Sibling Cities

[Chef]

This is hard to do for the Twin Cities because of the dual nature. The best I can come up with is that Minneapolis is like a larger and more urban Madison while St Paul is a smaller Winnipeg.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Michigan Avenue? So? And all the Northern cities have large black populations from the central Southern states. A downtown circulator train track? You mean that toy train that meanders through downtown is comparable to the nation's second biggest rail system?

No way. Detroit and Chicago are as similar as STL and Chicago or Minneapolis and Chicago or... whatever...

Seriously. I think the fact that Detroit has no mass transit system comparable to the CTA is alone enough to rule out any kind of "sibling"-like relationship.

Then again... Chicago : House :: Detroit : Techno...

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Chicago : House :: Detroit : Techno...

Like.

[sashyenka]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I've always thought of Denver as a sort of smaller sibling to San Francisco that went down a very different path. Both were founded 10 years apart as the epicenter of a respective gold rush (1849 for San Fran, and 1958 for Denver). They were the largest cities west of the Mississippi for much of the west's early history and had similar population growth trends (San Fran always several times larger, 298,997 by 1890 to Denver's 106,713 the same year). Both also have the largest collection of Victorian buildings in the US.

They since have gone down very different paths, San Francisco became a world class port city that continued to boom, while Denver entered a series of boom-and-bust cycles and didn't really start growing again until the late 20th century. Aesthetically they are also quite different since many of San Francisco's brick Victorian structures were destroyed in the earthquake, while Denver's Victorians are mostly still red brick structures.

I think Calgary is a much more obvious sibling to Denver save for perhaps the Victorian home stock.

[quattordici]

New Orleans and Mobile are frighteningly similar. Geographically, historically, architecturally, economically, etc... etc... etc...

In many ways Pittsburgh and Birmingham are siblings as well. Both found success in the iron/steel industry, fell into decline and are now reinventing themselves in the health, tech, and education sectors (though Pitt is doing so on a larger scale). They differ in geography as it relates to water, but both are situated in or near areas that are rich in coal and iron ore; in addition to both being set in hilly/mountainous areas.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

No way. Detroit and Chicago are as similar as STL and Chicago or Minneapolis and Chicago or... whatever...

Well... Yeah... That's kind of the point. There is a strong relation between the Midwest cities. Midwest cities are probably more similar to each other than a set of cities in any other region in the country.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Seriously. I think the fact that Detroit has no mass transit system comparable to the CTA is alone enough to rule out any kind of "sibling"-like relationship.

Then again... Chicago : House :: Detroit : Techno...

But Detroit was built around what was one of the largest mass transit systems in the world at the time.

There's also Detroit jit, Chicago juke.

• Video Link

• Video Link

[Crawford]

Detroit and Chicago have obvious strong parallels, especially in food, music, ethnic makeup, roadway system, residential vernacular, Big 10 culture. The "average" person in some random suburb looks and talks the same, vacations in the same places, and follows the same sports.

Obviously the Great Lakes cities will have similarities, just like the Northeast cities have similarities, or the Southwest cities have similarities. Geography plays a strong role in carving out relationships between cities.

So I'm surprised that folks think Dallas and Houston, for example, are radically different. That sounds really weird to me. Do they think Dallas and San Francisco, for example, or Dallas and Boston, are more similar than Dallas and Houston?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

And all the Northern cities have large black populations from the central Southern states.

Also, that is not true. Black migration from the south was region specific. Black migrants to Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, Cleveland, etc. came from the same areas of the South, primarily Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Tennessee. Migrants to NYC, Philadelphia, Baltimore tended to come from the coastal states: Virginia, Carolinas, Georgia, Florida. And not all big northern cities have large black populations (e.g. Minneapolis, Boston).

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Detroit and Chicago have obvious strong parallels, especially in food, music, ethnic makeup, roadway system, residential vernacular, Big 10 culture. The "average" person in some random suburb looks and talks the same, vacations in the same places, and follows the same sports.

Obviously the Great Lakes cities will have similarities, just like the Northeast cities have similarities, or the Southwest cities have similarities. Geography plays a strong role in carving out relationships between cities.

So I'm surprised that folks think Dallas and Houston, for example, are radically different. That sounds really weird to me. Do they think Dallas and San Francisco, for example, or Dallas and Boston, are more similar than Dallas and Houston?

Yeah, I think that some (not all) Chicago residents just have issues with Chicago being compared to cities that they view as lesser.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Also, that is not true. Black migration from the south was region specific. Black migrants to Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, Cleveland, etc. came from the same areas of the South, primarily Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Tennessee. Migrants to NYC, Philadelphia, Baltimore tended to come from the coastal states: Virginia, Carolinas, Georgia, Florida. And not all big northern cities have large black populations (e.g. Minneapolis, Boston).

This is true. The vast majority of blacks in Detroit and Chicago hail from MS, AL, LA, etc. and you hear the distinct accents. In the Northeast, most U.S.-originated blacks hail from the Carolinas, and the older folks, especially, have a distinct twang.

But probably the biggest difference in the AA populations is the foreign-born aspect. Northeast AA populations, particularly in the NYC area have a very heavy Carribean presence, and a pretty big West African presence. I would not be surprised at all if most Brooklyn AAs have roots in the West Indies.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

But probably the biggest difference in the AA populations is the foreign-born aspect. Northeast AA populations, particularly in the NYC area have a very heavy Carribean presence, and a pretty big West African presence. I would not be surprised at all if most Brooklyn AAs have roots in the West Indies.

Brooklyn was around 50/50 the last time I saw stats for it. I would liken the situation for West African and West Indian descended blacks to that of Puerto Ricans. The migration patterns were very similar. The vast majority went almost exclusively to NYC for half a century, and only within the last decade or so are starting to fan out to other areas of the country in any meaningful numbers.

ETA: This is why so many of the famous rappers are West Indian descended, despite West Indians only making up about 6-7% of the black American population.

[Segun]

One small difference between the Black Accent of Chicago and Detroit comes out in words like "Their"

Black Chicagoans say "Deaah"
Black Detroiters say "Dare"

Other words too, Detroiters have that way of pronouncing "Him" like "Heem", the same way Black Los Angelinos do, and Black Chicagoans for some reason pronounce car like "Cah", like Boston.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Also, that is not true. Black migration from the south was region specific. Black migrants to Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, Cleveland, etc. came from the same areas of the South, primarily Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Tennessee. Migrants to NYC, Philadelphia, Baltimore tended to come from the coastal states: Virginia, Carolinas, Georgia, Florida. And not all big northern cities have large black populations (e.g. Minneapolis, Boston).

Yeah, sorry, I read that wrong. I didn't read the word "central"...

I think that some (not all) Chicago residents just have issues with Chicago being compared to cities that they view as lesser.

This is just absurd. This thread was started by a Chicagoan noting this huge similarities between Chicago and Milwaukee.

Look, if you wanna split hairs, that's fine. Of course Chicago and Detroit share similarities... as all the Upper Midwest cities do. But in no way are the two sibling cities. I just don't see it. That's like saying NYC and Boston are sibling cities... it's just not there.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

...
squealing train brakes
...

One tiny technicality just so I can be obnoxious ...

The squeal you hear from the "L" aren't brakes, it's the sound of the wheels sliding against the steel rails when the train goes around a corner. The CTA greases the curves, but it's not 100% effective, plus when the grease wears off you get the squeals again.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

But in no way are the two sibling cities. I just don't see it. That's like saying NYC and Boston are sibling cities... it's just not there.

Thank you for your opinion.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

That's like saying NYC and Boston are sibling cities... it's just not there.

Well you and I definitely differ, because I would say that NYC and Boston are sibling cities.

I mean, if you were to pair up NYC with random U.S. cities (say Dallas, Tampa, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Seattle, and Boston), you're seriously claiming that Boston doesn't stand out from the others?

Look at the ethnic makeup (Irish/Italian/Portugese/West Indian/Dominican), the distinct accents, the professional sports passion (and college sports relative irrelevence), the colonial legacy, the crazy street patterns and drivers, the food similarities (pizza, seafood, West Indian), the private colleges, the economic bases (banking, tech, services), etc.

If you took a typical suburb on the North Shore of Long Island and compared it to a typical suburb just west of Boston, they could hardly be more similar. They look almost exactly the same, except Long Island has maybe a bit more modernist architecture.

Granted, they aren't exactly the same, but that's obvious. Every place has unique attributes. Queens and Brooklyn look totally different. Doesn't mean that they aren't more similar than Queens and El Paso.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Well you and I definitely differ, because I would say that NYC and Boston are sibling cities.

I mean, if you were to pair up NYC with random U.S. cities (say Dallas, Tampa, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Seattle, and Boston), you're seriously claiming that Boston doesn't stand out from the others?

Look at the ethnic makeup (Irish/Italian/Portugese/West Indian/Dominican), the distinct accents, the professional sports passion (and college sports relative irrelevence), the colonial legacy, the crazy street patterns and drivers, the food similarities (pizza, seafood, West Indian), the private colleges, the economic bases (banking, tech, services), etc.

If you took a typical suburb on the North Shore of Long Island and compared it to a typical suburb just west of Boston, they could hardly be more similar. They look almost exactly the same, except Long Island has maybe a bit more modernist architecture.

Granted, they aren't exactly the same, but that's obvious. Every place has unique attributes. Queens and Brooklyn look totally different. Doesn't mean that they aren't more similar than Queens and El Paso.

I think the issue here is that everybody has a different definition of "sibling". But Chicago and Detroit are far more alike than NYC and Boston, IMO. In terms of big cities (regional populations > 4M), I can't think of two other cities more closely related than Chicago and Detroit, besides maybe Houston and Dallas.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I think the issue here is that everybody has a different definition of "sibling". But Chicago and Detroit are far more alike than NYC and Boston, IMO. In terms of big cities (regional populations > 4M), I can't think of two other cities more closely related than Chicago and Detroit, besides maybe Houston and Dallas.

I would probably agree with this. If we're just talking the biggest cities, then yes.

Certainly Philly is closer to NYC in feel than Boston is to NYC. But I think that Boston and NYC have some pretty strong similarities.

[novawolverine]

I agree. I think NYC and Philly are more like siblings than Boston and NYC, but there are certainly enough similarities still to make the argument. I think it's tough to call whether Chicago and Detroit are more alike than NYC and Philly. There are a lot of variables that we probably weigh differently.