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.
Status:
"Worship the Earth, Worship Love, not Imaginary Gods"
(set 1 day ago)
Location: Houston, TX/Detroit, MI
8,361 posts, read 5,525,023 times
Reputation: 12314
Advertisements
CD places such a high priority on urbanity and walkability. In the real world, very few factor that in to making life decisions. Some do, but not nearly to the degree people on here do.
Detroit and really other Rust Belt cities get their share of antagonists on here, but usually on their local forums.
I think the only thing that really gets "romanticized" about them are their built environment and relative affordability while still having some walkable neighborhoods that are viable, but they also have their share of people that aren't fans of them or are indifferent.
I do also think that people assume that they are all still uniformly run down or strictly industrial, when that is also further from the truth.
The degree is which Rust belt cities have more urban neighborhoods than Sunbelt cities is shrinking rapidly though.
I feel like people judge Cleveland, Pittsburgh Buffalo and Detroit as if it was 1949 not 2019. Especially the firmer two probably were not pleasant places to live with all the pollution back then anyway.
CD places such a high priority on urbanity and walkability. In the real world, very few factor that in to making life decisions. Some do, but not nearly to the degree people on here do.
Agreed 100%. I personally value urbanity, walkability, mixed-use zoning, etc.
Most Americans? As long as they can drive their SUV's to Walmart, work, and Applebee's in a relatively brief amount of time they're happy campers.
As such this forum heavily tilts towards favoring historic pre-automobile cities like Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, NYC, etc. while disproportionately slamming Phoenix, Charlotte, Houston, etc. Meanwhile the "reality" is that far, far more people are moving to the sprawling haphazard Sunbelt cities while places like Pittsburgh continue to empty out showing most couldn't care less about walkability.
Agreed 100%. I personally value urbanity, walkability, mixed-use zoning, etc.
Most Americans? As long as they can drive their SUV's to Walmart, work, and Applebee's in a relatively brief amount of time they're happy campers.
As such this forum heavily tilts towards favoring historic pre-automobile cities like Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, NYC, etc. while disproportionately slamming Phoenix, Charlotte, Houston, etc. Meanwhile the "reality" is that far, far more people are moving to the sprawling haphazard Sunbelt cities while places like Pittsburgh continue to empty out showing most couldn't care less about walkability.
I think Houston gets its due, here. Austin doesn’t. I don’t know a lot about Phoenix, and no one I know irl speaks highly of it. Phoenix seems like a city of the 90s and ‘00s, to me.
The degree is which Rust belt cities have more urban neighborhoods than Sunbelt cities is shrinking rapidly though.
I feel like people judge Cleveland, Pittsburgh Buffalo and Detroit as if it was 1949 not 2019. Especially the firmer two probably were not pleasant places to live with all the pollution back then anyway.
Buffalo also had a big steel industry in nearby Lackawanna and Detroit did as well in the River Rouge/Ecorse area in the Downriver portion of the metro.
With that said, that is partially why those cities/areas grew at the time, as the work at those plants gave many people a chance at getting into the middle class.
I think the thing with these cities is that they are legacy cities, that still have a lot of the things that were started back then, but have also seen some revitalization in some parts of the city in recent years as well. So, they have things that places now many times bigger have, but also at a relatively lower cost.
Also, to address the sprawl/walkability thing, what I've also noticed is that while many in real life like to drive, I've also seen where people like to drive as long as the area is more compact. Meaning, there are some that don't mind driving from their suburb to the city, if the city is only 20/30/40 square miles in size. I say this because I've meet people that mention the sprawl of the Sunbelt areas, but still live in suburbs of Northeastern/Midwestern areas that are generally viewed as being more "compact" or have relatively short commutes.
CD places such a high priority on urbanity and walkability. In the real world, very few factor that in to making life decisions. Some do, but not nearly to the degree people on here do.
It does have some significant value though, hence why the vast majority of developed cities around the world (including modern ones) are built the way they are. Having the option to not have to hop in your car and drive across town on the highway to get to those mid-afternoon meetings can have a huge impact on quality of life in a city.
Agreed 100%. I personally value urbanity, walkability, mixed-use zoning, etc.
Most Americans? As long as they can drive their SUV's to Walmart, work, and Applebee's in a relatively brief amount of time they're happy campers.
As such this forum heavily tilts towards favoring historic pre-automobile cities like Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, NYC, etc. while disproportionately slamming Phoenix, Charlotte, Houston, etc. Meanwhile the "reality" is that far, far more people are moving to the sprawling haphazard Sunbelt cities while places like Pittsburgh continue to empty out showing most couldn't care less about walkability.
Corporate America steers migrations. They always did. When our Northern cities boomed and South to North migrations occurred. Mild winters a plus and factor to some. Retirements South add to the mx the North has far less of.
I think Pittsburgh is generally looked on pretty favorably here. I think the Pittsburgh home team has done a pretty good job over the last several years of selling it's transition. I think Austin is a bit oversold. Honestly I don't think any of the cities on your list
Although per your question I think the biggest gap between City-Data perception, and general perception would be with Sunbelt cities. I witness the most extreme statements regarding these places, the "city x blows city y out of the water" the "doesn't have any urban or cultural amenities". I can't even replicate the level of hyperbole and over blown extreme rhetoric used by some posters. It's pretty clear that urban academics find these places and their more auto-centric environments shameful. The general population has no concept or concern for such things, and most people I run into everyday don't have nearly the same perception as we do on here.
Phoenix
LA
Atlanta
Dallas
Houston
Jacksonville
Charlotte
Indianapolis
Columbus
Tampa
Orlando....Would be my list.
There is no shortage of cities to put on this list. Los Angeles is so clearly and obviously disproportionately slammed on here, the CD perception is way left of reality...
Richmond being viewed as this stagnant sleepy town that parades the Confederacy is not just left of reality, its completely out of touch. Completely...
Plenty of help from CD Raleigh boosters on this, but the idea that "Raleigh" is really the CSA and this belongs in the same class as cities like Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Charlotte, is way outta bounds. It falls in line with the general standard here that population is the marker that trumps all, meet a certain size requirement, you must be smoking any city that is smaller...
Nearly two years ago I got the opportunity to spend 3-4 days apiece in Pittsburgh and Cleveland (not to mention a list of other cities in that size class I've been to). It is embarrassingly laughable to say Raleigh belongs there...
And the boosting of Legacy Cities here is epic, compared to Sunbelt or generally non-Legacy Cities. It's been at worse levels than it's been in recent months, but the perception/reality valve has been off on that one many, many times...
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands
Which cities have the biggest gap between the way they’re generally perceived, and the way they are perceived on this site?
I’m leaning towards Pittsburgh and Austin, going in different directions.
Great thread topic, by the way...
Quote:
Originally Posted by As Above So Below...
CD places such a high priority on urbanity and walkability. In the real world, very few factor that in to making life decisions. Some do, but not nearly to the degree people on here do.
I don't know about cities, but people on here have made wildly inaccurate comments about New England.
There was a thread a long time ago where posters were going on about Connecticut being full of villages, hamlets and forests and for the most part being largely devoid of the sprawl that exists throughout vasts parts of this great land. A poster who grew up there had to chime in and inform everyone that Connecticut in fact has a great deal of tract housing and a significant number of burnt out, post-industrial cities.
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.
