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.
Builders build what people buy. Almost all commercial zones allow owner occupied apartments on the second floor, but people don't want to live where they work any more. Nobody wants to buy a shiny new house with a 7-11 at the end of the block. People want their kids to be able to play in the street, so they buy in a cul-de-sac with no through traffic.
Detroit is the way it is largely due to economic hardship, not because of the way it was built.
Anyway, was Detroit that urban to begin with? Also, since it's the "motor city," I doubt that Detroit maintained a robust public transit system after the automobile became their main industry. Although I have no personal experience, I've heard their transit system is a joke.
The population has been in decline for some time...
In the 50's it was still very street car dependent.
Don't forget that Detroit was very much pro Bus and actively bought up street car lines to broaden the market for buses... especially GM
My round about point is you can't make people live somewhere they don't want...
There isn't anything wrong with them sharing the problems with American suburbia. We should welcome new ideas, and make use of them.
There's nothing wrong with it but it's an apples and oranges thing
1- our country is much younger and while we have some great architecture, we will never compete with Europe, China, Japan, etc in overall awe inspiring cities. Remove NYC, Chicago and pick a third Boston, maybe? There's certain pockets of Manhattan and Chicago that compares to the St G pic but it's not the status quo of the city.
2- The size of the US is only comparable to a few other nations. Most of those have a similar structure of city, suburbs and BFE. The planning of smaller nations lends itself to the ideal of the writer. If France was the same size, it might very well be closer to us.
Even if you were to compare/contrast an equally sized nation, it'd still be a flawed analysis because of the homogeneous make up of the other nation. Russia is going to be influenced by Russians. America has too many influences and they all get watered down to beige.
Detroit is the way it is largely due to economic hardship, not because of the way it was built.
Anyway, was Detroit that urban to begin with? Also, since it's the "motor city," I doubt that Detroit maintained a robust public transit system after the automobile became their main industry. Although I have no personal experience, I've heard their transit system is a joke.
In most major cities outside of NYC and Chicago (and a few others, I'm sure) public transportation is viewed as something for poor people.
So many people have never lived in a city/walkable type planned area. The suburbs are all they know
.
And it doesn't help much to invoke the urban lifestyles/traditions of other countries, because their brands of urbanity are based on different histories, different values, different circumstances.....
Last edited by Tim Randal Walker; 03-08-2017 at 08:51 PM..
And the USA never really had a tradition of city living in the first place.
what does a "city living tradition" mean? In 1800, everywhere was mostly rural. Europe was somewhat less so but most people lived in rural areas. The US obviously couldn't have big cities in 1800 let alone 1700, there weren't enough people in total. Cities grew fast in both the US [excluding the south] and Europe in the 1800s, where in both places city living went from a small minority of the population to about half.
1) Yeah, yeah. Nobody wants a restaurant below their living space. Other businesses can be problems as well.
2) Suburbs and cities both have major arteries, and congestion flows down from them. People in suburbs typically aren't stuck getting out of their neighborhood in heavy traffic, they're sitting on the main roads.
3) Great, since I'm driving, I need a place to park, and right up front is much better than following a constricted little alley to a back lot.
4) When I lived in a townhouse complex next to a strip mall, I could (and sometimes did) walk right between them. This, then, is not an essential problem.
5) Has this person looked at cities like Philadelphia, Baltimore, and New York? You often have entire blocks of the same building. Besides, what's the advantages to the residents paying full price of having "affordable housing" nearby?
6) This is a personal preference masquerading as a universal principle.
7) Same here.
8) Yeah, that house is ugly. No accounting for taste. Amusingly it lacks a garage. But parking behind the house? Why would I want to do that? Setting back the house gives space between the house and the street, reducing noise and providing more feeling of privacy, particularly since I have a few trees there.
9)
Quote:
“Well, if you’re so committed to walking, why not just … do it?” They mean right here, on the highway, next to six lanes of traffic, in 90 °F heat.
I assure you, it gets just as hot in the city. As for the six lanes of traffic.... ladies and gentleman, I present to you the most walkable city in the nation, a neighborhood with a walk score of 99: https://goo.gl/maps/psERcoi1pQR2
That's EIGHT, count 'em, EIGHT lanes of divided highway. And three lanes in the cross street.
10) I've done public transit commutes, and I've done driving. Give me driving any day.
11) Much poetry, little substance. As for Atlanta's historic parts, Sherman burnt them.
12) Lack of a regional planning vision is a feature. One powerful bureaucrat deciding land use for everyone in the whole area is a terrible idea. Should have been left back in the Soviet Union, or perhaps with Robert Moses.
There isn't anything wrong with them sharing the problems with American suburbia. We should welcome new ideas, and make use of them.
If you read the original article you would realize that more than sharing problems, it was a whinefest.
I realize that suburbs is not for everybody just like cities are not for all. But there are enough people who like suburbs to make it worthwhile to live there; otherwise they would have emigrated to cities. So why put those people down with one personal dislike after another.
In the late 1980's I lived for a year in NYC since I also worked in the Bronx. Bronx was very unsafe. Manhattan was very expensive even back then. If I needed to do grocery shopping I needed to come down from my 13th floor to the 1st floor where a D'Agastino was selling overpriced grocery items because it could and we had no choice. Unfortunately my salary could not afford that prices and I moved the next year to Bergen County, NJ. I had a nice apartment for half the price and even with commute and GW bridge tolls it was much cheaper. But I did not grouse about NYC living to others who liked living in NYC.
Why can't people realize that choices are good, especially when people have different tastes.
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.
