Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ctownrocks1

Another dumb-a$$ list / Ranking of cities

Recommended Posts

^Not the best methods...

 

In terms of Godliness, I think Great Lakes cities may still have slightly higher church attendance than other heavily Catholic cities on the East Coast or West Coast, but I place that more on the great street fairs and binge drinking festivals. :wink: The drunkest I've seen people in Toledo was at those church festivals...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cincinnati, Dayton make top 10 most romantic cities...

 

1. San Antonio

2. Seattle

3. Knoxville, Tenn.

4. Miami

5. Alexandria, Va.

6. Orlando, Fla.

7. Vancouver, Wash.

8. Cincinnati

9. Spokane, Wash.

10. Dayton, Ohio

11. Columbia, S.C.

12. San Jose, Calif.

13. Murfreesboro, Tenn.

14. Round Rock, Texas

15. Sioux City, S.D.

16. Las Vegas

17. Pittsburgh

18. Everett, Wash.

19. Erie, Pa.

20. Clearwater, Fla.

 

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/icymi/2014/02/03/cincinnati-among-amazons-top-20-most-romantic-cities/

 

No, just no. "Honey, trust me, we've got to book flights to Dayton, Ohio. It will melt your heart."

 

And Vegas? C'mon...it's great for one-night-stands and sex with gorgeous women at conventions and trade shows, but romance is the last thing I associate with Vegas. Though at least couples do travel there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cincinnati, Dayton make top 10 most romantic cities...

 

1. San Antonio

2. Seattle

3. Knoxville, Tenn.

4. Miami

5. Alexandria, Va.

6. Orlando, Fla.

7. Vancouver, Wash.

8. Cincinnati

9. Spokane, Wash.

10. Dayton, Ohio

11. Columbia, S.C.

12. San Jose, Calif.

13. Murfreesboro, Tenn.

14. Round Rock, Texas

15. Sioux City, S.D.

16. Las Vegas

17. Pittsburgh

18. Everett, Wash.

19. Erie, Pa.

20. Clearwater, Fla.

 

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/icymi/2014/02/03/cincinnati-among-amazons-top-20-most-romantic-cities/

 

 

Based on sales of romance novels and DVDs? So this is a list of places that crave romance the most?  Not cute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember going to Toronto in the 60s with my mom and dad and my mother was freaking out. We decided to go beyond Niagara Falls and stay in Toronto. I was very young then so my memory is not perfect, but we ended up driving back to Niagara Falls. Toronto was not a great place back then. From everything I hear now, it is fantastic.

"freaking out"??? huh? Like I said, Toronto wasn't the city it is now, but it was very safe (in fact it had the reputation back then that you could walk in any neighborhood--24 hours a day--without even the slightest fear of getting mugged!), with the same great neighborhoods you still see today (minus all the mushrooming hi-rises and trendy boutiques, except for Yorkville, which was the first "cool" neighborhood), with a bustling downtown (unlike the quick decline of other Great Lakes cities of the period) and minus all or any of the urban squalor of American cities of the 60's. I don't get how it was so awful in the 60's. I'm wondering what "Toronto" you and KJP's friend visited??? :wtf:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might enjoy this photo-heavy blog. Note how Toronto "used" its waterfront back then. In fact, as I look at these photos of Toronto in the 1960s, I see Cleveland in the 1960s (and today).....

http://www.blogto.com/city/2010/08/toronto_of_the_1960s/

 

Toronto in 1960:

Toronto_1970_1024x1024.jpg%3Fv%3D1371762085

 

Toronto today:

waterfront-Toronto-aqualina-Tridel-condominium-intelligent-community-forum-condo.ca_.jpg


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those 1960's photos of Toronto are not what I expected. It's completely insane how much the city has boomed since then. I agree those 60's photos have hints of Cleveland in them. I get the comparison...but I'm sure socially, Toronto probably didn't have the severity of problems experienced in Ohio. Canadian cities just never got as bad (partially due to Canada's better focus on urban populations), but it's clear from those pics that Toronto was a real deal Great Lakes industrial port. That's a lot more grit than I was expecting. I always figured Hamilton was the gritty one, but it looks like Toronto was too. It very much shares legacy with the Great Lakes cities on the American side.

 

Crazy how much it has changed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AND SADLY CLEVELAND LOOKS THE SAME AS THE '60s

large_port22-overview.jpg

 

Wow, I think you need to see more pictures of Cleveland from the 1960s. Or better yet, experience it as my older brothers did (dodging bullets in Hough, getting mugged on Euclid Avenue in broad daylight, etc). Cleveland is so much cleaner, less violent, less corrupt and added more big buildings since then (I count 19 200' or taller buildings built downtown after 1969 at MayDay's http://www.clevelandskyscrapers.com/). As many as Toronto? Of course not. But how many Rust Belt cities can say that?


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^True downtown Cleveland has vastly expanded and improved, but I would agree that our lakefront hasn't changed much, except the addition of north coast harbor, and that's McLovin's point.  We've talked lakefront development to death in this town and don't have much to show for it.  At the same time many other cities have completely remade their waterfronts into attractions, such as Toronto and Chicago, and peer cities like Milwaukee, Baltimore, more recently Cincinnati and Pittsburgh.  Point being our skyline has changed, but looking at old pics I don't think our waterfront has changed much.  We always use the excuse that it's always been there and it's too much to move those heavy industrial uses, but that Toronto pic shows that it can be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AND SADLY CLEVELAND LOOKS THE SAME AS THE '60s

large_port22-overview.jpg

 

Wow, I think you need to see more pictures of Cleveland from the 1960s. Or better yet, experience it as my older brothers did (dodging bullets in Hough, getting mugged on Euclid Avenue in broad daylight, etc). Cleveland is so much cleaner, less violent, less corrupt and added more big buildings since then (I count 19 200' or taller buildings built downtown after 1969 at MayDay's http://www.clevelandskyscrapers.com/). As many as Toronto? Of course not. But how many Rust Belt cities can say that?

Well I was specifically speaking on the lakefront.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^True downtown Cleveland has vastly expanded and improved, but I would agree that our lakefront hasn't changed much, except the addition of north coast harbor, and that's McLovin's point.  We've talked lakefront development to death in this town and don't have much to show for it.  At the same time many other cities have completely remade their waterfronts into attractions, such as Toronto and Chicago, and peer cities like Milwaukee, Baltimore, more recently Cincinnati and Pittsburgh.  Point being our skyline has changed, but looking at old pics I don't think our waterfront has changed much.  We always use the excuse that it's always been there and it's too much to move those heavy industrial uses, but that Toronto pic shows that it can be done.

 

Good points. The positive thing to draw  is that Cleveland has the benefit to see what worked and what didn't work in other coastal cities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm good with that. Then let's say Cleveland's "lakefront" hasn't changed much since the 1960s. It's a rather important distinction.

 

Anyone got any lists? Like a published ranking of Great Lakes cities' waterfronts? :)


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a point to note about Toronto's waterfront, they've managed to develop it in a way that we're all jealous of, yet still have their waterfront airport.

 

Anyone got any lists? Like a published ranking of Great Lakes cities' waterfronts? :)

Published lists, no. But from my perspective, Toronto probably has the best treatment of their waterfront overall. I  like Duluth's treatment of I-35 blocking their waterfront. Chicago smartly used parks, though Lakeshore still barricades off the lake from the city. Buffalo has a lot of potential if they could remove or cap 190.

 

I'm pretty sure Gary has the worst looking waterfront though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^though I do think Toronto has gone a little too extreme in attempting to erase its gritty past. There are so many glassy, boxy hi-rises near the waterfront that it actually detracts from the historic skyline (or what's left of it). They've created a bland yuppie ghetto with no real street life (at least as I observed a couple of years ago). Granted it's on the edge of downtown and a short walk to everything, but looks very unappealing as a place to live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a point to note about Toronto's waterfront, they've managed to develop it in a way that we're all jealous of, yet still have their waterfront airport.

 

Anyone got any lists? Like a published ranking of Great Lakes cities' waterfronts? :)

Published lists, no. But from my perspective, Toronto probably has the best treatment of their waterfront overall. I  like Duluth's treatment of I-35 blocking their waterfront. Chicago smartly used parks, though Lakeshore still barricades off the lake from the city. Buffalo has a lot of potential if they could remove or cap 190.

 

I'd actually throw Detroit in there too. The Detroit Riverwalk is great, and Belle Isle is pretty damn unique. I can't think of many other cities with a beach on an island in the middle of a beautiful river. They are ahead of other Rust Belt cities in this area. And it's not just Detroit, it's the whole state of Michigan (they seem to mandate a higher percentage of public access to water than other coastal states). Across the river, Windsor is decent too. Where Ontario falls apart is in Sarnia and their side of Sault Ste. Marie. I think Port Huron and the American Sault Ste. Marie beat the Canadian sides. Obviously, I'm a Michigan fanboy, but I think they deserve credit where credit is due. Most of the model Great Lakes waterfront is located in Michigan. Despite Ontario's generally good reputation on the American side of lakes ("It's so clean! And their ghettos are nowhere as bad as ours!"), they have made same pretty big mistakes along the water. Where they have succeeded is in keeping their cities from turning into self-destructive slums. Despite ugly buildings for a good 30 years in Toronto, that development prevented a much worse situation- depopulation and urban prairies. Most of the new Toronto stuff looks very good, with some being exemplarily.

 

Buffalo, Cleveland, and Toledo are nowhere near where they could be. In each of those cities, the waterfront access is too limited, and they all have had their fair share of missed opportunities. While Toledo was smart to protest most of its original freeway construction, including putting a halt to all plans to route sections of I-75 along the water, they still have that Marina District sitting as an urban prairie and almost all of Point Place and the Lost Peninsula of Michigan is completely cut off from the public. Toledo only really has a few good miles of public access. Ditto with Buffalo, and ditto with Cleveland. It will take a population boom, economic boom, and influx of tax dollars to really retrofit these waterfronts with parks and new urban development well-connected to the water, and not cut off by man-made barriers like freeways, coking plants, oil refineries, or superfund sites.

 

Duluth is a mixed bag (when talking waterfront, the city itself is amazing). The Duluth Harbor area rocks, but parts of the city are relatively cut off. Still, I remember it being decent (this was at least five years ago). I can't speak much for Milwaukee, but it looks good in pictures. Green Bay I've heard is pretty bad.

 

But yeah, Gary pretty much takes the cake for worst...unless it improved a lot in the last ten years...

 

Generally, with an international perspective on major cities, Chicago and Montreal rank high.

 

http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/worlds-top-waterfront-cities/13

 

When talking summer vacation rankings, Michigan always dominates the list:

 

http://www.midwestliving.com/travel/around-the-region/small-town-getaways-on-the-great-lakes/

 

*Looking at more 1960's Toronto pics, I really do see a lot of Cleveland and Buffalo. There is nothing wrong with comparing Toronto to those cities. They may have taken different economic and demographic paths, but the waterfront transformation in Toronto is worth noting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Agreed on Detroit, Montreal & Sault Ste. Marie. I had ignored them because I tend to think of them as more river fronts than lake front cities.

 

Erie belongs in the discussion too. The water feels cutoff a little by Bayfront parkway, but it appears they're making an effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top 100 Best Places to Live

 

Only considered cities between the size of 25,000-350,000. They say there were 1,700 cities under their consideration.

 

1 - Palo Alto, CA

2 - Boulder, CO

3 - Berkeley, CA

4 - Durham, NC

5 - Madison, WI

6 - Miami Beach, FL

7 - Rochester, NY

8 - Salt Lake City, UT

9 - Eugene, OR

10 - Reno, NV

...

14 - Ann Arbor, MI

28 - Lexington, KY

73 - Cincinnati, OH

80 - Pittsburgh, PA

100 - St. Louis, MO

 

The only Ohio city to make the list is Cincinnati.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like Palo Alto and Berkeley, but it's important to keep in mind how high rents and housing costs have gotten there in the past year. The situation in San Francisco is spreading metro wide.

 

If money is no object, I'll get behind Palo Alto (no BART, but you do have Caltrain). I've always liked the friendly vibe of that town (smart, healthy people, no hipsters). It's a totally livable city with perfect weather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of those "cities" are in my opinion, essentially suburbs that could not exist in a bubble.  Also 25,000-350,000 is a huge range and means that they're really comparing des pommes avec des oranges.

 

This is due to all the mega-suburbs out west. Keep in mind major Western cities can have suburbs of 100,000 to 350,000 people. Small Ohio cities like Sandusky are way more urban and "city" than these places. Some major cities out west have downtowns smaller than Sandusky...or no downtown at all.

 

In some ways, it is possible for a place of 300,000 people to be small town. They're just giant blobs of suburbia with a tiny historic district in the middle...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaaaaaaaaaand GO:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/19/most-dangerous-cities-in-america-2013_n_4816774.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

 

8. Cleveland

Crime was up by more than 7 percent in Cleveland year over year during the first six months of 2013. Murder and aggravated assault were both down, but rape, under the FBI's broader definition, and robbery were both up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I would call that list: "List of top ten cities where crime-spiked-in-two-arbitrarily-compared-time-periods-in-which-definitions-have-changed in America!"

The took the rankings from Law Street who took their information from FBI stats and used the same changed definition of rape universally. Cleveland was #8 in 2012 and #9 in 2011 on the same list. It's a natural consequence of not expanding city limits as the region sprawled; most of the cities on the list did the same and have relatively small limits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ One of their main criteria is weather. WTF?

Makes sense to me, being near the lake is natural AC in the summer, limits those stagnant hazy days found in Central & Southern OH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ One of their main criteria is weather. WTF?

Makes sense to me, being near the lake is natural AC in the summer, limits those stagnant hazy days found in Central & Southern OH.

 

Ranking places within Ohio by weather seems akin to splitting hairs.  Maybe the lake does offer some relief from the heat of summer, but Northeast Ohio also has harsher and longer winters, and shorter spring and fall seasons.  Seems about a wash to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ One of their main criteria is weather. WTF?

Makes sense to me, being near the lake is natural AC in the summer, limits those stagnant hazy days found in Central & Southern OH.

 

Ranking places within Ohio by weather seems akin to splitting hairs.  Maybe the lake does offer some relief from the heat of summer, but Northeast Ohio also has harsher and longer winters, and shorter spring and fall seasons.  Seems about a wash to me.

Many people enjoy winter where there are things to do like downhill & cross-country ski, tubing, and snow mobiling.  You can do all of those things in NEO, especially in the far northeast.  Most HS's for example have ski clubs and the slopes (though small) are always packed.  Not everyone believes that snow is the devils cotton.

 

This is unlike C & SE Ohio where the winter may be a little less harsh but nothing to do (outdoors) in generally 35-40 degree weather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ One of their main criteria is weather. WTF?

Makes sense to me, being near the lake is natural AC in the summer, limits those stagnant hazy days found in Central & Southern OH.

 

That contradicts the fact that #2 is in Southwest Ohio and they also comment on its nice weather.

 

Weather is pretty consistent from one municipality to its neighbors, so I guess they ranked weather by regions? I'd like to see a map of those rankings. Apparently NEO and SWO are at the top. If they were ranking regions, then weather ranks could make SOME sense (as opposed to making claims like Montgomery has awesome weather and Mason's sucks). But I agree w/ edale that ranking weather in Ohio is splitting hairs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

judging by the pictures, they place a large amount of emphasis on how the city's 11U travel baseball team performs. As well they should.

 

San Dimas High School football rules!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...