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.
This is sort of a funny thread. People trying to boost their declining cities.
Reality is these places are either declining or stagnant. Dying or dead are probably too strong a term, but the boosting of ****-towns is pathetic yet entertaining. However, some of the ones on at at least one "dying cities" list, the one from Forbes, are actually more alive than one would except.
Two I recently visited, Buffalo and Scranton, are more interesting and lively vs dead and dying.
Scranton, espcially, since there are almost no dead or vacant neighborhoods...the kind of places one sees in Detroit with the urban prairies and vacant board-ups. The city is suprisingly intact.
Buffalo has those vacancies and abandonments, but Buffalo is also apparently actually rebuilding parts of the city with brand-new housing (the neighborhoods direclty east of downtown). The neatest thing about Buffalo is that the old residential neighborhoods to the north of downtown run direclty into the downtown area, without an intervening belt of urban-renewal no-mans-land. One can be on tree lined residential streets within just three or four blocks of the downtown.
I see a handful of people in those pics. How does that prove Youngstown is thriving and vibrant?
I didn't post those pictures to prove Youngstown is a "thriving and vibrant" city. (though it is vibrant in its own way, though certainly not thriving) I posted them to show that it is not dead, and is still a nice place, if only one chooses to see it that way.
How many cities of 72,000 really have a bustling downtown these days, anyway? If you exclude tourist destinations, I'd guess most do not.
um no the OP did not misinterpret anything. The fact that anyone can even call a city "dead" is beyond me. Decling and dead are two different things
Hmm...I'm going to move from saying you may have misinterpreted what others have said...to say you definitely misinterpreted what I was saying. There is definitely a difference between "declining" and "dead"...but in many cases I think people will describe declining cities as dead cities because outside of ghost towns in the Old West, I haven't seen a city that's 100% dead.
The closest thing we have to a truly "dead" city are cities like Detroit, Gary, etc. so they get that label (whether it's fair or not).
Location: Detroit's eastside, downtown Detroit in near future!
2,053 posts, read 4,392,349 times
Reputation: 699
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr
Hmm...I'm going to move from saying you may have misinterpreted what others have said...to say you definitely misinterpreted what I was saying. There is definitely a difference between "declining" and "dead"...but in many cases I think people will describe declining cities as dead cities because outside of ghost towns in the Old West, I haven't seen a city that's 100% dead.
The closest thing we have to a truly "dead" city are cities like Detroit, Gary, etc. so they get that label (whether it's fair or not).
Location: Detroit's eastside, downtown Detroit in near future!
2,053 posts, read 4,392,349 times
Reputation: 699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayton Sux
This is sort of a funny thread. People trying to boost their declining cities.
Reality is these places are either declining or stagnant. Dying or dead are probably too strong a term, but the boosting of ****-towns is pathetic yet entertaining. However, some of the ones on at at least one "dying cities" list, the one from Forbes, are actually more alive than one would except.
Two I recently visited, Buffalo and Scranton, are more interesting and lively vs dead and dying.
Scranton, espcially, since there are almost no dead or vacant neighborhoods...the kind of places one sees in Detroit with the urban prairies and vacant board-ups. The city is suprisingly intact.
Buffalo has those vacancies and abandonments, but Buffalo is also apparently actually rebuilding parts of the city with brand-new housing (the neighborhoods direclty east of downtown). The neatest thing about Buffalo is that the old residential neighborhoods to the north of downtown run direclty into the downtown area, without an intervening belt of urban-renewal no-mans-land. One can be on tree lined residential streets within just three or four blocks of the downtown.
if its so pathetic you could have easily skipped over this thread......good riddens
Nope and don't plan to. I know what's coming next, so don't bother making the post that I can't comment on Detroit since I've never been there...the fact of the matter is the city has lost roughly 51% of its population since the peak.
Again, I'm not saying Detroit is a "dead" city in the way you're thinking of it. But it is America's poster child for cities which have been hit by hard times...I'm not saying it can't come back...but can you tell me a major city which is in worse shape than Detroit?
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.
