# Types of world cities based on culture/architecture/lifestyle



## Reost (Jan 10, 2013)

Interesting remarks. Do you know any alternative website offering urban classification? I was not able to find any.



> have you seen the typos and spelling mistakes across the site? I kind of stopped paying attention after it stated that British cities have areas of concrete highrises usually 'filled with imigrants', and that they create a big question in society due to their 'riots.'


 Actually you misquoted. It says "inhabited" rather than "filled" and it says that "immigration is increasingly questioned" for multiple points. Rise of the UKIP and recent government actions probably indicate such questioning indeed has increased.



> As with Metro Manila. It can be an Asian city, a Latin city, an Oceanic city or even an American city.


 Indeed, every country is unique. And every city/town in that country is unique. The same goes for every language and most other things. Still it is possible to group based on some similarities. Maybe 18 types are too little but I believe 25 would definitely be enough (probably less than that).



> Even in South East Asia there is a split between The Indo-Chinese and Malay culture.


 Agreed. Muslim Southeast Asia and Buddhist Southeast Asia may be better names I think as religion probably had more influence shaping the cities than ethnicities. Perhaps a third "Christian" part for the Philippines, East Timor and the Christian areas of Malaysia/Indonesia?



> What the map misses are subnational categorizations.


 I think you are right about French cities being Mediterranean in the south and Central European in the north. What other countries do you think would need to be so partitioned? I think Germany on the East-West divide (Central European / Central European + Post-Soviet), Canada on he north-south divide, perhaps Alaska should be dual Nordic-US.



> Various codes of football? I didn't know there was more than one.


 I'd say it regards Rugby Union/League as other codes of football (English Wikipedia also calls Rugby a football).



> Right off the bat I have a big problem with Canadian cities being called 'United States cities'.


 Agreed. Perhaps "North American city" would be a better name. Then again, what do you think about what I mentioned in the previous post that the northern Canadian cities are dual "North American" and "Nordic"?



> in short this site is just a veritable mine of every stereotype and generalisation you can find


 I think no classification would be possible without some things regarded as stereotypes. After all, many stereotypes are not entirely imaginary, it's just that they are believed to cover more objects than they really do. And this is what just about every cultural, economic or historical classification has to do by definition (as in the end every object is unique and classification is only possible disregarding some differences). E.g. what is written about slums and Amerindians in "Latin American city" does not entirely fit Argentine and Uruguayan cities, yet the descriptions on architecture and the other communities fit them. You will find cities in every area that do not fit some of the wider regional trends (yet fit many others and therefore do not warrant a separate class).


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

isaidso said:


> Right off the bat I have a big problem with Canadian cities being called 'United States cities'. It's as insulting as if they'd have put US cities under the heading 'Canadian cities' like they were simply an appendage of us or copied us.
> 
> Cities in the US and Canada are a product of the time they were built, climate, economy, and circumstance. Obviously some knob came up with the 'United States cities' heading or they're just very simplistic/unsophisticated in how they view the world. Can-Am cities would have been far less problematic and far more accurate.
> 
> Then again, there are 2 distinct city types in the US-Canada. There are those established before the age of the automobile like Montreal, Boston, and Philadelphia. Then there are those that largely grew post war like Phoenix, Atlanta, and Calgary.


North American cities is a better term as more respected term and this applies to only US and Canadian cities.

But both are similar in many ways especially when it comes to cityscape and infrastructure.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Reost said:


> .
> 
> Agreed. Muslim Southeast Asia and Buddhist Southeast Asia may be better names I think as religion probably had more influence shaping the cities than ethnicities. Perhaps a third "Christian" part for the Philippines, East Timor and the Christian areas of Malaysia/Indonesia?


The Philippines can also be grouped with Micronesia as they share a same culture and history. 

Metro Manila is becoming a hub for this region has many multinational companies with presence in Guam or Saipan for example report here.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Reost said:


> I'd say it regards Rugby Union/League as other codes of football (English Wikipedia also calls Rugby a football).


The various football codes:
Association Football
Australian Football
American Football
Canadian Football
Gaelic Football
Rugby



Reost said:


> Agreed. Perhaps "North American city" would be a better name. Then again, what do you think about what I mentioned in the previous post that the northern Canadian cities are dual "North American" and "Nordic"?


My only experience with Nordic cities are Turku and Helsinki. Honestly, I see no similarities between those and Canadian cities. Cities are more a result of when the era in which they were built along with cultural, geographical, climatic influences. Latitude has next to nothing to do with it other than its relation to climate. 

Edmonton and Denver belong together because they are north American post war cities for the most part. Edmonton and Helsinki do not. Halifax and Philadelphia belong together because they're north America pre war cities for the most part. Halifax and Edmonton, despite both being Canadian, are in 2 separate camps. Even French influence Montreal belongs with Philadelphia, not anything in Europe.

'Polar cities' might be a category though. Extreme northern towns like Iquluit, Nuuk, etc. will be similar regardless of what country they're in.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

^^ Rugby would in fact be two codes, Rugby Union and Rugby League. A bit like American Football and Canadian Football, though possibly with slightly bigger differences..


----------



## Reost (Jan 10, 2013)

isaidso said:


> Edmonton and Denver belong together because they are north American post war cities for the most part. Edmonton and Helsinki do not. Halifax and Philadelphia belong together because they're north America pre war cities for the most part. Halifax and Edmonton, despite both being Canadian, are in 2 separate camps. Even French influence Montreal belongs with Philadelphia, not anything in Europe.
> 
> 'Polar cities' might be a category though. Extreme northern towns like Iquluit, Nuuk, etc. will be similar regardless of what country they're in.


Yes you are right. Regarding "Northern Canadian" cities I meant those above the main city line (but not only the extreme cases such as Iqaluit). The similarities with Nordic cities are not only climate but also the relative remoteness, the fact that much smaller cities than usual have various "big city" institutions (airport with passenger flights, etc.), higher prices. I take Canada is also more leftist than USA and has more social security, less enterpreneurship, more "cooperative" and less "individualistic" culture.



> The Philippines can also be grouped with Micronesia as they share a same culture and history.


I don't think so as Micronesian (and Oceanian in general) cities have that remote insular nature, multiple missionary faiths, etc. These things are not common with the Philippines.


----------

