Jump to content

What Two or More Cities Would You Compare?


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

As far as deep south towns, Savannah and Charleton would be a prime matchup.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good call. Both have lots of Southern Charm and are wonderful places to visit.

Although I am a bit dissapointed in Savanah in the way they have let new development overpower the historical look and feel of the city. For starters, that massive thing they call a hotel on the waterfront needs to go!!! And what's with the convention hall across the river?

Still, I loved both cities when I was there 18 months ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this question..

I always compare New Orleans with CHicago simply because they are both blues towns and both built on swamps.

I also in my mind compare Chicago with Phili .. I have no good reason since Ihave never been to Phili, but I thought that they had some similar progress with their public school system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Madison - Ann Arbor

Pittsburgh - Cincinnati

Cleveland - Milwaukee

Seattle - Vancouver

Dallas - Atlanta

Oakland - Akron

KC - Buffalo

Chicago - Toronto

DC - Boston

Duluth - Green Bay

Charlotte - Jacksonville

Indianapolis - Columbus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

COMPARISON "CLUSTERS":

New York/Los Angeles/Chicago

Chicago/Philadelphia/Detroit

Boston/San Francisco/Seattle

Pittsburgh/Cleveland/Cincinnati/St. Louis/Milwaukee/Kansas City

Birmingham/Memphis/New Orleans

Atlanta/Dallas/Denver/Phoenix/Las Vegas

Boston/New York/Philadelphia/Washington, D.C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Here are some Canadian cities and what I think are the closest to their American counterparts:

Toronto / Chicago

Vancouver / Seattle

Calgary / Denver

And perhaps:

Hamilton, ON / Pittsburgh? (steel centers, large Italian and Slavic populations)

Kitchener, ON / York, PA? (heavily "Pennsylvania German" areas)

London, ON / Columbus? (large, spread-out, urban/suburban cities with a major university)

Winnipeg / Milwaukee? (some would probably compare Winnipeg and the Twin Cities but the latter are much more white collar and Winnipeg is a declining, blue collar city)

Regina / Fargo?

Saint John, NB / Portland, ME?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

DBR you compared Pittsburgh to STL, although i'd agree as far as the topography, St. Louis has much more a southern element to it--jazz etc. Demographically, Industrially and Historically I think Cleveland or possibly Buffalo are just too similar to Pittsburgh--granted those are more port cities where the 'burgh like STL is a river city--but baboshkas and Steel mills have more in common with our neighbor up the turnpike. Familiarity breeds contempt lol, couldn't be truer when comparing Pittsburgh and Cleveland. Like Coke said of Pepsi if they didn't exist we'd have to invent them. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Disagree. First of all, St. Louis is not southern at all. It is Midwestern with an eastern flair. Secondly, St. Louis has made some contributions to jazz (Miles Davis, among others), but it is best known for blues-- a distinctly different genre, for which Chicago is also known. It is not only a southern thing. Third, if you look at the structural development of Pittsburgh, it is much more akin to that of St. Louis than to Cleveland or most other cities (except perhaps Cincinnati). River cities have a very distinct style.

Both Pittsburgh and Saint Louis are very old, very dense and urban, and have similar patterns of development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Disagree.  First of all, St. Louis is not southern at all.  It is Midwestern with an eastern flair.  Secondly, St. Louis has made some contributions to jazz (Miles Davis, among others), but it is best known for blues-- a distinctly different genre, for which Chicago is also known.  It is not only a southern thing.  Third, if you look at the structural development of Pittsburgh, it is much more akin to that of St. Louis than to Cleveland or most other cities (except perhaps Cincinnati).  River cities have a very distinct style. 

Both Pittsburgh and Saint Louis are very old, very dense and urban, and have similar patterns of development.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

good points . . . again demographically economically and historically as far as industrialization goes Pittsburgh and St. Louis are very different. As far as wether or not St. Louis is "southern" there is a whole thread on that . . . if are comparing the two cities on their river roots and earliest development patterns then you must also concede that at that time Missouri was a Western AND southern state, nearly siding with the confederacy. How much is it still tied to the south? thats very debateable when I was in St. Louis though some it reminded me of Memphis or Richmond, like Pittsburgh though STL is hard to regionalize its true there is much of Chicago/Milwaukee and some of Pittsburgh some Kansas City some Memphis in St. Louis. The first thing that comes to my mind when I think about St. Louis is Mark Twain, he was a Missourian after all, and although he lived in CT in later life he was a southerner through and through, at least in my view. Agree on early development (pittsburgh even had Virginians settle here) but industrial development as with its immigration of Eastern Europeans Cleveland is a much better comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PghUSA-- your opinions are totally valid, although I think you have St. Louis all wrong. St. Louis was a big city before Missouri was even a state. During the Civil War, Missouri remained a Union state, despite allowing slavery (part of the Missouri Compromise). It was never ever a Confederate state. St. Louis was a Union stronghold, and has long been a center of northern influence. It has a lot more in common with the industrial cities of Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Chicago than it does with southern cities like Memphis, Nashville and New Orleans. STL was and is a major industrial center, although its economy is more diversified than that of Pittsburgh.

btw, you mention all the Eastern European settlers of Cleveland/Pgh, but STL is an old beotch too, older than Cleveland and about the same age as Pitt. It was settled mainly by Eastern Europeans, New Englanders, New Yorkers and Philadelphians.

You must also keep in mind that Pittsburgh borders Appalachia, infusing some southernism into that city too. St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Cincinnati all struggle somewhat with an identity crisis, in that they all draw characteristics from various regions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JiveCitySTL,

good points . . . my impression of the city when I was there was much like a Chicago of the south, but I do agree in the last 2 generations or so STL is very much more a "northern" city. Again my point isn't that it is Southern but just not as Northern as a Detroit or Boston. Missouri was indeed Union never wanted to infer it wasn't but as with Maryland and Kentucky it was a big guess wether it would stay Union or not. If you are looking at developmental patterns I would agree with you Pittsburgh and St. Louis both started as French trading outposts, both rivercities, both were "Gateways to the West" for different generations of Americans, and yes the German and some other immigration to STL is famous, but industrial and post-industrially the demos and industries shift more to the much younger Cleveland or even Buffalo for Pittsburgh. Not to say STL didn't have heavy industry or commerce back in 1900 or even today, just that if you dropped me in Cleveland it would take me a few hours to really tell I wasn't in Pittsburgh--if I wasn't looking into Lake Eire at least lol.

This is a great thread for those "border cities" like Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Houston (is it southern or western?) . . . but hey any city that wants to compare itself to Pittsburgh is welcome to :thumbsup: the 'burgh is a great city and like STL it had a massive renaissance in the 50s and 60s polishing it off, but it doesn't yet have the rep (fairly or not) of a Silicon Valley or South Beach. All Jetsetters welcomed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I'm new to this forum but here are some cities/regions that strike me as similar:

Dallas/Atlanta(Southern powerhouse cities)

NYC/Chicago(skylines that exceed what can be seen at once)

Raleigh-Durham/Austin(New-South boom areas, with heavy tech influence and college influence..similar natural beauty)

Boston/San Francisco(picture perfect density on a human scale, comparable socially w/ regard to universities, etc.)

New Orleans/Charleston(obviously based on feel rather than size)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Im going to compare New York City And Boston.

Fanuel Hall/Quincy market Vs. Time square, they have Boston beat on size and comercialization, but Quincy Market has better and it is more historicol.

Score NYC- haif point Boston - Haif point

Night life- Boston is good, but NYC is just so big.

Score NYC- 1 1/2 Boston- 1/2

EDucation-Boston has much better Schools

Score NYC - 1 1/2 Bos- 1 1/2

Cleanlieness and livability- Boston has been rated the better place to be and cleaner consistanly

S NYC- 1.5 Bos- 2.5

Sports teams- as of know New england owns New york when it comes to sports

S Nyc- 1.5 Bos-3.5

City sky deck- The prudential center has a wonderful view but The empire state buildings hight gives it the category.

Final Score

NYC- 2.5 Bos- 3.5

Boston wins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

NOT

no comparison here

NOT

no comparison here

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmm... The New Orleans/Boston thing is a bit out of left field. If you can clarify that then that's all good... but really... just not. Boston is extremely cosmopolitan, a true Northeast city, and is much larger than New Orleans. New Orleans is wilder, truly Southern, and in terms of the "looks" of the cities, they're totally different as well. New Orleans has high rises, but is largely low-rise and has great French influence in the architecture. Boston has much taller buildings and more of them and the architecture is colonial, traditional juxtaposed against modern.

New York/Chicago: Size, buildings, "feel" of the city

Los Angeles/Miami: Rich/poor in close proximity; modern construction; "boomtowns"

Boston/Seattle: Skyline size/proportions; climate (fall and spring); walkability and livability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.