Urban Analogues

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

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

Vienna reminds me of SF a lot.

Really? Wow. Vienna, to me, would be pretty much the opposite of SF.

Vienna is the extremely grand former capitol of an empire, known for opulent public realm and tradition. It's somewhat of a backward looking city.

SF is the rising center of an ascendant region, with almost nothing grand/opulent, and no tradition. It's definitely a more forward looking city. SF looks kinda shabby compared to Vienna (which isn't a criticism; almost everywhere looks shabby compared to Vienna).

There are some similarities between Brooklyn and SF. They're both inordinately hipster, very urban/transit oriented for U.S. standards (though Brooklyn is on another level), and obviously there are the bridges and harbors.

But, at street level, I don't think the cities look that similar. And there are obvious differences, with SF being very outdoorsy, Brooklyn very Jewish, Carribean and the like. Brooklyn is like twice the size and three times the density of SF.

[johnnypd]

The area around SF city hall has a Vienna feel to it. Other than that, nah.

[Centropolis]

hamburg and hamburg and hamburg and...

hamburg and liverpool?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

hamburg and hamburg and hamburg and...

hamburg and liverpool?

Hamburg is considered a wealthy, snobby corporate city within Germany with very reserved Lutherans (which is kinda funny considering the infamous local sex industry around the harbor).

Liverpool is considered very working class and outgoing, no?

[spoonman]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

I think San Antonio and San Diego works. .

This is a lazy comparison. Besides having a Sea World park and being within 1M people, these cities aren't that similar.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Hamburg is considered a wealthy, snobby corporate city within Germany with very reserved Lutherans (which is kinda funny considering the infamous local sex industry around the harbor).

Liverpool is considered very working class and outgoing, no?

i was thinking more along the lines of setting and historical function, etc. i've never been to either.

i've often seen hamburg portrayed as a gritty port city, not unlike liverpool i suppose.

[Steely Dan]

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.

i'm not into crucifixions; you're free to hold you own opinions, but i am going to disagree with you that seattle and chicago are good analogues for each other.

yes, both cities had very destructive fires in the late 19th century, but so did other cities like boston, st. louis, and san francisco. that's a tenuous link at best.

yes, they are both located on the water, but that's a dime a dozen as far as cities are concerned. most cities around the globe are located on a body of water.

yes, they both have hosted world's fairs, but again that's dime a dozen stuff. what great american cities haven't hosted a world's fair at one point in their history?

yes, they both have dense urban cores, but so do NYC, LA, SF, boston, philly, etc. that's hardly something unique that the two cities share that sets them apart.

and once you are outside of the downtown cores, the cityscapes of the neighborhoods of the two cities are pretty different from each other.


~3 miles outside of downtown seattle:

north: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6463.../data=!3m1!1e3
east: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6063.../data=!3m1!1e3
south: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.5855.../data=!3m1!1e3


~3 miles outside of downtown chicago:

north: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9205.../data=!3m1!1e3
west: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8883.../data=!3m1!1e3
south: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8424.../data=!3m1!1e3


the two cities simply have very different built densities and scales outside of downtown.

and when you consider the VASTLY different climates, topographies, demographics, and cultures of the two cities, i think the analogy starts to completely fall apart.



as far as the sears tower and columbia center, that is probably the best link. columbia center does vaguely resemble a curvilinear sears tower mini-me.


source: http://deardeepthi.blogspot.com/2006/09/ ........................................................................................ source: https://www.fiveina5th.com/the-bigge...llest-mostest/

[Denvergotback]

Honestly if I had to compare Seattle to any city I think it would have to be Denver, yes they are unique in their own rights and no two cities are the same, but when I'm in Seattle it just reminds me so much of Denver (not topography or weather wise, but the feel and culture of the city) There is just something eerie familiar between the two.

Now out of cities I've been too I would have to say the cities that are most similar would have to be Dallas, Phoenix, and Houston. Go to one of those and it almost feels like you've been to the other two. Outside of their urban cores (although I'm still not convinced Phoenix even has one) They are all pretty un-distinct and identity-less. I lived in Phoenix for a few years and flew to Dallas for my first time, got out of the airport and outside of there being humidity and a few more trees I honestly felt like I was still in Phoenix. Maybe I'm wrong but that's just how I view it.

[niwell]

Yeah the retail oriented grid system of main streets in Chicago seems very different to how Seattle has grown outside of downtown. Maybe there are similarities in downtown, but I haven't spent any time in Seattle aside from driving through (lots in Chicago, though).

[jd3189]

Someone mentioned Manhattan and San Francisco also being analogues, which is similar to the Brooklyn comparison, but deeper when you look at the neighborhoods and other characteristics.

Both are the densest urban areas in their respective coasts and are important financial and immigrant centers throughout US history. They are both geographically small, with Manhattan being smaller, and are both the heart of their respective metro areas.

There are some differences, seen in the Brooklyn comparison. Manhattan is denser and more city-like throughout while SF is only a tier below once you get to the outskirts.

Skyline with Bridge

San Francisco:

Bajo el Bay Bridge / Under the Bay Bridge by Jorge Alejandro Gomez, on Flickr

Manhattan:

New York by Tim RT, on Flickr


Chinatowns (Both have them close to the financial district)

San Francisco:

San Francisco 11 by Eloy Rodriguez, on Flickr

Manhattan:

Untitled by Dennis Hilding, on Flickr


Little Italy (Same situation with Chinatown, but SF's is also called North Beach)

San Francisco:

North Beach - Festival Booths by roland luistro, on Flickr


Manhattan:

Little Italy by Jørn Erik Langedal, on Flickr


Neighborhoods known for countercultural/ LGBT movements


San Francisco (Castro):


San Francisco 2008 by aurelien23, on Flickr

(Haight Ashbury)

Haight-Ashbury, San Francisco @ 2017.10.11 by GT, on Flickr

Manhattan (West Village):

rainy manhattan streets - west village - new york city by guney cuceloglu, on Flickr

(Greenwich Village)

Greenwich Village NYC by Ryan Price, on Flickr

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by spoonman

This is a lazy comparison. Besides having a Sea World park and being within 1M people, these cities aren't that similar.

-Both are home to multiple Spanish missions.
-Both are each of their state's "third city."
-Obviously, both are named for saints.
-Both have roughly the same population, though San Diego has the edge in the metro area.
-Both are still growing.
-Both were founded by the Spanish.
-As you noted, Sea World is in both.

I could go on. It was calculated and hardly just a lazy shot in the dark.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

-Obviously, both are named for saints.

i thought san diego is german for "whale's vagina".

is that not accurate? have i been misinformed?

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by Denvergotback

Honestly if I had to compare Seattle to any city I think it would have to be Denver, yes they are unique in their own rights and no two cities are the same, but when I'm in Seattle it just reminds me so much of Denver (not topography or weather wise, but the feel and culture of the city) There is just something eerie familiar between the two.

Now out of cities I've been too I would have to say the cities that are most similar would have to be Dallas, Phoenix, and Houston. Go to one of those and it almost feels like you've been to the other two. Outside of their urban cores (although I'm still not convinced Phoenix even has one) They are all pretty un-distinct and identity-less. I lived in Phoenix for a few years and flew to Dallas for my first time, got out of the airport and outside of there being humidity and a few more trees I honestly felt like I was still in Phoenix. Maybe I'm wrong but that's just how I view it.

Phoenix feels like the Inland Empire more so than Houston or Dallas. Atlanta would be the analogue to those two.

[The Chemist]

I've always felt that London's Canary Wharf and Shanghai's Lujiazui (what most people call Pudong) are quite similar:
1. Newly developed areas (both started major development in the late 20th century, though Canary Wharf was a little earlier)
2. Lots of skyscrapers and home to each respective city's tallest building (though this isn't true anymore with the Shard being built)
3. Major financial hub
4. Derided as being a bit unwalkable / not vibrant
5. Located on a major bend in a river (basically a peninsula) - the Isle of Dogs is formed by a 180 degree bend in the Thames, and Lujiazui is on a point that is formed by not quite as dramatic a bend in the Huangpu, but it's still at least a 135 degree bend.

[dc_denizen]

One central difference between Montreal and Brooklyn is that Montreal lacks the quantity of high end brownstones of central Brooklyn and park slope. These were not built as working class housing and it shows. Beyond that, yes the working class multi family areas are indeed very similar (also similar to philly). downtown Montreal struck me as more like Boston than Philly and nothing like Brooklyn’s slightly chaotic and variable downtown

Montreals wealthy probably lived on the west side of town in houses rather than brownstones

[dc_denizen]

Sorry but San Antonio is nothing like San Diego. Ever been to Carlsbad? North county beach towns? What San Antonio suburbs look like this? What about Cabrillo? Where is San Diego’s river walk? San Diego is a military and nautical city—aircraft carriers, f-18s, ULA...also sanantonio is a hugely Hispanic city like Miami while San Diego is more white.

I don’t see it.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

One central difference between Montreal and Brooklyn is that Montreal lacks the quantity of high end brownstones of central Brooklyn and park slope. These were not built as working class housing and it shows. Beyond that, yes the working class multi family areas are indeed very similar (also similar to philly). downtown Montreal struck me as more like Boston than Philly and nothing like Brooklyn’s slightly chaotic and variable downtown

Montreals wealthy probably lived on the west side of town in houses rather than brownstones

I would say Boston looks a bit more like Montreal, but, yeah Philly and Brooklyn have some similarities too. Montreal lacks the high end/high density brownstone blocks like in Brooklyn Heights and Park Slope, but, yeah, once you go out to Bensonhurst and Sheepshead Bay, the rowhouses in Brooklyn aren't that different from Montreal.

Brooklyn is mischaracterized as a brownstone borough, though. While this is its iconic typology, and is quite prevalent, it's really an apartment borough. Even the brownstone neighborhoods have apartment buildings interspersed everywhere. Your typical Brooklyn Heights resident is living in an elevator building, even though the neighborhood is famed for brownstones. In contrast, Philly and Baltimore are true rowhouse cities, with few apartment buildings.

[Omaharocks]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

-Both are home to multiple Spanish missions.
-Both are each of their state's "third city."
-Obviously, both are named for saints.
-Both have roughly the same population, though San Diego has the edge in the metro area.
-Both are still growing.
-Both were founded by the Spanish.
-As you noted, Sea World is in both.

I could go on. It was calculated and hardly just a lazy shot in the dark.

Yeah, i think that's actually one of the better comparisons in this thread. Culturally both feel very similar as well - heavily hispanic, middle-of-the-road politics, and large military/air force presence. The tourist districts/downtowns feel very similar as well.

[The North One]

How is San Francisco not opulent at all? It has some of the grandest architecture in the country. A lot of it looks seedy, but it's still grand. What would be an example of an opulent US city if not SF?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by The North One

How is San Francisco not opulent at all? It has some of the grandest architecture in the country. A lot of it looks seedy, but it's still grand.

Which core SF neighborhood would you describe as "opulent"? Where is this preponderance of "grand architecture"?

Affluent core SF neigborhoods look like this. Nice looking, but not exactly beaux arts Vienna:

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8017...7i13312!8i6656