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.
Your opinions about Aussie cities are very strong for a non Australian who don't know how they compare after a "quick research".
We have Australian (American) family friends and so I've been to Australia before - mainly just Sydney, Brisbane and Gold Coast.
Also, it's fun to discuss and debate...
Quote:
Briefly Boston and Syd in that they're ungridded and narrower winding streets (Sydney CBD is kinda gridded but everywhere outside is not), colours and scale of buildings around some areas like around Potts point kinda reminiscent, Downtown Crossing - Pitt St Mall, Boston Common - Hyde Park eg.
You can find areas reminiscent of Pitt Street Mall and Hyde Park in LA - which is a lot more similar, culturally, architecturally etc, to Sydney than Boston is. Sydney has some narrow, winding streets, but it doesn't have the same amount of dense historic neighborhoods like Boston does - which has a ton of victorian, federal style, colonial style, romanesque, french empire, etc, that Sydney doesn't. Boston is known for its red brick - Sydney is know for its sandstone - so the color and scale of buildings in Sydney is not a lot like Boston at all - Sydney is a much clearer match to LA.
Quote:
Melbourne flat landscape with large skyline dominating like Chicago more than LA or Cleveland, gridded, centralised, Yarra river - Chicago River, eg. Combine that with Portland style streets and streetcars but much, much busier and more intense.
Yea, idk, I wouldn't compare it to Chicago. Is Melbourne more gridded than Sydney? It's my impression that, culturally, Melbourne is better compared to a smaller NYC or (talking about just California) San Francisco. A lot of cities are flat, have skylines, and/or have rivers running through or by them.
Quote:
Likewise for SF I'm not sure if you can still call it that as much as it used to be 20+ years ago. The tech and other say, less "desirable" developments there are changing the character, but unlike some here I'll disclaim this is only an AFAIK.
I can absolutely still call it that - its history and culture are its history and culture. NYC, and other significant cities, have seen upturns and downturns and decay and gentrification - Paris has massive tent cities, as does Vancouver, Berlin, etc...so insisting that a legendary cultural city have it's culture disregarded because you'd rather have every American location known for any negative features they have, is just some anti-American circle jerking on your part.
Quote:
Sydney has its own cultural spots outside the CBD. It's got its own Mission District kinda area with Newtown. Otherwise for someone who's only done "quick research" I'll take a brief look around SF's financial district around the Embarcadero and call it a flashy business city.
Sydney doesn't have a bohemian cultural legacy like SF does. I'm not going off of pics of skyscrapers - Sydney is a major business city and that largely dictates its culture, and it isn't known for its arts or bohemianism like Melbourne is.
Also, the Embarcadero isn't "flashy". Its notable features are the old Ferry Building and Alcatraz...are you saying that just because it has some modern high rises?
Quote:
A large part Syd and Mel's inner buildings in terms of total numbers date from the 19th century. You've had some notable Victorian buildings within the CBDs from both razed to make for new towers like in Philly or NYC but large parts of inner Syd and Mel remain predominantly 19th.
Melbourne and Sydney's urban regeneration was much more thorough than anything that occurred in NYC and Philadelphia, which are much older cities and have a heavily 19th century core - not to mention notable 18th century and colonial features. I wouldn't describe any neighborhood in Sydney - likely not Melbourne either - as "predominantly 19th century".
Your attempt to make NYC and Philadelphia the poster children for "urban high-rise regeneration" in this comparison is ridiculous - reiterating, both Melbourne and Sydney saw way more building's "razed", and they put up far more bland high rises (proportional to what they had) than either NYC or Philadelphia did, and no one would argue that either has historical character and preservation of the quality that NYC and Philadelphia do.
Quote:
If you keep insisting what you do after your "research" I'm not gonna stop you since city comparisons are superficial interpret them however you want. Just be mindful if you say for eg Syd = LA or Darwin = Miami there'll be other people who disagree completely, and that's fine.
Of course, that's why these comparisons exist and are interesting.
We have Australian (American) family friends and so I've been to Australia before - mainly just Sydney, Brisbane and Gold Coast.
Also, it's fun to discuss and debate...
What you said is arbitrary. I've got my own opinions about your comparisons, so I could go off on my own tangent now and start telling you why what I or you said is true or not. But like I said again these comparisons are superficial, so respect the opinions of others because there's no right or wrong on this.
At this point I was gonna do a little part about culture in Syd and Mel. But then I had a look at your post history, post content and membership date, and you're obvious. One little tip. You're controversial, but you're not convincing. Not good enough. Have fun.
Sydney - NYC, San Francisco hybrid. I don't really see the Boston comparison...
Melbourne - Chicago, Seattle, Boston. Melbourne's flat grid layout is comparable to Chicago's flat grid layout. Google both cities at night from space - they're both similarly planned and have organised streets.
Perth - Los Angeles or Dallas. Maybe Phoenix, Arizona.
Adelaide - Austin, Philadelphia, Seattle, Detroit. Has that classy, "old money" feel that Philly has, but it's obviously nowhere near as big as Philly, closer in size to Austin.
Sydney = LA
Melbourne = Chicago
Adelaide = Boston
Brisbane = Atlanta
Perth = Houston
Gold Coast = Fort Lauderable (or however its spelt)
Darwin = Miami
Hobart = Minneapolis
Canberra = DC
Geelong = Milwaukee
Newcastle = San Jose
Alice Springs = Detroit
Didn't include NY or SF because Sydney and Melbourne both have traits of the two. Melbourne has little to no LA traits, while Sydney has little to no Chicago traits
Australian cities tend to have more-urban cores than US cities (speaking from the US). My only experience on the ground is 10 days in Sydney. Relying on CD, google maps, project compilations, etc., otherwise.
That narrows the connecting points for me to the handful of cities that have similar urbanity and are similar to Sydney/Melbourne in size -- San Francisco (minus the South Bay), Boston, Philadelphia, DC. This is partially about feel. LA, Seattle, San Diego, and Miami have some comparison points too.
I get the Boston-Sydney thing due to non-gridded streets, winding shorelines, and townhouses. It's even young and outdoor-oriented due to universities. But it feels staid and old-school while my sense is Sydney has a younger, tanner, more active vibe. SF has a lot of similarity. But really the other half needs to be San Diego--southern California weather, right on the ocean but the core is in a protected bay, built on low hills... It's less urban but Boston can provide that.
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.
