Cities that have more in common than not

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

los angeles was run by the same people that ran detroit - both doing the same shit for a hundred years. one city got to stay at the buffet and one didn’t.

Yeah, another key difference is that L.A. has/had the San Fernando Valley to develop and keep the Fuhrman types inside the city limits. Detroit was completely built out by 1950, and unable to annex.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yeah, another key difference is that L.A. has/had the San Fernando Valley to develop and keep the Fuhrman types inside the city limits. Detroit was completely built out by 1950, and unable to annex.

but i mean one stayed connected to the capitalist umbilical and one was disconnected or at least the flow was restricted.

los angeles has been able to paper over a lot of shit because the growth machine kept pumping new blood into it, whereas detroit choked out in the nude for all to see.

losangelestimes.com

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

but i mean one stayed connected to the capitalist umbilical and one was disconnected or at least the flow was restricted.

los angeles has been able to paper over a lot of shit because the growth machine kept pumping new blood into it, whereas detroit choked out in the nude for all to see.

losangelestimes.com

Right, but a huge reason (city of) L.A. was able to do that is because it had undeveloped space. I'm reasonably sure that a city of Los Angeles that did not include the Valley would have declined in population post-1950 as did all the other big industrial cities of the east (plus San Francisco). L.A. basically created the Sun Belt playbook of huge municipal boundaries that Dallas and Houston would go on to adopt. Detroit was choked by its boundaries.

Metro Detroit's population actually continued to grow at quite a healthy rate for 20 years after Detroit started to decline.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Right, but a huge reason (city of) L.A. was able to do that is because it had undeveloped space. I'm reasonably sure that a city of Los Angeles that did not include the Valley would have declined in population post-1950 as did all the other big industrial cities of the east (plus San Francisco). L.A. basically created the Sun Belt playbook of huge municipal boundaries that Dallas and Houston would go on to adopt. Detroit was choked by its boundaries.

i’m looking at this from the 10,000 ft level of globalism, capital flows and human dynamics - not so much about particular land use policies, etc. i think los angeles would have been ok eventually had it physically remained the size of detroit, which to me is still a fairly large core city footprint. i mean it has a colossal pacific deep water port, great weather, an ascendant larger regional west coast context, an endless supply of labor, dynamic “industrial” sector (including global media in this).

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i’m looking at this from the 10,000 ft level of globalism, capital flows and human dynamics - not so much about particular land use policies, etc. i think los angeles would have been ok eventually had it physically remained the size of detroit, which to me is still a fairly large core city footprint. i mean it has a pacific deep water port, great weather, an endless supply of labor.

Perhaps. But I think the city of L.A. would've had a lot more trouble if it didn't have the Valley. Without the Valley, Chicago would still be the second largest city in the country right now. Similarly, if Detroit had the southern third of Oakland County within its boundaries, almost no one would be thinking of it as a failed city.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Perhaps. But I think the city of L.A. would've had a lot more trouble if it didn't have the Valley. Without the Valley, Chicago would still be the second largest city in the country right now. Similarly, if Detroit had the southern third of Oakland County within its boundaries, almost no one would be thinking of it as a failed city.

mmm...i guess i see what you are saying. but even then metro los angeles would be the west coast giant it is in an ascendent region, and thats what matters.

the american version of capitalism can be cruel and extreme though in its effects on cities. midwestern cities had compounded cultural, regional and global influences and contexts that couldnt easily be mitigated away like an ancient european regional hub in a small country just implementing sensible urban policy practices or something.

does the capitalist ghost in the sky over an american downtown have an angel or a skull where the face should be? los angeles didnt do anything better than detroit when it counted.

[wwmiv]

Delete

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Omaharocks

Savannah and Charleston
The trifecta of Knoxville, Asheville, and Chattanooga

I’d add San Antonio and New Orleans as the larger counterparts to Savannah and Charleston (if we want to have the historic urban core be the primary consideration).

I’d also add Greenville to the latter list.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

does the capitalist ghost in the sky over an american downtown have an angel or a skull where the face should be? los angeles didnt do anything better than detroit when it counted.

For sure. To a large degree, L.A. got lucky. But I also don't think that the Detroit that exists today was inevitable. For instance, between 1950 and 1980, Detroit was down by 35%, but Metro Detroit's population was up by nearly 45% in that same timeframe. By comparison, Boston was down by 30% between 1950 and 1980, while Greater Boston's population was up by a measly 22%. Most of us urbanophiles would think it absurd to know that in 1980, Detroit appeared to be a healthier metropolis on paper than Boston.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

For sure. To a large degree, L.A. got lucky. But I also don't think that the Detroit that exists today was inevitable. For instance, between 1950 and 1980, Detroit was down by 35%, but Metro Detroit's population was up by nearly 45% in that same timeframe. By comparison, Boston was down by 30% between 1950 and 1980, while Greater Boston's population was up by a measly 22%. Most of us urbanophiles would think it absurd to know that in 1980, Detroit appeared to be a healthier metropolis on paper than Boston.

yeah. i can’t explain it other than midwestern cities weren’t playing by the same set of rules as the east coast with an extra two hundred years worth of foundation under them. quantum mechanics of cities.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

maybe we throw detroit and los angeles up on the board.

both cities founded as early colonial outposts that got a relatively late start getting to cruising altitude considering when they were founded.

both culturally and industrially significant to not only twentieth century america but the world.

But then this is a thread about "cities that have more in common than not." If just being cities on the same continent, settled and governed by similar kinds of people in roughly the same timeframe, which boasted industrial might and today have residents who live in houses and drive cars, then there's no point to the thread--all North American cities fit that bill, and we're done.

If we don't peer down at US cities like aliens from outer space, though, there are differences that distinguish between such cities, and several stand out when comparing Detroit and Los Angeles. The vast majority of Detroiters are US-born and have no close ties to foreign cultures, while the majority of Angelenos either have close ties to foreign cultures--or were raised by family members who do. One is a city marred by steep, long-term decline and the other is larger than it has ever been--Detroit's population is estimated to be 36% of what it was in 1950; Los Angeles is 202% of what it was in 1950 (and was more populous than Detroit even then). The two cities' economies and local cultures differ, as do their vernacular residential architecture, climate and topography. I see more differences than similarities, especially these days.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by craigs

But then this is a thread about "cities that have more in common than not." If just being cities on the same continent, settled and governed by similar kinds of people in roughly the same timeframe, which once engendered the industrial revolution and today have residents who live in houses and drive cars, then there's no point to the thread--all North American cities fit that bill, and we're done.

If we don't peer down at US cities like aliens from outer space, though, there are differences that distinguish between such cities, and several stand out when comparing Detroit and Los Angeles. The vast majority of Detroiters are US-born and have no close ties to foreign cultures, while the majority of Angelenos either have close ties to foreign cultures--or were raised by family members who do. One is a city marred by steep, long-term decline and the other is larger than it has ever been--Detroit's population is estimated to be 36% of what it was in 1950; Los Angeles is 202% of what it was in 1950 (and was more populous than Detroit even then). The two cities' economies and local cultures differ, as do their vernacular residential architecture, climate and topography. I see more differences than similarities, especially these days.

in this case i was speaking of a broad suite of historical similarities that i personally find quite striking and worth remarking upon even if the two cities quite obviously no longer align on paper.

[craigs]

And it's been an interesting discussion--this whole page sprung up while I was writing my comment (breakfast delayed my posting it).

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by craigs

But then this is a thread about "cities that have more in common than not." If just being cities on the same continent, settled and governed by similar kinds of people in roughly the same timeframe, which boasted industrial might and today have residents who live in houses and drive cars, then there's no point to the thread--all North American cities fit that bill, and we're done.

If we don't peer down at US cities like aliens from outer space, though, there are differences that distinguish between such cities, and several stand out when comparing Detroit and Los Angeles. The vast majority of Detroiters are US-born and have no close ties to foreign cultures, while the majority of Angelenos either have close ties to foreign cultures--or were raised by family members who do. One is a city marred by steep, long-term decline and the other is larger than it has ever been--Detroit's population is estimated to be 36% of what it was in 1950; Los Angeles is 202% of what it was in 1950 (and was more populous than Detroit even then). The two cities' economies and local cultures differ, as do their vernacular residential architecture, climate and topography. I see more differences than similarities, especially these days.

I think an alien would find L.A. and Detroit quite similar. But not an Angeleno, lol. It's those in the thick of the details who see the most differences.

I think if Detroit and L.A. were the only two cities that I were very familiar with, I'd think they are absolutely nothing alike. But having seen so many cities around the world, the two cities are remarkably similar.

[Quixote]

I’ve always found Denver and Minneapolis to be strikingly similar. Denver’s a much more hyper-planned metro as far as layout, boasting suburban sprawl not unlike metros in the Southwest and California. Minneapolis, on the other hand, is more akin to Seattle and Portland.

But both Denver and Minneapolis are in that second tier of urbanism/walkability marked by relatively expansive sections of early 20th-century streetcar-style neighborhoods, the two cities boasting comparable populations during that period. Today, both metros are very close in CSA population size. Both are located in politically moderate states, Minnesota having been reliably blue (but with a visible purple tint) for decades, while Colorado is solidly purple and becoming increasingly more Democratic (that Boebert nut notwithstanding).

Overall, Denver and Minneapolis can generally be regarded as “nice cities” with an educated populace and high quality of life that are still “comfortably white” (but not without diversity) and relatively affordable places to live. In that sense, I think they represent a good baseline for American life that has broad appeal among Americans of all stripes and colors.

[LA21st]

The bungalow belt in Chicago and SFV are similar in some ways. Less brick in the SFV, but they're laid out the same ways. A commerical street every 3-4 blocks in every direction, usually marked by single family homes and lowrise condo/apt buildings. Family oriented and diverse populations. Industrial areas. SFV has more offices and malls, but they're closer than most people probably think. Even Midway and Bob Hope airport are similar, although midway is bigger.

I've lived in both.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I think an alien would find L.A. and Detroit quite similar. But not an Angeleno, lol. It's those in the thick of the details who see the most differences.

I think if Detroit and L.A. were the only two cities that I were very familiar with, I'd think they are absolutely nothing alike. But having seen so many cities around the world, the two cities are remarkably similar.

Well, if we're comparing to European and Asian cities, then I'd say the US and Canada have only three notable big city typologies: Type A, the New York typology (dense, centralized); Type B, the Chicago typology (less dense, centralized); and Type C, the Los Angeles typology (less dense, decentralized). The rest of our big cities are derivative of one or more of those three.

Note that Chicago and Los Angeles are dense by our standards, but not relative to, say, Paris or Kolkata--even New York isn't as dense, except for core Manhattan. Also, most cities of every type in the US and Canada are now surrounded by vast swathes of Los Angeles-type development.

I prefer more nuance when comparing US and Canadian cities, but if we're playing aliens, then there's not going to be any of that.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Perhaps. But I think the city of L.A. would've had a lot more trouble if it didn't have the Valley. Without the Valley, Chicago would still be the second largest city in the country right now. Similarly, if Detroit had the southern third of Oakland County within its boundaries, almost no one would be thinking of it as a failed city.

It should be noted that the vast majority of the SFV was annexed well before it became the population center it is today. We didn't "cheat" like Toronto.


https://la.curbed.com/2016/7/5/12097...les-growth-map

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by craigs

Well, if we're comparing to European and Asian cities, then I'd say the US and Canada have only three notable big city typologies: Type A, the New York typology (dense, centralized); Type B, the Chicago typology (less dense, centralized); and Type C, the Los Angeles typology (less dense, decentralized). The rest of our big cities are derivative of one or more of those three.

Note that Chicago and Los Angeles are dense by our standards, but not relative to, say, Paris or Kolkata--even New York isn't as dense, except for core Manhattan. Also, most cities of every type in the US and Canada are now surrounded by vast swathes of Los Angeles-type development.

I prefer more nuance when comparing US and Canadian cities, but if we're playing aliens, then there's not going to be any of that.

I think prewar L.A. looks way more like a Midwest/Great Lakes city than it looks like Dallas or Atlanta.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Toronto and Jacksonville. Brothers from another mother.

While comical in its sheer absurdity, you guys are gonna have to let this go at some point. You're doing a disservice to your city the more you harp on it.