The presence of a comprehensive urban plan for all of these cities, with a clear grid subdivided into districts is extremely impressive. By contrast most European cities were organic and unplanned mazes.
Bibracte near Autun in Burgundy — the city Julius Ceasar had to conquer — is built at the top of a 900 meter hill;
Pyrene/Heuneburg built on a rocky spur overlooking the Danube in southern Germany is considered the first real city north of the Alps.
Titelberg in Luxembourg was built on a site easily defended on three of four sides and with plenty of space at the top.
One interesting exception—-Milan (Mediolanum). Like ancient Mexico City its defenses consisted of water; tributaries to the Po and surrounding marshes.
Venice is even more like Tenochtitlan and a more radical and more “modern” version of Milan. The Venetia hit chased into their lagoon thanks to Attila and waves if Goths.
You are right that Tenochtitlan had a much more obviously planned lurban structure. But the “organics” of Venice have their own logic, partly partly due to tides and winds but mainly due to a focus on commercial districts rather than religious/ceremonial districts.
In 1500 both cities were very large: Tenochtitlan was close to 300,000 and Venice close to 200,000.
Tenochtitlan, in comparison, was purpose-built as the seat of an empire (and a recent one, in fact). The centralized authority was there from the start.
> Keen to have a new and perfectly ordered city, the king commissioned the construction of big squares, rectilinear, large avenues and widened streets – the new mottos of Lisbon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1755_Lisbon_earthquake
Paris as we currently know it is the work of Haussmann.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann%27s_renovation_of_Pa...
Having said all that it certainly seems that ancient Meso-American city builders of all stripes were really into grid-tastic cities, at least for the monumental cores with the temples, ball courts etc.
Tenochtitlan existed in the 15th century which is fairly recent.