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.
Not really. There's not one high quality large city in this state. Most other states have cities that people enjoy, visit on weekends, dine in, walk around in, play frisbee in the park, etc. Cities like Denver, SLC, Boston, Dallas, Portland, Seattle, SF, I could go on for a while. NJ has none.
How can you have a high quality state that every major city is a blight-ridden dump? Newark, Trenton, Atlantic City, Camden, Orange, Irvington, Jersey City, Elizabeth, are all work-a-day, avoid at all other times, especially at night, you are avoiding 90% of Newark and 100% of Camden. And you better be real careful in Atlantic City at night.
It's a damn shame what has become of our state's cities, especially considering how many of them have prime locations. Camden is a riverfront city across from Philadelphia, Newark is a port city with easy access to our nation's largest metropolis and Atlantic City has a beach for crying out loud.
I acknowledge Newark has been making strides but it still far from a safe or prosperous city. Sure, Jersey City waterfront or Hoboken are nice if you are in the minority who can afford that.
NJ has a lot of positive attributes (generally solid public schools, cultural diversity, beautiful beaches etc.) but if we are being honest with ourselves are cities for the most part are dumps.
It's a damn shame what has become of our state's cities, especially considering how many of them have prime locations. Camden is a riverfront city across from Philadelphia, Newark is a port city with easy access to our nation's largest metropolis and Atlantic City has a beach for crying out loud.
I acknowledge Newark has been making strides but it still far from a safe or prosperous city. Sure, Jersey City waterfront or Hoboken are nice if you are in the minority who can afford that.
NJ has a lot of positive attributes (generally solid public schools, cultural diversity, beautiful beaches etc.) but if we are being honest with ourselves are cities for the most part are dumps.
I will also note that when I moved to NJ 30 years ago, it would have been laughable to mention Hoboken and Jersey City waterfront being so desirable that people couldn't afford it.
I second what Hackwriter has said (have relatives in the Research Triangle Area). For me it is a bit quiet (though getting busier), but it is definitely on my list of retirement destinations.
[quote=hackwriter;46866555]OK, I'll bite. I moved to the Research Triangle area of North Carolina last year after spending my entire life in New Jersey. I'm not going to say the entire state is better than New Jersey; the legislature is full of wingnut yahoos (HB2, anyone?) and there's the Triangle, Asheville, and Out Where They Marry Their Sisters. That said, I do have to say that at least for me, NC has been a much better place to live so far. Yes, housing is somewhat cheaper. You can get a NICE rental apartment for $1000/month or a decent 1500 square foot house in a good neighborhood for the low to mid $200Ks. My property taxes on a 1900 square foot house are under $3500, and my area is high for where I am. There are parts of the area where they would be less than $2000/year. On the other hand, we have a 2% sales tax on groceries in addition to a 7.5% sales tax on everything else, and an annual property tax on cars, which for my 2015 econobox is about $180. Car insurance is a bit less expensive (about $300/year less), my utilities are MUCH less (though Duke Energy is a pretty lousy enviornmental citizen). Groceries, especially produce, are more expensive here. Restaurant prices are, aside from the BBQ joints, pretty comparable to their NJ counterparts.
[quote]
I will also note that when I moved to NJ 30 years ago, it would have been laughable to mention Hoboken and Jersey City waterfront being so desirable that people couldn't afford it.
So true! I remember a coworker and her husband buying a Hoboken brownstone and fixing it and moving there, and we all thought it was so funny. Who did THAT?
Because as I stated the TOWNS are not that way This is what MightyQueen801 was responding to from another poster ..."I still believe though that Monmouth County has a great deal of territoriality and ignorance tied to it. And it's annoying because what it consists of is really just firing off of empty claims that are based on nothing, other than a biased, ignorant, ethnocentric and somewhat snobbish opinion.".....where do you get "really white and really rich from???
There was a vacant spot in my brain and it jumped in.
Totally agree about the lack of high quality, nationally recognizable cities in the state. There are none, and that is a big part of the state's lack of appeal.
NJ doesn't even have anything close to "second-tier" Northeastern cities like Albany NY, Providence RI, Scranton PA, Worcester MA, etc. that while definitely not major metropolises are overall safe and have interesting things to see and do.
Other than Princeton (which is more of a well-kept historic town than a city), NJ doesn't even have any destinations with positive national press. Maybe Hoboken, but a 1 sq mi town that is essentially an extension of Manhattan doesn't really cut it in my book as a major city.
Connecticut is like that, too. Tons of well-off suburbs surrounding blighted cities (Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, etc.) that are only populated during the "9-5" workday. Otherwise they are essentially ghost towns that you wouldn't want to be walking around (or even driving through, for that matter) at night.
I think Jersey City can be considered "second-tier," if you're putting it up against Albany and Providence and geez, Scranton. IMHO JC is probably better than Albany and Scranton. I'd rather live there any day. Providence however would be more of a competitor for me.
NJ does have destinations with positive national press - the shore. Cape May in particular is a well-known one. It's also where the Coast Guard trains, so you have a ton of people from all over the country coming out here for graduations, and they see Cape May. One of my friends is from California, lived in NY for a few years and is now back out there, but her family member from the PNW graduated the Coast Guard out of Cape May. Their family from both the PNW and CA came out for the graduation, and they loved Cape May. I, of course, gave her a ton of recommendations for things to do and where to go. I also think Hoboken can count despite its size. I go out in Hoboken sometimes on the weekends and it is packed. Its popularity has exploded, and driving and walking around I see a lot of out of state license plates.
I was also going to point out that CT has "no cities," too. People seem to forget this. I'm sure there are other states, as well. To me, personally, there are major cities, then everything else (I'm used to NYC and it has spoiled me), so in my eyes, not every state has a "great" city. It's not something I really care about but people usually point it out. When we have NYC and Philly literally right across two rivers, it doesn't bother me that neither is technically IN our state. We have access to more with those two, probably either alone, than someone living in Albany or some other "second-tier" city in another state, honestly.
I think Jersey City can be considered "second-tier," if you're putting it up against Albany and Providence and geez, Scranton. IMHO JC is probably better than Albany and Scranton. I'd rather live there any day. Providence however would be more of a competitor for me.
NJ does have destinations with positive national press - the shore. Cape May in particular is a well-known one. It's also where the Coast Guard trains, so you have a ton of people from all over the country coming out here for graduations, and they see Cape May. One of my friends is from California, lived in NY for a few years and is now back out there, but her family member from the PNW graduated the Coast Guard out of Cape May. Their family from both the PNW and CA came out for the graduation, and they loved Cape May. I, of course, gave her a ton of recommendations for things to do and where to go. I also think Hoboken can count despite its size. I go out in Hoboken sometimes on the weekends and it is packed. Its popularity has exploded, and driving and walking around I see a lot of out of state license plates.
I was also going to point out that CT has "no cities," too. People seem to forget this. I'm sure there are other states, as well. To me, personally, there are major cities, then everything else (I'm used to NYC and it has spoiled me), so in my eyes, not every state has a "great" city. It's not something I really care about but people usually point it out. When we have NYC and Philly literally right across two rivers, it doesn't bother me that neither is technically IN our state. We have access to more with those two, probably either alone, than someone living in Albany or some other "second-tier" city in another state, honestly.
I agree for the most part. Counting Scranton and Albany as viable second tier cities with interesting things to do seems pretty suspect. If the poster had said something like Bethlehem, PA I would let that pass. Maybe even Allentown although less so than Bethlehem (Easton is also pretty good but is a lot smaller). Providence makes sense. Not familiar with Worcester so can't speak to that so much.
On a note about CT though. It is a lot like NJ. There ARE semi major cities like Stamford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Hartford, Danbury, Waterbury, West Haven, and Norwalk. It's true that, say, Bridgeport and Hartford aren't much to write home about, but Stamford is pretty viable. Parts of New Haven are as well. To say that CT has "no cities" seems as errant as saying the same about NJ.
It seems silly to complain about NJ having a lack of major cities when we have two across the river from us and a dozen or so small to medium sized ones within our borders, some of which are obviously on the upswing. To those who complain, just think about it...you could live in Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, etc. Then you might have a right to complain about a lack of viable cities. Hell, try most of the Deep South, West Virginia, New Hampshire, or Vermont as well.
I agree for the most part. Counting Scranton and Albany as viable second tier cities with interesting things to do seems pretty suspect. If the poster had said something like Bethlehem, PA I would let that pass. Maybe even Allentown although less so than Bethlehem (Easton is also pretty good but is a lot smaller). Providence makes sense. Not familiar with Worcester so can't speak to that so much.
On a note about CT though. It is a lot like NJ. There ARE semi major cities like Stamford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Hartford, Danbury, Waterbury, West Haven, and Norwalk. It's true that, say, Bridgeport and Hartford aren't much to write home about, but Stamford is pretty viable. Parts of New Haven are as well. To say that CT has "no cities" seems as errant as saying the same about NJ.
It seems silly to complain about NJ having a lack of major cities when we have two across the river from us and a dozen or so small to medium sized ones within our borders, some of which are obviously on the upswing. To those who complain, just think about it...you could live in Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, etc. Then you might have a right to complain about a lack of viable cities. Hell, try most of the Deep South, West Virginia, New Hampshire, or Vermont as well.
I know that CT has cities, I put "no cities" in quotes because some people don't think much of NJ's cities, and since CT is similar, it would logically follow they think the same of CT's cities - or they should. People are basically writing off NJ's cities, whether right or wrong I think depends on the city, but I frequently state that I think people sometimes tend to over-exaggerate things.
Yes to the bold. So what that NYC and Philly aren't within our state borders? We have better access to them and they're more "ours" than someone living far upstate or out in western PA. People tend to get petty and weird when they bash NJ, finding stupid things to fault it for that don't make much sense when you actually think about it. NJ definitely has some major cons (similar to basically everywhere else), but it also has a lot of pros (also similar to basically everywhere else). Complaining that it has no major cities is just stupid considering where NYC and Philly are located. I mean, they aren't wrong when they say we have no major cities within our borders, but do most of us even care when we use NYC and/or Philly because they are right there? I have better access to TWO major cities than people in, say, the entire state of Iowa or Wyoming or something.
Also just want to say that those I am referring to who "bash" NJ is no one in particular. Some people here are being very polite with their criticisms, and also acknowledging positives, which I think is the most rational way of going about discussing a place. A common argument people make when they say negative things about NJ, especially if they seem to really hate it and have few if any nice things to say, is that we have no major cities in our borders. I am referring generally to those people when I talk about "bashers." There is nothing wrong with pointing out that we have no major cities - because we don't - what confuses me is why it even matters when NYC and Philly are right across two rivers. It's not, IMO at least, that much of a criticism.
Last edited by JerseyGirl415; 01-18-2017 at 11:58 AM..
It seems silly to complain about NJ having a lack of major cities when we have two across the river from us and a dozen or so small to medium sized ones within our borders, some of which are obviously on the upswing. To those who complain, just think about it...you could live in Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, etc. Then you might have a right to complain about a lack of viable cities. Hell, try most of the Deep South, West Virginia, New Hampshire, or Vermont as well.
Most of southern/central NH is fairly accessible to Boston (45-90 min drive, or less during non-commuting hours, depending on where you're coming from). Considering that your whole argument for why NJ is special is that it has "access" to a major city, that seems a poor comparison to make. NH also has several nice small/medium-sized cities like Manchester and Portsmouth, all of which draw day-trippers from throughout the region. And it has some of the most beautiful natural areas in the country, not to mention the best ski areas in the northeast, so there is definitely plenty to do there....
Vermont doesn't have any real viable cities outside of Burlington, though it has plenty of quaint downtowns and great scenery. A lot of the state is within relatively easy driving distance of Montreal (and even Boston or NYC), so again I question your argument there.
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.
IMHO JC is probably better than Albany and Scranton. I'd rather live there any day. Providence however would be more of a competitor for me. 
I have better access to TWO major cities than people in, say, the entire state of Iowa or Wyoming or something. 
