Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But again, all three are much more similar than different in the big picture (Buffalo and Rochester probably having more in common with each other than either do with Syracuse though). So I'd say go where you find good employment, and where you get the best feeling of community.
IMO this is very true & very good advice. You can find good (or bad) in any of these metro areas ......... finding a good job may be another issue. When we moved here we looked into Buffalo & Rochester, the better job offers came from Buffalo & that was basically how we ended up here. People with a different skill set than my wife & I may find better jobs opportunities in the other cities.
Thank you everyone! I do read and research every comment that you all have shared. You've all been incredibly helpful. I feel reassured that Buffalo is NOT like Detroit which was my original concern and I have learned that the 3 are very similar to eachother - each being able to offer what we need. I don't think we can go wrong and they each sound wonderful to me!
Last edited by sweetpea3; 01-06-2012 at 11:21 AM..
Reason: Didn't mean to quote just one person
not sure how affluent Rochester is anymore. Hell, Kodak just filed for bankruptcy.
Rochester is still pretty white-collar. The talent from companies like Kodak have gone on to start their own businesses or join other area-firms. They may not be as big as a Kodak, but they do well. Not to mention the University of Rochester's growth, through it's university and medical center, along with an entrepreneurial-spirited school in RIT.
Kodak isn't a major player in Rochester economy anymore, it's bittersweet. For decades it was an iconic American company and one that Rochester could be proud to be the home of. And with all of the innovation that spawned from Kodak over the decades, the high-tech sector here is certainly better off than it would have been without Kodak. But really, the growing diversified economy that this region has been forced to create with the downfall of Kodak over the last few decades is better suited for the new global economy. Kodak employs about 1/10th of the amount of people in Rochester that it did during it's peak years in the 80's...so any impact that the bankruptcy has on the region now, while obviously still negative, won't be nearly as significant as it would have back then. A prosperous Rochester can definitely exist without Kodak, though for nostalgic reasons I still hold onto the hope that it won't have to.
Rochester was one of 10 cities in the world that is "poised for greatness" in 2012 according to TheStreet.com. It's consumer confidence is higher than any other upstate city as well.
not sure how affluent Rochester is anymore. Hell, Kodak just filed for bankruptcy. Still, it is a fine city, as is Buffalo.
My vote (which is biased as hell) is for Syracuse, which is arguably the only upstate city which is growing. Construction is on the rise and the census reported a net gain in populaiton, which is the only upstate city to do so. It will also provide you with the best balance of thriving downtown and safe, well educated subarbs. Also, it is much closer to the coast, which means short trips to manhatten, philly, the shore, etc.. Syracuse also boasts the best universities in upstate with SU and Cornell.
good areas to look at:
jamesville-dewitt
fayetteville-manlius
Skaneateles (although a bit farther than the rest)
Of course, you can't go wrong with NY, so western ny with buffalo and rochester and upstate with syracuse and don't forget albany are all great places to raise a family.
Good luck to you.
Ok hold on now, most of this stuff simply isn't true. First and foremost, Syracuse is shrinking and has been doing so for the past 60 years, literally every decade since 1940. This isn't abnormal, all the upstate cities have been shrinking; the only actual growth has occured in Rochester metropolitan area (the city proper has shrunk fore decades). Maybe this census reported single-year growth, but that doesn't translate into actual growth over a ten-year period; i'm sure on this one. In terms of "closer to the coast" and "short trips to manhattan" I assume you're pointing out that it takes five hours to get to NYC from syracuse as opposed to six from rochester or seven from buffalo (not exactly a short drive down the road).
In terms of vibrancy, downtown buffalo is every bit as lively as downtown syracuse and the suburbs are just as safe and well provisioned with quality public schools. Downtown rochester may be a bit lacking in liveliness, but the suburbs are about as clean and safe as you can get.
With the affluency thing, one company filing for bankruptcy in rochester (even if it's kodak) has nothing to do with how wealthy people actually are. This is supported by the fact that greater rochester is the second wealthiest metro in the state after new york. Buffalo as well has a lot of money out in the burbs, I wouldn't be so quick to declare syracuse as 'richer'. And the statement about the colleges is particuarly misleading. Cornell is not in syracuse, it's not really even that close to syracuse. Like the whole thing with the proximity to manhattan, ithaca and cornell u. are marginally closer to syracuse than they are to rochester (hour +15 minutes vs. hour 30-45). And while SU is a great school, it's not the best in WNY by anybody's standards; U of R and RIT in rochester and SUNY Geneseo (all three of which are part of the rochester area colleges consortium) are ranked higher by most everybody- U of R in particular is considered to be pretty much the best college in the state outside of NYC along with Vassar in poughkeepsie. Even with those two colleges in rochester I would hesitate to say that rochester "boasts the best universities in upstate" because other upstate cities like buffalo also have multiple, serious research universities that are excellent in their own right.
I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with syracuse or that it shouldn't be seriously considered as a home by somebody looking to move to WNY, just that making statements which are either factually inaccurate or highly misleading (like claiming that syracuse is "much closer to the coast") isn't really in good taste, nor is it particuarly helpful to somebody looking to weigh the real benifits of one upstate city vs. another. It might be better to focus on the stuff that can actually be backed up by credible info or accepted popular opinion...
Ok hold on now, most of this stuff simply isn't true. First and foremost, Syracuse is shrinking and has been doing so for the past 60 years, literally every decade since 1940. This isn't abnormal, all the upstate cities have been shrinking; the only actual growth has occured in Rochester metropolitan area (the city proper has shrunk fore decades). Maybe this census reported single-year growth, but that doesn't translate into actual growth over a ten-year period; i'm sure on this one. In terms of "closer to the coast" and "short trips to manhattan" I assume you're pointing out that it takes five hours to get to NYC from syracuse as opposed to six from rochester or seven from buffalo (not exactly a short drive down the road).
In terms of vibrancy, downtown buffalo is every bit as lively as downtown syracuse and the suburbs are just as safe and well provisioned with quality public schools. Downtown rochester may be a bit lacking in liveliness, but the suburbs are about as clean and safe as you can get.
With the affluency thing, one company filing for bankruptcy in rochester (even if it's kodak) has nothing to do with how wealthy people actually are. This is supported by the fact that greater rochester is the second wealthiest metro in the state after new york. Buffalo as well has a lot of money out in the burbs, I wouldn't be so quick to declare syracuse as 'richer'. And the statement about the colleges is particuarly misleading. Cornell is not in syracuse, it's not really even that close to syracuse. Like the whole thing with the proximity to manhattan, ithaca and cornell u. are marginally closer to syracuse than they are to rochester (hour +15 minutes vs. hour 30-45). And while SU is a great school, it's not the best in WNY by anybody's standards; U of R and RIT in rochester and SUNY Geneseo (all three of which are part of the rochester area colleges consortium) are ranked higher by most everybody- U of R in particular is considered to be pretty much the best college in the state outside of NYC along with Vassar in poughkeepsie. Even with those two colleges in rochester I would hesitate to say that rochester "boasts the best universities in upstate" because other upstate cities like buffalo also have multiple, serious research universities that are excellent in their own right.
I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with syracuse or that it shouldn't be seriously considered as a home by somebody looking to move to WNY, just that making statements which are either factually inaccurate or highly misleading (like claiming that syracuse is "much closer to the coast") isn't really in good taste, nor is it particuarly helpful to somebody looking to weigh the real benifits of one up
state city vs. another. It might be better to focus on the stuff that can actually be backed up by credible info or accepted popular opinion...
Actually, the Syracuse metro area added people between 2000-2010, for the current metro counties. It is at an all time high for the 3 county metro area. Metros like Albany-
Schenectady-Troy, Glens Falls and Ithaca added people during that period. Micro areas
like Watertown and Plattsburgh also added people as well.
Syracuse is about 3 and a half to 4 hours or so from NYC.
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 06-10-2012 at 09:53 PM..
Ok hold on now, most of this stuff simply isn't true. First and foremost, Syracuse is shrinking and has been doing so for the past 60 years, literally every decade since 1940. This isn't abnormal, all the upstate cities have been shrinking; the only actual growth has occured in Rochester metropolitan area (the city proper has shrunk fore decades). Maybe this census reported single-year growth, but that doesn't translate into actual growth over a ten-year period; i'm sure on this one. In terms of "closer to the coast" and "short trips to manhattan" I assume you're pointing out that it takes five hours to get to NYC from syracuse as opposed to six from rochester or seven from buffalo (not exactly a short drive down the road).
In terms of vibrancy, downtown buffalo is every bit as lively as downtown syracuse and the suburbs are just as safe and well provisioned with quality public schools. Downtown rochester may be a bit lacking in liveliness, but the suburbs are about as clean and safe as you can get.
With the affluency thing, one company filing for bankruptcy in rochester (even if it's kodak) has nothing to do with how wealthy people actually are. This is supported by the fact that greater rochester is the second wealthiest metro in the state after new york. Buffalo as well has a lot of money out in the burbs, I wouldn't be so quick to declare syracuse as 'richer'. And the statement about the colleges is particuarly misleading. Cornell is not in syracuse, it's not really even that close to syracuse. Like the whole thing with the proximity to manhattan, ithaca and cornell u. are marginally closer to syracuse than they are to rochester (hour +15 minutes vs. hour 30-45). And while SU is a great school, it's not the best in WNY by anybody's standards; U of R and RIT in rochester and SUNY Geneseo (all three of which are part of the rochester area colleges consortium) are ranked higher by most everybody- U of R in particular is considered to be pretty much the best college in the state outside of NYC along with Vassar in poughkeepsie. Even with those two colleges in rochester I would hesitate to say that rochester "boasts the best universities in upstate" because other upstate cities like buffalo also have multiple, serious research universities that are excellent in their own right.
I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with syracuse or that it shouldn't be seriously considered as a home by somebody looking to move to WNY, just that making statements which are either factually inaccurate or highly misleading (like claiming that syracuse is "much closer to the coast") isn't really in good taste, nor is it particuarly helpful to somebody looking to weigh the real benifits of one upstate city vs. another. It might be better to focus on the stuff that can actually be backed up by credible info or accepted popular opinion...
For someone who complains that the Pro-Syracuse poster was writing "stuff (that) is not supported by fact," how do you quantify that Rochester is the "second most affluent metro area in NYS outside of New York City."? Rochester has the second largest economy in NYS, on a GDP basis outside of the New York metro area, but that doesn't mean it's the wealthiest. That distinction now goes to Albany, although Rochester was probably the second wealthiest during the previous century.
According to a Brookings Institution analysis of census data, from 2007 to 2010, the median household income in the Rochester MSA plummeted by 5.4%, the sharpest decline out of any NYS metro area. Incomes in Buffalo, Syracuse and Albany were flat.
From 2000 to 2010, the suburban poor population in the Rochester area shot up by 52.1%, compared to an increase of 36.1% in Buffalo and 30.4% in Albany. Suburban poverty rates in Syracuse did not change significantly.
According to the American Community Survey from the U.S Census, the median household income in the Rochester MSA was $50,302, which was only $600 higher than Syracuse. Hardly a bastion of affluence, Rochester's median household income was ranked 52nd out of the nation's 100 largest metro areas. The Albany MSA, meanwhile, had a median household income of $56,486, ranking 25th nationally.
There are many ways to measure affluence, Rochester's storied history as an industrial boomtown likely provided the foundation of considerable household wealth and created a large group of families with "old money" as noted by the establishment of prestigious institutions like the Eastman School of Music, numerous nonprofits and a group of very generous philanthropists. That legacy continues today, albeit on a diminished scale. In the past couple of decades, however, the Albany area has benefited handsomely from state investments to the tune of more than $4 billion dollars in the nanotechnology field which has led to the attraction of high paying jobs. Aside from inherited wealth and other closely held investments, which can be difficult to measure by metro area without access to proprietary data, the percentage of residents with household income over $200,000 and over $500,000 in Monroe County, where most of the wealth in the Rochester area is concentrated (in addition to a couple of census tracts in Northwestern Ontario County in the Victor and Fishers area), is lower than the national average and fairly comprable to Erie and Onondaga counties.
The relocation of Xerox's headquarters to Stamford, CT several decades ago and more recent developments like B&L being purchased by a Private Equity firm and several major corporate buyouts that have resulted in job losses and the relocation of high paying executive jobs (ie PAETEC being purchased by Little Rock-based Windstream and New Jersey-based Pinnacle Foods buying Birds Eye). Rochester still has more patents per capita than any metro in NYS and ranks in the Top 10 or 20 in the U.S. The area also fares well in terms of technology and innovation capacity, something that is lacking in Syracuse and Buffalo. Rochester still has more Fortune 1000 companies than any metro area outside of NYC; although that number has been dwindling.
I would agree that Syracuse University does not hold the prestige of U of R and the presence of Cornell does not benefit the Syracuse area due to its considerable distance and the notoriously insular mentality of Ithaca. Arguments made by the other poster as to why Syracuse is "better" like being closer to the coast or near Manhattan are specious and irrelevant. Personally, I would like to be as far away from NYC and the east coast as possible. Chicago would be perfect.
Last edited by RollsRoyce; 06-11-2012 at 11:07 AM..
Actually, the Syracuse metro area added people between 2000-2010, for the current metro counties. It is at an all time high for the 3 county metro area. Metros like Albany-
Schenectady-Troy, Glens Falls and Ithaca added people during that period. Micro areas
like Watertown and Plattsburgh also added people as well.
Syracuse is about 3 and a half to 4 hours or so from NYC.
If you look at the part that says "population percent change, 2000-2010" you'll see a number that says "-1.5%". Again, "-1.5%".
I actually just drove from NYC to syracuse after flying into laguardia a week and a half ago (had to drop off a friend who's family lives in dewitt). A touch over 5 hours. And even if it were 3-4 hours, my point was that you can't exactly gander on down to philadelphia for the afternoon just because Syracuse is a little bit farther east than the other metros. That's like saying you'll go to NYC more often if you live in Rochester than syracuse. It's not "much closer".
RollsRoyce, in reference to the affluceny discussion; Highest-income metropolitan statistical areas in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (I realize that it's a wikipedia article, but it's just a table compiled with direct reference to census data to make it easier to read). Rochester MSA has a median household income of $43,955. Albany-schenectady-troy lies about two spots down at $43,250. Not a difference you would exactly notice walking around the two places, but it is the difference between #2 most affluent msa in NYS and 3#. Albany per capita income is about 1k higher than rochester, you can use that to say it's more affluent, I'm just with the crowd that usually uses median income per family instead of income per capita because I think that the dispersion of incomes in family units to different family members that may not be employed persay (kids, unemployed spouses etc.) better depicts actual wealth per person than per-capita income. If you add a substantially larger regional gdp with larger median family income, you get the numbers that many people (not just me) use to say rochester is the second wealthiest msa in NY, i'm not just throwing that phrase around. I don't know if you were suggesting that those salary-per-job statistics were in any way a good indicator of a region's affluence; since a huge chunk of actual wealth comes from personal stock portfolios, as well as propietary business ownership and other types of income that dont involve a salary the salary figures are useless to depict the wealth of a metro. When discussing rochester, buffalo and syracuse, Rochester lies about 60 cities ahead of the other two in terms of both per-capita income and median income. There's many ways to measure the distribution of weath. Nobody's arguing that if you applied a gini coeffecient to rochester personal or family median income levels you would see a particuarly egalitarian picture. That's just life in the US. I also don't think you should speculate on the origin of the wealth in rochester, claiming that Rochester's higher median family income levels come from "old money" that was "inherited" by people. There's no evidence to support that whatsoever; I feel like you based that statement on the age-old perception that Rochester is white-collar while other upstate cities are bluecollar-therefore there must be old, rich families of bluebloods all over the place. I can assure you that there aren't. Like Albany's impressive growth in the high-tech industrial sector, most of the money that sets rochester apart (albeit by a slim marigin) from syracuse and buffalo is a result of expansive medical, optics and other science and technology-related research funded by state grants and private endowments at UR and RIT. There are also quite a few high-paying jobs at Xerox, Bausch and Lomb and many other companies. Neither of those two larger ones are dead yet (Bausch and Lomb's private acquisition also saw increased profits and several hundred added jobs in Rochester and Xerox still maintains it's largest workforce at the tower in downtown rochester, it's just not headquartered there anymore). Idk why I'm even comparing rochester and albany, this thread is specifically titled "Buffalo-Rochester-Syracuse" and it's a WNY discussion...
Goodness that was a bit of typing lol. Anyways to wrap this up I wasn't claiming that rochester was rolling in riches, nor that it was really THAT much wealthier than it's neighbors in buffalo or syracuse, merely disputing the claim that it was poorer than those two just because kodak went under. I don't like to see people just assume that the fate of a 1 million+ strong metropolitan area is intertwined with that of one single company which hasn't even been profitable in thirty years; every single one of those years the MSA added people. I'm sure people from buffalo don't like the assumption that everyone there is an unemployed steel factory worker, and while I don't actually know what syracuse was famous for in its heyday i'm sure that the current state of the economy has little to do with whatever it was...
If you look at the part that says "population percent change, 2000-2010" you'll see a number that says "-1.5%". Again, "-1.5%".
I actually just drove from NYC to syracuse after flying into laguardia a week and a half ago (had to drop off a friend who's family lives in dewitt). A touch over 5 hours. And even if it were 3-4 hours, my point was that you can't exactly gander on down to philadelphia for the afternoon just because Syracuse is a little bit farther east than the other metros. That's like saying you'll go to NYC more often if you live in Rochester than syracuse. It's not "much closer".
RollsRoyce, in reference to the affluceny discussion; Highest-income metropolitan statistical areas in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (I realize that it's a wikipedia article, but it's just a table compiled with direct reference to census data to make it easier to read). Rochester MSA has a median household income of $43,955. Albany-schenectady-troy lies about two spots down at $43,250. Not a difference you would exactly notice walking around the two places, but it is the difference between #2 most affluent msa in NYS and 3#. Albany per capita income is about 1k higher than rochester, you can use that to say it's more affluent, I'm just with the crowd that usually uses median income per family instead of income per capita because I think that the dispersion of incomes in family units to different family members that may not be employed persay (kids, unemployed spouses etc.) better depicts actual wealth per person than per-capita income. If you add a substantially larger regional gdp with larger median family income, you get the numbers that many people (not just me) use to say rochester is the second wealthiest msa in NY, i'm not just throwing that phrase around. I don't know if you were suggesting that those salary-per-job statistics were in any way a good indicator of a region's affluence; since a huge chunk of actual wealth comes from personal stock portfolios, as well as propietary business ownership and other types of income that dont involve a salary the salary figures are useless to depict the wealth of a metro. When discussing rochester, buffalo and syracuse, Rochester lies about 60 cities ahead of the other two in terms of both per-capita income and median income. There's many ways to measure the distribution of weath. Nobody's arguing that if you applied a gini coeffecient to rochester personal or family median income levels you would see a particuarly egalitarian picture. That's just life in the US. I also don't think you should speculate on the origin of the wealth in rochester, claiming that Rochester's higher median family income levels come from "old money" that was "inherited" by people. There's no evidence to support that whatsoever; I feel like you based that statement on the age-old perception that Rochester is white-collar while other upstate cities are bluecollar-therefore there must be old, rich families of bluebloods all over the place. I can assure you that there aren't. Like Albany's impressive growth in the high-tech industrial sector, most of the money that sets rochester apart (albeit by a slim marigin) from syracuse and buffalo is a result of expansive medical, optics and other science and technology-related research funded by state grants and private endowments at UR and RIT. There are also quite a few high-paying jobs at Xerox, Bausch and Lomb and many other companies. Neither of those two larger ones are dead yet (Bausch and Lomb's private acquisition also saw increased profits and several hundred added jobs in Rochester and Xerox still maintains it's largest workforce at the tower in downtown rochester, it's just not headquartered there anymore). Idk why I'm even comparing rochester and albany, this thread is specifically titled "Buffalo-Rochester-Syracuse" and it's a WNY discussion...
Goodness that was a bit of typing lol. Anyways to wrap this up I wasn't claiming that rochester was rolling in riches, nor that it was really THAT much wealthier than it's neighbors in buffalo or syracuse, merely disputing the claim that it was poorer than those two just because kodak went under. I don't like to see people just assume that the fate of a 1 million+ strong metropolitan area is intertwined with that of one single company which hasn't even been profitable in thirty years; every single one of those years the MSA added people. I'm sure people from buffalo don't like the assumption that everyone there is an unemployed steel factory worker, and while I don't actually know what syracuse was famous for in its heyday i'm sure that the current state of the economy has little to do with whatever it was...
That is within city limits. To use that to compare other cities in other parts of the country is apples vs. oranges, as many of those other cities can annex surrounding communities or land. I'm talking about metro areas, as many people are just moving to the suburbs. This is what I'm talking about: US2010
Cities like Watertown, Utica, Albany, Troy, Schenectady and Ithaca, along with some other smaller cities in Upstate Ny, actually added people within city limits between 2000-2010.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
