2 cities/towns that are opposites in the same state

[Dariusb]

What are two cities or towns in the same state that are opposites culturally, ethnically, economically? I think El Paso and Austin are a perfect example.

[ChiSoxRox]

Seattle and Spokane.

Hyperdiverse, strongly liberal tech metropolis versus an agricultural, nearly 90% white, voting red metro.

Different worlds across the Cascades.

[SIGSEGV]

Cairo and Winnetka?

[Doady]

Detroit and Livonia?

[KevinFromTexas]

Fort Worth and Austin. I think El Paso is pretty different than the rest of the state. Even its culturally closest city, San Antonio, is quite a bit different in other ways.

[craigs]

San Francisco and Calexico. One is a wealthy, populous, diverse, dense city surrounded on three sides by water, with skyscrapers, subways, and tech bros. The other is a poor, small, 97.8% Latino agricultural center spread across the desert at the border with Mexico.

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Seattle and Spokane.

Hyperdiverse, strongly liberal tech metropolis versus an agricultural, nearly 90% white, voting red metro.

Different worlds across the Cascades.

With a population that’s 62% non-hispanic white, and with Asians, at 16%, being the only other group above 10%, I wouldn’t call Seattle hyperdiverse.

Source: US Census
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fa...gton/PST045222

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Cairo and Winnetka?

hah, this may be the biggest one in the midwest since one of the locations really isnt the midwest. one is one of the (relatively speaking) wealthiest places in the world, and the other is (lets face it) a post-apocalyptic waste at the top of the delta being slowly consumed by kudzu.

[edale]

I think the cities need to be of roughly equal size and importance for this thread to have any sort of meaning. Every state has small agricultural towns that could be the opposite of bigger, more cosmopolitan centers. It's far more interesting to look at states where there are two cities of roughly equal size or importance (or at least in the same general league) that look and feel very different.

I actually think SF and LA are a good pairing for this discussion. San Francisco is classically urban, and looks and feels like a Bos-Wash city dropped on the West Coast, whereas LA is suburban, and outside of some pockets, doesn't really feel traditionally urban. SF has a walking and transit culture, LA is car dominated. SF is cool and foggy, LA is famously sunny and usually pretty warm. LA is super image conscious, while SF is notoriously casual and unfashionable. Outside of San Francisco proper, the rest of the Bay Area looks and feels much more like LA, so this comparison only holds for city to city, not metros.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

hah, this may be the biggest one in the midwest since one of the locations really isnt the midwest. one is one of the (relatively speaking) wealthiest places in the world, and the other is (lets face it) a post-apocalyptic waste at the top of the delta being slowly consumed by kudzu.

One wonders if Cairo will even continue to be a thing.

Since its peak back in 1920 with over 15,000 residents,

It has subsequently declined by nearly 90% down to ~1,700.

[muertecaza]

I don't think Phoenix and Tucson are really that different, certainly not "opposites," so I'll go with a deeper cut from Arizona: Sierra Vista and Flagstaff.

Sierra Vista is the southern-most metro in Arizona with at least 100k population. It is a military town. It is politically conservative, with City Council and Mayoral races that generally feature veterans, government contractors, etc. Its concerns tend to be border and military related. It is slightly cooler and gets slightly more rain than Phoenix, but it still is basically a hot, desert climate. Sierra Vista proper was incorporated in 1954 and still had fewer than 10k people in 1970. It basically does not have a traditional downtown.

Flagstaff is the northern-most metro in Arizona with at least 100k population. It is a college town. It is politically (at least for Arizona) left-leaning. Northern Arizona University is the straw that stirs the drink, and Flagstaff politics reflects that. It is nestled in a large ponderosa pine forest, and has generally cool (though also dry) weather. Flagstaff is a railroad town. It incorporated in 1928, and has a very pleasant downtown.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

One wonders if Cairo will even continue to be a thing.

Since its peak back in 1920 with over 15,000 residents,

It has subsequently declined by nearly 90% down to ~1,700.

Towns take a long long time to die.

See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldfield,_Nevada

[craigs]

Originally Posted by edale

I think the cities need to be of roughly equal size and importance . . . . I actually think SF and LA are a good pairing for this discussion.

Except that this pairing violates your own rule. San Francisco has 800,000 residents and Los Angeles has 3,800,000 residents, figures which are not "roughly equal" by any reasonable standard.

[ChiSoxRox]

Using say, a factor of 2 in metro population as "roughly equal," Missouri comes to mind.

St. Louis - pre-war brick formerly industrial river city, the "westernmost Eastern city"

Kansas City - stronger growth, agricultural railroading base, suburban form, the "easternmost Western city"

(In comparison, Seattle and Spokane is an MSA population ratio of nearly 7.)

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Towns take a long long time to die.

See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldfield,_Nevada

True.

Cairo will likely limp along for the foreseeable future, if for no other reason than it's the county seat of Alexander County, and even in its extremely declined state, Cairo is still by far the most substantial human settlement in Alexander County.

[iheartthed]

Photos of prewar LA look pretty similar to SF, but the two have obviously diverged quite a bit in the decades since.

[BnaBreaker]

Many people, including some living in these cities themselves, would probably nominate Nashville and Memphis for this, and in some ways they are good candidates. But the two really do have a lot more in common than it might appear on the surface.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by edale

I actually think SF and LA are a good pairing for this discussion. San Francisco is classically urban, and looks and feels like a Bos-Wash city dropped on the West Coast, whereas LA is suburban, and outside of some pockets, doesn't really feel traditionally urban. SF has a walking and transit culture, LA is car dominated. SF is cool and foggy, LA is famously sunny and usually pretty warm. LA is super image conscious, while SF is notoriously casual and unfashionable. Outside of San Francisco proper, the rest of the Bay Area looks and feels much more like LA, so this comparison only holds for city to city, not metros.

LA isn’t “suburban.” It is dominated by cars and detached SFHs, however. LA on the whole feels roughly on the same urban level as outer Queens.

[edale]

Originally Posted by craigs

Except that this pairing violates your own rule. San Francisco has 800,000 residents and Los Angeles has 3,800,000 residents, figures which are not "roughly equal" by any reasonable standard.

Oh please. You cut out the second part of the sentence you quoted because it didn't fit your point, huh? "It's far more interesting to look at states where there are two cities of roughly equal size or importance (or at least in the same general league)"

San Francisco and LA are clearly both major cities, and anchors of large regions. Both cities are home to major universities, international airports, fortune 500 companies, etc. Each have all the trappings of a major city. Calexico, to use the example you put forth, has none of those things. It's a small town in the middle of desert. Of course it's radically different from San Francisco-- that goes without saying.

It makes sense to compare San Francisco and LA. They're compared all the time, actually. The fact that SF's 49 square miles have 800,000 people and LA's 400+ sq miles has 3.8 million is entirely irrelevant. They're the two largest cities/metros in the state and the entire west coast.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Quixote

LA isn’t “suburban.” It is dominated by cars and detached SFHs, however. LA on the whole feels roughly on the same urban level as outer Queens.

Are those not two defining characteristics of suburbs? I haven't spent much time in outer Queens, but I can see a comparison. LA still looks more suburban that what I'm seeing there, though.