SkyscraperPage Forum - What two cities do you find most similar in nearly every respect?

Viewing Page 7 of 15

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)

- City Discussions (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=24)

- - What two cities do you find most similar in nearly every respect? (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=240041)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Handro (Post 8663823)

By what metric?

by community area:

LP - 67,260 on 3.19 sq. miles = 21,085 ppsm

LV - 99,876 on 3.16 sq. miles = 31,606 ppsm

however, LP contains a higher proportion of uninhabited lakefront parkland within its borders. when you control for that, the density stats get a little closer:

LP - 67,260 on 2.48 sq. miles = 27,121 ppsm

LV - 99,876 on 2.81 sq. miles = 35,543 ppsm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Handro (Post 8663823)

But it seems strange to call Lincoln Park anything BUT urban, dense, culturally relevant, and heavily visited.

1,000,000,000% agreed.

LP is definitely not THE hot neighborhood it was 30 years ago, but it's absolutely still urban, dense, culturally relevant, and heavily visited as far as chicago neighborhood urbanism goes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by eschaton (Post 8663231)

Cincinnati and Pittsburgh have a lot of similarities in terms of the topography and the relationship of the city to the hills and rivers. There's also a lot of similarities in the built environment. Large sections of Over-The-Rhine remind me of Pittsburgh, just 1-2 stories taller, if you know what I mean.

That said, I think it kind of breaks down on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis.

Hyde Park is in some ways analogous to Squirrel Hill, in that it's an affluent "suburb in the city." However, Squirrel Hill is a far denser, more urban neighborhood (nothing like this in Hyde Park that I can see), has a much larger business district, and is much more Jewish, Asian, and left-leaning.

Similarly, Clifton and other nearby neighborhoods have a bit of an Oakland vibe, and sort of an analogous position in the city (uphill from Downtown, and a bit separated). But nothing up thataway seems to serve as a secondary CBD in the same way that Oakland does.

On the flipside, Pittsburgh has nothing exactly like Over-The-Rhine. We demolished all of our first-ring urban neighborhoods more or less (though a whole lot of second-ring neighborhoods survived). Even if those areas remained intact, Pittsburgh's 19th century density peaked at rowhouse level, meaning there really wasn't ever any great stands of 19th century tenements like Cincinnati.

Cinci doesn't have anything truly analogous to the Mexican War Streets. Cinci never really did rowhouses much like Pittsburgh, pretty much going straight from a tenement core to detached "rowhouse style" buildings set a few feet apart. Some of Mt. Adams reminds me of it a bit, insofar as it's a wealthy white historic urban enclave close to downtown, but - as is generally the case in Cinci - it's a much more conservative neighborhood than the Pittsburgh analogues.

Really, the much more conservative nature of the city of Cincinnati is one of the biggest differences between the cities, along with the different ethnic mixes (Cinci's white population is much more heavily German, while Pittsburgh's "ethnic" populaton is a mix of everything, including lots of Jews and Eastern Europeans).

I am from Cincinnati and my dad's whole family is from Pittsburgh, so these are two of the cities I'm most familiar with. I think this is generally a fair assessment, though I think you're over hyping the difference in conservatism between the two cities. Yes, metro Cincinnati is very conservative. But the core city and Hamilton County are both blue, which is similar to Pittsburgh and Allegheny County being blue surrounded by red suburban counties. Pittsburgh has traditionally leaned much more democratic because of the strong legacy of organized labor and being a more blue collar city (ala Cleveland). But in terms of feeling liberal, Pittsburgh is no Berkeley. Cincinnati has larger black population by a fairly substantial amount, so that is a share of democratic voters that exceeds what PGH has to offer.

From a built environment perspective, I think Pittsburgh feels bigger and denser. Its hills are steeper and there aren't flatter areas surrounding the city like there are in Cincy. Oakland has an intensity in its development you just won't find in Cincinnati. The main drag in the South Side goes on forever with unbroken vibrancy for miles, and you won't find anything like that in Cincinnati, either. Cincy is more oriented around neighborhood squares and contained little business districts rather than commercial corridors (with some exceptions).

I think Squirrel Hill and Shadyside are kind of like if Hyde Park, Clifton, and Northside were all smushed together. That said, there is some density in Hyde Park that resembles your shot of Squirrel Hill (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1420...7i16384!8i8192)

and some high rises scattered in, too ( https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1382...7i16384!8i8192)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc (Post 8663643)

Key West and Provincetown (MA) had a similar look and feel.

I was thinking Key West as a mini New Orleans, including being overrun with obnoxious tourists. Though something like Nassau or other Caribbean city might be a better match.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist (Post 8663763)

I think Portland, Maine, and Burlington are similar, although Portland is about 2 - 3 times the size of Burlington.

I didn't find them too similar. Burlington felt more spread out for the most part, except the main pedestrian outdoor mall type area. Supposedly Portland is a lot like Saint John, New Brunswick and I can see the similarities in google earth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn (Post 8663581)

But man, Old Port is just so close in atmosphere to Beacon Hill and the North End, nothing in Providence comes close. The cobble stone streets, dense brick rows, gaslit lamps...

Do a Street View of Wharf Street, Exchange Street, and Fore Street. This area is more Boston than anything in Providence to me.

You could say it has the most Boston-like neighborhoods, but in totality I still think of Providence as more of the Baby Boston because it actually has some highrises.

Another New England similarity I saw was that New Haven felt a lot like a stand-alone Cambridge. It obviously makes sense because of Harvard and Yale. New Haven felt very underrated, although still a gritty city overall.

they're not cities, but Door County, WI, is often compared to Cape Cod, MA.

only with more cheese and a different accent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj3000 (Post 8662595)

I always love the Pittsburgh-Birmingham forced comparison as well.

i think this comes from birmingham long ago being referred to as "the pittsburgh of the south"... mainly due to the steel industry presence and the hilly terrain.

a much better comparison in my opinion is birmingham - memphis.

similar metro sizes (memphis slightly larger)
similar skylines / downtowns (birmingham slightly larger / taller)
similar demographics (large AA population)
equally important roles in civil rights history (mlk assassination / 16th street baptist church bombing)
both more "old south" than "new south" (slower growth than other peer southern metros)
medical centers adjacent to downtown (although UAB is much bigger)
rival universities of a similar size (UAB vs Memphis)

terrain/topography would be the big difference here - memphis doesn't have the hills, and birmingham doesn't have the river.

I find the prairie cities in Canada quite similar. You could drop me on a random street in Winnipeg, Brandon, Saskatoon, Regina, etc. and unless the city's overall population was obvious in some vista, I'd never know the difference.

I find small, isolated, fiercely patriotic and independent capitals are all similar to my own, especially Dublin (accent, culture, etc.) and Reykjavik (urbanity, amenities, far more than than a city it's population should have and be).

I find Ottawa and Quebec City similar. There's a public service sleepiness that impacts the culture. Not to say it's quiet or anything - both are large, busy, and fun - but there's a... it's almost like they are missing the lower classes, and all of the drama and excitement that comes with that.

The American cities seem to be the opposite. There's nothing like Boston, for example, elsewhere. There are LOTS of similarities with cities like Halifax and St. John's, but there's something significant and American that makes it different. You'll often see articles reference this in a negative way. For example, I once rounded a corner out on an early-morning photo stroll and happened upon, on a single block, more homeless people sleeping on the sidewalk than there probably are in shelters in my city. I've never seen a homeless person sleeping outside before. Just doesn't exist here. But it's not just that. It's positive things too. There's a cohesive, national American identity that kind of keeps things together.

Liverpool is a good UK comparison for being not quite comparable to anything else, though similar to many. Those similarities just aren't enough to overshadow the impressive uniqueness you feel in the city itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cirrus (Post 8662426)

Tampa & Phoenix are water/desert analogs of each other.

Also the main cities in North Carolina have a suburban DC county analog:
Charlotte::Fairfax
Raleigh::Montgomery
Greensboro:: Prince George's

Tampa : Phoenix? What exactly do you mean?

The Piedmont cities from North Georgia to the outskirts of D.C. do seem very similar in look and feel - similar climate as well.

-----

How about Sedona, Ariz : Santa Fe, New Mex?
Both are full of artists, tourists, some granola types. Somewhat similar climates, both cities are at elevation and very close to high alpine terrain. Both cities are fairly close to their states' primary city [ABQ, PHX].

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8663536)

Toronto's wealth is along Yonge. There's far more wealth within a mile or so of Yonge than anywhere to the east or west. Places like Rosedale, Forest Hill.

I'm using the Yonge corridor because I'm comparing apples-apples; i.e. the most desirable inner city geographies in the respective cities.

I don't understand the point. No one in Chicago would call Lincoln Park the most "urban, dense, culturally relevant, heavily visited" either. Rich neighborhoods tend to be kinda boring.

But if you wanna compare, say, Queen West to Wicker Park, I think you'll also see differences in street level form. The overall point is that Toronto and Chicago don't look very similar from the ground.

That they're wealthy corridors is still an arbitrary point of comparison though. You could just as well make the point that the two cities are nothing alike by posting streetviews of their respective Polish neighbourhoods. That two areas in different cities have a single common characteristic doesn't otherwise make them good analogues.

For the record, I agree with the premise that Chicago and Toronto don't have all that much in common aside from being vaguely similar-sized Great Lakes cities; however, using a block of 60s office towers at Yonge & Eglinton as an example of a "typical" commercial corridor is also obviously disingenuous.

San Francisco and Lisboa definitely share similar qualities to each other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin (Post 8664442)

Wouldn't you try and compare areas that historically serve similar purposes in their respective cities? In which case I think it would be apt to compare two cities Little Italy's to see how development patterns of the same demographic differ across geographical, political, and cultural boundaries.

Yonge Street North of Bloor has always been the main arterial through the wealthy area of the city, and so, if Chicago and Toronto were indeed comparable you would expect some similarities. The fact that Yonge and Eglinton transitioned into a "CBD-lite" commercial corridor and Chicago's remained consistently low-rise and prewar actually helps show the difference, instead of invalidating the comparison because they don't have similar built form.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimCity2000 (Post 8664251)

Don't forget the BBQ!

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker (Post 8664267)

If I had to come up with Canadian city types they would be:

- Atlantic
- Quebec
- Ontario
- Western/Northern
- BC

There are transitional areas like the Okanagan, Eastern Ontario, and New Brunswick.

But there could also be a "Great Lakes" super-category that encompasses Ontario and Quebec (the traditional "Canada"). And there is a "Western" super-category that encompasses BC and the Prairies (all of the post-railway cities). BC's coastal cities are also a little bit like Atlantic Canada in some ways.

The I-95 cooridor, Mid-Atlantic cities:
Philly-Baltimore-and their little cousin Wilmington, DE all have large parts of their cities -- outside of downtown areas (Philly's Center City is obviously huge), that look pretty identical. Red brick rowhouses, big old-Victorian era mansions--twins, brick sidewalks, etc.
If I recall correctly, Philly and Baltimore's housing stock are very similar and unique compared to other big cities as far as rowhouses making up the predominate % of the housing stock.
Makes sense--old East Coast cities, a lot of history, similar industrialization, working class neighborhoods, etc etc. And geographically, Philly and Baltimore are only 105 miles a part (and Wilmington, DE is ~30 miles to Philly, but only 74 miles to Baltimore).

Plus York, Reading and Lancaster are philly and baltimores dwarf cousins.

Quote:

Originally Posted by isaidso (Post 8663359)

Montreal's twin is Brooklyn.
Toronto's twin is Melbourne.
Calgary's twin is Denver.

Brooklyn’s population density is 3x that of Montreal. I would say it’s closer to Philadelphia but with fewer suburbs of note and no blight .

Granted Montreal includes many suburbs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist (Post 8663763)

I think Portland, Maine, and Burlington are similar, although Portland is about 2 - 3 times the size of Burlington.

The Maritime cities all have a very similar vibe of course. Boston, Portland, Saint John, Halifax. Varying degrees of size separates them mostly but they all have the same general idea.

After much thought here are North American cities grouped together the most appropriately.

Grouping variables include vernacular architecture and urban layout as well as some intangibles.

Miami/Dallas/Phoenix - very master planned cities (by suburban developers)

Houston -unique

Montreal/new Orleans/Baltimore/Philadelphia - centralized cities with rowhouses

Toronto/Detroit/Los Angeles - early auto era sprawl , although Toronto core architecture somewhat unique

Cleveland/buffalo/Windsor -Great Lakes wood frame industrial cities

Chicago and Milwaukee - unique combo

Cincinnati/st Louis/Louisville/Memphis - brick river cities

Pittsburgh/Birmingham al - hilly brick industrial cities

Washington DC /Richmond - mid Atlantic rowhouses

Vancouver/Seattle/San Francisco/Boston/Providence/Portland me - multi nodal cities around a body of water

Atlanta/Charlotte/Raleigh/Chattanooga/Huntsville/Greenville/Columbia -new south type

Calgary/Denver/salt lake city/Tulsa/okc/Minneapolis/Columbus/Indianapolis/Omaha/Sacramento/Kansas City/des moines/Wichita/Winnipeg/Jacksonville/Portland or - the greater Midwest

Nashville/Austin/San Antonio - greater Midwest with southern influences

New York - unique

Quebec City - unique

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_denizen (Post 8665809)

Toronto/Detroit/Los Angeles

...

San Francisco/Boston

Detroit/LA is a good one. A lot of people scratch their heads when I mention that those cities remind me of each other. Likewise for SF and Boston.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_denizen (Post 8665809)

Grouping variables include vernacular architecture and urban layout as well as some intangibles.

Chicago and Milwaukee

Interestingly enough, residential vernacular architecture actually represents one of the most glaring differences between Chicago and Milwaukee. Milwaukee residential is very predominately wood frame, like most of the great lakes cities, whereas Chicago residential, because of the Great Fire, is predominately masonry.

Chicago still has a fair bit of that great lakes wood frame too, so you can definitely find streets on Chicago that are evocative of Milwaukee, but I've never found the reverse to be true, at least not at great scale.

The Chicago/Milwaukee thing really has a lot more to do with history/demographics/culture and urban layout/geography, along with a shit-ton of intangibles.

Viewing Page 7 of 15