Jokes aside, it's odd that OP is lumping Cleveland in with other 'mid-west' cities. They all have their own very different characters.
Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh...all very different.
Also most of the top 30-40 American cities have similar minimum amenities. A theatre, downtown with restaurants, light rail. I don't think that should surprise anyone. It's just the breadth/depth of options they offer that differs.
As an outsider (I'm from NC) I have always thought of Cleveland as a "rust belt" city first and foremost. I tend to assume Cleveland has more in common with, say, Pittsburgh, Charleston WV, Detroit, etc., than what I think of as a more stereotypical "mid-west" city like Kansas City, St. Louis, or even Chicago.
But of those, Chicago is the only one I've spent any significant time in, so I may be way off. Anybody from one of those areas care to comment? Is the "rust belt" identify meme a strong factor to locals? More or less so than being considered "mid western"?
I imagine the "rust belt" moniker is something people identify with - or reject as being derogatory, which always struck me as funny - more than the "midwestern" label, which people in Cleveland probably regard more as a mere geographical distinction. That's just a guess, though.
I don't think it's odd that the OP was lumping Cleveland in with other midwestern cities, though. I would say that Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh (and why leave out Detroit? or even Buffalo?) all share some DNA in the same way Boston, Philadelphia, New York, and Baltimore do.
Cleveland is a blue collar town with its roots in industrial manufacturing and oil.
Chicago has always been a diverse metro area focussed on finance, technology, academia.
[0] http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/eternal-silence
> I really see nothing in common with Chicago and Cleveland.
I assume you haven't spent much time in both. (edited down a longer comment since, really, who cares...)
They're midwestern American cities on the Great Lakes with the same climate and roughly the same geography and ethnic makeup. It's not like you're comparing Florence and Reykjavik, for heaven's sake. I'm fascinated by your reaction to this comparison.
(If you're interested in a less information-free exchange on the topic: my reaction the first time I visited Chicago years ago was roughly "so this is how Cleveland might have ended up if they'd had their shit together 100 years ago." It's not really accurate - there are some economic reasons why Cleveland's decline was predestined - but feel free to explain to me why it's a completely crazy reaction.)
> I think most Chicagoans would be offended if you said 'oh chicago and cleveland are so similar!'
That's not exactly what I said... although, seriously, most of my friends in Chicago aren't quite so easily offended.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/63/a9/e0/63a9e09cbfdf63f869d2...