U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
Old 03-16-2010, 01:19 AM
1,645 posts, read 3,190,731 times
Reputation: 1381


Originally Posted by Smtchll View Post
Indianapolis- Nashville
St. Louis- Memphis
Pittsburgh- Birmingham
Cleveland- Mobile
Detroit- New Orleans
Chicago- Atlanta
The only things Detroit and New Orleans really have in common are the racial demographics and the fact that both cities are going through some rough times.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 03-16-2010, 01:32 AM
Location: The land of Chicago
867 posts, read 1,840,766 times
Reputation: 1121
my .02


that is all I can think of
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-16-2010, 11:08 PM
1,250 posts, read 2,116,144 times
Reputation: 278
The biggest stumbling blocks in comparing I have noticed is growth patterns are different between the regions, mainly due to when their growth occured. Another is the size of denser development as a result of the differnce in city sizes during WWII (good cutoff date for comparing development patterns). Also a number of the similarities are likely to only be temporary due to some of the pairs listed having diverging trends. Lastly a number of pairs exist between Southern Northern cities and Northern Southern cities due to being closer to each other. The strongest connections are history-based ones since those aren't subject to change.

The historical based ones seem to be.

Boston<>Charleston (Cultural hearths of their regions)
Pittsburgh<>Birmingham (Historical steel production)

The current pairs I see that may or may not be static are..
NYC<>Miami (Large foreign-born populations while people born there tend to move out)
Detroit<>New Orleans (Most troubled metros in their region for both different and similar reasons)

Having a hard time thinking of other ones that work well due a difference in North/South population trends. I also wouldn't be surprised if there are comparable rural areas in each half. Also I would not pair cities closer than 300 miles or so apart since there will be similarities due to closeness. (Why I can't put St. Louis<>Memphis or Indianapolis<>Nashville)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-10-2010, 08:32 PM
Location: WISC
57 posts, read 55,866 times
Reputation: 41
Milwaukee=New Orleans
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-10-2010, 09:31 PM
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
18,628 posts, read 27,042,193 times
Reputation: 9576
I am amazed at the number of people that said Chicago-Houston. But I can actually see that. Both cities demographics are nearly identical. Houston's strong growth and job market is what Chicago was in the late 19th century and early 20th century. There's probably many more similarities that are out there but I don't feel like looking them up. But Houston is obviously more spread out than Chicago.

As for Dallas-Fort Worth. I would say Minneapolis-St. Paul. For Austin, I would say Columbus.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-14-2013, 07:43 PM
Location: Who Cares, USA
2,343 posts, read 2,749,988 times
Reputation: 2258
Late to the party here, but I just have to say that I really don't get all the comparisons of Chicago to Houston, or DFW to Minneapolis. At least other than the fact that Minneapolis/St. Paul are "twin cities", in (sort of) the same way Dallas and Fort Worth are. Other than that - two VERY different metros. As for Chicago to Houston, well, both cities sit on flat land, have tall skylines (Chicago's being significantly taller/bigger than Houston's), and both have sprawling suburbs, just like any top 10 city does... but other than that? No comparison. Houston may be in a process of "bulking up" it's inner city, densifying daily... but Chicago still remains much more dense, and has been for decades. The architecture is quite different. Then there's the fact that Chicago is a waterfront city, whereas Houston, though in close proximity to the Gulf of Mexico, is not.

As for comparing Northern/Midwestern cities to Southern/Sunbelt cities, I really can't think of any two cities that even come close, except maybe for Memphis and Cincinnati (which borders on the South anyway). It doesn't mean that one is better (or worse) than the other. That's subjective. They're just different. Two different kinds of economies have fueled growth in these respective regions, therefore there's going to be some pretty big differences. I do think that Minneapolis/St. Paul is kind of an anomaly for the North/Midwest. It looks and feels more "Western" than cities like Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, or Cleveland. Minneapolis, architecturally at least, has more in common with Seattle or Denver than it does with those places.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-14-2013, 08:57 PM
Location: Sandy Springs (ATL)
1,874 posts, read 2,361,629 times
Reputation: 1572
I was really starting to get annoyed with people coupling New Orleans and Detroit until I realized these opinions are from 2008...fair enough
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-14-2013, 09:12 PM
Location: The Heart of Dixie
7,815 posts, read 12,319,426 times
Reputation: 4766
Originally Posted by ajf131 View Post
Detroit to Atlanta...easy no brainer. I would also probably say that Chicago matches up to either Houston or Dallas. St. Louis, Cincinnati, Minneapolis, and perhaps Pittsburgh although that may be stretching it, match up to Louisville, New Orleans, and Memphis. Pittsburgh I would match to Charlotte. Pittsburgh definitely to Birmingham...Birmingham isn't called "The Pittsburgh of the South" for nothing. I might match New York or Philadelphia to Miami. Probably either Philadelphia or New York. I think I agree about Charleston and Boston. Nashville reminds me of Indianapolis or Columbus somewhat..similar in size to those two cities, although its landscape is drastically, drastically different.
Atlanta is a booming Sunbelt metropolis while Detroit is a decayed, failed city that's losing population constantly. Detroit is also a factory town while Atlanta is a banking and business center. Physically Atlanta is much more modern. I don't think there is any major Southern city that can be matched with Detroit. If you are only talking about the ghetto aspect than maybe New Orleans, but New Orleans is not as bad as Detroit and has a lot more charm than Detroit does. I guess if I had to pick a northern city to match Atlanta up with its probably New York.

I think the Washington DC area can be nicely matched with Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-15-2013, 01:44 PM
Location: PG County, MD
582 posts, read 776,189 times
Reputation: 353
Baltimore and Norfolk. I've only been to each city a few times but they just felt similar.
Some smaller coastal cities in New England remind me of Annapolis.

But i've spent my whole life living in the country, so all cities look similar to me. I've only been to a handful.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-15-2013, 02:31 PM
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,414 posts, read 11,913,851 times
Reputation: 10533
I'd actually say New Orleans is most similar to New York. Or at least if you compared the two cities a hundred years ago they would have been twins. Both were the premier cities of their region of the country. Both had an economy built up on regional shipping. Both took in large numbers of immigrants from various European nations. There's even a New Orleans white urban dialect (Yat) which sounds like a New York accent. That said, the fortunes of the two cities have obviously diverged. In the present day I agree that Philly is probably the best comparison, as it's a good combination of history and grit.

While the Charleston/Boston comparison makes great sense regarding architecture, Boston ultimately ended up being a much more important city due to being a state capitol. While the old urban parts of Richmond are rather small, I do think a Richmond/Boston comparison might be more apt.

I'd say Columbus is a good match for Atlanta. Both cities are fairly sprawly, and have an urban core which is around half gentrified. Columbus has far more historic housing than is normal for a southern city, but it's a lot less intact than most northern cities.

Indianapolis has always strongly reminded me of a southern metro like Houston or Charlotte where essentially none of the old urban core survived.

Miami reminds me of Los Angeles. California fought on the Union side, so I think it's fair to say it's north.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top