Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OP, most American cities don't offer the "walkable experience" because the auto and petroleum industries sold the American public on the idea of suburbs, and they also bought and destroyed, or deliberately rendered impractical, thriving public transportation systems around the country, at the same time. They sold the public on a vision of cities that designed downtowns as business centers, not so much residential areas, served by a network of "efficient" freeways from the suburbs, that suburbanites would use to travel to work. Car ownership was pitched as "more efficient" than public transit. Public transit was described by this propaganda machine as "backward", inconvenient (thanks to massive cutbacks in scheduling and elimination of routs after these industry interests gained control), crowded, and generally undesirable.
Suburbs were designed, with rare exception, with shopping centers removed from residential areas, requiring car travel to reach. This wasn't true in some early suburbs, like parts of the San Francisco Bay Area, that had neighborhood supermarkets, pharmacies, and other services within walking distance (same for much of the city of San Francisco), but even today, new suburbs are being built on the model of residential neighborhoods in one area, and shopping centers in another.
That is why American cities are not walkable. It's because industry and city planners want them that way, not because of any kind of racial discrimination theory.
In fact, in the 80's and 90's, when Seattle was refurbishing its downtown, high-rise apartment buildings were added, that provided views of Elliott Bay and Puget Sound, and easy access to the public market and other shopping, restaurants, nightclubs. The area became very popular, even prestigious, for the professional class.
Whatever impressions of the US there may be abroad, a closer look tends to show that the picture is much more complex than newspaper headlines would have you conclude.
I am still bugged by the fact no one has corrected him by telling him that Europe is NOT homogenous.
I kind of agree with you. However, in the USA diversity/homogenous is based solely on skin color. The difference between White Italian and White Swedes doesn't matter because they have white skin.
Im trying to think of a European city that is ethnically, religious, racially, and politically homogenous ...
If we are going off by race, much of the European Union had cities formed/developed by the time the Boston's and Charles Town's were getting their harbors in the 1700s.. by that time slave trade was already brought over POC. So it was already ingrained in the development of many US Cities.. especially as they grew in the 20th century.
Im trying to think of a European city that is ethnically, religious, racially, and politically homogenous ...
...which they all were until probably the.. 80ies? ( Just guessing here.)
Quote:
If we are going off by race, much of the European Union had cities formed/developed by the time the Boston's and Charles Town's were getting their harbors in the 1700s.. by that time slave trade was already brought over POC. So it was already ingrained in the development of many US Cities.. especially as they grew in the 20th century.
How is this related/connected to the first part of your post?
I kind of agree with you. However, in the USA diversity/homogenous is based solely on skin color. The difference between White Italian and White Swedes doesn't matter because they have white skin.
Brazilians are like that too.... They think they are super diverse because some Brazilians are paler than others! Yet when you go there, everyone is Brazilian, behaves Brazilian, speaks Portuguese, share Brazilian culture.... Americans are so similar to Brazilians in many ways.
Ironically skin color matters little when it comes to actual diversity.
What truly makes people TRULY diverse is:
- POLITICS : Conservative, liberal, green, commie, socialist.
- RELIGION OR LACK OF IT: Agnostic, atheist, catholic, jew, muslim, hindu, buddhist etc.
- CULTURE/LANGUAGE : Mandarin, Spanish, English, French, Swahili, etc.
The idea that people are diverse because they have different shades of skin color is looking at diversity in a very shallow racial context, dont u think?
I mean, no one who knows Europe would say:
1. Spain and Norway are the same kind of places because the people are vastly socially known as white due to their light pigmentation compared to Africans!
2. England and Muslim Bosnia is the same because people are white.
3. Russia is the same thing as Belgium!
A black and a white person can be pretty homogeneous.... Take a black and white neighbors... say they are both Christian, English speaking, Southern, Conservative, eat southern food, go to church on sundays, live in the same zip code, earn same amount of money. (They'd be pretty HOMOGENOUS)
...which they all were until probably the.. 80ies? ( Just guessing here.)
How is this related/connected to the first part of your post?
It isnt. Thats why they are two separate paragraphs. Two separate points. But if we are going soley off just skin colour, that is my response in paragraph #2 since that is a stark difference in the development of cities in Europe over US
. Car ownership was pitched as "more efficient" than public transit. Public transit was described by this propaganda machine as "backward", inconvenient (thanks to massive cutbacks in scheduling and elimination of routs after these industry interests gained control), crowded, and generally undesirable.
This idea of crowded and generally undesirable public transportation was really brought home in the last 18 months with Covid.
Quote:
Train operators and conductors have recorded the highest number of COVID-19 infections among subway workers, according to internal documents obtained by THE CITY.
Of the 1,937 employees in New York City Transit’s Department of Subways who had reported testing positive for coronavirus as of May 28, 285 are train operators and 178 are conductors, the latest records show.
“It’s the environment we work in, with so many people on trains,” said conductor William Mora, who tested positive in April. “We were basically working in an incubator.”
Many New Yorkers stopped taking public transportation in the last 18 months.
I could see how, before the available of antibiotics in the 1940's, public transportation were seen as dangerous. When I was pregnant in the 1990's, I saw a man spitting blood on the NYC subway. I was a little freak down because antibiotic resistance tuberculosis was in the news.
Maybe it was propaganda, but maybe it was also true.
Quote:
That is why American cities are not walkable. It's because industry and city planners want them that way, not because of any kind of racial discrimination theory.
This is true! It wasn't based on racial discrimination.
As I posted earlier, when US cities were safe and had good school systems, White people lived there. When cities and safety broke down, White people left. In safe areas of cities of today (which are expensive) White people happily live there. When White people have children and need bigger apartment or house (which they can't afford in safe area of a city), they leave for the suburbs.
Would you live in a city with crime? Would you send your kids to failing schools? It's pretty much common sense and not racial discrimination.
My children live in walkable and safe cities. When they get married and I finally get grandchildren (please ), they will probably not be able to afford to stay in a city. Also with the additional expense for private schools (as city school aren't good). They might have to move to the suburbs.
Last edited by YorktownGal; 07-18-2021 at 07:50 AM..
PS: I don't mean to offend anyone, also, I think there's larger forces of history at play and we can't do simple conclusions. Don't take this as a criticism towards anyone, only as some observations. Also, I am making this post in the hope that any "structural issues of a multicultural society" can be overcome and everyone can live in community.
It seems to me American cities can't offer the whole "walkable experience" because there's many ethnic groups who live in America.
What I have in America is the middle class upwards white people live in Suburbs and they use their private transportation. Some of them hold negative views in their out cities scary, dangerous or not a attractive place to live or "too lively." These same ideas are also applied to public transportation, mass transit, trains, public swimming pools or public recreation centers.
Cities
It seems to me cities in America like the Downtown are filled with the " The Other America."
-Homeless.
-Poor people
-People with addiction problems.
-Minorities.
-People released from prisons.
-Recent arrivals.
-Graffitis on the walls.
-Generally unkept streets.
Maybe in the future Europe might evolve into America, although it might not. We can't be certain, although we see that Europe is becoming a more multicultural society. So we'll have to wait and see how the situation develops.
All of your posts SEEM a lot.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), they will probably not be able to afford to stay in a city. Also with the additional expense for private schools (as city school aren't good). They might have to move to the suburbs.
