Canadian cities American counterparts

[MolsonExport]

If we continue to worship skyscrapers (much as people have worshipped, and worshipped in, churches, mosques, temples, etc.) we have a much better chance of saving the oldies but goodies.

The old masonry skyscrapers in New York are, I dare say, almost as sublime as the great gothic cathedrals of Europe.


villagepreservation

^this is literally a billion times more interesting and graceful than the Freedumb Tower.


structurae

[wave46]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

That's a good theory. I agree with that.

Another thing that might be happening is that a city becomes famous for something because it did it first. But the first movers to a phenomenon - especially an economic one - are at a disadvantage because their practices are already outdated later on when the movement is in full swing, and so they're removed for the sake of efficiency and keeping up to date.

So Manchester's first textile mills which were revolutionary and state-of-the-art in 1820 would have probably been obsolete by 1860 and were probably demolished to make way for more modern facilities.

That's why you rarely see train stations from the 1830s or airport terminals from the 1930s. When I was a kid, I was saddened to learn about all the first skyscrapers in Chicago and New York from the 1880s that were already demolished by the 1930s.

It's why eastern US cities - who had big industrial plants in the city itself in the 1930s and 1940s - got smeared in the 1950s-80s. What was once a modern car assembly plant became too old/inefficient for modern just-in-time production.

It is also why Tempelhof airport is so fascinating, or why preserved train stations still pull at heart strings. Or why we have a Brick and Mortar Skyscraper thread.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Halifax on the other hand has become ascendant, and many of it's elegant downtown masonry buildings have been replaced by glass faced skyscrapers.

In Halifax you find a lot of historic plaques along the lines of "this is the site of the 1750's tavern where James Wolfe was based as a he trained his troops before heading out to the Plains of Abraham. By the 1920's it was run down so Imperial Oil tore it down and replaced it with an office building."

A lot of famous Canadian history stuff has little ceremony around it (with Quebec being an exception). The guy who led the attack on Washington and "burned down the White House" has some modest historical interpretive info around his grave site and I would guess few Canadians know who he is.

[memememe76]

Originally Posted by Architype

It might be fair to say that Canadian cities were imitations of British/European cities in the early days, and imitations of American cities a bit later. Even so, most Canadian cities do not have easily identifiable American counterparts, even Vancouver and Seattle, a fair comparison, are as different as similar for a number of reasons. Considering this, what characteristics do our cities actually have that is truly home grown?

The lack of direct highway access to Vancouver's downtown district seems distinctly Canadian to me. The I-5 that cuts through Seattle really makes that city so disjointed. Vancouver's Lululemon attire and the city's athletic/pleasure aesthetic and vibe (a result of its youngish history and our nearness to immense natural amenities) gets mocked incessantly, but you see how it has spread beyond the city's borders.

But there is a reason why when questions like these are raised, the Vancouver/Seattle pairing is mentioned so immediately. Close proximity, both near the water, support for the same major sports groups, strong Asian communities, fish as the centrepoint of their cuisine, vibrant environmental ethos, both accused of being a bit closed off. The differences that exist between the two have less to do with Vancouver/Seattle, and more to do with Canada/USA.

When I am asked by someone who wants to visit Canada for the first time but does not know what major city to visit, beyond that individual's own interests, where they are from does matter. If they are from the US and never been to Canada, Montreal is the most obvious answer to me due to its French hisotry. If they are from Europe, I tell them to visit Vancouver for its heavy Asian culture, numerous natural scenery and activities, and urban flare. If they are from Asia, I would tell them to visit Montreal or Calgary (probably because my Asian friends and family love Lake Louise, but I think its Texas--like ethos would appeal to them because it would be different from where they are from). But if you are Canadian and if you can only ever visit one major city, I would tell them to visit Toronto--it gives us Canadians a perspective that we can do more.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Calgary-Denver is probably the best pairing of the bunch.

You even both get early fall (and sometimes late summer) snow dumps and mid-winter warm-ups to sometimes surprisingly warm temperatures.

It's a better pairing than Vancouver-Seattle for sure.

Why "for sure"? Van/Seattle seem reasonably similar with the differences largely reflective of being in different countries. Certainly Van/Seattle (or Calgary/Denver) are more obvious comparisons than Toronto or Montreal to any US city.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Docere

Why "for sure"? Van/Seattle seem reasonably similar with the differences largely reflective of being in different countries. Certainly Van/Seattle (or Calgary/Denver) are more obvious comparisons than Toronto or Montreal to any US city.

Maybe it's just me, but I guess I expected Vancouver and Seattle to be way more similar than they actually are.

Vancouver has an Asia-Pacific vibe (not talking about demographics here) in its newer areas and how they're being built, that might exist in Seattle to some degree but is way more marginal.

Seattle just seems way more (North) American with the freeway infrastructure - mentioned by others - and just the approach to city-building in general.

Some might think I am off-base but in much of the innermost part of the city I almost got a Chicago-on-the-Pacific kind of vibe.

I wouldn't disagree that when you get into more suburban areas there are perhaps more Seattle-Vancouver similarities, but I don't base my city impressions on the suburbs, unless there is something particular that make them stand out.

[MolsonExport]

when I was living in Vancouver, I travelled to Seattle several times. I had high expectations, but because of this, I was quite disappointed. A nice city, but with much less vibrancy than its considerably smaller Canadian counterpart to the North. Not nearly as scenic as Vancouver (but then, aside from Rio, there are few cities that can compare)...Mt. Ranier is much farther than those postcards make it out to be, wheres the Vancouver mountains are "right there", looming above the city.

Of the Pacific cities of the USA, my favorite, by quite a long shot, is San Francisco, notwithstanding the cold, extremely bad drug problems, and homelessness. After NYC, it is probably my favorite USA city.

[memememe76]

If you asked Americans what Canadian city would be their counterpart, Seattle would very likely be quickest to pick a Canadian city. There is a reason the Seahawks celebrate Canadian (Vancouver) fans one day per season. The shared climate, our coffee culture, Granville Island/Pike Place.

The suburbs only count in this discussion because Vancouverites are so familiar with Seattle suburbs. The travel between Vancouver and Seattle are so commonplace. I don't know, how familiar are Toronto residents with NYC suburbs? Or Calgary residents familiar with Denver suburbs?

Seattle is a rather peculiarly structured city, no doubt. But as a runner who has done quite a few marathons and running races around the world (London, Paris, Japan, Bangkok, etc), I did a marathon in Seattle during Xmas break (free of charge except any donations to a local charity). The route they planned took you to all of the major landmarks in the City. And we happened to run it on a nice (albeit cold) sunny day. I claim it to be the most beautiful run I have ever done (minus my normal runs in Vancouver, along the Seawall).

[Doady]

Originally Posted by wave46

In that specific sense, the relative lack of decline in our older cities comparatively might be something Toronto shares with some more western US cities.

You're choosing a not really comparable bunch of US cities either. While Los Angeles and San Francisco may have cores and histories on the order of comparison to Toronto/Montreal, Las Vegas and Phoenix were basically nothing until after the 1950s.

A decline in the urbanity of Las Vegas or Phoenix is basically impossible save for Detroit-style abandonment as they were only minimally urban to begin with. Effectively, those cities were the world's first purely suburban (post-modern?) cities: a Central Business District as a big node of employment, but basically abandoned after hours, surrounded by suburbs and office parks for miles. Industrial development located in parks away from the core of the city.

In built form, Toronto and Montreal have more in common with eastern US cities. They were industrial cities that more or less successfully made the transition to post-industrial economies. The bottom never fell out completely as they transitioned from one mode to the next, for a bunch of reasons that I won't rehash here.

The thing with Toronto the part of it that is like eastern US cities is a very small part of its urban area. Like the Western US cities, the core of Toronto is very small, it just seems bigger because of lack of decline, continued development in the post-war era. In contrast, the inner cities of Eastern US are huge. Like pre-war Philadelphia is three times the size of pre-war Toronto, pre-war Chicago is four times larger, but they suffered decline, both relative and absolute.

Look at Las Vegas, very small core, but at least they have tried to build upon that core, expand upon it and build around it, built a massive grid-based suburban bus system as part of those efforts, ridership increased year after year, and Las Vegas is one of the leaders of transit ridership in the US. Spiritually, Las Vegas is much closer to a Canadian city than any other in the US, certainly more Canadian than eastern cities like Chicago or Philadelphia.

Seriously, look this walkway in Las Vegas to give pedestrians in this far-flung subdivision easier access the main road and the bus stop. That's as Canadian as it gets. I think small TOD measures like this says more about a place and its culture and its politics and its people right now than the architectural style from 100 years ago does. It's more than a superficial similarity.

Again, look at post-war Port Huron and post-war Sarnia. Right across the border, but Eastern Canada and Eastern USA couldn't be further apart.

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

Well if Wendell Cox says so it must be true. I'm curious if you even read that 17 year old thesis? It pretty much states how different Toronto is to L.A. unless your link was just meant to be a joke?

I hope people don't take Wendell Cox seriously. I just remember that article generating much controversy back in the day.

I hope people didn't take my post here from 10 years ago too seriously either. Sorry, that was stupid.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Doady

The thing with Toronto the part of it that is like eastern US cities is a very small part of its urban area. Like the Western US cities, the core of Toronto is very small, it just seems bigger because of lack of decline, continued development in the post-war era. In contrast, the inner cities of Eastern US are huge. Like pre-war Philadelphia is three times the size of pre-war Toronto, pre-war Chicago is four times larger, but they suffered decline, both relative and absolute.
.

I disagree...I liked Philadelphia, but unless I missed something, it's core is not that large.Toronto's is much larger..Also, Yonge street is a lot more vibrant and larger then anything I saw in Philly. And okay. edit. I think you meant pre-war only?

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Razor

I disagree...I liked Philadelphia, but unless I missed something, it's core is not that large.Toronto's is much larger..Also, Yonge street is a lot more vibrant and larger then anything I saw in Philly. And okay. edit. I think you meant pre-war only?

Yeah, that's my point. Toronto's core feels large, but it really isn't. Philadelphia had 3 million people in 1950, Toronto only had 1 million.

Here is a diagram I made back in the day comparing the built up areas of Toronto, Philadelphia, Boston, and Chicago in 1950/51:



Pre-war Toronto is tiny, but it became bigger and bigger and rose to prominence instead of losing prominence in the post-war era. As tempting as it is to compare Toronto to rich historic cities like Philadelphia and Chicago, I think what really defines Toronto and the Canadian city in general is what happened in the post-war era.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Doady

Yeah, that's my point. Toronto's core feels large, but it really isn't. Philadelphia had 3 million people in 1950, Toronto only had 1 million.

Here is a diagram I made back in the day comparing the built up areas of Toronto, Philadelphia, Boston, and Chicago in 1950/51:



Pre-war Toronto is tiny, but it became bigger and bigger and rose to prominence instead of losing prominence in the post-war era. As tempting as it is to compare Toronto to rich historic cities like Philadelphia and Chicago, I think what really defines Toronto and the Canadian city in general is what happened in the post-war era.

Okay..I see what you are saying there..

[jigglysquishy]

You can see Regina in that map too, as the space in the O in Toronto.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Doady

Yeah, that's my point. Toronto's core feels large, but it really isn't. Philadelphia had 3 million people in 1950, Toronto only had 1 million.

Here is a diagram I made back in the day comparing the built up areas of Toronto, Philadelphia, Boston, and Chicago in 1950/51:



Pre-war Toronto is tiny, but it became bigger and bigger and rose to prominence instead of losing prominence in the post-war era. As tempting as it is to compare Toronto to rich historic cities like Philadelphia and Chicago, I think what really defines Toronto and the Canadian city in general is what happened in the post-war era.

Perhaps, but comparing Toronto or Montreal to Las Vegas of 1950 (population ~75,000) or Phoenix of 1950 (population ~375k) isn't exactly playing fair either.

Toronto was ~1.2M in 1951. Montreal was ~1.5M. Not exactly tiny, especially in comparison to their modern populations. Given the population of the cities now (~6M and ~4M) one could rightly defend that they're more influenced by their urban cores than Las Vegas (~2M) or Phoenix (~4M).

About the only concession I will make is that I'm not saying Toronto/Montreal is exactly like Chicago, Philly or Boston, but there's similarities. It's hard to pinpoint what similarities exist between modern suburbs, because they look very similar everywhere, including in aforementioned Chicago, Philadelphia and Boston.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Doady

The thing with Toronto the part of it that is like eastern US cities is a very small part of its urban area. Like the Western US cities, the core of Toronto is very small, it just seems bigger because of lack of decline, continued development in the post-war era. In contrast, the inner cities of Eastern US are huge. Like pre-war Philadelphia is three times the size of pre-war Toronto, pre-war Chicago is four times larger, but they suffered decline, both relative and absolute.

Define "very small." Does Washington DC also have a "very small" core? Like Toronto it had around a population of around 900,000 in 1940.

Toronto was in the top 15 metro areas in NA in 1940. It's moved from second tier to first tier since then, but it wasn't "basically nothing" by any means.

Phoenix had 65,000 in 1940, Las Vegas had 8,000. This is just silly.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Docere

Define "very small." Does Washington DC also have a "very small" core? Like Toronto it had around a population of around 900,000 in 1940.

Toronto was in the top 15 metro areas in NA in 1940. It's moved from second tier to first tier since then, but it wasn't "basically nothing" by any means.

Phoenix had 65,000 in 1940, Las Vegas had 8,000. This is just silly.

I never said Toronto was "basically nothing". I was just talking about how it rose to prominence only more recently. How it was not only in the shadow of those old US cities, but also of Montreal. How it has fewer multifamily buildings on its side streets than Montreal does, maybe because it is a newer city. How it urbanized in the post-war era as much as it suburbanized. How it can be compared to a newer western US city as much as an older eastern US city. Washington, DC is a good example too. The population numbers were just a small part of trying to find some further and deeper similarities and connections to a wider range of places. Yeah, maybe it is just a silly idea, like many of my other ideas, I am probably wrong as always so I won't bother you guys with it anymore.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

In my travels, the city that most evoked Montreal for me was....Berlin. I don't know why...something about the almost random mixture of old (well, rebuilt to look old) and new, brick and glass, the eclectic streetscapes, grand and nondescript buildings side-by-side, but most of all, the bohemian atmosphere. It is not particularly charming, but it does have a je ne sais quoi feel to it.
Berlin is one of my favorite cities.

I can see this. Beyond the physical structures, there is the feeling that people are living similar lives.

[niwell]

A friend of mine lived in Berlin for close to 5 years in the mid aughts and the stories he tells sound similar to those I knew in Montreal at the time. Palatial apartment for the price, great art/bar/restaurant scene, kinda rundown, able to make a decent life as a bar manager, etc., etc. I have heard this is becoming less of the case as prices skyrocket and many apartments are being used for airbnb purposes, but don't know enough to comment, really. COVID could also be a game changer in this respect.

[seaJ]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

when I was living in Vancouver, I travelled to Seattle several times. I had high expectations, but because of this, I was quite disappointed. A nice city, but with much less vibrancy than its considerably smaller Canadian counterpart to the North. Not nearly as scenic as Vancouver (but then, aside from Rio, there are few cities that can compare)...Mt. Ranier is much farther than those postcards make it out to be, wheres the Vancouver mountains are "right there", looming above the city.

Of the Pacific cities of the USA, my favorite, by quite a long shot, is San Francisco, notwithstanding the cold, extremely bad drug problems, and homelessness. After NYC, it is probably my favorite USA city.

This is interesting to me as a long term resident of Seattle. I had the same experience but in the opposite direction. I had heard so much about Vancouver so when i first went i had high expectations. What i found was a beautiful downtown area and great views but IMO it lacked the homegrown cultural feel of Seattle (and Portland for that matter) While Vancouver had the "looks" down it didn't seem to have much of a vibrant local culture. Being in my 20's at the time i was looking for music venues, coffee shops, record stores etc which Seattle had in spades.
Subsequent trips led me looking outside the downtown core of Vancouver for neighborhoods that had a more local feel, ie Commercial Drive, Kitsilano and now more recently East Van, but still they didn't seem nearly as cool as the neighborhoods surrounding downtown Seattle.

For me, Vancouver really shines downtown and has some nice surrounding areas, while Seattle shines in its neighborhoods with a pretty nice downtown. Both of these cities have changed so much in recent years its hard to say what will be in the future.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by seaJ

This is interesting to me as a long term resident of Seattle. I had the same experience but in the opposite direction. I had heard so much about Vancouver so when i first went i had high expectations. What i found was a beautiful downtown area and great views but IMO it lacked the homegrown cultural feel of Seattle (and Portland for that matter) While Vancouver had the "looks" down it didn't seem to have much of a vibrant local culture. Being in my 20's at the time i was looking for music venues, coffee shops, record stores etc which Seattle had in spades.
Subsequent trips led me looking outside the downtown core of Vancouver for neighborhoods that had a more local feel, ie Commercial Drive, Kitsilano and now more recently East Van, but still they didn't seem nearly as cool as the neighborhoods surrounding downtown Seattle.

For me, Vancouver really shines downtown and has some nice surrounding areas, while Seattle shines in its neighborhoods with a pretty nice downtown. Both of these cities have changed so much in recent years its hard to say what will be in the future.

Culture emanates from the working and middle classes and Vancouver, at least in the last 20 or more years has seen downtown and adjacent areas like the West End, Yaletown, Kits, Fairview, Mount Pleasant (now more commonly known as SoMa) and even the downtown Eastside, slowly, become more generic and yuppified. Even Commercial Drive is not as "hip" as it was a few decades ago. Vancouver was a grittier port town, Granville Street was loaded with "peeps" and lots of rough and tumble pubs, into the 90s and the similarity with Seattle was stronger then. Now it seems more polished, and definitely more international.

New Westminster was an old blue collar river port that felt a lot like a little Seattle, esp. closer to the Fraser. It is incredibly changed now though.

Both cities are "coastal" but only Vancouver has the "oceanic" feel to it. In many ways I think it has more of a San Francisco vibe.