obviously it's subjective, but for a city that was always historically of a much smaller size, rochester has repeatedly outdone buffalo. remember, rochester's peak population has only approached the 330,000 mark while buffalo had broken the 580,000 mark.

ralph waldo emerson, susan b. anthony, emma goldman, kim gordon, george eastman, and by assocation anything related to the latter. architecturally, perhaps i can't justify any historical "superiority", but the general historical significance really outweighs buffalo, especially when relating population throughout history.

maybe buffalo's history can be underrated at times, but this argument is ridiculous. obviously i have no credibility on this forum; i never had any on the other forum either, but the only argument i can see being made is in relation to the geographical location of buffalo, which would work against it in the end.

You are turning this thread into negative, pompous bullshit on why you are too good for Buffalo. Whoopdeedoooo. This is brand new information!

i'm just sick of the pride everyone has in this area.

philadelphia. yeah, i'll enjoy it much more there, i'm sure. people here accuse me of being pompous and claim that this is the "city of good neighbors" or talk up the friendly nature of buffalonians... talk about paradox.

You may not, but I will.

Let's hear your more compelling case for Rochester's historically-significant superiority over Buffalo's. I want to read how hard you fall on your face.

to my knowledge, olmsted did niagara falls state park, which was the first national park.

It's also not a national park.

i'm just sick of the pride everyone has in this area. i love it here... sometimes. sure, it's pretty... like anywhere else in the northeast.