# What are the major diffrences between Asian, North American, and European Cities?



## yooik4890

^^ ????


----------



## WeimieLvr

yooik4890 said:


> ^^ ????


They are on different continents...


----------



## centralcali19

WeimieLvr said:


> They are on different continents...



:lol: i think everyone knows that.....well european cities are more dense than American cities....


----------



## LMCA1990

North America: Big open spaces.
Europe: Density.
Asia: Sprawl.


----------



## rossie1977

most european cities were built long before anyone dreamed of inventing the automobile hno:


----------



## SPLewis

LMCA1990 said:


> North America: Big open spaces.
> Europe: Density.
> Asia: Sprawl.


I wouldn't bet on the Density for European cities only, virtually all major Asian cities are incredibly dense.


----------



## Manila-X

North American cities would have a high-rise office towers and condos in its city centre while its suburbs is mostly low-rise homes and low to mid-rise office parks.

Asian cities would have high-rises all over but is also varies. Chinese, East Asian and South East Asian cities have these characteristics.

Europe is mostly low-rise. Some Euro cities would have high-rises outside the downtown core.


----------



## Xusein

Asian cities are in Asia, North American cities are in North America, and European cities are in Europe. :tongue2:

Okay, the difference is the degrees of density and urban design and planning that are different in all three areas. Asian cities tend to be the most populated, making them the most dense and PT-centered. European cities are similar, but lack the high rises. And North American cities tend to be the least dense.



rossie1977 said:


> most european cities were built long before anyone dreamed of inventing the automobile hno:


Well, so were many cities in North America...so I don't see your point.


----------



## -Corey-

Asian: Developing
North American: Developed
European: Developed


----------



## Manila-X

Vrysxy said:


> Asian: Developing
> North American: Developed
> European: Developed


HK, Tokyo, Singapore, Shanghai, developing? Asian cities are also some of the largest in the world


----------



## -Corey-

Sorry my bad, i missunderstood the question. hehe


----------



## dhuwman

NA cities are the most automobile-friendly. They form "metros" and are basically one downtown "CBD" type of highrise area with sprawling neighborhoods and huge surburbia packed with low and mid rises.

European cities were formed before the invention of motorized vehicles so they are less automobile-friendly compared to NA ones but they have denser cities with better areal development. By that I mean, compared to downtown-suburb of NA cities, European cities seem to have districts or areas each with their center of commerce, business, entertainment, etc. Not much sprawls though. They tend to be much older then NA cities.

Asian cities are in a sense very similar with European cities since their cities formed long ago as well. However, most of them were "modernized" relatively in shorter period of time, So they have pretty modern buildings along with older buildings. Asians cities have sprawls too but in a sense different from those of NA cities. Whereas NA cities have sprawling "suburbia", Asians cities have sprawling "city cores" with not so many low rises and if they do, those are "shabby older buildings"

I don't know really LOL


----------



## GENIUS LOCI

This question made me think: ouch, maybe in few years there will be not all that difference

Infact in any continents skyscrapers and suburban sprawl became a common way to cities development... architecture is more and more 'internationlized' (more than international style invented by Mies van der Rohe) so even way of life with all its implication in urban aspect

Probably only hystorical heritages (and even American cities now are so 'aged' to have one) could distinguish our cities in the future

Extremization? Yep, but there is something true in it


----------



## PedroGabriel

interesting, keep up with your info, people! kay:

I agree with dhuwman view. In Europe downtown is the oldest area, not the highrise one. But most people that come to my city think the highrise area is downtown. :nuts:


----------



## Sideshow_Bob

/\ Show one picture of your city's downtown area?


----------



## PedroGabriel

downtown
city hall square









shopping street









not downtown (this specific district is from the 1970s)




















and another area (19th century), but unfortunately transformed during the 20th century due to speculation. this avenue is considered downtown, because the city hall plans to polish it as the Central Business Area. But really is is part of the Northern area of the city as the later.










And it is a small city. But very dense, excessively in fact. It's problem is it excessively dense, but of course it has advantages, you don't need a car too much.


----------



## Duranguense17

In the cities of NA have density and very population, a difference of europe
in asia is the same

Nueva York










Chicago










Montreal










Mexico City


----------



## Manila-X

PedroGabriel said:


> interesting, keep up with your info, people! kay:
> 
> I agree with dhuwman view. In Europe downtown is the oldest area, not the highrise one. But most people that come to my city think the highrise area is downtown. :nuts:


When I see it, the term "downtown" mostly applies to NA cities especially US or Canada. And the term "downtown" refers to the city's central business district. The term recently is applied to cities in other continents as well.

But technically, the term "downtown" doesn't really fit in cities outside NA. Its usually called "city", "CBD" or "city centre". In HK for example, Central District would refered to as the "downtown" by westerners. Yes Central is the main centre of business and finance in HK but the area is actually not the heart and soul of the city. HK's city centre expands not just in Central but also in central Kowloon and the northern part of the island. Plus, HK has more than one CBD so the term "downtown" doesn't really fit. And if it did, the term would include the areas I mentioned.

NY would also be another example. Despite being in North America, the term "downtown" applies to Lower Manhattan. But the heart and soul of the city is in "midtown". Plus Midtown Manhattan is the NY's main CBD.

Metro Manila and Tokyo on the other hand have several "centres" and so does Shanghai.


----------



## Slartibartfas

"European city" is an urban concept that had been ignored in Europe in many places for some time. One can see how this is changing slowly again. Some large new developments that see themselves as part of the inner city, not the periphery follow that principle again. Just have a look at the Hafencity in central Hamburg or Hammersby Sjöstad in Stockholm to name only two.

I think those new developments show that the concept of the European city is not an accident from pre car cultures but a concept that works also in our modern world and can also built a new. You can build it, you don't have to inherit it.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

rossie1977 said:


> most european cities were built long before anyone dreamed of inventing the automobile hno:


Only the city centers and some adjacent neighborhoods...


----------



## OMH

*Differences between European, North American and Asian cities*

I'm very interested in his theme , and i think that despite that nowadays modern architecture and urban planning is similar worldwide, there are considerable differences between cities on different continents .

I don't want to generalize here, but obviously you'll have to do it more or less, so i'd say that the cityscape of cities on different continents could be described to have following typical characteristics (obviously cities on each continents are different in each other, but they share similar characteristics):

Europe- 
European cities are usually much older then North American cities, and around the same age as Asian cities , most major European cities where founded between the 1st (usually cities that where founded by Romans) and the medieval ages (ca 10-13th centuries), though settlement usually was much more earlier , sometimes as early as bronze age . 
I'd describe the cityscape of a modern European city to have following characteristics: A dense, historical central core (called Altstadt "old town" in Germany) , with mostly historical buildings, usually from 19th century, where also major representative and administrative buildings like Churches and the City hall are located. Also, it works as the major shopping district, but as opposed to North America not necessarily as the CBD , buildings are usually 4-7 floors high, with some few modern buildings in between the historic buildings that are usually the same hight. 
Despite what many Americans seem to think, European central cities or downtowns don't have more residential buildings than North American CBD's , most buildings are used as office space or for other commercial uses (usually shops or gastronomy ) , though i'd say that office use is a little lower compared to North America , while there're more shops, restaurants and nightclubs . 
Also, there is usually a pedestrian zone in European downtowns , which is great IMO since it contributes to a higher density of shops, and its just a more pleasurable feeling of walking on a nice pedestrian zone than on a road where cars drive by nonstop. 
So, Generally speaking European cities are more dense, though this doesn't necessarily apply to population density but more o the density of the build environment, menaing that buildings are built next on each other in city blocks, and usually apartment buildings have inner courtyards that act as a common are for the inhabitants of the apartment blocks next to it (IMO enclosed appartment blocks are much better in this aspect than commieblocks because if a courtyard is enclosed, it creates more of a community feeling than an open courtyard IMO) , and this inner courtyards do exist in North America too, but in a different form than in Europe, and usually are, ironically, much smaller. 
I'd say that European cities have a much more harmonical cityscape than NA or Asian cities, since they consist mostly of buildings of similar hight, and the cityscape of ca. 5-7 floor high apartment buildings built around city blocks continues outside f the inner city up to the inner suburbs, that usually consist of historical village cores being analmagated into the city, and of satelite city developments, usually consisting of commieblocks from the 60's and 70's, and in more outer (and newer) suburbs of rowhouses , single-family houses and lowrise (ca. 3-4 floor) apartment buildings. 
There are obviously differences between cities in different countries, just generally speaking while what i wrote applies to almost all European cities, North European cites are less dense and have more sprawl than Southern European cities, while EE cities have much more Commieblocks than Western European cities. Southern European cities are the most densily build-up, hough IMO Paris has the most perfect cityscape of any city worldwide, its the perfect combination between architectural harmony and interesting urban fabric.

North America- 
North American cities are much newer than cities on any other continents, and because of that they're much more automobile-based too (which is IMO more negative than positive) , but despite that still seem to have more traffic jams than European cities (obviously has to do with higher automobile use-but ok, maybe its the same no. of traffic jams though) . 
The cityscape of North American cities can be characterised as following: 
A dense core city, usually located next to either a river or very often a lake or ocean, with highrises, mostly office highrises, though recently most highrises constructed in many NA cities have been condos (apartments) , which are usually located in the downtown area . 
Outside of the downtown area though, NA cities usually are rather low-dense, with most buildings being either low-rise apartments, duplex houses and rowhouses. 
IMO there're two major features that distinguish NA cities from therest of the world, or at least did until recently: city highways (freeways) and suburban sprawl. Both of these two "features" are more prominent in the USA than in Canada, where the cityscape of cities is a little bit more dense (ironically since Canada has much more space), and there's less sprawl than in the US.
City Highways are highways that go directly through cities, especially downtown areas and are typical of US cities and IMO show how much US cities are car-dependent compared to European cities , where city highways are almost nonexistent, and where they exist they're often laid under the earth in tunnels.
Suburban sprawl exists in most cities worldwide , but is especially prominent i the US, where its extreme, often going as far as 100! km outside of the city centre , for example in Chicago its like that. 

Asia- I don't know much about Asian cities, since i've never been in Asia, but from what i've seen on pictures they're very dense hough they lack the harmony of European cities and can seem chaotic to Europeans, and they're also often still in the phase of modernization, so they will change much faster and much more than European cities.


----------



## Chrissib

North American cities and asian cities lack an old city core. North americqn cities never had one, and unfortunately, it's usually destroyed in Asia, like in Beijing and Shanghai. I think in the future, asian cities are between european and north american cities. They're dense like european cities, and they have a CBD like North American Cities.
It's a pity that asian governments don't understand that a city needs a heart, a core with beautiful old buildings, instead of a CBD where you can do nothing instead of driving in your car and work.


----------



## Manila-X

Chrissib said:


> North American cities and asian cities lack an old city core. North americqn cities never had one, and unfortunately, it's usually destroyed in Asia, like in Beijing and Shanghai. I think in the future, asian cities are between european and north american cities. They're dense like european cities, and they have a CBD like North American Cities.
> It's a pity that asian governments don't understand that a city needs a heart, a core with beautiful old buildings, instead of a CBD where you can do nothing instead of driving in your car and work.


But alot of Asian cities have European influence especially in architecture and planning. That's because alot of countries in The Far East have been colonized by European powers. European influence is strong especially in cities like Shanghai where The British built churches and building that would have been similar to their own country. The Bund can look like Liverpool in several ways. In fact, alot of the art-deco buildings within this area are well preserved.

Manila on the other hand has an old city core called Intramuros filled with Spanish architecture. But this area today remains as a historical core. The city's economy runs outside Intramuros.

*Intramuros*
http://www.pbase.com/manilaxperience/intramuros


----------



## hkskyline

Chrissib said:


> North American cities and asian cities lack an old city core. North americqn cities never had one, and unfortunately, it's usually destroyed in Asia, like in Beijing and Shanghai. I think in the future, asian cities are between european and north american cities. They're dense like european cities, and they have a CBD like North American Cities.
> It's a pity that asian governments don't understand that a city needs a heart, a core with beautiful old buildings, instead of a CBD where you can do nothing instead of driving in your car and work.


That's not true. For the more historic cities, there definitely is an old historic core. For example, Beijing continues to have a Forbidden City, while the Bund serves as the historic Shanghai core. This is why many Asian cities are now building new centres from scratch outside their old cores.


----------



## Chrissib

hkskyline said:


> That's not true. For the more historic cities, there definitely is an old historic core. For example, Beijing continues to have a Forbidden City, while the Bund serves as the historic Shanghai core. This is why many Asian cities are now building new centres from scratch outside their old cores.


But it's also true that the old Hutongs are torn down in Peking. And this IS the old city.


----------



## hkskyline

Chrissib said:


> But it's also true that the old Hutongs are torn down in Peking. And this IS the old city.


A lot of the hutongs don't even have basic necessities, hence I doubt a lot of them can be preserved. Hutongs are not the old central core of Beijing anyway. The key centre is the Forbidden City.


----------



## socrates#1fan

European cities tend to be dense all over and have large areas dating centuries back(but they still have their low density sprawl as well.). North American cities tend to have a central area that usually dates from 400-100 years old depending on the region your in and have an area of historic density with outer rings of low density suburbs.
Asian cities are usually high density but they don't get the same general charm that cities in Europe and NA have( take away temples and other landmarks.).
NA cities tend to be auto dependant but many have sophisticated bus systems with up and coming rail lines and streetcars(even though most US cities had them before GM ripped them out.).
European cities tend to have excellent public transport with everything from subways to interurbans but you still have a lot of people with their own cars. Asian cities have a lot of public transport but as people get more money in their pockets you are seeing people buying cars(which can be a bad thing in this over-polluted world.) though parts of Asia are much too dense to even dream of owning a car.
The cities are alike to some extant yet very different.


----------



## socrates#1fan

Chrissib said:


> North American cities and asian cities lack an old city core. North americqn cities never had one, and unfortunately, it's usually destroyed in Asia, like in Beijing and Shanghai. I think in the future, asian cities are between european and north american cities. They're dense like european cities, and they have a CBD like North American Cities.
> It's a pity that asian governments don't understand that a city needs a heart, a core with beautiful old buildings, instead of a CBD where you can do nothing instead of driving in your car and work.


Have you ever been to NA?
A lot of the cities here were victorian-boomers.
Every city here I've lived in(midwestern US.) you always have vast areas of victorians and many homes from before the victorian era and old cathedrals everywhere. North America exsisted long before modernism or the automobile. It is quiet common for even the smaller towns to have old high density main streets or cores though they arent as alive as they should be. North America suffered a lot of 'urban renewalism' in which vast areas of victorians, classics, etc were wiped out for the sake of 'progression'. Many government and civic structures comparable to those in Europe were knocked down because they were 'relics of the victorian era.'.
Honestly, do you think NA was discovered in 1934?
I'm actually surprised by the statement that North American cities don't have have beautiful old cores. Look at Boston, Quebec, and even Cincinnati!


----------



## Slartibartfas

socrates#1fan said:


> Have you ever been to NA?
> A lot of the cities here were victorian-boomers.
> Every city here I've lived in(midwestern US.) you always have vast areas of victorians and many homes from before the victorian era and old cathedrals everywhere. North America exsisted long before modernism or the automobile. It is quiet common for even the smaller towns to have old high density main streets or cores though they arent as alive as they should be. North America suffered a lot of 'urban renewalism' in which vast areas of victorians, classics, etc were wiped out for the sake of 'progression'. Many government and civic structures comparable to those in Europe were knocked down because they were 'relics of the victorian era.'.
> Honestly, do you think NA was discovered in 1934?
> I'm actually surprised by the statement that North American cities don't have have beautiful old cores. Look at Boston, Quebec, and even Cincinnati!


I pretty much agree with you. I also get sometimes the impression some think NA was discovered in 1934.



hkskyline said:


> A lot of the hutongs don't even have basic necessities, hence I doubt a lot of them can be preserved. Hutongs are not the old central core of Beijing anyway. The key centre is the Forbidden City.


The same was true for most old buildings in Vienna as well. The key to keep those old fascinating districts, or at least a fair share of them is to adapt them to the modern needs without destroying them. This has been perfectly possible in Europe, or do you think medieval homes had electricity, water, showers etc ...


----------



## edubejar

socrates#1fan said:


> Have you ever been to NA?
> A lot of the cities here were victorian-boomers.
> Every city here I've lived in(midwestern US.) you always have vast areas of victorians and many homes from before the victorian era and old cathedrals everywhere. North America exsisted long before modernism or the automobile. It is quiet common for even the smaller towns to have old high density main streets or cores though they arent as alive as they should be. North America suffered a lot of 'urban renewalism' in which vast areas of victorians, classics, etc were wiped out for the sake of 'progression'. Many government and civic structures comparable to those in Europe were knocked down because they were 'relics of the victorian era.'.
> Honestly, do you think NA was discovered in 1934?
> I'm actually surprised by the statement that North American cities don't have have beautiful old cores. Look at Boston, Quebec, and even Cincinnati!


You are right. Some here forget that some US cities began to develop in the mid-1600s and throughout the 1700s (Northeast cities, New Orleans and other cities of the Old South), while others began developping in the early 1800s and so (Midwest cities of the Industrial Era), with distant, isolated cities like San Francisco beginning to take shape around that time, too. It's many cities of the Sunbelt that are more recent and which coincided more with the car (e.g. Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Atlanta, Denver, Pheonix, Tulsa, Tuscon, LA, San Diego, and newer west-of-Midwest or "Middle America" cities).

However, it's important to note that many US cities demolished older buildings to rebuild their downtowns and city centers to make room for skyscrapers and offices that would become their CBD. NYC is a good example. There remains nothing (or does their?) of New Amsterdam in what is now the Financial District or Downtown (around Ground Zero), at the tip of Manhattan. As far as we can see, Manhattan was never Dutch. What a shame hno: Atleast one street featuring colonial Dutch-like houses would have been cool. A lot of what was built shortly after by the English, too, was wiped out. In other words, 1600s NYC is gone for the most part, and finding 1700s NYC is not that much easier. I think the same is true for many US cities. A lot of their older buildings were demolished. 

Of course, the same is true of European cities. A lot of Medieval stuff was demolished in European cities, and a lot of Rennaissance and neoclassic 1800s architecture was bombarded in many German, Polish and even London, but most of these European places still built densely over those sites. Yet overall, many European cities were bigger than American cities before the car and even with the car European cities maintained a denser, more mixed-use type of urban development, while all American (and Canadian) cities experienced the white-flight to the suburbs which continued well through the 80s and 90s in the form of bigger, more mass-transit challenging developments in the form of so-called subdivisions with cul-de-sacs and one-way-out-of-the-subdivision and single-family-only use which made them completely unsuitable for mass-transit. So it wasn't so much the old suburbs that killed it all but rather the newer stuff which followed in the 80s and 90s.


----------



## hkskyline

Slartibartfas said:


> IThe same was true for most old buildings in Vienna as well. The key to keep those old fascinating districts, or at least a fair share of them is to adapt them to the modern needs without destroying them. This has been perfectly possible in Europe, or do you think medieval homes had electricity, water, showers etc ...


I don't think a lot of the historic buildings in Europe date from medieval times. They're far more recent. For example, the ones dotting London's West End are from about a hundred years ago during Victorian times. The vast majority would not have been from the Middle Ages. Vienna's classics came up around the same time as well as they planned their great capital in the 1800s. The hutongs were already in existence since the Mongol times, which is a good 700 years ago. Although a lot of them don't date from those eras, the hutongs are in far worse shape as a lot of these were not designed for populating the rich and the powerful, but with merely basic functions for the working class.


----------



## Chrissib

hkskyline said:


> I don't think a lot of the historic buildings in Europe date from medieval times. They're far more recent. For example, the ones dotting London's West End are from about a hundred years ago during Victorian times. The vast majority would not have been from the Middle Ages. Vienna's classics came up around the same time as well as they planned their great capital in the 1800s. The hutongs were already in existence since the Mongol times, which is a good 700 years ago. Although a lot of them don't date from those eras, the hutongs are in far worse shape as a lot of these were not designed for populating the rich and the powerful, but with merely basic functions for the working class.


Most of the houses built in european cities were also built for the poor people, but they were modernized. I think this is also possible instead of following an ugly unitary socialist architecture to build appartements for the poor. Since the fall of the DDR, the newer boroughs with appartement buildings are depopulating very fast, whereas the inner city with the old buildings is booming. I bet in 30-40 years also the Chinese don't want to live in buildings out of industrial production, but in more individual buildings with history in it, like the hutongs.


----------



## snow is red

I think North American and European cities look quite alike in term of architecture and activities. 

Asian cities look like European/American cities but have some distinctive touch in them that make them Asian.


----------



## AltinD

Slartibartfas said:


> The same was true for most old buildings in Vienna as well. The key to keep those old fascinating districts, or at least a fair share of them is to adapt them to the modern needs without destroying them. This has been perfectly possible in Europe, or do you think medieval homes had electricity, water, showers etc ...


I'm sorry but even a "fair share of them" is an exageration. How many of them outside of the Ring are really old, I mean hundreds of years old? Vienna has her own share of sprawling commie blocks even then often they tent to be hidden behind more classic looking ones.

I am all about preservation but not everything old deserve to be kept. It should be all about merit not age.


----------



## goschio

socrates#1fan said:


> Have you ever been to NA?
> A lot of the cities here were victorian-boomers.
> Every city here I've lived in(midwestern US.) you always have vast areas of victorians and many homes from before the victorian era and old cathedrals everywhere. North America exsisted long before modernism or the automobile. It is quiet common for even the smaller towns to have old high density main streets or cores though they arent as alive as they should be. North America suffered a lot of 'urban renewalism' in which vast areas of victorians, classics, etc were wiped out for the sake of 'progression'. Many government and civic structures comparable to those in Europe were knocked down because they were 'relics of the victorian era.'.
> Honestly, do you think NA was discovered in 1934?
> I'm actually surprised by the statement that North American cities don't have have beautiful old cores. Look at Boston, Quebec, and even Cincinnati!


I have to agree with you. Many NA cities such as Boston, Philadephlia have more historic building than for example cities such as Frankfurt or Cologne. In Frankfurt, for exmaple, nearly the complete old town was destroyed during WW2 and afterwards historic buildings were teared down to make place for modern developments such as multilane roads, office highrises and cheap residentials. And the remaining historic buildings are actually not that old (100-300 years) and are comparable with their american counterparts. Of course you always find some really old churches and houses (500 y and older), but they don't make up the city.


----------



## Chrissib

goschio said:


> I have to agree with you. Many NA cities such as Boston, Philadephlia have more historic building than for example cities such as Frankfurt or Cologne. In Frankfurt, for exmaple, nearly the complete old town was destroyed during WW2 and afterwards historic buildings were teared down to make place for modern developments such as multilane roads, office highrises and cheap residentials. And the remaining historic buildings are actually not that old (100-300 years) and are comparable with their american counterparts. Of course you always find some really old churches and houses (500 y and older), but they don't make up the city.


I live not far away from Frankfurt and the inner city is just ugly with that 'modern' buildings which are just boxes from the 50s. 

But take a look at Erfurt, the Capital of the state of Thüringen. This is what a German city should look like:


----------



## PedroGabriel

WANCH said:


> When I see it, the term "downtown" mostly applies to NA cities especially US or Canada. And the term "downtown" refers to the city's central business district. The term recently is applied to cities in other continents as well.
> 
> But technically, the term "downtown" doesn't really fit in cities outside NA. Its usually called "city", "CBD" or "city centre". In HK for example, Central District would refered to as the "downtown" by westerners. Yes Central is the main centre of business and finance in HK but the area is actually not the heart and soul of the city. HK's city centre expands not just in Central but also in central Kowloon and the northern part of the island. Plus, HK has more than one CBD so the term "downtown" doesn't really fit. And if it did, the term would include the areas I mentioned.
> 
> NY would also be another example. Despite being in North America, the term "downtown" applies to Lower Manhattan. But the heart and soul of the city is in "midtown". Plus Midtown Manhattan is the NY's main CBD.
> 
> Metro Manila and Tokyo on the other hand have several "centres" and so does Shanghai.


nops. In Portuguese the term "Baixa" literally means "down"("downtown"), and it is originally from Lisbon and adopted in other cities, so that's why i favour the American terms rather than the British, although city hall prefers city centre, because the city is not that hilly and doesn't want to copy most cities that favour the term "downtown", but no city or people favour "city centre", maybe because it is not the terms they listen on TV.

We consider downtown different from Central business district or better Business Avenues (where banks, insurance, lawyers and malls are located) and also different from shopping streets (mostly old and narrow streets with traditional shops), these refer to different parts in downtown areas. There are other parts of the city such as oldtown / historic centre, which is different from downtown too, and often refer to the original city centre, but often those areas lost centrality and are not considered downtown ("Baixa").

so here:
*downtown* is often where civic center, shopping streets and business avenues are located.
*historic center* or "oldtown", or "sé" or "Matriz" (these last terms refer to cathedrals or first churches) - oldest neighborhood(s) from where the city grew
and there's of course small central areas for each district, as that is considered a good practice.


----------



## Slartibartfas

hkskyline said:


> I don't think a lot of the historic buildings in Europe date from medieval times. They're far more recent. For example, the ones dotting London's West End are from about a hundred years ago during Victorian times. The vast majority would not have been from the Middle Ages. Vienna's classics came up around the same time as well as they planned their great capital in the 1800s.


While medieval buildigns might not represent a large share in Europe, there are quite a number of cities with entire districts that remained mostly medieval. In cities like Amsterdam even newer buildings in the center have been constructed according to the basic medieval principles and concepts. Those entire districts have been modernized and nowadays those buildings serve modern needs with all amenities. 

This is also true for the predominantly baroque 1 st district in Vienna. Don't expect that baroque buildings would be able to serve modern needs apropriately if not uptdated to them. 

Yes its true that the majority of buildings in Vienna, at least in the dense part, derive from the Gründerzeit but don't get fooled by their grandeur at the exterior and their size. The Mietskasernen, ie the vast majority of the buildings of those times that where not situated at the expensive locations at the ring for example, created living condidtions that were very bad. Those buildings were at least as cramped as a medieval building could be, maybe even more while hardly serving with much more services than a medieval building. The living conditions where very bad back then in those houses. The way they were built back then they hardly qualify even for substandard homes today.

Nowadays the majority of those building has been modernized, without destroying them and their impressive exterior, also the interiors are often giving a historic impression, but with far less people living in them, ie with appartments of modern sizes, with bath rooms, kitchens, modern installations etc. 

The result is that the restaurated Gründerzeit buildings are today very asked on the market even though there exist a huge number of them. The restaurated baroque buildings are often unaffordably expensive. 


So I really can't see why it should be so impossible to modernize old districts in Asia without destroying them, if there would be the will to do so. I mean I understand if thats not possible for the entire old substance, but on the other side you do not have to build the skyscrapers over most of the old districts either. 



> The hutongs were already in existence since the Mongol times, which is a good 700 years ago. Although a lot of them don't date from those eras, the hutongs are in far worse shape as a lot of these were not designed for populating the rich and the powerful, but with merely basic functions for the working class.


Many old buildings in Europe where not designed for the rich either. Of course many were, but there are lots of buildigns that were not.


----------



## Slartibartfas

AltinD said:


> I'm sorry but even a "fair share of them" is an exageration. How many of them outside of the Ring are really old, I mean hundreds of years old? Vienna has her own share of sprawling commie blocks even then often they tent to be hidden behind more classic looking ones.
> 
> I am all about preservation but not everything old deserve to be kept. It should be all about merit not age.


You probably know that hundreds of years ago Vienna did not expand beyond what is today the 1st district, so your question is a bit unfair. The "suburbs" back than where however rather urban as well. They were entirely burned down by the Turks in the 18th century. They were reconstructed in Baroque style. Large parts of them being destroyed in favor of Gründerzeit buildings, but large chunks of them do exist even today. For example the Spittelberg in the 7th district, or the Schlossquadrat in the 5th district. Also the second district hosts corners with a considerable numbers of baroque buildings, to name some examples. (Most of those quarters are not seen by the gross of the tourists). Moreover you find baroque buildings scatered around in all inner districts, even though some are not in the best condition. 

I hope you agree however that one can't preserve what did not back then. Vienna was for the longest time a city with below 100.000 inhabitants. 

The number of "Commie blocks" built on the ground of demolished hundreds of years old buildings is nearly zero. Unless you count those buildings where the allied bombers "helped" us with destroying and where afterwards postwar buildings where erected (normally though in a way to fit into the block systemand not stand alone modern blocks)

The commie blocks you may referr to were constructed in new city development quarters or former cementaries or parks, industrial areas or simply in the periphery.


----------



## PedroGabriel

In my opinion, US cities, at least the ones we have to see here, over and over, are all 19th century cities without a doubt, I clearly see that with their perfect grid pattern. Something here, we only see here, in lower scale of course, in cities that developed in the 19th century. There's of course older areas using grid patterns, but not really the same scheme.

IMO, this grid pattern is in fact a problem when driving, because you always have loads of traffic lights ahead on your way home, because of the huge number of intersections. Maybe this is a reason for systematic traffic jams.


----------



## Onoudidnt

american cities have cars, asian cities have terrible poverty, european cities have CLASS


----------



## philadweller

There is no one specific type of North American city. This thread is full of sweeping generalizations. Asian cities are more homogenous than European or American cities.

Are there any Englishtowns or Frenchtowns in Asian cities like we have Chinatowns?

Northeastern Canadian and American cities share similarities with European cities. European cities that were heavily bombed during WWII are a lot like American cities with their mix of new and old. 

For the record Philadelphia and Boston still have structures from the 1600's. Asian skyscrapers are very futuristic compared to NA and Europe.


----------



## El Mariachi

People are thinking that North America is only U.S/Canada. 

Havana, Mexico City, San Juan, Kingston, Panama City, etc.


----------



## philadweller

"People are thinking that North America is only U.S/Canada.

Havana, Mexico City, San Juan, Kingston, Panama City, etc."

Exactly there is not a certain type of NA city. North American cities have way more variety than Asian or European cities.


----------



## salvius

Onoudidnt said:


> asian cities have terrible poverty


Yep, it's terrible being in Tokyo, Osaka, Busan, Seoul, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc. etc. :nuts:

The generalisations in this thread are just ridiculous.


----------



## Manila-X

salvius said:


> Yep, it's terrible being in Tokyo, Osaka, Busan, Seoul, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc. etc. :nuts:
> 
> The generalisations in this thread are just ridiculous.


Unfortunately for Asia and to some extent North America, you have countries of different economic status from the most developed to the least. Its not like in Europe where most countries lies on the developed / upper middle-income status.

BTW, one thing I noticed are cities in Oceania such as Australia resemble that of North American cities.


----------



## hkskyline

WANCH said:


> Unfortunately for Asia and to some extent North America, you have countries of different economic status from the most developed to the least. Its not like in Europe where most countries lies on the developed / upper middle-income status.
> 
> BTW, one thing I noticed are cities in Oceania such as Australia resemble that of North American cities.


The disparity actually doesn't result in different urban planning techniques especially when it comes to transportation, as poor and rich people still need an efficient way to get around especially considering the size of these cities. Even in Chinese cities where incomes are substantially lower than say, the Japanese, transit remains a key spending item. At the same time, people in Japan and Hong Kong with their higher incomes still shun the car for regular commuting.


----------



## Manila-X

hkskyline said:


> The disparity actually doesn't result in different urban planning techniques especially when it comes to transportation, as poor and rich people still need an efficient way to get around especially considering the size of these cities. Even in Chinese cities where incomes are substantially lower than say, the Japanese, transit remains a key spending item. At the same time, people in Japan and Hong Kong with their higher incomes still shun the car for regular commuting.


That's because both HK and Japan has some of the most efficient transportation systems in the world. Unfortunately, thats the problem in alot of US cities with the exception of the few. It seems that car culture is more prevalent there.


----------



## MikaGe

Onoudidnt said:


> american cities have cars, asian cities have terrible poverty, european cities have CLASS


Statement of the day! :gaah:

Since I'm from Asia so here's my opinion. Most Asian cities (I said most, not all) grow without certain pattern, I personally call it organic. So the result is rather chaotic. European building density in N. American city+suburban scale. Highrises grow everywhere & hardly to find "true" downtown. 

They were used to grow according to the plan issued by colonial gov. Then that era was ended and come the newly born government each with their own system, some follow the colonial core-system, some try using grid-system and some seems to apply no planning at all.

So with the architectural style, it's like california roll. Everything's there. Fusion, we call it.

For example:
*Jakarta*








*Tokyo* (Teh street plan!)








*Shenzhen*








*Kaohsiung*









Lately, integrated complex where condominiums & office towers built above shopping mall are common. Like this: (Notice the surrounding)









Err...enuff of my two cents. I wish you people understand... 



philadweller said:


> Are there any Englishtowns or Frenchtowns in Asian cities like we have Chinatowns?


Once there were that kind of "separation" (please excuse my poor vocab) during the Dutch occupation here in Jakarta (Batavia that time). But that was more due to political reason. The Dutch live at area which used to be vital like around the city's main canal, palace & plaza. While Chinese and certain ethnicities like Arabs & Indian are placed in commercial area like near ports, and around markets.
I think the same system once applied by the English in Singapore as well. Fort Canning, Kampong Glam & Bugis Street are the examples.

That was the past but I think there is tendency for expatriates to settle together unofficially around at specific spot, like Tokyo's Roppongi & Jakarta's Kemang.


----------



## hkskyline

WANCH said:


> That's because both HK and Japan has some of the most efficient transportation systems in the world. Unfortunately, thats the problem in alot of US cities with the exception of the few. It seems that car culture is more prevalent there.


Within East Asia many cities are spending billions building massive transport systems. This is not just confined to China but there are plenty of other examples across the region. Hence, economic status and the fact that a country is developing or developed doesn't relate much to how people get around or the ability to get around.

Also keep in mind American cities where people have the option of using an extensive public transport system (ie. New York) that car use is still common for the better-off folks, not to commute but for other everyday items such as grocery shopping.


----------



## AltinD

Onoudidnt said:


> american cities have cars, asian cities have terrible poverty, european cities have CLASS


Exactly, and Dublin's street scenery on weekend nights is the best example of it. :hahano:


----------



## Onoudidnt

ive been all over europe and trust me, outside temple bar dublin is no different from any other european city on weekends


----------



## Slartibartfas

philadweller said:


> There is no one specific type of North American city. This thread is full of sweeping generalizations. Asian cities are more homogenous than European or American cities.
> 
> Are there any Englishtowns or Frenchtowns in Asian cities like we have Chinatowns?
> 
> Northeastern Canadian and American cities share similarities with European cities. European cities that were heavily bombed during WWII are a lot like American cities with their mix of new and old.


Lets take Berlin as an example, heavily damaged during the war and reconstruction after the war. I dare to claim it has a different feel than most American cities. Of course, Boston and Philadelphia are not exactly perfectly representative for the US in general, even though of course the east coast cities share in their older parts much of the feel of English cities. 



> For the record Philadelphia and Boston still have structures from the 1600's. Asian skyscrapers are very futuristic compared to NA and Europe.


True, Philly is filled with great history. Even if those few remnants from the 17th century can't keep up with most European cities. For understandable reasons a new colony would be insane to build buildings more impressive than the home cities of the Empire on a large scale.


----------



## edubejar

It's true that US cities of the East Coast plus Northeast Canada have more in common sometimes to European cities than they do to cities in the rest of the US, particularly those of the Sunbelt, "Middle America" and most West Coast cities. When I visited Boston for the first time I was shocked. I live in the Sunbelt but had lived and been numerous times to England, France and Spain. I swear I felt I was somewhere in England. The buildings were so close to the freeway like you see in many urban parts of Europe, and the center (where Boston began) had small, narrow streets. In the Sunbelt, including many cities of the Old South --(_I say Old South to distinguish from the Southern US in general and to imply some "Southern" states also date back to Colonial times_)--like Atlanta, freeways are so wide and there is a huge setback between adjacent buildings and the freeway, etc, even through the city, atleast relatively speaking. It's a question of age, of course.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Ok, to offer a picture as well:

Vienna: 









The high rise clusters are not on this pictures and located in the periphery. The city center is located towards the upper right corner.

A fascinating thing is also the developments taking place at the Neumarkt in Dresden, the place of what had been the center of Dresden and is now rapidly becoming the center again:









Principly none of the buidings you see in this pic existed just about 5 years ago. Not even the church. The place the cars park is yet to be developed within the next years to come.


----------



## Chrissib

The developement of the saxon state capital is great, but there's still enough socialist rubbish to remove^^


----------



## salvius

Slartibartfas said:


> Lets take Berlin as an example, heavily damaged during the war and reconstruction after the war. I dare to claim it has a different feel than most American cities. Of course, Boston and Philadelphia are not exactly perfectly representative for the US in general, even though of course the east coast cities share in their older parts much of the feel of English cities.


Berlin has a different feel due to its very unique history, its destruction, and the separation of the city into two pieces for a significant period of time. Yet still, the 'feel' of the city does remind me of Toronto in more ways than one.


----------



## El Mariachi

philadweller said:


> "People are thinking that North America is only U.S/Canada.
> 
> Havana, Mexico City, San Juan, Kingston, Panama City, etc."
> 
> Exactly there is not a certain type of NA city. North American cities have way more variety than Asian or European cities.


Even in within the U.S., cities have very different feels to them. 

NYC


L.A.


Chicago


Phoenix


----------



## Ian

Yes, but the sad thing is... 90% of the cities are like the last picture... An ocean of suburbs and highways, and then in the middle, the dead downtown with a couple of buildings and parking lots...


----------



## El Mariachi

Ian said:


> Yes, but the sad thing is... 90% of the cities are like the last picture... An ocean of suburbs and highways, and then in the middle, the dead downtown with a couple of buildings and parking lots...


I disagree. Most American cities have sprawl and all, but Sunbelt cities like Phoenix or Las Vegas take it to the extreme. Sprawl in Phoenix feels different then say, sprawl in Atlanta or Chicago. 

Sure, many American cities are like what you described. But this country is nowhere close to being the stereotype of being full of dead, boring cities.


----------



## LtBk

I like the photos you posted.


----------



## Manila-X

Ian said:


> Yes, but the sad thing is... 90% of the cities are like the last picture... An ocean of suburbs and highways, and then in the middle, the dead downtown with a couple of buildings and parking lots...


But downtown renewal are happening in alot of US cities. For one, you have the lofts/condos being built within these areas. There are movements to bring activity in the city centre.


----------



## hkskyline

WANCH said:


> But downtown renewal are happening in alot of US cities. For one, you have the lofts/condos being built within these areas. There are movements to bring activity in the city centre.


It will take a long time before living downtown can be considered 'normal' in many of the secondary cities. For example, I don't think Detroit downtown living will ever get 'hip' in our generation.


----------



## Koen Acacia

Judge Phillip Banks said:


> Even in within the U.S., cities have very different feels to them.


The same goes for Europe. And for Asia, as MikaGe pointed out. When you're going to compare entire continents a bit of generalization is inevitable. Still, entire libraries have been written about "the American City" (and the supposed death and life thereof), so to say that it's an oversimplification seems a bit dishonest.


----------



## salvius

^ there are definite similarities and differences between the cities of the three continents, but:

a) nobody has pointed them out besides the usual stereotypes: Europe is old and nice, North America is bland and sprawly and new, and Asia is poor and crowded.

b) the books about the American cities DO generalise; and for example, lessons in Jacobs' Death and Life of Great American Cities are applicable to European as to American urban renewal with only some differences. And note that those books are written about the 'American' city, not the NORTH American city. Hence:

c) the American city is, in fact, different from the Canadian city, and both are starkly different from cities in Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, etc. etc. For that matter, England and Italy don't share much to my eye, nor does Asian Russia with Malaysia, as just another example. 

Since the geographical coverage is so wide (ALL of Europe, ALL of North America, ALL of Asia), generalisations ARE inevitable, but they also do not hold up well to scrutiny.


----------



## edubejar

Judge Phillip Banks said:


> I disagree. Most American cities have sprawl and all, but Sunbelt cities like Phoenix or Las Vegas take it to the extreme. Sprawl in Phoenix feels different then say, sprawl in Atlanta or Chicago.
> 
> Sure, many American cities are like what you described. But this country is nowhere close to being the stereotype of being full of dead, boring cities.


I think you were heading in the right direction until you mentioned Atlanta(!). I would put Atlanta in a heart-beat along with Pheonix, Houston, DFW and Las Vegas, as well as Orlando. Atlanta has been competing with Houston as the queen of suburban sprawl. Atlanta's surburban sprawl goes on and on and on. Maybe the fact Atlanta is older than Pheonix made you think its excused from such bad list but Atlanta is no historical Savannah, GA and as far as I can see it's largely suburban, despite its older inner-city neighborhoods and its pockets of denser development just outside downtown. And sure, it has MARTA, passing through (again) dense(r) corridors beyond downtown, but I think Atlanta resembles more Pheonix than Chicago. With Chicago I would put Cincinnatti and maybe even Detroit, although Detroit is a very sprawly city too for being a Rustbelt city.

The mentioned 90% is indeed exaggerating but I don't think it's too much to say a good 50% of the US is sprawly rather than dense. Pretty much anything west & and south of the Rustbelt states with the exception of older New Orleans and (smaller) Savannah is sprawly, with the definite exception of San Francisco, with Seattle and Portland being notable exceptions. LA is not given enough credit and does have dense inner neighborhoods but I guess the lower-density sprawl is overwhelming that it makes you disregard the denser central neighborhoods. But then again, you can say the same about Seattle.


----------



## El Mariachi

LtBk said:


> I like the photos you posted.


Thank you to the brilliant photographers on this forum!



edubejar said:


> I think you were heading in the right direction until you mentioned Atlanta(!). I would put Atlanta in a heart-beat along with Pheonix, Houston, DFW and Las Vegas, as well as Orlando. Atlanta has been competing with Houston as the queen of suburban sprawl. Atlanta's surburban sprawl goes on and on and on. Maybe the fact Atlanta is older than Pheonix made you think its excused from such bad list but Atlanta is no historical Savannah, GA and as far as I can see it's largely suburban, despite its older inner-city neighborhoods and its pockets of denser development just outside downtown. And sure, it has MARTA, passing through (again) dense(r) corridors beyond downtown, but I think Atlanta resembles more Pheonix than Chicago. With Chicago I would put Cincinnatti and maybe even Detroit, although Detroit is a very sprawly city too for being a Rustbelt city.
> 
> The mentioned 90% is indeed exaggerating but I don't think it's too much to say a good 50% of the US is sprawly rather than dense. Pretty much anything west & and south of the Rustbelt states with the exception of older New Orleans and (smaller) Savannah is sprawly, with the definite exception of San Francisco, with Seattle and Portland being notable exceptions. LA is not given enough credit and does have dense inner neighborhoods but I guess the lower-density sprawl is overwhelming that it makes you disregard the denser central neighborhoods. But then again, you can say the same about Seattle.


Oh, I am not trying to say Atlanta doesnt sprawl. Its sprawl is ridiculous. But it does feel different then other, Western sunbelt cities. The Atlanta area is very hilly and probally more green then any other city in the union. Its more reminicent of Chicagoland sprawl, which is also pretty green. This differs from the hideous looking kind of stuff you see in places like Houston.


----------



## philadweller

Houston and New Orleans are so close to one another but so different in terms of urbanity. Talk about extremes.
San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose and Sacramento are totally different from another and they are all in the same state.

Mississauga and Toronto are independent cities but again so close and so different. Mississauga is more like a sunbelt city.


----------



## yooik4890

edubejar said:


> I think you were heading in the right direction until you mentioned Atlanta(!). I would put Atlanta in a heart-beat along with Pheonix, Houston, DFW and Las Vegas, as well as Orlando. Atlanta has been competing with Houston as the queen of suburban sprawl. Atlanta's surburban sprawl goes on and on and on. Maybe the fact Atlanta is older than Pheonix made you think its excused from such bad list but Atlanta is no historical Savannah, GA and as far as I can see it's largely suburban, despite its older inner-city neighborhoods and its pockets of denser development just outside downtown. And sure, it has MARTA, passing through (again) dense(r) corridors beyond downtown, but I think Atlanta resembles more Pheonix than Chicago. With Chicago I would put Cincinnatti and maybe even Detroit, although Detroit is a very sprawly city too for being a Rustbelt city.
> 
> The mentioned 90% is indeed exaggerating but I don't think it's too much to say a good 50% of the US is sprawly rather than dense. Pretty much anything west & and south of the Rustbelt states with the exception of older New Orleans and (smaller) Savannah is sprawly, with the definite exception of San Francisco, with Seattle and Portland being notable exceptions. LA is not given enough credit and does have dense inner neighborhoods but I guess the lower-density sprawl is overwhelming that it makes you disregard the denser central neighborhoods. But then again, you can say the same about Seattle.



What people need to know is that American cities with vibrant and dense downtowns:

New York
Boston
San Francisco
D.C.
Portland
New Orleans
Seattle
Miami
etc.

All these cities have massive sprawl just like every other American city. They have the same endless suburbs, the same maze of freeways and interstates, the same shopping malls, and the same suburban houses as Phoenix, L.A, Houston, Charlotte, and every other sun belt city.


----------



## Manila-X

hkskyline said:


> It will take a long time before living downtown can be considered 'normal' in many of the secondary cities. For example, I don't think Detroit downtown living will ever get 'hip' in our generation.


Downtown Detroit still has a long way to go. But the presence of casinos is bringing in more activity.


----------



## hkskyline

WANCH said:


> Downtown Detroit still has a long way to go. But the presence of casinos is bringing in more activity.


When I visited Detroit and the Greektown Casino, I didn't notice much activity in the vicinity either. The downtown is still pretty dead, since activity is driven by commercial and residential activity.


----------



## Xusein

yooik4890 said:


> What people need to know is that American cities with vibrant and dense downtowns:
> 
> New York Boston San Francisco D.C.Portland
> New Orleans
> Seattle
> Miami
> etc.
> 
> All these cities have massive sprawl just like every other American city. They have the same endless suburbs, the same maze of freeways and interstates, the same shopping malls, and the same suburban houses as Phoenix, L.A, Houston, Charlotte, and every other sun belt city.


Not really. I am not sure about the West Coast or the Southern cities that much that you listed, but Boston, NYC, and DC suburbs, although they do get incredibly sprawly and endless, you can't really get it confused with the suburbia in the sunbelt.

A lot of them have suburbs that existed longer than cities like Phoenix, commuter rail (Metro in the case of DC) networks that the Sun Belt cities wouldn't be rivaled in decades. The inner suburbs in this part of the country are much more settled than the ones in other parts of the country.

Maybe when Phoenix or Charlotte has it's their versions of Arlington or Jersey City, than we can say that they are indistinguishable.



Ian said:


> Yes, but the sad thing is... 90% of the cities are like the last picture... An ocean of suburbs and highways, and then in the middle, the dead downtown with a couple of buildings and parking lots...


First of all, 90% is a gross exaggeration, and second, many US cities have done great strides of starting (if not actually having it yet) the revitalization of their downtowns. And trust me, most cities in the US don't look as depressing as Phoenix (no offense to anyone from there).


----------



## Koen Acacia

salvius said:


> ^ there are definite similarities and differences between the cities of the three continents, but:
> *
> a) nobody has pointed them out besides the usual stereotypes: Europe is old and nice, North America is bland and sprawly and new, and Asia is poor and crowded.
> *
> b) the books about the American cities DO generalise; and for example, lessons in Jacobs' Death and Life of Great American Cities are applicable to European as to American urban renewal with only some differences. And note that those books are written about the 'American' city, not the NORTH American city. Hence:
> 
> c) the American city is, in fact, different from the Canadian city, and both are starkly different from cities in Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, etc. etc. For that matter, England and Italy don't share much to my eye, nor does Asian Russia with Malaysia, as just another example.
> *
> Since the geographical coverage is so wide (ALL of Europe, ALL of North America, ALL of Asia), generalisations ARE inevitable, but they also do not hold up well to scrutiny.*


1. I disagree with those usual stereotypes. They try to describe those cities too much as tourist brochures, which I think is missing the essence. I just haven't thought up a "good" stereotype myself. 
Still:
2. In cases like these, you can *always* find exceptions to those rules. If you'd want me to find a main characteristic for Dutch cities (which are, of course, totally different from Belgian cities), I'm pretty sure that every aspect that I could come up with is going to have a few exceptions. That still doesn't mean that there's not a certain amount of truth in it.


----------



## OMH

philadweller said:


> Houston and New Orleans are so close to one another but so different in terms of urbanity. Talk about extremes.
> San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose and Sacramento are totally different from another and they are all in the same state.
> 
> Mississauga and Toronto are independent cities but again so close and so different. Mississauga is more like a sunbelt city.


But Missisauga isn't a real city in the traditional sense, its just a suburb-it doesn't have a real city-centre with historical buildings, just mostly commieblocks (which is better than single-family houses IMO) and shopping malls in between. 
Still its denser and more urban than an average NA suburb, mostly because of highrise and midrise apartment-blocks, which are found in many suburbs around Toronto and in Canada generally, which makes them denser than most US suburbs.


----------



## zazo

In my opinion, Europe the cities have a mix of old architecture and new, density, lowrises, cathedral towers and skyscrapers, with many parks, and with a fantastic public transportation system, even using bikes to get anyway, and of course the most beautiful and copied cities, Paris, London, Madrid, Rome, Venize, Athens, Moscow, Frankfurt, Milano, Vienn, Praga, Berlin, Barcelona, Firenze, Brussels, what to say? cities in Europe are the model to follow, but the historic point is more difficult for the rest, even in these cities happen almost everything refering to the fashion, art, and technology, and of course, American cities where made by europeans inmigrants using firstly the european form to made cities, But like Europe, nothing, Asian and African cities.... i don't know them


----------



## trnstn

Judge Phillip Banks said:


> Even in within the U.S., cities have very different feels to them.
> 
> NYC


That power plant looks out of place and photoshoppped...


Mississauge wants to become a separate city, but they're really just anchored by Square One, the large regional mall and mostly suburban style houses. Not much of a city if you ask me.


Asian Cities were built for convenience by foot
European cities were built for convenience by foot
American cities started off from the East for conveninence by foot, but all of a sudden had rails and then cars, so the further west you go the more sprawl like they are. 

I've been to all types of cites in these three continents, it seems like the model for zoning seems to be more mixed based use in Asian and European cities, where you have street level shops and homes on top, with commerce and living all mixed together or not very far apart. In American cities, planning took a different approach and divided up everything into large districst, that's where you get huge sections of just houses, just offices/ industrial parks or just factories and such. NA cities are very distinct in their division of where things should be and what they should be for.

There is the idea of going downtown in a NA city. In asia or europe, by stepping out your door you're pretty much thrown into the life of the city just about anywhere you go. In asia or europe you're eating an evenly spread peanut butter and jelly sandwich with some hard peanuts here and there. In NA it's a glob of butter in the middle of the piece of toast. (Sorry I couldn't resist!  )


----------



## philadweller

"But Missisauga isn't a real city in the traditional sense, its just a suburb-it doesn't have a real city-centre with historical buildings, just mostly commieblocks (which is better than single-family houses IMO) and shopping malls in between."

Yes In this sense its got the zoning of a sunbelt city.

"What people need to know is that American cities with vibrant and dense downtowns:

New York
Boston
San Francisco
D.C.
Portland
New Orleans
Seattle
Miami
etc."

Miami...no replace that with Philadelphia or South Beach. Why would you forget Philly while listing the rest of megapolis cities? Philly has the 3rd largest downtown population in the country and has the highest percentage of people that walk to work in the US.


----------



## Slartibartfas

trnstn said:


> That power plant looks out of place and photoshoppped...


Why so sceptical? Power plants look always out of place and they are often larger than one would expect. Have a look at google maps if you still do not believe that one is real.


----------



## Mahratta

Well, there is no concrete definition of Asia, so I can't really say that there is a concrete definition of an Asian city.

If by 'Asian' you mean cities east of the Middle East, then I would say the trend is a lot of density. In North American the trend is sprawl. Europe's in between, but lacks the highrise density seen in many North American and 'Asian' cities.
In addition, from what I've experienced of South Asian cities and European cities - they tend to have distinct historical centres. North American cities tend to integrate their historical centres, but I'm sure this is different in areas with a lot of old historical areas like Mexico City.

That being said, old European cities are restored and taken care of. Old Indian cities, while as splendorous, are being torn down for mall developments :yes:


----------



## trnstn

We're also ignoring two major continents, South America and Africa.

South American cities, at least most of the colonial ones, have roots in European town design/ architecture, so their city centres resemble European cities, however now they seem to retain density. They resemble east asian cities more than anything, mass crowding with tons of hi-rises. i.e Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Lima, Bogota etc... However many seem to be outskirted by fevelas, and that is a distinct characteristic of south american cities.

I am unfamilar with African cities. Your first impression may be large slum cities, but I have seen amazing beautiful pictues of developed cities (i'll try to fnid some pictures and examples) but they seem to mix european city vibrancy but without the mass transit, and mostly cars.


----------



## Mekky II

WeimieLvr said:


> Correction...SOME U.S. sprawl consists of wooden houses, while some consists of concrete or brick construction. In hurricane-prone areas there are construction standards that must be met, just like in earthquake-prone areas. Since I don't know a lot about construction materials used in European sprawl I won't comment on it...I would advise you to do the same. It will make you appear less ignorant.


You really believe that in Europe, we can't watch "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" ? ... it's cheap houses, there are everywhere across US, and flying or burn easily (you maybe suppose that we are not aware of fires burning houses in california ?) ... 

Maybe you are talking of RICH people in US that built concrete or brick houses, here i will agree with you, RICH sprawling in US is pretty... Lucky, most europeans that can buy a house could buy a solid one, here is maybe a deep difference between both sides...


----------



## kato2k8

tvdxer said:


> U.S. cities were traditionally laid out on a rectangular grid. There are grid layouts in Europe, too, but the street layouts there generally seem to be far more flexible than those in traditional (not newer) American cities.


This often-cited thing has to do with the placement of cities in the terrain. European cities, for defense purposes, were traditionally laid out on hills or in other strategic terrain, and typically have grown together across or along valleys; almost all cities would include at least half a dozen formerly independant neighboring towns, typically with their own original layout.

Crossing difficult terrain obviously doesn't lend itself very well to forming grids. In places where cities were founded in flat terrain (17th century and afterwards), they often featured a similar planned grid or star-hub design, at least initially.

Cities planned earlier on often feature some peculiarities regarding naming. For example, in the old town of Heidelberg, planned in the 14th century, all North-South streets were (supposed to be) named "alleys", while all East-West streets were called "streets", giving some distinction of place.



tvdxer said:


> One related thing that seems to be non-existent in European cities but very much present in older American cities are numbered streets.


The (planned) inner city of Mannheim, Germany, is laid out in a grid, and the blocks are numbered (A1, A2... B1, B2 etc) along this grid, instead of street names.
This entire inner city used to lay inside a strategically placed fortification, with fortification and city planned and built at the same time.


----------



## Xusein

PablO_ said:


> Some modern european skylines( find at internet
> Frankfurt(germany):


Probably my most favorite skyline in Europe! :yes:


----------



## WeimieLvr

Mekky II said:


> You really believe that in Europe, we can't watch "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" ? ... it's cheap houses, there are everywhere across US, and flying or burn easily (you maybe suppose that we are not aware of fires burning houses in california ?) ...
> 
> Maybe you are talking of RICH people in US that built concrete or brick houses, here i will agree with you, RICH sprawling in US is pretty... Lucky, most europeans that can buy a house could buy a solid one, here is maybe a deep difference between both sides...


Yes, please believe everything you see on television...that makes you seem MUCH more intelligent.


----------



## briker

the demography for one! 

European cities: were designed to make a statement and to impress with ornated buildings. Planned 
for the pedestrian. Business & residential centres are very integrated. 
American cities: very distinct highrise centres geared for business with vast suburbian. Buildings are 
practical. Very structured with the grid road system.
Asian Cities: Not well planned, with disregard to the environment. Chaotic but vibrant. Mass housing 
complexes (commie blocks). Residential Highrises scattered across the city.


----------



## the spliff fairy

^, imo Asian cities are over-planned, to the point they lose character. Traditionally the grid plan was born here in the Chinese capitals and exported to Japan and Korea. The communists loved it, people's parks, grand axes and vast public squares with centrepiece buildings imposed on top. Nowadays after the growth of the cities there's a huge amount of zoning and infrastructure, set up by major bodies of local govt, usually with an exhibition of what's going on. Whether the zoning is good or bad remains to be seen, but the cities are pretty much becoming Courbousien on their growing outskirts (the Chinese govt demands x amount of green space per x amount of population in x vicinity), hence highrise districts patchworked into huge amount of parkland. Also metros are being built and continually expanded in every city in the East, including what will be the 3 largest within the next few years, Guangzhou, Shanghai and Beijing all larger than London's.

Of course there is still the winding lanes of old as well, and the chaos of 1990s untrammeled growth in places in SE Asia, eg Bangkok and Manila. However a generic Asian city would be something like Singapore - mix of old streets having given way to modern grids and vast public infrastructure in a vibrant centre, with delineated traffic and large pedestrian zones. The sprawling suburbs are Courbousien highrises alongside EU style sprawl (McMansions with alot of road but also alot of pavement, parks and public transport) that function surprisingly well. The problem is more in the centres- concrete jungle.


A little too orderly? Chinese cities 2007-8:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=566516

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=604198

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=557445

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=557367

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=560218


----------



## Svartmetall

Yeah I'd agree with you, Spliff Fairy, Asian cities do tend to have a feeling of being overplanned in certain areas. However, when you look at parts of Tokyo you begin to see just how organic the growth of the city has been with tiny little backstreets mixed in with the gridlike efficiency. In some cases I'd argue that Tokyo is even more organic than a city like London simply due to districts like this!


----------



## PablO_

(Poland) lots of people in big cities lives in ugly flats:


----------



## NYCboy1212

alot of cities in asia and europe dont use the type of grids we use here in america. Here, cities use the parallel lines form of grid which helps in the long run especially in NYC. Back when NYC was growing a grid plan was made for manhattan where the design of the streets help distinguish what was commercial area and what was residential


----------



## PablO_

typical european medieval city: 









typical asian medieval city:









and typical north american medieval city:







:lol:


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^^sorry but these pictures look like castles, not cities. Why don't you show some fortified medieval cities instead? For example medieval Vienna (1492):


----------



## yooik4890

PablO_ said:


> typical european medieval city:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> typical asian medieval city:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and typical north american medieval city:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lol:


This is perhaps the most enthoncentric thing i've every scene.


----------



## l'eau

PablO_ said:


> typical european medieval city:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> typical asian medieval city:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and typical north american medieval city:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lol:


asia was never feudal.


----------



## Slartibartfas

But they built also castles and fortified cities there, didn't they?


----------



## l'eau

Slartibartfas said:


> But they built also castles and fortified cities there, didn't they?


yes.but it's not about feudalism.it's about defense.


----------



## Mekky II

l'eau said:


> yes.but it's not about feudalism.it's about defense.


All people know that walled cities of Spain was built to be pretty and unuseful and that arabs were free to go in and out them freely... :lol:


----------



## Slartibartfas

l'eau said:


> yes.but it's not about feudalism.it's about defense.


Defense was also an aim for most of the European castles. 

Feudalism btw is a European concept which is so vague and inconcise that most historians don't like it that much or even openly oppose it.

But isn't that all going pretty far OT?


----------



## l'eau

Slartibartfas said:


> Defense was also an aim for most of the European castles.
> 
> Feudalism btw is a European concept which is so vague and inconcise that most historians don't like it that much or even openly oppose it.
> 
> But isn't that all going pretty far OT?


ottoman empire wasnt feudal:yes:


----------



## Slartibartfas

l'eau said:


> ottoman empire wasnt feudal:yes:


Maybe if you put it into whole sentences it gets clearer what you want to say.

Feudalism is a European concept it was described the first time in the Europe of the 17th century. There are examples in history however of other regions where the system there were shown to have similarities.

But as I have said the term feudalism is rejected by many historians as it lacks conciseness


----------



## l'eau

Slartibartfas said:


> Maybe if you put it into whole sentences it gets clearer what you want to say.
> 
> Feudalism is a European concept it was described the first time in the Europe of the 17th century. There are examples in history however of other regions where the system there were shown to have similarities.
> 
> But as I have said the term feudalism is rejected by many historians as it lacks conciseness


i know:sleepy:


----------



## NCT

the spliff fairy said:


> ^, imo Asian cities are over-planned, to the point they lose character. Traditionally the grid plan was born here in the Chinese capitals and exported to Japan and Korea. The communists loved it, people's parks, grand axes and vast public squares with centrepiece buildings imposed on top. Nowadays after the growth of the cities there's a huge amount of zoning and infrastructure, set up by major bodies of local govt, usually with an exhibition of what's going on. Whether the zoning is good or bad remains to be seen, but the cities are pretty much becoming Courbousien on their growing outskirts (the Chinese govt demands x amount of green space per x amount of population in x vicinity), hence highrise districts patchworked into huge amount of parkland. Also metros are being built and continually expanded in every city in the East, including what will be the 3 largest within the next few years, Guangzhou, Shanghai and Beijing all larger than London's.
> 
> Of course there is still the winding lanes of old as well, and the chaos of 1990s untrammeled growth in places in SE Asia, eg Bangkok and Manila. However a generic Asian city would be something like Singapore - mix of old streets having given way to modern grids and vast public infrastructure in a vibrant centre, with delineated traffic and large pedestrian zones. The sprawling suburbs are Courbousien highrises alongside EU style sprawl (McMansions with alot of road but also alot of pavement, parks and public transport) that function surprisingly well. The problem is more in the centres- concrete jungle.


I think the underlying reason in the 'overplanning' is the fact that Chinese cities have been growing so quickly in the last 2 decades or so that you get a sense of everything being done in haste.

In Europe cities and towns grew over time and increased their sphere of influence gradually, at the same pace as fundamental economic growth, so you always have a small nucleus surrounded by a radial street pattern, most of which were preserved along the way of urban expansion and development. Buildings from the industrial revolution were generally built to last, and since then apart from suburbanisation there hadn't been any large scale demographic changes, that's why many parts of most European cities look the same as they did 150 years ago.

In China cities and infrasture started lagging behind fundamental economic growth in the 80s, so when it came to innovation it was just easier to tear it all down and start afresh again. Unfortunately old wooden houses could just not stand the test of time, and small old settlements were completely unplanned and just too cramped they had to go. The need for new housing was so pressing they didn't have time to bother about the nitty gritties many places simply rubber-stamped a huge grid-like street pattern onto the landscape and built commiblocks all facing the same way.


----------



## Slartibartfas

NCT said:


> In Europe cities and towns grew over time and increased their sphere of influence gradually, at the same pace as fundamental economic growth, so you always have a small nucleus surrounded by a radial street pattern, most of which were preserved along the way of urban expansion and development. Buildings from the industrial revolution were generally built to last, and since then apart from suburbanisation there hadn't been any large scale demographic changes, that's why many parts of most European cities look the same as they did 150 years ago.


I dare to contest that. While for example Vienna grew slowly until the industrial revolution really started to be felt (around the 1850s) from then on its growth became almost exponential. In the later years of the Empire, at the peak of growth, the city grew nearly by 1 million people in a decade. And that was 100 years ago where large scale construction was still a little more demanding than today. 

While it might be true that the construction quality was somewhat better back then, those "Mietskasernen", as they are called were of mediocre quality at best as well. Still there was an intense lack of living space in the city as one could not catch up with the demand and the apartments that were built lacked a lot of what we would consider basics today, on top of that several people often had to share a room. 
You are correct however that these buildings lasted pretty long nonetheless. They still dominate large parts of Vienna, actually all dense ones. 

Regarding the relatively low growth in Europe since the Belle Epoque, well its true, this is one of the factors why Europe still retains a lot of its old looks.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

Slartibartfas said:


> While it might be true that the construction quality was somewhat better back then, those "Mietskasernen", as they are called were of mediocre quality at best as well. Still there was an intense lack of living space in the city as one could not catch up with the demand and the apartments that were built lacked a lot of what we would consider basics today, on top of that several people often had to share a room.


London had a construction boom in the 1700s, but beyond the facades, many of which exist today, the buildings were often of a poor quality. Oddly, one of the factors that fuelled the building boom was the need for "short term" lodgings to service the rampant prostitution of the era.

The style of the architecture wasn't as picturesque as the gabled houses of Amsterdam, for example, and people don't perhaps realise how old some of the buildings are, probably assuming they are at most late Victorian.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Interesting I would not have thought of them to be that old either.


----------



## Dahlis

Mekky II said:


> I would like to add either that european sprawling is made with concrete houses... while in US, they continue to build wooden structure houses... which are flying during hurricans, but the fact that they can be destroyed easily compared to european houses...


You obviously dont know much about wooden constructions. The tradition of building houses of wood is also european and is still used today. Most single family houses in scandinavia are built out of wood. Wood is a strong and durable material and a properly constructed timber framed house can withstand fire better than a steel framed building.


----------



## :jax:

While there are regional differences (like the use of wood as a building material as mentioned above), they are more to consider like flavours (e.g. a Japanese city feels Japanese due to a number of small details). On the whole the world has been pretty global the last 100-150 years. The date a building were made was a greater influence on how it was designed than where it was made (North or South America, Europe, Asia). 

That applies to towns as well. The time a city had rapid growth, as well as its last major bouts with urban renewal, pretty much sets the scene. Buildings rarely live longer than a few hundred years (with reconstructions), but city grids remains for the longest time. In Europe Roman and Medieval cities still have ghosts from that past in their old towns. I believe that even Phoenician-founded cities have a particular feel to them, and that is going back more than 2000 years. 

Thus a city with its major growth spurt in the 1880s (common in Europe) would differ from one with it in the 1920s (common in the US) which again would differ from one growing in the 1960s or the 2010s.


----------



## OMH

Mekky II said:


> You really believe that in Europe, we can't watch "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" ? ... it's cheap houses, there are everywhere across US, and flying or burn easily (you maybe suppose that we are not aware of fires burning houses in california ?) ...
> 
> Maybe you are talking of RICH people in US that built concrete or brick houses, here i will agree with you, RICH sprawling in US is pretty... Lucky, most europeans that can buy a house could buy a solid one, here is maybe a deep difference between both sides...


Even rich people in The U.S. (or Canada) built their houses out of Wood, which is veeery funny (or interesting at least ) from an European perspective , since even the smallest huts in Europe are built out of bricks...what is even more funnier about North American buildings made out of wood is that they often have bricks on the outside facade , while in Europe it's the other way around: Walls made out of bricks, and wood panels on the outside...I think this is the way it should be.


----------



## old school

OMH said:


> Even rich people in The U.S. (or Canada) built their houses out of Wood, which is veeery funny (or interesting at least ) from an European perspective , since even the smallest huts in Europe are built out of bricks...what is even more funnier about North American buildings made out of wood is that they often have bricks on the outside facade , while in Europe it's the other way around: Walls made out of bricks, and wood panels on the outside...I think this is the way it should be.


Have you been to Sweden? Their houses are constructed with the abundant wood found in that beautiful country. BTW, wood frame construction is common here in the US of A, but there are regional variations. For example, in the arid Southwest, many houses are constructed of adobe and in South Florida, concrete brick is common. In the Washington DC area, it depends on the age of the home. Many homes up to the mid 1950's were constructed with concrete brick and finished with earthen bricks on the exterior. The interiors are always wood framed and covered with plaster (older homes) or drywall (newer homes). Personally, I like the American way of construction because it is more flexible and allows for more innovation than the tradition-bound, less environmentally friendly European way.


----------



## the spliff fairy

old school said:


> Personally, I like the American way of construction because it is more flexible and allows for more innovation than the tradition-bound, *less environmentally friendly European way.*


you have gotta be joking....


----------



## Slartibartfas

old school said:


> ... Personally, I like the American way of construction because it is more flexible and allows for more innovation than the tradition-bound,* less environmentally friendly European way.*


:lol:
I have rarely laughed that hard.

A large part of what is built is pretty shitty from an environmental perspective. Its ages behind standards in lets say central Europe.


----------



## old school

Slartibartfas said:


> :lol:
> I have rarely laughed that hard.
> 
> A large part of what is built is pretty shitty from an environmental perspective. Its ages behind standards in lets say central Europe.


How do you know? Have you been to the US of A? Have you travelled extensively in the US of A, to all regions? Have you talked with architects and building contractors? Have you actually been inside various styles of American houses?

I've been all over western and central Europe and its housing lacks plenty in terms of style, size, functionality and environmental awareness when compared to the USA.

I suggest you become acquainted with the various styles of American housing and ways of constructing housing in the US of a by reading "A Field Guide to American Houses" by Virginia and Lee McAlester. You may learn something instead of merely repeating tired, unfounded stereotypes propagated by the European media.


----------



## Slartibartfas

old school said:


> How do you know? Have you been to the US of A? Have you travelled extensively in the US of A, to all regions? Have you talked with architects and building contractors? Have you actually been inside various styles of American houses?


Granted I have only been to the East Coast and talked with people living there but who have experienced European housing as well and therefore have a good comparison.

From all what I have read, heard and experienced there is little reason to believe that the situation should be much better in other regions of the US, rather the opposite if anything. 

I am not saying every house in the US is necessarily bad in environmental terms, but the great majority tends to be. Their insulation is often not even a joke compared to central European standards. (and before you start about different climates, insulation is an advantage in cold as well as hot regions)



> I've been all over western and central Europe and its housing lacks plenty in terms of style, size, functionality and environmental awareness when compared to the USA.


You were talking about "environmental friendly[ness]". Style, size and functionality are additional/different aspects and to a large extend pretty subjective categories. 

My point is, that American houses on average loose big time compared to average central European houses when it comes to environmental aspects. I stand to that claim. This is not a stereotype transported by European media, its based on personal experience and experience of people I know who have to live in these American houses.


PS:
I am not sure how a book which is only about the _exterior_ _appearance_ of houses would help in this debate (as much as I find this interesting nonetheless)


----------



## old school

Slartibartfas said:


> Granted I have only been to the East Coast and talked with people living there but who have experienced European housing as well and therefore have a good comparison.
> 
> From all what I have read, heard and experienced there is little reason to believe that the situation should be much better in other regions of the US, rather the opposite if anything.
> 
> I am not saying every house in the US is necessarily bad in environmental terms, but the great majority tends to be. Their insulation is often not even a joke compared to central European standards. (and before you start about different climates, insulation is an advantage in cold as well as hot regions)
> 
> 
> 
> You were talking about "environmental friendly[ness]". Style, size and functionality are additional/different aspects and to a large extend pretty subjective categories.
> 
> My point is, that American houses on average loose big time compared to average central European houses when it comes to environmental aspects. I stand to that claim. This is not a stereotype transported by European media, its based on personal experience and experience of people I know who have to live in these American houses.
> 
> 
> PS:
> I am not sure how a book which is only about the _exterior_ _appearance_ of houses would help in this debate (as much as I find this interesting nonetheless)


Really, I've been in many Euro houses and apartments in my 2 years in Europe. They were uniformly cold in the winter and not well insulated.

I invite you to visit the US of A outside of New York, Boston and Washington DC. You might be surprised about the number of energy efficient houses in the interior of the USA.

BTW, the book discusses construction methods as well.


----------



## eklips

old school said:


> I suggest you become acquainted with the various styles of American housing and ways of constructing housing in the US of a by reading "A Field Guide to American Houses" by Virginia and Lee McAlester. You may learn something instead of merely repeating tired, unfounded stereotypes propagated by the European media.


Honestly, I don't think the environmental-friendliness of housing architecture is a very covered subject in the European media :lol:


----------



## BearCave

Comparing to Tokyo, everything else is insignificant.


----------



## the spliff fairy

so American housing as such:

















...is more environmentally friendly than the traditional European?

















carbon footprint btw:

US: 20 tonnes
EU: 9 tonnes
China 4 tonnes (and world average)


----------



## Slartibartfas

old school said:


> Really, I've been in many Euro houses and apartments in my 2 years in Europe. They were uniformly cold in the winter and not well insulated.


Where in Europe? 
The Isles don't count. Ireland and the UK are pretty much as bad as the US if not worse at least by far and large. 

In Vienna an ever growing number of buildings is constructed in compliance to Passivhaus standard. I would not be surprised if Vienna alone currently has more buildings in construction with that or comparable efficient standards than the US features as a whole. (How many passive to zero or even plus energy homes are there in the US approximately?)

But thats just the progressive peak of course, even though one city development area in Vienna is going to be built entirely that way (more than 1000 homes in the first phase alone). Old municipal housing blocks and there are tons of them here, are all upgraded to low energy standard which means about 3 times more energy demand per square meter per year as a passive house and half to one third of what is current average among all existing buildings. 

At the same time also private homes are increasingly brought to these standards. This step is also financially encouraged by the state. 

Wood is certainly not necessary inferior as building material, it can be used to build extremely efficient buildings (like this one: http://www.hausderzukunft.at/results.html/id5138), in the US it seems to me the mass market buildings are of rather cheap quality.



> I invite you to visit the US of A outside of New York, Boston and Washington DC. You might be surprised about the number of energy efficient houses in the interior of the USA.
> 
> BTW, the book discusses construction methods as well.


Well, I just read the introduction and there it said its focus is exterior appearance. Its perfectly possible that other aspects are mentioned as well however. 

PS:
Be careful what you offer, maybe I'll go for a cheap holiday trip next summer  jk


----------



## :jax:

Maybe we should have a thread on building materials, at least I would find that interesting. Many traditional building materials (wood, glass, concrete, brick) have modern forms with new properties. 

"Cold in winter" is not necessarily negative. While these days apocryphal like "the Russians used a pencil", ambient indoor temperature has been higher in the US, while the Europeans put on a sweater winter-time. Going down from 25C to 22C or 18C makes a big difference in heating costs (below that would give further savings, but that would be cold and uncomfortable). 

Unsurprisingly there is a north/south divide when it comes to insulation. A Mediterranean house could be single-glazed, much of continental house could be double-glazed, while Northern Europe could be triple-glazed. This means that a house in a region that is regularly cold could be more comfortable wintertime than one that is only intermittently cold.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Quite true, but Austria for example is quite moderate in its temperatures at least where most people live. Still double glazing is the minimum and in new buildings triple glazing is quite common.


----------



## goschio

Germany, Switzerland and Austria have probably the highest possible standard of energy efficient housing in the world. Not even remotely comaparable to what you find in countries such as USA, Australia or the UK isles.


----------



## haikiller11

Jap housing









Korean housing









Chinese housing









Indochinese housing


----------



## crazyalex

the spliff fairy said:


>


Japan carbon 6ton higher than China

This cant be true


----------



## Slartibartfas

crazyalex said:


> Japan carbon 6ton higher than China
> 
> This cant be true


Why not? It seems perfectly reasonable to me. These numbers are per average person. The majority in China is far away from the wealth of an average Japanese. Even if Japan were two times more efficient it could still emit two times the emissions per person as China.


----------



## isaidso

OMH said:


> Even rich people in The U.S. (or Canada) built their houses out of Wood, which is veeery funny (or interesting at least ) from an European perspective , since even the smallest huts in Europe are built out of bricks...what is even more funnier about North American buildings made out of wood is that they often have bricks on the outside facade , while in Europe it's the other way around: Walls made out of bricks, and wood panels on the outside...I think this is the way it should be.


There's a perception of brick being superior to wood, but it's not based on science. Brick may be more solid and feel more permanent, but wood has better properties. Wood is a better insulator, adapts to temperature changes better, is far superior product in an earthquake zone, and is more environmentally friendly.

Wood was first used in north America due to abundance, but continues to be used because its a superior building product. Brick is only used as decoration due to some people's lingering perceptions about brick/stone/masonry. 

Brick looks more opulent, but it's an inferior building material.


----------



## Slartibartfas

isaidso said:


> There's a perception of brick being superior to wood, but it's not based on science. Brick may be more solid and feel more permanent, but wood has better properties. Wood is a better insulator, adapts to temperature changes better, is far superior product in an earthquake zone, and is more environmentally friendly.
> 
> Wood was first used in north America due to abundance, but continues to be used because its a superior building product. Brick is only used as decoration due to some people's lingering perceptions about brick/stone/masonry.
> 
> Brick looks more opulent, but it's an inferior building material.


Why is wood more environmental friendly? The insulation argument is pretty insignificant as modern concrete or brick houses feature an insulation layer outside, so do modern highly efficient wooden houses. The earthquake argument seems reasonable though. For smaller buildings in earthquake regions this might be a valid argument.

Its a fact that solid houses from brick or concrete serve a better fire protection and are more long lasting. They possibly also need less maintenance than some types of wooden houses. 

I am not saying wood is not an interesting building material. What I am saying however is that claiming wood is far superior over brick or concrete is definitely not based in science. In the end it also depends a lot on what you need. 

Austria is mostly a brick/concrete building nation, but especially in the more Alpine regions you find a lot of wooden houses as well. You can certainly build Passive houses based on wood as well, some actually are, most seem to be built with brick or concrete however.


----------



## Saigoneseguy

^^ It's better to live inside wooden houses in earthquake zones, which is arguable anyway, fair enough. But what's the point of building those houses in hurricane/tornado prone states?


----------



## Dahlis

Slartibartfas said:


> Why is wood more environmental friendly? The insulation argument is pretty insignificant as modern concrete or brick houses feature an insulation layer outside, so do modern highly efficient wooden houses. The earthquake argument seems reasonable though. For smaller buildings in earthquake regions this might be a valid argument.
> 
> Its a fact that solid houses from brick or concrete serve a better fire protection and are more long lasting. They possibly also need less maintenance than some types of wooden houses.
> 
> I am not saying wood is not an interesting building material. What I am saying however is that claiming wood is far superior over brick or concrete is definitely not based in science. In the end it also depends a lot on what you need.
> 
> Austria is mostly a brick/concrete building nation, but especially in the more Alpine regions you find a lot of wooden houses as well. You can certainly build Passive houses based on wood as well, some actually are, most seem to be built with brick or concrete however.


All materials have their pros and cons. But I would say that the pros in wood are more than the pros in bricks. Concrete and wood are more equal but in that competition wood wins because of the much lower price.

The fire argument is as usual wrong. Sure a solid concrete house with concrete furniture, concrete carpets, concrete curtains and concrete people wearing concrete clothes will not catch fire. Its not the walls that catch fire its the interior. A fire in a concrete building will leave a burned out shell, thats the only pro.


----------



## Piltup Man

Dahlis said:


> The fire argument is as usual wrong. Sure a solid concrete house with concrete furniture, concrete carpets, concrete curtains and concrete people wearing concrete clothes will not catch fire. Its not the walls that catch fire its the interior. A fire in a concrete building will leave a burned out shell, thats the only pro.


Reminds me of the man who invented the wooden motor car. It had wooden bodywork, a wooden engine, wooden seats, and wooden wheels.

It wooden go.


----------



## gonzo

Piltup Man said:


> It wooden go.


kaboom! :lol:


----------



## Slartibartfas

Dahlis said:


> All materials have their pros and cons. But I would say that the pros in wood are more than the pros in bricks. Concrete and wood are more equal but in that competition wood wins because of the much lower price.


Maybe we two are talking about two different things. I am talking about modern bricks. Like these:










These are the most common building material for single homes at least but they are also used for larger buildings. In new buildings this system is mostly used:










In how far would they be inferior two wood?

The fire argument is as usual wrong. Sure a solid concrete house with concrete furniture, concrete carpets, concrete curtains and concrete people wearing concrete clothes will not catch fire. Its not the walls that catch fire its the interior. A fire in a concrete building will leave a burned out shell, thats the only pro.[/QUOTE]

At the fire argument you miss entirely the point. A house that burns, burns, no matter what. But a brick or concrete based house does a better job at preventing the fire from spreading. In you average joe suburbia this might not be such a huge argument but as soon as there row houses or even dense neighborhood this is a real problem.


----------



## Dahlis

Slartibartfas said:


> Maybe we two are talking about two different things. I am talking about modern bricks. Like these:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are the most common building material for single homes at least but they are also used for larger buildings. In new buildings this system is mostly used:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In how far would they be inferior two wood?
> 
> The fire argument is as usual wrong. Sure a solid concrete house with concrete furniture, concrete carpets, concrete curtains and concrete people wearing concrete clothes will not catch fire. Its not the walls that catch fire its the interior. A fire in a concrete building will leave a burned out shell, thats the only pro.


At the fire argument you miss entirely the point. A house that burns, burns, no matter what. But a brick or concrete based house does a better job at preventing the fire from spreading. In you average joe suburbia this might not be such a huge argument but as soon as there row houses or even dense neighborhood this is a real problem.[/QUOTE]

1. Versatility. Bricks just isnt as versatile as wood.
2. Speed. Wooden single family houses can be assembled wholly or in sections at a factory and delivered and erected in a short time.
3. Price, wood is much cheaper.


About fire safety: A properly built wooden house is not more dangerous than a brick one.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Dahlis said:


> At the fire argument you miss entirely the point. A house that burns, burns, no matter what. But a brick or concrete based house does a better job at preventing the fire from spreading. In you average joe suburbia this might not be such a huge argument but as soon as there row houses or even dense neighborhood this is a real problem.
> 
> 1. Versatility. Bricks just isnt as versatile as wood.


Elaborate. Given that brick is the dominant material here, people are either pretty limited in their demands or something does not quite work out with your argument here. 



> 2. Speed. Wooden single family houses can be assembled wholly or in sections at a factory and delivered and erected in a short time.


True. Thats an advantage. There exist prefabricated brick houses as well however even though wood is more common for that purpose. Whats the life span of those buildings btw?

On the other side, at least in Austria many people want to build their own houses according to very individual plans. Prefabs aren't the first choice there. Non prefabricated wooden houses are hardly built much faster. 



> 3. Price, wood is much cheaper.


I don't know prices that well. According to a Passivhaus page I visited recently the wooden version was more expensive though.



> About fire safety: A properly built wooden house is not more dangerous than a brick one.


Do you have a source for that claim? I remember information which states clearly the opposite. I am not claiming that wooden house are a death trap, not all. What I say is that they can't offer that level of fire protection brick or concrete buildings can. Also noise insulation tends to be worse.


----------



## Dahlis

Slartibartfas said:


> Elaborate. Given that brick is the dominant material here, people are either pretty limited in their demands or something does not quite work out with your argument here.


Wood can be used for almost all types of buildings, from small cottages to large warehouses. Glued laminated timber can be used to support large roof structures or even bridges.



Slartibartfas said:


> True. Thats an advantage. There exist prefabricated brick houses as well however even though wood is more common for that purpose. Whats the life span of those buildings btw?


The life span of a timber framed house is no different from a brick house as long as it is maintained properly. You might have to change the facade after about 50 years, and paint it now and then depending on what kind of facade you want.



Slartibartfas said:


> On the other side, at least in Austria many people want to build their own houses according to very individual plans. Prefabs aren't the first choice there. Non prefabricated wooden houses are hardly built much faster.


You can still have the pieces made at a factory and have them assembled on site. 



Slartibartfas said:


> I don't know prices that well. According to a Passivhaus page I visited recently the wooden version was more expensive though.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a source for that claim? I remember information which states clearly the opposite. I am not claiming that wooden house are a death trap, not all. What I say is that they can't offer that level of fire protection brick or concrete buildings can. Also noise insulation tends to be worse.


The diffrence between a timber framed house and a concrete and steel framed one is that timber burns very predictably compared to the other two. Bricks are rarely used for frames now but in that respect brick is the best.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Dahlis said:


> Wood can be used for almost all types of buildings, from small cottages to large warehouses. Glued laminated timber can be used to support large roof structures or even bridges.


So can modern bricks. Except maybe for high rises but there wood also reaches its limits.



> The life span of a timber framed house is no different from a brick house as long as it is maintained properly. You might have to change the facade after about 50 years, and paint it now and then depending on what kind of facade you want.


"Paint it now and then" sounds like a lot more maintenance work to me. A lot more than brick buildings need at least. I doubt that the life span is the same as well. What I could agree though is that the difference in life span won't be felt within one life time. In our short lived world that might be more than enough in fact, still its a difference worth remembering.



> You can still have the pieces made at a factory and have them assembled on site.


At the cost of the very high individuality many people demand here. 



> The diffrence between a timber framed house and a concrete and steel framed one is that timber burns very predictably compared to the other two. Bricks are rarely used for frames now but in that respect brick is the best.


I am not sure I fully understand. Whats brick framing? 
"Predictable burning" is of little help if fires spread to neighouring houses.


----------



## Dahlis

Slartibartfas said:


> So can modern bricks. Except maybe for high rises but there wood also reaches its limits.


Sure but who would want to build a complex arch system to support the roof in a large factory or warehouse? Its just not an alternative.



Slartibartfas said:


> "Paint it now and then" sounds like a lot more maintenance work to me. A lot more than brick buildings need at least. I doubt that the life span is the same as well. What I could agree though is that the difference in life span won't be felt within one life time. In our short lived world that might be more than enough in fact, still its a difference worth remembering.


Yes, but if you dont want to paint you can use another method. 



Slartibartfas said:


> At the cost of the very high individuality many people demand here.


Why wouldnt you be able to build individuality in a factory? Just send them the drawings.



Slartibartfas said:


> I am not sure I fully understand. Whats brick framing?
> "Predictable burning" is of little help if fires spread to neighouring houses.


Brick is mostly used for the facade not for the frame, they stopped doing that in the 50s. The frame is usually concrete, wood or steel. 

By predictable I mean that it will burn at a steady pace, while a steel or concrete framed house will collapse instantly when the fire reaches a certain heat.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Dahlis said:


> Sure but who would want to build a complex arch system to support the roof in a large factory or warehouse? Its just not an alternative.


Sure, you'd use steel or wood for that purpose. At the same time you may use concrete or bricks for the walls rather than wood. Nothing wrong with that. Both wood and bricks have strengths and weaknesses. Bricks are rarely used for roof constructions. Also in single family homes where a traditional roof is used its almost always wooden. 



> Yes, but if you dont want to paint you can use another method.


Maybe but I'll doubt a wooden facade can be as long lived as a brick one at a similar low maintenance.



> Why wouldnt you be able to build individuality in a factory? Just send them the drawings.


Well, of course thats possible. It defies the whole benefit of the economy of scale which makes prefab houses generally so attractive however. Probably thats also the reason why individualistic houses tend to be built the traditional way. 

Furthermore there are only very few who offer passive houses as prefab buildings as far as I know. Even though this might still come more. 



> Brick is mostly used for the facade not for the frame, they stopped doing that in the 50s. The frame is usually concrete, wood or steel.


Again, we seem to be talking about different things. I am talking about those bricks shown in the pictures above. In Austria using them never stopped. Instead the material evolved into what they are today. In passive houses but also in low energy houses, bricks often function even only as frame while they are surrounded by insulation and the finish is on top of that insulation. There can also be a brick frame, insulation in between and a brick facade. Even though thats not as common. Old style brick facades where bricks actually really feature as the facade are rather rare here. They are much more common in northern Europe. 



> By predictable I mean that it will burn at a steady pace, while a steel or concrete framed house will collapse instantly when the fire reaches a certain heat.


Steel indeed collapses but only if the fire reaches a certain heat and dimension. "instantly" is certainly an exaggeration. In how far is concrete collapsing? It does not use to melt in house fires nor can it catch fire.

PS:
Thats a typical picture of a raw construction of a new family home here, even in the year 2010:


----------



## niterider

After reading that...i got wood


----------



## isaidso

Slartibartfas said:


> Why is wood more environmental friendly? The insulation argument is pretty insignificant as modern concrete or brick houses feature an insulation layer outside, so do modern highly efficient wooden houses. The earthquake argument seems reasonable though. For smaller buildings in earthquake regions this might be a valid argument.
> 
> Its a fact that solid houses from brick or concrete serve a better fire protection and are more long lasting. They possibly also need less maintenance than some types of wooden houses.
> 
> I am not saying wood is not an interesting building material. What I am saying however is that claiming wood is far superior over brick or concrete is definitely not based in science. In the end it also depends a lot on what you need.
> 
> Austria is mostly a brick/concrete building nation, but especially in the more Alpine regions you find a lot of wooden houses as well. You can certainly build Passive houses based on wood as well, some actually are, most seem to be built with brick or concrete however.


Wood is a renewable resource. Right off the bat it's a more environmentally friendly material. Processing trees into a 2x4 vs turning clay into bricks? I couldn't answer which is better for the environment, but even if the effect is about the same we're still talking about a renewable resource vs. one that is finite. 

In north America, the industry has determined that wood is the best building material from a technical point of view. This determination is one rooted in science. It's why we build out of wood and use brick for decoration, not the other way around. We don't have Europe's centuries old traditions in construction so were far more open to new materials. Much of Europe is deforested, so it makes sense that wood never gained traction there despite huge technological advances in wood.

Europeans have built with stone for centuries because it was strong and solid. Your castles and important buildings were all stone. Wood has come a long way, but perceptions built up over millennium are not about to be reversed easily.

My Dad lived in Canada for 20 years, but could not bring himself to view wood positively despite all the science put in front of him. His views were shaped by Europe. Cultural can be a very powerful thing. To him: brick = superior/solid; wood = inferior/flimsy


----------



## eklips

^^ Oh but of course your point of view is not influenced by culture at all, it's always the others :laugh:


----------



## Slartibartfas

isaidso said:


> Wood is a renewable resource. Right off the bat it's a more environmentally friendly material. Processing trees into a 2x4 vs turning clay into bricks? I couldn't answer which is better for the environment, but even if the effect is about the same we're still talking about a renewable resource vs. one that is finite.


If produced by a sustainable working wood industry wood is indeed a pretty environmentally friendly material in its production. Thats a valid aspect, but don't set that asame with the ability of creating sustainable housing. 

I don't doubt that you can do that with wood based houses, even though its largely not done in the US, my point was rather that you can do so with brick as well. Possibly you it is even better suited for certain demands. 

Brick needs more energy to be produced, but its also more enduring and does not have to be protected against biological degradation. Wood has to be protected or prepared one way or another, like a number of natural insulation materials. 


> In north America, the industry has determined that wood is the best building material from a technical point of view. This determination is one rooted in science. It's why we build out of wood and use brick for decoration, not the other way around. We don't have Europe's centuries old traditions in construction so were far more open to new materials. Much of Europe is deforested, so it makes sense that wood never gained traction there despite huge technological advances in wood.


You are pretty funny. You think brick is used in Europe because of "tradition"? Because we don't know better? Austria has loads of forests and also a pretty well developed wood industry. Still brick is largely predominant with rural very alpine regions and the very west of the country maybe as exceptions. 



> Europeans have built with stone for centuries because it was strong and solid. Your castles and important buildings were all stone. Wood has come a long way, but perceptions built up over millennium are not about to be reversed easily.


Modern bricks have almost nothing in common with old stone buildings. 


> My Dad lived in Canada for 20 years, but could not bring himself to view wood positively despite all the science put in front of him. His views were shaped by Europe. Cultural can be a very powerful thing. To him: brick = superior/solid; wood = inferior/flimsy


That works both ways. 

I dare to claim that Austria is considerably more progressive when it comes to sustainable construction of new buildings than the US and probably also Canada. There are a lot of clever specialists working in this field here, you think they are all too stupid in order to cling to traditional but inferior building materials? Thats quite a claim.

PS:
The newest trend in brick technology seems to be bricks with mineralic infill insulation. These bricks need no additional insulation layer even in Passive Houses. Take Unipor W07 Coriso for example, its actually certified for Passivhaus construction.


----------



## Dahlis

isaidso said:


> Wood is a renewable resource. Right off the bat it's a more environmentally friendly material. Processing trees into a 2x4 vs turning clay into bricks? I couldn't answer which is better for the environment, but even if the effect is about the same we're still talking about a renewable resource vs. one that is finite.
> 
> In north America, the industry has determined that wood is the best building material from a technical point of view. This determination is one rooted in science. It's why we build out of wood and use brick for decoration, not the other way around. We don't have Europe's centuries old traditions in construction so were far more open to new materials. Much of Europe is deforested, so it makes sense that wood never gained traction there despite huge technological advances in wood.
> 
> Europeans have built with stone for centuries because it was strong and solid. Your castles and important buildings were all stone. Wood has come a long way, but perceptions built up over millennium are not about to be reversed easily.
> 
> My Dad lived in Canada for 20 years, but could not bring himself to view wood positively despite all the science put in front of him. His views were shaped by Europe. Cultural can be a very powerful thing. To him: brick = superior/solid; wood = inferior/flimsy



Europe, europe, europe, hey stop generalizing. In scandinavia we use wood and always have.


----------



## Dahlis

Slartibartfas said:


> Maybe but I'll doubt a wooden facade can be as long lived as a brick one at a similar low maintenance.


You can use plaster facades, stone facades and even brick facades on a timber frame. 



Slartibartfas said:


> Well, of course thats possible. It defies the whole benefit of the economy of scale which makes prefab houses generally so attractive however. Probably thats also the reason why individualistic houses tend to be built the traditional way.


There are other positiv aspects to prefabrication than cost. For example shorter building times wich is very important during the winter.



Slartibartfas said:


> Again, we seem to be talking about different things. I am talking about those bricks shown in the pictures above. In Austria using them never stopped. Instead the material evolved into what they are today. In passive houses but also in low energy houses, bricks often function even only as frame while they are surrounded by insulation and the finish is on top of that insulation. There can also be a brick frame, insulation in between and a brick facade. Even though thats not as common. Old style brick facades where bricks actually really feature as the facade are rather rare here. They are much more common in northern Europe.


Brick is a material, it doesnt really matter what shape its in.



Slartibartfas said:


> Steel indeed collapses but only if the fire reaches a certain heat and dimension. "instantly" is certainly an exaggeration. In how far is concrete collapsing? It does not use to melt in house fires nor can it catch fire.


Concrete cracks or even explodes if its wet.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Dahlis said:


> You can use plaster facades, stone facades and even brick facades on a timber frame.


True, but I referred to wooden facades. But its true that many wooden houses have other facades, maybe for that very reason. Its not an argument against using wood in general. And lets not forget that some are ready to accept the higher maintenance because they appreciate the apparency of wooden facades. 



> There are other positive aspects to prefabrication than cost. For example shorter building times wich is very important during the winter.


Yes, time is also a factor. Winter not so much, or only in so far as time is one. In the worst case construction has to be halted for some time. 



> Brick is a material, it doesnt really matter what shape its in.


It does, its features vary tremendously depending on its technology and its shape. (not only the shape varies but the very features of the material as such) Your claim is like saying wood is a material. It does not matter what shape its in. This claim would be similar nonsense. 



> Concrete cracks or even explodes if its wet.


You mean if its heated up while being wet? Do you have an example where this actually happened?


----------



## :jax:

The properties of modern building materials is a very interesting toping, but the framing (no pun intended), essentially North America vs West Asia (Europe), makes it unnecessary silly. 

Bricks are versatile, just try LEGO. Wood is flexible, renewable, and fire-resistant. It is possible to make great architecture with either, or with glass, steel, or most other modern materials. Even a fluffy material like grass can strong and efficient, especially when the grass is bamboo (to put Asia into this discussion).


----------



## Slartibartfas

I don't think its US vs Europe. In Europe alone you can find the whole range of building materials, well apart from bamboo maybe. My case is not that silly Americans are not clever enough to use more bricks. Not at all. My point was that those who think that bricks are an outdated totally inferior building material are mistaken. 

I agree with you. It's possible with both, wood and bricks, as well as with steel, concrete, glass ... whatever to make great architecture.

PS: It is the first time I see someone calling Europe "West-Asia". It is true that Europe always has been more of a political/historical/social concept rather than a geographic one. What I learned in school however was that its "West-Eurasia". Whereas also Eurasia is an arbitrary concept. Geographically the continent is actually Afro-Eurasia. Europe would be in the north-west of it.


----------



## :jax:

Was just being provocative, playing Europe up as an appendix to Asia (where the action is). There is already a West(ern) Asia. 

Think I should follow up and make the first thread(s), starting with wood: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=65875277#post65875277


----------



## Grumpey

The main differences is just reflected on this forum for the full 100%. 

Whenever people post a picture of an Asian or NA city, they will post a skyline. Whenever people post a picture of an European city, they will post ground level, public space pictures. 

Asian and NA cities are mend to be experienced from the top of a skyscraper or from your car, European cities are mend to be explored by pedestrians and bikes.


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ I've never experienced Asian cities, but I think next to the skyline their main feature is not architectural beauty but street life, at least in the bustling pedestrian zones. Thats at least the picture I have in my head.


----------

