# US Cleanest city: Portland, Chicago is worst



## Zaqattaq (Nov 17, 2004)

The list of the 50 largest U.S. cities and score breakdown
http://www.rd.com/content/openContent.do?contentId=15115

*America's cleanest city*

#1 Portland, Oregon (44)
#2 San Jose, California 
#3 Buffalo, New York 
#4 Columbus, Ohio 
#5 San Francisco 

*Dirtiest*

#1 Chicago, Illinois (6.71)
#2 New York, New York
#3 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
#4 St. Louis, Missouri
#5 Birmingham, Alabama


----------



## ROCguy (Aug 15, 2005)

zaqattaq said:


> The list of the 50 largest U.S. cities and score breakdown
> http://www.rd.com/content/openContent.do?contentId=15115
> 
> *America's cleanest city*
> ...


I have to say that while I love the area, I'm very surprised to see BOTH Buffalo and Rochester in the top 10 (Rochester is 7th) and both ahead of cities like San Diego, Salt Lake City, and Seattle.


----------



## ♣628.finst (Jul 29, 2005)

I would say Detroit is one of the best among major American cities. Buffalo is very clean as well.

From pics, Tampa, Orlando and Oklahoma City looks much better than their ranking, while I don't think San Francisco or Portland is very clean.

Dirtiest? NYC perhaps, followed by San Antonio(I dislike San Antonio in many aspects), Boston (without this problem Boston is one of the finest city in the world), Chicago and Los Angleles.


----------



## Zaqattaq (Nov 17, 2004)

It has more to do with pollution than the cities cleanliness.


----------



## mr_storms (Oct 29, 2005)

#2 not bad


----------



## CHI (Apr 17, 2004)

I don't buy it for a second. San Deigo, Denver, Portland and Seattle are definately the cleanest, while NYC is hands down the dirtiest. However considering its age, sheer size and population density, I think it has an excuse.


----------



## Hecago (Dec 1, 2005)

There's no way Chicago is dirtier than Pittsburgh and New York.


----------



## Hecago (Dec 1, 2005)

http://www.chicagoist.com/archives/2005/06/17/is_chicago_the_dirtiest.php

Right...


----------



## Hecago (Dec 1, 2005)

Plus, chicago is the third greenest city in the U.S. too.

http://www.thegreenguide.com/doc.mhtml?i=107&s=cities


----------



## Jaybird (Sep 8, 2003)

Sweet, Buffalo is third on the list!


----------



## Bluestreak (Nov 23, 2004)

That is bull sh-t. They looked at the whole metro area. Chicago itself if pretty clean, aside from the industrial nightmare that is the southeast side. Everyone I talk to that has ever been here comments on how clean it is. The suburbs as a whole suck anyways.


----------



## techniques1200s (Mar 11, 2005)

there's definetly something wrong with that list. San Francisco is clean air-pollution wise, becasue the sea breeze blows it all to the central valley, and the water is amazing...the city it's self is FAR from clean.

In addition, San Francisco is home to one of the most contaminated superfund sites in the country: the Hunter's point Naval Shipyard. Seeing as that's one of the criteria considered in this list, i don't see how SF made it into the cleanest city list.

edit: well, SF does score badly on hazardous waste and sanitation, and seeing as this is for the metro, i guess it's an accurate ranking.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

Way to go Buffalo and Rochester! I can't believe Chicago is the dirtiest though.


----------



## HirakataShi (Feb 8, 2004)

Chicago the dirtiest? :hilarious Who are they trying to fool?


----------



## tuckerman (Aug 8, 2005)

Poor Chicago - it always wants to be first in everything - now it is and they complain - in complaining they are always first


----------



## legacy (Dec 1, 2005)

That's ridiculous. I don't know how they gathered their info but Chicago is FAR from the US' dirtiest.


----------



## Hecago (Dec 1, 2005)

tuckerman said:


> Poor Chicago - it always wants to be first in everything - now it is and they complain - in complaining they are always first


What? I don't want to be first in everything. I just don't want a city to be called the dirtiest city in the cointry when it's not. What's your problem?


----------



## UrbanSophist (Aug 4, 2005)

Well, I think Chicago was considered dirtiest due to proximity to Calumet City or Gary or something like that. (I could be wrong on the specific reason, but I remember it was some bizarre reason like that) In terms of the places where most Chicagoans actually work, play, and live, its hardly the dirtiest. That's why this was so confusing to many people who either live in Chicago or have visited Chicago. 

In terms of actual places where people would associate with the city, Chicago is actually well known to be quite clean. Some even argue that it is too clean, and thus loses some of that grittiness charm/excitement that NYC has.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

UrbanSophist said:


> Well, I think Chicago was considered dirtiest due to proximity to Calumet City or Gary or something like that. (I could be wrong on the specific reason, but I remember it was some bizarre reason like that) In terms of the places where most Chicagoans actually work, play, and live, its hardly the dirtiest. That's why this was so confusing to many people who either live in Chicago or have visited Chicago.
> 
> In terms of actual places where people would associate with the city, Chicago is actually well known to be quite clean. Some even argue that it is too clean, and thus loses some of that grittiness charm/excitement that NYC has.


LOL,, what a joke that Chicago is dirtest city in US!
Try dirtest "BIG" metro in US, now that sounds more reasonable to me! Remeber that Gary isn't part of Chicago and yes Gary is another city of its own, so when you are talking about that SE part of Chicago being dirty, should rephrase it to Gary being dirty, not Chicago cause of its heavy industrial history and envirnomental background. Besides, how dirty can Chicago be when it all cover with "WHITE" snow and got shovel it away all the time, its like deep wash the place over and over. So please tell me that Chicago is dirtest city of America again, it is just laughing matter to me,lol! If you say Chicago is the dirtest BIG city of US, then it might be reasonable!


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

From people who know both cities, I've heard that Chicago seems much cleaner than NYC...


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 22, 2004)

Ugh! We need more Portlanders in this forum. All I see here is whining and complaining that Chicago is said to be so dirty but nobody is cheering that one of the most well planned city in the USA takes the top spot in this criteria! :rant:

Besides, Chicago ain't that dirty anyway and even if it is, its positive features such as the magnificent skyline, excellent public transit system, and role in the US economy easily makes up for it.


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

Chicago is dirty. I often come across people exuding dirty clouds like PigPen from Peanuts. Typical Chicago resident:


----------



## tpe (Aug 10, 2005)

I think I've seen this article posted in the NA or Chicago forum. I did read this a few months back.

This study gives Chicago poor marks because it takes into account the great and toxic industrial wasteland south and southwest of the city (say, in the vicinity of Gary). Chicago was heavily industrial for the first half of the 20th century, and the Chicago stockyards would have even made the city proper more terrible. The dross of this industrial and manufacturing area will not disappear anytime soon.

This should serve as a warning to cities around the world who are trying to rapidly expand and industrialize at the expense of the environment and the surrounding ecosystem. 

As for the Chicago city proper itself, it is very clean in many parts (downtown, for instance) and no cleaner or dirtier than other cities in other parts.

I suggest that people read the full caveats given in the study.


As for Portland, it fully deserves the title.


----------



## vigo80 (Oct 19, 2003)

I would still much rather live in Chicago than in any of the top four cleanest city, especially San Jose.


----------



## tuckerman (Aug 8, 2005)

No doubt the loop area of Chicago seems a lot cleaner than most of Manhattan, based on recent trips to both places. For a city its size, Chicago seems pretty neat and vastly improved since I lived there many years ago when it still had lots of belching chimneys. I think that older cities, with lots of older buildings often give the impression of being not so clean because of the ambient dirt and pollution that has accumulated on buildings, particularly those made with more porous stone. However, when I personally think of dirt in the city two things come mind for me: 1) paper and other debris blowing around the streets and sidewalks, and 2) when you return home from work at the end of the day the collar on your shirt is full of grit. Both are the common experience of NYC.


----------



## FastWhiteTA (Jul 24, 2004)

xantarcx said:


> I would say Detroit is one of the best among major American cities. Buffalo is very clean as well.
> 
> From pics, Tampa, Orlando and Oklahoma City looks much better than their ranking, while I don't think San Francisco or Portland is very clean.
> 
> Dirtiest? NYC perhaps, followed by San Antonio(I dislike San Antonio in many aspects), Boston (without this problem Boston is one of the finest city in the world), Chicago and Los Angleles.


From PICS?? HAH, your post is a joke and should be completely written off if you say Portland is not that clean and San Antonio is the dirtiest 2nd only to NYC.

I'm willing to bet that most of the people on this forum are thinking clean as in "visually clean". "This city looks so much cleaner than this city" The study stated it's basis for rankings, that doesn't mean it is the best way to rank them, but whatever. It wasn't just based on what the eye can see. In fact, that wasn't even a factor. It's rankings were on air quality, water quality, toxics, sanitation, etc. I don't necessarily agree w/ ranking the entire metro, but I didn't do the study. I guess it would be cool to have a study on the cleanest "looking" cities. Portland would still be close to the top if not in 1st place again...


----------



## Sexas (Jan 15, 2004)

Why our (Austin, Texas) water only got 9 points? Austin's drinking water from underground and aquifers same as San Antonio! And Chicago more dirty that New York, ha ha ha this list is BS!


----------



## wickedestcity (Jul 23, 2004)

its becouse there takeing in to account areas like Gary IN. if it were baced on chicago proper. were one of the cleanest cities ive ever seen . ecpecialy for its size.(and ive been to over 50 dif. cities)


----------



## Insomniac (Sep 11, 2002)

Birmingham, with the handful of steel mills we still have left, can be a fairly dirty place in terms of air pollution, but is nowhere near New York, or Atlanta for that matter (I actually remember choking on ATL's air while visiting there during the summertime once).



How are we on this list anyway? We aren't *that* dirty.


----------



## Zaqattaq (Nov 17, 2004)

I drove all over the loop today, I would asume from previous visits this score is due to the proximity to Gary.


----------



## Hecago (Dec 1, 2005)

Towns in another state shouldn't count.


----------



## Jules (Jun 27, 2004)

zaqattaq said:


> I drove all over the loop today, I would asume from previous visits this score is due to the proximity to Gary.


Yeah it must be, I can't think of too many neighborhoods in the city which are dirty enough to make us the worst in the country. :dunno:


----------



## VansTripp (Sep 29, 2004)

brooklynprospect said:


> From people who know both cities, I've heard that Chicago seems much cleaner than NYC...


I don't think it's true or not, I always thought that NYC is much cleaner than Chicago.


----------



## Hecago (Dec 1, 2005)

LA Lover said:


> NYC is much cleaner than Chicago.



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## VansTripp (Sep 29, 2004)

of course, LA is dirty city cuz of pollution.


----------



## VansTripp (Sep 29, 2004)

Hecago said:


> :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


That's sounds like immature newbie.


----------



## Hecago (Dec 1, 2005)

LA Lover said:


> That's sounds like immature newbie.


What? It's immature to laugh?


----------



## VansTripp (Sep 29, 2004)

Hecago said:


> What? It's immature to laugh?


Yeah, you are so.


----------



## Hecago (Dec 1, 2005)

LA Lover said:


> Yeah, you are so.


That's ridiculous .Because I laughed? You've never laughed before in your life?


----------



## VansTripp (Sep 29, 2004)

Hecago said:


> That's ridiculous .Because I laughed? You've never laughed before in your life?


No. When at first, I was created my own opinion about "NYC is much cleaner than Chicago" then you was laughed for no reason. That's immature because there's nowhere to be laugh in this thread. I can't understand that you just laughed for no reason.


----------

