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.
According to the poll, it's what we did or didn't like! Just sayin'.
The poll also asks whether we could learn things from the places visited; you could like some places but still feel there is little to learn from them say, because American cities are too different. The third choice is odd; how could you not like a place but still feel there's interesting things to learn from them? Maybe what not to do?
Quote:
Though that's not the thread title, which presumes we liked things, but didn't dislike anything.
Maybe, it asks what places impressed you, so presumably no places impressed.
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.
Well, yea, that's the point--things you liked that you thought might work here. Do you want to get a grab bag of all the worst things you saw and bring that over instead? Isn't that a tad sociopathic?
Speaking of Germany, I was impressed how much the center cities were rebuilt to the old form in a way that tried to keep the old urban form and style. Rather than say, developing in outlying areas and ignoring the old city. May reflect a culture that values their cities more? Or just an architectural conservatism?
Europe, being about the size of the U.S., tends to subsidize farmers and, therefore, discourage farmland being used for other purposes (ie. suburbs). Also, automobiles and gasoline tend to be more expensive. So, with less available urban land to develop and the cost of private transportation, re-building urban centers after WWII made the most sense.
There are three main things which impact U.S. urban development that don't impact urban development in most places in Europe:
1) the relatively low cost to own an automobile and the relatively low cost to use and maintain it (compared to public transport),
2) the relative availability and low cost (compared to urban land) of rural land to develop,
3) the relatively high rate of U.S. crime relative to any given population density; which makes living in less dense areas more attractive
If one were to significantly reverse only one of these three factors (or sufficiently reverse two of them), it would encourage an urban vs rural trend more akin to that found in many, if not most, parts of Europe.
Last edited by James1202; 01-02-2017 at 12:03 PM..
Reason: clarification
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".
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?
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.
There are the public pedestrian spaces NYC has made over the last several years around places like Times Square and Madison Square Park. I know the city got a lot of cranks who were angry over them at first, but I think they've worked out relatively well.
I think the bigger park deficit is in Brooklyn--it'd be nice if there were more pocket parks located around the borough, but I'm not sure how the city would do that given how valuable real estate is.
There are the public pedestrian spaces NYC has made over the last several years around places like Times Square and Madison Square Park. I know the city got a lot of cranks who were angry over them at first, but I think they've worked out relatively well.
I think the bigger park deficit is in Brooklyn--it'd be nice if there were more pocket parks located around the borough, but I'm not sure how the city would do that given how valuable real estate is.
Speaking of Germany, I was impressed how much the center cities were rebuilt to the old form in a way that tried to keep the old urban form and style. Rather than say, developing in outlying areas and ignoring the old city. May reflect a culture that values their cities more? Or just an architectural conservatism?
Valuing city living is probably the most important reason, as well as cherishing a city as it once was (before being flattened in war).
Contrast this to a country that has never cared much for cities, such as the USA. We vote with our feet, or rather, with our cars, and move to the suburbs.
Europe, being about the size of the U.S., tends to subsidize farmers and, therefore, discourage farmland being used for other purposes (ie. suburbs). Also, automobiles and gasoline tend to be more expensive. So, with less available urban land to develop and the cost of private transportation, re-building urban centers after WWII made the most sense.
I'm sure another factor was that European cities have more history.
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.