What do you think cities need to do to survive?

[Marius Pontmercy]

Originally Posted by Maine7090

I think the number one thing citys need to do is rebuild themselves around the automobile. They should make it easy for people live, work and travel to the city with their car as the primary source of transport. Many buildings should be demolished to make room for parking. If there is room for a bike lane there is room for another lane of traffic, so bike lanes need to go since biking has no room as transportation is a first world nation anyway.

Did you just arrive here from the 1960s?

[Patricius Maximus]

Originally Posted by Maine7090

I think the number one thing citys need to do is rebuild themselves around the automobile. They should make it easy for people live, work and travel to the city with their car as the primary source of transport. Many buildings should be demolished to make room for parking. If there is room for a bike lane there is room for another lane of traffic, so bike lanes need to go since biking has no room as transportation is a first world nation anyway.

Eh, it would be inefficient for such dense cities to become autocentric. You have to keep in mind that many people move to cities because they aren't centered around cars, just like many car owners move to the suburbs. Do we really want to deny people that sort of choice? I don't think so. And the cost in terms of the urban feel of the city and the possible historic nature of the buildings wouldn't make it worth it in my view. Obviously it depends on the city. NYC seems to be doing just fine as a dense metropolis, but Detroit isn't.

Of course, there is a way to have it all - both parking and efficient access for cars and dense, walkable cities - underways. The only negative is that they cost a lot of money, but when you're already talking about demolishing swaths of buildings it might be worth it.

Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown

That is rather unattractive to look at.

Some people look at that chart and are jealous of the top 1%, but when I look at that chart I'm saddened at the stagnation at the bottom. If the bottom 90% could have grown at the same rate as the top 1%, then we'd all be much better off. Incidentally, if median income remained closely tied after 1970 (as they were before) median household income would be around double what it is today.

People should know not all cities are supposed to be the same. There is some standards depending on exact city metropolitan region, and then there is universal worldly standards corresponding to almost all cities/towns.

I noticed the basic infrastructure, and maintenance is really something necessary in the beginning for the survival of cities. After that, there is Architecture of all buildings, all forms of public transportation, economics for wealth distribution, safety/not too high crime rate, people scene, culture, and lifestyle.

The most amazing, entertaining, and impressive top cities in the world go far beyond what is necessary for survival, and focus on more important components and characteristics in a specific place. Some cities that focus too much on just survival might end up as boring, sterile efficiency cities and not enough to offer with people living there.