Pittsburgh has an inferiority complex (Indiana, Clark: to live in, cabin, manufactured)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by highway29south

Since I've lived in only a few other places in my life so far, I am curious- are other cities as unique or more genertic than Pittsburgh?

Note: the following is mostly subjective, with a little descriptive stuff thrown in.

As a general matter, I find post-WWII developments in the United States, both residential and commercial, much more homogenous than pre-WWII developments. So the cities--or even more precisely, the parts of cities--that tend to strike me as having more in the way of unique character are the ones that date back to the pre-WWII period.

With that bit of background in mind, Pittsburgh has a pretty robust historic legacy in that regard. Of course it also has lots of post-WWII development, but relatively less so than many cities of its current size, ironically largely thanks to the decline and eventual bust of the steel industry. In that sense, we have a bigger historic core, and less of a modern veneer, than many other cities thanks to the steel boom-and-bust.

On top of that, you can add the aforementioned location in a cultural/linguistic region it doesn't share with any other major cities, plus the relatively dynamic local topography, which in turn helps feed the micro-neighborhood structure, and overall to me Pittsburgh does end up feeling more distinctive than many other cities I have experienced.

All that said, I'd say there are other cities in the U.S. that find their own (and sometimes a similar) path to an equivalent or higher level of uniqueness: I'd specifically name Boston, New York, Washington, Miami, Chicago, New Orleans, San Francisco, and Las Vegas, and I am sure you could make the case for some more.

So, rather than claiming Pittsburgh is uniquely unique, I'd just say that by my standards, it is above-average in uniqueness for a city of its current size.

[highway29south]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Note: the following is mostly subjective, with a little descriptive stuff thrown in.

As a general matter, I find post-WWII developments in the United States, both residential and commercial, much more homogenous than pre-WWII developments. So the cities--or even more precisely, the parts of cities--that tend to strike me as having more in the way of unique character are the ones that date back to the pre-WWII period.

With that bit of background in mind, Pittsburgh has a pretty robust historic legacy in that regard. Of course it also has lots of post-WWII development, but relatively less so than many cities of its current size, ironically largely thanks to the decline and eventual bust of the steel industry. In that sense, we have a bigger historic core, and less of a modern veneer, than many other cities thanks to the steel boom-and-bust.

On top of that, you can add the aforementioned location in a cultural/linguistic region it doesn't share with any other major cities, plus the relatively dynamic local topography, which in turn helps feed the micro-neighborhood structure, and overall to me Pittsburgh does end up feeling more distinctive than many other cities I have experienced.

All that said, I'd say there are other cities in the U.S. that find their own (and sometimes a similar) path to an equivalent or higher level of uniqueness: I'd specifically name Boston, New York, Washington, Miami, Chicago, New Orleans, San Francisco, and Las Vegas, and I am sure you could make the case for some more.

So, rather than claiming Pittsburgh is uniquely unique, I'd just say that by my standards, it is above-average in uniqueness for a city of its current size.

I tend to think of the cities you mentioned as pretty generic. They are all large, sky scraper type of places that have major influxes of people that have no common background. At least that is what I think when I hear of them. I am sure they all have a certain uniqueness though, and that is what I am curious about, from natives or people who have lived there before.

Pittsburgh is sure unique in it's history and the cultures of the people that settled here. Before I moved here, I had never heard of a pierogi or never met anyone Italian. The homes here are built close together, in the tradition of European style, something I had also not seen before. Even expression and ways of viewing things are different to people here. There tends to be more of a community style of interacting, whereas where I came from, people were very polite but also stayed to themselves. Very interesting, I think!

[fleetiebelle]

Someone mentioned Cincy being like Pittsburgh. In what way?

I'm originally from the Cincinnati burbs, and I'd say that Pgh and Cincy are similar in that they're river towns, settled around the same time (give or take), the topography is similar (though Pittsburgh seems much hillier to me.) Cincy's European influences are more Northern (German, English, Irish) than Pittsburgh's, which are more Southern and Eastern. Cincinnati is less industrial--Proctor and Gamble is the big employer, and there used to be lots of meat-packing, hence the Porkopolis nickname. You'll find a lot of similar architecture and cultural amenities, as well.

It's kind of funny, because even though I grew up in Cincinnati, I've seen and sought out much more of Pittsburgh in 8 years than I did in 20+ years in Cincy. I grew up there and got out.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by highway29south

I tend to think of the cities you mentioned as pretty generic. They are all large, sky scraper type of places that have major influxes of people that have no common background. At least that is what I think when I hear of them. I am sure they all have a certain uniqueness though, and that is what I am curious about, from natives or people who have lived there before.

Again, this is just my perspective:

New York is unique to me with respect to pure scale and density. I mean, people are actually living in those tall buildings, and no other city in the U.S. feels to me like wandering around Manhattan (although as an aside, there are large chunks of Brooklyn which actually remind me of Pittsburgh, or perhaps vice-versa). New York is also more connected to the rest of the world economically than any other U.S. city.

Boston is also an unusually dense city and to me stands out for the deep history and density of culture and universities. I also think it has a bit of the regional uniqueness, being really the only city of its size in New England.

Washington is on my list because it is actually a non-skyscraper city, thanks to regulation, and in that sense is the only major city in the U.S. that to me has something of the feel of a Paris. Of course, Washington is also dominated by the federal government in a way like no other major city.

I went back and forth on including Miami, because large chunks of it do feel pretty generic to me. But I included it for things like Miami Beach, a truly tropical climate, proximity to the Keys and Everglades, and its international cultural and economic links.

Chicago is indeed a skyscraper city, but I actually think it pulls it off in a way that still feels uniquely Chicago. In other words, it is the original, not the copy. Chicago also has a lot of local neighborhoods in a way that actually somewhat reminds me of Pittsburgh (but scaled up), and in general it has a Midwestern twist on megacity culture that I found appealing when I lived there.

I'm not really sure I have to say much in defense of New Orleans being unique: it literally comes out of a different cultural tradition from most of the United States.

San Franciso is actually a city that I think is unique for reasons similar to Pittsburgh: topography and a rich pre-WWII history. Again, as with Miami, I am more or less just ignoring the large chunks of the Bay Area which I consider far more generic.

Finally, Las Vegas to me is unique in ways that aren't necessarily very positive. Although other cities have some of this to a lesser degree, there is no city that to me so completely feels like an artificial oasis and boomtown as Las Vegas.

[Tinare]

Originally Posted by highway29south

I tend to think of the cities you mentioned as pretty generic. They are all large, sky scraper type of places that have major influxes of people that have no common background.

Really? For one thing, "major influxes of people that have no common background" pretty much describes the entire country. Heck, it describes international cities like London at this point.

I think each of those cities has very unique elements. In most of them, there are neighborhoods or sections that if I saw a picture of part of it, I'd know exactly where it is. For example, (just off the top of my head) the Back Bay area in Boston, numerous New York neighborhoods -- Greenwich Village, SoHo, Tribeca, etc., the French quarter in New Orleans, the Victorians and Lombardi Street in San Francisco, South Beach in Miami, and nothing else looks like anything in Las Vegas. I don't think "skyscraper" with D.C. either, as it doesn't have many tall buildings. With it's wide boulevards and circles it looks more European then anywhere else in the U.S. It was designed by a Frenchman afterall.

And accents. Boston, Chicago, New York, New Orleans -- all unique accents. You know exactly where people are from when you hear them speak. There's cuisine and local favorites unique to each of those cities. Most have major ethnic components that made a big mark in each city -- the Irish in Boston, Italians and eastern Europeans in Chicago, the French in New Orleans, Cubans in Miami, Chinese in San Francisco, and all those and more in NYC. Most have some music or art scene attached to them. New Orleans Jazz, latin rhythms in Miami, and heck, there are bands named Chicago and Boston that have their own sound... The most bland to me from a cultural standpoint would be Vegas, but, for better or worse, that is one unique town.

[highway29south]

Originally Posted by Tinare

Really? For one thing, "major influxes of people that have no common background" pretty much describes the entire country. Heck, it describes international cities like London at this point.

I think each of those cities has very unique elements. In most of them, there are neighborhoods or sections that if I saw a picture of part of it, I'd know exactly where it is. For example, (just off the top of my head) the Back Bay area in Boston, numerous New York neighborhoods -- Greenwich Village, SoHo, Tribeca, etc., the French quarter in New Orleans, the Victorians and Lombardi Street in San Francisco, South Beach in Miami, and nothing else looks like anything in Las Vegas. I don't think "skyscraper" with D.C. either, as it doesn't have many tall buildings. With it's wide boulevards and circles it looks more European then anywhere else in the U.S. It was designed by a Frenchman afterall.

And accents. Boston, Chicago, New York, New Orleans -- all unique accents. You know exactly where people are from when you hear them speak. There's cuisine and local favorites unique to each of those cities. Most have major ethnic components that made a big mark in each city -- the Irish in Boston, Italians and eastern Europeans in Chicago, the French in New Orleans, Cubans in Miami, Chinese in San Francisco, and all those and more in NYC. Most have some music or art scene attached to them. New Orleans Jazz, latin rhythms in Miami, and heck, there are bands named Chicago and Boston that have their own sound... The most bland to me from a cultural standpoint would be Vegas, but, for better or worse, that is one unique town.

Very true. I've never personally experienced any of these cities so other than what I am aware of from other people or tourist info, I know pretty much nil on any of them. They are pretty different when you get down to it, I guess it just seems like there is not a core community to many of them.

And too, I am thinking from the Pittsburgh perspective. People from Pittsburgh tend to think of themselves as a community no matter where they live (hence the Steeler Nation all over the nation). A lot of people here are natives and therefore there is not a lot of population moving in and out (well, maybe out more than in!), preserving that feeling of oneness. It's not really a big tourist destination as a whole either.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by highway29south

I guess it just seems like there is not a core community to many of them.

I think I know what you mean, and I would agree in most of the cases I cited. Among other things, they are just too big for that sort of feeling to emerge.

I'm not sure about New Orleans, however. Of course Katrina may have changed everything (I haven't been there since), but at least beforehand I got the sense they also had a core community in the way I think you are expressing.

[highway29south]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I think I know what you mean, and I would agree in most of the cases I cited. Among other things, they are just too big for that sort of feeling to emerge.

I'm not sure about New Orleans, however. Of course Katrina may have changed everything (I haven't been there since), but at least beforehand I got the sense they also had a core community in the way I think you are expressing.

Exactly! I got that sense too when Katrina struck. There seem to be that same feeling of oneness and the desire to rebuild the city or go back to the city in some way. I think that is how it is here too.

[Katiana]

Originally Posted by highway29south

I tend to think of the cities you mentioned as pretty generic. They are all large, sky scraper type of places that have major influxes of people that have no common background. At least that is what I think when I hear of them. I am sure they all have a certain uniqueness though, and that is what I am curious about, from natives or people who have lived there before.

Pittsburgh is sure unique in it's history and the cultures of the people that settled here. Before I moved here, I had never heard of a pierogi or never met anyone Italian. The homes here are built close together, in the tradition of European style, something I had also not seen before. Even expression and ways of viewing things are different to people here. There tends to be more of a community style of interacting, whereas where I came from, people were very polite but also stayed to themselves. Very interesting, I think!

I think many cities seem "generic" until you spend a little time in them and get to know them a bit. Phoenix, for example, seems to be genrally regarded as a generic, sprawly, sunbelt city, but spend a little time there and you find that it has its own neighborhoods and personality as well. (I have a cousin that lives there and have visited a few times.) Other cites have a reputation as "no personality" which is also untrue when you get to know them a bit. I am thinking of Omaha, Nebraska in that sense. I have heard people on CD (not necessarily this board) ridicule Omaha, but it really is a very interesting place when you get to know it. Some of the stories DH has told me about growing up in Omaha sound just like growing up in suburban Pittsburgh. The Old Market is kind of campy, but a nice fixture that brings people downtown. There is a neighborhood there, Dundee, which is sort of like Shadyside/Sq. Hill. A lot of DH's classmates are "rehabbing" old houses there. DD went to college in Indiana, and enjoyed visiting Indianapolis, says it is a "nice city". I'm not sure what the point of all this is, except to say that I think all cities have their uniqueness. Any place where 300,00 + people live can't be *too* bad.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Katiana

DD went to college in Indiana, and enjoyed visiting Indianapolis, says it is a "nice city". I'm not sure what the point of all this is, except to say that I think all cities have their uniqueness. Any place where 300,00 + people live can't be *too* bad.

If it helps, we are not discussing whether the cities in question are "nice" or "bad". Indeed, I already noted I think Las Vegas is unique in some ways I don't personally find desirable, and I certainly agree many of the cities I wouldn't consider particularly unique can nonetheless be nice places to live.