2024's Dirtiest Cities in America

[muertecaza]

Here's another arbitrary list with a questionable methodology. But I find them fun.



https://www.lawnstarter.com/blog/stu...united-states/

Methodology
First, we determined the factors (metrics) that are most relevant to rank the Dirtiest Cities in America. We then assigned a weight to each factor based on its importance and grouped those factors into 4 categories: Pollution, Living Conditions, Infrastructure, and Resident Dissatisfaction. The categories, factors, and their weights are listed in the table below.

For each of the 500 biggest U.S. cities, we then gathered data on each factor from the sources listed below the table. We eliminated 197 cities lacking sufficient data in a single category, resulting in a final sample size of 303 cities.

Finally, we calculated scores (out of 100 points) for each city to determine its rank in each factor, each category, and overall. A city’s Overall Score is the average of its scores across all factors and categories. The highest Overall Score ranked “Dirtiest” (No. 1) and the lowest “Least Dirty” (No. 303). Note: The “Least Dirty” among individual factors may not be No. 303 due to ties.

This forum is unlikely to appreciate that they used "population density" as one factor in determining whether a city is "dirty." I find their "Infrastructure" (which tanked Phoenix's ranking) criteria questionable as well. Still, fun to look at.

[sentinel]

- I love LA a lot, but can confirm after many many visits, it is filthy.

- No way in hell Chicago is dirtier than New Orleans lol

- I don't have a third item to bring to attention.

[edale]

Originally Posted by sentinel

- I love LA a lot, but can confirm after many many visits, it is filthy.

- No way in hell New Orleans is dirtier than Chicago lol

- I don't have a third item to bring to attention.

Oh I absolutely think New Orleans is dirtier than Chicago. New Orleans is grimy and dirty, while Chicago is one of the cleanest big cities I've ever been to.

LA is definitely filthy. Lots of trash all over the place, thanks in large part to the huge homeless population.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

Misinterpreted the rankings, sorry!

[llamaorama]

This list is probably based on bad metrics and dumb, but anecdotally, Houston is indeed dirty. It has to be by far the most decrepit looking modern Sunbelt city.

It's a combination of high heat and humidity and overgrown vegetation and a lack of zoning and general don't give a f attitude in some places.

Here is a location which isn't particularly representative of the city and is like 99 percentile god tier level trashy, but what a pigsty

https://maps.app.goo.gl/8M6woFRb4DNwXsP69

What's interesting is you can't really call it a slum because most of the housing is actually in acceptable condition and is all fairly new, it's just a complete lack of any site grading/earthwork or engineering that went into developing the neighborhood and a total disregard by the people who live there for basic norms about not trashing up the street. Some of the houses are actually sort of big, but surrounded by awfulness. I don't know if you can blame poverty here based on some of the cars you see parked out on the road.

A sad case of "That one house that is ruining the neighborhood" that is visible from the Beltway:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/azpYh67M9chapbNH7

Why it's a good thing to have some kind of HOA for attached housing developments:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/YxcL2fa5fX3gUrnYA

Unlike Detroit or Cleveland which have demolition policies to get rid of vacant blighted properties, if an abandoned house burns down in unincorporated Harris County it potentially just stays like that forever and squatters move in:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/wvjd9saKWuJzsZFH7

[JManc]

Originally Posted by edale

Oh I absolutely think New Orleans is dirtier than Chicago. New Orleans is grimy and dirty, while Chicago is one of the cleanest big cities I've ever been to.

LA is definitely filthy. Lots of trash all over the place, thanks in large part to the huge homeless population.

That was my impression of California In general. I was surprised just how dirty the Bay Area was. Trash literally everywhere and I thought Houston was bad.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by edale

Oh I absolutely think New Orleans is dirtier than Chicago. New Orleans is grimy and dirty, while Chicago is one of the cleanest big cities I've ever been to.

LA is definitely filthy. Lots of trash all over the place, thanks in large part to the huge homeless population.

Fyi, I modified my post because I was trying to say that, but latent dyslexia got the best of me. Yes, New Orleans is dirtier, by a dirty mile.

[Velvet_Highground]

I’m feeling like the math is a bit fuzzy. I don’t disagree with the goal that the group is aiming towards a greener more sustainable future. I’d be happy to debate why I don’t think Detroit deserves to be #2 dirtiest city but I’ve talked a lot about Detroit water recently.

Not that Detroit doesn’t have a lot to answer for a recent example it has yet to come up with a solution for residents west of the Mack Ave plant.

But Detroit just destroyed the largest waste to energy incinerator in the country & decommissioned its coal power plants. It’s also a relatively green city that has 31% tree cover even after suffering two keystone tree blights in 50 years. Comon now list cut us some slack.

I will say when the snow melts in the spring the sides of many roads look like a horror show with all the trash that gets blown around and then plowed/frozen into place.

Imo gulf coast refinery country & arid cities in valleys should take up the top 10.

[sopas ej]

How is Berkeley cleaner than Irvine??

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

How is Berkeley cleaner than Irvine??

The scoring system is a little counterintuitive, but it seems like the higher the number, the better in terms of cleanliness.

Here's how they stack up:

Irvine
Pollution 215
Living Conditions 60
Infrastructure 263
Resident Dissatisfaction 230

Berkeley
Pollution 278
Living Conditions 8
Infrastructure 302
Resident Dissatisfaction 167

It makes sense that Berkeley has less pollution than Irvine when you think about air quality, fuel consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions. Living conditions, they rate population density and overcrowded homes as being "dirtier", so it's no surprise that Berkeley comes out "on top" here since it's far more dense. Infrastructure wise, Berkeley is cleaner likely because it has less waste, more reuse/recycling, and access to public bathrooms per sq mile. Resident dissatisfaction, it looks like Irvine is cleaner probably because perception wise to residents it is visibly cleaner (less homeless/garbage).

So yeah, on the surface it may come across as surprise Berkeley is cleaner than Irvine, at least according to this methodology, but if you consider things like pollution (it's not surrounded by freeways like Irvine is and likely has much higher walk/bike/transit share) it actually makes sense.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

This list is probably based on bad metrics and dumb, but anecdotally, Houston is indeed dirty. It has to be by far the most decrepit looking modern Sunbelt city.

It's a combination of high heat and humidity and overgrown vegetation and a lack of zoning and general don't give a f attitude in some places.

Here is a location which isn't particularly representative of the city and is like 99 percentile god tier level trashy, but what a pigsty

https://maps.app.goo.gl/8M6woFRb4DNwXsP69

What's interesting is you can't really call it a slum because most of the housing is actually in acceptable condition and is all fairly new, it's just a complete lack of any site grading/earthwork or engineering that went into developing the neighborhood and a total disregard by the people who live there for basic norms about not trashing up the street. Some of the houses are actually sort of big, but surrounded by awfulness. I don't know if you can blame poverty here based on some of the cars you see parked out on the road.

A sad case of "That one house that is ruining the neighborhood" that is visible from the Beltway:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/azpYh67M9chapbNH7

Why it's a good thing to have some kind of HOA for attached housing developments:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/YxcL2fa5fX3gUrnYA

Unlike Detroit or Cleveland which have demolition policies to get rid of vacant blighted properties, if an abandoned house burns down in unincorporated Harris County it potentially just stays like that forever and squatters move in:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/wvjd9saKWuJzsZFH7

Your posts are often negative so I'm not surprised at this post. You're a "glass is half empty" person. I marvel at the beautiful neighborhoods, greenbelts, and skyscraper nodes in the city. Memorial Drive and Allen Parkway are two of many, many examples, along with the Museam District, Hermann Park, Memorial Park, the med center, Tanglewood, and the list goes on and on. Many of the suburbs are very nice if you can handle suburban life (e.g., The Woodlands, Sugarland, Cypress, etc.). The bad stuff definitely exists because it is a humongous metro. But you will find what you seek. I seek out the many great areas of the city. You seek out the bad. We're simply different in that respect.

[mrnyc]

things are about to get a lot more interesting & funkier in the cleve —

they want to use mushrooms to gradually decompose abandoned houses —



In Cleveland, mushrooms digest entire houses: How fungi can be used to clean up pollution

16 March 2024
By Nick Hilden


The city of Cleveland faces an epidemic of abandoned houses. Crumbling homes number in the thousands. These ramshackle structures are riddled with toxins like lead and dilapidated to the point of no return. And if tearing down and safely disposing of the waste of one such home sounds daunting, imagine thousands of them.

Among the numerous issues that arise, one essential question involves waste. What do you do with the waste material from so many teardown structures, when so much of it is toxic?

"All of the material from demolition – the studs, the floors, cellulosic mass [the primary structural component of plants], and even things like ceiling tiles and asphalt material like roof shingles, can be mixed into substrate that then becomes good for growing fungus," says Chris Maurer, founder of Cleveland-based architect firm Redhouse Studio. Through his firm, Maurer has been advocating for the use of substrate to address Cleveland's housing crisis, which is also a health crisis for the city's inhabitants.

Substrate is any material that mycelium – the thready, vegetative part of fungi – uses for nourishment. In other words, fungi can eat the noxious waste from the abandoned homes. Heavy metals and other toxins are extracted and captured in the mushrooms that grow, while the substrate leftovers, including the mycelium, are compacted and heated to create clean bricks for new construction. The resulting "mycoblocks" have a consistency akin to hardwood and, depending on the specifics of the manufacturing process, have been shown to be significantly stronger than concrete.


more:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...climate-change

[Xing]

A lot of LA area cities on this list.

[PhillyRising]

HA! Philadelphia is 102nd!

Filthadelphia no more!!!

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

things are about to get a lot more interesting & funkier in the cleve —

they want to use mushrooms to gradually decompose abandoned houses —



In Cleveland, mushrooms digest entire houses: How fungi can be used to clean up pollution

16 March 2024
By Nick Hilden


The city of Cleveland faces an epidemic of abandoned houses. Crumbling homes number in the thousands. These ramshackle structures are riddled with toxins like lead and dilapidated to the point of no return. And if tearing down and safely disposing of the waste of one such home sounds daunting, imagine thousands of them.

Among the numerous issues that arise, one essential question involves waste. What do you do with the waste material from so many teardown structures, when so much of it is toxic?

"All of the material from demolition – the studs, the floors, cellulosic mass [the primary structural component of plants], and even things like ceiling tiles and asphalt material like roof shingles, can be mixed into substrate that then becomes good for growing fungus," says Chris Maurer, founder of Cleveland-based architect firm Redhouse Studio. Through his firm, Maurer has been advocating for the use of substrate to address Cleveland's housing crisis, which is also a health crisis for the city's inhabitants.

Substrate is any material that mycelium – the thready, vegetative part of fungi – uses for nourishment. In other words, fungi can eat the noxious waste from the abandoned homes. Heavy metals and other toxins are extracted and captured in the mushrooms that grow, while the substrate leftovers, including the mycelium, are compacted and heated to create clean bricks for new construction. The resulting "mycoblocks" have a consistency akin to hardwood and, depending on the specifics of the manufacturing process, have been shown to be significantly stronger than concrete.


more:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...climate-change

Nice. Homies on shrooms or shrooms on homes.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by PhillyRising

HA! Philadelphia is 102nd!

Filthadelphia no more!!!

The trash on the ground has been cleaned up (a bit), but now it seems there's more visual pollution than ever. It may become known as Billboardadelphia, if that shit doesn't get regulated soon.

Wtf are yous guys doing over there? You gotta get that under control. The drive on the Schuylkill between Center City and the Walt Whitman is like passing through some high-speed dystopian personal injury attorney ad carnival ride.

It's literally getting to the point where you can't view the skyline on that stretch without mulitple billboards obscuring the view.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Xing

A lot of LA area cities on this list.

Yes, most notably the Inland Empire, which doesn't surprise me. Air quality out that way is bad, with all the warehousing/logistics infrastructure there, and all the big rig trucks making pickups/deliveries that come along with it. In fact a few years ago, a family friend passed away, and the memorial was in Menifee---a place I hadn't been to before. On the way there, I felt like I saw what seemed like a lot of new warehouses, and of course one of them had an Amazon logo on it. Fontana always had bad air, at least in my lifetime. They used to be known for the Kaiser steel mill that existed there many decades ago.

Not too surprised about Long Beach; the Ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach are the busiest shipping container ports in the US (at least they used to be, pre-pandemic), and as a result, they are a great source of pollution because of ships idling to load/unload their containers---ships with idling diesel engines cause a lot of pollution, and they don't have the emissions standards that cars do. In fact some years ago, I read that the combined ports of LA/LB are one of the biggest sources, if not the biggest source, of pollution in Los Angeles County.

What kind of surprised me was Glendale, CA. I don't get that Glendale is a dirty city; in fact it ranked "dirtier" than Long Beach.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by homebucket

The scoring system is a little counterintuitive, but it seems like the higher the number, the better in terms of cleanliness.

Here's how they stack up:

Irvine
Pollution 215
Living Conditions 60
Infrastructure 263
Resident Dissatisfaction 230

Berkeley
Pollution 278
Living Conditions 8
Infrastructure 302
Resident Dissatisfaction 167

It makes sense that Berkeley has less pollution than Irvine when you think about air quality, fuel consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions. Living conditions, they rate population density and overcrowded homes as being "dirtier", so it's no surprise that Berkeley comes out "on top" here since it's far more dense. Infrastructure wise, Berkeley is cleaner likely because it has less waste, more reuse/recycling, and access to public bathrooms per sq mile. Resident dissatisfaction, it looks like Irvine is cleaner probably because perception wise to residents it is visibly cleaner (less homeless/garbage).

So yeah, on the surface it may come across as surprise Berkeley is cleaner than Irvine, at least according to this methodology, but if you consider things like pollution (it's not surrounded by freeways like Irvine is and likely has much higher walk/bike/transit share) it actually makes sense.

Looking at the methodology, I see how they came up with the numbers. But some of them seem arbitrary, like "Number of Junk Yards." And I don't see how a more densely populated area is necessarily "dirtier."

And of course "Resident Dissatisfaction" is totally subjective.

[Wigs]

San Bernardino looks pretty gross in YouTube videos.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

What kind of surprised me was Glendale, CA. I don't get that Glendale is a dirty city; in fact it ranked "dirtier" than Long Beach.

How about Santa Monica? I was surprised to see that listed as dirtier than other cities in Socal, scoring especially poorly in terms of pollution with a rank of 4 in that category. I would think it should have among the best air quality in SoCal yet it seems like it’s actually the worst. It doesn’t have the same industrial pollution challenges like Long Beach does. Something seems off there.