T1B

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2007 3:37 am**

None other than Detroit. While I'd trade it for a Word Series win, a Stanley Cup, or a hoops title, the designation does show the overall success the city's sports teams have been enjoying of late. Even with the Lions dragging down the curve Detroit takes the honor. Now the rest of the continent can learn what Detroiters have known all along, Detroit is one helluva sports town.

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/vi ... p?t=248801

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2007 3:56 am**

Portland isn't.

Actually, we really do suck in this field. People have asked me, "Luth, so what do you people do for fun up there?" I usually just smile and quietly say, "Get out of my face, motherfucker."

Rip City

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2007 4:03 am**

1. Detroit + Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti
2. New York
3. Dallas-Fort Worth
4. Chicago + Evanston
5. Los Angeles
6. Boston
7. Denver + Boulder
8. Phoenix + Tempe
9. Philadelphia
10. Minneapolis-St. Paul
11. Houston
12. Gainesville, Fla.
13. Anaheim
14. Atlanta
15. Miami
16. Nashville
17. Oakland + Berkeley
18. San Diego
19. Indianapolis
20. St. Louis
21. Pittsburgh
22. Salt Lake City + Provo
23. Louisville, Ky.
24. Washington, D.C.
25. San Jose + Palo Alto, Santa Clara
26. Baton Rouge, La.
27. Toronto
28. Seattle
29. Cleveland
30. Cincinnati
31. San Antonio
32. Tampa-St. Petersburg
33. Baltimore
34. Buffalo
35. New Orleans
36. Knoxville, Tenn.
37. Charlotte
38. Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, N.C.
39. Columbus
40. Madison, Wis.
41. Ottawa
42. San Francisco
43. Kansas City
44. Orlando
45. Oklahoma City + Norman
46. Vancouver
47. Milwaukee
48. Jacksonville
49. Calgary
50. South Bend, Ind.
51. Green Bay
52. Sacramento
53. Memphis
54. Montreal
55. Edmonton
56. Portland
57. Austin, Texas
58. Morgantown, W.Va.
59. Boise, Idaho
60. Tallahassee, Fla.
61. Fayetteville, Ark.
62. Lexington, Ky.
63. Blacksburg, Va.
64. Athens, Ga.
65. Auburn, Ala.
66. Eugene, Ore.
67. College Station, Texas
68. College Park, Md.
69. Winston-Salem, N.C.
70. Piscataway, N.J.
71. Tucson, Ariz.
72. Clemson, S.C.
73. West Lafayette, Ind.
74. Pullman, Wash.
75. Lawrence, Kan.
76. Lubbock, Texas
77. Honolulu
78. Columbia, S.C.
79. Lincoln, Neb.
80. Reno, Nev.
81. Tulsa, Okla.
82. Stillwater, Okla.
83. State College, Pa.
84. East Lansing, Mich.
85. Tuscaloosa, Ala.
86. Corvallis, Ore.
87. Charlottesville, Va.
88. Columbia, Mo.
89. Bloomington, Ind.
90. Iowa City, Iowa
91. Manhattan, Kan.
92. Syracuse, N.Y.
93. Oxford, Miss.
94. Storrs, Conn.
95. Las Vegas
96. Hattiesburg, Miss.
97. Colorado Springs, Colo.
98. Starkville, Miss.
99. Birmingham, Ala.

Gotta believe that gives Pullman top honors per-capita.

Actually, that's pretty cool. Despite another underachieving season from the town's traditionally only nationally relevant sports team, Wazzu Football. Tony freaking Bennett.

Corvalley #86. SportingNews must not have put much stock in the "PING!"

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2007 4:19 am**

We take a 12-month snapshot, roughly July to July, of each city's sports, putting a heavy premium on regular-season won-lost records (from the most recently completed season); playoff berths, bowl appearances and tournament bids; championships; applicable power ratings; quality of competition; overall fan fervor as measured in part by attendance as percentage of venue capacity; abundance of teams, though we reward quality over quantity; stadium and arena quality; ticket availability and prices; franchise ownership; and marquee appeal of athletes.

What year was this poll taken? 1991? Or was that the year after the Lions got their asses handed to them in the NFC Championship game?

San Antonio at 31? And KC at 43? Are you fucking kidding me?

Lame.

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:28 am**

Fuck those assholes!

We have Jim Rome on 3 hours a day and muthafuckin ESPN Radio. Snob ass bitches.
East coast bias again...

Cocksuckers....

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2007 7:18 am**

WolverineSteve wrote:None other than Detroit. While I'd trade it for a Word Series win, a Stanley Cup, or a hoops title, the designation does show the overall success the city's sports teams have been enjoying of late. Even with the Lions dragging down the curve Detroit takes the honor. Now the rest of the continent can learn what Detroiters have known all along, Detroit is one helluva sports town.

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/vi ... p?t=248801

but who the fuck would want to live there?

Code: Select all

MOST DANGEROUS CITIES IN AMERICA 
1. Detroit, MI
2. Atlanta, GA
3. Camden, NJ
4. Baltimore, MD
5. St. Louis, MO
6. Gary, IN
7. Flint, MI
8. West Palm Beach, FL
9. Miami, FL
10. New Orleans, LA

src: http://www.morganquitno.com/cit00dang.htm

If you value your health, and you live in Scranton, Richmond, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Greensboro, Youngstown, St. Louis or Detroit, then you might want to consider relocating to a city that has cleaner air since the ten cities listed are among the top worst for asthma sufferers.

The Ten Worst Cities To Raise Kids
When it comes to raising kids in a safe environment with little to no gang activity, murders, drugs, or other dangers that some cities have serious problems with, then you definitely want to avoid living in Detroit, Camden, N.J., St. Louis, Atlanta, Gary, Hartford, Washington, D.C., New Orleans, Richmond and Birmingham. It’s a fact that problems occur in just about every city, but according to the crime rankings listed by the F.B.I., these cities listed as the ten worst ones to raise kids.

A corpse don't watch no sports.

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:03 pm**

We take a 12-month snapshot, roughly July to July, of each city's sports, putting a heavy premium on regular-season won-lost records (from the most recently completed season); playoff berths, bowl appearances and tournament bids; championships; applicable power ratings; quality of competition; overall fan fervor as measured in part by attendance as percentage of venue capacity; abundance of teams, though we reward quality over quantity; stadium and arena quality; ticket availability and prices; franchise ownership; and marquee appeal of athletes.

Detoilet has marquee appeal to athletes?

This factor was obviously overlooked. Chicago being number 4 is scary too considering all the robberies they've been having there.

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:51 pm**

That's kind of cheating to include Ann Arbor with the Detroit. Plus, any city that has a team as bad as Lions and has fans that fill their stadium aren't all there. I'll say it, we're front-runners over here. Two years ago, it wasn't so hard to get Tigers tickets but now that they are winning, all the fairweather fans are coming out of the woodwork. Detroit is a great sports town but I wouldn't call it the best...top 5 annually but not the best.

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:53 pm**

Which Ottawa is 41; and why do some cities get states after them, but others get the diva (one name) treatment? But mostly, who's Ottawa?

*Addendum: And Shoalzie, yeah, but then again I had to look at a map..and then went fuck it. Ann Arbor is 40 miles away from Detroit? Eh, I figure there's a reason they grouped them together, like grouping Oakland and San Francisco together. Or maybe it is cheating/being insulting, like Denver and Boulder. And I don't care. It's a list. Someone put it together for a reason. Those on the list can ask for more $$$$.... is this about taxes?

Anyway, congrats to Detroit. Ann Arbor. and Ypsilanti.

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2007 3:01 pm**

Risa wrote: Ann Arbor is 40 miles away from Detroit? Eh, I figure there's a reason they grouped them together, like grouping Oakland and San Francisco together.

Except they didn't group Oakland and San Francisco together........

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2007 3:11 pm**

Mook wrote:
Risa wrote: Ann Arbor is 40 miles away from Detroit? Eh, I figure there's a reason they grouped them together, like grouping Oakland and San Francisco together.
Except they didn't group Oakland and San Francisco together........

You're right. My apologies. I thought they were all one group, if you're gonna group cities.

Well, if Oakland and Berkeley are 17, and San Francisco is 42... why is Oakland paired up with Berkeley in the first place, instead of San Francisco? Why aren't all three of them given the Detroit-Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti treatment? Is there more to this than proximity?

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2007 3:29 pm**

St Louis should make the top 10 on the Cards alone

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2007 3:35 pm**

Luther wrote:Portland isn't.

Loves the one team it has, though.

2 million people, one NBA team, a AAA team, a junior hockey team, and a 1-AA football team. Too much other stuff to do, except in winter.

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2007 4:55 pm**

Risa wrote:Which Ottawa is 41; and why do some cities get states after them, but others get the diva (one name) treatment? But mostly, who's Ottawa?

Here you go, Annie

Ottawa has a NHL team, a CFL team, a AAA baseball team (for now, anyway; the rumor is that it's headed to Allentown, PA after this season), and it wouldn't surprise me at all if Ottawa also has a ABA team (nearly every city on the North American continent without a NBA team has one).

As for the "diva" treatment, from a quick perusal of that list, most of the cities that didn't get it appeared to be smaller cities where one reading the list might not be familiar with them right away. A lot of college towns in that category.

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:29 pm**

Los Angeles above Boston??? Yeah OK! A city with no NFL franchise and the fairest of fairweather fans beats Boston? No freakin way.....

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:37 pm**

Nice to see Madison at number 40, apparently based only on the UW and a college summer league baseball team that draws over 5,000 per game.

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:44 pm**

We take a 12-month snapshot, roughly July to July, of each city's sports, putting a heavy premium on regular-season won-lost records (from the most recently completed season); playoff berths, bowl appearances and tournament bids; championships; applicable power ratings; quality of competition; overall fan fervor as measured in part by attendance as percentage of venue capacity; abundance of teams, though we reward quality over quantity; stadium and arena quality; ticket availability and prices; franchise ownership; and marquee appeal of athletes.

I'll take Big 5 City basketball, Blue Herizon Boxing, Eagles and Flyers and even the Phillies seasons over what most other cities can offer.

I blame Temple Football for the poor rankings of Philly.

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2007 7:21 pm**

We're #89! We're #89!........(fx: crickets chirping). Not sure how we get ranked ahead of Oxford (Ole Miss). The football scene and ultra-hotties there should have them at least 40 points higher. Oh, well. Basketball could have this place hopping again soon.....

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2007 7:29 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote:Nice to see Madison at number 40, apparently based only on the UW and a college summer league baseball team that draws over 5,000 per game.

Actually, when they were there, the Mad Dogs drew respectable crowds for indoor football. The Mallards draw pretty well too.

I'm kinda sickened at the fact that Columbia is behind Honolulu, a resort town, for goodness sakes. The writers of the story never have been to a game/tailgate at Williams Brice.

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2007 7:34 pm**

Risa wrote:
Mook wrote:
Risa wrote: Ann Arbor is 40 miles away from Detroit? Eh, I figure there's a reason they grouped them together, like grouping Oakland and San Francisco together.
Except they didn't group Oakland and San Francisco together........
You're right. My apologies. I thought they were all one group, if you're gonna group cities.

Well, if Oakland and Berkeley are 17, and San Francisco is 42... why is Oakland paired up with Berkeley in the first place, instead of San Francisco? Why aren't all three of them given the Detroit-Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti treatment? Is there more to this than proximity?

Oakland is paired up with Berkeley because they butt up against each other. Also, Oakland has it's own pro sports franchises, as does San Francisco. Besides, does it really make sense to group thug Raiderfan together with white wine sipping, sushi-eating Ninerfan? Uh, no. Oakland and San Francisco are polar opposites and don't belong together at all.

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2007 7:56 pm**

the fact that LA comes in at 5 pretty much exposes this list for the shit that it is. LA LA land may have some good teams from time to time, but, it is a shit "sports town".

Good sports towns are those that rabidly support their teams despite their suckiness.

My list:

Cleveland
St Louis
Detwat
Boston
Oakland
chicago
philly
pittsburgh
new york

in general, old midwestern, north eastern towns have long established fan bases that go back multiple generations. southern and western cities largely made up of folks from somewhere else. the one exception to this rule is oaktown, mainly because, who in the fukk would move there?

shit towns include:

Atlanta/LA
sanfagcisco

the ATL and LA is a tough call. remember TBS games back in the day? I saw games where there were more people in my living room than at fulton county or whatever that dump was called. the dodgers have been around long enough to have a pretty solid following, but, their complete disinterest of even fielding a football team means they have to be considered. How the fukk do they even have 2 NBA squads? Are the clippers just so bad that noone else will take them?

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:15 pm**

OCmike wrote:
Risa wrote:
Mook wrote: Except they didn't group Oakland and San Francisco together........
You're right. My apologies. I thought they were all one group, if you're gonna group cities.

Well, if Oakland and Berkeley are 17, and San Francisco is 42... why is Oakland paired up with Berkeley in the first place, instead of San Francisco? Why aren't all three of them given the Detroit-Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti treatment? Is there more to this than proximity?
Oakland is paired up with Berkeley because they butt up against each other.

And they both butt up against San Francisco. Add them together. What exactly does Berkeley offer in the way of sports and fanaticism? Why not Oakland by itself?

Also, Oakland has it's own pro sports franchises, as does San Francisco.

Add them together.

Besides, does it really make sense to group thug Raiderfan together with white wine sipping, sushi-eating Ninerfan?

In other words, they're both faggots .... sure, why not. All three are, when adding in Berkeley hippie-rich. Add them together.

Uh, no. Oakland and San Francisco are polar opposites and don't belong together at all.

Same proximity to one another. If this is about great sports towns, then the only double town that should be listed is Minneapolis-St. Paul. Anything and everything else is pure bunk. Rename the list 'great sports ... ' whatever, but not cities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

mvscal wrote:
smackaholic wrote:the fact that LA comes in at 5 pretty much exposes this list for the shit that it is. LA LA land may have some good teams from time to time, but, it is a shit "sports town".

How the fukk do they even have 2 NBA squads? Are the clippers just so bad that noone else will take them?
I would suggest that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The Lakers and Dodgers always have a solid following and attendance regardless of record.

Chicago supports both the Sox and the Cubs. THAT'S how you support two sports teams. Does LA support the Lakers and the Clippers in the same way? Would LA follow the Lakers and the Clippers, win or lose, as Chicago follows the Sox and the Cubs?

LA has more money, but it's fair weather. And they LOST the Raiders back to Oakland. LA is used to being the number two market in the US... but LAFan not used to losing or sticking with someone through thick and thin. Minor interest in the Clippers when the Lakers are dipping and the Clippers are seeming to rise does not count.

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:38 pm**

Risa wrote: And they both butt up against San Francisco. Add them together. What exactly does Berkeley offer in the way of sports and fanaticism? Why not Oakland by itself?

No, they DON'T butt up against San Francisco. San Francisco is on the southern part of the peninsula and Oakland/Berkeley is on the northern part. They're separated by several miles of water called the San Francisco Bay. If SF were combined with any other city, it should be San Jose, since THAT'S the city that it butts up against.

Oakland and Berkeley definitely belong together, as Oakland is essentially the ghetto/shitty part and Berkeley is the ritzy hill area of essentially the same city.

Have you even BEEN to the bay area? I've been there hundreds of times, as I grew up about an hour from Oakland and have family in Berkeley. Trust me, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Also, Oakland has it's own pro sports franchises, as does San Francisco.

Add them together.[/quote][/quote]

Why? They're as different as oil and water.

Besides, does it really make sense to group thug Raiderfan together with white wine sipping, sushi-eating Ninerfan?
In other words, they're both faggots .... sure, why not. All three are, when adding in Berkeley hippie-rich. Add them together.

They're both "faggots"? One group of fans is blue-collar and the other is white collar. I'm not sure what that has to do with sexual orientation.

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2007 9:28 pm**

smackaholic wrote:remember TBS games back in the day? I saw games where there were more people in my living room than at fulton county or whatever that dump was called.

Turn on the ninth inning of a Dodger game sometime. Same thing.

mvscal wrote:Laker and Dodger attendance is always well above average . . .

Except at the end of the game.

You also have to include SC football and UCLA basketball into the LA sports mix.

Admittedly you didn't say this, but if there's a person who roots for both SC football and UCLA basketball, that person is the ultimate bandwagoning gravy-training bitch. Pick one school and go with them in all sports.

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2007 11:22 pm**

mvscal wrote:
smackaholic wrote:the fact that LA comes in at 5 pretty much exposes this list for the shit that it is. LA LA land may have some good teams from time to time, but, it is a shit "sports town".

How the fukk do they even have 2 NBA squads? Are the clippers just so bad that noone else will take them?
I would suggest that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The Lakers and Dodgers always have a solid following and attendance regardless of record.

I would suggest you read my fukking post. I gave dodger fan his props. Laker fan? Maybe, but, let them have a few more down years and we'll see. My point in the post was that the inexcusable absence of an NFL franchise in the 2nd largest market in the country is proof that they suck ass as sports fans in general.

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2007 11:42 pm**

RACK mvscal.

Baseball History wrote:Since 1901, when Major League Baseball began tracking official attendance, the Dodgers have played before more fans than any other franchise in the sport’s history with a cumulative attendance in excess of 175 million.

The Dodgers have been in the top 3 in baseball attendance every fucking year for decades on end and have shattered thier own fucking records for attendance every single season for the past 3 years. While teams are building smaller stadiums to make thier attendance look better, the 56,000+ seats in dodger stadium may need to be expanded in the future if this keeps up.

Any other questions, dumbfucks?

Also, Lakerfan is no different-we didnt win a fucking thing in the 90's, yet we were top 5 for attendance every season for the down times and the good.........and the same applies to these last 3 seasons.

USC football speaks for itself-I cant remember the last time the Trojans (who field a team that could kick the shit out of the pro teams of most of the tards who posted in this thread) didnt have sellout crowds.

The fact that a pathetically unliveable shithole like Detoilet is number 1, and Boston cunts who didnt know they had a fucking Football team until 5 years ago and have shunned thier basketball team for more than 2 decades until 2 days ago are ranked 6th tells me all that I need to know about this list: That, like most of the cities on it, it is pure shit.

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2007 12:47 am**

Raydah James wrote:...and Boston cunts who didnt know they had a fucking Football team until 5 years ago....l.

as opposed to LA cunts who probably don't know they DONT have a team.

Look, boston is a long way from having the most loyal fans around with the possible exception of bosox fan, but LA is worse. I don't know how many times I have to say it.

YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE A FUKKING FOOTBALL TEAM!!!!! twenty something million people, plenty of them with a bunch of cash and still, no one will step up and bring in a club.

This pretty much says it all. You have been outdrawn by detwat, nashville, kc, charlotte and many other cities by fukking default.

You suck. Case closed.

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2007 12:52 am**

Toddowen wrote:Boston sucks cold clammy cock as a sports town.

Toddowen, up 3-0, in the ALCS wrote:Who do we play next?

Sorry, but you still haven't offed yourself yet, and I've still got a virtual knife for your dumb ass.

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:27 am**

mvscal wrote:
Risa wrote:LA has more money, but it's fair weather.
You're a fucking moron. Laker and Dodger attendance is always well above average even when the teams are struggling. You also have to include SC football and UCLA basketball into the LA sports mix.

Fair weather means only there when folks is on top. Even you left out the Clippers. (I also don't understand why you don't include the Kings in the mix, that's a different issue.)

When LA thinks of 'fandom' it makes movies like this

or this

Hollywood was dissing.... their rivals to the east, and their rivals to the north....
instead of indulging in their usual narcissism.

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:30 am**

Toddowen wrote:Their fanbase is looked upon as a homogenous group of inbred caucasian paddys by the rest of the country.

they might be inbred paddies, but, they are still hardcore fans. that was the original subject here, incase you forgot.

they also suck as at picking senators. so what?

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:35 am**

You make such
a dumb statement in view of the subject
of this thread? ....well...I can also add
another bonehead to the group....however
you could qualify as the grand dragon of
such a group!

OCmike wrote:
No, they DON'T butt up against San Francisco. San Francisco is on the southern part of the peninsula and Oakland/Berkeley is on the northern part. They're separated by several miles of water called the San Francisco Bay. If SF were combined with any other city, it should be San Jose, since THAT'S the city that it butts up against.

Just when I thought no one could step up and take down the "lawyer" from Louisiana... as leader of the intellectually challenged. You decide to poke your head in here.

OCmike wrote:
Have you even BEEN to the bay area? I've been there hundreds of times, as I grew up about an hour from Oakland and have family in Berkeley. Trust me, you have no idea what you're talking about.

It might as well have been Bangladesh.

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:48 am**

Blueblood wrote:Just when I thought no one could step up and take down the "lawyer" from Louisiana... as leader of the intellectually challenged. You decide to poke your head in here.

Dude, you gotta be kidding to beef with JSC's mind. Disagree with his purple and gold myopia (oh yes), (ha), or even his politics (but why?) -- but that's going too far into bizarro land to diss his intellect. The man gives good advice and he knows what he's talking about, when he chooses to talk about something.

So .. are you dissing his love for LSU, or something else?

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2007 2:33 am**

smackaholic wrote:
I don't know how many times I have to say it..

Run your fucking ballcleaners all you want, jizzjar-it still wont change the fact that the list, like your fucking opinion and city, is absolute shit.

And RACK fucking Todd.

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2007 4:42 am**

Toddowen wrote:If you love Boston so much, why don't you move there? It'd be an improvement for both you and the town.

'Love to, bro. Hook me up with the 60K suicide troll jobs. TIA.

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2007 11:32 am**

RadioFan wrote:
Toddowen wrote:If you love Boston so much, why don't you move there? It'd be an improvement for both you and the town.
'Love to, bro. Hook me up with the 60K suicide troll jobs. TIA.

60k? In Boston? You better not plan on ever owning a house outside the ghetto with that kind of low pay.

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:34 pm**

BSmack wrote:
RadioFan wrote:
Toddowen wrote:If you love Boston so much, why don't you move there? It'd be an improvement for both you and the town.
'Love to, bro. Hook me up with the 60K suicide troll jobs. TIA.
60k? In Boston? You better not plan on ever owning a house outside the ghetto with that kind of low pay.

Boston is overpriced?

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:45 pm**

Risa wrote:
BSmack wrote:60k? In Boston? You better not plan on ever owning a house outside the ghetto with that kind of low pay.
Boston is overpriced?

Parking spaces in Boston go for what people pay for 3 bedroom houses in Rochester.

http://re.boston.com/sales/View_Ulistin ... 2-70607303

Yea, PARKING SPACES.

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:54 pm**

BSmack wrote:
Risa wrote:
BSmack wrote:60k? In Boston? You better not plan on ever owning a house outside the ghetto with that kind of low pay.
Boston is overpriced?
Parking spaces in Boston go for what people pay for 3 bedroom houses in Rochester.

http://re.boston.com/sales/View_Ulistin ... 2-70607303

Yea, PARKING SPACES.

That's bullshit. So how are the illegals living so large? :?

And if this is correct:

Community name Boston
County Name Suffolk
Total Population 589,141
Avg. Tax Bill ---
Avg. Prop. Value ---
Med. Household Income $48,782
Median Commute Time

how is this

being sold for $79,000? does that shit come with wi-fi and a never-ending wetbar?

I'll take Rochester and commute. Or landlord it.

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2007 2:03 pm**

BSmack wrote:Parking spaces in Boston go for what people pay for 3 bedroom houses in Rochester.

Yea, PARKING SPACES.

Dude... have you been to the Back Bay? I think 79K is a fucking steal. I am thinking about flipping that spot, ya know... new bricks, hit that sumbitch hard with a whole bottle of Roundup, and maybe even paint some yellow lines. I could totally sell that space for a cool 100K!

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2007 2:08 pm**

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:
BSmack wrote:Parking spaces in Boston go for what people pay for 3 bedroom houses in Rochester.

Yea, PARKING SPACES.

Dude... have you been to the Back Bay? I think 79K is a fucking steal. I am thinking about flipping that spot, ya know... new bricks, hit that sumbitch hard with a whole bottle of Roundup, and maybe even paint some yellow lines. I could totally sell that space for a cool 100K!

You're mocking. So what's the real deal?

T1B

Best sports town in North America is......

Best sports town in North America is......

Re: Best sports town in North America is......