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.
Comparing to say, western Europe, the parts most visitors see both positive and negative (including channelized rivers) are not from modern urban planning decisions made with modern technology. It's hard to learn from conditions that don't exist here. Still, but recent planning decisions, in say Paris or London in how much space to give bike lanes or trams or public vs car space could be useful for similarly dense American cities.
Another thing positive I noticed in European cities vs American ones is European cities have more public space in the city centers. Besides city squares, wider sidewalks, more space give to seating. It creates a more pleasant place to visit (and live) rather than being by a traffic sewer everywhere.
Comparing to say, western Europe, the parts most visitors see both positive and negative (including channelized rivers) are not from modern urban planning decisions made with modern technology. It's hard to learn from conditions that don't exist here. Still, but recent planning decisions, in say Paris or London in how much space to give bike lanes or trams or public vs car space could be useful for similarly dense American cities.
Another thing positive I noticed in European cities vs American ones is European cities have more public space in the city centers. Besides city squares, wider sidewalks, more space give to seating. It creates a more pleasant place to visit (and live) rather than being by a traffic sewer everywhere.
Public space, maybe. They have those "cathedral squares". But open space/parks-no. Central Park in NYC, Schenley Park in Pittsburgh, Elmwood Park in Omaha, Grant Park in Chicago, City Park/Wash Park/Sloan's Lake Parks in Denver; the parks around the lakes in Minneapolis, these are some of the country's great parks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
I didn't say it was bad in the US or good in Europe. I'm not criticizing them anywhere; so how am I treating Europe differently?
It's just a sense of the forum. Didn't say you personally said anything like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
The above also agrees Millennials buying cars at a later age.
Public space, maybe. They have those "cathedral squares". But open space/parks-no. Central Park in NYC, Schenley Park in Pittsburgh, Elmwood Park in Omaha, Grant Park in Chicago, City Park/Wash Park/Sloan's Lake Parks in Denver; the parks around the lakes in Minneapolis, these are some of the country's great parks.
Yes, I meant public space in general; also just on regular streets. I don't remember the public spaces only next to cathedrals or even many of them. Parks? I didn't think there was much difference. Depends on the city; London has more parkland than NYC in its center. Berlin not quite as much but has a 520 acre park in its center, plus a lot of small parks + pedestrianized streets in inner city neighborhoods such as these.
Spoiler
As for NYC's Central Park; it's a great park, but the rest of the island has little public space. Would be nice if it had small parks or European-style "squares".
Quote:
It's just a sense of the forum. Didn't say you personally said anything like that.
It certainly read it was about me; our conversation was directed towards each other. I'd much prefer people respond to my posts with response about my ideas not some general perception of the forum. But you know I hate "the sense of the forum". And how can "the forum" respond and defend itself?
[Could you point out where it says that?[/quote]
Well at least doesn't contradict at a later age. The peak of the millenial generation (as the highest numbers) is aging, so if they're buying cars at a later age; a big increase following low sales would match that.
It certainly read it was about me; our conversation was directed towards each other. I'd much prefer people respond to my posts with response about my ideas not some general perception of the forum. But you know I hate "the sense of the forum". And how can "the forum" respond and defend itself?
Me: Will keep that in mind.
Quote:
Could you point out where it says that?
Well at least doesn't contradict at a later age. The peak of the millenial generation (as the highest numbers) is aging, so if they're buying cars at a later age; a big increase following low sales would match that.
I don't think the article mentions age of buying a car at all. FWIW, it seems like millennials, or at least some that I happen to know (two SILs), keep their cars longer and put more thought into replacing them. Both of those guys have been talking for years about replacing their cars.
See this: The Great Millennial Car Comeback - The Atlantic
"One of the hazards of being paid to think out loud is that most ideas are wrong, and some of those wrong ideas are bound to be yours.
Several years ago, I wrote a column with Jordan Weissmann, now the senior business and economics correspondent for Slate, about how young people, gutted by the Great Recession, might turn against the culture of suburban homes and cars, the two big-ticket items that have powered the country through previous recessions. . . . This week, Bloomberg reports new data from J.D. Power & Associates, which finds that Millennials, or Generation Y (essentially: anybody born in the 1980s or 1990s), now account for 27 percent of new car sales. That's more than Generation X, and second only to Boomers."
I'll address channelization later. It was considered a bad environmental idea back in the 1970s in the US. But if it's in Europe, of course, "that's different".
"Everyone" does not agree on anything, though that probably comes close.
"Most countries" designed their cities long before urban planning, or cars ever existed. Actually, most of our cities were extant before cars as well, as anyone living in California should know.
I'd like to know why every thread like this turns into an anti-car rant.
Most cities designed, at least in Europe, around getting around on foot. Since there were no cars yet.
I'm not anti car, but I am anti-car for all trips and car-first development. We do a lot of that in the US.
In most of the world, for a myriad of reasons, not driving is a real option. And often the preferred option.
What I like about many other places is that a car is not required for everything.
Not really for millennials. As the economy has improved, so has car ownership. I don't think personal transportation vehicles will ever be replaced. People like to be able to go when they want to go. The type of vehicle will change, but not private ownership-my prediction. Most seniors don't give up driving until they absolutely have to; it takes away their freedom. Always having to arrange rides is a pain.
The young people don't mind arranging rides via ride sharing. It beats the alternative. To stereotype, they like to be free to play on their phone and zone out.
Few of my colleagues have cars and the ones that do only use them when they need to go out of town. In town trips, commutes, socializing and all the rest happen via walking, biking, transit or Uber.
I am not the only person my age, in my circle, with a personal car, who relies on Uber/Lyft for many trips. We barely drive our cars, unless we need them for work commutes. I take ride share around 8-10x a month.
His statement should be that car ownership rates among millennials as a group is both substantially lower and starts at a later age, if at all, than people of prior generations. That part is very much true. It's also true that people like to be able to go when they want to go. These things are all true!
Channelized waterways are really common among smaller waterways that have urban centers adjacent to them throughout the developed world--I think that's probably the more accurate statement.
Bolds untrue, or at least unsupported.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408
The young people don't mind arranging rides via ride sharing. It beats the alternative. To stereotype, they like to be free to play on their phone and zone out.
Few of my colleagues have cars and the ones that do only use them when they need to go out of town. In town trips, commutes, socializing and all the rest happen via walking, biking, transit or Uber.
I am not the only person my age, in my circle, with a personal car, who relies on Uber/Lyft for many trips. We barely drive our cars, unless we need them for work commutes. I take ride share around 8-10x a month.
All of my kids, their spouses/partners, their friends and their spouses/partners, have at least one car per couple. I have a niece who doesn't have a car and the rest of the fam is getting rather annoyed with her always asking for rides for herself/her kid. My other nieces and nephews have cars. This is across a wide variety of cities including SF, and most of these people, except for the oldest niece and her husband, are millennials. My friends' kids AFAIK, all have cars as well. It seems kind of silly to incur the expenses of a car, some of which continue even if the car is not in use, then pay for Uber/Lyft as well in most cases.
According to the poll, it's what we did or didn't like! Just sayin'. Though that's not the thread title, which presumes we liked things, but didn't dislike anything.
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.
I'm not criticizing them anywhere; so how am I treating Europe differently?
