San Francisco? DC? Miami?

 

SF and DC are overrated. They're great cities, but SF is loaded with homeless meth addicts, is very dirty, and petty crime/auto break-ins are still a huge problem (check out insurance rates in SF and Oakland). It's also overrun by snobby hipsters. It still has world class places like Nob Hill, North Beach, Russian Hill, and Pacific Heights, but they're the minority of the city, not the majority. Old San Francisco is shrinking fast, and as a result SF is way too overpriced for what you get. If you live in Nob Hill, it's the best place in America. If you don't, you're getting scammed. The way to do SF was to move there five years ago and have new kids pay your rent/mortgage.

 

DC is overpriced too. It suffers from the same problem that SF and Boston suffer- NIMBYism driving up rents and pushing out minorities, natives, families, etc. A lot of America's first tier cities are no longer the diverse, cosmopolitan meccas they used to be. New York and LA are holding on the longest, if only due to the fact they're big enough to absorb gentrification.

 

I can't speak for Miami, but I've heard nothing but good things. I've heard it's basically the girls of LA with even better nightlife...

 

The real surprise for me is that Chicago is not on this list. It deserves to be. It's sort of a more violent Toronto with better housing...

 

When you balance rents versus quality of life, Chicago is America's best city by a big margin. Just don't tell Californians that. :wink:

 

It all depends what you're looking for in a city.  The study that even brought all this up was about global reputation, not best places to live.  In my opinion, SF absolutely has a great reputation, and gentrification should only make it more appealing to visitors.  No city is without its problems, but San Francisco is a real gem.  It has amazing topography, a great food scene, booming economy, great weather (compared to everywhere but LA and SD), and a distinct local personality. Gentrification is a growing problem in SF, but with such a small geographic area and desirable location, it was bound to happen.  I really think any discussion of SF has to be framed in the context of the whole Bay Area.  SF is probably similar in size to the West Side of LA and Santa Monica.  If this area was it's own city, it would have been considered gentrified years ago.  LA and NY benefit from having large city areas, so they can accommodate more people and more diverse populations.  If you include Oakland, Richmond, Berkeley, and some of the other East Bay communities, SF more closely resembles other cities.

^As I always warn people, living here is way different from visiting here...there are neighborhoods on Market that are still pretty bad. 6th Street is ungodly, worse than anything in North Toledo or East Cleveland (people in the Rust Belt don't tolerate that kind of crap from anybody). This is the San Francisco you never heard about in tourism brochures or marketing material. The city is at a crossroads where something has got to be done to clean up the rest of the core outside Fidi and the eastern part of SOMA or it could harm our famed tourism industry. Maybe we need more homeless shelters, maybe we need more clinics, or maybe we just need to start enforcing our own sit/lie laws and existing drug laws.

 

I'll put it this way, there is a good reason SF is not on this list and NY is. I've lived with French transplants from Paris, and they constantly commented about the public urination and defecation in the core of San Francisco. "How come you guys don't have public bathrooms?" When Civic Center BART got shut down for too much human feces, that was mind-boggling to them. They couldn't believe that would happen in any world class city (which SF still is, just for a wealthier crowd than in the old days).

 

It made me realize how jaded and numb I was to it all. "Sure, it's perfectly normal for that guy to be shooting heroin and popping a squat on 8th Street during rush hour." Haha, there used to even a blog about the human feces in SOMA...

 

Human waste shuts down BART escalators

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Human-waste-shuts-down-BART-escalators-3735981.php

 

A FRIEND OF MINE ONCE TOLD ME THAT HE HAD TO TAKE AN EXTENDED BREAK FROM THE MISSION BECAUSE EVERY TIME HE’D VISIT, OFTEN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY, HE’D SEE SOMEONE PUBLICLY POOPING

http://www.thebolditalic.com/articles/3758-why-is-there-so-much-human-shit-on-the-streets

 

If you include Oakland, Richmond, Berkeley, and some of the other East Bay communities, SF more closely resembles other cities.

 

This is true. The real diversity is moving to the East Bay. The so-called "bridge and tunnel" crowd (if this were NY) tends to generally be more friendly and down-to-earth than new San Francisco (people are stressed as hell about the housing situation). It's a different world across the Bay. And Downtown Oakland's nightlife (at least on weekends) now beats anything outside the Marina and Polk Street (though I don't think Oakland can ever duplicate a Marina District). Oakland's scene is more diverse, more integrated, and more dynamic. It's everything places like Toledo or Buffalo could be if they weren't so ghetto and economically destroyed...

 

Just for the improvement of the last decade alone, I'd put Oakland on this list before San Francisco. There's got to be a reward for effort. Oakland used to be really bad. There was a time when it very much would have fit right in on Lake Erie or the Rust Belt. It's a great model for Lake Erie cities IMO.

 

Oakland is one of the most underrated cities in America. I'm amazed so many tourists skip over it and I cringe any time I hear San Francisco friends say they won't go there. I try to visit as much as I can because it's a different change of pace. It deserves more cred than it gets. The food and nightlife scene is exploding. San Francisco is fun, but Oakland is nipping at its heels. If SF isn't more open to development (we've got a lot right now, but by 2015 most will be finished and demand will still be too high), I could see Oakland poaching companies and landing the bulk of new residents.

These Are The 10 Most Exciting Suburbs In America

 

http://www.movoto.com/blog/top-ten/exciting-suburbs/

Santa Monica > all these, except maybe Miami Beach.

 

Lakewood deserves the nod. Berkeley I can get behind too. Fair list.

Yeah Lakewood! I think the value of my house just went about about .03 percent!!!

 

 

I'll put it this way, there is a good reason SF is not on this list and NY is. I've lived with French transplants from Paris, and they constantly commented about the public urination and defecation in the core of San Francisco. "How come you guys don't have public bathrooms?" When Civic Center BART got shut down for too much human feces, that was mind-boggling to them. They couldn't believe that would happen in any world class city (which SF still is, just for a wealthier crowd than in the old days).

 

It made me realize how jaded and numb I was to it all. "Sure, it's perfectly normal for that guy to be shooting heroin and popping a squat on 8th Street during rush hour." Haha, there used to even a blog about the human feces in SOMA...

 

Human waste shuts down BART escalators

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Human-waste-shuts-down-BART-escalators-3735981.php

 

A FRIEND OF MINE ONCE TOLD ME THAT HE HAD TO TAKE AN EXTENDED BREAK FROM THE MISSION BECAUSE EVERY TIME HE’D VISIT, OFTEN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY, HE’D SEE SOMEONE PUBLICLY POOPING

http://www.thebolditalic.com/articles/3758-why-is-there-so-much-human-shit-on-the-streets

 

 

I always wondered why this was so much the case.  Every city has homeless, but I remember having to step over streams of urine on the sidewalk seemingly everywhere I went in SF.

 

"Welcome to San Francisco: Free prune juice for heroine addicts"

^As I always warn people, living here is way different from visiting here...there are neighborhoods on Market that are still pretty bad. 6th Street is ungodly, worse than anything in North Toledo or East Cleveland (people in the Rust Belt don't tolerate that kind of crap from anybody). This is the San Francisco you never heard about in tourism brochures or marketing material. The city is at a crossroads where something has got to be done to clean up the rest of the core outside Fidi and the eastern part of SOMA or it could harm our famed tourism industry. Maybe we need more homeless shelters, maybe we need more clinics, or maybe we just need to start enforcing our own sit/lie laws and existing drug laws.

 

I'll put it this way, there is a good reason SF is not on this list and NY is. I've lived with French transplants from Paris, and they constantly commented about the public urination and defecation in the core of San Francisco. "How come you guys don't have public bathrooms?" When Civic Center BART got shut down for too much human feces, that was mind-boggling to them. They couldn't believe that would happen in any world class city (which SF still is, just for a wealthier crowd than in the old days).

 

It made me realize how jaded and numb I was to it all. "Sure, it's perfectly normal for that guy to be shooting heroin and popping a squat on 8th Street during rush hour." Haha, there used to even a blog about the human feces in SOMA...

 

 

A FRIEND OF MINE ONCE TOLD ME THAT HE HAD TO TAKE AN EXTENDED BREAK FROM THE MISSION BECAUSE EVERY TIME HE’D VISIT, OFTEN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY, HE’D SEE SOMEONE PUBLICLY POOPING

 

This is true. The real diversity is moving to the East Bay. The so-called "bridge and tunnel" crowd (if this were NY) tends to generally be more friendly and down-to-earth than new San Francisco (people are stressed as hell about the housing situation). It's a different world across the Bay. And Downtown Oakland's nightlife (at least on weekends) now beats anything outside the Marina and Polk Street (though I don't think Oakland can ever duplicate a Marina District). Oakland's scene is more diverse, more integrated, and more dynamic. It's everything places like Toledo or Buffalo could be if they weren't so ghetto and economically destroyed...

 

Just for the improvement of the last decade alone, I'd put Oakland on this list before San Francisco. There's got to be a reward for effort. Oakland used to be really bad. There was a time when it very much would have fit right in on Lake Erie or the Rust Belt. It's a great model for Lake Erie cities IMO.

 

Oakland is one of the most underrated cities in America. I'm amazed so many tourists skip over it and I cringe any time I hear San Francisco friends say they won't go there. I try to visit as much as I can because it's a different change of pace. It deserves more cred than it gets. The food and nightlife scene is exploding. San Francisco is fun, but Oakland is nipping at its heels. If SF isn't more open to development (we've got a lot right now, but by 2015 most will be finished and demand will still be too high), I could see Oakland poaching companies and landing the bulk of new residents.

I have no desire to take this forum off topic but have to respond to this horribly offensive post. My family has lived in the San Francisco area for over 100 years and although every city has issues these attacks are completely out of control and inaccurate. It's flabbergasting and sad that people from Cleveland would stoop to this kind of hyperbole considering Cleveland has been on the losing end of this type of bogus commentary for a long time. I really hope others can see through this person's obvious axe to grind with San Francisco. It's good to have honest discussions on these forums but people need to be called out when it goes over the line and is misleading. With all its issues San Francisco is most likely still the most desirable, beautiful, exciting and unique cities in America, and even the world. Along with this kind of fame comes the haters and believe me this C-Dawg persons comments are not unique or something new. We have lots of problems to tackle here in San Francisco but it's pretty much all due to the insanity of how popular this city is and the crazy depths people will go to try and attempt to live here. I would love to debate every crazy comment about San Francisco this poster makes but I have to head home now and it takes me forever to step over the endless streams of urine that is seemingly everywhere in San Francisco! Please, to the good people of Cleveland, don't buy into this crap. I know you must cringe when you hear the negative attacks on your city, this is the exact same thing. Rise above it.

^CDawg isn't from Cleveland and I believe he currently lives in SF.  Sounds to me like he's just offering his honest opinion. 

I have to chime in here... I used to live in Boston, moved back to CLE and visited SF for my first time this past Fall. I took public transit in from the airport to Mission St station and walked up to my friends place in the Castro.

 

First impression getting off the train station and first time stepping foot in SF: Filthy, smelly and more homeless people than I can recall seeing in any major city. The smell was absolutely horrendous - worse than any train station I have ever been in, including the plaza at street level.

 

As I explored the city in the days that followed, my impression of the city only got worse. Weed smoke everywhere, homeless people everywhere (including taking shits wherever they deem necessary). I was offered to hit a crack pipe near Dolores park. I just couldn't imagine paying all that money to live there and having those be my daily interactions.

 

Overall, it just felt really dirty. It made me appreciate the ambassadors in CLE that clean our sidewalks and streets. It at least lets people know that while we may not be the biggest and the best, at least we will make it look nice and take pride in what we have.

I'm with ClevelandBrowns.  San Francisco is a fine city.  Sure, it has issues but what city doesn't (especially in THIS state)?  Major California cities in general have that homeless/urine smell due to the fact that they are major destinations for eastern homeless populations and, well, that it kinda doesn't rain/snow to wash out the "filth."  Think of how a more populated Glenville, Ohio City, or Clark-Fulton would smell if it didn't have snow/rain to wash out the nastiness.

^So it doesn't rain in SF?  :-o :-o

Folks, whether or not it rains or is dirty in SF is not on topic.

^True, so I'll finish my convo here.

 

^So it doesn't rain in SF?

 

Of course it sometimes rains but not nearly as much as the eastern half of the US.

I have to chime in here... I used to live in Boston, moved back to CLE and visited SF for my first time this past Fall. I took public transit in from the airport to Mission St station and walked up to my friends place in the Castro.

 

First impression getting off the train station and first time stepping foot in SF: Filthy, smelly and more homeless people than I can recall seeing in any major city. The smell was absolutely horrendous - worse than any train station I have ever been in, including the plaza at street level.

 

As I explored the city in the days that followed, my impression of the city only got worse. Weed smoke everywhere, homeless people everywhere (including taking shits wherever they deem necessary). I was offered to hit a crack pipe near Dolores park. I just couldn't imagine paying all that money to live there and having those be my daily interactions.

 

Overall, it just felt really dirty. It made me appreciate the ambassadors in CLE that clean our sidewalks and streets. It at least lets people know that while we may not be the biggest and the best, at least we will make it look nice and take pride in what we have.

I don't know if anyone listens to right-wing (yet refreshingly iconoclastic) radio talk show host Michael Savage (I suppose that I'm now a target for attack since I occasionally do! :laugh:), but he's a long time San Francisco transplant (from New York) who constantly rails about how filthy the streets there are. I was skeptical that it could be that bad, but our correspondent in the field (C-Dawg) and some others seem to concur...

^I concur.  IMO it's not worth the cost of living to have to deal with some of the things I've witnessed in SF.  Nasty, but to each their own, right.   

I'm getting ready to delete a bunch of posts here, peeps. Keep it on topic.

Okay what's the topic we are allowed to speak on?  Someone posted a link on the page before regarding the reputation of cities around the world.

The title of the thread is about lists ranking cities. Typing a tennis ball back and forth over whether or not SF is dirty or not (no it's not, yes it is, no it's not, ad nauseum) is not productive and doesn't add anything to the discussion. Comments like "so it doesn't rain in SF?" Come on, guys. Some discussion about what goes into producing the rankings, and agreeing to disagree is fine, but let's not fill up the page with argument and barbs.

^My apologies. I was just offering my opinion of SF as many others have. 

sure. My comment is not directed solely at you. I'd like to just keep the discussion progressive and thoughtful, not yes it is, no it isn't.

^As I always warn people, living here is way different from visiting here...there are neighborhoods on Market that are still pretty bad. 6th Street is ungodly, worse than anything in North Toledo or East Cleveland (people in the Rust Belt don't tolerate that kind of crap from anybody). This is the San Francisco you never heard about in tourism brochures or marketing material. The city is at a crossroads where something has got to be done to clean up the rest of the core outside Fidi and the eastern part of SOMA or it could harm our famed tourism industry. Maybe we need more homeless shelters, maybe we need more clinics, or maybe we just need to start enforcing our own sit/lie laws and existing drug laws.

 

I'll put it this way, there is a good reason SF is not on this list and NY is. I've lived with French transplants from Paris, and they constantly commented about the public urination and defecation in the core of San Francisco. "How come you guys don't have public bathrooms?" When Civic Center BART got shut down for too much human feces, that was mind-boggling to them. They couldn't believe that would happen in any world class city (which SF still is, just for a wealthier crowd than in the old days).

 

It made me realize how jaded and numb I was to it all. "Sure, it's perfectly normal for that guy to be shooting heroin and popping a squat on 8th Street during rush hour." Haha, there used to even a blog about the human feces in SOMA...

 

 

A FRIEND OF MINE ONCE TOLD ME THAT HE HAD TO TAKE AN EXTENDED BREAK FROM THE MISSION BECAUSE EVERY TIME HE’D VISIT, OFTEN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY, HE’D SEE SOMEONE PUBLICLY POOPING

 

This is true. The real diversity is moving to the East Bay. The so-called "bridge and tunnel" crowd (if this were NY) tends to generally be more friendly and down-to-earth than new San Francisco (people are stressed as hell about the housing situation). It's a different world across the Bay. And Downtown Oakland's nightlife (at least on weekends) now beats anything outside the Marina and Polk Street (though I don't think Oakland can ever duplicate a Marina District). Oakland's scene is more diverse, more integrated, and more dynamic. It's everything places like Toledo or Buffalo could be if they weren't so ghetto and economically destroyed...

 

Just for the improvement of the last decade alone, I'd put Oakland on this list before San Francisco. There's got to be a reward for effort. Oakland used to be really bad. There was a time when it very much would have fit right in on Lake Erie or the Rust Belt. It's a great model for Lake Erie cities IMO.

 

Oakland is one of the most underrated cities in America. I'm amazed so many tourists skip over it and I cringe any time I hear San Francisco friends say they won't go there. I try to visit as much as I can because it's a different change of pace. It deserves more cred than it gets. The food and nightlife scene is exploding. San Francisco is fun, but Oakland is nipping at its heels. If SF isn't more open to development (we've got a lot right now, but by 2015 most will be finished and demand will still be too high), I could see Oakland poaching companies and landing the bulk of new residents.

I have no desire to take this forum off topic but have to respond to this horribly offensive post. My family has lived in the San Francisco area for over 100 years and although every city has issues these attacks are completely out of control and inaccurate. It's flabbergasting and sad that people from Cleveland would stoop to this kind of hyperbole considering Cleveland has been on the losing end of this type of bogus commentary for a long time. I really hope others can see through this person's obvious axe to grind with San Francisco. It's good to have honest discussions on these forums but people need to be called out when it goes over the line and is misleading. With all its issues San Francisco is most likely still the most desirable, beautiful, exciting and unique cities in America, and even the world. Along with this kind of fame comes the haters and believe me this C-Dawg persons comments are not unique or something new. We have lots of problems to tackle here in San Francisco but it's pretty much all due to the insanity of how popular this city is and the crazy depths people will go to try and attempt to live here. I would love to debate every crazy comment about San Francisco this poster makes but I have to head home now and it takes me forever to step over the endless streams of urine that is seemingly everywhere in San Francisco! Please, to the good people of Cleveland, don't buy into this crap. I know you must cringe when you hear the negative attacks on your city, this is the exact same thing. Rise above it.

 

Calm down bro or you might step in doodoo!  :-D

 

What hood you live in? You in Diamond Heights or something? These aren't exactly new problems in the urban core. SF has always had more than its fair share of public drug use, public defecation, and vagrancy near its downtown. This is where it differs from New York and Chicago. They don't have anything on the level of the Tenderloin next to downtown. SF is unique and I know this because I work all over the country and see other cities. Lack of rain isn't the issue (though of course we are in a record drought). It's people being too tolerant of this crap...literally haha. This includes our own City Hall. What's next, are you gonna try to tell me our Main Library is just like Main Libraries in other cities?

 

Swept off Mid-Market, S.F.'s homeless cluster nearby

Heather Knight

Updated 10:26 pm, Saturday, January 11, 2014

 

But perhaps the most striking problem is taking place within view of the mayor's sweeping City Hall balcony. Civic Center Plaza, which has had an on-and-off homeless problem for years, has seen an uptick in vagrancy and flagrant lawbreaking that led one city supervisor to liken it to "the Wild West." People use crack and heroin, set up camp and have sex in broad daylight for anyone to see.

 

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Swept-off-Mid-Market-S-F-s-homeless-cluster-5135078.php

 

Normal, right?

 

In other places I've lived, you can be rest assured people confront someone doing this stuff on the street. That's not acceptable in most global cities. It has nothing to do with gentrification, SF's raging "amazeballs" economy, or its beauty. It has to do with a different political vibe. Parts of SF still live by the wild west mentality (Tenderloin, Mid-Market, 6th Street).

 

Did you ever read Herb Caen? Most San Franciscans agree we've had an oversized homeless, drug abuse, and street pooping problem for a long time. Ignoring it solves nothing. I'm a proud anti-hipster San Franciscan, and we're taking this city back! No more doodoo in the streets!

*This is my last post on the issue. I just wanted to offer a reason why New York was on this list and San Francisco wasn't. This crap does have some influence on the city's reputation. People are moving here for our excellent economy, but our lack of housing and vagrancy could have a negative effect if it's not dealt with soon.

C-Bus made the list.

 

10 best cities to buy rental property

Would-be homebuyers are sitting on the sidelines now, and many are spending their time in rentals despite the housing bargains out there. It could be a great time to buy a house to rent.

 

Vacancy rate: 8.6%

Average rent: $690

 

Ample vacancies, low rents and continued rent growth are great, but you know what makes them even better? Throwing them into the middle of a college town.

 

Whether you're a renter or a potential rental property buyer, Columbus, Ohio., has a lot to offer. As with many state capitals that also happen to be home to state universities, Columbus is insulated from economic upheaval by government jobs and a stable employer at Ohio State University. Unemployment is 7.3%, well below the national average.

 

http://money.msn.com/retirement-investment/10-best-cities-to-buy-rental-property-thestreet.aspx?cp-documentid=6828239

My own list of non-Ohio cities this board is obsessed with discussing:

 

1. San Francisco

2. SanFran

3. SF

4. Portland

5. Charlanta

Really? San Francisco doesn't rate highly on my radar of cities to chat about. Chicago, Toronto, Detroit, Boston, New York, Philly, Balto-DC and Pittsburgh are brighter on my radar.

^I don't think Toronto is on the radar enough. They're in a boom up there (still attracting a ton of immigrants from all over the world) and it offers some lessens for other Great Lakes cities.

 

Detroit should of course be heavily discussed since it shares blood with Toledo and Cleveland (and other Rust Belt shipping ports). Chicago deserves attention too because it's the king of the Midwest and has model urban planning.

 

IMO, these are the top five (in no order) cities that should be looked at more by Ohioans:

 

1. Grand Rapids

2. Milwaukee

3. Duluth

4. Minneapolis

5. Port Huron (for Sandusky and Lorain)

 

*Pittsburgh too, but it's very much on the radar in Ohio, and nationally.

 

**All East Coast cities should be discussed in Ohio, but I think one stands above the rest as a model with some demographic/economic similarities- Baltimore.

^I don't think Toronto is on the radar enough. They're in a boom up there (still attracting a ton of immigrants from all over the world) and it offers some lessens for other Great Lakes cities.

 

 

Here is a very cool map of recent projects in Toronto. Its CRAZY how much development is happening up there! Some really cool projects. Imagine if we even had a 5% of that!

 

(For some reason it starts away from downtown. Downtown is to the right, you will notice it by all the dots. Grey dots are recently completed projects and blue are current projects.)

 

http://urbantoronto.ca/map/

^I don't think Toronto is on the radar enough. They're in a boom up there (still attracting a ton of immigrants from all over the world) and it offers some lessens for other Great Lakes cities.

 

IMO, a city like Cleveland trying to draw inspiration from Toronto is about as much of a stretch as the former trying to draw inspiration from Chicago, New York, or any other large, cosmopolitan city.  It's just too fundamentally different to be a realistic model.  Although I suppose it wouldn't be so bad for Cleveland to one day become the primate city of Canada.

^I don't think Toronto is on the radar enough. They're in a boom up there (still attracting a ton of immigrants from all over the world) and it offers some lessens for other Great Lakes cities.

 

IMO, a city like Cleveland trying to draw inspiration from Toronto is about as much of a stretch as the former trying to draw inspiration from Chicago, New York, or any other large, cosmopolitan city.  It's just too fundamentally different to be a realistic model.  Although I suppose it wouldn't be so bad for Cleveland to one day become the primate city of Canada.

 

Why? Cleveland had more population (city and metro) than Toronto until the 1970s. An older friend of mine drove with his family through Toronto in the 1960s on the way back from Montreal. He asked his mother as they drove past the skyline: "why can't we stop and see this city?" His mother replied that Toronto wasn't worth seeing as it had seen better days as an old industrial city. Sound familiar? Toronto was already on the rebound then, and they grabbed banks and other corporations fleeing the political troubles in Quebec in the 1970s and 80s. It was a combination of good plans and good timing. It can and does happen anywhere, even in a once-dumpy, has-been town like Toronto.

^I don't think Toronto is on the radar enough. They're in a boom up there (still attracting a ton of immigrants from all over the world) and it offers some lessens for other Great Lakes cities.

 

IMO, a city like Cleveland trying to draw inspiration from Toronto is about as much of a stretch as the former trying to draw inspiration from Chicago, New York, or any other large, cosmopolitan city.  It's just too fundamentally different to be a realistic model.  Although I suppose it wouldn't be so bad for Cleveland to one day become the primate city of Canada.

 

Why? Cleveland had more population (city and metro) than Toronto until the 1970s. An older friend of mine drove with his family through Toronto in the 1960s on the way back from Montreal. He asked his mother as they drove past the skyline: "why can't we stop and see this city?" His mother replied that Toronto wasn't worth seeing as it had seen better days as an old industrial city. Sound familiar? Toronto was already on the rebound then, and they grabbed banks and other corporations fleeing the political troubles in Quebec in the 1970s and 80s. It was a combination of good plans and good timing. It can and does happen anywhere, even in a once-dumpy, has-been town like Toronto.

with all due respect, I don't think Toronto was ever considered "a dumpy, has-been town" (lol). It was sort of staid and boring for much of its existence probably due to the old British influence, but it never experienced the kind of mass decline of neighborhoods like similarly-sized American cities. I tend to agree with Clevelander. Toronto is the "New York of Canada," the cultural and financial capital of the nation, so it's unlikely Cleveland will ever approach the kind of success (and I hate using that word) Toronto has achieved no matter how robust any future growth.

with all due respect, I don't think Toronto was ever considered "a dumpy, has-been town" (lol). It was sort of staid and boring for much of its existence probably due to the old British influence, but it never experienced the kind of mass decline of neighborhoods like similarly-sized American cities. I tend to agree with Clevelander. Toronto is the "New York of Canada," the cultural and financial capital of the nation, so it's unlikely Cleveland will ever approach the kind of success (and I hate using that word) Toronto has achieved no matter how robust any future growth.

 

My friend's family did in the 1960s. I was -3 when they made the trip so I wasn't there. Go argue with them.

 

Fact is, Cleveland was bigger than Toronto in my lifetime. Barely. But in my lifetime.

 

EDIT: worth reading.... http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,29007.msg695398.html#msg695398

with all due respect, I don't think Toronto was ever considered "a dumpy, has-been town" (lol). It was sort of staid and boring for much of its existence probably due to the old British influence, but it never experienced the kind of mass decline of neighborhoods like similarly-sized American cities. I tend to agree with Clevelander. Toronto is the "New York of Canada," the cultural and financial capital of the nation, so it's unlikely Cleveland will ever approach the kind of success (and I hate using that word) Toronto has achieved no matter how robust any future growth.

 

My friend's family did in the 1960s. I was -3 when they made the trip so I wasn't there. Go argue with them.

 

Fact is, Cleveland was bigger than Toronto in my lifetime. Barely. But in my lifetime.

 

EDIT: worth reading.... http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,29007.msg695398.html#msg695398

okay, I'm not going to "argue" with anyone, but my family went there all the time in the 60's and although it wasn't yet the big, cosmpolitan city it is today, it was considered extremely safe (probably more so than today), and the subway (pristine then but not nearly as extensive) was already in operation (since the 50's). I'm sure a lot of old-timers even in Toronto miss those days. But yes, I know throughout the 50's Cleveland was in fact the bigger of the two.

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.

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/

By the way, today's Crain's Cleveland Business had a tidbit about the "Bible-mindedness" ranking.  Apparently, they did 46,000 phone interviews and asked if the person being interviewed had 1. read from the Bible in the previous week and 2. believed strongly in the Bible's accuracy.

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20140203/BLOGS03/140209973

^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...

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...

Knoxville at #3 kinda killed it for me.

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.

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:

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 today:

Craziest cities

Cincinnati #1

Cleveland #13

Columbus #20

Dayton - snubbed again

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/03/11/americas-25-craziest-cities.html

^ That really is a dumb-a$$ list/Ranking of cities.

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...

AND SADLY THE CLEVELAND LAKEFRONT LOOKS THE SAME AS THE '60s

 

AND SADLY CLEVELAND LOOKS THE SAME AS THE '60s

 

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?

^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.

AND SADLY CLEVELAND LOOKS THE SAME AS THE '60s

 

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.

^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.

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? :)