Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-30-2015, 09:31 PM
PDF
 
11,395 posts, read 13,425,232 times
Reputation: 6707

Advertisements

I wish they would.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-30-2015, 09:57 PM
 
24,410 posts, read 26,964,842 times
Reputation: 19987
I personally would rather live in a city designed for cars and would rather visit a city designed for walking.

I've lived in many cities and currently live in an urban city (San Francisco). It's great being able to walk from your house to restaurants, bars, grocery stores etc or have tons of public transportation options available. However, after awhile it gets really old. It becomes a pain being crammed into a bus or subway during rush hour or having to get around by walking when you are sick. I miss having more personal space. I don't like having neighbors basically on top of me. I mean, I see the benefits of both types of cities. I personally would rather have a house with a nice yard and be able to drive to an outdoor shopping area or entertainment districts. If you would have asked me this 5-10 years ago, my answer would have been the exact opposite because I didn't get to fully experience living in an urban city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2015, 11:47 AM
 
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,282,012 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by JennyMominRI View Post
I'd rather live in either one. I'm not a big fan of NYC.. For big american cities, I much prefer Chicago.
I would live in St Louis or Atlanta. Yes, they both have bad areas, as do most American cities. I'd add Boston too this

There is something that no one is mentioning here. White Flight. I'm sorry to say it, but it was a real phenomenon.

European cites are old and established. The USA is a nation of immigrants and often those poor immigrants settled in inner cities. As such rightly or wrongly, US cities are often seen is where the poor live. Wealthy immigrants wanted land. Land was the big draw fr people coming to America. That still holds up. It is ingrained in American society. Poor immigrant's goals were to get OUT of the city and have a little piece of land of their own.
Ironic with how expensive many have grown. And yes, it's also true that many people in the USA look at public transport as something that poor and/or lower classes take.
I fell asleep on a Greyhound bus in my 20's and woke up to a guy putting his hand up my shirt.
True about "White Flight". It caused American city cores downtowns and many neighborhoods to fall into decay and urban blight in the 60s 70s. But the 80s 90s brought turnarounds in Urban cores and especially the 2000s. As Downtowns bounced back in desirability and older dense (by American standards) cities. Became renewed as Young Urban Professionals moved back by 10s of thousands again. Most apparently White in ethnicity.

BUT CONTINUING INCREASED DENSITY IS A ONGOING PROCESS. BUT THE LAYOUT AND HOUSING STYLES OF AMERICAN CITIES. ARE AS THEY ARE? RESTORING CURRENT NEIGHBORHOODS IS KEY AND CONTINUING. ADDING LIVING TO DOWNTOWN CORES IS WHAT IS NEW. But till American Big city Public School systems improve to Suburban standards. Many of these new young residents leave to the suburbs when Children are school age.

I agree with Chicago and its neighborhoods. One thing I noticed when I lived in Chicago, was it has a planned street grid and full alley system behind the housing where power lines traveled. City planners felt every neighborhood home, should have some green space in front and tree lined streets. No matter what density.

BUT SOME SEE ... IF THE STREET ISN'T NARROW AND WINDING? IT IS NOT AS WALKABLE? GREEN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WALKABILITY, AND MANY EUROPEAN CITIES SEEN AS DENSE AND WALKABLE LACK GREEN SPACE IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS? AMERICAN CITIES ADDED GREEN FAR MORE. Just in the mid-20th century. Suburban spreading .... from tighter city lots. Became Sprawl.

So you have these great high density, Walkable neighborhoods just north and northwest of Downtown. Chicago To the north is no separation. But don't homes. 2-3 flat residences. DON'T EXPECT 5-6 STORY TIGHT APARTMENT BLOCKS. THAT WAS NOT WHAT MOST AMERICANS PREFERED THEN OR TODAY.

Lincoln Park neighborhood

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9227...exMrVJ0MAw!2e0

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9229...ahbvbkqU2w!2e0

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9229...mLlCAFH7zQ!2e0

Lakeview neighborhood

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9415...9IsucxCybA!2e0

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9496...fzjOMh1Fww!2e0

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9497...7RzX0_ZRig!2e0

Ukrainian Village neighborhood

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9013...6ijLKcTidA!2e0

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9023...xkAzgsmTQQ!2e0

Wicker Park neighborhood
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9131...553MBEgkPw!2e0

Chicago's VAST Bungalow belt began in 1910 to 1940. Growing To 1/3 of the city.

Cragin neighborhood
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9421...uGTAMHb1EQ!2e0

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9323...0mLvtvhzOw!2e0

North Austin neighborhood
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9067...QX94j3YaIw!2e0

Jefferson Park neighborhood
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9771...sGKa9t3kwg!2e0

50s 60s Garfield Ridge neighborhood Southside
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7906...Y_nbiuWrMA!2e0

Overview of Chicago shows that TREES are all over the city.


Last edited by steeps; 05-04-2015 at 12:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2015, 07:38 PM
 
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,282,012 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw335xi View Post
I personally would rather live in a city designed for cars and would rather visit a city designed for walking.

I've lived in many cities and currently live in an urban city (San Francisco). It's great being able to walk from your house to restaurants, bars, grocery stores etc or have tons of public transportation options available. However, after awhile it gets really old. It becomes a pain being crammed into a bus or subway during rush hour or having to get around by walking when you are sick. I miss having more personal space. I don't like having neighbors basically on top of me. I mean, I see the benefits of both types of cities. I personally would rather have a house with a nice yard and be able to drive to an outdoor shopping area or entertainment districts. If you would have asked me this 5-10 years ago, my answer would have been the exact opposite because I didn't get to fully experience living in an urban city.
Yes I basically agree. Why I liked Chicago city layout. Oldest neighborhoods, still had green frontage and tree-lined up to Bungalow neighborhoods of the 20s30s, that give one a front lawn, parking in front, back yard and most built garages along the Alleys in back. Chicago has a full alley system where Power lines and those ugly wood poles are placed, and for garbage pick-up.

They do not have big back yards by far... especially if they chose a 2-car garage. But the Pre-suburban sprawl someone once called QUASI-SUBURBAN gave what Americans wanted. A single home with front lawn and back yard and garage. For car or shop or storage... LOL

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9377...k3isKIKMcw!2e0

the back of the homes, yards and garage and alleyways

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9337...MaBF3M-yBw!2e0
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2015, 08:34 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
45,983 posts, read 53,506,965 times
Reputation: 15184
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw335xi View Post
I personally would rather live in a city designed for cars and would rather visit a city designed for walking.
Except most cities have suburbs that are more car-friendly. Why have cities that are pedestrian unfriendly? Seems pointless, if you want then there are suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2015, 11:17 AM
 
2,639 posts, read 1,995,194 times
Reputation: 1988
To summarize, European style urbanity is an alien lifestyle. It doesn't resonate with Americans, except some urban-philes.

Last edited by Tim Randal Walker; 06-12-2015 at 11:26 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2015, 12:10 PM
 
520 posts, read 532,433 times
Reputation: 821
Because a lot of us, especially out here in the massive west like SPACE and individualism and freedom. I would hate to be in some densified urban environment. Yikes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2015, 12:29 PM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
26,883 posts, read 38,047,932 times
Reputation: 11651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Randal Walker View Post
To summarize, European style urbanity is an alien lifestyle. It doesn't resonate with Americans, except some urban-philes.
And yet, the first "American" cities were all built in this way and there are hundreds of them like this. Or at least their older central areas are like this.

American cities have a longer history of density (perhaps not equal to Europe but fairly similar just the same) than they do of auto-centric suburban sprawl, the latter being only a phenomenon of the last 60-70 years.

Not that I really care as I don't really have a horse in the race. Just pointing out the history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2015, 07:35 PM
 
349 posts, read 489,019 times
Reputation: 187
Because Americans are in love with the automobile...I guess the best they could do would be to copy the European style, but it would have none of the character that is built up over hundreds of years and many generations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2015, 01:58 PM
 
2,639 posts, read 1,995,194 times
Reputation: 1988
Default The Future

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoGeeks View Post
Because Americans are in love with the automobile...I guess the best they could do would be to copy the European style, but it would have none of the character that is built up over hundreds of years and many generations.
Or conceivably copy the urban styles of other traditions? Maybe those of Asian cultures?

But in general, yes, the character that comes from history/time would be lacking. And as Jane Jacobs pointed out, for a vibrant urbanism you need some older buildings, ones that are already paid for; new construction tends to fill with chains, because small or new businesses/nonprofit endeavors cannot afford the rent.

If starting fresh, a fairly vibrant urbanism would be the result of long term cultivation; I suspect that it would take a human lifetime to achieve that, and a sense of history would still be quite limited.

Perhaps a rough/unrefined version of urbanism could be achieved on a shorter time scale-I am thinking of TODs (Transit Orientated Development).

Last edited by Tim Randal Walker; 06-13-2015 at 02:19 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World

All times are GMT -6.

¬© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top