This study uses the ongoing attempts to redevelop Cleveland's waterfront to reveal the relational comparative geographies that are present in a number of contemporary urban revalorization strategies. It draws on archival documents, semi-structured interviews, and the local gray literature to make three contributions to the existing urban-global studies literature. First, the article argues that many contemporary waterfront and other similar redevelopment schemes are inherently comparative, with a significant proportion of seemingly territorial politics and urban policy-making characterized by actors' engagements with places elsewhere. Second, it shows that the framing of urban policy through relational comparisons is an established practice in many cities, and that current redevelopment plans should be understood as informed by previous rounds of relational and territorial policy-making. And third, it points to the importance of consultants in the current era-as examples of actors of transference-in shaping not only redevelopment plans but also the framing of the city in relation to other cities.