I can't comment on the job opportunities in either city, esp since I don't know your background.  However, I prefer alot of aspects of the city of Pittsburgh over Cleveland.  But, I prefer the people of Cleveland.  Pittsburgh people seem too "backwoodsy" or redneck.  Cleveland people, even younger people, are more urban minded, more open minded, more cultural. 

Cleveland and Pittsburgh both offer some great aspects of urban living, but I would agree that they totally have a different feel.  My dad's entire family is from Pittsburgh, so I've spent quite a bit of time there over the years, and I must say I love the city.  From my experiences, Pittsburgh has kind of a sleepy, comfortable vibe to it, very similar to Cincinnati.  There are some fantastic neighborhoods (Squirrel Hill, Shadyside, Oakland, Southside), and the people are honestly the nicest people I've met...real salt of the earth types.  It has great museums (the Carnegies + the Warhol Museum), and it does have some pretty solid housing.

 

Downsides:  While there are pockets of nice neighborhoods, there are also a lot of ugly houses with crappy little vinyl overhangs on the front that bug the shit out of me.  It can be very hard to get around the city, and their freeways are like 2 lanes.  While this adds a little charm, it does make it frustrating to get from one side of the metro to the other.  A lot of the city looks run down and has yet to shed its industrial past...even in the suburbs.  I know it has been mentioned here already, but Pittsburgh doesn't have much visible diversity.  It's noticable that there are many different European groups in the city, but very little in terms of Hispanic, Asian, and to a lesser extent Black presence in the city.

 

Now I'm not familiar enough with Cleveland to comment, and there are plenty of other people here that can (and have) commented on Cleveland.  I think Pittsburgh is a great city, and I think Cleveland is also a great city.  I don't think they feel similar at all, and I think it would be hard to pick between the two.  You could move to a city that has Pittsburgh's hills and neighborhoods, restaurants and culture on par with Cleveland, and better weather than both, but then you'd have to move to Cincinnati  :laugh:

I feel that Cleveland has a better housing stock then Pittsburgh from what ive seen. Would you agree?

 

Honestly, no.  Cleveland has some wonderful brick apartment buildings and some nice little Victorians but overall Pittsburgh has more variety, better material (aka brick, even if most are covered up in vinyl...just trashy), more ornamentation (Squirrel Hill comes to mind immediately for that), and has larger scaled apartment buildings let alone the whole rowhouse schtick.  I think one of Cleveland's negatives IS its housing stock.  Some of it is standard Midwestern such as Kamm's Corner/West Park area with the cute single family homes but overall I find Cleveland's housing stock FOR THE MOST PART (that's not to say all of Cleveland's housing) isn't up to par with Pittsburgh.  From my travels, while Pittsburgh has its share of dilapidated homes (Homewood, Manchester, the Mon Valley), it isn't even in the same league of dilapidation from what I've seen in Kinsman, Glenville, etc.  The wood-frame material seems to deterioriate faster than the brick and it shows.

 

And also, I disagree about the inner-ring Cleveland stock versus Pittsburgh's.  Pittsburgh doesn't really have the grand homes of Shaker/Fairmont or the cliffside homes of Rocky River and Lakewood BUT overall I'd say it has more sturdy, well-put housing than a majority of Cleveland's inner-ring.  Again, brick material versus wood.  Mount Lebanon has a better housing stock than, say, Garfield Heights.  Now in terms of wealth, Cleveland's inner-ring annihilates Pittsburgh's inner-ring.

 

As far as this:

 

What exactly do you guys mean by "Detroitification"?

 

The only "Detroitification" I see in Cleveland is on several commercial/industrial streets. But you wont find what you find in Detroit's residential streets.

 

This kind of destruction/abandonment doesn't exactly exist the same way in Cleveland. You may see boarded up houses, or houses falling apart, but you dont see the complete destruction of neighborhoods that you see in Detroit

 

Sure, Cleveland doesn't have large scaled urban prairies like Detroit but its vernacular in certain neighborhoods (particularly on the eastside) which show this sort of "Detroit-look" 

 

For example, E. 79th:

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=Cleveland&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Cleveland,+Cuyahoga,+Ohio&gl=us&ll=41.497585,-81.630607&spn=0,0.042272&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=41.498165,-81.633482&panoid=xdJ-SHDMebNhN9uCUs5nHA&cbp=12,159.71,,0,-3.29

 

Now compare that with your average Pittsburgh ghetto neighborhood such as, oh I don't know, Manchester, and you'll see a stark difference in visual scale and sense.

If you want a good amount of various dense neighborhoods it's Pittsburgh. If you want to help push an up and coming neighborhood forward/be at the front lines of urban revitalization then Cleveland. Also worth considering is the direction each city is moving towards (do they favor an urban or suburban agenda?) or expanding your options to at least the greater Great Lakes region (Chicago, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Detroit, Indianapolis)