Urban Analogues

[Buckeye Native 001]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure most Cincinnatians (and probably most St. Louisans) would fight you if you dare suggest that its similar in any way to Chicago. Add more fuel to the fire by asking Reds fans what they think of Cubs fans.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by 10023

This thread has turned out to be just as superficial as feared.

If you're just going to look at skylines, most American cities are the same. Small cluster of tall buildings, surrounded by nothing much of importance.

Who is just looking at skylines?

[Steely Dan]

chicago is a milwaukee that was super-sized by railroad fertilizer.

or the lovechild of detroit and new york city.

and the whole freaking place burned to the ground pretty early on, so it got A LOT brickier than the other great lakes cities, which are more heavily tilted toward wood frame vernacular.

but the soul of chicago is a million times more like milwaukee or detroit than st. louis or cincinnati.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by mhays

The similarities include a visual element...sometimes I see Chicago and think it's the Columbia Center as others have suggested. More notably, Seattle is a mini-Chicago in terms of its most downtown as center of everything. Both are filling underused downtown fringe areas with towers. Both focus large percentages of their offices in their greater downtown areas. Both have older office-dominated downtowns plus northern expansion zones that mix in more residential. Each has multiple downtown waterfronts. Both have two-level areas in their older downtown parts. Both have maintained strong downtown retail, and both focus their tourism in their centers.

if you're solely focusing on downtowns, then sure, downtown seattle shares some characteristics with downtown chicago, but a lot of those same characteristics are shared by other big urban downtown-centric cities like philly or san francisco. are chicago and san francisco also good analogues for each other? i certainly wouldn't think so, but that's just me.

i guess i tend to look at things from a wider perspective, and on the whole, seattle, from my 2 visits there, just doesn't feel like chicago to me at all. the neighborhoods, vernacular architecture, history, topography, geography, culture, and demographics are all pretty different between the two cities. they're both wonderful places with loads of their own charms, but at the end of the day, they don't feel like good analogues for each other in my opinion.

[JManc]

Without reading this thread: Pittsburgh and Cincinnati.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by JManc

Without reading this thread: Pittsburgh and Cincinnati.

st. louis and baltimore

[MolsonExport]

Separated at birth:

captainkimo


blogto

[Steely Dan]

^ if only toronto could ever hope to have a skyline so impressive, so distinctive, so mighty....

perhaps some day.



aim high, toronto, aim high.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Separated at birth:

Why did you post two pictures of Jacksonville?

[MolsonExport]

[llamaorama]

Austin and Waco were similar before the 1960s and have the same basic geography. Based on old pictures, Waco has an uncanny resemblance to Austin before its population boom and growth into a major city, and is what Austin might look like today if it were not for the tech industry and the state capitol.

Waco is a relatively slow growing, sort of established place by Texas standards. Its 282' Alico building completed in 1911 is still the tallest building in the city and is one of the oldest 'skyscrapers' in the southwestern US.

Downtown Waco is similar in size to the original core of Austin and is located next to a dammed up section of the Brazos river, just as Austin faces the Colorado river, except its to the north rather than to the south.

Old school Austin:

source: Austin Postcards


source: http://specials.mystatesman.com/austin-1970s/

Present day Waco:

source: panoramio

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by The North One

Why did you post two pictures of Jacksonville?

It's a running gag for him. He's making fun of the fact that I like Jacksonville's skyline better than Toronto's.

I've told him repeatedly that I stand by what I said. It's one of the problems with this website, it's almost like if it doesn't look like Chicago Lakeshore or Midtown Manhattan it can't look good. Granted, I think most people would take Toronto over Jacksonville but as I've always said about skylines, bigger doesn't always equal better.

[niwell]

Every day I wake up and look longingly at a picture of Jacksonville. If only...

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

It's a running gag for him. He's making fun of the fact that I like Jacksonville's skyline better than Toronto's.

I've told him repeatedly that I stand by what I said. It's one of the problems with this website, it's almost like if it doesn't look like Chicago Lakeshore or Midtown Manhattan it can't look good. Granted, I think most people would take Toronto over Jacksonville but as I've always said about skylines, bigger doesn't always equal better.

all of that nonsense started because i mistakenly used the word "impressive" instead of "largest" when i said "for some odd reason, the great lakes region is home to 2 of the 3 most impressive city skylines on the entire continent" in a different thread.

had i just said "largest" from the start (which was my intended meaning), none of the ensuing stupidity would have happened because toronto does have one of the 3 largest skylines in NA (along with NYC & chicago) by most measures.

[cabasse]

here's a fun fact: modis has their US HQ in jacksonville, fl (used to be in that cool tower with the expando base) and their CA HQ in jacksonville, on.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

you should perhaps substitute great lakes, not midwest. chicago is definitely not a jumbo analogue of the river cities.

Yeah, mainly Great Lakes cities but not exclusively. I think I would include Minneapolis in the list, although Minneapolis isn't technically a lake city.

[Crawford]

I know others will disagree but I find strong parallels between Memphis and New Orleans.

Blackest U.S. metros, both around same size, both barely growing
Jazz for Nola, Blues for Memphis
Creole for Nola, BBQ for Memphis
Bourbon St. and Beale St.
Flat, scrubby Delta, Deep South landcape, both bordering MS, both lying on MS river, bookending the Delta Deep South
Skylines and airports basically unchanged for decades
Streetcars
Plantation homes for the wealthy and shotgun homes for the poor
Quasi-developing world feel in parts. About as poor as it gets in urban U.S./Canada
Opposite-land to the New South metros like Charlotte, Atlanta, Nashville

[JManc]

Chicago and Tucson. Definitely.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I know others will disagree but I find strong parallels between Memphis and New Orleans.

Blackest U.S. metros, both around same size, both barely growing
Jazz for Nola, Blues for Memphis
Creole for Nola, BBQ for Memphis
Bourbon St. and Beale St.
Flat, scrubby Delta, Deep South landcape, both bordering MS, both lying on MS river, bookending the Delta Deep South
Skylines and airports basically unchanged for decades
Streetcars
Plantation homes for the wealthy and shotgun homes for the poor
Quasi-developing world feel in parts. About as poor as it gets in urban U.S./Canada
Opposite-land to the New South metros like Charlotte, Atlanta, Nashville

i'm about to start splitting hairs.

it's not the most outrageous comparison.

memphis is noticeably newer, though, with essentially none of the creole and french/spanish colonial history so important in new orleans, not to mention the differences in the quality of the built environment. railroads played a larger role in memphis. there's a larger urban old money contingent with new orleans...nola is also surrounded by swampy badlands, not endless acres of tillable bottomland owned by the same familes for generations....yes theres some and there are some old plantation museum pieces but they have little to do with new orleans. the wealthy certainly do not live in "plantation homes" in either city at all. the wealthy generally don't live any differently in memphis than they do nashville...lots of newer, large brick homes beyond the urban core amongst azaleas and crepe mertles.

i will say that the upper middle class and upper class neighborhoods in the suburban south are more appealing than often is the case in the suburban midwest, once you get past the pre-war ring. it may just be that people with good tastes in landscaping, etc, prefer the pre-war stock in the midwest that is often missing in the south. some of the new parts of suburban new orleans almost feels like south florida at times as well, very not like what you find in memphis.

there are some big cultural differences between memphis and new orleans, especially amongst families that have been in new orleans for generations. in many ways, new orleans sits a bridge beyond the typical american south in a different geography. there's an important old-catholic component to new orleans, like st. louis, thats very unlike what you find in the classic south.

the lower mississippi valley is definitely unlike the "new" south, however, and the poverty comparisons are certainly apt.

[RC14]

Originally Posted by JManc

Chicago and Tucson. Definitely.

They are both.....in America.

Maybe we should start a thread about which cities are the most opposite.