Lake Charles Louisiana
Yuck, red necks, yucky girls, white trash, yuck
Lake Charles Louisiana
Yuck, red necks, yucky girls, white trash, yuck
Interesting question, and although I don't have any answers to it, I am interested in what responders are saying as to what makes their named cities the "worst". These include the quality of/agreeability of:
>food/entertainment
>accomodation
>transit
>cleanliness
>condition of buildings and city services
>public safety
>parks/running areas
>the perceived nature of citizenry (e.g., "hipsters")
>"corporatization"
I would offer that there are some other (some are related, though) considerations that should be included:
>informal segregation, by neighbourhood
>visitor services
>downtown area that is organic...not overly policed (a low crime rate would speak to the effectiveness of the city as an egalitarian, "pan-people-friendly" place)
>general friendliness/affability of citizens towards visitors
Reading this thread makes me glad I'm in the UK. Admittedly we also have some shit holes (e.g. Birmingham and Liverpool ) but most UK cities are pretty nice. Edinburgh, Bristol, Newcastle, and Glasgow (despite its problems ) are all fun places.
Bernin' wrote:
I think any city that regularly draws large amount of tourists (NYC, DC, San Fran) is not truly in the conversation for worst cities; at least there are legitimate attractions and reasons to visit, whether you like the ambiance of the place or not.
On the whole, Detroit and Cleveland are truly depressing places, both of which I am forced to visit because of family there (technically, Akron, which also sucks).
Detroit has Motown Museum and Cleveland has Rock'n Roll Hall of Fame. Aren't they legitimate attractions?
Of the cities that meet OP's cut-off, the following are short of attractions.
Charlotte
Dallas
Indianapolis
Kansas City
Oakland
Tampa
I have never been to Buffalo, so I will not comment.
Interesting to consider the major cities that have not been mentioned. Makes me feel better about my hometown.
DLR wrote:
Sacramento, CA. Dead, boarded-up downtown filled with aggressive, mentally ill homeless.
I'm with you on this. There is nothing going on there. If it wasn't for the government jobs, this place would completely die. And yeah, aggressive is right, the homeless there yell, a lot.
Just Another LRC Idiot wrote:
Bernin' wrote:I think any city that regularly draws large amount of tourists (NYC, DC, San Fran) is not truly in the conversation for worst cities; at least there are legitimate attractions and reasons to visit, whether you like the ambiance of the place or not.
On the whole, Detroit and Cleveland are truly depressing places, both of which I am forced to visit because of family there (technically, Akron, which also sucks).
Detroit has Motown Museum and Cleveland has Rock'n Roll Hall of Fame. Aren't they legitimate attractions?
Of the cities that meet OP's cut-off, the following are short of attractions.
Charlotte
Dallas
Indianapolis
Kansas City
Oakland
Tampa
I have never been to Buffalo, so I will not comment.
Rock n roll Hall of fame is a joke, but the Cleveland/Akron area is surrounded by incredible running trails... Which is pretty cool if you're a runner.
West Yellowstone? A major city?
It barely classifies as a town. A few hotels, gift shops, and bars, and you can walk the entirety in about 5 or 10 minutes.
And what's their major league sports team?
Elton john wrote:
Reading this thread makes me glad I'm in the UK. Admittedly we also have some shit holes (e.g. Birmingham and Liverpool ) but most UK cities are pretty nice. Edinburgh, Bristol, Newcastle, and Glasgow (despite its problems ) are all fun places.
Even 25 years ago, I was watching my back in Bayswater/Paddington and north of Hyde Park due to the establishment of Londonistan.
There was already a palpable surrender vibe to Jihad.
Bernin' wrote:
the Cleveland/Akron area is surrounded by incredible running trails... Which is pretty cool if you're a runner.
I second this, their metro parks have really good running trails. Have to drive to them however. Cleveland's lakefront is totally not utilized and has no trails, unlike the running mecca Chicago's lakefront is.
Cleveland is not as bad as Toledo.
Bernie Kosar wrote:
Cleveland is not as bad as Toledo.
+1
....but both are still total sh$tholes. In fact, any city in a state with a name that begins AND ends with a vowel is, by definition, a total and complete dump.
I can. It's relatively inexpensive. It's a place of natural beauty with mountains and rivers. The falls are beautiful...and the place is rocking when the Steelers are rolling. It's a poor man's SF/Austin/Portland depending on your frame of reference.I love SF, too. Seriously echo the comment that if you can't enjoy SF...you're a turd.
Beaver Falls is better. wrote:
Can anyone sing the virtues of Pittsburgh PA?
Houston is pretty bad.
Giver of +1s wrote:
Bernie Kosar wrote:Cleveland is not as bad as Toledo.
+1
....but both are still total sh$tholes. In fact, any city in a state with a name that begins AND ends with a vowel is, by definition, a total and complete dump.
Alaska
Alabama
Arizona
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Ohio
Oklahoma
Seriously mate? wrote:
Giver of +1s wrote:[quote]Bernie Kosar wrote:
. In fact, any city in a state with a name that begins AND ends with a vowel is, by definition, a total and complete dump.
Alaska
Alabama
Arizona
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Ohio
Oklahoma
This is interesting theory. Why do you think it's so. Did the Founding Fathers do it on purpose? They were all Masons and designed Washington, D.C. on a Masonic platelet, so maybe they did the same nationally.
I dunno, I sort of liked Cincinnati, so I guess that's the exception to that rule.
Boston - filled with Bostonians
I will jump into an entire state - Iowa.
I had to live in Iowa for a few yrs as an elementary school kid, because my dad's work took him there. for my dad's job. After the day we moved, none of our family has ever set foot in that god forsaken state again. Recently, dad told me we were only supposed to be there 1 yr. which turned into 3. He apologized
ABCXYZ wrote:
Boston - filled with Bostonians
I believe the more common term is "mass$oles".