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.
Phoenix and Tucson are similar in their desert climates but Tucson is clearly the lonelier, poorer, more disheveled sibling with a more dramatic backdrop. Las Vegas and Phoenix might be regarded as similar, but I don't usually lump them together. Phoenix has a lot more vegetation and tree-lined neighborhoods while Las Vegas will always be barren. The night-and-day difference in nightlife and entertainment is a major reason to not connect the two.
Seattle and San Francisco (and Oakland?) are easily comparable with all that water, vibrant downtowns and large hills. For some reason, Pittsburgh might be similar in many ways as well (water, hills, and downtown).
Milwaukee compares to Cleveland in many ways. Both are mid-sized lakefront towns with heavy industry. Buffalo might be another one to add. Detroit is too far removed from its waterfront and too extreme and unique an example of rust belt to consider here.
Houston and Dallas are too different. Houston equals swamp. Dallas is like a large Chicago suburb. It has a very mid-western look to it and could compare more easily to Denver (sans mountains).
San Diego and Orange County are interchangeable, but don't tell them I said that.
How about El Paso and Albuquerque? San Antonio and Nashville?
Boulder thinks it is EXTREMELY unique and EXTREMELY sophisticated.
Well isn't it? I've been there and was extremely impressed albeit a bit too liberal for me.
Quote:
Phoenix and Tucson are similar in their desert climates but Tucson is clearly the lonelier, poorer, more disheveled sibling with a more dramatic backdrop. Las Vegas and Phoenix might be regarded as similar, but I don't usually lump them together. Phoenix has a lot more vegetation and tree-lined neighborhoods while Las Vegas will always be barren. The night-and-day difference in nightlife and entertainment is a major reason to not connect the two.
Very true that's why I cannot put Tucson and Phoenix together. They're very different except for the terrain. Phoenix and Vegas are comparable.
Tucson is far more liberal than Phoenix. Very different atmosphere.
Two cities? I would say Seattle and San Francisco. If you were happy in one you'd be happy in the other. Just need more money in Frisco. If money is not an issue than you can't go wrong with either city.
IF KC weren't so much smaller than St. Louis I'd argue for a comparison there too. Both Midwestern and at the pretty much the same latitude. Both in Missouri. Both on I-70. Both look very similar landscape wise, at least in Missouri. Both located at the confluence of multiple rivers, and both located on the Missouri River.
Quote:
Boulder thinks it is EXTREMELY unique and EXTREMELY sophisticated.
Well isn't it? I've been there and was extremely impressed albeit a bit too liberal for me.
Unique? Only in the sense that every place is unique, as in unlike somewhere else. Sophisticated? Hardly. When "the best of Boulder" comes out in the paper, many chain stores are voted the "best" in their category, including some fast food outlets. That is just one example.
I would contend that Saint Louis is much more Eastern feeling than KCMO. KCMO is a prairie city, Saint Louis didn't give me that feeling. Both cities are lovely, but pretty different.
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.