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.
There could be more. Those are just the ones I have been to.
Each was several blocks long, so they're not just little insignificant side streets.
Well, in Paris for example there are three or four major pedestrian zones and dozens more smaller pedestrian streets scattered all over the city. So they are pretty much everywhere. Some "reduced traffic streets" are virtually pedestrian type of streets or pedestrian-priority (e.g. rue Daguerre). In some districts some small normal streets see few or virtually no traffic most of the day (e.g. North
Marais) because the boulevards are mainly used for heavy transit traffic.
Re Montreal: Even if they're not insignificant side streets, Montreal probably has thousands of miles of streets, so if 1-2 mile are not asphalt or pedestrian, that's still insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Montreal might resemble Europe more than other North American cities, but Montreal is still more like a North American city than a European city in terms of streets and built form.
And re Europe: I guess you could call these pedestrian streets common, but most streets in large European cities are still asphalt and allow for cars. But yeah, I agree that narrow pedestrian streets with stuff other than asphalt are nice, and even if most of Paris or Madrid's streets aren't like that, there are still enough to make them nicer than cities that lack them.
Speaking of streetview, I saw a Google Streetview car yesterday while walking.
Several North American cities have exceptions like those, but still, on average, the streets of a 1900 American city were significantly wider than those of a 1900 European city, which I think was a factor in why American cities eventually became more filled with cars.
Could another reason why American cities went down a different route from European ones be industry? European cities developed before the industrial revolution while American ones developed mostly after. I think in Europe the factories were in the suburbs (or at least city outskirts), but in North America, they were close to the core. Hence, Americans escape the industries by moving to the suburbs, but Europeans would be moving closer to industries if they moved to the suburbs. I'm not sure about this though, so anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
I take the El to work, which you might have anticipated had you been a little less dull and googled my zip code. But I don't despise people who get to work by car, unlike you.
Where did I say I despise people who drive to work? Nowhere. Talk about being dull.
I will answer both posts at once. My point, Mr. Snark, is that it is not true that the US was highly urbanized when cars came on the scene. Most people were still living in rural areas, and making a living farming.
Yeah but much of Europe was not urbanized either when cars came on the scene. France had urbanization rates similar to those of the US in the early 1900s.
I think the difference is more related to the fact that the overall population of the US, (and as a result its cities) grew much more since cars were introduced.
I will answer both posts at once. My point, Mr. Snark, is that it is not true that the US was highly urbanized when cars came on the scene. Most people were still living in rural areas, and making a living farming.
If it was only 10% of the population yeah that might be considered insignificant. But to suggest that 45% urbanization or almost half the population is a statistically insignificant number is just absurd. Either way you look at it that is a high level of urbanization, not as high as it is today obviously but still quite high. When you have almost half the population of the US or any country living in the cities, that's tens of millions of people, the country can no longer be considered agrarian or an agricultural society.
Yeah but much of Europe was not urbanized either when cars came on the scene. France had urbanization rates similar to those of the US in the early 1900s.
I think the difference is more related to the fact that the overall population of the US, (and as a result its cities) grew much more since cars were introduced.
I think an important difference is that mass automobile ownership arrived much later than in the US. So when Europe had population growth, car ownership was not widespread. So new developments were built for transit as well as (maybe) cars. And our cities were lower density relative to Europe so it was relatively easy to adapt our metro areas to the automobile.
If it was only 10% of the population yeah that might be considered insignificant. But to suggest that 45% urbanization or almost half the population is a statistically insignificant number is just absurd. Either way you look at it that is a high level of urbanization, not as high as it is today obviously but still quite high. When you have almost half the population of the US or any country living in the cities, that's tens of millions of people, the country can no longer be considered agrarian or an agricultural society.
The Census Bureau defines "urban" for the 1990 census as
comprising all territory, population, and housing units in
urbanized areas and in places of 2,500 or more persons outside
urbanized areas. More specifically, "urban" consists of
territory, persons, and housing units in:
1. Places of 2,500 or more persons incorporated as cities,
villages, boroughs (except in Alaska and New York), and
towns (except in the six New England States, New York,
and Wisconsin), but excluding the rural portions of
"extended cities."
2. Census designated places of 2,500 or more persons.
3. Other territory, incorporated or unincorporated,
included in urbanized areas.
Now in 1910, the population cut off was probably even lower. So everyone living in a town >2500 is considered an "urbanite". Most towns of 2500 do not have a bus system, can't support one even with heavy subsidization.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 10-20-2011 at 07:53 PM..
Think about it. In 1910, the US was likely the most powerful and technologically advanced industrial power at the time (and has been ever since), with Great Britain and Germany not far behind.
The point is, you can't have heavy industry and advanced technology without urbanization. The former depends directly on the latter. You can't run heavy industry with a bunch of farmers and dirt roads so you need the big urban centers. Heavy industry requires a skilled workforce that is highly-educated and trained, it requires transportation infrastructure with paved roads, trains, factories, universities and research centers, etc. All of that stuff can only exist in the big urban centers. The US wouldn't be number one in the world in 1910 if it didn't have all those big important urban centers where advanced industry could take place. It certainly was no agricultural backwater.
Yes, about half the people in the US lived in places of at least 2500 or more then. Think about that.
Irrelevant.
You keep trying to argue minutia which has no relevance to the discussion. The point is, the US was among the top two or three most powerful, industrialized and urbanized countries in the world, if not the most. Do you dispute that? If it wasn't then what was it? An agrarian rural backwater? Funny!
Last edited by cisco kid; 10-20-2011 at 11:22 PM..
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.
