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.
DavePA, I agree with some of what you say, but there's a "general/ overall impression" that tourists get when visiting the most visible parts of the city. It doesn't require deep analyses, it's just a general impression of cleanliness. This thread is excluding sun belt cities, but when you go to a city, without thinking too deeply there is a degree of overall cleanliness that you can detect. I think that's what this thread is trying to get out (more of the "overall feel").
Couldn't it apply to Sunbelt cities too?Since Austin is mentioned in theOP and LA has come up multiple times so far
I believe the issue in cleanliness level for a city, is a combo of factors not merely curb debris. It also gets a hit if its blocks have their;
sidewalks show as stained with grime build-up?
street-level appear tired and like it never gets true cleaning, restoration, or refreshed like getting a new awning pealed/scratched paint and damaged stone or brick left unrepaired?
grittines/tarnish level is high upon the actual buildings themselves that need not be?
buildings therefore look tired and worn and ask ourselves if it is still too high for a premier city?
do we see old steel gates to give a unsafe area look especially if shops are closed over the storefronts
Some cities and areas of others show attempts to remove layers of grit by restorations more complete. It makes a big impression if restoration, grime on sidewalks low and litter low. Being impressed is then what comes to mind.
These window and door gates even thru Manhattan. Do not flatter whatsoever to give a visitor good impressions. All these levels have a tarnished (pun intended) layer upon everything a visitor sees.
If I visit a city and scaffolding is up around it. Visit the next year or following one and it still is up? Seems the owners just do not want to safely restore what is necessary and allowed by that city long past a reasonable stretch to finish the work.
Debating debris along the curb is only one aspect of cleanliness level. in street-views ... we know just viewing at another date the same view. We can have the debris probably gone. So we can cherry-pick to defend a city or lessen it.
In that case Manhattan is quite "dirty". The bolded areas are where Boston falls short. And really overall I wouldn't call it Boston a notably clean city if were not talking absence of litter. Certainly dirtier than Washington Dc, no doubt. But cleaner than most albeit not threadworthy IMO
But there has been a slow removal of steel gates and covering over the years. I could find many examples on Street view.
It'd be interesting to do a study of New Englanders in general when it comes to things like litter and "tidiness." The region is uniquely well-cared for.
I do get a sense of very rigid attitudes about respect for public spaces in this area; people will pitch a fit about even the slightest bit of litter or being unkempt.
I think the Puritan influenced-culture definitely plays a role in terms of obsession with having a "proper" appearance.
Rhode Island and southeastern Massachusetts are fairly rundown and, in the urban areas, historically dirty.
Rhode Island and southeastern Massachusetts are fairly rundown and, in the urban areas, historically dirty.
I was more referring to litter and the like.
I think the more apt description is "weathered," or a little "shabby." But an area can be tidy and shabby at the same time. That has more to do with physical age/wear-and-tear.
I think the more apt description is "weathered," or a little "shabby." But an area can be tidy and shabby at the same time. That has more to do with physical age/wear-and-tear.
New England except for the worst areas in the worst cities is very light on litter. But there does seem to be a lot of gum on sidewalks there from my recollection and from street views. It's the road and sidewalk maintenance that really is an issue.
But for me litter makes the biggest impression of dirty vs not dirty.
Of course NYC is going to be dirtier than any other US city. The street level action in terms of bars, restaurants, street merchants, performers, subway stations, broadway, commuters, mass transit, pedestrians, etc all boxed into a tight, cavernous space will create that and is unparalleled in this country. On sheer numbers alone this should not come as a surprise at all. NYC has always been this way.
From my experience NYC wasn't as dirty as people make it out to be. The dirtiest part of NYC imo was the subways. The subways are without a doubt the grimiest experience I had in NYC. But I honestly think LA felt a little more dirtier than NYC. Weird because LA has more beauty with it's natural landscape and beautiful neighborhoods but than it has some straight eye sores that I didn't see outside of NYC subway stations. The homelessness, litter, dirty rv's, graffiti was worst than anything I saw in NY. LA is like a battle of beauty and dirt. Strange dynamic.
Matter fact based on my experiences, Philly, Los Angeles, Newark and New Orleans generally felt dirtier than NYC.
Never been to Boston, but it definitely looks like one of the cleanest major cities in America. Especially for a major Northeast city.
Cleanest cities I've been to were Chicago, Dallas and Charlotte. I kinda expect Dallas and Charlotte to be "clean" since they're "newer" sunbelt cities. It's amazing how clean Chicago is considering how old it's urban core is.
From my experience NYC wasn't as dirty as people make it out to be. The dirtiest part of NYC imo was the subways. The subways are without a doubt the grimiest experience I had in NYC. But I honestly think LA felt a little more dirtier than NYC. Weird because LA has more beauty with it's natural landscape and beautiful neighborhoods but than it has some straight eye sores that I didn't see outside of NYC subway stations. The homelessness, litter, dirty rv's, graffiti was worst than anything I saw in NY. LA is like a battle of beauty and dirt. Strange dynamic.
Matter fact based on my experiences, Philly, Los Angeles, Newark and New Orleans generally felt dirtier than NYC.
Never been to Boston, but it definitely looks like one of the cleanest major cities in America. Especially for a major Northeast city.
Cleanest cities I've been to were Chicago, Dallas and Charlotte. I kinda expect Dallas and Charlotte to be "clean" since they're "newer" sunbelt cities. It's amazing how clean Chicago is considering how old it's urban core is.
Boston is in line with Chicago. Thats about where I would put it
I’d say from personal experience that Boston is above average when it comes to cleanliness but that’s it. Much of Lynn(not exactly Boston), Roxbury, Dorchester, even parts of Cambridge like Central Square have plenty of litter. I think the only area where the city really excels in terms of cleanliness might be highways. I don’t notice much garbage on them or whatever.
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.
