Urban Analogues

[jd3189]

Just a fun idea I thought would be interesting. Every city seems to share some general characteristic with another city while still maintaining its uniqueness. These characteristics are surface level, but still cool to make note of.

For instance, the two cities I feel are analogues of each other on the surface are Brooklyn and San Francisco. Both are coastal urban areas at the ocean of their respective coasts. Brooklyn is not an independent city anymore like SF, but it could hold up to its own if it was.

Aerial/Map

Brooklyn:

Looking South at Brooklyn by Adam Lewis Wyner, on Flickr

San Francisco:

San Francisco by David Levine, on Flickr

Both cities have iconic bridges that connects them to the rest of their urban areas. However, Brooklyn is part of an island while SF is at the tip of a peninsula.

Bridges

Brooklyn:

Staten Island to Brooklyn by JoelICastaneda, on Flickr

Brooklyn Downtown 8380 by edgar ediza, on Flickr

Brooklyn Bridge at night by RJ DiBella, on Flickr

San Francisco:

The Golden Gate by buffdawgus, on Flickr

San Francisco by John King, on Flickr

San Francisco Street by Glenn Preisler, on Flickr


There are more similarities for this pair I will post but if anyone who has though about two other cities that are analogous in one way or another, feel free to share.

[ThePhun1]

I would say San Francisco shares characteristics with places along the Mediterranean Sea. But yeah, being along a body of water with some of the same housing stock and the bridges, San Francisco is similar to Brooklyn, although it's clearly an alpha or Manhattan in how it operates. Bridges connect to Manhattan as well and neither it or San Fran. has one along its western shore, so I think it's more fair to compare it to Manhattan.

[jd3189]

I know SF currently has the Salesforce Tower coming up and a currently larger and more vibrant downtown, but both it and Brooklyn have their CBDs skylines at a corner area pointing towards the mainland. The shot I found for SF is old.

Skylines

Brooklyn:

Brooklyn skyline, New York City by James Willamor, on Flickr


San Francisco:

San Francisco Skyline by Justin Owens, on Flickr


Both cities are also known for their rowhome housing architecture along with a good amount of apartments. Brooklyn has its brownstones and buildings mostly made of brick while SF has great examples of Victorian architecture like the famous Painted Ladies. They also both have nice terminal vistas, though SF is more dramatic with the hills and bay.

Housing architecture

Brooklyn:

Brownstones by Brandon, on Flickr

Park Slope by robotpolisher, on Flickr

42nd Street approaching 3rd Avenue by Aonghais Mac, on Flickr

4th Avenue by Matt Green, on Flickr

Brooklyn - 63rd Street by Roger W, on Flickr

Brooklyn Apartment 5506 by edgar ediza, on Flickr

San Francisco:

What ever happened to predictability? by Erin, on Flickr

San Francisco Street by Lindsey Krause, on Flickr

San Francisco Street by Freddie Jordan, on Flickr

San Francisco Business Trip by Sujal Parikh, on Flickr

P1090504 by Michael Afar, on Flickr

San Francisco - apartments on Hyde Street by MikePScott, on Flickr

East Coast and West Coast. Brothers from different mothers.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

I would say San Francisco shares characteristics with places along the Mediterranean Sea. But yeah, being along a body of water with some of the same housing stock and the bridges, San Francisco is similar to Brooklyn, although it's clearly an alpha or Manhattan in how it operates. Bridges connect to Manhattan as well and neither it or San Fran. has one along its western shore, so I think it's more fair to compare it to Manhattan.

That's true. SF shares a more official feel with Manhattan. But Manhattan does have the GW Bridge on its west coast. I will try to post some analogues between them in the future.

[10023]

I thought this would be comparing neighborhoods, which is really impossible, but kind of a favorite game of mine. And impossible to avoid for anyone who's moved from one major city to another, particularly as an expat.

For instance, one could say that Shoreditch (London) is kinda-sorta TriBeCa meets Lower East Side meets Williamsburg (NYC). The first bit due to proximity to the financial center (and the luxury apartments this brings), the last due to hipsterdom, but the density of the built environment and the level of grime well exceeds the 'Burg, so it's not just that; there's a dose of LES.

Notting Hill is most like the West Village (lots of London neighborhoods are bound to be most like the West Village, among NY hoods), but a bit more residential and with a bit more recently gentrified edge in the northern part, so that mixed with some part of Brooklyn like Bed-Stuy.

Going the other way, NY's SoHo is like Covent Garden meets Clerkenwell. Midtown is practically all of central London rolled into one, but mostly the City meets Oxford/Regent Streets meets Leicester Square. The Upper East Side is pretty obviously the whole Grosvenor Estate (Mayfair, Belgravia).

You can be lazy (like just calling the most expensive urban zip codes of any city "the Upper East Side of"), but it never quite works because cities develop in such different ways. Still, it's fun to try and moreso if one has spent enough time living in each place to know how residents use various 'hoods.

Perhaps another thread?

[ThePhun1]

I think San Antonio and San Diego works. Very similar, as is Austin, Madison, Raleigh and Columbus. Sacramento would work with those three if Cal was founded where UC-Davis is.

[isaidso]

Toronto and Melbourne.

[dc_denizen]

Brooklyn and sf seem about right, minus a more built up downtown with better destination shopping in sf. Downtown Brooklyn has too many clustered court houses, which kill vitality, and Fulton Street is still more akin to somewhere in Newark.

This is changing of course with new skyscrapers and shopping but it will be a long process.

Madison is too small to be an analogue to Columbus or Austin, but too big to be an analogue to state college pa or Ann Arbor. I’m not sure what it really matches up with.

Nashville and Austin, incredibly similar especially these days

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Brooklyn and sf seem about right, minus a more built up downtown with better destination shopping in sf. Downtown Brooklyn has too many clustered court houses, which kill vitality, and Fulton Street is still more akin to somewhere in Newark.

This is changing of course with new skyscrapers and shopping but it will be a long process.

Madison is too small to be an analogue to Columbus or Austin, but too big to be an analogue to state college pa or Ann Arbor. I’m not sure what it really matches up with.

Nashville and Austin, incredibly similar especially these days

Why not? Madison is not that much smaller than both, relatively speaking. Heck, I'd even toss in Baton Rouge and maybe Columbia into that mix.

[blorkishdork]

When I was in London a few years ago, I was expecting the city (the outer boroughs) to look and feel more like Boston. Meaning larger apartment buildings and of 6 stories tall. But I was met with surprise that the housing stock was more like Philadelphia, narrow 3 to 4 story row homes with a width of 12 to 20 feet. I mean it makes sense, Philadelphia was the second largest city in the British Empire at one point, but still I just assumed most of London would have the density of Boston's Downtown.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5167...2!8i6656?hl=en

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5102...2!8i6656?hl=en

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9390...2!8i6656?hl=en

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9337...2!8i6656?hl=en

[ThePhun1]

To add to my previous post, we're talking state capitals that double as college towns, heck I purposefully left off Tallahassee because it is indeed too small compared to the rest.

[MolsonExport]

The similarity between Montreal and Brooklyn has been discussed many times in the Canada Forum. Montreal has miles upon miles of (gritty) high-density low-rise multi-family units, radiating in all directions from downtown. Random sampler:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.52174...7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.53555...7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.48754...7i13312!8i6656

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Madison is too small to be an analogue to Columbus or Austin, but too big to be an analogue to state college pa or Ann Arbor. I’m not sure what it really matches up with.

madison also historically has had superior street level urbanity and compactness to austin.


https://zhaoneurosciencelab.files.wordpress.com


]http://affordablehealthinsurancequotes.org

it has the upper midwest, even great lakes feel to it. austin feels completely different to me...

[iheartthed]

Brooklyn doesn't remind me of San Francisco at all...

Vienna reminds me of SF a lot.

[Sun Belt]

The Valley and The Valley.
Phoenix and LA's San Fernando Valley.

Both are in flat valleys surrounded by mountains, have hot summers, arterial street grid with freeways criss crossing the grid, single family homes within the arterial grid, higher multifamily housing located closer to the arterials. Commercial areas are linear on the arterials with nodes of mid-rise districts scattered around the valley.

[samne]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Toronto and Melbourne.

+1

Felt like bizarro Toronto down under to me in a great way.

Streetcars, semi detached homes, leafy- medium density hoods, high streets, new glass skyscrapers. Commonwealth cousins with similar immigration patterns.

[RC14]

I got crucified last time I suggested this but I think Seattle and Chicago are similar in some ways.
Both cities were destroyed by fire and had to be rebuilt and have some cool underground areas. They are both located on the water. Both cities hosted world's fairs. They also both have very dense urban cores. Chicago has the Willis Tower and Seattle has the Columbia tower. Both towers have public observation decks.

The two cities are very different in terms of culture, size and climate but I think there are plenty of similarities between the two.

I have heard that Salt Lake City and Austin are very similar. (Both are liberal, capital cities in very red states with allot of college students.) However, I have never been to Austin so I can't say if this is true.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by 10023

I thought this would be comparing neighborhoods, which is really impossible, but kind of a favorite game of mine. And impossible to avoid for anyone who's moved from one major city to another, particularly as an expat.

For instance, one could say that Shoreditch (London) is kinda-sorta TriBeCa meets Lower East Side meets Williamsburg (NYC). The first bit due to proximity to the financial center (and the luxury apartments this brings), the last due to hipsterdom, but the density of the built environment and the level of grime well exceeds the 'Burg, so it's not just that; there's a dose of LES.

Notting Hill is most like the West Village (lots of London neighborhoods are bound to be most like the West Village, among NY hoods), but a bit more residential and with a bit more recently gentrified edge in the northern part, so that mixed with some part of Brooklyn like Bed-Stuy.

Going the other way, NY's SoHo is like Covent Garden meets Clerkenwell. Midtown is practically all of central London rolled into one, but mostly the City meets Oxford/Regent Streets meets Leicester Square. The Upper East Side is pretty obviously the whole Grosvenor Estate (Mayfair, Belgravia).

You can be lazy (like just calling the most expensive urban zip codes of any city "the Upper East Side of"), but it never quite works because cities develop in such different ways. Still, it's fun to try and moreso if one has spent enough time living in each place to know how residents use various 'hoods.

Perhaps another thread?

Yeah, you can compare neighborhoods as well. I didn't realized New York and London shared a lot. London, Paris, and Rome seem similar among each other and Paris shares a lot with NYC.

[twig]

Originally Posted by RC14

I got crucified last time I suggested this but I think Seattle and Chicago are similar in some ways.
Both cities were destroyed by fire and had to be rebuilt and have some cool underground areas. They are both located on the water. Both cities hosted world's fairs. They also both have very dense urban cores. Chicago has the Willis Tower and Seattle has the Columbia tower. Both towers have public observation decks.

The two cities are very different in terms of culture, size and climate but I think there are plenty of similarities between the two.

I have heard that Salt Lake City and Austin are very similar. (Both are liberal, capital cities in very red states with allot of college students.) However, I have never been to Austin so I can't say if this is true.

Austin and Salt Lake are nowhere near being comparable, Austins seems to be on a fast track to becoming a real city while Salt Lake seems to be tip toeing. (Salt Lake, though liberal, still has an extreme red color feel to it) Size wise it may compare but culture, scenery, and just about everything else feels way different. I live in Salt Lake, we have more of a small Phoenix feel to it just with better public transportation.

[jd3189]

Here's some last comparisons between Brooklyn and SF. These are just very surface level, so don't think too much about it.


Terminating Vistas

Brooklyn:


Brooklyn. by chris dilts, on Flickr


San Francisco:


San Francisco by fluido & franz, on Flickr


Chinatowns (SF has a larger more famous one but BK has one growing in Sunset Park)


Brooklyn:

The Big 8 by Chung Chu, on Flickr


San Francisco:


Chinatown by mi_tequila, on Flickr


Dense Suburban Housing Near Ocean (This really hits the nail for me in terms of superficial comparsions)


Brooklyn:

duplex8 by dodgedly, on Flickr


San Francisco:

Untitled by Patrick, on Flickr