|
|
|
Rank these NA cities
- Thread starter Hipster Duck
- Start date
Archivist
Senior Member
Oh my God I've written a book. I alloted my points as follows: 40 for Built environment, 30 for Setting (meaning how well positioned is the city and how well does it take advantage of its natural surroundings), 30 for Cultural + Other. Sorry for being long-winded, just got carried away.
St. John's: 70 (BE = 20/40 | St = 26/30 | Cu = 24/30). Gorgeous setting in an exotic locale, in St. John's you really feel as if you are on the edge of the world. You can easily walk from downtown to Signal Hill and feel like you are nowhere, and back into town via the mouth of the harbour and it's one of the most of the most stunning urban vistas I've seen. The built environment suffers from some bad 1970's planning decisions, but I like it that the waterfront is a working waterfront and not a theme park. Culturally quite lively and distinct, which is harder and harder to manage these days.
Halifax: 48 (BE = 15/40 | St = 18/30 | Cu = 15/30). The built environment of the city is sclerotic because everyone is opposed to anything that looks it was built less than 100 years ago. It's a Quebec City wannabe - get over it. Nice setting. Halifax, in my opinion, has rather a too high opinion of itself.
Saint John: 44 (BE = 15/40 | St = 22/30 | Cu = 7/30). Saint John actually has some fascinating physical features and is a geographically complex city rendered ugly by its pulp plants and extremely bad planning. Hugely dispersed for no good reason outside the historic core. It's market is the most authentic I've ever seen though, like something from the 1950's. Actually, everything in Saint John is from the 1950's. Culturally retarded, hates the French fact of New Brunswick and in the most recent census fell below Moncton to become NB's second largest city - that must stick in their Loyalist craw something awful.
Quebec: 55 (BE = 25/40 | St = 25/30 | Cu = 5/30) It is with reluctance that I assign any points to Quebec City at all, a place that grates on me horribly. Fascinated with it's imagined history, this little potemkin National Capital on the grand fleuve is filled with self-important nationalistas creating an ever more faux, artificial version of itself with Ontario's tax dollars. It fairly writhes with horror and unadmitted envy at Montreal's messy urbanity. I have to give it some points, though for something. It has nice cliffs. If only most of the residents would take advantage of them.
Montreal 74 (BE = 31/40 | St = 16/30 | Cu = 27/30). Montreal is a city that is smart with its built environment, a nice clash of historical buildings with moderninity that it is not afraid of. Culturally, I love the city and its vibrancy. I do find it's "European-ness" questionable, but we all have false stories we tell ourselves and they can be indulged most of the time, especially for such an agreeable place with such lovely people.
Ottawa 54 (BE = 26/40 | St = 18/30 | Cu = 10/30). My hometown has a lovely, though not well known setting, that it takes big advantage of with lots of riverside park access and trails, plus the Gatineau hills nearby. The world's most notable cluster of neo-gothic buildings is nicely framed by some modernist museums, and regrettably buttressed by an almost entirely forgettable core. Culturally, there is lots of the official variety, which squeezes the life out of the smaller, local variant that is so important.
Winnipeg 49 (BE = 18/40 | St = 12/30 | Cu = 19/30). I have a fondness for the Peg, a city that takes it's culture seriously. Pockets of French lend the city an interest that is unique on the prairies. I personally love the wide open skies of the prairies and the city's grand rivers, which it takes good advantage of. Winnipeg has a remnant of its former glory that, thanks to the fact that it pretty much died after the General Strike in 1919, are still mostly standing. Many mistakes, though.
Edmonton 25 (BE = 5/40 | St = 8/30 | Cu = 12/30). Edmonton really has no reason to exist, though it's river is so much nicer than Calgary's. Downtown is dead as a doorknob. But there is some culture, thanks to it being the capital and some good festivals.
Calgary 13 (BE = 5/40 | St = 8/30 | Cu = 0/30). If pancake flipping and a completely imported history from south of the border can be called "culture", then Calgary is rife with it. The west of Canada was settled first by the RCMP, who brought Peace, Order and Good Government long before many settlers arrived. The current raison d'etre of this town is to shill on behalf of huge corporations pulling tar from the ground. Nonetheless, with its completely false "Cowboy culture" aesthetic Calgarians love nothing more than to insist on how they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, and have the gall to lecture the rest of the country through their endless "think tanks" about how we should organize our affairs. May I live long enough to see the glaciers and snowpack that feed the Bow river shrivel to nothing just as the bitumen runs dry - they'll come a-beggin for Ontario's water, then! I give it five points for it's built environment only because I love it's pleasantly anarchic habit of naming its dreary suburban cul de sacs with virtually undistinguishable names, therefore ensuring generations of cold pizza deliveries.
Vancouver 71 (BE = 25/40 | St = 30/30 | Cu = 18/30). I hate Vancouver, having lived there, but I am forced to give it full points for its setting, which in my view ranks up there with Rio, Hong Kong and Cape Town. Not only because of where it landed, but because they've taken full advantage of that setting and incorporated it into their town in a smart, accessible way. Stanley Park, in my opinion, is the best urban park in the world. Culturally, Vancouver has offered enough to the world to be taken seriously. Like many cities, it's expressed take on itself strikes me as silly, but I can overlook that. Officedwellers posts here, which have been admirably calm in the face of my vitriol, have really tempered my feelings about the city.
St. John's: 70 (BE = 20/40 | St = 26/30 | Cu = 24/30). Gorgeous setting in an exotic locale, in St. John's you really feel as if you are on the edge of the world. You can easily walk from downtown to Signal Hill and feel like you are nowhere, and back into town via the mouth of the harbour and it's one of the most of the most stunning urban vistas I've seen. The built environment suffers from some bad 1970's planning decisions, but I like it that the waterfront is a working waterfront and not a theme park. Culturally quite lively and distinct, which is harder and harder to manage these days.
Halifax: 48 (BE = 15/40 | St = 18/30 | Cu = 15/30). The built environment of the city is sclerotic because everyone is opposed to anything that looks it was built less than 100 years ago. It's a Quebec City wannabe - get over it. Nice setting. Halifax, in my opinion, has rather a too high opinion of itself.
Saint John: 44 (BE = 15/40 | St = 22/30 | Cu = 7/30). Saint John actually has some fascinating physical features and is a geographically complex city rendered ugly by its pulp plants and extremely bad planning. Hugely dispersed for no good reason outside the historic core. It's market is the most authentic I've ever seen though, like something from the 1950's. Actually, everything in Saint John is from the 1950's. Culturally retarded, hates the French fact of New Brunswick and in the most recent census fell below Moncton to become NB's second largest city - that must stick in their Loyalist craw something awful.
Quebec: 55 (BE = 25/40 | St = 25/30 | Cu = 5/30) It is with reluctance that I assign any points to Quebec City at all, a place that grates on me horribly. Fascinated with it's imagined history, this little potemkin National Capital on the grand fleuve is filled with self-important nationalistas creating an ever more faux, artificial version of itself with Ontario's tax dollars. It fairly writhes with horror and unadmitted envy at Montreal's messy urbanity. I have to give it some points, though for something. It has nice cliffs. If only most of the residents would take advantage of them.
Montreal 74 (BE = 31/40 | St = 16/30 | Cu = 27/30). Montreal is a city that is smart with its built environment, a nice clash of historical buildings with moderninity that it is not afraid of. Culturally, I love the city and its vibrancy. I do find it's "European-ness" questionable, but we all have false stories we tell ourselves and they can be indulged most of the time, especially for such an agreeable place with such lovely people.
Ottawa 54 (BE = 26/40 | St = 18/30 | Cu = 10/30). My hometown has a lovely, though not well known setting, that it takes big advantage of with lots of riverside park access and trails, plus the Gatineau hills nearby. The world's most notable cluster of neo-gothic buildings is nicely framed by some modernist museums, and regrettably buttressed by an almost entirely forgettable core. Culturally, there is lots of the official variety, which squeezes the life out of the smaller, local variant that is so important.
Winnipeg 49 (BE = 18/40 | St = 12/30 | Cu = 19/30). I have a fondness for the Peg, a city that takes it's culture seriously. Pockets of French lend the city an interest that is unique on the prairies. I personally love the wide open skies of the prairies and the city's grand rivers, which it takes good advantage of. Winnipeg has a remnant of its former glory that, thanks to the fact that it pretty much died after the General Strike in 1919, are still mostly standing. Many mistakes, though.
Edmonton 25 (BE = 5/40 | St = 8/30 | Cu = 12/30). Edmonton really has no reason to exist, though it's river is so much nicer than Calgary's. Downtown is dead as a doorknob. But there is some culture, thanks to it being the capital and some good festivals.
Calgary 13 (BE = 5/40 | St = 8/30 | Cu = 0/30). If pancake flipping and a completely imported history from south of the border can be called "culture", then Calgary is rife with it. The west of Canada was settled first by the RCMP, who brought Peace, Order and Good Government long before many settlers arrived. The current raison d'etre of this town is to shill on behalf of huge corporations pulling tar from the ground. Nonetheless, with its completely false "Cowboy culture" aesthetic Calgarians love nothing more than to insist on how they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, and have the gall to lecture the rest of the country through their endless "think tanks" about how we should organize our affairs. May I live long enough to see the glaciers and snowpack that feed the Bow river shrivel to nothing just as the bitumen runs dry - they'll come a-beggin for Ontario's water, then! I give it five points for it's built environment only because I love it's pleasantly anarchic habit of naming its dreary suburban cul de sacs with virtually undistinguishable names, therefore ensuring generations of cold pizza deliveries.
Vancouver 71 (BE = 25/40 | St = 30/30 | Cu = 18/30). I hate Vancouver, having lived there, but I am forced to give it full points for its setting, which in my view ranks up there with Rio, Hong Kong and Cape Town. Not only because of where it landed, but because they've taken full advantage of that setting and incorporated it into their town in a smart, accessible way. Stanley Park, in my opinion, is the best urban park in the world. Culturally, Vancouver has offered enough to the world to be taken seriously. Like many cities, it's expressed take on itself strikes me as silly, but I can overlook that. Officedwellers posts here, which have been admirably calm in the face of my vitriol, have really tempered my feelings about the city.
Archivist
Senior Member
US
And US cities:
Boston 73 (BE = 35/40 | St = 13/30 | Cu = 25/30). I'm very fond of Boston, which is a nice combination of older buildings with modern. They've become more daring in the past few years, and it looks good on them. I find the setting only minimally interesting, and it's helped by knowing that almost all the centre of the city is landfill. Culturally, there's an awful lot going on here, even if its not really cutting edge. I always think Boston is American's most under-rated city. I will say that Boston is the only place where I had the experience of cringeing on behalf of the locals - this upon seeing their "Silver Line", the world's most overbuilt bus line ever. Their public transit system is unbelievably bad for a city that sported the continenent's first subway.
New York 85 (BE = 39/40 | St = 20/30 | Cu = 26/30). Even New York's huge urban mistakes are a wonder to behold, and it's culture, whether low or high, is really incomparable. I also think it's exquisitely beautiful, even when it's grungy.
Pittsburgh 53 (BE = 20/40 | St = 25/30 | Cu = 7/30). Pittsburgh has a fabulous setting, surrounded by these hills dotted with tunnels through them. The downtown is compact but not very lively, and my impression of the city from about three visits is that it has pockets of liveliness surrounded by drear. Culturally, I think it is a bit of a backwater, conservative after decades after which it received one blow after another. It has enough going for it in its built environment to give it some merit, now if it could simply stich it all together into a coherent city.
Atlanta 4 (BE = 3/40 | St = 0/30 | Cu = 1/30). Is there a setting to Atlanta? One might as well have dropped a marble onto a map of Georgia and placed a city where it rolled to a stop. Give me some water, please. The built environment is a choatic mess of expressways, a pointless subway, and strange overly-dramatic buildings placed seemingly at random throughout their semblance of a downtown. Culture? They have a Coke museum! Of all the cities I have been to everywhere in the entire world, Atlanta ranks dead last in my list of favourites. Fortunately, it seems to be in the process of drying up and blowing away.
New Orleans 30 (BE = 10/40 | St = 10/30 | Cu = 10/30). New Orleans, which I have only visited once, and that was pre-Katrina, is American's greatest failed city. It ought to have been the metropolis of the south, but lost that role through a combination of hatred, racism, ineptness and sheer laziness to pretty much every other city in the southern US. Pre-Katrina, it was already a shadow of itself, with beads, krewes, and inherited traditions from the past replacing any genuine culture. It's built environment is atrocious once you look at anything but the 20 or so buildings that still have their decorations and doodads from 100 years ago - nothing even remotely interesting has been built there in generations. I can't even imagine what it is like after the flood, I am guessing that it is in the process of becoming an ever greater pastiche of itself. How can a state with so much oil remain so desperately poor and stupid.
Las Vegas = 25 (BE = 0/40 | St = 20/30 | Cu = 5/30). LV gets "0" for the built environment as nothing is built to last more than five years, which is probably good, because once Lake Mead completes it's conversion to a salt pan, there may not be anything left here. I have a sneaking admiration for Las Vegas, though, which is a city that ought not exist at all. It is a wily, tough little place that has taken advantage of every base impulse of America in its relentless march to self-promotion, and so I never count it out for the battle. Who would have thought that with gambling legalized worldwide that it would still prosper? I do have to say, though, that's it's advertising campaign of itself as "sin city" is laughable to me, your average European village of 100,000 has more real sin occurring on a Tuesday night in February than occurs in a year in the corporatized, sanitized-naughty hotel rooms of this burg on all the Saturdays of the year. Nice rocks around town, though.
Seattle 65 (BE = 20/40 | St = 23/30 | Cu = 18/30). I really like Seattle, which to me is like Vancouver without so much setting, but with more urbanity. It's gritty, but it's urban and it's so western. I think it has a strong sense of itself culturally, and there seems to be a lot going on. I always have a good feeling when visiting this city, and they are making a real effort to fix the urban mistakes they've made, especially in the area of transit. I love that it is sandwiched between the ocean and a lake, with access to both, it's like something I would draw if I were making up a city.
San Francisco 46 (BE = 15/40 | St = 23/30 | Cu = 8/30). I love the word "Bayorrhea", which is the unwanted and unstoppable outpouring of sentiment from residents of the Bay about the merits of their hometown. San Franciscans opinion of their city is rather too high in my books, though I reluctantly give it good points for setting. Culturally, it is a city resting on its laurels, having produced nothing of interest since hippies. Its residents are more interested in the weird-faith of the day like crystals or pyramids or whatever than anything else, and it's cultural influence on the world is zero. It's self-promotion as the world's gay capital is laughable, and make all the more naked in its embarrassing falseness by the passage of Proposition 8. Toronto is light years ahead of this burg in terms of livability for gay people. I give it credit for not rebuilding its freeways that fell apart in the last big shake, but like some other cities that consider themselves to be too perfect to change, it is unbelievably timid about what kinds of things it will allow within its borders. Once cities fall in love with themselves as this one has, they seem to go about making themselves into some version of what they imagine themselves to be, and it's absolutely suffocating. Needs a good shake.
Los Angeles 61 (BE = 30/40 | St = 10/30 | Cu = 21/30). I have an almost reluctant admiration for this big sprawl on the west coast. It has everyday exhuberant architecture that is littered all over the place. It's buildings, whether they are art deco or postmodern, always seem sunny and happy to me. It's built itself a gorgeous subway, and culturally it is a very rich city with diverse impulses. I think it is very unfortunate for LA that it's downtown (which is denser in built terms, if not in population, than I imagined it to be) is so far removed from the ocean. But LA is a classic case of a city of neighbourhoods, many of them vibrant and surprising walkable, once you've driven there.
And US cities:
Boston 73 (BE = 35/40 | St = 13/30 | Cu = 25/30). I'm very fond of Boston, which is a nice combination of older buildings with modern. They've become more daring in the past few years, and it looks good on them. I find the setting only minimally interesting, and it's helped by knowing that almost all the centre of the city is landfill. Culturally, there's an awful lot going on here, even if its not really cutting edge. I always think Boston is American's most under-rated city. I will say that Boston is the only place where I had the experience of cringeing on behalf of the locals - this upon seeing their "Silver Line", the world's most overbuilt bus line ever. Their public transit system is unbelievably bad for a city that sported the continenent's first subway.
New York 85 (BE = 39/40 | St = 20/30 | Cu = 26/30). Even New York's huge urban mistakes are a wonder to behold, and it's culture, whether low or high, is really incomparable. I also think it's exquisitely beautiful, even when it's grungy.
Pittsburgh 53 (BE = 20/40 | St = 25/30 | Cu = 7/30). Pittsburgh has a fabulous setting, surrounded by these hills dotted with tunnels through them. The downtown is compact but not very lively, and my impression of the city from about three visits is that it has pockets of liveliness surrounded by drear. Culturally, I think it is a bit of a backwater, conservative after decades after which it received one blow after another. It has enough going for it in its built environment to give it some merit, now if it could simply stich it all together into a coherent city.
Atlanta 4 (BE = 3/40 | St = 0/30 | Cu = 1/30). Is there a setting to Atlanta? One might as well have dropped a marble onto a map of Georgia and placed a city where it rolled to a stop. Give me some water, please. The built environment is a choatic mess of expressways, a pointless subway, and strange overly-dramatic buildings placed seemingly at random throughout their semblance of a downtown. Culture? They have a Coke museum! Of all the cities I have been to everywhere in the entire world, Atlanta ranks dead last in my list of favourites. Fortunately, it seems to be in the process of drying up and blowing away.
New Orleans 30 (BE = 10/40 | St = 10/30 | Cu = 10/30). New Orleans, which I have only visited once, and that was pre-Katrina, is American's greatest failed city. It ought to have been the metropolis of the south, but lost that role through a combination of hatred, racism, ineptness and sheer laziness to pretty much every other city in the southern US. Pre-Katrina, it was already a shadow of itself, with beads, krewes, and inherited traditions from the past replacing any genuine culture. It's built environment is atrocious once you look at anything but the 20 or so buildings that still have their decorations and doodads from 100 years ago - nothing even remotely interesting has been built there in generations. I can't even imagine what it is like after the flood, I am guessing that it is in the process of becoming an ever greater pastiche of itself. How can a state with so much oil remain so desperately poor and stupid.
Las Vegas = 25 (BE = 0/40 | St = 20/30 | Cu = 5/30). LV gets "0" for the built environment as nothing is built to last more than five years, which is probably good, because once Lake Mead completes it's conversion to a salt pan, there may not be anything left here. I have a sneaking admiration for Las Vegas, though, which is a city that ought not exist at all. It is a wily, tough little place that has taken advantage of every base impulse of America in its relentless march to self-promotion, and so I never count it out for the battle. Who would have thought that with gambling legalized worldwide that it would still prosper? I do have to say, though, that's it's advertising campaign of itself as "sin city" is laughable to me, your average European village of 100,000 has more real sin occurring on a Tuesday night in February than occurs in a year in the corporatized, sanitized-naughty hotel rooms of this burg on all the Saturdays of the year. Nice rocks around town, though.
Seattle 65 (BE = 20/40 | St = 23/30 | Cu = 18/30). I really like Seattle, which to me is like Vancouver without so much setting, but with more urbanity. It's gritty, but it's urban and it's so western. I think it has a strong sense of itself culturally, and there seems to be a lot going on. I always have a good feeling when visiting this city, and they are making a real effort to fix the urban mistakes they've made, especially in the area of transit. I love that it is sandwiched between the ocean and a lake, with access to both, it's like something I would draw if I were making up a city.
San Francisco 46 (BE = 15/40 | St = 23/30 | Cu = 8/30). I love the word "Bayorrhea", which is the unwanted and unstoppable outpouring of sentiment from residents of the Bay about the merits of their hometown. San Franciscans opinion of their city is rather too high in my books, though I reluctantly give it good points for setting. Culturally, it is a city resting on its laurels, having produced nothing of interest since hippies. Its residents are more interested in the weird-faith of the day like crystals or pyramids or whatever than anything else, and it's cultural influence on the world is zero. It's self-promotion as the world's gay capital is laughable, and make all the more naked in its embarrassing falseness by the passage of Proposition 8. Toronto is light years ahead of this burg in terms of livability for gay people. I give it credit for not rebuilding its freeways that fell apart in the last big shake, but like some other cities that consider themselves to be too perfect to change, it is unbelievably timid about what kinds of things it will allow within its borders. Once cities fall in love with themselves as this one has, they seem to go about making themselves into some version of what they imagine themselves to be, and it's absolutely suffocating. Needs a good shake.
Los Angeles 61 (BE = 30/40 | St = 10/30 | Cu = 21/30). I have an almost reluctant admiration for this big sprawl on the west coast. It has everyday exhuberant architecture that is littered all over the place. It's buildings, whether they are art deco or postmodern, always seem sunny and happy to me. It's built itself a gorgeous subway, and culturally it is a very rich city with diverse impulses. I think it is very unfortunate for LA that it's downtown (which is denser in built terms, if not in population, than I imagined it to be) is so far removed from the ocean. But LA is a classic case of a city of neighbourhoods, many of them vibrant and surprising walkable, once you've driven there.
Last edited:
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 12,468
- Reaction score
- 9,275
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
Canada
St. John's = 45 - Nice town to visit,downtown is a bit disappointing except for George Street, which is everything it should be. But it is way too spread out, particularly the university and the legislature.
Halifax = 50 - A nice regional centre, with a few good neighbourhoods. Little modern growth in the city, preferring sprawl. Bonus: ferry is part of the transit system.
Quebec = 65 - Wonderful old city, a revitalizing "real" downtown and some good inner nabes, especially between old city and Laval U. Otherwise, more freeways than almost anywhere in NA per km/pop, and horrible, horrible, sprawl.
Montreal = 95 - Toronto vs. Montreal is a tough discussion. Toronto as a whole is more vibrant, has better 'burbs, a better transit system (!), but Montreal has a really solid urban core with a lot that would keep an urbanist happy, and is really a bit more "fun" in a je ne sais quoi fashion, though I'd pick Toronto. If you want ugly suburbs, I might suggest Dollard-des-Ormeaux or Pointe-Claire in the winter.
Ottawa = 65 - Byward Market may be Ontario's best urban space, and the city is kept up nice, a good culture scene, and with a few great nabes. But faceless burbs.
Hamilton = 50 - Great bones, lots of potential. Is what Baltimore is to Washington as Hamilton is to Toronto.
KW = 30 - More exciting than London, at least in the past 5 years. Partly thanks to local intelligentsia and entrepreneurs and hopefully will nail an NHL team. Has a long way to go to be urban and exciting though.
London = 25 - a downtown that has almost been left to rot by suburban-focused city planners, the university almost too far to help. Really, a boring city, which is really unfortunate.
Winnipeg = 55 - Great bones, somewhat underrated. Good culture, some great preserved buildings but would sell is soul for a new hockey arena (as it did). Will lose 5 points if the Asper Museum of Tolerance is built.
Vancouver = 85 - Feels small, but some good nabes and really interesting burbs like Richmond, Burnaby and Surrey. It really is a wonderful setting. Transit and planning seem to match well. There is the smug factor.
Victoria = 50 - Nice, but a bit too twee downtown, but which is healthier than most for cities its size. Nice setting and a good base for a lot of tourism. I can't stand how it tries to market itself as an olde English city, though it can be a pretty city.
US Northeast
Boston = 90 - I'm not sure it's underrated, but it's pretty, with a lot of nice nabes and satellite cities.
Providence = 45 - Actually they've done a really amazing job with their downtown lately. Turn a corner and there's another surprise, downtown is healthier than I expected.
New York = 200
It's New York.
Baltimore = 55 - Underrated city with a large healthy central district that runs from the condoizing, yet authentic Fell's Point through to the small financial district and up to Mount Vernon. Their transit system is a joke, but I think they try to make an effort, and it's easy to get to Washington or anywhere in the Northeast. Good local culture scene. Just watch where you go as you can head into scary areas quite quickly, for which it loses serious points.
Washington DC = 65 - Gets more points in some ways for its planned beauty of its central core, which thanks to tourists, isn't as dead as it should be after hours. But apart from Dupont Circle, Georgetown or U Street, there aren't any neighbourhoods worth writing about. There's the shame of the poor neighbourhoods to the east that are within sight of the Capitol dome. However, the Metro is great, and has some interesting and urbanizing suburbs and satellite cities.
US Rust Belt
Buffalo = 40 - On the plus side, there's great architecture downtown and in the northern nabes (Darwin Martin), there's the Albright-Knox, there's Elmwood Village and Allantown. On the minus side, there's everything else: the comical LRT, the segregation and poverty, the lack of anything new. It's very slowly dying, which is tragic.
Cleveland = 40 - Their metro is almost as comical as Buffalo's. Like Buffalo, there's a few good inner city nabes, the downtown itself is less dead than one might think, but the waterfront is very disappointing and there's a lot of dying inner city and inner burbs. Very slowly dying as well.
Pittsburgh = 65 - Managed to survive the decline of the steel industry by drawing on the cultural and educational legacy of the steel barons to go high-tech to an extent. Beautiful setting, but I think the mountains, while giving you the ultimate entrance to the downtown, break the city up and make it more sprawling than it could be, almost like Sudbury (to a much different scale of course). There's lots I'd still like to see.
Detroit = 35 - Has not managed to survive the decline of the American auto industry. The downtown itself might be light years ahead of what it was in say 1995, but that included some sad, and in at least one case, illegal demolitions. Downtown Detroit is a lot livelier though. Apart from some exceptions like Royal Oak, Dearborn and Birmingham, the suburbs are awful. Culture is good, but not much else. Apart from the area where Hispanics have moved in, it's a sad place.
US South
Atlanta = 25. I am only going by my two hour visit during a lengthy layover at the Delta Hub, but I got out of the metro at the main station and saw nothing that interested me. It really is a strange location for the "capital of the 'New South'". I hear people like talking about Buckhead, didn't visit it though. Not sure if I need another visit to decide if my score is too low.
Rest
Chicago = 85 - The architecture is spectacular, and there is an local infrastructure and building envy. Some nice suburbs and satellite cities (Park Ridge, Oak Park, Evanston). I find the waterfront somewhat overrated compared to Toronto as nice as Millennium Park is. City at ground level though not as vibrant as Toronto. Still booming, but not as fast as Toronto, which I see as it's emerging rival. Loses big points for its segregation.
Las Vegas = 25 - Least urban city I have ever spent any time in, but fascinated me in a macabre way when I was there in 2002.
San Francisco = 90 - SF is probably overrated. It does have one of the nicest inner cities I have seen, the climate is almost perfect, it has some interesting satellite cities, but yeah, I could feel the smug level rising. I had lots of fun, being a transit geek, but I think I could get bored there, like Vancouver.
Los Angeles/Riverside = 80 - LA is just so huge, so cultural (low-brow but also higher brow), I really enjoyed my visit there in 2007. Yeah, it's a city you almost have to drive in, though I spent a day entirely on trains and buses, and it really is a city of distinct neighbourhoods. I could see it becoming more livable, rather than less livable. There's little smugness outside of the entertainment industry.
St. John's = 45 - Nice town to visit,downtown is a bit disappointing except for George Street, which is everything it should be. But it is way too spread out, particularly the university and the legislature.
Halifax = 50 - A nice regional centre, with a few good neighbourhoods. Little modern growth in the city, preferring sprawl. Bonus: ferry is part of the transit system.
Quebec = 65 - Wonderful old city, a revitalizing "real" downtown and some good inner nabes, especially between old city and Laval U. Otherwise, more freeways than almost anywhere in NA per km/pop, and horrible, horrible, sprawl.
Montreal = 95 - Toronto vs. Montreal is a tough discussion. Toronto as a whole is more vibrant, has better 'burbs, a better transit system (!), but Montreal has a really solid urban core with a lot that would keep an urbanist happy, and is really a bit more "fun" in a je ne sais quoi fashion, though I'd pick Toronto. If you want ugly suburbs, I might suggest Dollard-des-Ormeaux or Pointe-Claire in the winter.
Ottawa = 65 - Byward Market may be Ontario's best urban space, and the city is kept up nice, a good culture scene, and with a few great nabes. But faceless burbs.
Hamilton = 50 - Great bones, lots of potential. Is what Baltimore is to Washington as Hamilton is to Toronto.
KW = 30 - More exciting than London, at least in the past 5 years. Partly thanks to local intelligentsia and entrepreneurs and hopefully will nail an NHL team. Has a long way to go to be urban and exciting though.
London = 25 - a downtown that has almost been left to rot by suburban-focused city planners, the university almost too far to help. Really, a boring city, which is really unfortunate.
Winnipeg = 55 - Great bones, somewhat underrated. Good culture, some great preserved buildings but would sell is soul for a new hockey arena (as it did). Will lose 5 points if the Asper Museum of Tolerance is built.
Vancouver = 85 - Feels small, but some good nabes and really interesting burbs like Richmond, Burnaby and Surrey. It really is a wonderful setting. Transit and planning seem to match well. There is the smug factor.
Victoria = 50 - Nice, but a bit too twee downtown, but which is healthier than most for cities its size. Nice setting and a good base for a lot of tourism. I can't stand how it tries to market itself as an olde English city, though it can be a pretty city.
US Northeast
Boston = 90 - I'm not sure it's underrated, but it's pretty, with a lot of nice nabes and satellite cities.
Providence = 45 - Actually they've done a really amazing job with their downtown lately. Turn a corner and there's another surprise, downtown is healthier than I expected.
New York = 200
It's New York.
Baltimore = 55 - Underrated city with a large healthy central district that runs from the condoizing, yet authentic Fell's Point through to the small financial district and up to Mount Vernon. Their transit system is a joke, but I think they try to make an effort, and it's easy to get to Washington or anywhere in the Northeast. Good local culture scene. Just watch where you go as you can head into scary areas quite quickly, for which it loses serious points.
Washington DC = 65 - Gets more points in some ways for its planned beauty of its central core, which thanks to tourists, isn't as dead as it should be after hours. But apart from Dupont Circle, Georgetown or U Street, there aren't any neighbourhoods worth writing about. There's the shame of the poor neighbourhoods to the east that are within sight of the Capitol dome. However, the Metro is great, and has some interesting and urbanizing suburbs and satellite cities.
US Rust Belt
Buffalo = 40 - On the plus side, there's great architecture downtown and in the northern nabes (Darwin Martin), there's the Albright-Knox, there's Elmwood Village and Allantown. On the minus side, there's everything else: the comical LRT, the segregation and poverty, the lack of anything new. It's very slowly dying, which is tragic.
Cleveland = 40 - Their metro is almost as comical as Buffalo's. Like Buffalo, there's a few good inner city nabes, the downtown itself is less dead than one might think, but the waterfront is very disappointing and there's a lot of dying inner city and inner burbs. Very slowly dying as well.
Pittsburgh = 65 - Managed to survive the decline of the steel industry by drawing on the cultural and educational legacy of the steel barons to go high-tech to an extent. Beautiful setting, but I think the mountains, while giving you the ultimate entrance to the downtown, break the city up and make it more sprawling than it could be, almost like Sudbury (to a much different scale of course). There's lots I'd still like to see.
Detroit = 35 - Has not managed to survive the decline of the American auto industry. The downtown itself might be light years ahead of what it was in say 1995, but that included some sad, and in at least one case, illegal demolitions. Downtown Detroit is a lot livelier though. Apart from some exceptions like Royal Oak, Dearborn and Birmingham, the suburbs are awful. Culture is good, but not much else. Apart from the area where Hispanics have moved in, it's a sad place.
US South
Atlanta = 25. I am only going by my two hour visit during a lengthy layover at the Delta Hub, but I got out of the metro at the main station and saw nothing that interested me. It really is a strange location for the "capital of the 'New South'". I hear people like talking about Buckhead, didn't visit it though. Not sure if I need another visit to decide if my score is too low.
Rest
Chicago = 85 - The architecture is spectacular, and there is an local infrastructure and building envy. Some nice suburbs and satellite cities (Park Ridge, Oak Park, Evanston). I find the waterfront somewhat overrated compared to Toronto as nice as Millennium Park is. City at ground level though not as vibrant as Toronto. Still booming, but not as fast as Toronto, which I see as it's emerging rival. Loses big points for its segregation.
Las Vegas = 25 - Least urban city I have ever spent any time in, but fascinated me in a macabre way when I was there in 2002.
San Francisco = 90 - SF is probably overrated. It does have one of the nicest inner cities I have seen, the climate is almost perfect, it has some interesting satellite cities, but yeah, I could feel the smug level rising. I had lots of fun, being a transit geek, but I think I could get bored there, like Vancouver.
Los Angeles/Riverside = 80 - LA is just so huge, so cultural (low-brow but also higher brow), I really enjoyed my visit there in 2007. Yeah, it's a city you almost have to drive in, though I spent a day entirely on trains and buses, and it really is a city of distinct neighbourhoods. I could see it becoming more livable, rather than less livable. There's little smugness outside of the entertainment industry.
Last edited:
flar
Active Member
Interesting to see the Hamilton comments here. Downtown is the worst part of Hamilton for sure, but saying there is nothing to do is a little silly. There is infinitely more going on in Hamilton than places like London or K-W and Hamilton is also infinitely more urban than places like those. I know a few people who moved to Hamilton from Toronto expecting they would be going back to Toronto on a regular basis, but now find they rarely have to leave Hamilton. Personally, after reluctantly moving to Hamilton (I actually live in Dundas) six years ago, I now live here by choice. You have to make an effort to experience Hamilton and move beyond the stereotypes. I enjoy a very good quality of life here, much better than my last city, London, ON. I also find that Hamilton has really changed a lot since I first moved here.
Last edited:
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 12,468
- Reaction score
- 9,275
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
I wrote most of my points before Archivist dished it out. I love his description of Quebec City.
I wonder where Toronto sits though on his scale, as he didn't quite go with the index, but a more subjectivist-scientific approach
I wonder where Toronto sits though on his scale, as he didn't quite go with the index, but a more subjectivist-scientific approach
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
Ha ha. You get five diamonds from me, if not from Tourisme Québec!
adma
Superstar
Any ratings on Regina/Saskatoon? From what I recall a decade plus ago, those were sleeper surprises, esp. compared to Calgary and maybe even Edmonton...
Long Island Mike
Senior Member
North American City rankings-Quite interesting!
Everyone: This has become a very interesting topic with good observations about cities by many here. I will probably chime in sometime in the future when I read everyone's opinions and take notes to reply.
This is a good example of the reason I take part in the Urban Toronto Forums-good dialogue and opinions and for the most part no nonsense. Interesting topics like this keep me coming back!
Happy New Year 2009 All!
Long Island Mike
Everyone: This has become a very interesting topic with good observations about cities by many here. I will probably chime in sometime in the future when I read everyone's opinions and take notes to reply.
This is a good example of the reason I take part in the Urban Toronto Forums-good dialogue and opinions and for the most part no nonsense. Interesting topics like this keep me coming back!
Happy New Year 2009 All!
Long Island Mike
Archivist
Senior Member
LI Mike, you are always so sweet. It is my resolution to be kinder, as you are, in the New Year.
Though I have been to Regina and Saskatoon more than once each, I didn't really feel comfortable rating them, but I'll give Regina a spin.
Regina 28 (BE = 14/40 | St = 9/30 | Cu = 5/30). Poor Regina has the bad luck to be Canada's urban whipping boy (a role it shares with Moncton). It's sort of understandable that this flat city with artificial (and rather smelly) waterways might evince disdain, all the more so given it's incredibly high crime rate and the fact that year after year it falls farther behind its northern cousin in size and importance. But it's flatness, the predominance of 1960's era government buildings that all seem to bear some word that starts with "Sask", lend it a semi-exotic feel, like being in a place that time has passed by. When I was in Bloemfontein, South Africa, I thought the resemblance to Regina was actually uncanny, and in a way Regina in my mind stands for another era entirely, when government owned phone companies, grain boards, and energy companies ruled the roost.
and another ...
Washington 53 (BE = 20/40 | St = 18/30 | Cu = 15/30). Between 1997 and 2004 I went to Washington many times, to the point where I developed tastes for particular bars (and at particular times of day), but I haven't been back in a while, and I understand it's changed. I always thought of the city as a series of islands, a bunch of inhabitable bits surrounded and separated from each other by deep waters of danger and crime. The inhabited bits, though, are frequently lovely, and the urbanity of the Dupont Circle area is amazing. The "downtown", just north of the Mall, is dreariness times ten (I will admit to missing skyscrapers). The Mall itself has always struck me as appropriate for an Empire-type power, while leaving me cold in its details. I understand that it's buildings are impressive, but I can never love Pei's gallery, in the same way that I find the Museum of the American Indian substantially wanting when compared to Gatineau's Museum of Civilization. Something about the broadness of the Mall has a flattening effect on my sensibilities. But, it's undeniable, there is a huge amount to do about the place.
Though I have been to Regina and Saskatoon more than once each, I didn't really feel comfortable rating them, but I'll give Regina a spin.
Regina 28 (BE = 14/40 | St = 9/30 | Cu = 5/30). Poor Regina has the bad luck to be Canada's urban whipping boy (a role it shares with Moncton). It's sort of understandable that this flat city with artificial (and rather smelly) waterways might evince disdain, all the more so given it's incredibly high crime rate and the fact that year after year it falls farther behind its northern cousin in size and importance. But it's flatness, the predominance of 1960's era government buildings that all seem to bear some word that starts with "Sask", lend it a semi-exotic feel, like being in a place that time has passed by. When I was in Bloemfontein, South Africa, I thought the resemblance to Regina was actually uncanny, and in a way Regina in my mind stands for another era entirely, when government owned phone companies, grain boards, and energy companies ruled the roost.
and another ...
Washington 53 (BE = 20/40 | St = 18/30 | Cu = 15/30). Between 1997 and 2004 I went to Washington many times, to the point where I developed tastes for particular bars (and at particular times of day), but I haven't been back in a while, and I understand it's changed. I always thought of the city as a series of islands, a bunch of inhabitable bits surrounded and separated from each other by deep waters of danger and crime. The inhabited bits, though, are frequently lovely, and the urbanity of the Dupont Circle area is amazing. The "downtown", just north of the Mall, is dreariness times ten (I will admit to missing skyscrapers). The Mall itself has always struck me as appropriate for an Empire-type power, while leaving me cold in its details. I understand that it's buildings are impressive, but I can never love Pei's gallery, in the same way that I find the Museum of the American Indian substantially wanting when compared to Gatineau's Museum of Civilization. Something about the broadness of the Mall has a flattening effect on my sensibilities. But, it's undeniable, there is a huge amount to do about the place.
Last edited: