Most underrated american city? (living, better, largest, population)

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by brattpowered

Philadelphia. It has its problems, but it has the most vibrant, urban and walkable downtown after NYC and Chicago;

Downtown Philadelphia is not more vibrant than Downtown San Francisco in my personal experience. It also has far less amenities such as shopping and entertainment.

Dont get me wrong, I like the place, but I think saying it was 3rd in that respect is a bit off the mark.

[Awesomo.2000]

Originally Posted by skrazzle

Rude people and the most racist city i've ever been too.... it's rap is deserved.

Could you please provide us information on how it is a "rude and racist city"

[fruitlassie]

Originally Posted by harahap

I think Santa Barbara, CA is pretty underrated. It's nice as either a place to live in or get away to. It's not a small town, by any means. But I think it's overshadowed by all the other CA cities.

Oh, for some reason--not that it's important to me--Oprah lives there...

It's a very pleasant town, but doesn't even have 100,000 people and it's well out of the price range of most of the population. I don't think exclusive = underrated.

[blkgiraffe]

Originally Posted by Ankhharu

Corpus is dirty and run down. My buddy was born and raised there and will be the first to tell you to steer clear of Corpus.

I've never been there,but my parents went and said it had a very bad smell and it was very dirty as well.

[Howest2008]

Originally Posted by SEAandATL

I would say Atlanta because a lot of people refer to it as the Detroit of the South, like on some of the previous posts in this thread, but I think Atlanta deserves a lot more credit than that. A lot people simply compare Atlanta to Detroit just because of the crime rate and that the population is majority African-American. But if you've lived in or visited both cities, you'll see that they are very different. Atlanta is cleaner and doesn't have much of the grittiness of Detroit, and Detroit is more industrial. The economics are very different. What really hurt Detroit is that most of it's economy relies on the auto industry, while Atlanta has more of a diverse economy with many different companies. Even though Detroit has a few good areas, Atlanta has a lot more upscale communities, as well as diverse neighborhoods including trendy for college students and the artsy ones.

San Diego could possibly become more like Detroit, all run-down and become "the city that once was", not anytime soon but maybe 30-40 years from now. It just doesn't appear to be headed in a positive direction lately with it's tanking real estate market and other increasing problems. The rate the property values are dropping, they will be FREE in a few years, and still no one will take them! That should tell you that's it not the thriving beach city/surfer's paradise of the early 2000's. Btw, I also agree with some of the posts that mention that San Diego is overrated. I'm so glad I don't live there anymore! In the 10 years I lived there, I dealt with numerous people who said that San Diego is the greatest city in the world, and they would argue to death and almost even engage in a fist fight if you think otherwise. I mean San Diego is nice with the weather and scenery (both the beaches and women), but it's no Tokyo or even Los Angeles, or even Perth, Australia (San Diego's matching sister city).

None of the Chocolate Cities in America are (Like) Detroit are you insane...ATL is 180 degree different from Detroit And so is Oakland,
Washington D.C......A Lots of naive people who never beem there may think that ATL is Like Detroit , but that's the farest that you
can get away from the truth RUTH....

[Howest2008]

Originally Posted by Lakewooder

Dallas is the 4th largest metro area, displacing Philly -- it is projected to be 9 million by 2020.

Houston is 6th and Atlanta is just barely in the top 10 at number 9.

Will someone please tell me when the U.S. census bureau is going to stop short counting the(A) (Washington D.C./Baltimore) and (B)(San Francisco Bay Area) Metro Area's...8,000,000 Plus and 7,000,000 Plus....
(Dallas/Fort Worth Metro Area)6,000,000.Plus
(Dallas is 30 Miles From Fort Worth) (Washington D.C. is 33 Miles Away From Baltimore)(San Francisco is 4 or 5 Miles Away From Oakland and 30 Miles Away from San Jose and the Census Bureau Split them up
into three differnt Metro Area's) what up with that.

[Howest2008]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Downtown Philadelphia is not more vibrant than Downtown San Francisco in my personal experience. It also has far less amenities such as shopping and entertainment.

Dont get me wrong, I like the place, but I think saying it was 3rd in that respect is a bit off the mark.

Chicago..Los Angeles and San Franciso are 2nd Tier Alpha World Class Cities and Philly is just making the bottom Gamma Ranking you can't even
compare Philly and San Francisco......First Tier Alpha World Class Cities are PARIS , LONDON , TOKYO , NEW YORK CITY....And world class cities are broken down into three class (1) Alpha (2) Beta (3) Gamma...

[Raphael07]

Originally Posted by Howest2008

Will someone please tell me when the U.S. census bureau is going to stop short counting the(A) (Washington D.C./Baltimore) and (B)(San Francisco Bay Area) Metro Area's...8,000,000 Plus and 7,000,000 Plus....
(Dallas/Fort Worth Metro Area)6,000,000.Plus
(Dallas is 30 Miles From Fort Worth) (Washington D.C. is 33 Miles Away From Baltimore)(San Francisco is 4 or 5 Miles Away From Oakland and 30 Miles Away from San Jose and the Census Bureau Split them up
into three differnt Metro Area's) what up with that.

Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose are the same metro.

[Howest2008]

Originally Posted by Bluefly

I second Detroit as being highly underrated - as evidenced by people on this list saying "...the Detroit of the West, the Detroit of the South".

If one is to consider Detroit as just the city of Detroit, then one would have to judge Los Angeles as just the city of L.A. and exclude Beverly Hills, Hollywood, etc, etc... What is L.A. without those cities? Basically South Central and a rough downtown.

Breaking down arbitrary political boundaries, metro Detroit is a very good place to raise a family with some of the wealthiest communities in the country (Bloomfield Hills, Birmingham, Grosse Pointe, the many lakes of Oakland County) as well as some very interesting more urban suburbs (Ferndale, Royal Oak). Even the city itself is far nicer than people give it credit for (37% lower crime rate downtown than national average) and one of the most fascinating cities with a real underground frontier spirit that creates a lot of great art.

A Arm Of The City Of Los Angeles runs 20 miles all the way down to the
OCEAN and that's a part of the CITY Of Los Angels Proper. Los Angeles is one of the most diversified Cities In The Whole World and it's not a POOR CITY my misguided friend.

[rainrock]

Originally Posted by Howest2008

Will someone please tell me when the U.S. census bureau is going to stop short counting the(A) (Washington D.C./Baltimore) and (B)(San Francisco Bay Area) Metro Area's...8,000,000 Plus and 7,000,000 Plus....
(Dallas/Fort Worth Metro Area)6,000,000.Plus
(Dallas is 30 Miles From Fort Worth) (Washington D.C. is 33 Miles Away From Baltimore)(San Francisco is 4 or 5 Miles Away From Oakland and 30 Miles Away from San Jose and the Census Bureau Split them up
into three differnt Metro Area's) what up with that.

SF/Oakland are in the same metro. However SF and San Jose are 48 miles apart, then you want to add the entire silicon valley to the BAY AREA and you start drifting 80-90 miles from SF. I agree with you that Dallas/FW is way too sprawled out at 12,000 sq.miles.Philadlephia is the same population as Dallas/FW but at only 4600 sq miles.



Dallas Fort Worth should not be considered one metro.
Washington/Bal should not be considered one metro.
and
San Francisco/San Jose/Silicon Valley should not be considered one metro.

This metro expansion is getting out of hand.