal agenda to attack those who live and are potentially moving here. I will admit that Rochester has seen some tough times, but we are an extremely resilient city. I'd even go so far to say that Rochester is beginning to turn around--the rate of loss of manufacturing jobs is growing ever slower, while the rate of jobs in other sectors are beginning to pick up.
Of course, that's just my positively-biased opinion.

In 1990 their were 124,100 people employed in manufacturing and in feb 2008 it is 71,100. So again their is not much more Rochester could lose. Oh and 1998 was the only year that was a job gain in the sector for the past 18 years.

New York State Department of Labor - ces employment

[I'minformed2]

I hate to break it to you....but there have been manufacturing losses accross the country...its is not a Rochester centric issue. And look at the total number of JOBS...not just manufacturing jobs...and the creation of jobs in other fields, especially medical, education, and service jobs have been growing at a rate that most of the time far outpaces the manufacturing losses. This is actually something that IS relatively unique to Rochester when you consider the huge net losses in jobs that other large manufacturing cities that had "all their enggs in one basket" so to speak, saw from the 60's to the 80's like Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Cleveland and Detroit. You do nothing but spin data and its just ridiculous and very thicheaded. Thanks for hijacking this thread btw...i'm sure the OP would REALLY appreicate your goal of trying to say the rest of us have our head in the clouds and to stear her away from Rochester.

I'll take part in Jbert's proposal too. If you can manage to say one genuine possitive thing about the Rochester area a day with no "but"...I'll also say one negative thing. Does that sound fair/manageable?


New York State Department of Labor - ces employment
ps...posted above are some actual numbers from the NYSDOL site that you posted the clearly show that the OVERALL number of jobs in Rochester has gone from 491k in 1990 (the earliest year that data is posted for) to 515k in 2008. The year with the lowest average number of jobs is 1992 with only 486k. So that means since 1992....back when Kodak Xerox and BL were much bigger than they are now but were shedding more jobs...the Rochester area made up for every job lost plus 29,000 more. I'm sure you will try and find some way to spin those statistics but if you'd like to retain any credibitly I'd suggest you not. In all reality chances are you will COMPLETELY ignore it and move on to some other thing to harp on about why Rochester is a bad place.

[shibainu]

Originally Posted by sweetclimber

Don't listen to shibanu, he/she has alot of bitterness for whatever reason. Pick Rochester over Brooklyn, Rochester is a great area, all the suburbs have excellent schools although the inner city could use definite improvement! The weather here, contrary to some is great most of the year, although snowy December through March. Tons of great things to see and do, culture and outdoors. The economy is kind of slow and the property taxes are high, but you would be in one of the best places to live in the country, better than Brooklyn or especially gasp! North Carolina.

Why do you say that? My response to the OP told them to read a book and weigh your options. I suggested not to pick rochester if you have a very specific job. For an example economist. There are not many economist jobs in rochester but their are many in NYC.

[I'minformed2]

The OP already has a job lined up in Rochester ...they don't need to worry about finding a field's previlence in Rochester vs. NYC. Perhaps if you had actually READ the original post and the information it gave and question it was asking...instead of feeling the need to "call out" the rest of us "pro-rochester" folks for our horrible lies in saying this is a nice place to live and there are posstiive things about the area...you would have known that.

[shibainu]

Originally Posted by I'minformed2

The OP already has a job lined up in Rochester ...they don't need to worry about finding a field's previlence in Rochester vs. NYC. Perhaps if you had actually READ the original post and the information it gave and question it was asking...instead of feeling the need to "call out" the rest of us "pro-rochester" folks for our horrible lies in saying this is a nice place to live and there are posstiive things about the area...you would have known that.

I read the OP. They did not tell us the Job that they have lined up. To me the field is important to know if they want to grow in their field. If all they want is the 84k job then take it. But what if the field they are in does not have many opportunties to advance in rochester. We do not know this because the author never told us.

Also the op states : Now, I know all of the positives and negatives about each city. "Rochester is a great place to raise kids but is declining." "NYC is no longer affordable to live, prices keep going up especially in real estate, it is dirty, not a great place to raise kids but there is so much going on as far as jobs, nightlife, culture, entertainment, etc."

I realize that all of this is probably pointing to Rochester but I guess I am wondering if you had all of these negative facts about each on the table, what would you do? We are trying to be smart long term (kids, job longevity, real estate ownership, quality of life, etc.) and I just don't want to make the wrong decision.

I guess I am not just the only one that sees that their are negative facts. That is why I can not give the OP the answer of brooklyn or Rochester. Even though I have experience them both. I told them to read articles and a book that is pretty good that would give them better direction than you or myself.

[shibainu]

Any Pro- Rochester posters live in NYC or Brooklyn?

[I'minformed2]

I'm sure there are atleast a few people who live in Brooklyn and other areas in and around NYC who would say Rochester is a nice place. But they aren't going to be nearly as common as people FROM Rochester who say those things...but that's just natural. It doesn't reflect negatively or possitively for this area beacuse it is just common sense. Most people who chose to live in an area...do so because they like living there and feel it is a good place to live. Therefore, when asked by an outsider if it is a good place, they are going to say yes and tell MOSTLY good things about it. This isn't misleading boosterism..its hometown pride and it is the trend you will see in most if not all of these state and regional forums.

[rochacha]

Originally Posted by shibainu

Oh by the way it still 44% of the year has a temp of 39 degrees or less.

Is that really true, or is the proper statement that 44% of the year has a LOW temperature of 39 degrees or less? I don't know about you, but this time of the year where it is 39 degrees at night and 65 during the day is hardly poor weather like you are spinning it as.

[shibainu]

Originally Posted by rochacha

Is that really true, or is the proper statement that 44% of the year has a LOW temperature of 39 degrees or less? I don't know about you, but this time of the year where it is 39 degrees at night and 65 during the day is hardly poor weather like you are spinning it as.

It is exactly as it states. 44% of the year has a temp. of 39 degree. Your the one spinning the temp. It is not every night that it is 39 degrees and 65 during the day. But lets look at that. If you suggest the night, What do you mean? Because until June we only get 10 to 11 hrs of light. If you look back at the last 5 weeks you could see that some days it got to a high 50 but majority of the day it was colder than 40 degrees. I understand this time of year is colder than summer but the last 4 week is spring. But For example if the high is around 3-5pm that is 2 hrs for the high temp. So If from 1am to around 9am and from 9pm to 11:59 it is around a temp of 40 or less. That would mean Half or possible half the day it was lower than the high and it is possible that the actual longest temp was 40 or below. An example is April 2008 High was 57 and the low was 24. From 1am to 10:30am it was 40 degrees or less. The actual High was from 3:30 to 4:30 and actual low was from 5:30am to 7am. From 1pm to 9pm it was 50 degrees or higher. So again my point is that the cold temp is longer than the warm. That is why the mean temp for that day was 41 degrees.

You also forget the temp could be like it is currently right now 42 degrees at 6:34 this morning but it actually feels like 37 degrees.