Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seattle & Portland: both are the primary cities in the NW, have a predominant hipster culture, are very white, have gloomy weather, and are proponents of walkable streets. Differences: Seattle has much worse traffic congestion, feels more like a coastal city, is more urban, more corporate, denser, bigger city overall, Portland has a more walkable downtown, Seattle has urban pockets throughout the city whereas Portland is more centered around downtown, Seattle is very hilly.
Houston & Dallas & Austin: general opinion on the forums colors these cities as very similar.
Los Angeles & the rest of Southen California: LA is truly urban, lined street grids, dense housing, no zoning regulation meaning that in most streets you'll find a house next to a liquor store next to a church next to a car repair shop next to a super market next to a school next to an apartment complex... The rest of Southern California is all zoned with miles upon miles of winding streets of houses with culdesacs, and all retail is zoned together in shopping malls, all offices are gathered into office parks, and anything industrial is sectioned into its own area. Whereas LA's places of interest are scattered throughout the entire city, SoCal's suburban cities have their own little downtowns (or usually one Main Street) where all places of interest are concentrated in.
SF and its metro are hugely diverse compared to Seattle. SF is part of huge metro more than twice the size of the Seattle metro. SF has hilly wooded neighborhoods similar to some of Seattles but it also has a huge variety of urban dense neighborhoods.
SF has bigger and better Universities - UC SF, Berkeley, Stanford, University of SF, many smaller private colleges within 15-30mins of the city.
SF is much more hilly with bigger hills; it's denser, way more people on the streets. More buildings, more and varied transportation options. It's got heavy rail, light rail, street cars, cable cars - a special and amazing type of streetcar. Ferries, commuter rail - Caltrain, Capitol Corridor.
Bridges are bigger and more spectacular. Bay Bridge, Golden Gate Bridge
SF has access to 3 major airports. SF/SJ/OAK. Seattle only one.
SF is brighter and sunnier than Seattle even though it gets daily fog. SF receives 3 times the amount of sunshine with 3 times the amount of clear days compared to Seattle. SF fog is a spectacular weather phenomenon that rolls over twin peaks and pours into the hills and mini valleys of SF. and rolls over the Golden Gate into the Bay.
SF has a huge ocean beach. Seattle doesn't have a large ocean beach. SF has more piers that are interconnected with the waterfront/bay. SF has access (15mins) to beautiful secluded ocean beaches both north and south of it with consistent big waves for surfing. Often the waves just inside the golden gate are doable for surfing.
SF is overall 10-15 degrees warmer than Seattle in the Winter/Spring. Winter rain storms last twice as long and are twice as numerous in Seattle than SF. SF has access to dramatically different daily weather-micro-climates in the Spring/Summer/Fall. Within 15mins across the Golden Gate you are in full warm California Sun in Marin County 10-20 degrees warmer.
Museums/Quality Restaurants/Galleries - SF has twice has much and more varied than Seattle.
SF's baseball park is more beautiful and sits directly next to SF Bay with water craft access. A marina sits next to the stadium.
Next year, the SF 49ers will have a better football stadium than Seattle - BUT it won't be in SF!
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,464,896 times
Reputation: 12187
Louisville and Cincinnati. Everyone thinks that since Louisville borders Indiana and Cincinnati borders Kentucky that they are both some composite of Northern and Southern culture. Problem is the areas of Indiana near Louisville are Southern in culture, accent, and it was settled by people from Kentucky and North Carolina while the areas of Kentucky across from Cincinnati are very Northern in accent and culture. I routinely mistake native Northern Kentuckians for being from Michigan or Pennsylvania.
Politcally Louisville is also a center left city while Cincinnati is a center right city (maybe even far right).
Having lived in Atlanta, I always heard Houston was very similar (more so than Dallas). I finally visited Houston and it didn't remind me of Atlanta at all. I'd say Dallas and Atlanta are way more similar than Houston and Atlanta.
Baton Rouge, Lafayette, and New Orleans. People think that each city is close to one another because of their locations in south Louisiana. Each city has a very different history and culture actually.
Seattle isn't exactly like Portland or exactly like San Francisco--there's enough differences that they're not totally alike in many ways--and they all look fairly different in plenty of ways(both geographically and architecturally) along with some demographic differences.
On the other hand though, there's no other two cities that feel more similar in other broad ways to Seattle than Portland and San Francisco(Seattle sort of sits between the two cities in many ways on a range of things). Seattle's a bigger league city than Portland, but it's some steps behind San Francisco. Seattle doesn't strike me at all like a Midwestern or Northeastern or Southern city(or anything like LA or a lot of Sunbelt cities).
So to say that Seattle is very different than Portland or San Francisco, begs the question, what city would it actually be anything like?
Seattle & Portland: both are the primary cities in the NW, have a predominant hipster culture, are very white, have gloomy weather, and are proponents of walkable streets. Differences: Seattle has much worse traffic congestion, feels more like a coastal city, is more urban, more corporate, denser, bigger city overall, Portland has a more walkable downtown, Seattle has urban pockets throughout the city whereas Portland is more centered around downtown, Seattle is very hilly.
Houston & Dallas & Austin: general opinion on the forums colors these cities as very similar.
Los Angeles & the rest of Southen California: LA is truly urban, lined street grids, dense housing, no zoning regulation meaning that in most streets you'll find a house next to a liquor store next to a church next to a car repair shop next to a super market next to a school next to an apartment complex... The rest of Southern California is all zoned with miles upon miles of winding streets of houses with culdesacs, and all retail is zoned together in shopping malls, all offices are gathered into office parks, and anything industrial is sectioned into its own area. Whereas LA's places of interest are scattered throughout the entire city, SoCal's suburban cities have their own little downtowns (or usually one Main Street) where all places of interest are concentrated in.
SF and its metro are hugely diverse compared to Seattle. SF is part of huge metro more than twice the size of the Seattle metro. SF has hilly wooded neighborhoods similar to some of Seattles but it also has a huge variety of urban dense neighborhoods.
SF has bigger and better Universities - UC SF, Berkeley, Stanford, University of SF, many smaller private colleges within 15-30mins of the city.
SF is much more hilly with bigger hills; it's denser, way more people on the streets. More buildings, more and varied transportation options. It's got heavy rail, light rail, street cars, cable cars - a special and amazing type of streetcar. Ferries, commuter rail - Caltrain, Capitol Corridor.
Bridges are bigger and more spectacular. Bay Bridge, Golden Gate Bridge
SF has access to 3 major airports. SF/SJ/OAK. Seattle only one.
SF is brighter and sunnier than Seattle even though it gets daily fog. SF receives 3 times the amount of sunshine with 3 times the amount of clear days compared to Seattle. SF fog is a spectacular weather phenomenon that rolls over twin peaks and pours into the hills and mini valleys of SF. and rolls over the Golden Gate into the Bay.
SF has a huge ocean beach. Seattle doesn't have a large ocean beach. SF has more piers that are interconnected with the waterfront/bay. SF has access (15mins) to beautiful secluded ocean beaches both north and south of it with consistent big waves for surfing. Often the waves just inside the golden gate are doable for surfing.
SF is overall 10-15 degrees warmer than Seattle in the Winter/Spring. Winter rain storms last twice as long and are twice as numerous in Seattle than SF. SF has access to dramatically different daily weather-micro-climates in the Spring/Summer/Fall. Within 15mins across the Golden Gate you are in full warm California Sun in Marin County 10-20 degrees warmer.
Museums/Quality Restaurants/Galleries - SF has twice has much and more varied than Seattle.
SF's baseball park is more beautiful and sits directly next to SF Bay with water craft access. A marina sits next to the stadium.
Next year, the SF 49ers will have a better football stadium than Seattle - BUT it won't be in SF!
I agree completely, but I'm not sure that anyone outside of Seattle actually suggests that the two cities are similar.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
