Cities with an undeserved bad rap

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by JManc

The Strip is plain obnoxious. Downtown Vegas is a little more tolerable and reminds me how Vegas probably was back in it's heyday in the 60's. As for living there, Not a fan of Vegas proper but I can see the appeal of Henderson for retirees; it's certainly much cheaper than living in LA, there are some really nice neighborhoods and still pretty close to LA; it's an easy drive there via the 15 via Barstow/ Victorville and SWA has flights to pretty much anywhere.

Downtown Vegas is virtually a historic preserve of what Vegas was before it became fully mainstream. Think early 90's. As a Californian growing up, I remember vividly what Vegas used to be.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Downtown Vegas is virtually a historic preserve of what Vegas was before it became fully mainstream. Think early 90's. As a Californian growing up, I remember vividly what Vegas used to be.

Downtown Vegas is the actual City of Las Vegas.

The Strip is not within the city limits.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Downtown Vegas is the actual City of Las Vegas.

The Strip is not within the city limits.

But it's still 'Vegas'. No says they're going to Paradise.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by craigs

I forgot how some people take everything too literally to handle a literary device. No, not literally fucking Disneyland.

I was just being a smart ass. I understood what you meant.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by JManc

But it's still 'Vegas'. No says they're going to Paradise.

Right, but back to ThPhun1's post, the reason downtown Vegas has a street grid and somewhat of a historic nature to it, is because it's the downtown area of the City of Las Vegas, government buildings, old casinos and a lot of new interest and development starting to break ground/open up.

The Strip is an unincorporated area for the most part.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

I'm moving to Oakland soon, I hope its bad rap is a little undeserved.

Just here to say that, so far, Oakland is pretty nice.

[RowanGrad]

Philly's like a reverse Phoenix in that it gets its due on this forum, but mainstream America thinks it's some shithole on par with Baltimore and Cleveland. (I don't believe their shitholes fyi, just saying that's their reputations)

In reality, it's definitely on par with Boston, if not better; and most who visit Philly end up being surprised and loving it (other than some New Yorkers).

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by RowanGrad

Philly's like a reverse Phoenix in that it gets its due on this forum, but mainstream America thinks it's some shithole on par with Baltimore and Cleveland.

I have never heard anyone compare Philly to Baltimore or Cleveland.

Originally Posted by RowanGrad

In reality, it's definitely on par with Boston, if not better

I agree with this ^ statement 100% (and I live in New York).

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by RowanGrad

Philly's like a reverse Phoenix in that it gets its due on this forum, but mainstream America thinks it's some shithole on par with Baltimore and Cleveland. (I don't believe their shitholes fyi, just saying that's their reputations)

In reality, it's definitely on par with Boston, if not better; and most who visit Philly end up being surprised and loving it (other than some New Yorkers).

I would generally agree with this, except for the New Yorkers part. They're close enough to know what Philly offers, which, yeah, is about on-par with Boston.

[Tom In Chicago]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

Just here to say that, so far, Oakland is pretty nice.

I think Oakland gets a bad rap the same way say Milwaukee gets a bad rap. . . sure it's a great town on it's own, but in proximity to. . . yeah. . . kinda overshadowed by the neighboring bigger brother. . .

. . .

[JManc]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

I have never heard anyone compare Philly to Baltimore or Cleveland.

Not directly but they're all lumped in together has bombed out cesspools. Unfairly but perceptions are perceptions. Very few people look upon Philly with fondness but instead see it as Baltimore with Cheese wiz and a broken bell. And this thing:

[Tom In Chicago]

Originally Posted by JManc

Not directly but they're all lumped in together has bombed out cesspools. Unfairly but perceptions are perceptions. Very few people look upon Philly with fondness but instead see it as Baltimore with Cheese wiz and a broken bell.

Baltimore and Philly are more similarly dilapidated . . . Cleveland is it's own kind of "Great Lakes" Midwestern style of cesspool. . . if we're splitting hairs. . .

. . .

[Acajack]

IMO Philadelphia has as much or perhaps slightly more "city stuff" than Boston, but Boston is a nicer, better preserved and maintained city.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

Just here to say that, so far, Oakland is pretty nice.

I like Oakland. I have a few friends that live over there, and they have really nice places. I definitely have space envy, coming from NYC.

The commercial areas in Oakland can feel a little like Rust Belt cities that have suffered from disinvestment, which is odd since the city has not experienced large scale population decline. But otherwise, I like it. And unlike almost every major city east of the Mississippi, it is currently at its peak population. If I lived in the Bay Area, I would prefer it over San Francisco, especially considering the cost of living in SF.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I would generally agree with this, except for the New Yorkers part. They're close enough to know what Philly offers, which, yeah, is about on-par with Boston.

I would give the edge to Philadelphia. It is the bigger city and it feels like it. Boston can feel a bit sleepy since everything shuts down so early.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

Baltimore and Philly are more similarly dilapidated . . . Cleveland is it's own kind of "Great Lakes" Midwestern style of cesspool. . . if we're splitting hairs. . .

. . .

Hmm. I'm less familiar with Baltimore than Philly, but I always felt that Baltimore was significantly more dilapidated. It could be that Philly is much larger and better able to hide it from visitors, though.

[Tom In Chicago]

^I'm speaking as an outsider, but both cities appear more old "brick-ey" than Cleveland. . . therefore any dilapidation would be more similar. . .

. . .

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I would give the edge to Philadelphia. It is the bigger city and it feels like it. Boston can feel a bit sleepy since everything shuts down so early.

I'd give a (slight) edge to Philly too, but I think most who know both cities would agree they're in the same basic weight class.

[urbanadvocate]

I don't see why Sacramento is even being compared to Vegas--the two cities have nothing in common and are going to attract very different people.

To me a fair Sac comparison is Portland, Kansas City, Salt Lake City maybe Pittsburgh.

Have lived in all or spent time in all and I found Sac the most balanced and appealing--easy going but not at all the sleepy cow-town people from the Bay Area and Socal make it to be. Portland beats it in regards to an overall urban feel and seems to have a spark about it so it comes as a close second, but the diversity of Sac gets extra points (it is not a bunch of middle class families). To me calling Sac a cow-town is the same as saying everyone in LA wants to be famous--an outdated and undeserved stereotype for both.

I would be curious to see how Salt Lake has changed over the years as it has seen quite a bit of growth.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

^I'm speaking as an outsider, but both cities appear more old "brick-ey" than Cleveland. . . therefore any dilapidation would be more similar. . .

. . .

Yeah, Cleveland is similar to Upstate NY and New England in that regard. Lot's and lot's of wood frame Victorians..