Can You See Your City Geographically Situated Elsewhere?

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Since LA has a Mediterranean climate and is the only major global city (maybe Lima, Peru as well) situated on an ocean with miles of decent beaches, snow-capped mountains with peaks above 10,000 feet*, deserts, and islands*, I would say no.

*San Diego doesn’t have these features.

Some people have compared LA to Santiago, Chile. I have never been to Santiago, so I cannot support or reject this comparison with first-hand experience.

I will agree that LA has no geographical analog in the United States, being a coastal basin with a dry climate.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

Some people have compared LA to Santiago, Chile. I have never been to Santiago, so I cannot support or reject this comparison with first-hand experience.

I will agree that LA has no geographical analog in the United States, being a coastal basin with a dry climate.

The closest is probably the dry sides of the Hawaiian islands.

[SFBruin]

That would make sense.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

Some people have compared LA to Santiago, Chile. I have never been to Santiago, so I cannot support or reject this comparison with first-hand experience.

I will agree that LA has no geographical analog in the United States, being a coastal basin with a dry climate.

Yeah, definitely Santiago. Climate wise, the west coast of South America is very similar to the west coast of North America.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

the west coast of South America is very similar to the west coast of North America.

Who would have thought?

[muertecaza]

Originally Posted by BillM

What if we imagined the re-orientation of cities while keeping the metro area roughly in its same location. For example, could there be an alternate geographically interesting location for downtown?

I've thought before that Phoenix could have benefited from the townsite being closer to the Salt River. Downtown is ~5 miles north of the river, as that's where the early American settlers had their farms. And they were already using the Hohokam canals to run water from the river. The area around the river is industrial and unattractive. By contrast, downtown Tempe was built around Charles Hayden's home and river ferry. Fastforward to now and Tempe had the foresight to build a popular and successful reservoir that's both a benefit to the public and to the developers that have lined it with their commercial office projects. While Phoenix's portion of the river is a dry afterthought. I don't think Phoenix would ever have been a real "river city," but I do think it would be cool if downtown were nearer the river and it could do something similar to Tempe.

[ocman]

New York City in the Vancouver metro.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by ocman

New York City in the Vancouver metro.

With the mountains as a back drop..That would be awesome!..Seattle will be like "the nice quiet neighbours from up the street are moving out, wonder who's moving in?".

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

Some people have compared LA to Santiago, Chile. I have never been to Santiago, so I cannot support or reject this comparison with first-hand experience.

I will agree that LA has no geographical analog in the United States, being a coastal basin with a dry climate.

Santiago metro is considerably more mountainous and a good 75 miles (or so) inland, so it’s not really a coastal metropolis nor does it have long stretches of beach. I’d be more than happy to exchange our mountain ranges for the Andes though, and more mountainous terrain in general to curb suburban sprawl.

Maybe I’m splitting hairs here, but I just think the climate in conjunction with the diversity and relative quality of its natural landscape makes LA’s geographic location less “transposable.” I’m not getting into place-specifics either (“But we wouldn’t have Mt. Baldy or Joshua Tree!!!”), but just saying that the convergence of these specific topographic features in a specific type of climate is... one-of-a-kind. Move LA farther north to Santa Barbara or south to San Diego and you lose that special, highly-specific combination.

[Crawford]

My wife went to high school in Santiago. I've never been, but it didn't seem LA-esque from her descriptions. Had Sunbelt-y vibes, was kinda bland and very prosperous for Latin American standards.

Also conservative with a lot of residue from the Pinochet years. People were standoffish and didn't do American-style smalltalk (probably due to people disappearing under Pinochet and the heavily European stock). Upper class lived in urban apartment districts, as is standard in Latin America. Food was Latin American beef + Northern European bland. The wealthy had weekend beach houses on the Pacific. Nothing like the vibrancy and unique feel of, say, BA or Rio.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Santiago metro is considerably more mountainous and a good 75 miles (or so) inland, so it’s not really a coastal metropolis nor does it have long stretches of beach. I’d be more than happy to exchange our mountain ranges for the Andes though, and more mountainous terrain in general to curb suburban sprawl.

Maybe I’m splitting hairs here, but I just think the climate in conjunction with the diversity and relative quality of its natural landscape makes LA’s geographic location less “transposable.” I’m not getting into place-specifics either (“But we wouldn’t have Mt. Baldy or Joshua Tree!!!”), but just saying that the convergence of these specific topographic features in a specific type of climate is... one-of-a-kind. Move LA farther north to Santa Barbara or south to San Diego and you lose that special, highly-specific combination.

Santiago is inland but it has everything you describe as unique about L.A. in similar proximity. Technically the coastal region near Santiago isn't included in the Santiago metropolitan division, but in the U.S. context the coast would easily be part of Santiago's CSA. Santiago is closer to the mountains than L.A., but farther from the coast.

This town reminded me a little of Malibu: https://goo.gl/maps/KKtV1sHYowU9sLpG8

[MolsonExport]

Hard to envision New York growing to its current size and having the amazing historical skyscrapers of the 1910s-1940s if it were on the West Coast and constrained by Vancouver's mountains.

[Centropolis]

the best shot on the west coast would have been a juiced san francisco i think - maybe subtract los angeles or seattle from the equation with the establishment of stronger n/s rail connections on the west coast?


https://openspace.sfmoma.org/2011/07...-in-every-way/

[Yuri]

Ignoring the Tietê river, that runs inland, São Paulo could be where Curitiba is. Both cities are very near the ocean, separated from it by heavily forested mountains, and located in rather high elevations (800m and 900m).

[Cirrus]

DC is unmistakably eastern US, but it could've been in any of at least 20 or 30 different locations in the eastern US. Its location was selected as a political compromise, and its design mostly ignores the natural geography (mostly). The constraint is that it was always going to be on a navigable Atlantic-facing river downstream from the Fall Line. But there are a lot of choices there.

So yeah. Plop it just about anywhere in the original 13 colonies and I don't think it would feel super out of place.

[JManc]

DC would work pretty much anywhere that snows often yet has horrible swamp ass summers.

[ue]

Originally Posted by JManc

DC would work pretty much anywhere that snows often yet has horrible swamp ass summers.

So St Louis?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Ignoring the Tietê river, that runs inland, São Paulo could be where Curitiba is. Both cities are very near the ocean, separated from it by heavily forested mountains, and located in rather high elevations (800m and 900m).

Miami could be Vitoria and Miami Beach could be Vila Velha.

[isaidso]

I can't picture Toronto in any other place than where it is now.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Santiago is inland but it has everything you describe as unique about L.A. in similar proximity. Technically the coastal region near Santiago isn't included in the Santiago metropolitan division, but in the U.S. context the coast would easily be part of Santiago's CSA. Santiago is closer to the mountains than L.A., but farther from the coast.

This town reminded me a little of Malibu: https://goo.gl/maps/KKtV1sHYowU9sLpG8

Santiago doesn’t have islands.