Why don't N. American cities & towns try to emulate W. European cities & towns more? (salons, neighbourhoods)
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.
As an European, I don't like this kind of things. To me this doesn't look like Europe.
It's a very stereotyped view of Europe.
Ernst Lubitsch said. "There is Paramount Paris and Metro Paris and of course the real Paris. Paramount's is the most Parisian of all"
For this famous hollywood movie producer of 1930's, the Hollywood's studios of Paris were more Parisian than the real Paris, obviously because his view of Paris was more based on stereotypes than on the reality of the city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Randal Walker
Bus routes, perhaps. But rail only where the density is high-which severely limits the possibilities.
Problem is that bus is slow, then not really efficient for long commuter journeys. The low density of cities means that cities sprawl a lot and distances are huge.
Too large for bus but not dense enough for rail.
It's very difficult to build efficient public transit for most american cities.
They need more density, at least in core districts and along major corridor.
Takes Los Angeles, the city is not as long density as most think (the density is medium) but the city is too spread out. You need to built a lot of subway lines and this is expensive.
The city is very dencentralized. Unlike New York or Chicago, you cannot just built a network centrered Downtown because it would only concerne a small ratio of journeys. Most people don't live and don't work near downtown.
An efficient rail network should be huge (thousands of miles) and most lines would have a rather low ridership because Los Angeles doesn't have the density and the concentration around major hubs seen in cities like Tokyo.
To be efficent a rail line should be close to the destination, unlike a freeway. If you are two miles away from the subway station you are far from the metro station. If you are 2 miles away from the Freeway, you are close to the freeway and will cover this distance by car in just a few minutes.
And then you have Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, Atlanta, Miami... whose don't even have the densities found in Los Angeles (at least on a large territorie).
Atlanta Marta rail just carries 231,700 daily passengers for a rail network of 77 km.
Metrorail in Miami just carries 78,100 daily passengers.
The lack of density of many american cities make them impossible to be served by decent public transit.
That's not necessarily true.
For example, Atlanta has a pretty decent rapid transit infrastructure in place today, but it should obviously be even better than that, though it could be expanded in various segments to substantially serve the population in a better format (i.e. the original Beltline concept). That comes with the caveat of Atlanta having the lowest density of any major metropolis on Earth, even in the 138 square mile city proper its density is only like 3,500 people per square mile and it only drops even lower from that point onwards as you begin moving outward/radiating outwards. Even other Sunbelt cities in America with like 300 to 600 square miles by city proper are denser (just shy of twice as much) in their 140 mile central core than Atlanta and come out to similar density levels as the city proper of Atlanta but over a far larger and outer physical area. In essence, if Atlanta can build a suitable rapid transit infrastructure, without the high densities of even its peers in America, let alone rival cities across the globe in Europe or Asia, then it can be done.
The formula should be that the city serves all of its important nodes. In the case of Atlanta that means Downtown, Midtown, all along Peachtree (the central spinal column of the entire metropolis) all the way to Buckhead and out to the Perimeter Center area, then in addition to that the airport. Atlanta should consider adding a loop system for its rapid transit, that would make it substantially more efficient than it is right now. By doing so, the city is connecting each of its corridors and pockets of high density with suitable transit options.
That's all the city really needs. The point of transit is not for it to be a bragging point for geeks to come on the Internet and pump their chests out on when comparing to another city, the point of transit is to offer those that live somewhere the necessary infrastructure to get around without having to live life in a car-dependent manner. Getting from Point A to Point B without having to enter the vessel of a car to do so. It is called having options, which is very important. Atlanta should be commended for what it does have so far and should be encouraged to expand even more in the future, that's even with its lack of overall density, it's very important.
That's one of the things North American cities need to work on, they certainly can improve their transit infrastructure substantially, that's even without having high density. It is a necessity, one the American cities need to catch up on.
The other factors American cities should laser focus on are improvement in inner city public education institutions and the reduction of violent crime rates, you cannot aspire to be a world class city or even a respectable place when your murder rate is on par with Honduras. That needs to be curbed, pronto.
Either way, my original post wasn't solely about America but the entire continent of North America. No doubt, every other country in North America is well ahead of the United States in either density, urbanity, transit, or the like, and that goes without saying because that's America's achilles heel, it is the worst in the world at those things, but even those other cities in those other North American countries lag their peers worldwide. So if there ever was anything to emulate Europe or Asia on in North America, it should certainly be transit.
Everything else? North American cities, in particular American cities, are fine the way they are. There is a reason why Americans are wealthier, have better job opportunities, and generally have access to better amenities overall than their global counterparts, if they want to live in a spaced out detached house, then so be it. They are the ones shelling out their personal money for it, who are we to judge people for buying something they've worked towards? They are entitled to do so, but their cities absolutely need to get on the ball and develop adequate rapid transit infrastructure, at minimum they need to connect all the important business centers, commercial corridors, airports, and high density corridors in their respective cities. They need to be able to give people that option to be able to move about the city and/or region without the use of a car.
That's very much a work in progress for North America, very very much so.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 07-19-2017 at 04:02 PM..
Seeing the ridership of MARTA, I wouldn't really call it "suitable". It's a pretty low ridership for 77 km of metro network.
Toronto with a smaller network has four times more passengers.
Why ? Because of the lower density.
To acheive a similar ridership, Atlanta would need a lot more km of rail.
Why ? Because to cover an equal number of people and sending them where they need (or want) to go, you need to built much more in Atlanta than in Toronto.
Then comes the funding issue.
Building and maintaining a network cost a lot of money. You can't really built a subway just for a limited number of people.
To reduce operating costs, you can reduce the service but if frequencies are too low then the service becomes unattractive.
Seeing the ridership of MARTA, I wouldn't really call it "suitable". It's a pretty low ridership for 77 km of metro network.
It isn't about the ridership or the statistics involved, every city should aspire to give its residents the necessary relief they deserve from a car-dependent life. Also, MARTA's ridership is pretty high given the severe lack of suitable density throughout the city and metropolis, hell, as low as the ridership comes across to you, trust me, it really could have been worse. It really could have been lower for an area with that low a density.
I think that just because other people aren't using the system doesn't mean that it isn't available to you and that you shouldn't use the system because others aren't using it. If you have access to it, then use it. Make the most of what you have available to you because not everyone in the world is as fortunate to have such options.
Obviously just to operate the system needs suitable ridership, but the ridership lacking isn't due to low density it is due to the mindset American people have towards public transport (i.e. "only the poor use trains to get around"). The cities don't really do anything about it to change how its residents perceive transit, they don't do a single thing about it. The real problem with American cities (and sometimes the American people in general) is that they don't make a push to get people to use their system, it is called resident ignorance and that's really what American cities need to work on. In America, when a person wants to go, say 10 miles, they automatically feel the inclination to get in a car even if they have a rapid transit system that can get them to that same destination. Why do they opt to use a car when all it does is put added mileage onto their vehicle, additional wear and tear, traffic and congestion, gas costs more than transit fares, that often come with stop lights in between, and generally make parking a bigger hassle than it should be? That's just typified ignorance, that's what American cities are working against, which is that their resident population lives in ignorance. There is nothing wrong with cars, but it should be amongst the options available to residents, not the sole option available.
Also, Toronto is a North American city but like all the cities in Canada, for its size, it does markedly far better than its American counterparts. Without a shred of doubt, that's with the fact that Toronto's system is inefficient itself by European or Asian standards.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 07-19-2017 at 05:01 PM..
A good example of what Americans should be doing in terms of city planning and urban development is Lakeshore East in Chicago. Where they took a dilapidated slot of land along the banks of the Chicago river and built new high density, mixed used buildings around a beautiful park. This sort of thing should be happening in every city in North America.
That does look pretty fun, it's like a museum of stereotypes
It's EXTREMELY stereotypical but in a fun way. Think "German" dancers performing in a beer hall wearing lederhosen to the music of an oom-pah band. Think of dining on spaghetti in an Italian theater. Half timbered buildings and red phone booths in England.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Randal Walker
Tallsock's images....
Like a Disneyland version of Europe? Imagine rebuilding North American cities like this-seems to be what KenFresno was talking about.
Yes, like a Disneyland version. plenty of kitsch to go around in each respective country. The food is actually pretty good and the roller coasters and shows are amazing
A good example of what Americans should be doing in terms of city planning and urban development is Lakeshore East in Chicago. Where they took a dilapidated slot of land along the banks of the Chicago river and built new high density, mixed used buildings around a beautiful park. This sort of thing should be happening in every city in North America.
1987
2017
Always nice to see something like that. Well-thought-out urban planning.
A good example of what Americans should be doing in terms of city planning and urban development is Lakeshore East in Chicago. Where they took a dilapidated slot of land along the banks of the Chicago river and built new high density, mixed used buildings around a beautiful park. This sort of thing should be happening in every city in North America.
Yes, it was called too dense when planned in the 70s. But they were proved wrong. It is its own neighborhood with amenities within. Plenty of parkland and layers underground from tunnels to the original Business district to plenty of parking to supply other areas too. 4 final lots for skyscrapers have been proposed to complete its plan. Currently a 96 story hotel/residential tower under construction and 50 and 80 story's planned yet. Its western side is mostly offices and it also borders two new parks and harbor alongside.
European inspired attributes surely are welcome to add to choices in the US. But copies in streets and housing would be limited.
Chicago's front yard original Grant Park is European inspired and Center Fountain built in a rococo wedding cake style and inspired by the Latona Fountain at the Palace of Versailles. First picture
Parks & Lakeshore East - on left half of river too other side.
We have different ways of life so we have different cities. European cities are on different stage of development than cities in the Americas (those settlements have thousands of years they have been established). It doesn't take an urban planner to realize this. US cities were designed around an automobile. European largely weren't. We take things that European cities do well and implement them here just like the rest of the world consumes American culture.
You could have made a more concise, condescending thread by just saying you prefer European cities.
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.
