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.
Considering that most of the world consists of developing countries where a lot of people struggle to earn $5.00 a day, I am not denying that the US is superior to "most" countries in the world. However I can say that after traveling to various countries in Europe, Latin America, and Canada that the quality of life in the US is subpar compared with most developed countries (like Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, or Germany). In fact there are various statistics out there proving that the US is severely lagging other developed countries in quality of life metrics such as transportation infrastructure, education, and healthcare. Hence why I think that anyone who claims that the US is the "best" country in the world, has not traveled at all/enough.
Some of those stats are proof positive of "how to lie with statistics", too. For example, many countries of the world with lower infant mortality rates do not count extremely premature babies as "live births".
While I have no doubt that there are some statistics that don't tell the whole story due to various measuring indicators, I can say when I compare some statistics and compare them with my experiences going overseas that they have allowed me to reach the conclusion that the US is sub par compared with other developed countries in many areas. For example I have not even seen another country anywhere else in the world that has essentially allowed one of it's major cities to have wide scale abandonment like in the US (ie Detroit, St. Louis, etc).
Some of those stats are proof positive of "how to lie with statistics", too. For example, many countries of the world with lower infant mortality rates do not count extremely premature babies as "live births".
So you think it's all just a coincidence? And I am American by the way.
Proper urban planning makes a big difference how livable a place is. My birthtown Kleve in Germany feels so much more livable to me compared to its sister city Fitchburg in Massachusetts. Both cities are similar in size and both cities have struggled due to a loss in manufacturing jobs. But the differences in the livability of both places couldn't be stronger. One should think that it's much easier to redevelop the much younger city Fitchburg than the much older city Kleve. But there is a lot more redesigning going on in Kleve. Surprisingly Kleve appears more modern. I got the impression that something like urban planning doesn't exist in Fitchburg. Why they placed a Walmart Supercenter and Hannaford grocery store in the outskirts, somewhere in nowhere? Why they don't tried to find a place for these retailers within the city, so that it would be much easier to get to those stores?
There flows a small river through Fitchburg. I don't understand why they don't use it as an advantage and build a small promenade with a few restaurants or a bicycle path along the river. It could be so beautiful. Many or most cities in the U.S. doesn't seem to realize that rivers can make a nice setting for a new development. There is so much potential, but it isn't used.
In my opinion the reason rivers are not used anymore is due to old planning from back in the 1920's and 1950's. The last huge development booms in the cities were during these times and rivers were largely industrial sewers and stunk to high heaven. With 50 years of environmental law, US rivers are pretty safe to be around from a water quality standpoint. They aren't prestine mountain creeks but Americans have the mentality that unless a river or stream is untouched, it is a filthy nasty sewer that should be avoided at all costs. Large rivers were never prestine even in the pioneer days as they had large amounts of untreated mine and cattle waste going right in. Rivers in the US were used for commerce during the pre-industrial periods but once the railroads came into being, commerce focused around the railroad depots. Thus, in most US cities, the architecturally significant buildings are mostly near railroad tracks and depots. Rivers were for dumping waste in, not beautifying.
Some cities are using their rivers as assets and ways to bring in some tourism dollars. Tulsa has been doing massive redevelopment along the Arkansas River including a 300 million dollar park project. Oklahoma City has been doing some as well along the Oklahoma River. Denver has improved it's Confluence Park just north of downtown with kayaking runs. Smaller cities though typically don't have the resources to redevelop river areas because they allowed most commerce locations to be in the hinterlands (big boxes) or in downtowns which are focused around the old railroad depot. Unless the depot was close to the river, there isn't an easy way to form bridge zones to the river and redevelop the river areas.
I agree it is a shame and some of the most topographically interesting areas of cities is near their rivers.
There aren't any chains in our suburb. It's a railroad suburb which grew in the 1870s. Prior to that it was a smaller town which was chartered in the 1660's. Its got more character than 75% of American cities.
That's the problem with having a generic viewpoint.
I believe that character usually accumulates over a long period, if a town/city can grow/change organically.
as they had large amounts of untreated mine and cattle waste going right in. Rivers in the US were used for commerce during the pre-industrial periods but once the railroads came into being, commerce focused around the railroad depots. Thus, in most US cities, the architecturally significant buildings are mostly near railroad tracks and depots.
Smaller cities though typically don't have the resources to redevelop river areas because they allowed most commerce locations to be in the hinterlands (big boxes) or in downtowns which are focused around the old railroad depot. Unless the depot was close to the river, there isn't an easy way to form bridge zones to the river and redevelop the river areas.
I agree it is a shame and some of the most topographically interesting areas of cities is near their rivers.
This could be viewed as either wasted potential...or as opportunity.
River as park land can be very nice...a few cities have pleasant parks along rivers. Particularly if the park includes old growth trees. Really, a fine alternative if it is impractical to move commerce there.
My favorite park is one I remember from my childhood. Waterloo, Iowa had a fun park on a river. Somebody with an imagination added tree houses. Really, it was like a big play ground for the kids, with the addition of big trees.
Last edited by Tim Randal Walker; 12-30-2016 at 11:30 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.
