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.
In Buffalo, neighborhoods like Allentown, Elmwood, North Park/Hertel Ave. and some nearby residential neighborhoods are pretty dense and busy. Adjacent Kenmore is a very dense suburban community as well.
Influence Map: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2450/...77211f6c_o.png
- Cleveland/Akron/Canton + most Youngstown/Warren are all under "Cleveland", while Buffalo and Rochester are clearly separate.
Cleveland is 4.6 million there, or 15th nationwide.
East US light Density map: http://www.getintonature.com/images/east_us%5B1%5D.jpg
- Cleveland much larger than Buffalo, Cleveland/Akron/Canton appears as one area, Buffalo and Rochester clearly separate areas more-so than Cleveland-Youngstown again. This is 1994 as well, Cleveland/Akron/Canton/Youngstown has filled in more, those blank areas between Buffalo and Rochester are still rural.
New Urban area criteria for 2010 census: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/fedregv75n163.pdf
- Cleveland/Akron/Canton merged as one urban area for over 2.7 million (this number does not include rural population or lower density areas population, with them it would be 3.4 million)
Was for Proposed High speed Rail: http://freepdfhosting.com/bbd69061cf.pdf
- shows heavy interaction & commuting between Cleveland-Akron-Canton to Youngstown to Pittsburgh
Last, the official 2010 census maps: Mapping the 2010 U.S. Census - NYTimes.com
- Especially check population density, no competition between Cleveland/Akron/Canton and the separate areas Buffalo and Rochester.
Where do I start first. When I gave Clevelands numbers I was talking CSA. Rochester and Buffalo downtown to dowtown is an hour. I used to take that alot. Akron to Cleveland is 45 minutes. So, My reason stands. BUffalo and Rochester sort of share Batavia which isn't really a suburb; however, it is almost directly inbetween those two metros. I agree though, Buffalo and Rochester don't really feel connected even though they are only 60 miles apart. Buffalo loses population because of Canada. If you took that population alone, Buffalo's MSA would either be equal too or larger than Milwaukee. And it is only about fifteen miles and Buffalo and Rochester would have been in one CSA, which would have easily been over three million.
As far as Pittsburgh I counted nine, but I'm probably wrong. For the sake of agreeing with you, I'll just take your word for it. But still seven counties to two. No matter how you look at it, it makes a big difference. City to city (and I've lived in both ask me any question if you think I'm lieing) Buffalo and Pittsburgh seem big in different ways. Downtown seems a bit larger than downtown Buffalo. However in Pitt, you only really have the strip area that extends. Some of their other areas are far away from downtown, ex shadyside, Oakland, Squirrel hill, etc. In Buffalo you have main street which is filled with stores, Deleware and Elmwood, and they all flow from the downtown. The other differences I noticed in these cities is that Buffalo felt more urban because it had a lot more people per square mile. For that reason it actually felt more urban. Pittsburgh had few people walking around (except downtown) and there were many areas of Pittsburgh that felt like small towns or very few people walking around.
Buffalo has a much higer density of people per square mile than Pittsburgh, therefore, I felt it seemed more Urban. Even if Pittsburgh is larger. And the truth, besides cranberry and some other far out suburbs, whatever population they give for Pitts metro seemed innacurrate. You leave the city fairly easily so how far away are these other counties that they decided to put into Pitts metro. Some of them counties are hours away. To me that population shouldn' t be counted.
And your right Buffalo and Cleveland are both hood. No point in lieing. The best parts of Buffalo are north and south and the suburbs. Everything east or west is hood. I agree Cleveland and Buffalo are more grittier than Pittsburgh.
And as far as your numbers for Buffalo there off. Buffalo is at about 1.2 million not 970,000.
I saw that number a lot of months back and it has been proven to be wrong. That number was for Erie county alone. It didn't add Niagara county, Buffalo's only other county in their metro.
And for the record, all three of those cities are declining. Welcome to the rust belt!
Also for the record, when I say similar I mean more like similar not exact. Cleveland and Pittsburgh are bigger than Buffalo. But you can't discount the fact that Pitt isn't much larger in population. Cleveland is bigger. There is no disputing that either. But for Buffalo you have to consider that it doesn't have the advantage of counting Canada's nearby population. Buffalo's metro now is almost 1.2 million. If you added what if we weren't near Canada, that's atleast 600,000 more. That would bring Buffalo's metro population to 1.8. That's for an area of two, would be three counties. Then you have Rochester 60 miles away. And like I said I know that to be pretty exact, since I have taken that highway many times. Fifteen miles. But I agree as cities, they feel like their own cities. Rochester does share the likes of the Bills and Sabres, but beyond that I'm not sure they're really that connected. Now, but, I think I could almost make that same argument for Cleveland. I never felt like Cleveland and Akron were connected in their CSA. But somehow it happened. Bureaucratic and money I'm sure, since Cleveland's population has been decreasing. They needed that extra count. Ask Akron people if the feel like their in the same metro as Cleveland. They will tell you no. Cleveland can say the same. Similar to Rochester and Buffalo, they might be pretty close, but they aren't really apart. I know people from Akron, and I have never heard either one of them talk about Cleveland. Akron is its own city. Not off the back of Cleveland like some Clevelander's would have you believe. Just like Rochester. So my point is, if you could add Rochester to Buffalo CSA, there numbers since then Batavia and that area would get counted would be an extra 1.2 million. That would give Buffalo a CSA of about 3 or more million. That's pratically the same as Cleveland. They should count it since they easily for other cities count areas nearby, but Buffalo would never get Canada's numbers since it is in another coutry. And as far as the Canadian region not being one continuous development. Are you crazy? All I can say to that is that you have not been there. First off, just Erie county is your 975,000 number. But that is only one county. That doesn't include Niagara county which "IS" Buffalo's Metro. But this notion that Buffalo and Canada aren't connected! Are you serious? Now, I don't think you've been there. For one, the only thing separating Buffalo and Niagara falls (both in the Buffalo region) are bridges. A half a mile from dt Buffalo is one bride, the peace bridge. And the others are in Niagara falls NY. From Niagara falls canada to Fort Erie and everything in between is very continous. It aint farm land chief. It might be more city like then parts of Cleveland. Have you ever been to Niagara Falls Canada? There skyline would give Cleveland a run for their money. And that population is innacurate. That area is more like 600,000. Plus Buffalo and that part of Canada has many visitors. So sometimes Buffalo benefits from that. Buffalo also benefits from many Canadians who go to the Walden Galleria. Buffalos biggest mall. Since it is cheaper for them.
What do Cleveland and Akron have to do with each other? People living in Cleveland day to day, aren't thinking about Akron and vica versa. Sort of like Buffalo and Rochester. As far as Canada, think of it this way. Buffalo gets screwed because it is in another country. That's really the bottom line. Anyway you slice it, because they are indeed connected. Also, by no means is there any gap withing continuing development between Buffalo and that area of Canada. I don't know what your talking about. You act as though from Cleveland to Akron it all looks the same. Any CSA or metro will have the slightest lull. But I don't even see that where you mentioned between Buffalo and Rochester. And trust me Niagara falls Canada is also a pretty fun place to be. That area of Buffalo thrives. Especially more than the American side.
But imagine Cleveland's metro (an area of continuous development) being cut short because will say 35% of their metro laid in another country. So no matter what numbers say, you yourself know that your cities area really has many more people. Plus, you know that between Buffalo and Rochester is continuous development. So, because Buffalo lucked out in every way, by location (proximity to Canada/and fifteen miles less from Rochester, but still continuous development) people who live in Buffalo still understand that their "area" is larger than depicted and much more similar to cities with metro's or CSA's between 2 and three million. That part of Canada and the Buffalo region are very similar.
I have to say that you're pretty off base here. A few comments on some things:
1. Downtown Cleveland to downtown Akron is about 35 minutes. I lived in Akron for 6 years and a year of that was spent commuting to downtown Cleveland for work 5 times a week.
2. Cleveland and Akron are in the same metro area. Their suburbs basically blend together up the Route 8 corridor. Not so much up I-77 though because of the Cuyahoga Valley park system.
3. People in Akron would definitely not say they are a suburb of Cleveland, but they would agree that they are in the same metro area. They follow Cleveland sports, are in the Cleveland media market, and go to Cleveland a lot for bigger city amenities. People from Cleveland don't pay much attention to Akron though.
4. No way is Buffalo more dense than Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh has the densest and most vibrant city neighborhoods out of this group. I will say that Buffalo has the best neighborhoods directly around the downtown, which may have given you this impression. Go to this sight and look at the population density map:
5. Yes, all of these areas have lost population but that does not tell the whole story. I know Pittsburgh is viewed as a much nicer city these days and Cleveland has many major projects underway. Not sure about Buffalo since I have not been there in some time.
I have to say that you're pretty off base here. A few comments on some things:
1. Downtown Cleveland to downtown Akron is about 35 minutes. I lived in Akron for 6 years and a year of that was spent commuting to downtown Cleveland for work 5 times a week.
2. Cleveland and Akron are in the same metro area. Their suburbs basically blend together up the Route 8 corridor. Not so much up I-77 though because of the Cuyahoga Valley park system.
3. People in Akron would definitely not say they are a suburb of Cleveland, but they would agree that they are in the same metro area. They follow Cleveland sports, are in the Cleveland media market, and go to Cleveland a lot for bigger city amenities. People from Cleveland don't pay much attention to Akron though.
4. No way is Buffalo more dense than Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh has the densest and most vibrant city neighborhoods out of this group. I will say that Buffalo has the best neighborhoods directly around the downtown, which may have given you this impression. Go to this sight and look at the population density map:
5. Yes, all of these areas have lost population but that does not tell the whole story. I know Pittsburgh is viewed as a much nicer city these days and Cleveland has many major projects underway. Not sure about Buffalo since I have not been there in some time.
Buffalo is denser than Pittsburgh. I have lived in both cities. I know what I am talking about. Pittsburgh is bigger. But Buffalo per mile had more people. And it's noticeably obvious. In fact, unless things have changed, I think Buffalo had like 7,000 something people and Pittsburgh had like 4,000 and change. People who have never been to Pittsburgh look at their downtown and assume the whole city is more dense. But it isn't as dense as you would think. Lots of rowhomes are abandoned and not used.
And again about Akron, you know with traffic and all it's more like 45 minutes but anyway. And oddly enough I know two people from Akron. Never, ever mentioned Cleveland in their life. That is the truth.
And I would't doubt Cleveland and Akron are more connected. But it doesn't matter, because from Buffalo to Rochester is pretty continuous. Both cities furthest suburbs end up at Batavia (I think Batavia is in Rochester's metro). So what difference really is there? Ten or fifteen miles. Ok, it doesn't matter anyway. I'm just stating my case that neither cities (Buffalo/Rochester) or (Cleveland/Akron) are connected as if they were one continuous city. So Cleveland has a pretty big neighboring city of Akron. Lucky for them. Buffalo does too, only theirs if a few miles farther. Oh well.
Buffalo is denser than Pittsburgh. I have lived in both cities. I know what I am talking about. Pittsburgh is bigger. But Buffalo per mile had more people. And it's noticeably obvious. In fact, unless things have changed, I think Buffalo had like 7,000 something people and Pittsburgh had like 4,000 and change. People who have never been to Pittsburgh look at their downtown and assume the whole city is more dense. But it isn't as dense as you would think. Lots of rowhomes are abandoned and not used.
And again about Akron, you know with traffic and all it's more like 45 minutes but anyway. And oddly enough I know two people from Akron. Never, ever mentioned Cleveland in their life. That is the truth.
And I would't doubt Cleveland and Akron are more connected. But it doesn't matter, because from Buffalo to Rochester is pretty continuous. Both cities furthest suburbs end up at Batavia (I think Batavia is in Rochester's metro). So what difference really is there? Ten or fifteen miles. Ok, it doesn't matter anyway. I'm just stating my case that neither cities (Buffalo/Rochester) or (Cleveland/Akron) are connected as if they were one continuous city. So Cleveland has a pretty big neighboring city of Akron. Lucky for them. Buffalo does too, only theirs if a few miles farther. Oh well.
Supermanpansy you need to just throw in the towel already, you've been proven wrong SO many times, it's ridiculous that you argue back against facts and people that actually know what they're talking about.
Yes Buffalo has more people per square mile, but it isn't in the position of Pittsburgh where much of the cities land area is unable to be built on. Go look at an aerial map of Pittsburgh, see all the green parts? those are hills, and they're too steep to build on. Add all those up and I'm sure you have at least 1/4 of the total land area (or over 14 square miles) being unable to build on. Take those out and Pittsburgh would be denser than Buffalo by over 1,000 ppl per square mile minimum.
Well let's see, I am here, and I can drive from DT Cleveland to DT Akron in 35 mins. Your 2 imaginary friends from Akron are irrelevant, it's funny you bringing that into this debate as if it even makes a difference.
You "wouldn't doubt", is that you admitting that you've never been here? lol. From Buffalo to Rochester is nowhere near continuous development, there is a nearly 50 minute gap between the urban areas with nothing but farms and a few small towns. This is not subjective, it's a fact. And Batavia is a tiny town surrounded by farms, and it's not in either metro area. If you payed attention to any of those links, or have been here, it would be obvious that it's all built up between Cleveland and Akron. And BTW DT Akron and DT Cleveland are only 39 miles drive apart, DT Buffalo and DT Rochester is nearly twice that at 75 miles.
Use this tool: Distance Between Cities Places On Map Distance Calculator
It's the actual distance between areas (not driving).
DT Cleveland to DT Akron = 30 miles
DT Buffalo to DT Rochester = 67 miles
Nowhere near similar
DT Cleveland to DT Canton = 51 miles
DT Cleveland to DT Youngstown = 61 miles
lol
Then let's check continuous development:
Buffalos ends at Clarence, NY, Rochesters ends at North Chili, NY (not opinion).
Clarence to North Chili = 41 miles
lol, that's 11 miles more than the entire length between DT Cleveland and DT Akron. There is no gap in development between Cleveland and Akron. Let's even check Cleveland-Youngstown. Clevelands continuous development ends at Aurora, OH, Youngstown at Leavittsburg, OH.
Aurora to Leavittsburg = 25 miles.
There you have it, Cleveland is more connected to any metro in NE Ohio than Buffalo is to Rochester. Not opinion, but fact.
Supermanpansy you need to just throw in the towel already, you've been proven wrong SO many times, it's ridiculous that you argue back against facts and people that actually know what they're talking about.
Yes Buffalo has more people per square mile, but it isn't in the position of Pittsburgh where much of the cities land area is unable to be built on. Go look at an aerial map of Pittsburgh, see all the green parts? those are hills, and they're too steep to build on. Add all those up and I'm sure you have at least 1/4 of the total land area (or over 14 square miles) being unable to build on. Take those out and Pittsburgh would be denser than Buffalo by over 1,000 ppl per square mile minimum.
Well let's see, I am here, and I can drive from DT Cleveland to DT Akron in 35 mins. Your 2 imaginary friends from Akron are irrelevant, it's funny you bringing that into this debate as if it even makes a difference.
You "wouldn't doubt", is that you admitting that you've never been here? lol. From Buffalo to Rochester is nowhere near continuous development, there is a nearly 50 minute gap between the urban areas with nothing but farms and a few small towns. This is not subjective, it's a fact. And Batavia is a tiny town surrounded by farms, and it's not in either metro area. If you payed attention to any of those links, or have been here, it would be obvious that it's all built up between Cleveland and Akron. And BTW DT Akron and DT Cleveland are only 39 miles drive apart, DT Buffalo and DT Rochester is nearly twice that at 75 miles.
Use this tool: Distance Between Cities Places On Map Distance Calculator
It's the actual distance between areas (not driving).
DT Cleveland to DT Akron = 30 miles
DT Buffalo to DT Rochester = 67 miles
Nowhere near similar
DT Cleveland to DT Canton = 51 miles
DT Cleveland to DT Youngstown = 61 miles
lol
Then let's check continuous development:
Buffalos ends at Clarence, NY, Rochesters ends at North Chili, NY (not opinion).
Clarence to North Chili = 41 miles
lol, that's 11 miles more than the entire length between DT Cleveland and DT Akron. There is no gap in development between Cleveland and Akron. Let's even check Cleveland-Youngstown. Clevelands continuous development ends at Aurora, OH, Youngstown at Leavittsburg, OH.
Aurora to Leavittsburg = 25 miles.
There you have it, Cleveland is more connected to any metro in NE Ohio than Buffalo is to Rochester. Not opinion, but fact.
This thing about Pittsburgh because of their land would have more people. You are stone cold crazy. Have you actually ever been there? Apparently your right and I'm wrong. However, I am the only one who has actually lived in both places, so go figure. Either your just speculating, a know it all, or you have been to neither places. Buffalo is almost three thousand people per square mile denser. What is it that you don't get. That too me made it feel more urban in the neighborhoods. But you'll still superficially say that oh but, and if, blah, blah, blah. Go to Buffalo and then go to Pittsburgh. It is so obvious which city has more people per square mile that you would have to be blind to not see it. I know for a fact that you haven't been to one of them cities or else that would be the last fact to argue. What do you think Buffalo doesn't have many parks that detract from their population per square mile. That only Pittsburgh has parks? And as far as the hilly parts of Pittsburgh, that isn't what's detracting the population. Those areas are probably more dense than some of the lower areas..But what would you know, you have never been there. You see pictures and "assume" you know what you are talking about.
As far as my two "imaginary friends" as you would put it. I live in Upstate NY right now. It is not some stretch to have two people from Akron live here. Wheather you belive me or not, I don't care. They never, ever, mentioned Cleveland when they were talking about their city of Akron. May god strike me dead if I'm lieing.
And you don't think people commute to Rochester and vica versa? And you don't think people in Rochester don't support the Bills and the Sabres?
I'm convinced you don't know what your talking about. And what is this farmland. And how far do you think Batavia is from Clarence? You don't think it's continuous. Funny, how you can get to Batavia by never leaving main street Buffalo. But somehow that isn't connected. The lulls of farming like you say are for about a half mile every here and there. Don't act like theres not farms in the big bad Cleveland metro.
And downtown Rochester to Buffalo is sixty miles exactly. But it doesn't even matter, because Rochester and Akron are their own cities. You know that as well as I do. And I don't care for you calling me a liar. I don't have to lie about people from Akron. You don't know me from nothing. So stop thinking you have all the answers, because you clearly don't. And as far as lost the argument, why because you said so. I didn't think you were or are the authority on anything let alone everything like you act. You make it sound like everything you say is fact, so discussion over. Whatever! You are no authority, and your over-boosting of a dumpy sh t hole is old and annoying. Cleveland is by no means any place anyone aspires to move to. To some degree, many can say the same for Buffalo. Actually that reality is not lost on me. Pittsburgh actually beats both places in most categories. So the truth is, if it is about winning and losing, we both lose. Pittsburgh is the clear winner. Even though personally I like Buffalo better. Pittsburgh has more promise and alot going on for it. Cleveland is just, uhh, the mistake on the lake..
This thing about Pittsburgh because of their land would have more people. You are stone cold crazy. Have you actually ever been there? Apparently your right and I'm wrong. However, I am the only one who has actually lived in both places, so go figure. Either your just speculating, a know it all, or you have been to neither places. Buffalo is almost three thousand people per square mile denser. What is it that you don't get. That too me made it feel more urban in the neighborhoods. But you'll still superficially say that oh but, and if, blah, blah, blah. Go to Buffalo and then go to Pittsburgh. It is so obvious which city has more people per square mile that you would have to be blind to not see it. I know for a fact that you haven't been to one of them cities or else that would be the last fact to argue. What do you think Buffalo doesn't have many parks that detract from their population per square mile. That only Pittsburgh has parks? And as far as the hilly parts of Pittsburgh, that isn't what's detracting the population. Those areas are probably more dense than some of the lower areas..But what would you know, you have never been there. You see pictures and "assume" you know what you are talking about.
As far as my two "imaginary friends" as you would put it. I live in Upstate NY right now. It is not some stretch to have two people from Akron live here. Wheather you belive me or not, I don't care. They never, ever, mentioned Cleveland when they were talking about their city of Akron. May god strike me dead if I'm lieing.
And you don't think people commute to Rochester and vica versa? And you don't think people in Rochester don't support the Bills and the Sabres?
I'm convinced you don't know what your talking about. And what is this farmland. And how far do you think Batavia is from Clarence? You don't think it's continuous. Funny, how you can get to Batavia by never leaving main street Buffalo. But somehow that isn't connected. The lulls of farming like you say are for about a half mile every here and there. Don't act like theres not farms in the big bad Cleveland metro.
And downtown Rochester to Buffalo is sixty miles exactly. But it doesn't even matter, because Rochester and Akron are their own cities. You know that as well as I do. And I don't care for you calling me a liar. I don't have to lie about people from Akron. You don't know me from nothing. So stop thinking you have all the answers, because you clearly don't. And as far as lost the argument, why because you said so. I didn't think you were or are the authority on anything let alone everything like you act. You make it sound like everything you say is fact, so discussion over. Whatever! You are no authority, and your over-boosting of a dumpy sh t hole is old and annoying. Cleveland is by no means any place anyone aspires to move to. To some degree, many can say the same for Buffalo. Actually that reality is not lost on me. Pittsburgh actually beats both places in most categories. So the truth is, if it is about winning and losing, we both lose. Pittsburgh is the clear winner. Even though personally I like Buffalo better. Pittsburgh has more promise and alot going on for it. Cleveland is just, uhh, the mistake on the lake..
Okay, you are officially delusional. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I already presented an extensive amount of stats and facts, these are not subjective, and you ignored all of it. You keep repeating the same thing which is based on your incredibly ignorant and biased views of these areas.
I thought I made it very clear that I've been to both Pittsburgh and Buffalo extensively. I've visited (nearly lived) in both of these areas for weeks/months at a time. I've been going to both since the 90s. You're completely wrong about the hill situation. Buffalo is not even 1,000 ppl per square mile denser than Pittsburgh (6,470 vs 5,520). Feeling "more urban" is subjective, to me Pittsburgh felt denser and more urban based on it being built more like the average East Coast city with all of the brick buildings and row houses. Buffalo is built like Cleveland, but with smaller houses that are closer together. And it's funny you talking about all the people walking around in Buffalo lol, half the neighborhoods in Buffalo feel like ghosttowns with barely anyone walking around (and not just at night or in the colder months). You have no clue what the hill situation is about, we're talking about hills that are too steep and not built on, they cannot be denser if there's little to no people living on them wow lol.
Once again, your "supposed" friends don't matter. For all we know you could be making them up. I actually do have plenty of friends and family in Buffalo, I have literally never heard them mention Rochester, or those other areas in Canada minus Niagara Falls. What do either of these things mean to this debate? pretty much nothing. Neither can be proven common consensus or official view about the topic, and there's no way to tell if the other person just made it up (it's the internet). I prefer to bring actual stats and facts plus firsthand accounts that I can back up and others can cosign, apparently you don't believe in any of that. lol
The distance and makeup of the area between between Buffalo and Rochester, that I already brought stats for, that was not opinion, it was fact. Your argument means nothing. DT Buffalo to DT Rochester is 75 miles drive, 67 miles in literal distance. Fact. There are farms in the Cleveland/Akron area, but they're mostly on the outskirts of the area, and there's no gap in development between the cities in the metro. Clarence to Batavia is about 30 mins, North Chili to Batavia is slightly less.
This is not about winning an argument. You're not even arguing with me, you're arguing with facts. And not even with things that could be taken into consideration, you're just flat out wrong the majority of the time. I've already proven you wrong dozens of times with facts, you've proven me and these facts wrong about 0 times. Just about every person who has replied to you has disagreed with you, why you wonder? because you are wrong. Do yourself a favor and read over my posts in this thread and replies to you again, check the links, look up the stats. If you still disagree with me after that you are just flat out in complete denial.
And funny to see your frustrations turn into some serious Cleveland bashing at the end there... lol. I like Buffalo, it's very similar to Cleveland, and I never resorted to bashing it based on personal opinion, I merely brought out facts. Let's not forgot who started this entire argument, you 2 or 3 Buffalo posters who feel the need to greatly exaggerate everything about Buffalo including population and land area, the most ridiculous one being to absorb the nearly identical sized and unconnected metro of Rochester. BTW saying Pittsburgh wins over the 2 is again, subjective. You bring yet another opinion and bias and try to post it as fact, wow lol, what a surprise.
Okay, you are officially delusional. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I already presented an extensive amount of stats and facts, these are not subjective, and you ignored all of it. You keep repeating the same thing which is based on your incredibly ignorant and biased views of these areas.
I thought I made it very clear that I've been to both Pittsburgh and Buffalo extensively. I've visited (nearly lived) in both of these areas for weeks/months at a time. I've been going to both since the 90s. You're completely wrong about the hill situation. Buffalo is not even 1,000 ppl per square mile denser than Pittsburgh (6,470 vs 5,520). Feeling "more urban" is subjective, to me Pittsburgh felt denser and more urban based on it being built more like the average East Coast city with all of the brick buildings and row houses. Buffalo is built like Cleveland, but with smaller houses that are closer together. And it's funny you talking about all the people walking around in Buffalo lol, half the neighborhoods in Buffalo feel like ghosttowns with barely anyone walking around (and not just at night or in the colder months). You have no clue what the hill situation is about, we're talking about hills that are too steep and not built on, they cannot be denser if there's little to no people living on them wow lol.
Once again, your "supposed" friends don't matter. For all we know you could be making them up. I actually do have plenty of friends and family in Buffalo, I have literally never heard them mention Rochester, or those other areas in Canada minus Niagara Falls. What do either of these things mean to this debate? pretty much nothing. Neither can be proven common consensus or official view about the topic, and there's no way to tell if the other person just made it up (it's the internet). I prefer to bring actual stats and facts plus firsthand accounts that I can back up and others can cosign, apparently you don't believe in any of that. lol
The distance and makeup of the area between between Buffalo and Rochester, that I already brought stats for, that was not opinion, it was fact. Your argument means nothing. DT Buffalo to DT Rochester is 75 miles drive, 67 miles in literal distance. Fact. There are farms in the Cleveland/Akron area, but they're mostly on the outskirts of the area, and there's no gap in development between the cities in the metro. Clarence to Batavia is about 30 mins, North Chili to Batavia is slightly less.
This is not about winning an argument. You're not even arguing with me, you're arguing with facts. And not even with things that could be taken into consideration, you're just flat out wrong the majority of the time. I've already proven you wrong dozens of times with facts, you've proven me and these facts wrong about 0 times. Just about every person who has replied to you has disagreed with you, why you wonder? because you are wrong. Do yourself a favor and read over my posts in this thread and replies to you again, check the links, look up the stats. If you still disagree with me after that you are just flat out in complete denial.
And funny to see your frustrations turn into some serious Cleveland bashing at the end there... lol. I like Buffalo, it's very similar to Cleveland, and I never resorted to bashing it based on personal opinion, I merely brought out facts. Let's not forgot who started this entire argument, you 2 or 3 Buffalo posters who feel the need to greatly exaggerate everything about Buffalo including population and land area, the most ridiculous one being to absorb the nearly identical sized and unconnected metro of Rochester. BTW saying Pittsburgh wins over the 2 is again, subjective. You bring yet another opinion and bias and try to post it as fact, wow lol, what a surprise.
Last time I checked Buffalo had 7000 people per square mile. I'm sure this new census changed, since withing ten years they lost 30,000 people. At that same time Pittsburgh was somewhere in the four thousand range. That makes close to three thousand difference. What is it that you don't understand?
I'm not even going to debate Akron and Rochester to you anymore, because clearly you don't get it. Akron just didn't feel in any way connected to Cleveland.
And as far as my friends. Yeah, I get what your saying, anyone can say anything on here. That's why I said may god strike me dead. And I'm not atheist. But if your that skeptical about what everyone says on here, why bother be on here. Just to read your own stuff?
Anyway it is apples and oranges. I can't see since you've been to Buffalo so many times and the same for Pittsburgh, how you could not tell Buffalo was more dense? It took me all of about five minutes to figure that out. Of course I lived in Buffalo for years so I know exactly how it is. Outside of downtown Pitt, walking around seemed like I was walking in Scranton. It just wasn't nearly as dense as I had thought it would be. Then the longer I lived there, I was convinced it had the density of smaller cities. Like I said, many times, I lived in both so I would know a little better than you. How frustrating it can be sometimes to talk to some people about things. I wouldn't assume I know Cleveland better than someone who lives there. I would be a real "know it all".
As far as bashing Cleveland. It doesn't matter to me how subtly you put down Buffalo you are bashing it. And if you think that's not noticed, that's your problem. As far as Cleveland I tried to be fair. But I am bias. I've been there a few times and never liked it. Always thought it was a dump. Sorry that's the truth. And there's not alot of cities I bash either. Look at my posts if you don't believe me. But Cleveland I do. I don't know why. I just don't like it and never have.
I will say though that Cleveland is bigger than Buffalo, but Buffalo isn't as small (all things considered) as some will make it out to be either. I'll also say that Cleveland has done by far more right than Buffalo in the last two years. I can't help being impressed with all the building that they have done. You can't deny their trying to turn their city around. I wish Buffalo would get on the ball and do some more too. I "personally" like Buffalo better than Cleveland, but Cleveland is probably better. Only time I'll say that, so frame it.
Buffalo is definitely the smallest, but they are all very similar cities and have strikingly similar problems. Pittsburgh has the best skyline, Cleveland has the best waterfront. That's my take... Here's the stats according to wikipedia from Census 2010:
Cleveland:
city 396,815 (5,113 sq/mi)
urban 1,786,647
metro 2,250,871
Pittsburgh:
city 305,704 (5,636 sq/mi)
urban 1,753,136
metro 2,356,285
Buffalo:
city 261,310 (6,656.2 sq/mi)
urban 976,703
metro 1,135,509
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.
Links
