What are the main differences between Buffalo and Rochester, NY?

[Wheelingman04]

I have been to Buffalo a few times several years ago. I am sure I have missed out on the growth and all the construction in Buffalo since then. I don't know what goes on in Rochester or what it is doing economically.

[Downtown Bolivar]

The traditional outlook was that Rochester was a white collar corporate town and Buffalo was a blue collar industrial down. Now both cities are essentially moving toward a health and university research model for their economies--Rochester is further ahead in this regard. Buffalo is experiencing a mini building boom around its medical campus and canalside and while Rochester hasn't been without construction, it's not been the same scale as Buffalo's. I find that Rochester has more going on in its neighborhoods than Buffalo (Monroe Ave, East Ave, South Wedge), but Buffalo has much more going on downtown. Downtown Rochester has the feel of an empty office park after 5pm. Both have plenty to see and are worth checking out. For a mix of both, consider checking out Syracuse, which isn't much to look at as far as skyline, but is fantastic streetlevel and has several cool neighborhoods to check out.

[miketoronto]

Rochester always seems more clean and less run down than Buffalo. That being said, I hear they have some pretty bad sections to.

But the feel I always got in Rochester, was that it was much more of a high-tech white collar city, and economically better off than Greater Buffalo.
I don't think Greater Rochester ever fully stagnated or had region wide population decline like Buffalo (I cold be wrong on that).

The downtown is a tad quiet, but overall, just seems more well kept than Buffalo.
Rochester also has one of the top music schools in the nation.

[Wheelingman04]

Thanks for the information. I plan on visiting these two cities before too long and if I have time Syracuse would definitely be on the list. I have always been so interested in Upstate NY.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

Rochester always seems more clean and less run down than Buffalo. That being said, I hear they have some pretty bad sections to.


The downtown is a tad quiet, but overall, just seems more well kept than Buffalo.

I felt the same way when I visited both. But in the end, they are still two great cities. Rochester has a fantastic medical school btw. I do hear though that the nightlife is better in Buffalo. I would also say the IMO the architecture is nicer in Buffalo. Although the distance to Niagara Falls is much closer, and I would imagine this gives a nice boost to tourism for the metro area. Buffalo does have a high crime rate though; its a lot higher than Rochester.

[ardecila]

Are we going to ignore scale here? Buffalo's bones are much, much bigger than Rochester. It's peak population was around 600000, while Rochester's was only around 300000.

Rochester's downtown feels sleepy and somewhat bombed out, but it also feels pretty small. They may have a leg up on Buffalo economically, with certain high-tech employers, better universities, and less population loss over time... but Rochester "feels" like a small city, while Buffalo "feels" like a large city.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Wheelingman04

Thanks for the information. I plan on visiting these two cities before too long and if I have time Syracuse would definitely be on the list. I have always been so interested in Upstate NY.

Don't forget to visit the national parks and mountains Upstate. Cities are nice, but lets not forget the natural beauty that is upstate. A lot of good trails for mountain biking or even hiking can be found. The state is blessed in sense. A world class city, and some jaw dropping natural scenes. Especially in the fall with all of the foliage.

[jpdivola]

Of the upstate cities, I always got the sense that Albany and Rochester were the white collar towns. While Syracuse and Buffalo were the blue collar factory towns.

In the past 15 years, it seems Rochester has been pummeled with Kodak, Xerox, and Bausch and Lomb. This has taken away some of its luster and made it more of struggling “rust belt” town. Although, it still seems better kept that Buffalo or Syracuse. I agree with the earlier commentator that the downtown is underwhelming, but it has some nicely maintained commercial strips in residential areas (South Wedge, Park Ave, Monroe). Gives it sort of a city feel, but not really big or urban.

Buffalo has traditionally felt like the big “major league city” of Upstate NY (light rail, a theater district, famous foods, pro sports,etc) . With the others have more of a Tripple-A feel. But, the economic decline of the city has left it feeling a little hollowed out and kept if from really being the go-to city of the region. The downtown has the best urban bones. But, can feels a little bombed out. Haven’t been in several years, but Chipawa Street had a “big city” nightlife feel. Not sure how it is during the day. Allentown and Elmwood Village appear to be lively urban non-downtown neighborhoods.

Syracuse seems to have some lively downtown areas (Hanover Square, Armory Square) and the best urban college town (Marshal Street). But, I can’t think of a SouthWedge/Park Ave type area. Overall, the city seems to feel a little more run down than Rochester and maybe on par with Buffalo.

Geographically and culturally, Albany has always seemed like more of a classic Northeastern city (rolling hills, row houses, proximity to NYC/Bos, better off economically). While Buffalo and Rochester were Great Lakes/Midwest (single family homes, far from I-95 corridor). Syracuse was basically a Roc/Buff city, but felt a little more mixed. The Albany MSA’s relative prosperity over the past 15 years, has probably accentuate the difference.

In some ways, the upstate cities seem to be spread a little too thin. None of them are really big enough to become the principal city. Sometime, I wonder if it wouldn’t be better if upstate NY had just 1 or 2 big MSAs, instead of 4 mid-sized ones. The worst appears to be over for them. Hopefully, all of the activity bubbling up in the cities will be sustained and the region (and particularly it's central cities) will be firmly on the road to recovery.

[kgbnsf]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Rochester "feels" like a small city, while Buffalo "feels" like a large city.

I've never experienced a large city vibe in Buffalo. I have always considered both cities to be in the typical mid-sized city bracket, Buffalo having a slightly larger feel of being 'bigger' than Rochester.

Both cities/regions are different from each other, unique and worth checking out. Coming from a very large metro area, we are loving Rochester, the size and ease and culture that it offers for a city of its size. Healthcare is definitely the new economy and there has been a lot of construction in that respect. Downtown also has some new activity and construction going. Few mid-sized cities have vibrant downtowns after office hours. And even during hours, Rochester could improve here. It's always been shortsighted to me that businesses would move to suburbia and not stay geographically centered. But, while it's not bustling, the downtown is very nice. And fortunately, Rochester is following the trend of people and businesses slowly relocating back to the city proper as evident in the turn around of some neighborhoods. Albeit slowly, I think the city will continue to improve.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by kgbnsf

I've never experienced a large city vibe in Buffalo. I have always considered both cities to be in the typical mid-sized city bracket, Buffalo having a slightly larger feel of being 'bigger' than Rochester.

Even though Buffalo and Rochester are about the same size, and Rochester is somewhat more white collar and a little stronger economically, Buffalo feels considerably more like a big city to me than Rochester.

Buffalo has a larger downtown core and far more prewar neighborhoods, has underground rail transit, some borderline world-class cultural institutions, more big and monumental buildings, more impressive parks and parkways. etc. In 1950 or so Buffalo was probably a bigger, richer city than Toronto. Even today, it punches well above its weight, IMO.

There was some previous commentary on Albany, and I agree with the others that it's just different, and more of an East Coast or Northeast Corridor city. It's much healthier and more white collar than the other Upstate cities, with low unemployment, and a strong tech sector (and obviously govt. and universities). It's more tied to NYC than to Syracuse and the like.

[Dr Nevergold]

Having lived in Buffalo 5 years (and recently moving due to job concerns), my perspective is that these two cities are close, yet different. As others have noted, Buffalo is clearly a more blue collar city. Its industrial ghosts are all around the region and its rougher in appearance, especially as you transverse the highway system around the city since much of the 190 goes through rough neighborhoods.

Rochester has - for years - had a larger economy than Buffalo even though its slightly smaller. Its seeing its own challenges as of recent times, but its still got a higher metro GDP than Buffalo none-the-less.

In terms of what each city offers, they both have a fantastic waterfront setting, Rochester's north end being on Lake Ontario, downtown Buffalo being at the edge of Lake Erie. This gives them opportunities to market themselves I think, each with their own strengths.

[Wizened Variations]

Buffalo and Rochester have a major difference: Buffalo is far closer to a huge world class city- Toronto- than Rochester is to any major metropolitan area.

While this seems an unfair comparison, IMO this comparison is valid, as Toronto provides the Buffalonian with NYC entertainment (and prices) for about 1:45 drive time, whereas the trip from Rochester to NYC takes approximately 5:45 drive time (to put this in perspective it takes about 3:00 during normal traffic to get from Albany to NYC). This basically means that Toronto, from Buffalo, can be a one day affair, whereas traveling from Rochester to NYC would require an overnight stay).

EDIT: I might add that there is one train, the "63 Maple Leaf" that makes the trip in around 1:24 (it takes 2:02 for the return trip). See Amtrak reservations.

Both cities are in the Lake Ontario snow belt, but, I believe that metropolitan suburbs of Buffalo such as Niagara Falls get less snow than most of metropolitan Rochester, but, I am not sure.

[jpdivola]

[QUOTE=Wizened Variations;6603475]

While this seems an unfair comparison, IMO this comparison is valid, as Toronto provides the Buffalonian with NYC entertainment (and prices) for about 1:45 drive time, whereas the trip from Rochester to NYC takes approximately 5:45 drive time (to put this in perspective it takes about 3:00 during normal traffic to get from Albany to NYC). This basically means that Toronto, from Buffalo, can be a one day affair, whereas traveling from Rochester to NYC would require an overnight stay).

[QUOTE]

In fairness to Rochester it is only about an 3 hr drive to Toronto. It's not as close as Buffalo is, but Toronto is still far closer to Rochester than NYC is. It's not really until you get Syracuse where Toronto and NYC distance is pretty even.

[flar]

Never been to Rochester, but Buffalo has a big city feel even though it's a bit quiet these days. Buffalo's big city feel comes from the monumental architecture and public spaces, you can just feel the history. I get that nostalgic sense of faded importance from Buffalo.

It also helps that Buffalo has pro-sports. And it benefits from the whole Niagara Regions, espeically the Canadian side.

[alchemist redux]

Buffalo feels "bigger", but as others have pointed out, "big" is a relative thing and it doesn't just refer to population.

Buffalo might have been "big" at one point - it was the 8th largest city in 1900, ahead of other old, venerable cities like San Francisco, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and New Orleans - but it was not "big" in other senses of the word.

For example, Buffalo was probably the largest city of the time that didn't have what would later become a world class university, or actually several. The Albright-Knox museum, while a very fine niche museum, is clearly not in the same class as the Cleveland Museum of Art, to take an example from a nearby peer city. Similarly, the Kleinhans Music Hall is a nice building, but doesn't have the monumentality of the giant, Beaux Arts symphony and opera halls often found in the grand, civic centers of other, comparably-sized cities of the time. It's also telling that Buffalo never had a major league baseball team, at least not consistently during the 20th century.

So, yes, Buffalo was bigger, both in population and psychologically, than Rochester. But I don't see how it could have ever been regarded by early 20th century Americans as a "big city", especially considering how cosmopolitan its nearby counterparts (Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit - to say nothing of the cities on the Seaboard) would have felt at the time. This is not to pooh-pooh Buffalo, which I think is a pleasant city today, and probably was even more so back then; I feel the same way today about Portland, which I think is one of America's nicest cities and a great place to travel to, but I would never consider it to be "big", especially in comparison with nearby Seattle or similarly-sized Vancouver.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by alchemist redux

The Albright-Knox museum, while a very fine niche museum, is clearly not in the same class as the Cleveland Museum of Art, to take an example from a nearby peer city. .

The Cleveland Museum of Art has an absolutely stellar collection, though. Cleveland has a better art museum than LA, SF, Toronto, DC, and a host of world-class cities. Probably only clearly better comprehensive art museums in North America are in NYC, Boston, and Chicago. Philly is debatable.

And I don't think Cleveland and Buffalo were really ever peer cities. Cleveland was always larger, with a bigger corporate base, and instutitions like the CMA are big-time outliers. Your typical Great Lakes city will not have an institution of that stature.

[Evergrey]

I feel that while Rochester didn't get hit quite as hard economically as Buffalo in the late 20th century... Buffalo now has a higher ceiling going forward. I'm a lot more bullish on the Queen City's prospects now that the city has seemingly stabilized and has stopped chasing stupid silver bullet projects. And yes... there is definitely a distinct "urban tier" that separates Buffalo from Rochester despite their almost equal Metro population. Buffalo clearly has a lot more legacy urban amenities and infrastructure from that brief period when it was one of the country's top cities while Rochester even at its relative height was still only a second-tier city.

While Buffalo's 2-county metro is only 50k larger than Rochester's 6-county these days... Buffalo gets a little screwed by quirks of geography and the way the Census Bureau defines things.

Buffalo-Niagara is a bi-national region, and the core of Buffalo's urbanized area hugs the Canadian border. Those hundreds of thousands of Canadians who take part in the regional economy are excluded from the Metropolitan population. Furthermore, core county of Erie is quite oversized and very quickly gets rural to the east and to the south... limiting the potential for suburban "collar counties" to be added.

Metro Rochester sprawls over 6 counties, with distant Yates county added to the MSA in 2013. The metro has an area of 3000 sq miles, twice that of Metro Buffalo's 1500 sq miles.

Buffalo's higher level of urbanism can be seen a comparison of urbanized area populations... Buffalo punches well above its weight with an urbanized area population of 936k... a larger UA population than larger metros like Hartford, New Orleans or Oklahoma City. 82% of Buffalo's MSA is contained within the Buffalo UA.

By contrast, while Rochester is nearly equal to Buffalo in MSA population... its UA is only 721k... smaller than minor cities like Dayton, OH and McAllen, TX (yeah, McAllen!?). Only 68% of Rochester's MSA is contained within the Rochester UA... its metro population being pumped up by vast rural collar counties where commuting thresholds into Monroe Co. are apparently high enough for inclusion.

It is clear who the true dominant power of Western New York is... and that is Buffalo.

Originally Posted by flar

It also helps that Buffalo has pro-sports. And it benefits from the whole Niagara Regions, espeically the Canadian side.

Agreed... the half million or so Canadians immediately adjacent to Buffalo help vault that region to more of a Milwaukee size than a Rochester size.

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

Buffalo and Rochester have a major difference: Buffalo is far closer to a huge world class city- Toronto- than Rochester is to any major metropolitan area.

Rochester was just as close to Toronto back when the Fast Ferry operated.

Originally Posted by Dr Nevergold

Having lived in Buffalo 5 years (and recently moving due to job concerns)

I'm very sorry to hear this.

Originally Posted by alchemist redux

it was not "big" in other senses of the word.

For example, Buffalo was probably the largest city of the time that didn't have what would later become a world class university, or actually several.

I think this is somewhat a function of Buffalo, despite its great industrial might and population size in the early 20th century... never developing into a corporate HQ city like Pittsburgh or Cleveland. Buffalo was always a back-office town... which I think hurt it a lot more during the post-war de-industrialization phase than other rust belt cities because Buffalo had few advocates... and while other major Rust Belt cities suffered... Buffalo may be the singular example of a US city whose status absolutely reverted from "major" to "minor" during that time.

[alchemist redux]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The Cleveland Museum of Art has an absolutely stellar collection, though. Cleveland has a better art museum than LA, SF, Toronto, DC, and a host of world-class cities. Probably only clearly better comprehensive art museums in North America are in NYC, Boston, and Chicago. Philly is debatable.

And I don't think Cleveland and Buffalo were really ever peer cities. Cleveland was always larger, with a bigger corporate base, and instutitions like the CMA are big-time outliers. Your typical Great Lakes city will not have an institution of that stature.

Originally Posted by Evergrey

I think this is somewhat a function of Buffalo, despite its great industrial might and population size in the early 20th century... never developing into a corporate HQ city like Pittsburgh or Cleveland. Buffalo was always a back-office town... which I think hurt it a lot more during the post-war de-industrialization phase than other rust belt cities because Buffalo had few advocates... and while other major Rust Belt cities suffered... Buffalo may be the singular example of a US city whose status absolutely reverted from "major" to "minor" during that time.

I guess my point was to show that Buffalo, despite its size, was never as major a city as we tend to reminisce. It lacks the kinds of institutions that I associate with important cities, whether that's major research universities of global renown or major league ball teams. Even though Buffalo was the 8th largest city in the US in 1900, I don't think it was 8th in importance or stature. I think most people would have assigned more importance to Pittsburgh, Detroit or San Francisco, even though they would have been statistically smaller at the time.

I guess my question is why Buffalo's city fathers never bothered to invest in building the kinds of institutions that would give the city some prestige. Did they deny their city's size? Is New York state's political and economic deck always stacked in NYC's favor?

[Austinlee]

Ive always wondered about the nuances of these cities as well. Interesting stuff.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The Cleveland Museum of Art has an absolutely stellar collection, though. Cleveland has a better art museum than LA, SF, Toronto, DC, and a host of world-class cities. Probably only clearly better comprehensive art museums in North America are in NYC, Boston, and Chicago. Philly is debatable.

And I don't think Cleveland and Buffalo were really ever peer cities. Cleveland was always larger, with a bigger corporate base, and instutitions like the CMA are big-time outliers. Your typical Great Lakes city will not have an institution of that stature.

Cleveland also has a top-notch orchestra, one of the "Big Five" along with NYC, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Boston.