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.
Continental Europe never had them in LARGE numbers like we did. As for Russia and their serfs, I don't think Russia is looked at as the model "European" country. When people talk about Europe being better than the US, their not talking about Russia.
France, England, etc got rid of serfdom a lot earlier than the Russians.
Since WWII we do perceive Europe to be everything west of Russia, but I will point out that the nation takes up 40% of continental Europe.
Since WWII we do perceive Europe to be everything west of Russia, but I will point out that the nation takes up 40% of continental Europe.
I realize that, I am just talking about the perception. The typical "European high quality of life" excludes Russia and most of the former USSR. They are generally referring to Switzerland, Norway, France, etc.
Here in Pittsburgh the "youth movement" and being "trendy" has led the city to decline. The good areas have been gentrified and COL is outpacing the job market. In response, many middle class are leaving the city for the outer edge suburbs and exurbs which are far more affordable and offer the same amenities, sometimes better, than the main core city. Since we are no longer "affordable", the youth, which are mainly renters, are moving on to other "new hip trendy" cities.
It's really a fad that has decimated cities.
I remember what Pittsburgh was like before gentrification (a dump with a lot of basically abandoned industrial areas), so I'm not buying this.
I really have done alot of streetview and its pretty shocking to me to see just how much urban blight the USA has. Why is that? You have so many cities that look horrible in spots (great in others), but Philadelphia, Baltimore, Newark, Detroit, even small cities like Harrisburg, Trenton, and other southern cities like Jackson etc etc. I really just dont understand how in the worlds richest country what is the exact and proven reasoning for this, compared to places like Europe, which does have urban blight, but i feel it is not so horrendous as the USA does. I have noticed many cities have improved this blight over the years which is great, and borderline amazing in cities like Cincinnati.
Thanks
You mean the world's richest country that is $25 trillion in debt?
IMO, it's because cities provided more social services than rural areas so poor people flocked to them to use those services, meanwhile richer people got tired of paying for services they didn't need and moved away (white flight).
A lot of the United States was built after the automobile became common. The cities are all spread out and everyone has to have a car to get to places. When cities are built in a denser format, they aren't let go so much because there's more value per square foot of the city because there's a lot less square feet to work with. I would guess that the more spread out the city is, the more urban blight there will be.
A lot of the United States was built after the automobile became common. The cities are all spread out and everyone has to have a car to get to places. When cities are built in a denser format, they aren't let go so much because there's more value per square foot of the city because there's a lot less square feet to work with. I would guess that the more spread out the city is, the more urban blight there will be.
This. There simply is a lot of land to work with in most major US cities (certainly compared to Europe), meaning that economics doesn't drive the demolition/reuse of a lot of urban land. Usually the government needs to incentivize redevelopment in some way, which of course is subject to available funds and political winds. American governments are much less involved in urban development than their European counterparts.
This works on the macro scale as well. Detroit is blighted because it has been depopulating for decades and that is difficult for any government to manage (much less a series of poor ones). That population moved to other parts of the US which were growing rapidly. You don't see population shifts like that in Europe because of the smaller national boundaries and less mobile society. In the US a lot of Detroit moved to the South (ironically, many had come from there early in the 20th century) but Athens isn't emptying out to move to Berlin.
Much of Europe was in rubble after WWII, and have experienced most of the issues the US has: motorisation, suburbanisation, urban sprawl, deindustrialisation, and internal emigration.
It was the attitudes and different social policies that made all the difference. In the 50's and onwards the 'American Dream' was a detached (big) house and two cars. It was the only 'right' way to live, and the demand for suburban living exploded. In Europe urban living never went out from fashion in the same way. Europeans are proud of their cities and often have a very emotional attachment to their own city. Therefore the neglection of the cities were never in question. Yes, there was a big demand for larger, newer suburban housing in Europe, but as most of Europe lacks what US has a lot of - space, the new developments had to be built there when the old city ended, thus creating much less sprawl.
In the US when this big white flight occurred, city and social policies were absolutely terrible. Cities were left to decay, public transport disassembled, parks, schools... everything was neglected. Look at the NYC subway in the 70's and 80's. Absolutely awful. Cities essentially became places where the poor people gathered or stayed, and for the middle class cities became a place where you go to work to and watch the skyline, but you commute an hour to your suburb. If you wanted a safe environment with good schools you almost had to move to the suburbs.
In Europe many cities declined too, and city officials worried about the declining tax base. So they focused on the city centres. Renovating old buildings in poor condition, demolishing some, developing public transportation and the living conditions. The cities remained livable, safe and functioning. You had the benefit of short commute, and close to services. On the contrary, it was the suburbs who eventually declined. It was there in the 60's concrete suburbs where the poor people were pushed, the rich lived in famous old districts and all the lucrative schools were in the centre.
Well, soon both US and European cities were overwhealmed with cars the cities weren't planned for. Here the decisions were the opposite too. The US decided that more lanes and new motorways is the answer. The European decision was that developing public transportation and limit the number of cars. What is the big killer for city life? Massive amounts of cars and motorways. If a 8-lane freeway goes through the centre, who wants to live in that vicinity? Not me at least. Most European cities were saved from this menace. Public transport never gained the same stigma in Europe than it did in the US, and therefore not abandoned or neglected.
One thing that might save much of the European cities was that after WWII Europe was bankrupt and had lost everything. The US emerged from WWII richer than ever. For example in the US in 1953 it was not unusual to have a car in the family. In Finland coffee was rationed in 1953. The process of motorisation and suburbanisation had time to develop and happen during a much longer timespan. In Europe, it happened explosively and reurbanisation started again just when suburbanisation ended.
One factor which can be considered is the concept of space. The houses in the US are huuuuge, and if you say you have 8 rooms, it's nothing in the US. If you say that in Europe, people ask "why?". We don't have the tradition or aren't used to having a lot of housing space. We have as a big house as we need. We don't want a huge house, because we have no use for it, and it's only more to clean. Waste of space. And obviously it's much more easy and cheaper to build a new suburban house than desperately trying to combine three 3-room apartments in a 1800's neoclassical 4-story building. Here the market works for the city and not for the suburbs. People even thought, let's settle for less room space, but get to live in the centre and don't have to flock to the boring suburbs.
Finally, here's the demographics of Lyon, France:
Until WWII the city grew or was more or less stagnant. After WWII the population had dropped/died, but started to rise again. After the 60's suburbanisation started for real and the population dropped. But when Lyon had reached rock bottom, the population started to rise again. The trend was reversed. So it had very little time to decay. Though the city still hasn't reached back its post-WWII population peak, the difference is not that big.
"One reason so many cities look so bad is de-industrialization."
Exactly. Most property in our nation is private. Would you invest in an apartment building in a city with no manufacturing base? Few people would. There is a photo gallery of two cities taken in 1945; Detroit and Hiroshima.it is followed by photos of those two cities recently. Detroit has been governed since 1950 by progressives. Hiroshima has been governed by industrialists like Henry Ford.
Europe didn't have to deal with masses of uneducated (through no fault of their own) slave descendents and all the problems it inevitably caused.
100% incorrect. Europe had slaves to. Nice try though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moboy32
They never had them in large numbers on the European continent. I'm not talking about the ancient world here and the Romans.
Most European nations abolished slavery before the United States. There was also no war involving slavery like the US had. The American situation was worse.
Irrelevant. Slavery came to the US from Europe. When it was abolished has nothing to do with anything. If the US had abolished slavery sooner we wouldn’t have urban blight today? Give me a break.
Last edited by KaaBoom; 03-18-2016 at 08:03 AM..
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.
Give me a break.
