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.
All of those are in the same general region (Deep South, Southwest)...different subregions though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter1948
NO and Charleston are both southern. I think the OP meant cities in the west vs east, etc?
Okay people jeesh I get it lol. I was more so answering the question in terms of subregion/distance, as Mutiny77 pointed out. NO is in the Louisiana bayou and around 800 miles away from the coastal city of Charleston(same distance as NYC and Chicago). Didn't realize we were being so strict with the term region but yes if we are being strict about the term region then neither of my responses are valid answers at all haha.
I voted for New York and Chicago, obviously Chicago is a lot smaller. Chicago and Toronto is a better fit size wise.
Another one that no one mentioned is Boston and San Francisco. I tend to associate them with each other because they are both rather small in land area and both were built on peninsulas. Boston even has some small hills. Granted Boston has filled in a lot of the bays so its orginial peninsula position does not stand out as much anymore.
Boston used to be a lot Hillier, Copps and Beacon hill were cut down to fill in parts of South Bay and the North End. breeds Hill was cut to fill in near Charlestown Neck.
Grand Rapids, MI and Rochester, NY are pretty similar. Both have ~1,000,000 metro and 200,000 city, both weathered deindustrialization pretty well compatedd to most mid-sized northern cities.
I've always thought Detroit and Los Angeles shared similarities in terms of their built environments, wide arterial roads, robust freeway networks, and a blue-collar/industrial heritage. Obviously, LA has a totally different topography, climate, etc., but I always thought the multipolar environment of each city and neighborhoods of detached single family homes shared some similarities because both cities had their initial booms around the same time.
Interestingly enough, I feel like if Detroit and Los Angeles swapped their key industry (Automotive industry and Entertainment industry) with each other that they would both be better off and would individually stand to gain enormous benefits.
Greater Los Angeles today on the Pacific Rim is an incredible location for the automobile industry, especially as a manufacturing center, shipping center, and design center. Greater Los Angeles also has a skilled and diversified workforce that can be implemented. Every car commercial is already more or less shot in Greater Los Angeles as it is. Plus it would give the automotive industry a location on the Pacific Rim; better to increase market share and export cars overseas.
Greater Detroit today, due to decades of decline, has some of the most unique streetscape and cityscapes in the entire country. The metropolitan area is not lacking in anything, it has plenty of poor, middle-class, and rich neighborhoods and suburbs. So it can cater to all crowds. The entertainment industry would thrive in Greater Detroit because of its central location in the United States that puts it in the middle of tens of millions of people in every direction and the fact that just about any type of scenic location or cityscape for any film or television show can be found en masse in Greater Detroit or somewhere in close proximity in Michigan. Making it an ideal set and location.
Just my personal thoughts.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 08-10-2016 at 11:34 AM..
All of those are in the same general region (Deep South, Southwest)...different subregions though.
What do you mean different sub regions? Tucson and El Paso aren't too far off from each other on similarity and only 5 hours apart tops. Tucson is the middle ground of the two giants (California and Texas) and Tucson hands down is more like El Paso, I don't even have to go there to know that. Sure they are in different deserts, but other than that I don't see why a different "sub region"
Interestingly enough, I feel like if Detroit and Los Angeles swapped their key industry (Automotive industry and Entertainment industry) with each other that they would both be better off and would individually stand to gain enormous benefits.
Greater Los Angeles today on the Pacific Rim is an incredible location for the automobile industry, especially as a manufacturing center, shipping center, and design center. Greater Los Angeles also has a skilled and diversified workforce that can be implemented. Every car commercial is already more or less shot in Greater Los Angeles as it is. Plus it would give the automotive industry a location on the Pacific Rim; better to increase market share and export cars overseas.
Greater Detroit today, due to decades of decline, has some of the most unique streetscape and cityscapes in the entire country. The metropolitan area is not lacking in anything, it has plenty of poor, middle-class, and rich neighborhoods and suburbs. So it can cater to all crowds. The entertainment industry would thrive in Greater Detroit because of its central location in the United States that puts it in the middle of tens of millions of people in every direction and the fact that just about any type of scenic location or cityscape for any film or television show can be found en masse in Greater Detroit or somewhere in close proximity in Michigan. Making it an ideal set and location.
Just my personal thoughts.
Good answers. More or less along what I was thinking in some ways too. On that note, most car companies have their design headquarters in Southern California, and Hyundai has its North American HQ in Fountain Valley, a suburb in Orange County. Toyota, Honda, and Nissan initially built their North American HQ's in Southern California back in the 1980s, although Toyota is moving a lot of operations to Plano, Texas (outside Dallas) and Nissan relocated their North American HQ's to Nashville.
On that note, the Southern US seems to have a robust automobile manufacturing presence nowadays. Mercedes and Hyundai have manufacturing plants in Alabama, Nissan has theirs in Mississippi and Tennessee, Kia has a plant in Georgia, BMW is in South Carolina, and Toyota has a factory in Kentucky. Volkswagen is in Chattanooga. Although not in the south, Honda has manufacturing operations in Ohio.
While the entertainment industry has a strong presence in Southern California, much of California's initial growth was due to oil, gold, finance (San Francisco was long the headquarters for many West Coast banks before Los Angeles embraced its location as a bridge between Latin America, North America, and the Pacific Rim), defense contracting, and aerospace. The industrial heritage in Los Angeles is very strong, although a lot more reduced nowadays.
Detroit does have a lot of good "bones" for film making - especially for classic Americana scenery in its suburbs, and dystopian landscapes in the city itself, but it seems that Georgia is the hotbed for film making outside of California nowadays due to lots of tax incentives in the state for the movie industry, and the weather in Georgia is a lot more favorable for year-long filming versus Michigan, where its cold for almost half of the year. Georgia also has mountainous landscapes north of Atlanta. Due to Georgia being right-to-work, that's been an incentive for the movie industry as well, versus Michigan, which is a lot more unionized.
I've also heard from people that DFW and Kansas City are similar, or more so that DFW is like a larger version of it. Cannot verify, as I have never been to Kansas City, but it seems reasonable. That said, I always considered Kansas-Missouri and Texas to be in the same region, the Great Plains region, though not the one considered a subgroup of the Midwest.
So do you think that STL is just a more emptied-out Baltimore? Are there cultural/demographic similarities or are all those votes just based on the two things stated in the OP (our architecture isn't really that similar)? Baltimore/Philly would have been a better poll option.
I'd say Atlanta and Houston. I'm sure people will disagree but Texas is not the "real" south.
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.
