Why does this kind of "insert city name here ___ is its own city" always have to come up? Just because a city shares similar buildings to another city, doesn't mean it doesn't have it's own distinguishing style and it doesn't mean it's the same as the particular city its buildings are being compared to. You could say Toronto has historical buildings similar to those in New York, or London has similar to those in Paris or NYC, but each of those three cities are still different in countless ways (although Toronto is growing to be more and more alike New York everyday).

Anyway, for NYC style architecture, I think Melbourne has more to offer than Sydney from what I've seen. And what can we even define as NYC style architecture? Gothic buildings and skyscrapers post 1900? Federal architecture and terrace homes?

tayser said:

errr... no.

if Martin Place were in Manhattan the podium heights would be 20+ levels.

I know most schmucks north of the Murray like to compare themselves to cities in America, but really.... I mean... REALLY... why not be Sydney rather than some try-hard American-like city.

Sydney is Sydney. Nothing else.

Click to expand...

I believe the Dakota building is a combination of Victorian, Renaissance and German Gothic.

See to me, this is true Georgian architecture

The thing is, many people believe that New York City pioneered these architectural styles, however most of them originated in Western Europe. Australia being a member of the Commonwealth sees that in the beginning and during the gold rushes, it was more architecturally influenced by Europe. I think many people use New York as a comparison point because of its global influence, but that's an entirely different matter.