SITE MENU
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.I was there for several years (school) and returned recently on three occasions for a total of 12 days. As for your "facts", you referenced news paper articles written by people who aren't "experts" of anything other than journalism which is usually best associated with fraud (golf clap for you).
Facts???
Buffalo is the country's 2nd poorest city (and you can SEE IT when your there)
WNED: Buffalo is Nation's Second Poorest City (2007-08-29)
In addition to having visited the eyesore that is Buffalo:
As a federal employee who is in the know about what Buffalo has and does not have in the way of infrastructure, public funding and manning....I would not live there even for a very healthy pay raise (or anywhere else in WNY for that matter).
More fun facts for you:
"Buffalo wasn't a particularly skilled city in 1970, and it isn't one now. Fewer than 19% of the city's adults boast a college degree; the number in Manhattan is 57.5%. Whereas New York always had some industries, such as finance, that required brainpower, Buffalo's industries were invariably brawn-based. Buffalo wasn't a university town like Boston, and it didn't have Minneapolis's Scandinavian passion for good lower education. It had the right skill mix for making steel or flour, not for flourishing in the information age."
Can Buffalo Ever Come Back? - October 19, 2007 - The New York Sun
Edward L. Glaeser is a professor of economics at Harvard University and a Manhattan Institute senior fellow
So its easy to tie the above quote in with the title of the thread and draw the easy and obvious conclusion.
Enjoy Utopia....
When you lose an argument, just go for hyperbole.
Typical.
Thats better than falsely claiming victory.
So tell me then, what SPECIFICALLY is false or misleading in Glaeser's article. Please feel free to dispute with undisputable and citable fact any of his. You knocked the author but didn't touch his information, I don't wonder why.
Is Buffalo not the 2nd poorest city in the country?
This guy summed it best:
"Submitted by philip striegl, Oct 19, 2007 08:56
It seems as though the reasons for the city to exist have come and gone. Spending taxes won't change anything about the basis for it's existance."
I'm not claiming victory or looking to duck defeat with hyperbole, but I am done with trying to rationally deal with the irrational.
SPECIAL REPORT: ABANDONED HOMES Buffalo, New York - SkyscraperCity
10,000 abondoned houses in a city of 293,000 people. That number doesn't count the number of poorly kept houses and just plain nasty neighborhoods, nor does it count the abondoned train terminal, tunnels, factories and industrial buildings that are vacant and/or falling apart (not to mention Buffalo's pothole epidemic).
People who are fans of architecture are looking for what your talking about, ignoring the obvious sad state of a poor and delapidated city that everyone else is seeing with open eyes. I still don't see any refutation whatsoever of Glaeser, if there is anything relevant than cut/paste and post it.
btw: please stop posting "opinion" articles/editorials that are devoid of material fact or measurable metric. The only thing they prove is that you have no hard facts to refute that statistically speaking, Buffalo is the poor welfare hole most people know that it is.
"One of Toronto's assets is proximity to Buffalo. I’m a huge Buffalo fan. The city has tremendous assets. Some of them, like great universities and great art museums are self-evident. Others a bit more mundane."
The reason so many commentators and urban experts are down on Buffalo is that they are looking at it from a highly local perspective. Looking only at Buffalo and its surrounding suburban areas, they see the loss of manufacturing and the outward movement of young and talented people.
In a recent essay in the City Journal, Harvard University professor Edward Glaeser, the brilliant young urban economist, argued that Buffalo should stop cooking up mega-projects aimed at revitalization and itself go about shrinking in the smartest way possible. In a vibrant and engaging talk to Buffalo community leaders in April, Glaeser stressed that it would be nearly impossible for Buffalo — or any region really — to counteract the
powerful economics and demographics that are shaping the globalization of
manufacturing and causing the shift of young and talented people to bigger, more vibrant cities and metro areas.
All of this sounds reasonable when you look at Buffalo as an isolated island. But the picture changes dramatically when one begins to think of Buffalo in the context of the economic powerhouse that is the mega-region. The fact of the matter is that Buffalo is a key node in one of the world’s most
economically potent mega-regions — stretching from the high-tech center of Waterloo on the west, through Toronto, Buffalo and Rochester. Tor-Buff-Chester is currently home to about 22 million people and more than $530 billion in economic output, making it the fifth-largest megaregion in North America and the 12th largest in the world.
Yeah well what else is there to do in that ungodly piece of garbage they call a city?