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.
Are sidewalks some modern invention?
I associate cities with ample sidewalks with being more matured. So saying such and such city has modern architecture but lack sidewalks doesn't make it seem less modern. To me it is so modern they have not gotten to the matured look of sidewalks.
Public transit is an old school amenity too. Car culture came after. PT works better in the older cities because of their compact nature.
So saying a city doesn't have good PT and sidewalks doesn't mean the city is not modern, it just means the city is cheap so it lacks amenities. But these amenities are certainly not modern amenities.
Modern amenities are things are like the latest high speed internet. Not sidewalks and PT. This are things from the 1800s
PT and Sidewalks are not modern but are a minimum base for cities and walkability. I love city life and couldn't imagine living in one without sidewalks and PT. Cities are almost useless without them.
The cities with the best sidewalks are generally the older ones. There’s a reason that “traditionalist east coast snobbery” is a thing.
If I had to guess what’s going on here, I would say that there’s is confusing the positive connotation of “modern” with its definition.
Houston, Austin, Dallas and Charlotte are seen as modern. Not New York, Boston, and San Francisco. Whether that’s a good or bad thing is besides the point.
PT and Sidewalks are not modern but are a minimum base for cities and walkability. I love city life and couldn't imagine living in one without sidewalks and PT. Cities are almost useless without them.
I know that, and I agree on both.
However, the thread is about which are modern, not which ones cheaped out on amenities that were standards in cities 150 years ago.
My contention is that most older cities have/had sidewalks and PT. It's the modern CHEAP ones that lack them. So it's not that they are not modern, it's that they are cheap.
I know Houston for one is a cheapness issue. It's the homeowner's responsibility to maintain sidewalks. The y are liable for injury if the sidewalks are not properly maintained so given the opportunity to opt out property owners opt out. The clay soil is always shifting and tree roots tend not to penetrate clay deeply. I like the ability to walk on sidewalks but I would raise hell if they tried running one across the front of my house.
San Diego is kind of a weird bird because the airport is too close to downtown. Buildings are limited due to FAA rules. I apologize if I posted this earlier. I will say San Diego is the most beautiful US city. My hometown is definitely second!
How do y'all see Atlanta? I mean there's mostly new construction, but there is a good amount of older homes too. Aren't most Americans cities like that? With a mix of development from their founding?
The OP mentioned up to date infrastructure including LRT. First paragraph.
Untrue. He listed modern transportation systems.
Expressways, interstates, etc are among the most modern of transportation systems.
They may not do much for street activity, but anyone who looks at pictures taken 100 years ago and looks at pictures of cityscapes from the last 3 of 4 decades would see more street activity is more an older city thing than a modern city thing.
I know we always want to hold urbanity to that legacy city standard where NY, Philly, SF, Boston is just the best at every thing, but if what makes them great is their ancient layout then how are they the most modern? Yeah they may have upgraded their amenities to where this amenities are younger than that of young cities, but on a whole what makes them then is their age.
Dress me up in vintage clothes and dress my mom in spring 2023 outfits and I will still look younger. She may have the more modern fashion tastes, but she is not more modern. Simeones tastes fits not corespond to their vintage. Similarly, you upgrade the light rail on Boston and it so isn't going to look as new as Phoenix.
How do y'all see Atlanta? I mean there's mostly new construction, but there is a good amount of older homes too. Aren't most Americans cities like that? With a mix of development from their founding?
Atlanta is easily one of America's most modern cities. And yes, you're correct, the last 2 pages in here, people have been mixing terms. Rest of the thread seems to have got it right though.
So… New York is the only one to qualify? And perhaps Toronto. I think you’re mixing terms. Modern and developed
The futuristic looking cities in Asia that are sometimes used as stand ins for scifi movies that take place in the future have fantastic sidewalks, and sleek looking trains even if some people consider those pre-modern. A car centric layout might be modern in the 80s but it is narrow minded to think it will necessarily stay that way in the future given all the challenges the planet is facing.
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.
