American liberals are overtly hostile to anything beautiful any homely and American "conservatives" hate their history more than anyone else on the planet.
But think of how beautiful it would be if we tore down the buildings on the left and built a strip mall, and tore down the buildings on the right and built a six-lane throughfare.
More seriously, Americans just want everything to stay as it is, and couldn't care less about improvement or tradeoffs or optimization. If it wasn't in fashion in 1950, then it's Communism.
>expand over a large area in a relatively short amount of time >wtf why aren't americans densely packed together in cities like my country who has had the same territory for 1000 years vgh muh SOVL
most europeans cities had to be rebuilt after ww2 from the constant bombing.
And many older American cities were retrofitted (read: knocking down buildings to create expressways, strip malls, and parking lots) into their current configuration after the war.
Age/space has little to do with the modern American built environment.
>And many older American cities were retrofitted (read: knocking down buildings to create expressways, strip malls, and parking lots)
Except this didn't happen in most cases. Major cities that already had developed urban centers before the national interstate program started had to find ways to integrate their city centers with the highway system, but they didn't demolish historic neighborhoods to make it happen. It's only in larger, newer cities that sprang up in the industry boom after the war that you see freeways incorporated into the city center itself.
The largest city in my state dates back to the 1800s so the the freeway system skirts the city center and has to be connected to it by various bridges and overpasses. The central districts are a maze of one way streets that had to be very gradually widened for increased car traffic, but the trams and trains have the most prominence in the inner city.
I'm really tired of listening to people talk about American cities who have likely never set foot in one.
>they didn't demolish historic neighborhoods to make it happen.
Yes they did.
http://iqc.ou.edu/2014/12/12/60yrsmidwest/
And many areas that would've been similarly converted were spared only because of the freeway revolt of the 1960s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_78_in_New_York#Lower_Manhattan_Expressway
And if one thinks about it, the most famous of the postwar suburbs was Levittown, Long Island. Robert Moses' expressway and parkway work in New York served as one of the earliest and highest profile examples of the desired 'Futurama' paradigm. Beaux-Arts icons like Pennsylvania Station and Grand Central Terminal were scheduled for demolition, their transport functions regarded as obsolete.
The pattern was enacted to varying degrees throughout the US, without really moving to a synthesis or more mature concept like, say, the Netherlands did.
Those were built in colonial times and many America. Urban planners are absolute plebs. There is literally no thought put into how it looks and it’s all just a question of how many shopping stores can we put on the giant slab of concrete.
Except that's not what OP's picture is, is it? In early America the greatest towns only had a few tens of thousands of people in them and the countryside was almost as visible and accessible as it was to the rural population. Such urban life is more-or-less the grandest way to live.
It has to do with the parts of the Eastern US that has large populations also has a lot of rain fall. Generally more then the urban areas of the UK. Building a street like that is ASKING for a flood over here.
The UK city with the most rainfall per year is Cardiff with 45 inches of rainfall. For the US ours is Miami at 67 inches of rainfall.
If I was in charge, we would intensely urbanize certain areas. Like San Francisco, for example. There should be no cars in that city. Just place massive BART and busing complexes throughout, and use the extra space to build housing.
what are all the poles for? must have been a lot of work putting them there for no apparent reason. if a car can't get past the outer most pair, then why along the whole alley?
So cars that don't get past the first poles don't have the ability to swerve into the building fronts
If I was in charge, we would intensely urbanize certain areas. Like San Francisco, for example. There should be no cars in that city. Just place massive BART and busing complexes throughout, and use the extra space to build housing.
I want a Kowloon-styled city the size of Rhode Island
Starting in 1820; large tracts of land became available in the northwest territory. This caused migration, which meant building up new cities instead of converting old cities. Larger properties meant more area to work with and (for the most part) elimination of alleys. So where, in image etc, they had to adapt to change while keeping the same footprint, not in the US.
They DO exist, but most are faux, created in modern times as part of the "walkability" movement. So you'll have this, except instead of homes it's brand new cell phone stores
America is comparatively very new, most of our streets were made after the invention of cars. Meanwhile, Europe is still littered with these little medieval walking streets and goatpaths.
Not that that's bad, it's just older than america.
Americans can't handle it. Just like horse meat. Or small cars. Or education
too fat, can't fit through
FUCKING KEK
we're big guys
New England was settled the longest. Manifest Destiny was like Roman Expansion. The further out the less dense and urbanized.
[deleted post]
Im just saying its comfy as hell yall motherfuckers keep trying to larp like europeans and forgot the most soulful element of our continent
>yall motherfuckers keep trying to larp like europeans
No we don’t.
>Hate trains
>Hate bikes
>Luv me car
>Luv me gun
Simple as
Not wide enough for my 2 mpg alpha male truck that has never been filled with anything but groceries
American liberals are overtly hostile to anything beautiful any homely and American "conservatives" hate their history more than anyone else on the planet.
But think of how beautiful it would be if we tore down the buildings on the left and built a strip mall, and tore down the buildings on the right and built a six-lane throughfare.
More seriously, Americans just want everything to stay as it is, and couldn't care less about improvement or tradeoffs or optimization. If it wasn't in fashion in 1950, then it's Communism.
Can this be more than an alleyway? Does the UK have pedestrian only streets?
There's one in Canterbury
US has lots of lands so people can afford to have a larger personal space
Can't fit a car through. You expect an American to actually WALK more than a mile?
have a nice day homosexual comunist n-wordloving glowie garden gnome.
[log in to view media]
forgot pic
Ironically those alleys came from a time where there weren't any homosexuals, communists, n-words, CIA and garden gnomes.
wtf i hate streets now
>streets le bad
[deleted post]
>muh we are white people
>muh we must preserve European culture
>muh I am Irish/Scottish/English/German/Italian/.....
shut up bitch
Can't fit a Ford 150 down those streets.
>expand over a large area in a relatively short amount of time
>wtf why aren't americans densely packed together in cities like my country who has had the same territory for 1000 years vgh muh SOVL
most europeans cities had to be rebuilt after ww2 from the constant bombing.
And many older American cities were retrofitted (read: knocking down buildings to create expressways, strip malls, and parking lots) into their current configuration after the war.
Age/space has little to do with the modern American built environment.
>And many older American cities were retrofitted (read: knocking down buildings to create expressways, strip malls, and parking lots)
Except this didn't happen in most cases. Major cities that already had developed urban centers before the national interstate program started had to find ways to integrate their city centers with the highway system, but they didn't demolish historic neighborhoods to make it happen. It's only in larger, newer cities that sprang up in the industry boom after the war that you see freeways incorporated into the city center itself.
The largest city in my state dates back to the 1800s so the the freeway system skirts the city center and has to be connected to it by various bridges and overpasses. The central districts are a maze of one way streets that had to be very gradually widened for increased car traffic, but the trams and trains have the most prominence in the inner city.
I'm really tired of listening to people talk about American cities who have likely never set foot in one.
[log in to view media]
>they didn't demolish historic neighborhoods to make it happen.
Yes they did.
http://iqc.ou.edu/2014/12/12/60yrsmidwest/
And many areas that would've been similarly converted were spared only because of the freeway revolt of the 1960s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_78_in_New_York#Lower_Manhattan_Expressway
And if one thinks about it, the most famous of the postwar suburbs was Levittown, Long Island. Robert Moses' expressway and parkway work in New York served as one of the earliest and highest profile examples of the desired 'Futurama' paradigm. Beaux-Arts icons like Pennsylvania Station and Grand Central Terminal were scheduled for demolition, their transport functions regarded as obsolete.
The pattern was enacted to varying degrees throughout the US, without really moving to a synthesis or more mature concept like, say, the Netherlands did.
Americans love soullesss free market capitalism and following neoliberal trends more than preserving tradition and culture
Car culture
Those were built in colonial times and many America. Urban planners are absolute plebs. There is literally no thought put into how it looks and it’s all just a question of how many shopping stores can we put on the giant slab of concrete.
Because walkable cities are communism.
Urbanfags can't seem to grasp the idea that not everyone wants to live in compact human ant farms with steel and concrete as far as the eye can see.
Except that's not what OP's picture is, is it? In early America the greatest towns only had a few tens of thousands of people in them and the countryside was almost as visible and accessible as it was to the rural population. Such urban life is more-or-less the grandest way to live.
We're too busy having sex
It has to do with the parts of the Eastern US that has large populations also has a lot of rain fall. Generally more then the urban areas of the UK. Building a street like that is ASKING for a flood over here.
The UK city with the most rainfall per year is Cardiff with 45 inches of rainfall. For the US ours is Miami at 67 inches of rainfall.
https://www.freeflush.co.uk/blogs/freeflush-rainwater-harvesting-blog/30077441-which-is-the-rainiest-city-in-the-uk
https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/US/average-annual-precipitation-by-city.php
Philadelphia, the city that pic is from, redrew a number of its streets to make them more open to help prevent flooding.
If I was in charge, we would intensely urbanize certain areas. Like San Francisco, for example. There should be no cars in that city. Just place massive BART and busing complexes throughout, and use the extra space to build housing.
The sunshine laws of that San Francisco are designed to prevent that. Or rather to prevent new housing. It is a city by and for its landlords.
Last thing San Francisco needs is more people.
keyed
what are all the poles for? must have been a lot of work putting them there for no apparent reason. if a car can't get past the outer most pair, then why along the whole alley?
So cars that don't get past the first poles don't have the ability to swerve into the building fronts
I want a Kowloon-styled city the size of Rhode Island
So much euro seething in this thread
Uncivilizased afroamerican men and other ethnics minorities doing uncivilizased things.
You will never be white.
Starting in 1820; large tracts of land became available in the northwest territory. This caused migration, which meant building up new cities instead of converting old cities. Larger properties meant more area to work with and (for the most part) elimination of alleys. So where, in image etc, they had to adapt to change while keeping the same footprint, not in the US.
They DO exist, but most are faux, created in modern times as part of the "walkability" movement. So you'll have this, except instead of homes it's brand new cell phone stores
>unironically living in the urban garden gnome
Not
Even
Once
because cars can't drive through it.
America is comparatively very new, most of our streets were made after the invention of cars. Meanwhile, Europe is still littered with these little medieval walking streets and goatpaths.
Not that that's bad, it's just older than america.