Is Rochester similar to Buffalo?

[wheelingman]

I have been to Buffalo and was suprised by its great architecture. I have only driven past Rochester to the south on the Thruway. How does Rochester compare, especially in structural density, architecture, and vibrancy?

Thanks

[Sabretooth]

Very similar, yet different. A bit more modern, clean-cut, and not quite as rough around the edges. Personally I think the two cities complement each other pretty well.

[Buffalonian4life]

Oh no, not another one of these threads, lol! I'll keep my mouth shut for the most part, because I know you all will think I'm biased, but in all seriousness, Buffalo far out-weighs Rochester, it's hardly a contest.

Downtown Buffalo is very vibrant, Chip Strip, Elmwood Ave (rated America's 3rd greatest urban neighborhood filled with over 200 shops and restaurants in the City Center, blows Rochester's south park ave out of the water), and even Main Street during weekdays. If you want big-city, go to Buffalo, if you want a city with no major league sports, few attractions nor many cultural offerings, head over to Rochester, a smaller town to our east.

All in all, Buffalo, once being the 8th largest city and the place to be in the world by 1900 (Pan-American Expo, one of the first to have light, world's largest buildings, new inventions like air conditioning and windshield wipers, growing population, with the nation's largest inland port, etc, etc, etc) was able to capture some of the world's greatest architects and designers - the architectural center between the east and west for new ideas and technologies. This is evidenced today in our various historical structures, and our reviving downtown.

It's not that hard to see the difference, but don't take anyone's opinion too seriously until you find it out for yourself, everyone's different, but with what you brought up, there is no comparison. Typically Buffalo is compared to a city like Pittsburgh, but that's another story.

Thanks and have a nice day!

image hosted on flickr

[veryprotourism]

rochester's semi-equivilant to elmwood is PARK ave(not south park) as well as monroe ave. and yes, elmwood puts them collectively to shame. monroe and park are more on par with hertel, IMO.

rochester does kick buffalo's ass when it comes to community gardening/farming. rochester has over 300 community gardens in the city alone, and a public market on par with those in much larger cities. i truly miss those aspects of living in rochester.

rochester is cleaner, less neglected, and supposedly...less poverty. that said rochester's crime rate is typically equal to if not greater than buffalo's.

socially/culturally rochester is alot like buffalo, however buffalo is a livlier, more active city than rochester. i believe alot of that stems from buffalo having a much larger student population within its city limits.

if you don't care about so called "big city" amenities, rochester is a great place to live. its a very greens city, with lots of walkable 'hoods, nice parks, and a short commute.

on the other hand, if you'd like a little big town flavor, buffalo is a better choice.

buffalo has better cultural amenities, including 14 professional theatre groups, one of the finest concert halls in the world, 2 of the nations 9 karpeles manuscript libraries, a fine collection of contemporary art at the albright knox, a bunch of private galleries, a brand new art museum with a world class watercolor collection and an abundance of local modern art, etc.

buffalo also has way better public transit, though it does cost a little more.

Originally Posted by Buffalonian4life

Typically Buffalo is compared to a city like Pittsburgh, but that's another story.

i've heard this comaprison myself i have to believe it comes from people who have never been to pittsburgh. both have similar economic stories, but i think thats where it ends.

pittsburgh is a much, much and again MUCH more vibrant city than buffalo. granted metro pittsburgh is nearly twice the size of buffalo-niagara, but if you've ever been to downtown pitt you wouldn't make that comparison.

economic decline aside, i'd say the only rustbelt city with more life than pittsburgh is chicago.

[wheelingman]

Thanks, guys for the insightful information.

[Sabretooth]

Originally Posted by Buffalonian4life

one of the first to have light

Buffalo WAS the first city to light its streets, contributing to the nickname "City of Light" which somehow got stolen by Paris somewhere along the way.

In fact, Ganson Street (between Ohio St and the Skyway) was THE first street lit with electricity.

[Buffalonian4life]

Originally Posted by Sabretooth

Buffalo WAS the first city to light its streets, contributing to the nickname "City of Light" which somehow got stolen by Paris somewhere along the way.

In fact, Ganson Street (between Ohio St and the Skyway) was THE first street lit with electricity.

You're right, but I've gotten attacked on other forums for saying that. First city to have Streetlights - yes. But what about electrical light in general?

[Sabretooth]

That I don't know. There may not have been a true "first" in that regard? Obviously streetlights being one singular, easy to define innovation, makes it easier to pinpoint. But widespread use...could have been anywhere, really.

As for the "City of Light" moniker, I'm of the understanding that it was mostly the result of the Pan Am Expo, with the underlying theme of electrical power (because of the Falls, the streetlights, etc.).

[xzmattzx]

From what I've read, the first electric street lights were in Cleveland in 1879. They were developed by Charles Brush, from Cleveland, that year. Buffalo first used Brush's electric lights in 1881. The first neighborhood to get electricity for private use as the area around Pearl Street in New York City in 1882.

[veryprotourism]

xzmattzx is correct. however, cleveland only used electric lighting to light 'public square' in 1879.
buffalo was the first city to have widespread use of electric street lighting.

[veryprotourism]

this is off topic though.

[RochesterAddict]

Rochester and Buffalo are VERY similar in terms of the physical surroundings. We both have downtowns that are pretty dead and suburbs that thrive. We both have metro populations of 1 million. We both have excellent highway systems that get you around town in a timely fashion. We both have older architecture and old infrastructure.

Buffalo has much nicer older architecture than Rochester. I think it is because urban renewal in the 70's did not claim as much in B-lo. B-lo started to lose population in 1950 and Rachacha started to lose population in 2001, I think the head start in people loss helped to keep their older buildings around, but many of them, even today, are not being kept up.

The thing that I find is different is the mindset of the population. Buffalo has a VERY working class population, even in their wealthiest towns like Amherst, Williamsville, and Clarence you will feel the blue collar. Rochester's metro has two different mindset feels to it. Rochester's Eastside and its suburbs are white collar areas with a more educated population. Rochester's Westside and suburbs are more blue collar factory type workers. A thing that adds to the difference, imo, is the fact that Rochester has several fortune 500 companies where Buffalo has none.

Background/heritage could also have something to do with the population of the cities. Buffalo has a HUGE polish population smattered all over the metro. Rochester's Westside has a large working class Italian population. I feel our Westside feels like you are in NJ. Rochester's Eastside has a large German/Jewish population. The Eastside feels like being on Long Island.

If you were to visit both I doubt you would see much of a difference. Living in the 2 areas will teach you.

These are just my opinions and observations. I lived in B-lo for 5 years and ROC for 25.

[JSmith]

RochesterAddict, that's interesting that you think urban renewal took a greater toll on Rochester. I'll take your word for it, but when driving through downtown Rochester last weekend, I noticed some nice stretches of 19th-century brick commercial buildings that I wish Buffalo had maintained more of (I think this when I visit Syracuse, too). Buffalo destroyed some really grand buildings downtown in the '60s and '70s too. Some were replaced by buildings that you could argue were a reasonable trade-off or even an improvement, some where the comparison is less flattering, and some are now parking lots.

Overall, I thought Rochester's downtown looked more vacant and empty than Buffalo's, but maybe I'd have a different impression on a weekday than a Saturday.

[steel]

Rochester only started losing population in 2001? - Huh? ? ?

[veryprotourism]

rochester 1950 - 332,488

rochester 2000 - 219,773

now if we are speaking of metro areas rochester did not start losing population untill 2000ish, buffalo-niagara began losing population in the 1970's.

[veryprotourism]

i think both cities suffered greatly from urban renewal.

rochester a great deal of it's beautiful corn hill neighborhood(at the time viewed as a slum) to the construction of the I-490. it also lost what was then downtown brighton.

buffalo lost some 30,000 homes to the construction of the I-190

just a couple examples

[Sabretooth]

30,000? That seems like alot.

[AndrewJM3D]

Originally Posted by Sabretooth

Buffalo WAS the first city to light its streets, contributing to the nickname "City of Light" which somehow got stolen by Paris somewhere along the way.

In fact, Ganson Street (between Ohio St and the Skyway) was THE first street lit with electricity.

This is why : The first electric street lighting employed arc lamps, initially the 'Electric candle', 'Jablotchkoff candle' or 'Yablochkov candle' developed by the Russian Pavel Yablochkov in 1875. This was a carbon arc lamp employing alternating current, which ensured that the electrodes burnt down at the same rate. Yablochkov candles were first used to light the Grands Magasins du Louvre, Paris where 80 were deployed. That's six years earlier then Buffalo.

Also keep in mind that the term City of Lights was given to Paris for both its fame as a centre of education and ideas and its early adoption of street lighting.



As for some of the comments being made on here. I'd have to say both cities are different. I disagree that Buffalo has a bustling downtown core though as I've been there many times where each it seemed lifeless and deserted. Rochester wasn't much better however it has a much more friendly layout and could easily turn back into a great pedestrian friendly city. Not to mention it could easily get it's subway back up and running.


I have never seen the sidewalks look like this on an average day in Buffalo.

Source: wiki

[JSmith]

Actually, Andrew, I would say that picture shows less pedestrian activity than an average summer weekday during lunchtime.

[AndrewJM3D]

Ah yes, but what about weeknights and weekends when the office workers go home? You might as well roll up the sidewalks.