Agreed. Boston's outer neighborhoods have British design/form written all over it (it is New England, after all). But that's a dead obvious parallel, which is less interesting to talk about.

The LA/London comparison is even less pronounced than LA/Detroit, yet there are still many analogies that can be made. London has a distinct multi-nodal, urban-suburban hybrid model across a vast geographic expanse*, and both cities are defined more as urban agglomerations (Greater London, Los Angeles County). Central London (not the same as Inner London) is tiny in relation to Greater London, and there's a huge discrepancy in commercial activity/intensity between the two that isn't commensurate with the drop in built-form density.

*LA County is 4,058 square miles of land, but only about 30% isn't uninhabitable or sparsely populated. So that's about 10.1 million people across 1,200 square miles, for a density of roughly 8,500. By developed world standards (minus Japan), that's a pretty high level of density to sustain over such a large area. That Greater London has a density of over 14,000 despite thousands of acres dedicated to natural preserves, golf courses, and agricultural fields is highly impressive as well.

^ Then there is Detroit.........

LA's a mixture of the following (in no particular order):

Detroit
Toronto
Chicago
Houston
Beijing
Bay Area
Queens, NY
Greater London
Mexico City
Tokyo/Seoul

Ironically, I don't think it has much in common with San Diego in terms of function or built environment. It's similar to southern OC, but that's not representative of LA at all.

Superficially i see a resemblance based on living in Houston and having visited Southern California half dozen or so times. Obviously the geographies and topologies are very different not too mention Houston is roughly a third the size of LA but the freeways, sprawl, multi-nodal, certain neighborhoods, reliance on cars and other factors that lend many to see the similarities.

After much thought and reading this thread, I'm starting to get it gang.

If you ignore things like climate, population totals, population density, racial/ethnic demographics, income demographics, local history, mass media exposure, topography, the actual built environment that is evident in today's real world environment. . . etc ... etc.

Detroit and Los Angeles are the most similar in nearly every respect.

The new Twin Cities, gang. Minneapolis, I'm sorry, it's time to give it up to LA and Detroit for that title.

-----

In order for this absurd assumption to be made would be a thread title like this:

Which cities have some houses on some streets that might resemble some houses on some other streets in some other city?

LA and Houston both specialize in a kind of amorphous urban experience. They don't resemble each other in most respects, but the sunshine (especially in the cooler seasons of the year), sprawl, freeways, and the highly visible distant multi-nodal skylines encountered in Houston tend to remind me of Los Angeles. There is also the sense that one could lose oneself in Houston or reinvent oneself in Houston, which is something I also experience in LA. So, yes, Houston does remind me of LA. On the other hand, I rarely think about Houston when I visit LA.

It's interesting that in LA, the minorities are the ones that tend to exude local "civic pride" the most and dislike the narrative that "everyone here's a transplant".

This reminds me of the situation with DC too, where black residents are most likely to feel civic pride and push back against the idea that everyone's a transplant.

"Who Says ‘No One’s From D.C.’? Not Black Washingtonians"

https://wamu.org/story/17/10/19/says...ashingtonians/

This one is a stretch for me.

It's there in the sense that, what London did for establishing the archetype of a lower-density metropolitan city based on single-family homes (if terraced) built around rail, Los Angeles (and Melbourne) did with streetcars, and LA did with freeways later on.

London's development was notable for its low density as compared to Paris, and LA's to New York.

Outer London, even with its narrow streets and tightly packed homes, still manages to feel a bit desolate, sprawly, thinned-out, and suburban-esque. It’s like a much better designed version of SF’s Sunset District, only it stretches for miles and miles. Further, a lot of these neighborhoods are oriented around commuter rail stations (as opposed to the Tube rapid transit system). On Google Street View, you hardly see any pedestrians or moving vehicles.

Of course the neighborhoods in question are “urban” by US standards and are more impressive and “walkable” than 95% of LA. Functionally however, they’re more like a hyper-dense version of traditional inner-ring commuter rail suburbs.

LA could actually morph into a more car-oriented analog of this model as long as it continues expanding its rail system and lining its arterial corridors with mixed-use mid-rises.

Calgary/Denver and Vancouver/Seattle are much more similar than Toronto/Chicago.

Regina and Saskatoon are pretty similar.

SignalHillHiker’s recent and excellent photo thread of Dublin just reinforces how similar Boston and Dublin can feel.

Roxbury/Dorchester/Mattapan were Jewish neighborhoods in the early 20th century.