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.

[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.

[relnahe]

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.

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.

Mike Toronto again gets it wrong. Yes Buffalo has a bit more blight than Rochester. But in virtually every other facet Buffalo is far superior city. Buffalo has less crime, better schools, less poverty, better history, better culture/museums, better waterfront, better architecture, better neighborhoods, better downtown, better Summers, more energy, more real, and way better people. Before anyone says anything, I'm a born and raised Rochesterian.

The only advantage ROC has is the George Eastman house.

When I say "better people" I mean the attitude. People in Rochester look down at Buffalo because they had "white collar" jobs. Which is funny because a lot of these jobs were filled by high school drop-outs and undereducated immigrants.

People in Rochester have this bizarre Jekyl/Hyde complex where they think it is this great place that is rich but everyone hates it and thinks its poor deep inside.

Also Rochester has become very bombed out. The western part of the city has many parts that look no different than east Buffalo.

[kgbnsf]

Originally Posted by relnahe

Mike Toronto again gets it wrong. Yes Buffalo has a bit more blight than Rochester. But in virtually every other facet Buffalo is far superior city. Buffalo has less crime, better schools, less poverty, better history, better culture/museums, better waterfront, better architecture, better neighborhoods, better downtown, better Summers, more energy, more real, and way better people. Before anyone says anything, I'm a born and raised Rochesterian.

The only advantage ROC has is the George Eastman house.

Also Rochester has become very bombed out. The western part of the city has many parts that look no different than east Buffalo.

Wow, a little extreme don't you think? Rochester has just one advantage? Buffalo is a "far superior" city, lol okay. I'll maybe give you superior in some aspects but in almost every published measurement/rating, they rank close. Hardly "far superior". New York City, Boston, for most people, would be considered "far superior" to Rochester. Buffalo, not so much.

How do you quantify "better history", "better culture/museums", "better architecture", "better neighborhoods" (have you even spent any substantial time in multiple Rochester neighborhoods in the last decade?), "better downtown", "better summers" (they are 60 miles apart, how much better can it be?), more energy (I'll assume you are not referring to gas & electric), "more real" (?what does that even mean?) and what makes Buffalonians 'way better' people?

Sweeping generalizations and unsubstantiated claims, subjective at best, undermine your Buffalo boosterism claims. The two cities are mid sized rust belt cities that have seen better days. They are 60 miles apart and very similar in many ways. And, far from one being an emerald jewel and the other downtrodden, as you would have it, they both experience the same challenges and have more in common than not.

I have spent considerable time in Rochester, less in Buffalo- and while I personally find Rochester to be nicer (for what matters to me), I openly admit I haven't explored every corner of Buffalo and I don't discount it.

[Wigs]

The main difference between Buffalo and Rochester:

Buffalo is a red-hot Sahlen's town



Rochester is a white-hot Zweigle's town

[Dr Nevergold]

Originally Posted by Wigs

The main difference between Buffalo and Rochester:

Buffalo is a red-hot Sahlen's town



Rochester is a white-hot Zweigle's town

So you are saying both towns are a bunch of wieners?

[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 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.

[Wheelingman04]

Originally Posted by chris08876

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.

I did get to go to the Adirondacks years ago and those are some of the best mountains in the East!!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[relnahe]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Buffalo does have a high crime rate though; its a lot higher than Rochester.

No, its not. ROC has the highest murder rate in NY state.

Originally Posted by 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.

I wouldn't even agree that Rochester has better employment or better universities. RIT moved out of the city of ROC in the 70's due to crime. It is well in the burbs. UofR is the only large school in the city and it is closer to the burbs than downtown. I would also say UB is a better school than UofR.

Buffalo might seem more economically off but that is only because it was far bigger and wealthier than ROC. So de-industrialization affected it harder.

[Shasta]

Originally Posted by relnahe

No, its not. ROC has the highest murder rate in NY state.



I wouldn't even agree that Rochester has better employment or better universities. RIT moved out of the city of ROC in the 70's due to crime. It is well in the burbs. UofR is the only large school in the city and it is closer to the burbs than downtown. I would also say UB is a better school than UofR.

Buffalo might seem more economically off but that is only because it was far bigger and wealthier than ROC. So de-industrialization affected it harder.

Wait, are you seriously going to argue that Buffalo is a better university than Rochester? UB is a solid school, but it can't hold a candle to UofR.

Also, last time I checked, the largest campus of UB was in Amherst (North Campus). It was built in the 1970s. Why point out RIT's move out of the city when UB did the exact same thing but on an even larger scale?

[fflint]

Originally Posted by relnahe

I wouldn't even agree that Rochester has better employment or better universities. RIT moved out of the city of ROC in the 70's due to crime. It is well in the burbs. UofR is the only large school in the city and it is closer to the burbs than downtown. I would also say UB is a better school than UofR.

USNWR ranks the University of Rochester at #32 among "National Universities," its highest tier, which covers research universities. The University at Buffalo ranks #126. Rochester Institute of Technology ranks #7 among Regional Universities in its region (North). SUNY Buffalo ranks #101.

Rochester has better universities than Buffalo.

[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.