# No pedestrian streets in large US cities -- why not?



## aquablue

There are no car-free pedestrian streets in the downtowns of the largest major US cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, SFO). There is nowhere to shop without car fumes and there is no room for street entertainment. There are several cities in the USA where the street traffic is high enough and density is great enough to allow for at least 1 pedestrian shopping street. We all know europe excels at this, but look at China. All their major cities have nice car-free shopping streets filled with exciting lights and shops. Shanghai, Canton, Beijing, etc, etc. They are taking the correct path while America is getting behind. 

Surely Americans are not against shopping in a healthy, pleasant car free outdoor enviornment, I can't understand why they would be against such an idea. Why can't NYC put some energy into creating a nice pedestrian blvd for shopping? I mean, its ridiculous -- Although I live here, I'm ashamed by the lack of attetion paid to improving quality of life in cities. There are several places in NYC, i.e, 5th avenue or times square that could be no car zones. Why are american cities so resistant to change, especially when its clear that many of them have the pedestiran street traffic to warrant it. I have often heard people say that it doesn't work in the USA, but i have a hard time believing that major shopping streets in NYC or Chicago would suffer business losses without cars -- i think it would actually be a boon for the city's economy and global image. For god sake, wake up USA, get with the times - why are you so freaking conservative with new urban ideas?


----------



## FREKI

Both LA and Miami have pedestrian shopping streets - And if you include piers and waterfronts it all adds up - and for "non poluted" shopping you can always go to a mall 

I'm not in favior of the US way of shopping, but it's not bad from my experiances..

I will agree though that a pedestrian shopping street on Manhattan would be great - I would surgest 5th Aw. around that park with the arch... 

Or they could do like Ginza in Tokyo where the mainstreet is car free on certain times...


----------



## aquablue

Where are you from?


----------



## binhai

In the 70s many american cities tried out pedestrian streets, and it failed. Few people went to downtown, and they reconverted them back to regular streets. Boston still has one (Downtown Crossing), and few people go to it. In fact, people here say that cars add to the "city feel" and the feeling of crowdedness needed for a successful pedestrian street.


----------



## djm19

I rather like the bustle of cars (trolleys or whatever) going down the street next to equally bustling sidewalks. It gives you a very urban feeling. I like pedestrian streets too, but sometimes they have that promenade at the county fair feel. Which is fine, if its a county fair.


----------



## LucasS6

aquablue said:


> There are no car-free pedestrian streets in the downtowns of the largest major US cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, SFO). There is nowhere to shop without car fumes and there is no room for street entertainment. There are several cities in the USA where the street traffic is high enough and density is great enough to allow for at least 1 pedestrian shopping street. We all know europe excels at this, but look at China. All their major cities have nice car-free shopping streets filled with exciting lights and shops. Shanghai, Canton, Beijing, etc, etc. They are taking the correct path while America is getting behind.


Maybe I'm missing something...why does it matter?

What if I said HEY why doesn't Santiago, Chile have a shoe-free trolley!? Ummm...why? 



> Surely Americans are not against shopping in a healthy, pleasant car free outdoor enviornment, I can't understand why they would be against such an idea. Why can't NYC put some energy into creating a nice pedestrian blvd for shopping? I mean, its ridiculous -- Although I live here, I'm ashamed by the lack of attetion paid to improving quality of life in cities. There are several places in NYC, i.e, 5th avenue or times square that could be no car zones. Why are american cities so resistant to change, especially when its clear that many of them have the pedestiran street traffic to warrant it. I have often heard people say that it doesn't work in the USA, but i have a hard time believing that major shopping streets in NYC or Chicago would suffer business losses without cars -- i think it would actually be a boon for the city's economy and global image. For god sake, wake up USA, get with the times - why are you so freaking conservative with new urban ideas?


I figured having cities based around cars was actually kinda the dynamic thing in cities over the last thousand years. One would think the walking around without an option to drive thing would be the conservative slant.


----------



## Svartmetall

^^ Perhaps, but there have been substantial reversions in philosophy elsewhere with regards to pedestrianised streets. Most towns and cities that I know of in the UK have pedestrian areas, likewise in Germany. France has a fair old few, too.

Even car-centric new world countries like Australia have a plethora of really quite nice shopping streets (Queen St, Brisbane. Pitt St, Sydney. Bourke St, Melbourne. Rundel Mall Adelaide.) They all add to the feel of the city. You get the bustle in the form of pedestrians rather than cars and trust me, it's a much nicer environment. I can comment on this as I live in a city whose main shopping street is not pedestrianised and I can tell you it's not very nice breathing in traffic fumes. Doesn't add to bustle at all.


----------



## krudmonk

There are no pedestrian streets at SFO because people can't fly. Only planes can.


----------



## FREKI

^Birds too.. and Superman! :yes:


aquablue said:


> Where are you from?


Copenhagen, Denmark 

Home to Europe's longest pedestrial shopping street "Strøget" that I rarely use as there's no parking and very little public transportation in the old town - shopping in malls is so much easier..

( I do walk there alot though and go to clubs, pubs and cafe's - but shopping nahh.. )


----------



## TalB

NYC does have some pedistrian, but not a lot. One of them is Rockefeller Plaza over by the Rockefeller Ctr. I do know that Nassau St over in the Financial Dist is closed off to vehicular traffic durring the work week in the day time, but reopens in the evening. Every now and then Mulberry St is closed to vehicular traffic, especially durring the San Genaro Festival. Before 9/11, the WTC had a superblock as a way to get a way from the streets.


----------



## Madman

I think for pedestrianisation to occur you have to really have very successful public transport systems and/or a very dense central residential population - two factors i think American cities (other than a couple such as NY) lack in comparison with many European and Asian cities.


----------



## TheRhino

aquablue said:


> Surely Americans are not against shopping in a healthy, pleasant car free outdoor enviornment, I can't understand why they would be against such an idea. Why can't NYC put some energy into creating a nice pedestrian blvd for shopping? I mean, its ridiculous -- Although I live here, I'm ashamed by the lack of attetion paid to improving quality of life in cities. There are several places in NYC, i.e, 5th avenue or times square that could be no car zones. Why are american cities so resistant to change, especially when its clear that many of them have the pedestiran street traffic to warrant it. I have often heard people say that it doesn't work in the USA, but i have a hard time believing that major shopping streets in NYC or Chicago would suffer business losses without cars -- i think it would actually be a boon for the city's economy and global image. For god sake, wake up USA, get with the times - why are you so freaking conservative with new urban ideas?


Its not as easy as you make it out to be. Simply cutting off a main street for cars in Chicago or New York would require alot of work and planning.


----------



## aquablue

Ok, it seems most of you would like to ruin your lungs rather than remove a little "city" feel. Not me! The planning should be done, its not easy but its worth it to improve quality of life. NYC should have a pedestrianized street. London will have Oxford street done soon. China is always blamed for pollution, but at least they don't expect people to shop along traffic in places like Shanghai and Beijing -- nothing in NYC can compete with the urban experience created by Najing Lu/century plaza - the pedestrian bustle, the shops, the lights. Think of if times square was done like that--no question, it could handle it with the ammount of people. Cars should be tunnelled or diverted. 

I bet Shopping in Nanjing Lu in Shanghai is healtier than your average shopping trip in NY or London, given the removal of cars. Wouldn't you say?


----------



## Xusein

Here, we have a road downtown, Pratt Street, that is just screaming for becoming pedestrian-only. But trucks shipping supplies to the businesses on this street may have problems bringing supplies in. There is currently a proposed idea to close Pratt Street between 10AM-10PM.


----------



## koolkid

Why don't you just move to China if you like shopping in pedestrian only streets. Your whining comments get more and more annoying by the minute...

jeez..


----------



## aquablue

Go to hell...... I'm speaking for the millions of average people who would love to shop in a healthy, car-free environment. If you consider a constructive idea as whining I would consider you a fool. But obviously you care little about improving the urban environment. Ask most people outside this site and you would have a different answer -- people like to shop without inhaling noxious diesel fumes from busses. Pedestrian streets also allow street street entertainment , al fresco cafes, etc.. New York should be ashamed that it has made no effort in creating a world class pedestrian zone where people can enjoy themselves with space and clean air. I guess you think walking along NY's sidewalks are ideal!! I.e, why the hell can a neighborhood like Soho be kept open to traffc -- thats a fantastic place to have a vibrant pedestrian area, You would have the vibrancy of a central Rome, Munich or Prague.


----------



## dios tanatos

Why not? Because American cities are designed for motorists, not for pedestrians...


----------



## aquablue

Designed for in the past -- this is the present, where things can be changed for the future enjoyment and health of the people - all it takes is will.


----------



## koolkid

For some reason I got the idea that you were sort of trying to bash or something. All is well, I hope. It would be great to have pedestrian only streets. I think the closest thing we have here in New York would be Fulton street mall over in Downtown Brooklyn. It's not completely closed to vehicles but it does offer wide sidewalks. I kind of like Soho open to vehicular traffic. I mean, just look at it:



I wouldn't mind seeing this street closed to vehicular traffic though..:



Greetings from hell btw...


----------



## aquablue

They could easily pedestrianize some of the ..narrow side streets in soho. A small portion of 5th avenue (10 blocks) would be the ideal situation IMO - flanked by the plaza by the park and ending at the rockerfeller center or something like that.


----------



## TalB

These are some other pedistrian streets I have noticed in NYC.

South St Seaport, Fulton St, Manhattan









Fulton St Mall, Fulton St, Brooklyn (only accessible by bus and vehicles with permits)









Jamaica Ctr, Jamaica Ave, Jamaica, Queens


----------



## Khanrak

I personally prefer a mall to shopping outdoors, especially since it get very cold here in the winter, and very hot, humid, and rainy in summer. Europe doesn't have nearly the same temperature extremes that we do. Outdoor shopping would be pleasant for about 6 weeks of the year here in Ohio. 

And anyways, why do Europeans (well, mostly the French) love to point their fingers at us as if their way of doing things is the best way of doing things? How we prefer our urban streetscapes is our business alone, and we needn't consult nor answer to others. I don't care to act like a European, nor set up my city to be European looking - in fact, the only other country which I might possibly want to emulate is Canada (aside from Quebec). We as a country may not have/like pedestrianized streets (and a cursory glance at or major cities would show that we indeed DO have pedestrianized streets), but we also don't have immigrants' kids rioting in our suburbs - I wonder if that means that our cities are "better" than theirs? I'll take their attitude: "Geez, why can't they do things like us?! Stupid French! Surely those morons would like to have peace, right? Rawr, look how everyone else is doing it right, but you stupid Frenchies keep f'ing up! Rawr even China has it right!" I mean seriously, there is so much unwarranted USA bashing on this website that its just hilarious.


----------



## goschio

Here is the pedestrian street of Burlington Vermont. Pretty much the same as in Europe. 










They even have market day:









And the city is full of eco hippies:


----------



## Xusein

Khanrak said:


> And anyways, why do Europeans (well, mostly the French) love to point their fingers at us as if their way of doing things is the best way of doing things? How we prefer our urban streetscapes is our business alone, and we needn't consult nor answer to others. I don't care to act like a European, nor set up my city to be European looking - in fact, the only other country which I might possibly want to emulate is Canada (aside from Quebec).


Well, except for the rant about "Frenchies", I agree with you.

It's just another, of the countless reasons, excuse that certain Europeans in this forum give to look down on North Americans (okay, mostly Americans really). Blah, blah...we sprawl, we drive cars and not bikes, we are fat..blah, blah. It gets old and stinks of the arrogance that they accuse us of. :blahblah:

The standards here in the US are different. They aren't better, they aren't worse. They are just different. Certain forumers have to realize this...we are different. Apples and oranges, really. You have to accept this difference as much as we are doing ourselves. North Americans are more critical of themselves than Europeans are. 

------

However, I do like the concept of pedestrian streets. I just don't know if it can implemented the same way here in the US. The pedestrian streetscapes in NY and Boston are tourist-central. They would be used for like half of year too. As an urbanist, I do prefer pedestrian streets, but I could live without them. Plenty of nice shops on main roads anyway.


----------



## MetroWest

aquablue said:


> Go to hell...... I'm speaking for the millions of average people who would love to shop in a healthy, car-free environment. If you consider a constructive idea as whining I would consider you a fool. But obviously you care little about improving the urban environment.
> I live in Vermont... In the largest city (Burlington only 30,000 people :lol:!) We have 4 blocks of pedestrian shopping. and every day it is full of people Also^^ I think that building a pedestrain street improves many large cities. (atleast the ones that I have been too) I think its a wonderful additoin to the city! Oh ya the pedestrain street is Not always filled with eco hippies! And it is true that mostly tourest go to these places, but a lot of local people go there too.


----------



## the spliff fairy

I think you can easily have the malls, the cars, and the pedestrianisation if you really had to. Regional British towns have been taken over by malls since the 80s, but there has been quite a backlash since the 90s with alot being refused planning permission nowadays, so that the pedestrianised High Streets still pull in the crowds. However the councils know they will lose out if they deny every multi-retail development. Thus there are still malls in the city centre, but they are markedly different from the out of town ones.

They are fully open on all sides to the pedestrianised streets around, where they pull in most of their punters. However there is still all the driving mall rattees to cater for - simple as - underground or multistorey carparks that don't take up the space and don't infringe on the streetlife by bulldozing it. Thus they buck the trend for emptying city centres while riding the wave for the ecstasies of living your life with muzak.


----------



## Koen Acacia

About the French-bashing that's going on here: where did a Frenchman even post in this thread, much less post something negative about the US?


----------



## Slartibartfas

Khanrak said:


> I personally prefer a mall to shopping outdoors, especially since it get very cold here in the winter, and very hot, humid, and rainy in summer. Europe doesn't have nearly the same temperature extremes that we do. Outdoor shopping would be pleasant for about 6 weeks of the year here in Ohio.


Thats a funny comment. Do you have an idea how continental climate in Europe is like? Hot summers, freezing winters. While there might be more extreme climates out there, thats already nice enough. 



> And anyways, why do Europeans (well, mostly the French) love to point their fingers at us as if their way of doing things is the best way of doing things? How we prefer our urban streetscapes is our business alone, and we needn't consult nor answer to others. I don't care to act like a European, nor set up my city to be European looking - in fact, the only other country which I might possibly want to emulate is Canada (aside from Quebec). We as a country may not have/like pedestrianized streets (and a cursory glance at or major cities would show that we indeed DO have pedestrianized streets), but we also don't have immigrants' kids rioting in our suburbs - I wonder if that means that our cities are "better" than theirs? I'll take their attitude: "Geez, why can't they do things like us?! Stupid French! Surely those morons would like to have peace, right? Rawr, look how everyone else is doing it right, but you stupid Frenchies keep f'ing up! Rawr even China has it right!" I mean seriously, there is so much unwarranted USA bashing on this website that its just hilarious.


Funny anti European rant, but quite off topic I would say.



10ROT said:


> The standards here in the US are different. They aren't better, they aren't worse. They are just different. Certain forumers have to realize this...we are different. Apples and oranges, really. You have to accept this difference as much as we are doing ourselves. North Americans are more critical of themselves than Europeans are.


Why is the concept of pedestrian zones called a European concept? Do make it easier to argument against it via anti European generalities? The concept of pedestrian zones had been introduced in both the US and Europe during the same decade. Of course you may point at the fact that while it proved succesfull in countless European cities, it could succeed in only a limited number of American cities. But that does not make it an evil "European" concept.

Its new to me that North Americans are more critical to themselves btw. 


And regarding the "just a different concept but not better or worse" argument. Thats not correct. We live in a time where energy efficiency will become a more and more dominant issue. The car centric philosophy is highly inferior here and thats the point. Quality of life might be a subjective term, but look which cities in the world regularly succeed in studies on this subject, and then look if they are furthering a totally car centric policy.


----------



## Xusein

^^ Visit any of the US forums. There are very few people there who think that America can not do any wrong....any forumer that does quickly becomes a laughingstock. We are aware of our **** up of sprawl and other issues that plauge the US.

Can't say the same about many Europeans, unfortunately. You guys are always the best!  :|

I agree with you with the quality of life issue. However, the way that it is said here is less like advice, and more like a parent nagging a child. 
We get it already.


----------



## philadweller

Istanbul and Shanghai look totally amazing. 

Santiago is a strange looking city. How many old buildings are there? I am not familiar with the identity of Chile I suppose. Venezuela, Colombia, Brazil and Argentina give me a sense of their personal and national identity. With Chile I'm not so sure. Culturally its seems bland and watered down compared with Buenos Aires or Rio de Janeiro.

I am probably sounding ignorant but what makes Chile Chile? It is such a long narrow country that a regional identity would seem nearly impossible to comprehend.

I agree that the Europeans are the best at living. No doubt about that. Also, Europe as a whole it one of the most beautiful built environments on the planet.


----------



## Slartibartfas

10ROT said:


> ^^ Visit any of the US forums. There are very few people there who think that America can not do any wrong....any forumer that does quickly becomes a laughingstock. We are aware of our **** up of sprawl and other issues that plauge the US.


I have been on quite some American forums for a fair time already and I have been to the US even if it was not too often so far. In my opinion you find a good share of ignorance and arrogance on both sides of the Atlantic and you find them in pretty similar amount.


> Can't say the same about many Europeans, unfortunately. You guys are always the best!  :|


So, how can I be European when I at the same time dont think that Europeans are always the best?



> I agree with you with the quality of life issue. However, the way that it is said here is less like advice, and more like a parent nagging a child.
> We get it already.


I dont know where you have got this advice, but I can see here only a thread about pedestrian zones. Its an absolute legitimate task to discuss this issue, no matter if you are from the one or the other side of the Atlantic its also totally legitimate to support the opinion that in the face of the necessity of a sustainable society, in the future more than ever, pedestrian zones are a useful element. Furthermore its legitimate to see it in the light of the before mentioned perspective, that more car centric concepts are inferior, and not only "different".

This has nothing to do with mine is bigger than yours infantilities.


----------



## Koen Acacia

10ROT said:


> ^^ Visit any of the US forums. There are very few people there who think that America can not do any wrong....any forumer that does quickly becomes a laughingstock. We are aware of our **** up of sprawl and other issues that plauge the US.
> 
> Can't say the same about many Europeans, unfortunately. You guys are always the best!  :|
> 
> I agree with you with the quality of life issue. However, the way that it is said here is less like advice, and more like a parent nagging a child.
> We get it already.


Okay then. Where, exactly, did one of "The Europeans" (TM) start chastising US cities about the lack of pedestrian streets? As far as I can see from his posting history, the guy who started this thread has an American background. Yet, some American posters see that as a perfectly legitimate reason to start bashing Europeans and Frenchmen in general, since "they're always bashing us here".

If attacking France, completely out of the blue, is perfectly A-OK for an American, and no European was attacking the US without being provoked, then what is your issue exactly?


----------



## Xusein

I didn't agree with the unnecessary French bashing, FYI.


----------



## Xusein

Slartibartfas said:


> I have been on quite some American forums for a fair time already and I have been to the US even if it was not too often so far. In my opinion you find a good share of ignorance and arrogance on both sides of the Atlantic and you find them in pretty similar amount.


Ignorance is definitely a two-way street, but I believe that many Americans are more aware of their ignorance about Europe in general than Europeans are. Maybe our weak dollar will change that though. :lol:




> So, how can I be European when I at the same time dont think that Europeans are always the best?


Americans who think this are automatically painted as arrogant dumbasses. I don't think Americans or Europeans, or Martians are the best. Everything is different, nothing is better or worse.




> I dont know where you have got this advice, but I can see here only a thread about pedestrian zones. Its an absolute legitimate task to discuss this issue, no matter if you are from the one or the other side of the Atlantic its also totally legitimate to support the opinion that in the face of the necessity of a sustainable society, in the future more than ever, pedestrian zones are a useful element. Furthermore its legitimate to see it in the light of the before mentioned perspective, that more car centric concepts are inferior, and not only "different".
> 
> This has nothing to do with mine is bigger than yours infantilities.


Please! The entire thread was all about looking down from the beginning. There have plenty of finger wagging, told you so's, and other feelings of superiority since the thread started.

It's like me talking about Paris or London and saying "The dense urban style is horrible and incredibly inefficient. You guys should start buying SUVs and other gas-guzzlers". Does that make any sense? No, it does not.

Again, I agree with you about the sustainability, but it sounds like lecturing. People tend to not listen or care when they are being lectured.

Anyway...don't get me wrong, I like the countries of Europe and wish that US cities would pay more attention to that. I just don't like the arrogance that comes with it.


----------



## Koen Acacia

10ROT said:


> I didn't agree with the unnecessary French bashing, FYI.


Personally, I'd call it "completely uncalled for", just like I wouldn't call similar attacks on American culture merely "unnecessary".

Having said that, however, we're talking about a thread without any European attacks on American culture, with it still having "unnecessary" attacks on European culture. 

After all:


> Please! The entire thread was all about looking down from the beginning. There have plenty of finger wagging, told you so's, and other feelings of superiority since the thread started.


As far as I can say, that "looking down" was done by someone from the US, not from Europe. So, could you please explain how this is about Europeans looking down their noses on Americans, and not precisely the other way around?


----------



## Xusein

It's just another excuse to show how we are more screwed up that you guys. hno:

Many Americans (except for the crazy rightwing dumbasses who have irrational hatreds) don't look down on European cities. We envy the planning, PT, and general quality of life. I know I do. I am not sure if the situation is similar on the other side.


----------



## Xusein

Anyway, I just want to say that I don't have any dislike for the countries on the other side of the pond...I just dislike the superiority that some forumers from that region bring out, especially when it comes to opinions of the US. 

There are ways you can criticize our way of life without looking like a snob.


----------



## trainrover

No pedestrian streets in large US cities -- why not? 

Coz most of its citizens find being inside their air-conditioned cars to be _far cooler_ than plying some pavement by foot . . . wouldn't you agree?


----------



## Koen Acacia

10ROT said:


> Anyway, I just want to say that I don't have any dislike for the countries on the other side of the pond...I just dislike the superiority that some forumers from that region bring out, especially when it comes to opinions of the US.
> 
> There are ways you can criticize our way of life without looking like a snob.


Trust me - I don't think you dislike our countries. Neither am I particularly interested in criticizing your country btw.

The only thing I was questioning was this supposed EU superiority vs. the US while all that is visible here is US superiority vs. the EU (a not exactly unheard-of trait btw.....).
Anyway, this is getting boring, I'm off to enjoy my obviously superior European nightlife.  :cheers:


----------



## Slartibartfas

10ROT said:


> It's just another excuse to show how we are more screwed up that you guys. hno:
> 
> Many Americans (except for the crazy rightwing dumbasses who have irrational hatreds) don't look down on European cities. We envy the planning, PT, and general quality of life. I know I do. I am not sure if the situation is similar on the other side.


So what? At the same time many Europeans look up to great bustling and dynamic metropolis like New York. The "Canyons" in New York are something you can't find in Europe and something I really admire about it for example.

Ok, enough off topic for me. I am off to enjoy our obviously superior European beer.  (wink at koen Acacia)


----------



## LtBk

You guys are superior to us in couple of things.


----------



## Koen Acacia

LtBk said:


> You guys are superior to us in couple of things.


I'm not sure if those pedestrian streets can really be described with the word "superior" btw.

It's not as if there was some Middle-Aged European who stood up and said "Hey, let's build really high-density inner cities that will be really cool by the time the car has been invented!".
It's just that, for the 600-900 years before 1900 or so, European citizens had to hide behind their city walls. There really wasn't an alternative to "dense inner city". Any Medieval European coming up with the idea to build a really nice suburb with lots of room and space for everybody, well... he would be dead and his house burned down within a generation.

Right now, I think that the net result of those walls is really nice, but it's not as if we were ever actually aiming for it, it's more something that we stumbled upon, so claiming credit for it seems a bit odd to me.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Koen Acacia said:


> I'm not sure if those pedestrian streets can really be described with the word "superior" btw.
> 
> It's not as if there was some Middle-Aged European who stood up and said "Hey, let's build really high-density inner cities that will be really cool by the time the car has been invented!".
> It's just that, for the 600-900 years before 1900 or so, European citizens had to hide behind their city walls. There really wasn't an alternative to "dense inner city". Any Medieval European coming up with the idea to build a really nice suburb with lots of room and space for everybody, well... he would be dead and his house burned down within a generation.
> 
> Right now, I think that the net result of those walls is really nice, but it's not as if we were ever actually aiming for it, it's more something that we stumbled upon, so claiming credit for it seems a bit odd to me.


Not all pedestrian zones in Europe are within medieval cities. The first one in Germany was created actually in a post war quarter.

The Favoritenstraße pedestrian zone in Vienna lies in a Gründerzeit quarter from the late 19th or very early 20th century. Nothing medieval about it.

The city development area of the Flugfeld Aspern in the very north eastern periphery of Vienna, a from the scratch completely newly constructed quarter is planned to have as central element a pedestrian street. 


Of course old towns are predestined for pedestrian zones, I consider it however a fallacy to limit that concept to them.


----------



## Koen Acacia

Slartibartfas said:


> Not all pedestrian zones in Europe are within medieval cities. The first one in Germany was created actually in a post war quarter.
> 
> The Favoritenstraße pedestrian zone in Vienna lies in a Gründerzeit quarter from the late 19th or very early 20th century. Nothing medieval about it.
> 
> The city development area of the Flugfeld Aspern in the very north eastern periphery of Vienna, a from the scratch completely newly constructed quarter is planned to have as central element a pedestrian street.


Sorry, never heard of them.  



> Of course old towns are predestined for pedestrian zones, I consider it however a fallacy to limit that concept to them.


Of course pedestrian zones aren't limited to medieval quarters. It's just that it's exactly those quarters that were, literally, made for pedestrian zoning. Which gives the cities with those quarters quite an advantage when it comes to creating said zones (which was, kinda, my point )


----------



## Slartibartfas

Koen Acacia said:


> Sorry, never heard of them.


The entire quarter Flugfeld Aspern does not exist so far, but the masterplan already exists, and it sets a high priority on pedestrian infrastructure, including a pedestrian shopping street with an integrated tram track. 

Its hard to find pics of the Favoritenstraße on the net as tourists are a rare sight there. Here one I could find:










This pedestrian street was enlarged only 3 years ago btw. Its the center of the district Favoriten which is not even one of the central districts but already belonging to the Viennese periphery. (Even if its rather densely populated)



> Of course pedestrian zones aren't limited to medieval quarters. It's just that it's exactly those quarters that were, literally, made for pedestrian zoning. Which gives the cities with those quarters quite an advantage when it comes to creating said zones (which was, kinda, my point )


True, its an advantage, but its by far not a necessity.


----------



## Koen Acacia

Slartibartfas said:


> True, its an advantage, but its by far not a necessity.


I never said it was.....


----------



## Mariachi McMuffin

Whats the point of pedestrian streets in the U.S. anyway? Lifestyle is based around the car. You would have to drive to get to the pedestrian street anyway.


----------



## the spliff fairy

the majority of European pedestrianised zones are built in streets realised in the 18th and 19th Century, thoroughfares at least as wide as two 4-horse carriages passing (which incidentally was wide enough to be adapted and overrun by the car), if not multiple lanes of such. To say that European pedestrianisation stumbled upon what was just a medieval reality dismisses the fact alot of these streets were intentionally turned from car to pedestrian not because it was easy to do or had historical precedent, but purely because the political will and foresight was there.

In the 50s, 60s, and 70s European centres were equally dominated by car culture as it was everywhere else.




Istanbul, the main streets:

At the beginning of the 20th century. 










50's: Street opened to cars 










Some years later the nostalgic tram line doesn't exist anymore, the area getting more unattractive. Buildings full of signs.









After 90's until today:
Several renovations and restorations. The tram line is back and buildings are rented to high prices again.


----------



## spongeg

Mariachi McMuffin said:


> Whats the point of pedestrian streets in the U.S. anyway? Lifestyle is based around the car. You would have to drive to get to the pedestrian street anyway.


haha yah

based on the pics of europe etc shown in here as examples

it appears that there is a good supply of residents living above and close to the pedestrian streets which is a major help

something thas becoming popular here are "lifestyle" centres that are just malls that are made to look like streets but to get to them you need a car and most of them don't have a residential component although they may be surrounded by new developments - its just not the same


----------



## drunkenmunkey888

no pedestrian streets? what about Wall Street? Its a pedestrian only street in a huge city...

Apart from Wall Street, there are a bunch of other streets in downtown Manhattan that are pedestrian only. Don't need to look too hard...


----------



## zaphod

the early 70's when the modern idea of pedestrian streets and urban malls came out was really the height of urban decay in the US. It was bad timing. Many that were built really made things worse because they uprooted the few existing businesses that were left. 

When cities started to recover in the 1980's most cities followed the examples of cities like Portland and Denver with "transit malls" and one-way streets instead. Personally I think this idea is better because it gives people who don't want to walk some options like free buses/light rail.

Here is the streetscape in Portland that most normal-sized cities in the US have tried to copy

*Source: http://world.nycsubway.org/us/portland/index.html*


----------



## Slartibartfas

drunkenmunkey888 said:


> no pedestrian streets? what about Wall Street? Its a pedestrian only street in a huge city...
> 
> Apart from Wall Street, there are a bunch of other streets in downtown Manhattan that are pedestrian only. Don't need to look too hard...


No one claimed that the US has no pedesrian zones. But look at it how many. I have read that Germany alone has many times more pedestrian zones than the entire USA. 

And regarding Wall Street, when I visited that place it did not look like a street adopted with having pedestrians in mind but like a street where the cars had been banned for security reasons. 
I think the South Street seaport area in NYC is a far better example of a lively pedestrian zone, even though I am not sure if there are still people living there in those renovated buildings.


----------



## TalB

I know that Stone St in the Financial Dist is also a pedistrian block with having tables outside on it.


----------



## invincible

New world, car-dependent. Although in Melbourne the car is often left behind at the train station or on the outskirts of the CBD. There are usually at least three or four groups of street performers in a single block - this street would otherwise fit four lanes of traffic (or two lanes of traffic, bike lanes and two lanes of parking) in addition to the pair of tram tracks, which is reserved for trams and emergency vehicles in the CBD.


















Other streets like Little Bourke St probably have a lot to gain by removing cars too, perhaps on a part-time basis.









The CBD streets have generally been bypassed by other roads nearby because there is no place for through traffic in the CBD.


----------



## the spliff fairy

I love this pic, the whole feel of it is great. This totally sells the city for me.


----------



## PedroGabriel

just like here, most of our pedestrian streets once had cars, despite being built in the 18th and 19th centuries, and shopping streets are quite popular. In fact this year part of the town hall square turned into pedestrian, and immediately people started using it. the main shopping street is even one of the city's highlights, and the same happens in other middle-sized and large Portuguese cities. Shoppers even want to ban bicycles and dogs from the street.

Maybe the problem in large US-cities is because cities are too large and too widespread.


----------



## Chicagoago

Here's an article on the subject from a San Fran newspaper in 1997:

(I cut out some of it, it was long. These paragraphs are the most interesting)

Chicago's State Street Mall Called Transit `Disaster'

Carl Nolte, Chronicle Staff Writer

Monday, November 24, 1997

(11-24) 04:00 PDT Chicago -- Mayor Willie Brown and environmental activists want to ban private cars on San Francisco's Market Street -- but in Chicago, at least, this is an idea whose time has come and gone. 

Chicago turned nine blocks of State Street into a transit-only mall in 1979. The idea was a total flop -- ``a disaster,'' Chicago planners say -- and the street was refurbished at a cost of $24 million and opened to cars again last year. 

``We walked into it with our eyes wide open,'' said G. Brent Minor, vice president for business development at the La Salle Bank, ``and it was just a mistake, an absolute mistake. 

``God, don't let them do that in San Francisco.'' [an error occurred while processing this directive] State is one of those great American streets, like Broadway. Or it was, anyway. It is lined with huge old buildings by Louis Sullivan and Daniel Burnham, leaders of the Chicago School of architecture. 

Two of the street's biggest department stores -- Marshall Field's and Carson Pirie Scott -- were considered architectural masterpieces. There were theaters, nine other huge department stores and the Palmer House, for years the best hotel in town. 

The corner of Madison and State is ground zero in Chicago, the center of the city -- everything is measured north and south and east and west from here. It was, at one time, the busiest intersection in the world. 

State is the main drag of the Loop, that portion of the great clanking elevated train network that is very close to what Nelson Algren called ``the rusty heart'' of Chicago. 

``This is the main street of Chicago, the totem pole of the tribe,'' said Norman Elkin, a planning consultant and leading light in 

the Greater State Street Council. 

Frank Sinatra sang of it: ``On State Street, that great street, I just want to say/They do things they never do on Broadway.'' When he sang that in the huge gaudy old Chicago Theater at Lake and State, he brought down the house. 


MUCH LIKE MARKET STREET

State is similar to Market Street. State is more central to the city's life, but Market is longer and wider. The two streets have a similar history. They emerged as the main commercial streets at the same time -- the 1870s. Both were destroyed by fire: State in 1871, Market in 1906. Both even had cable cars. 

Market has two subways, State has one, and both have bus lines. The mix of office buildings and retail stores is similar, and the streets both face competition from the suburbs and from other parts of the city. Market has Union Square, State has North Michigan Avenue. Both competitors are in the top five in the country in retail sales. 

About 30 years ago, something started to go terribly wrong with State Street. Chicago is big and tough, but it is just like other cities: Suburban malls started drawing away middle-class shoppers, and in 1976, Water Tower Place, the country's first vertical mall, opened on North Michigan Avenue, just across the river. [an error occurred while processing this directive] North Michigan drained off the upscale shoppers, too. It became ``The Magnificent Mile,'' and the mile-long heart of State Street started to die. Many of the big stores on State closed; in their places came fast-food joints and discount stores. 


*`MALL' BOOM

The ``mall'' boom was on in other cities, starting in Kalamazoo, Mich., which began a national trend by closing its main street to cars. Other cities did the same: Milwaukee; Portland and Eugene, Ore.; Little Rock; Norfolk, Va.; Poughkeepsie, N.Y.; Denver and Boulder, Colo.; Santa Monica; Fresno; and Sacramento -- all closed off streets. Some had buses and some had rail, but none had cars. 

At its peak, there were 200 urban centers where cars were banned. 

State Street was the biggest. ``Who could resist?'' said Minor. ``We had a federal program for it. They had the dollars for us,'' said Elkin. *

``We all agreed,'' said Minor. ``We needed the mall.'' 

*In 1979, at a cost of $17 million, the makeover was complete. The sidewalks were widened. New street lamps were put in. State got new bus stops with a trendy '70s look with roofs that looked like bubbles of clear plastic. There was street sculpture. Cars were banned. State already had a subway, and now buses were allowed to roam free. ``Like a herd of elephants,'' said Chicago Tribune architectural critic Blair Kamen. *

It was pretty much what is prescribed for Market Street in San Francisco: a transit-only main street, attractive to pedestrians and transit riders. 

``It was supposed to make the street more enticing to shoppers,'' Kamen wrote. ``In fact, exactly the opposite occurred.'' 

``We began talking about taking it out in 1980,'' said Minor, who became chairman of the Greater State Street Council. ``*By 1981, we knew it had failed.'' *

WHAT WENT WRONG?

*What went wrong? Phillip Enquist, a partner at the architectural firm of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, said the mall drew all the life out of State Street. Banning cars, said Kamen, ``cut off State Street from the rest of the Loop.'' 

``A street,'' Kamen said, ``needs cars to give it scale. I know that sounds crazy, but what happens is it cuts off the street from the city. It is as if you cut off the heart from the arteries.'' 

``It took the excitement out of State Street,''* said Elizabeth Hollander, a former Chicago planning commissioner who is now with DePaul University. 

At night, when the office workers left, State Street was deserted. *The wide sidewalks looked empty, even when they were crowded. The Loop reportedly had one of the lowest crime rates in the city, but without crowds, people thought State Street was unsafe. *

``*We created an image that nothing happened after 5 p.m*.,'' said Minor. 

``The street hit its lowest ebb, rock-bottom,'' he said. 

They don't fool around in Chicago: If you have muscle, you use it. ``The downtown businesses are the engine that runs the city,'' said Minor. And downtown wanted a change. 

``We talked to our customers,'' he said. ``They all said they wanted to drive on State. They wanted to drop people off at the door of the store and park later. *Cars are part of our culture*.'' 


WIDER, BUSIER STATE STREET

*Skidmore, Owings and Merrill designed a new State Street: The street was widened from two lanes to four at the expense of the wide sidewalks and the sidewalk sculpture. The food kiosks were scrapped. 

Street planters were put in, with seasonal trees, honey ash and locust, plenty of decorative greens in the winter and flowers in the spring. The new streetlights went out and vintage 1926 lights came in. The sidewalks were narrowed. ``It is axiomatic that crowds attract more crowds,'' Kamen wrote, ``that a little jostling is a good thing.'' 

Enquist, who spent 11 years in San Francisco, had a big role in State Street, and his aim, he said, ``was to let State Street be State Street, to be a big-city street.'' *

*When Mayor Richard M. Daley cut the ribbon to reopen the street, a year and a week ago, the cars all came back. ``It was as if they never left,'' said Enquist.*





This article is 10 years old, and in the past 10 years, State Street has made a MAJOR comeback as a top destination in Chicago. I don't mind the cars on the street, there's still lots of sidewalk room. The traffic and packed sidewalks definitely give the street the feeling of bustling excitement.

Like the article says, cars are just part of our culture, people and cars in downtown areas just work together, and are always inner-mixed. Also, when you have summer temps that are reaching 40C, and winter temps that get down to -30C, there are many days when people in much of the US just aren't going to want to walk up and down a street outside. They want to park and shop indoors. It's just the way we do things here, and we're fine with that. People complain that the skywalk system in Minneapolis, connecting 69 blocks downtown with 11KM of elevated walkways between buildings (they attach at the 2nd floor of almost all buildings downtown) cuts off the flow of people on the sidewalk and makes the streets seem quiet and dead. While that might be true, it's also a city with very cold and long winters, so try telling that to the tens of thousands of people downtown who don't have to walk through snow and freezing temps during the winter.


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^



> ``A street,'' Kamen said, ``needs cars to give it scale. I know that sounds crazy, but what happens is it cuts off the street from the city. It is as if you cut off the heart from the arteries.''


What a BS, that doesn't sound crazy, it is. There are so many cities out there where cars have been banned from 19th century streets and they do not in the least way look like "cut off the heart from the arteries". Quite in the opposite they are considered to be nowadays much nicer than before.

This article really looks like there is some one really busy at selling a bug as a feature. If you don't believe me, look at that great picture compilation of Istanbul above. It says it all.


----------



## PedroGabriel

spongeg said:


> haha yah
> 
> based on the pics of europe etc shown in here as examples
> 
> it appears that there is a good supply of residents living above and close to the pedestrian streets which is a major help
> 
> something thas becoming popular here are "lifestyle" centres that are just malls that are made to look like streets but to get to them you need a car and most of them don't have a residential component although they may be surrounded by new developments - its just not the same


that's not true, in here there's also a strong car culture, and some very popular pedestrian shopping streets in the bigger cities almost no-one lives near there, as people moved to suburbs, where there's cheaper and "better" housing.


----------



## the spliff fairy

^ I agree, the residential density of central London's shopping areas and Financial districts are a mere 1400-3000 per sq. mile.
Only the rare super rich get to live in the centre.

However by day they reach up to 400,000 per sq. mile. By night some entertainment districts see up to 500,000 passing through
in a single night, and 1 million on weekends.


there are no residentials in this entire pic, despite the density:









*The difference is the reliance on a mass transit system* for all three- commuters, shoppers and partygoers.
Thus cutting out the car on a shopping street means you still retain the vast majority (if not more) people.

1200 tube/rail stations transport the bulk of the population, even if you have a car you still often use public transport as its accessible.


----------



## Yardmaster

Chicagoago said:


> Here's an article on the subject from a San Fran newspaper in 1997:
> 
> (I cut out some of it, it was long. These paragraphs are the most interesting)
> 
> Chicago's State Street Mall Called Transit `Disaster'
> 
> Carl Nolte, Chronicle Staff Writer
> 
> Monday, November 24, 1997


..and I cut out some more ..



Chicagoago said:


> (11-24) 04:00 PDT Chicago -- Mayor Willie Brown and environmental activists want to ban private cars on San Francisco's Market Street -- but in Chicago, at least, this is an idea whose time has come and gone.
> 
> WHAT WENT WRONG?
> 
> *What went wrong? Phillip Enquist, a partner at the architectural firm of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, said the mall drew all the life out of State Street. Banning cars, said Kamen, ``cut off State Street from the rest of the Loop.''
> 
> ``A street,'' Kamen said, ``needs cars to give it scale. I know that sounds crazy, but what happens is it cuts off the street from the city. It is as if you cut off the heart from the arteries.''
> 
> ``It took the excitement out of State Street,''* said Elizabeth Hollander, a former Chicago planning commissioner who is now with DePaul University.
> 
> At night, when the office workers left, State Street was deserted. *The wide sidewalks looked empty, even when they were crowded. The Loop reportedly had one of the lowest crime rates in the city, but without crowds, people thought State Street was unsafe. *
> 
> ``*We created an image that nothing happened after 5 p.m*.,'' said Minor.
> 
> ``The street hit its lowest ebb, rock-bottom,'' he said.
> 
> They don't fool around in Chicago: If you have muscle, you use it. ``The downtown businesses are the engine that runs the city,'' said Minor. And downtown wanted a change.
> 
> ``We talked to our customers,'' he said. ``They all said they wanted to drive on State. They wanted to drop people off at the door of the store and park later. *Cars are part of our culture*.''
> 
> 
> WIDER, BUSIER STATE STREET
> 
> *Skidmore, Owings and Merrill designed a new State Street: The street was widened from two lanes to four at the expense of the wide sidewalks and the sidewalk sculpture. The food kiosks were scrapped.
> 
> Street planters were put in, with seasonal trees, honey ash and locust, plenty of decorative greens in the winter and flowers in the spring. The new streetlights went out and vintage 1926 lights came in. The sidewalks were narrowed. ``It is axiomatic that crowds attract more crowds,'' Kamen wrote, ``that a little jostling is a good thing.''
> 
> Enquist, who spent 11 years in San Francisco, had a big role in State Street, and his aim, he said, ``was to let State Street be State Street, to be a big-city street.'' *
> 
> *When Mayor Richard M. Daley cut the ribbon to reopen the street, a year and a week ago, the cars all came back. ``It was as if they never left,'' said Enquist.*
> 
> ______________________________________________
> 
> This article is 10 years old, and in the past 10 years, State Street has made a MAJOR comeback as a top destination in Chicago. I don't mind the cars on the street, there's still lots of sidewalk room. The traffic and packed sidewalks definitely give the street the feeling of bustling excitement.
> 
> Like the article says, cars are just part of our culture, people and cars in downtown areas just work together, and are always inner-mixed. Also, when you have summer temps that are reaching 40C, and winter temps that get down to -30C, there are many days when people in much of the US just aren't going to want to walk up and down a street outside. They want to park and shop indoors. It's just the way we do things here, and we're fine with that. People complain that the skywalk system in Minneapolis, connecting 69 blocks downtown with 11KM of elevated walkways between buildings (they attach at the 2nd floor of almost all buildings downtown) cuts off the flow of people on the sidewalk and makes the streets seem quiet and dead. While that might be true, it's also a city with very cold and long winters, so try telling that to the tens of thousands of people downtown who don't have to walk through snow and freezing temps during the winter.












Now listen Al ... you got da wrong idea about dem cars. You oughta listen to what Invincible just said ... about what dem guys did in Milbern. Invincible ... he's Invincible.

Dem guys in Milbern ... fezt they shut of all the cars from their main East-West ... Buck Street: zee, on the zign?










And did the people stay away? no way ...










And like Invincible said, the people started performing, right in the middle of town, within a pigeon's flit of the GPO, which as we all know, is where everything is measured from in this part of the world:










The evangelists started proselyetising ...










And the chalkies did their stuff ...










And so did the mime artists...










Next thing, the powers-that-be in Melbourne had shut off Hardware Place ... the building on the right was a multi-storey car-park, and this street was basically their entrance lane ...










They shut off Bank Place too ... though not entirely ... put in a few fancy street-lights ...



















but it certainly got by without the cars ...










Even the street I used to walk up when I went to Uni (on the footpath!) turned into a parkway ...










And then they got really serious. The cut off the main north south-axis of Melbourne to everything but trams, taxis, and service vehicles. And a few horses ...










and, despite the absence of cars, the people proliferated:



















It actually all started much earlier, back in my suburb: look at the trees that have grown in the middle of the street:










And lots of people here too. Although it is currently being remodelled, those trees have been preserved.










So Al, I sez get rid of dem gaz-guzzlers ... outta dem streetz.


----------



## spongeg

PedroGabriel said:


> that's not true, in here there's also a strong car culture, and some very popular pedestrian shopping streets in the bigger cities almost no-one lives near there, as people moved to suburbs, where there's cheaper and "better" housing.


well than maybe people can start providing examples of suburban pedestrian streets

either way the USA does have pedestrian zones - they are called Malls 

they are just different and have proven to be very successful as malls continue to expand and be built


----------



## Yardmaster

^^ an excellent example of a suburban pedestrian mall, in my last posting. So popular it's been redesigned to make it harder to hang around in ...


----------



## the spliff fairy

lol I suppose everywhere you can't shop out the car window could be called pedestrianised. I'm sure at some stage people get out of them.

more pics of Istanbul's pedestrianisation- Newsweek is now calling it the world's coolest city (formerly London).

It seems the thousands of alleys in the city just seem awaiting for restoration (which is a massive ongoing project at the moment as the city rises in foreign tourists from 2 million to 10 million within a couple of years):

Before:



























semi makeover










Nowadays, areas where cars share with pedestrian zones:




























an Istanbouli 'mall':










the largest f the pedestrian accessed 'malls' is still the oldest,
the Grand Bazaar sees in crowds of up to 400,000 a day in its labyrinthine system:



























outside pedestrian only streets






































This is what's best about the city, among 18 million people metro there are still so many respites
of peace:




















more of the shopping districts:


----------



## Golden Age

Khanrak said:


> Europe doesn't have nearly the same temperature extremes that we do. Outdoor shopping would be pleasant for about 6 weeks of the year here in Ohio.


That's only partly true. The Midwest, Texas and maybe Florida have temperature extremes, places like the pacific Northwest, California or the East Coast are hardly extremely cold or hot most of the year.



Khanrak said:


> And anyways, why do Europeans (well, mostly the French) love to point their fingers at us as if their way of doing things is the best way of doing things?


The blame game is not being played here. In fact, Europeans have reason to complain that American big box stores like Wal Mart and monstrous "American style" shopping malls are sucking the life out of (some of) the inner cities. Also, have you been to Asia lately? Bangkok, Dubai or Kuala Lumpur are nothing but a collection of malls with taxis connecting between them, don't you think the US might have had at least some influence in this rather sad development? 

The pedestrian zone and the strengthening of the downtown area may simply be more convenient for many Europeans. Europe just doesn't have the space for suburban sprawl thus many live in apartments close to the city center and demand near-by shopping, end of story.



Khanrak said:


> How we prefer our urban streetscapes is our business alone, and we needn't consult nor answer to others.


Who is "we"? Are you talking as a larger entity? I don't think your opinion is necessarily representative. If Americans could choose not a small number would prefer living in Brooklyn, Berkeley or Portland where you can bike instead of taking a car, the problem is simply, that it's too expensive for most people to live in such places.



Khanrak said:


> but we also don't have immigrants' kids rioting in our suburbs - I wonder if that means that our cities are "better" than theirs?


You are of course referring to the banlieues around Paris, hardly a European, but a rather French problem. In contrast, have you been to the "riot-free" downtowns Detroit, Baltimore, Philadelphia or the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans lately? I prefer the French rioting to that any day.



Khanrak said:


> I mean seriously, there is so much unwarranted USA bashing on this website that its just hilarious.


Unwarranted US-bashing? Puh-lease.. I'm an American and calling for more pedestrian friendly US cities is hardly outlandish. If Europe does something better than the US, let's acknowledge it. The US still has the better university system, the better high-tech industry and immigration policies, here Europe could learn a whole lot.


----------



## PedroGabriel

spongeg said:


> well than maybe people can start providing examples of suburban pedestrian streets
> 
> either way the USA does have pedestrian zones - they are called Malls
> 
> they are just different and have proven to be very successful as malls continue to expand and be built


I wasn't talking about suburbs, but cities. These pedestrian streets are the highlights of several cities, even people from other cities knows it by their names.

*Rua Augusta* in Lisbon
before









now

































*Rua de Santa Catarina* - Porto

































*Rua da Junqueira* - Póvoa de Varzim :banana:




iyt was even once a SSC header:


----------



## Koen Acacia

Golden Age said:


> The blame game is not being played here. In fact, Europeans have reason to complain that American big box stores like Wal Mart and monstrous "American style" shopping malls are sucking the life out of (some of) the inner cities. Also, have you been to Asia lately? Bangkok, Dubai or Kuala Lumpur are nothing but a collection of malls with taxis connecting between them, don't you think the US might have had at least some influence in this rather sad development?


I can't speak for Asia, but last time I heard about them, Walmart was kicked out of the German market, they couldn't compete/adapt to the local culture there. It's companies like Carrefour and so that are building the European megastores. 
IMHO, I think that this development is:
A. Rather limited, and
B. For 99 percent caused by European companies, and European consumers' demand.
No reason to blame this one on some outside entity.


----------



## Koen Acacia

PedroGabriel said:


>


Way too empty - needs more cars.


----------



## Golden Age

Koen Acacia said:


> IMHO, I think that this development is:
> A. Rather limited, and B. For 99 percent caused by European companies, and European consumers' demand. No reason to blame this one on some outside entity.


That Wal-Mart was kicked out of Germany, speaks for them.

Also, European customers are not necessarily demanding big box developments outside the city centers. In fact, speaking for Germany, huge shopping developments are being built in all the major downtowns instead of outside the inner cities (Munich-FünfHöfe, Hamburg-Europacenter, Frankfurt-PalaisQuartier, Stuttgart-Kronprinzenbau, other big developments in downtown Braunschweig, Augsburg, Passau etc). All of these complexes are architectually unique and include fitness centers, cafes, hotels, etc (Frankfurt is even getting a reconstruction of its palace). So, if anything, the last 5 years have proven, that Germans and perhaps Europeans, are demanding exactly the opposite of suburban malls that can only be reached by car.

Let's be clear, as long as gas is as cheap as it is in the U.S., customers there will prefer shopping outside the city centers, in Europe driving is simply too expensive to be considered more desirable than walking through downtown.


----------



## Koen Acacia

Golden Age said:


> Also, European customers are not necessarily demanding big box developments outside the city centers. In fact, speaking for Germany, huge shopping developments are being built in all the major downtowns instead of outside the inner cities (Munich-FünfHöfe, Hamburg-Europacenter, Frankfurt-PalaisQuartier, Stuttgart-Kronprinzenbau, other big developments in downtown Braunschweig, Augsburg, Passau etc). All of these complexes are architectually unique and include fitness centers, cafes, hotels, etc (Frankfurt is even getting a reconstruction of its palace). So, if anything, the last 5 years have proven, that Germans and perhaps Europeans, are demanding exactly the opposite of suburban malls that can only be reached by car.


In Holland, it's less in the form of big projects, but the trend is the same. Old inner cities "lighting up" and seeing more and more activity. I think that that trend really started off somewhere in the mid-nineties or so, but it keeps on expanding.


----------



## the spliff fairy

The reasons why malls are so popular in Thailand/Malaysia/UAE is the climate, not car culture. Those are the worlds hottest cities. In the old days before the malls they used to have night markets.


----------



## Golden Age

the spliff fairy said:


> The reasons why malls are so popular in Thailand/Malaysia/UAE is the climate, not car culture. Those are the worlds hottest cities. In the old days before the malls they used to have night markets.


Night markets are still alive & well in places like Hong Kong, Singapore or Taipeh. I find them more authentic and intrigiung than any "one size fits all" mall in Asia I've ever been to. That's not to say that the places above don't have their fair share of mega malls (some of which are actually quite spectacular).


----------



## Slartibartfas

Koen Acacia said:


> Way too empty - needs more cars.


Are you for real? What would be the benefit? Just assume a two way street with parking strip. Not much would be left of that lovely town street. Just because on this photo there are less pedestrians to reintroduce polluting noisy traffic is not justified in my opinion.


----------



## Koen Acacia

Slartibartfas said:


> Are you for real? What would be the benefit? Just assume a two way street with parking strip. Not much would be left of that lovely town street. Just because on this photo there are less pedestrians to reintroduce polluting noisy traffic is not justified in my opinion.


Heh - let's say that sometimes, I'm being a bit less serious than I appear.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Koen Acacia said:


> Heh - let's say that sometimes, I'm being a bit less serious than I appear.


Hey, you got me


----------



## zaphod

> Are you for real? What would be the benefit? Just assume a two way street with parking strip. Not much would be left of that lovely town street. Just because on this photo there are less pedestrians to reintroduce polluting noisy traffic is not justified in my opinion.


actually weren't most main streets like that? Basically diagonal parking up to the sidewalk. Heck in my home town the main street which is from the late 1880's is so wide that there is 4 whole rows of diagonal parking-2 in the middle and 2 on the sides. This is because back then there were railroad and interurban tracks in the middle and when the downtown was renovated they decided to make it into parking. Doesn't detract from the pedestrian enviroment at all.

Sometimes I think it's based on one simple thing and that is streets in the US are much wider so that pedestrians and cars both have enough room to move

More important to me is that there is a line of shops down a sidewalk that means you can get everything you want/need on foot at least before going back to your car. Like a mall but integrated into the enviroment of the city instead of being some hulking thing surrounded by a sea of parking.


----------



## spongeg

PedroGabriel said:


> I wasn't talking about suburbs, but cities. These pedestrian streets are the highlights of several cities, even people from other cities knows it by their names.


i know you are talking about cities and my point is most north americans don't live in dense downtowns like they have in europe 

they live in sprawling suburbs with little transit options other than a car and from my experience most people unless forced to go downtown avoid it like the plague

and therefore pedestrian streets in inner cities don't have the population base in the immediate area to support them

or the transit needed to transport them - people need cars here

which is a shame

so without transit why pay $20 to park downtown when you can drive to a mall and park for free?

we just have to accept that europeans and north americans have different lifestyles and let it be at that


----------



## spongeg

Slartibartfas said:


> Are you for real? What would be the benefit? Just assume a two way street with parking strip. Not much would be left of that lovely town street. Just because on this photo there are less pedestrians to reintroduce polluting noisy traffic is not justified in my opinion.


i think he was being sarcastic


----------



## Slartibartfas

spongeg said:


> i think he was being sarcastic


I got it in the meanwhile 
Sometimes I am a bit slow.


----------



## Astralis

Not sure how many US residents would be willing to walk 2,3 km in some pedestrian area. Look at California as an example, I think that most of the ppl would rather kill someone instead of going somewhere on foot , noone goes anywhere without his car.


----------



## WeimieLvr

Koen Acacia said:


> So what if I fit a description? So does Nova. Now, which one of the two is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> So... writing about a piercing is suddenly a sign of inhibition? If anyone is stuck-up when it comes to, say, sex, I dare to claim that it's NOT the Europeans.


Why does anyone have to be wrong? You are who you are...I didn't say I thought either of you were wrong...

I don't think of any certain culture being "stuck-up" about sex. Some individuals in every culture are, but I certainly am not - and neither are the majority of my regulars.  My comment about the media was regarding the sensationalism...and how American celebrity news gets worldwide attention but European celebrities in the U.S., not so much.


----------



## Koen Acacia

WeimieLvr said:


> Why does anyone have to be wrong? You are who you are...I didn't say I thought either of you were wrong...


What am I, then? This:


> That "Bless the USA" and the flagwaving stuff are part of some (to me, rather insane) ritual, but that still doesn't mean they can't be critical. This very thread itself is started by an American, and consists of Americans discussing what they think is a flaw of their country.
> 
> Hell, it's not like they have a different DNA pattern than we have..


Was my previous post in that thread. I'm not anti-American at all. Sure, I'm pro-European: I want my place to prosper, and will not stand by while others go on an insane tirade trying to bash it. Having said that, your opinion that "neither needs to be wrong"...



> I don't think of any certain culture being "stuck-up" about sex. Some individuals in every culture are, but I certainly am not - and neither are the majority of my regulars.  My comment about the media was regarding the sensationalism...and how American celebrity news gets worldwide attention but European celebrities, not so much.


So - what is it? Are The Europeans "inhibited" as Nova claimed? Or are these differences irrelevant (if ther are any at all)?

About the "sensationalism" stuff: the big news here was never about that nipple. The big news was about the outrage over that nipple. The nipple showing itself was mostly regarded here as pretty lame, the reporting was about how it managed to get more than just a bit of anger over there.


----------



## NovaWolverine

SuomiPoika said:


> Regarding God. Religion and politics should be kept separate. In Europe people tend to individually believe in what they want. In the US religion is constantly on the political agenda. Bush even claimed to have God on his side during the war in Iraq. Just like muslim extremists claim to have Allah on their side.


So what's so funny about it than? Give me a break if you are trying to tell me that laughter in the response of hearing "God Bless America" is in response to the idea that politics should be kept separate from religion. It's more out of arrogance and condescension. I don't particularly like the phrase but don't do what so many others like to do and take one small thing and expand it on all Americans. It doesn't even make much sense to do it b/c we're the opposite of a homogenized country.



SuomiPoika said:


> Lol! How ironic. Then never let me hear another complaint about this so called "Amerca-bashing".


But America bashing is deeply rooted in a real combination of jealously and actual dislike of America. I can honestly tell you that most Americans have nothing negative to say about France, the French, the French government, or any of that. Go all around the world and don't even try to tell me that what you hear about America and Americans is even close to what you hear in the US about France.


----------



## Koen Acacia

NovaWolverine said:


> So what's so funny about it than? Give me a break if you are trying to tell me that laughter in the response of hearing "God Bless America" is in response to the idea that politics should be kept separate from religion.


It's because the idea of a Supreme Being liking one country more than another is quite unlikely. 



> It's more out of arrogance and condescension.


No, it isn't. 



> I don't particularly like the phrase but don't do what so many others like to do and take one small thing and expand it on all Americans. It doesn't even make much sense to do it b/c we're the opposite of a homogenized country.


Absolutely true.



> But America bashing is deeply rooted in a real combination of jealously and actual dislike of America.


Rubbish. 



> I can honestly tell you that most Americans have nothing negative to say about France, the French, the French government, or any of that.


That's not the impression that we're getting over here from your TV, politics or the vast bank of American internet sites dedicated solely to France-bashing. 


> Go all around the world and don't even try to tell me that what you hear about America and Americans is even close to what you hear in the US about France.


Where have *you* been "all around the world"?


----------



## NovaWolverine

Koen Acacia said:


> I don't think laughing at "God bless Holland" (/Germany/whatever) is pomposity at all. It would be laughing *at* pomposity. The idea that the creator of this universe would hold some sort of special relation with _a particular group _of somewhat advanced apes on a mid-sized planet.. What would you call that? Plausible?


I don't expect people to interpret that way. If you asked most Americans if "God Bless America" is the same as "God Bless America and no one else", they would say no. Most people don't even read into it that much. If someone sneezes and you say "God Bless You", does that only mean that God is blessing that person who just sneezed?





Koen Acacia said:


> Thanks, but no thanks. Someone's religiosity (or lack thereof) is his decision and his alone. It's a decision that I will always respect, *as long as they don't bother me about it*. Doesn't have anything to do with class, education, or anything of the sort.


I'll take your word for it that this is what you believe. 





Koen Acacia said:


> A national _tradition_, that started with Reagan? Heh - you're setting yourself up for SO many cheap jokes here.


Fairly common knowledge: 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004364209_domke22.html

It's from an editorial, but you get the point. 

"But Reagan brought "God bless America" into the mainstream by regularly using it to conclude his speeches. Since then, presidents and other politicians have used it nearly to death. Like Nike's "Just Do It" or any other ubiquitous catchphrase, the words eventually lose their meaning. "God bless America" has become the Pennsylvania Avenue equivalent to consumerized Madison Avenue staples."





Koen Acacia said:


> If anything, I believe that people are not cynical _enough_. Lack of a healthy dose of cynicism is what caused millions of Americans to be fooled by that "Swiftboat Veterans For Lies" circus, and to fall hook, line and sinker for the Mission Accomplished propaganda.
> When fifty-one percent of Americans willfully decide to ignore war, incompetence, corruption and a massive sell-out of (there we go again..) "traditional" American values and "give the guy another chance", yes, I can see how you can think others are "just being too cynical".


All of your little analysis has to do with politics. I'm talking about more than politics. Look at how people act and go about their business normally. I don't mind it, in fact, I have a lot in common with it, but I can at least acknowledge it. 



Koen Acacia said:


> I agree: just do a google-search on "French jokes". Pages and pages of "smugness and surliness" there.


Then google "American jokes" and see what you find and see if it compares.




Koen Acacia said:


> "Inhibited":
> _1: to prohibit from doing something
> 2 a: to hold in check : restrain
> b: to discourage from free or spontaneous activity especially through the operation of inner psychological or external social constraints._


"3. Psychology To suppress or restrain (behavior, an impulse, or a desire) consciously or unconsciously."

Inhibited is the best word I can use, and it's influenced by the smugness. Why it's such a surprise, something you'd laugh at, I don't understand. Smug people act inhibited, maybe it's refined to some people, but it's stuck up if you ask me and yes, stuck up people do act inhibited. 



Koen Acacia said:


> Okay, so let's count: we're A. Pompous, B. Elitist, C. Too focussed on religion, D. Too cynical, E. Too smug and too surly, F. Inhibited (lol), and G. one-sided.
> And you don't want to generalize.
> Cool. Would be interesting to see what a one-sided post would have looked like.


I was never trying to be double sided or unbiased, just bringing balance to the American bashing thread. And yeah, you display the attitude that we see all too often, you are pompous, cynical, smug, and surly. I don't know if you're elitist or inhibited, I'd have to see the reaction you'd have in person and see how you treat others. I never said anything about being too focused on religion. And you ignore the positive generalization I made, I said that you all seem to be genuinely caring for one another. Maybe that's not true, who knows. Maybe only good generalizations are accepted and that bad ones are all incorrect.


----------



## Mr Bricks

NovaWolverine said:


> Take one small thing and expand it on all Americans. It doesn't even make much sense to do it b/c we're the opposite of a homogenized country.


That is not what I said. I said that politicians in the US tend to use God and religion to gain the public vote. Even in war.



NovaWolverine said:


> But America bashing is deeply rooted in a real combination of jealously and actual dislike of America.


That´s the most ignorant thing I´ve ever heared. Jealousy? How can you say that this is an extremely important matter but the French-bashing is just a funny little joke we Europeans just haven´t understood. Oh the logic.




NovaWolverine said:


> I can honestly tell you that most Americans have nothing negative to say about France, the French, the French government, or any of that. Go all around the world and don't even try to tell me that what you hear about America and Americans is even close to what you hear in the US about France.


You´re right but can you honestly say that you have no idea why America is under so much critisism?


----------



## NovaWolverine

Koen Acacia said:


> It's because the idea of a Supreme Being liking one country more than another is quite unlikely.


But saying "God Bless America" doesn't imply that God only likes America. Should we say "God Bless Humans" at the end of every speech despite the President addressing Americans? That's simply other people interpreting it in a way that it's not intended to be. 



Koen Acacia said:


> Rubbish.


I disagree, I'm not going to argue with you about this point though. 



Koen Acacia said:


> That's not the impression that we're getting over here from your TV, politics or the vast bank of American internet sites dedicated solely to France-bashing.
> 
> 
> Where have *you* been "all around the world"?


I've been to England, France, Italy, Austria, Amsterdam, Kenya, Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, South Africa, Egypt, UAE, India, Japan, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina. 

The vast majority of people I've met have been great, but we're not blind over here. What impression do you think we should have over here about what others think about us? Besides, I don't think as many Americans go to your continent to live or work and do little else but bash and brag about how where we're from is so much better. You say that the only impression that you all get is that we *genuinely* hate the French. While I will definitely admit that we have had a long running stupid joke about France, we don't hate France. If you spent time in the US, you would understand.


----------



## WeimieLvr

Koen Acacia said:


> Was my previous post in that thread. I'm not anti-American at all. Sure, I'm pro-European: I want my place to prosper, and will not stand by while others go on an insane tirade trying to bash it. Having said that, your opinion that "neither needs to be wrong"...
> 
> 
> 
> So - what is it? Are The Europeans "inhibited" as Nova claimed? Or are these differences irrelevant (if ther are any at all)?
> About the "sensationalism" stuff: the big news here was never about that nipple. The big news was about the outrage over that nipple. The nipple showing itself was mostly regarded here as pretty lame, the reporting was about how it managed to get more than just a bit of anger over there.



I just simply said that neither of you are wrong for the way you think or what you feel. You are who you are...enough said.

I don't think Europeans are any one certain way, and I don't think Americans are any one certain way...and I don't stereotype all or most of any group. The "big news" at one time was about Posh and her fake nose piercing and how it might influence young girls to do the same. It wasn't even nudity...it was much less, but who even heard about it in the U.S.? No one...I was living in London at the time.

And for the record, I like Janet's nipple - I didn't think the nipple was lame at all. :lol:


----------



## NovaWolverine

SuomiPoika said:


> That´s the most ignorant thing I´ve ever heared. Jealousy? How can you say that this is an extremely important matter but the French-bashing is just a funny little joke we Europeans just haven´t understood. Oh the logic.


I'm saying you can't compare joking about Freedom Fries with the actual vitriol towards America. You just can't. You haven't even begun to prove me wrong, all you did was ask a smart ass question. French bashing by Americans is no worse than the jabbing that some European countries have with each other. 



SuomiPoika said:


> You´re right but can you honestly say that you have no idea why America is under so much critisism?


I do have plenty an idea. I don't expect you to know but I am very critical of the US and our foreign, domestic and economic policies. And this just reinforces what I've said earlier. You can't compare the our "hate" for the French, which is...you know...up there with Osama Bin-Laden...with the actual hate that people have for the US. But not all of it is simply based on our imperialistic or our such devoutly christian ways. There has always been a bit of tension or rivalry between the US and some European countries, before Bush was even president. And part of it, just maybe could have had to do with some jealously at least that's way a lot of people see it.


----------



## Koen Acacia

NovaWolverine said:


> I don't expect people to interpret that way. If you asked most Americans if "God Bless America" is the same as "God Bless America and no one else", they would say no. Most people don't even read into it that much. If someone sneezes and you say "God Bless You", does that only mean that God is blessing that person who just sneezed?


I never say "God Bless You" when someone sneezes. I think it's a bit weird.
Based on your line of thinking about God "not exclusively" Blessing America: would you think that a US politician would increase or decrease his chances of getting elected by saying "God Bless Iran"?
Although I could be wrong, I think his chances of getting elected would go down quite a bit.



> I'll take your word for it that this is what you believe.


Thanks. 







> Fairly common knowledge:
> 
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004364209_domke22.html
> 
> It's from an editorial, but you get the point.


I still think that's pretty silly.



> All of your little analysis has to do with politics. I'm talking about more than politics. Look at how people act and go about their business normally. I like some e


Heh - so now it's "little analysis" already eh? Glad to see that you're so demanding of respect when it has to come your way, but when it has to be given to others....
Anyway: of course people's view of your country will be affected by it's politics. That's exactly what will be affecting us. Back when your senate voted in favor of the The Hague Invasion Act, I kinda doubt they were mostly concerned with the attitude of the average Dutch taxi driver as well..



> Then google "American jokes" and see what you find and see if it compares.


Sure. Go ahead. Google "French Jokes" and google "American jokes". See whiwch liist is longer.



> "3. Psychology To suppress or restrain (behavior, an impulse, or a desire) consciously or unconsciously."
> 
> Inhibited is the best word I can use, and it's influenced by the smugness. Why it's such a surprise, something you'd laugh at, I don't understand. Smug people act inhibited, maybe it's refined to some people, but it's stuck up if you ask me and yes, stuck up people do act inhibited.


1. Inhibited doesn't have anything to do with smugness at all. Stucked-upness (that a word? anyway) does, of course.
2. You're shooting yourself in the foot again, with this assertion that "All Americans are different", while "All Europeans are smug, therefore inhibited" (pretty ridiculous in itself) while, at the same time, being dead certain, that Americans are really less inhibited than Europeans (which is really like saying that, unlike Americans, Europeans are totally addicted to cars).

[quote[I was never trying to be double sided or unbiased, just bringing balance to the American bashing thread.[/quote]

Just as I was, until you brought your enlightened opinions in. 



> And yeah, you display the attitude that we see all too often, you are pompous, cynical, smug, and surly.


Hehehehehehehe. See that all too often where, exactly? How many European countries have you visited in forming these expert opinions?



> I don't know if you're elitist or inhibited, I'd have to see the reaction you'd have in person and see how you treat others.


To be honest: I *am* elitist: I do believe that an informed, well-founded opinion holds some weight, while irrelevant antics do not. Inhibited - sorry, fail to see that.



> I never said anything about being too focused on religion.


With stuff like


> They see themselves as so socially advanced, that to think of God is somehow low-class and for the uneducated.


You seem to think we're awfully focused on religion. Looking down on it because it's "common" or whatever you're trying to say there - sorry, those thoughts could not possibly be further from my mind.



> And you ignore the positive generalization I made, I said that you all seem to be genuinely caring for one another. Maybe that's not true, who knows. Maybe only good generalizations are accepted and that bad ones are all incorrect.


"Americans are batshit insane, although they seem to be genuinely caring for one another". Would you really accept _that _as a balanced statement about your country? I know I wouldn't.


----------



## Slartibartfas

NovaWolverine said:


> I'm saying you can't compare joking about Freedom Fries with the actual vitriol towards America. You just can't. You haven't even begun to prove me wrong, all you did was ask a smart ass question.
> 
> 
> 
> I do have plenty an idea. I don't expect you to know but I am very critical of the US and our foreign, domestic and economic policies. And this just reinforces what I've said earlier. You can't compare the our "hate" for the French, which is...you know...up there with Osama Bin-Laden...with the actual hate that people have for the US. But not all of it is simply based on our imperialistic or our such devoutly christian ways. There has always been a bit of tension or rivalry between the US and some European countries, before Bush was even president.


If it would be about rivalry, its interesting to know how Germany once a staunch supporter has become so critical of the US. 

I have seen also my share of Anti French spitting from some Americans. Of course thats in no way representative for Americans as such and its less common than the other way round, but I think it exists. I would not talk of hate, but one can hear and see often enough an astonishing amount of despise towards France. Thats somehow funny, because it was really fostered back than over the Iraq differences between the US and allieds. While Germany started open opposition against the war, France became the target of anti European reactions in the US.


----------



## Koen Acacia

NovaWolverine said:


> But saying "God Bless America" doesn't imply that God only likes America. Should we say "God Bless Humans" at the end of every speech despite the President addressing Americans? That's simply other people interpreting it in a way that it's not intended to be.


What *was* the intended way then?



> I've been to England, France, Italy, Austria, Amsterdam, Kenya, Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, South Africa, Egypt, UAE, India, Japan, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina.


You must have stayed there very short then, or been busy shouting off the same antics that you're using here. The vast majority of non-Americans are perfectly capable of seeing the difference between American people, and the American policy, while still retaining the capacity to form a single judgment of the country as a whole. 



> The vast majority of people I've met have been great, but we're not blind over here. What impression do you think we should have over here about what others think about us?


*shrug* Nice people, gullible, not-too-well informed? 



> Besides, I don't think as many Americans go to your continent to live or work and do little else but bash and brag about how where we're from is so much better.


I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here. (Not a joke, I just don't understand it.) 



> You say that the only impression that you all get is that we *genuinely* hate the French. While I will definitely admit that we have had a long running stupid joke about France, we don't hate France. If you spent time in the US, you would understand.


So - you just "have a joke about the French", but when we talk about the US it's "genuine hatred"?


----------



## Mr Bricks

NovaWolverine said:


> French bashing by Americans is no worse than the jabbing that some European countries have with each other.


Yes it is. Many Americans seem to actually hate France. When France didn´t support the war in Iraq people in the US vandalised everything French they could lay their hands on. That´s mad. 

And why France? Why don´t you make the jokes about Europe instead.



NovaWolverine said:


> But *not all of it is simply based on our imperialistic or our such devoutly christian ways*. There has always been a bit of tension or rivalry between the US and some European countries, before Bush was even president. And part of it, just maybe could have had to do with some jealously at least that's way a lot of people see it.


What the hell do you know about that? Sure there has always been rivalry, but no one in the world hated the US before WW2. There is no jealousy invovled. What in the world would Europeans be jealous of?? I´m not blaiming the American people, but the critisism and hatred towards the US is totally your own fault. Just face it.


----------



## NovaWolverine

Koen Acacia said:


> What *was* the intended way then?


"God Bless America" means God Bless America. Not "God Bless _only_ Americans" or "God bless us more than everyone else."



Koen Acacia said:


> You must have stayed there very short then, or been busy shouting off the same antics that you're using here. The vast majority of non-Americans are perfectly capable of seeing the difference between American people, and the American policy, while still retaining the capacity to form a single judgment of the country as a whole.


Did I not say that most everyone I met was great? I think it goes both ways, people will be nice to you in person and then go on message boards and say "Americans are ____" and "Europeans are ____".



Koen Acacia said:


> I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here. (Not a joke, I just don't understand it.)


This isn't a generalization b/c I'm not saying all Europeans do this, but some come to America and do nothing but put down the country yet work, live and raise their children here. 



Koen Acacia said:


> So - you just "have a joke about the French", but when we talk about the US it's "genuine hatred"?


Again, don't compare Freedom Fries and harmless allusions to WWII and military to the actual vitriol that America receives all over the place. And I'm not saying that none of it is justified.


----------



## Koen Acacia

NovaWolverine said:


> You can't compare the our "hate" for the French, which is...you know...up there with Osama Bin-Laden...*with the actual hate that people have for the US*. But not all of it is simply based on our imperialistic or our such devoutly christian ways. There has always been a bit of tension or rivalry between the US and some European countries, before Bush was even president. And part of it, just maybe could have had to do with some jealously at least that's way a lot of people see it.


Sorry, but that is simply bullshit. It. Is. Simply. Not. True.

Sure, there is, and was, always rivalry. And imo, it should always stay there. Competition is healthy. But cut the crap about jealousy, because it's simply a fucking, dirty LIE.

Yes, sorry for getting emotional about this. After 9/11, I was at the US embassy here, signing my condolences for the people who had died there (/whine about having to take time off for that). The embassy's whole fucking fence was covered with Dutch flowers. There was an outpouring of sympathy that I have not seen since - ever. The Madrid bombings didn't come close, the London bombings didn't even come close.
And this happened ALL ACROSS Europe. It was everywhere. It was in front of Buckingham Palace, it was at the Dam Memorial monument in Amsterdam, in Berlin, Paris, you name it. It was all over the damn place.

And now, we're "just being jealous". Rrrrright. Everything that happened since 9/11 was entirely because we just hate the US over here.


----------



## NovaWolverine

SuomiPoika said:


> Yes it is. Many Americans seem to actually hate France. When France didn´t support the war in Iraq people in the US vandalised everything French they could lay their hands on. That´s mad.
> 
> And why France? Why don´t you make the jokes about Europe instead.


Must have missed it. I'm aware that the US disagreed with France's stand, but I didn't know Americans all over the country took time to bash the French and vandalize anything French they could get their hands on. Most people didn't care, thought it was stupid, disagreed with the war, or had better things to do. I don't make fun of the French, don't ask me why it's a fun joke. I'm a son of immigrants of Asian, European and African descent in my early 20s, I don't care or know much about the joke aside from WWII. 




SuomiPoika said:


> What the hell do you know about that? Sure there has always been rivalry, but no one in the world hated the US before WW2. There is no jealousy invovled. What in the world would Europeans be jealous of?? I´m not blaiming the American people, but the critisism and hatred towards the US is totally your own fault. Just face it.


I've had people(Europeans and Asians) admit as much to me. Sure, we don't have the best healthcare, but people look at our wealth and standard of living and have seen their status diminish and some do feel jealous in some way shape or form. I'm not saying it's the overwhelming majority of people or the main reason why contempt may exist, but it exists nonetheless.


----------



## NovaWolverine

Koen Acacia said:


> Sorry, but that is simply bullshit. It. Is. Simply. Not. True.
> 
> Sure, there is, and was, always rivalry. And imo, it should always stay there. Competition is healthy. But cut the crap about jealousy, because it's simply a fucking, dirty LIE.
> 
> Yes, sorry for getting emotional about this. After 9/11, I was at the US embassy here, signing my condolences for the people who had died there (/whine about having to take time off for that). The embassy's whole fucking fence was covered with Dutch flowers. There was an outpouring of sympathy that I have not seen since - ever. The Madrid bombings didn't come close, the London bombings didn't even come close.
> And this happened ALL ACROSS Europe. It was everywhere. It was in front of Buckingham Palace, it was at the Dam Memorial monument in Amsterdam, in Berlin, Paris, you name it. It was all over the damn place.
> 
> And now, we're "just being jealous". Rrrrright. Everything that happened since 9/11 was entirely because we just hate the US over here.


Perfect example of a person taking what I said out of context and greatly exaggerating it. I have said on a couple occassions in this thread at the actual hate is about much more than jealously. I never said that everyone in Europe hates the US. We were talking about US hate for the French, so I said what about hate for the US all around the world. You never said that all Americans hate the French, so don't make it out to sound that I said everyone hates the US when I have said the contrary on numerous occasions in this thread. I said that hate against the US is far more serious and felt much deeper than hate of the French in the US. Most people will have no problem admitting this, it's not something to be proud of, yet you still argue so much about this. To compare the US "hate" of the French with that the US has around the world, legit or not, is simply ridiculous. And it existed before Bush was in power but has risen sharply since.


----------



## WeimieLvr

SuomiPoika said:


> Yes it is. Many Americans seem to actually hate France. When France didn´t support the war in Iraq people in the US vandalised everything French they could lay their hands on. That´s mad.
> 
> And why France? Why don´t you make the jokes about Europe instead.
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell do you know about that? Sure there has always been rivalry, but no one in the world hated the US before WW2. There is no jealousy invovled. What in the world would Europeans be jealous of?? I´m not blaiming the American people, but the critisism and hatred towards the US is totally your own fault. Just face it.



You can't speculate on how anyone else "actually feels", so don't even go down that path. The anti-French sentiment (that is blown way out of proportion) goes back a couple of generations to the World Wars, especially to WWII, Normandy, and the liberation of France by American troups. I guess Americans at that time didn't feel appreciated for their efforts, but in 2008 the feelings are mostly expressed by an older generation who remembers the 1940's and by some members of the U.S. military. The rest of us could give a shit about the whole thing. 

I happen to like the way the French military helped us gain independence against those hateful British.  But then again my ancestors are from Normandy and they fought with William the Conqueror in the Battle of Hastings. So I guess I'm French...


----------



## Mr Bricks

Maybe Asians are jealous of American life. But they are no doubt equally jealous of Europe, Canada and Australia. Why are these countries not as "hated"?

One thing that I´ve noticed is that Americans love to joke about the French army (how crappy it is). Why? The French army is one of the strongest in the world.


----------



## Koen Acacia

NovaWolverine said:


> Perfect example of a person taking what I said out of context and greatly exaggerating it.


It is not. You are talking about "vitriolic hate", compared to which the US's dozens upon dozens of French-bashing sites were negligible. That wasn't me, that was you.



> I have said on a couple occassions in this thread at the actual hate is about much more than jealously.


So those flowers are now a sigh of hatred? 



> I never said that everyone in Europe hates the US.


No, you were just talking about Europeans generally hating the US, but just being too inhibited to admit it in person. 



> We were talking about US hate for the French, so I said what about hate for the US all around the world.


I think I addressed that with my previous post. 



> You never said that all Americans hate the French, so don't make it out to sound that I said everyone hates the US when I have said the contrary on numerous occasions in this thread.


No, you just said that there was intense hatred towards the US compared to US hatred towards France, that we're stuck, up, elitist, arrogant, pompous, cynical, smug, and surly (like I care about half of that anyway). 



> I said that hate against the US is far more serious and felt much deeper than hate of the French in the US.


Yes, I'm quite sure that that's how it's felt in the US. 



> Most people will have no problem admitting this, it's not something to be proud of, yet you still argue so much about this. To compare the US "hate" of the French with that the US has around the world, legit or not , is simply ridiculous. And it existed before Bush was in power but has risen sharply since.


Sorry, still lies. It did not exist BY FAR when the crisis wasn't self-invoked: after 9/11, there wasn't any competition. There was a trans-continental outburst of sadness. I understand why you want to overlook that, since it doesn't really fit well into your current message about hatred.
After that, we offered our help in Afghanistan, and were told we weren't really needed. Then came Iraq, and shortly after we were told that we were needed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We have offered our sympathy, and our help. Back then, that wasn't needed. Fine.
Now, we are demanded to send more help, and we see Americans complaining that we don't offer enough sympathy.


----------



## Octoman

*@WeimieLvr*
Wow. In London these days going so far as suggesting cars are entitled into cities is considered heresy! Apparently all steets are now 'public places'

By our measuresy you are ultra right on this particular issue but good for your for standing by your opinion.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Octoman said:


> *@WeimieLvr*
> Wow. In London these days going so far as suggesting cars are entitled into cities is considered heresy! Apparently all steets are now 'public places'
> 
> By our measuresy you are ultra right on this particular issue but good for your for standing by your opinion.


Seems like a straw man to me.
No one is talking about pedestrianizing the entire inner city of London.

London is overcrowded with cars. Its only rational to try to limit their number by bringing people to use the efficient PT system, for the benefit of all. I know some egoists are not ready to switch because they could not care less for the benefit for all thats why you have to "help them" in their decission or if they still refuse make them at least pay for the disadvantages they cause to the others.


----------



## WeimieLvr

Slartibartfas said:


> Maybe in car centric USA.
> In Europe you still have a street. The Kärntnerstraße in Vienna is still called a street even if it changed from a major transit route for cars into the heart of the pedestrian zone of the 1st district.
> 
> The same for the pedestrian street Favoritenstraße in a periphery district of Vienna. I could go on with examples.
> 
> 
> 
> read: "usually" not "necessarily"
> 
> There also exist streets where cars are still allowed to drive but this seperation of sidwalk and car lane has been completely abollished. Its an interesting concept because in combination with a strict speed limit, it actually helps to improve the situation of the pedestrian instead of weakening it. Car drivers can't relly on the way being clear so they have to spend their full concentration onto the road and drive at very low speed. At the same time the pedestrians are able to claim the part of the way they need to move conveniently.
> 
> According to you such a thing would not be a street anymore either. But what would it be then?


Oh I see...because it exists in EUROPE, then that is the way it should be. Whatever...I agree that pedestrians and cars have to work together and share spaces sometimes, but streets were built for vehicles...even if they weren't motorized vehicles at the time. If they are converted to something other than streets then fine - they aren't streets anymore but something else...sidewalks, promenades, walkways, strollways?


----------



## WeimieLvr

Slartibartfas said:


> Seems like a straw man to me.
> No one is talking about pedestrianizing the entire inner city of London.
> 
> London is overcrowded with cars. Its only rational to try to limit their number by bringing people to use the efficient PT system, for the benefit of all. I know some egoists are not ready to switch because they could not care less for the benefit for all thats why you have to "help them" in their decission or if they still refuse make them at least pay for the disadvantages they cause to the others.


London is overcrowded with cars, yet the U.S. is autocentric...that's ironic.


----------



## Svartmetall

WeimieLvr said:


> London is overcrowded with cars, yet the U.S. is autocentric...that's ironic.


London has much smaller roads than most US cities. 

Not only this, but London's population almost doubles every working day with people commuting into the city. I'd like to see many other cities cope with this and not have congestion!


----------



## WeimieLvr

Svartmetall said:


> London has much smaller roads than most US cities.
> 
> Not only this, but London's population almost doubles every working day with people commuting into the city. I'd like to see many other cities cope with this and not have congestion!


There are many cities that double their population during the work day...and they have traffic congestion to deal with just like London. I wasn't talking bad about London - I lived there for a year back in 2002 - but it's very popular to sit in the glass European house and bash the U.S. for being autocentric.


----------



## Chicagoago

what city isn't congested with cars during rush hour?


----------



## Minato ku

Compared at other big European cities (like Paris or Madrid) London traffic is quite good.
I don't find London overcrowded by car, the main problem is the small streets and too much light traffic.


----------



## Slartibartfas

WeimieLvr said:


> London is overcrowded with cars, yet the U.S. is autocentric...that's ironic.


The one thing is the problem, the other the awareness of it.
Moreover do European cities normally have lower car capacities, ie are easier overcrowded. That has also to do with the fact that our cities indeed host large scale mid-density unlike most of your cities (of course there exist major exceptions, especially on the east coast). 

But thats good that European cities are not that much dominated by cars as they are wasting huge amounts of space within a city. (90% of the space they need is when the are parked somewhere btw). In my opinion we have to work in reducing the car traffic furthermore however, also in Europe of course.

In Vienna one could succeed a bit in this direction. The most trafficked street in the west of Vienna today sees in average 10% less cars than at its worst times a decade ago or so. In the same time the quality of the public space in along that same street could be to a certain part recovered, after it was already in the risk of total decay. PT has taken over the car as the most common means of transportation within city limits again. 

I don't knowdetails about the development in London though.


----------



## WeimieLvr

Slartibartfas said:


> The one thing is the problem, the other the awareness of it.


Oh ok...Americans aren't smart enough to be aware of problems with our cities...


----------



## tk780

Svartmetall said:


> Not only this, but London's population almost doubles every working day with people commuting into the city. I'd like to see many other cities cope with this and not have congestion!


Actually London has a daily net inflow of about 500,000 commuters.


----------



## Svartmetall

tk780 said:


> Actually London has a daily net inflow of about 500,000 commuters.


To quote from the London.gov.uk:


Around 722,000 people travelled from outside Greater London into London to work with over 350,000 of these travelling into Central London.

Over 1.5 million people commuted to Central London altogether, including those who also lived in Central London. Around 23 per cent of these workers were resident outside London.

What is the population size of central London (NOT metropolitan London)? Answer: less than 350,000! Ergo, the population of London doubles each day! You can't class greater London as the employment belt as it largely isn't, therefore my statement still has merit.


----------



## invincible

WeimieLvr said:


> Oh I see...because it exists in EUROPE, then that is the way it should be. Whatever...I agree that pedestrians and cars have to work together and share spaces sometimes, but streets were built for vehicles...even if they weren't motorized vehicles at the time. If they are converted to something other than streets then fine - they aren't streets anymore but something else...sidewalks, promenades, walkways, strollways?


You getting into semantics too much. It's just a name.

In the CBD here, cars get the least priority out of everything when it comes to street layout. It makes sense because cars take up the most space, and in Melbourne, the average car carries 1.2 passengers. The streets here are easily capable of handling three lanes of traffic per direction, but in reality there is usually only a single lane for traffic, or two at most. Or in the case of Swanston and (partially) Bourke streets, zero.

Taking a look at the streets in Melbourne, it can easily be seen that the dead parts of the CBD are near the single road laid out for through traffic, and the busiest parts of the CBD are where the streets are closed to regular traffic. The laneways are also thriving - the bollards are there for a reason because it'd be impossible to get a car down most of those lanes during the day with the amount of pedestrians.

Pedestrian friendliness is a major issue in planning, and sticking to the idea of the 70s where the car was king is not going to do any good. People driving past in cars can't just stop and spend money when they see something they like in a store window. These mistakes were made in Australia in the past and now a lot of work is being done to undo everything. There used to be a fairly large overpass in the CBD - was great for traffic flow but no one wanted to walk beside a concrete bridge. Or develop the adjacent parcel of land. Or do anything really. It was just somewhere you'd pass without stopping on the tram, or drive straight through.


----------



## tk780

Svartmetall said:


> To quote from the London.gov.uk:
> 
> 
> Around 722,000 people travelled from outside Greater London into London to work with over 350,000 of these travelling into Central London.


To get the net inflow, you have to subtract the number of outcommuters. According to the document you are quoting, that number is 236,000, resulting in a net increase of 486,000 for London as a whole. Furthermore, it must be assumed that there are residents of Central London working outside Central London. 



> What is the population size of central London (NOT metropolitan London)? Answer: less than 350,000! Ergo, the population of London doubles each day! You can't class greater London as the employment belt as it largely isn't, therefore my statement still has merit.


The area defined as central London in this analysis has a population of 1.3 million. 

The central part of any city will always have a bigger daytime population increase than the outer parts, as that is where the CBD and therefore most jobs are located. 
If you include only the central boroughs for London, you have to do the same for other cities.


----------



## Slartibartfas

WeimieLvr said:


> Oh ok...Americans aren't smart enough to be aware of problems with our cities...


Straw man.

Americans are setting often another focus following different concepts. That has zero to do with smartness or intelligence. 

I think however that the concept of a total autocentric society has no future. If you look to American cities you can also realize how also their people are realizing that. The revival of trams and light rails as means of transport is also taking place in American cities. Actually you could be correct in so far as the autocentrism is getting also the first scratches in the US as well. Its still very popular among a large number of Americans however. I dare to claim a larger number than in Europe (not that that school of thought would not exist here as well)



WeimieLvr said:


> Oh I see...because it exists in EUROPE, then that is the way it should be.


I just showed examples I know, if thats an insult, I excuse for that. Its just that the term street as such says nothing about the question if it is pedestrianized or not, as it is used where I live. Maybe Americans use the word "street" in a different way and rename their streets once they pedestrianize them into walkway or whatever. If thats the case, fine for you.

But to be honest, I grow tired of those word games as they are meaningless.


----------



## WeimieLvr

Slartibartfas said:


> Straw man.
> 
> Americans are setting often another focus following different concepts. That has zero to do with smartness or intelligence.
> 
> I think however that the concept of a total autocentric society has no future. If you look to American cities you can also realize how also their people are realizing that. The revival of trams and light rails as means of transport is also taking place in American cities. Actually you could be correct in so far as the autocentrism is getting also the first scratches in the US as well. Its still very popular among a large number of Americans however. I dare to claim a larger number than in Europe (not that that school of thought would not exist here as well)
> 
> 
> 
> I just showed examples I know, if thats an insult, I excuse for that. Its just that the term street as such says nothing about the question if it is pedestrianized or not, as it is used where I live. Maybe Americans use the word "street" in a different way and rename their streets once they pedestrianize them into walkway or whatever. If thats the case, fine for you.
> 
> But to be honest, I grow tired of those word games as they are meaningless.


Thank you for your validation that Americans realize something. I apologize if stating the definition of a word that is central to this thread is playing "word games", but I think it is important to note the meaning of a word in the title of the thread and to note that it has been redefined by some people. I think that's a little odd, as is the support it seems to have gained here. True, we don't continue to call a pedestrian area a "street" if it isn't a street anymore...much like an area that used to be an airport but is now a housing development is no longer called an airport...much like a brownfield that is converted to an entertainment district is no longer called a brownfield. 

I grow tired of arrogant Eurocentrism...you grow tired of "word games". We're both tired, so lets move on...straw man.


----------



## Slartibartfas

WeimieLvr said:


> Thank you for your validation that Americans realize something. I apologize if stating the definition of a word that is central to this thread is playing "word games", but I think it is important to note the meaning of a word in the title of the thread and to note that it has been redefined by some people.


Words continously get redefined, unless your language is dead. "Pedestrian street" is not a misuse of some term but an official term that I am pretty sure can be found in dictionaries as well. 

I mean we can also discuss about how little sense the term "streetcar" means ... a car on the street as a name for a tramway? This example shows how meanings of words can change. 

To be honest I can't see if calling it pedestrian walkway or pedestrian street makes much effective difference as long as the described thing is the same. It shows at best a difference in attitude around it. I feel quite comfortable with using the offical term for such a thing which happens to be among others "pedestrian street". So maybe we continue with discussinghte subject rather than what the favorite word to describe it is.



> I think that's a little odd, as is the support it seems to have gained here. True, we don't continue to call a pedestrian area a "street" if it isn't a street anymore...much like an area that used to be an airport but is now a housing development is no longer called an airport...much like a brownfield that is converted to an entertainment district is no longer called a brownfield.


Those examples are quite bad. Those streets are still a venue that allows movement. Just the nature of the traffic has changed from mainly motorized to exclusively pedestrian and maybe by bicycle.


> I grow tired of arrogant Eurocentrism...you grow tired of "word games". We're both tired, so lets move on...straw man.


Well, then you should stop discussing with Europeans I guess and limit your discussions to fellow countrymen only. Everyone is centric towards the own region as thats normally what one knows best. Or do you expect Europeans to be US centric?


----------



## tvdxer

--


----------



## jefferson2

i think high gas prices will mean that people will favor living closer to their work. but, of major american cities, I can imagine chicago, boston, ny, and san francisco having pedestrian areas.. some other cities might not be dense enough


----------



## Slartibartfas

jefferson2 said:


> i think high gas prices will mean that people will favor living closer to their work. but, of major american cities, I can imagine chicago, boston, ny, and san francisco having pedestrian areas.. some other cities might not be dense enough


In Austria already many cities with not more than 50.000 inhabitants (or even less) host pedestrian streets. Their dense core is sometimes also limited in size in rural regions. Still it seems to work. 

In Vienna they want to build a satellite town of around 30.000 inhabitants with an own pedestrian street when its finished. It will be located in a periphery region of the city which is very suburban like. Perhaps something like that would be a concept for the US too: Creating new dense sub centers where free space is still left in Suburbia. Such subcenters could be an important goal for a local suburban PT feeder network and a station of high priority PT to the main urban center.

To really make a difference I think pedestrian zones need to be able to rely heavily on public transport and/or bike lanes. 

If the oil price sustains its level or even rises further upwards in the midterm, we may be even seeing such or other projects with a similar goal to become reality in the US.


----------



## Slartibartfas

tvdxer said:


> I really wonder if Americans are any more materialistic than Europeans, though. In some countries (Sweden, Estonia, Czech Republic) there seem to be more people who DON'T believe in God than believe.


What has the one thing to do with the other. Atheism is NOT a synonym for materialism. I know a lot of people who do not have a very strong religious belief but are rather opposed to consumerism and materialism. 



> Americans place religion (the most evident and perhaps measurable "spiritual" aspect of life) as having a higher importance in their life than those living in most other Western nations.


Even if thats the case, so what? What has this to do with materialism and a lack of ideals?

I have been raised as a catholic, but came to the conclusion that I can't believe all that stuff. Maybe that makes me an atheist, maybe an agnostic, I don't care. That in no way means however that I have not my very own concepts and they are rather opposed to blind materialism and consumerism. 

What I consider interesting as well is that very religous people here in Europe would oppose private possession of guns, they are often supportive for social politics as well. Yes I am talking about those who are deeply religious here.


----------



## Basincreek

tvdxer said:


> Yeah, and I'm glad about that. I'd much rather have a large reactionary base than a population that blindly follows the downhill path into atheism, relativism, and materialism.


While I think relativism is bunk there isn't anything inherently wrong with atheism or materialism.


----------



## zaphod

Yeah. You know atheists/agnostics aren't all amoral or selfish. Many are just skeptics of supernatural things and can be good honest people.

Anyways, you guys must be out of it, indoor malls are passe according to the newest trends in retail and outdoor centers have exploded in the last decade. 

Also Indoor Malls have been tried in urban settings. Same story as ped malls, they came out at a bad time in history for big cities, the 70s, and most failed while a few that caught on are still around and doing good business. San Antonio has a nice mall downtown and I've heard Norfolk,VA has one too.


----------



## particlez

you know zaphod, these pedestrian streets are a sign of something more important. pedestrian streets contribute to, and are dependent on, population density in their immediate surroundings, and efficient public transit connections. 

and when i mean pedestrian streets, i'm not referring to outdoor malls which are still overwhelmingly reached by private car.

flourishing pedestrian streets ARE something to be proud of, and to aspire towards.


----------



## Slartibartfas

particlez said:


> you know zaphod, these pedestrian streets are a sign of something more important. pedestrian streets contribute to, and are dependent on, population density in their immediate surroundings, and efficient public transit connections.
> 
> and when i mean pedestrian streets, i'm not referring to outdoor malls which are still overwhelmingly reached by private car.
> 
> flourishing pedestrian streets ARE something to be proud of, and to aspire towards.


True but the minimal requirements are not that huge. There exist cities (which are not primarily in the tourist business) with less than 50.000 inhabitants and a rather compact urban core with working pedestrian zones. (and I am not talking about outdoor malls)

Of course a good PT system is necessary in order to make this entire thing beneficial for the society.


----------



## particlez

eh.. the requirements for functioning pedestrian streets aren't difficult. yet most north american cities STILL cannot achieve that. kinda pathetic huh?

car dependence, low density suburban living, and an abundance of decentralized malls and big box centers manage to empty out the truly pedestrianized areas. it's not impossible to overcome. just that we've really messed up over the past 60-something years.


----------



## Slartibartfas

particlez said:


> eh.. the requirements for functioning pedestrian streets aren't difficult. yet most north american cities STILL cannot achieve that. kinda pathetic huh?
> 
> car dependence, low density suburban living, and an abundance of decentralized malls and big box centers manage to empty out the truly pedestrianized areas. it's not impossible to overcome. just that we've really messed up over the past 60-something years.


Well, thats principally true indeed. I was speaking more about the potential.
I agree that the situation in American suburbia is pretty fucked up, more often than not. It would be an urgent task to reform at least for new real estate projects the entire concepts. Because you can't change the city scape from one day to another, but the fuel prices can change that fast.


----------



## tvdxer

zaphod said:


> Yeah. You know atheists/agnostics aren't all amoral or selfish. Many are just skeptics of supernatural things and can be good honest people.


I never said atheists and agnostics were "bad people" or dishonest. I was saying that it was somewhat odd to call the world's most religious developed country "materialistic" when those being compared in the thread (Europeans) are often hardly religious at all compared to Americans, when religion is what often runs most directly against materialism (after all, religious activities and time spent in religious practice often hardly advance one materially). If Europeans are still "spiritual", what did they do to fill the spiritual gap left by abandoning nearly 20 centuries of Western Christendom? Earth-worship? Or material comforts / things? I find it kind of hard to imagine a society that has forsaken the spiritual as being anything but materialistic, since when there is no spirit, what really is there else than matter?


----------



## Somnifor

tvdxer said:


> I don't know about the "hate the cold and love the heat" part, but the rest of your post contains a lot of truth. A few days ago I searched the phrase "trips under one mile" on Google, and discovered that between 66% and *75%* of trips today in the U.S. of less than 1 mile are made by car! (And these trips make up a very significant percentage of overall trips). Among the results also was a statistic from the mid-70s, which showed the same percentage then was made by foot, and one from Britain today, which had a percentage similar to the U.S. in the mid-70s. Americans have by and large forgotten to walk. Even in nice weather, people (many of whom exercise or work out!) will often refuse to walk to a store or restaurant 3 blocks away, preferring to drive there. And the bus thing is right on.


I think a lot of it has to do with where people live, most neighborhoods in the newer suburbs don't even have sidewalks. On the other hand I live in a neighborhood that was built in the 1880s and has everything in walking distance; half my social circle doesn't even own a car. I think as the cost of owning a car increases more people in the US are going to discover that they can have a lot more money in their pocket if they ditch the auto. It is also much better for your health. I suspect that the demand for housing in walkable neighborhoods is going to increase sharply in the near future.

On the other hand Minneapolis may be an outlier.


----------



## Slartibartfas

tvdxer said:


> I never said atheists and agnostics were "bad people" or dishonest. I was saying that it was somewhat odd to call the world's most religious developed country "materialistic" when those being compared in the thread (Europeans) are often hardly religious at all compared to Americans, when religion is what often runs most directly against materialism (after all, religious activities and time spent in religious practice often hardly advance one materially).


This connection is what I doubt. There are forms of christian believe, especially in the evangelic part of it that are very compatible to capitalism and the connected materialism. At the same time there are many atheistic or nonreligious schools of thought rooted deeply against materialism.


----------



## g-man430

I'm trying to figure out how a thread about why there are no pedestrian streets in large US cities turned into a thread about atheists and agnostics? :dunno: :nuts:


----------



## spongeg

cars are too important to north america - its part of the culture

people would rather cruise around in their cars than stroll the streets

maybe now that gas is getting too high that will change

i know people who used to drive up and down up and down the same streets for hours on weekends


----------



## Svartmetall

spongeg said:


> i know people who used to drive up and down up and down the same streets for hours on weekends


WHY?! What is the point in doing that?

I've noticed that they do that on the main city streets in New Zealand too... It's so pointless.


----------



## spongeg

i know

i never understood it myself


----------



## city_thing

Svartmetall said:


> WHY?! What is the point in doing that?
> 
> I've noticed that they do that on the main city streets in New Zealand too... It's so pointless.


Apparently in Saudi Arabia, everyone does it. It's the only way [outside of the family] there is of meeting people of the opposite sex. People drive up and down, looking at each other, throwing notes between cars, trying not to get caught.

What a weird country.


----------



## city_thing

tvdxer said:


> I never said atheists and agnostics were "bad people" or dishonest. I was saying that it was somewhat odd to call the world's most religious developed country "materialistic" when those being compared in the thread (Europeans) are often hardly religious at all compared to Americans, when religion is what often runs most directly against materialism (after all, religious activities and time spent in religious practice often hardly advance one materially). If Europeans are still "spiritual", what did they do to fill the spiritual gap left by abandoning nearly 20 centuries of Western Christendom? Earth-worship? Or material comforts / things? I find it kind of hard to imagine a society that has forsaken the spiritual as being anything but materialistic, since when there is no spirit, what really is there else than matter?


And I really don't understand the logic in your argument I'm sorry. How does a 'lack of spirituality' automatically convert oneself into a whole-hearted consumption addict? America is the great bastion of consumerism, hardly Europe. Many US churches (especially Baptist ones) hold hard currency in higher regard than they do Jesus (send your money here now and receive instant remption! Have your credit card ready!). Christianity is a very individualist driven religion, as is capitalism - they go hand in hand. Whilst Europe is still a Capitalist region, it's nothing compared to the US where symbols of wealth are flaunted and hyperconsumption is treated as a diplomatic right rather than an unsustainable, irresponsible privilege. 

America is by far the most consumerist society on Earth, its very economy and way of life survives on that. You can't just say that "Europe's worse than us" because everyone's moving away from organised religion. That's a completely ad hoc argument with little to no reason behind it. People don't need religion in their lives and there is no gaping hole in a person's soul when they realise the falicies behind it and leave it behind. They go on living as moral, responsible people.


----------



## Slartibartfas

spongeg said:


> i know
> 
> i never understood it myself


It really sounds weird. Did people get in contact with each other from car to car, or did they just drive in circles without anything happening?

Anyway, I would say, if you have the chance to stroll around, on foot thats far superior. I mean most people don't live in Saudi Arabia or similar countries where they are forced to do it in this way. I mean certainly meeting up in a mall is way superior as well, if thats what comes the nearest to a center in your region.


----------



## Twoaday

I think that one example of how we are a "consumer" nation is how the U.S. using more energy than any other country. What do you think that energy is being used for? To create, ship, and utilizes goods and services.

As far as pedestrian malls in major U.S. cities I believe the problem is connected with our love affair with the automobile. If people can't pull up right in front and park all day, it is too difficult. It is possible as we see this shift in modes of transportation due to higher gas prices that people will be walking more and thus make pedestrian areas more successful.


----------



## Golden Age

Somnifor said:


> The most likely reason for the lack of pedestrial malls is that they were launched in the '70s which was a time when American cities were in economic and social free fall so they just never worked; they didn't take root. It should be noted that cities that didn't experience as much decline in the era of middle class flight are also among the most pedestrian friendly today (Minneapolis and Portland are examples).


This is a good analysis, yet, there are too many exceptions to this theory. Brooklyn suffered in the 70s and look at it now. It epitomizes everything that's so convenient and beneficial about urban living. Food, culture, education, jobs, public transit and schools are close by and the gentrified brownstone apartments look quite dazzling.

My point is this: There are many great little urban areas like Brooklyn, Berkeley, Charleston, Charlottesville, Naples, Boulder, Santa Barbera or Madison, unfortunately, they are also very WASPy and not affordable for 85% of the population. This means: If you can afford it, pedestrian zones are possible in the US, but for the vast middle class there are little to no alternatives to suburban living & 20 minute drives to get anywhere (and this is not a good thing).


----------



## :jax:

g-man430 said:


> I'm trying to figure out how a thread about why there are no pedestrian streets in large US cities turned into a thread about atheists and agnostics? :dunno: :nuts:


I don't know, but Sweden, Estonia, and the Czech Republic have a lot of pedestrian streets as well. Maybe we like to stroll around displaying our atheism and agnosticism?

Seriously, this discussion has gone off on a wrong foot with this North America vs Europe approach. Both North America and Europe has a very wide variety of cities. Not all European cities were founded by the Romans, and not all American cities were founded after World War II, when the cars won over the cities.

There have been failed pedestrian street projects and successful ones. Just closing off a street from car traffic is not sufficient to make the project successful. The American attempts were tried early on, and as far as I can gather from this thread never repeated. If they were "empty" in evening as reported the places lacked places people would visit in the evening, pubs, clubs, entertainment, restaurants. As driving under the influence is a crime, the "car loving" argument isn't so strong anyway. If the street only has hard-drinking clubs and bars it will repel the non-revellers, getting the right mix is part of the challenge. 

It will also have to be adapted to the city and situation where it is going to be. A street is not a readymade package you can make overnight like an Irish-style pub or a Starbucks. I wouldn't accept that a pedestrian street is bound to fail, that Americans are too car-bound or lazy to try walking. In the centre of most large cities if you watch people on the sidewalks you will discover an astonishing thing: Those people walk, and not just from the building entrance to the nearby car.


----------



## :jax:

Slartibartfas said:


> It really sounds weird. Did people get in contact with each other from car to car, or did they just drive in circles without anything happening?


You have never been to a small town in the week-ends? Cruising is a regular in European towns as well, easily spotted in towns smaller than 20000 inhabitants or thereabout, particularly among people into 50's style cars.


----------



## Slartibartfas

:jax: said:


> You have never been to a small town in the week-ends? Cruising is a regular in European towns as well, easily spotted in towns smaller than 20000 inhabitants or thereabout, particularly among people into 50's style cars.


Actually I come from a rural part of Austria. Yet I am not familiar with this. Of course one is dependent on the car a lot there, but I have yet to see people "cruising". If you really don't know what to do with your time, you drive to a Kaffeehaus or a pub. Whereas I know a few who do so by bike in summer. 

Driving around with old timers is perhaps a different story, you have to drive them a bit in order to maintain them. But even then I would expect the driver to have some travel goal.


----------



## :jax:

I used to think it was a Norwegian small-town phenomena, it is called "cruising" in Norwegian, but have later spotted the same phenomena in Sweden, and less extreme in the Czech Republic and Italy. The ones with the 50's cars use the same pattern as the ones with newer ones, driving with small variations in route round and round and round and round, preferably with the stereo blaring. And it isn't a teen phenomena either, I've seen one well into his thirties, and many in their twenties.


----------



## Slartibartfas

:jax: said:


> I used to think it was a Norwegian small-town phenomena, it is called "cruising" in Norwegian, but have later spotted the same phenomena in Sweden, and less extreme in the Czech Republic and Italy. The ones with the 50's cars use the same pattern as the ones with newer ones, driving with small variations in route round and round and round and round, preferably with the stereo blaring. And it isn't a teen phenomena either, I've seen one well into his thirties, and many in their twenties.


Aha, never recognized any of those things where I have been so far. Hopefully because no one does it here, but who knows.


----------



## Slartibartfas

I have found out about a very interesting city, its name is "Louvain la Neuve". Its located in Belgium and has a pedestrian center even though its a rather small town with perhaps 20.000 - 30.000 inhabitants. 

The fascinating thing about it is, its younger than most American cities as its about 30 years old by now. No, no, but they built it when there no cars yet argument here.

The reason why it has been built is the university it hosts. So basically it might be called university campus by Americans, but thats rather wrong. Its the counter concept to university ghetto (aka campus). Already now about 9000 people live there who are not students and the goal is to increase that number to reach a ratio when 1 student faces 2 permanent residents. Its more than just a campus its a small town already. 









The center of Louvain la Neuve




















The reason why the entire center is pedestrian, even though the concept of this city has been created in the 1960's (!) is because they banned the roads and the parking spots below the surface. But apart from that also the periphery is designed in a way to give preference to pedestrians. Perhaps the great luck in this case was that the town of Louvain la neuve has been designed from the very beginning onwards as a counter model to the "modern city of its time" as proposed in the Athens letter.


----------



## particlez

yeah, but leuven's 'hiding' of the car isn't the same as making the car somehow less indispensable. 

leuven is a nice place, but i'm assuming most 'american' metros in dire need of pedestrianism are much larger and cannot afford a system of buried roads (e.g. the big dig).

ideally, you'd want both the aesthetic appeal and human scale of leuven, ALONG with the higher densities and easy access to public transportation. leuven is a relatively easy example of making a place pedestrian friendly, as it is both a relatively small center, and it has a large student population, which generally is less wealthy and less apt to afford the expense of a car.


----------



## Basincreek

The idea that gas prices are gonna pedestrianize the US is a bit unrealistic. A place I once lived is a good example. Even if I had wanted to walk to the nearest supermarket it would have been a good 5-6 kilometers. I would have had to walk down streets with no sidewalks until I got to a six lane wide boulevard, also with no sidewalks, and try to cross it which would be hard and dangerous because there were no crosswalks let alone pedestrian bridges or anything. Then I would have walked through a kilometer of office complexes, which did have sidewalks, before having to cross another six lane road with no crosswalks. All that to get to the nearest supermarket. Now if I wanted to buy a new shirt I would have had to go to a completely different shopping complex that would have been 6 kilometers in the other direction from my house and I would have had to cross not just a 4 lane boulevard but a freeway!

I used my car to get everywhere not because I was lazy but because I wanted to preserve my life. When I wanted to do something healthy I ran laps at a nearby track like lots of other, supposedly lazy, citizens were doing.

You can pedestrianize the cores of some places in the US, places where there is mixed use zoning and high density living. You can't pedestrianize the other places, at least not overnight, because they have been designed fundamentally differently.


----------



## isaidso

Yes, but they'd be few cars on that wide boulevard, the streets would end up getting narrowed, and wide treed sidewalks built in their place. You'd still need to walk rather far due to the inefficient design of large tracts of your country, but you'd all live a lot longer.

You'd be healthier and actually have face to face interactions with real live people outside of a mall or work. Heathier, more social, and less isolated. Sounds good to me.


----------



## Slartibartfas

particlez said:


> yeah, but leuven's 'hiding' of the car isn't the same as making the car somehow less indispensable.
> 
> leuven is a nice place, but i'm assuming most 'american' metros in dire need of pedestrianism are much larger and cannot afford a system of buried roads (e.g. the big dig).
> 
> ideally, you'd want both the aesthetic appeal and human scale of leuven, ALONG with the higher densities and easy access to public transportation. leuven is a relatively easy example of making a place pedestrian friendly, as it is both a relatively small center, and it has a large student population, which generally is less wealthy and less apt to afford the expense of a car.


Louvain la Neuve is not just hiding the cars. It is prioritizing pedestrians and follows the concept of selective permeability. That means that while pedestrians have direct and pretty straight connections from everywhere, thats not the case for cars. So yes it is indeed making the car more dispensable. Furthermore, only the center buries the roads, the periphery does not, but is pedestrian oriented as well, there are lots of pedestrian paths there as well. 

Yes, its a small town, but maybe thats a good point to show suburbia (American style) is not an unpreventable fate. Its possible to create pedestrian sub centers. That this is possible in large cities should be beyond doubt. Louvain shows that it is also possible not only in small but also in young cities. (both features are often used as argument against it). 

Yes you can't bury all the roads in the centers of large cities. But no one stops a young city or a drastically redeveloping city to create a dense car free center that is connected to PT nods. Of course (especially in still heavilly car dependent regions) you would create a certain amount of parking possibilities in the vicinity of the center. (but not excessive ones, the priority should as far as its realistic set on PT)

Of course large cities have to think more about an efficient and frequent PT service because going is not an option for larger distances. The city of Almere in the Netherlands might be an example for that. (180.000 inhabitants, its expected to grow to 300.000 soon) While I am not a perfect fan of it as it certainly lacks much of an urban feel, its mobility concept is rather good with its extensive and high priority bicycle lane network, a railway line with 5 (soon 6 stops and plans for a second line, connecting principally all quarters with each other) along the city and additionally a dense bus network (entirely separated bus lanes all over the town), (partially pedestrian) sub centers for the different quarters of the cities and a pedestrian main center. I have never been there, but I would expect that even though its perhaps low to medium density (mostly row houses) in most of the city, you can live pretty well without a car, but with a bike and PT tickets.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Basincreek said:


> The idea that gas prices are gonna pedestrianize the US is a bit unrealistic. A place I once lived is a good example. Even if I had wanted to walk to the nearest supermarket it would have been a good 5-6 kilometers. I would have had to walk down streets with no sidewalks until I got to a six lane wide boulevard, also with no sidewalks, and try to cross it which would be hard and dangerous because there were no crosswalks let alone pedestrian bridges or anything. Then I would have walked through a kilometer of office complexes, which did have sidewalks, before having to cross another six lane road with no crosswalks. All that to get to the nearest supermarket. Now if I wanted to buy a new shirt I would have had to go to a completely different shopping complex that would have been 6 kilometers in the other direction from my house and I would have had to cross not just a 4 lane boulevard but a freeway!
> 
> I used my car to get everywhere not because I was lazy but because I wanted to preserve my life. When I wanted to do something healthy I ran laps at a nearby track like lots of other, supposedly lazy, citizens were doing.
> 
> You can pedestrianize the cores of some places in the US, places where there is mixed use zoning and high density living. You can't pedestrianize the other places, at least not overnight, because they have been designed fundamentally differently.


No one expects those worst cases of suburbia to change overnight. But one could start with the change today, actually one should start today. Or you will be in severe problems in a few decades when nothing should have changed. 

The first thing to start with would be to design new settlements differently with considering things like PT, mixed zoning, sub center formation walk ability, bicycle paths etc. I am not sure if this is happening already, but maybe things got better in newly developed areas. 

Secondly you can also improve existing quarters, a continuously pedestrian friendly road system, should be relatively unproblematic to introduce. Moreover where its possible the zones should be added with some mixture of offices and retail. (It doesn't have to be skyscrapers and giga malls) Moreover light rail lines should expand from the dense core into the major axis of the suburbs where potential for increasing the density exists.

If all that should fail, those suburbs who do fail will have increasing problems of attracting people to live there, which could ultimately lead to the deterioration of the quarter. This prospect at least should make things possible that seem impossible today. (For example the municipality buying up central locations, razing abandoned or cheap homes, and creating new mixed purpose medium density sub centers for an entire suburban quarter, including PT connections to the city center as well as feeder lines into the suburbs)

If it really can be done only the hard way, I only hope that there will be enough time left to adopt without too large schisms.


----------



## tvdxer

city_thing said:


> And I really don't understand the logic in your argument I'm sorry. How does a 'lack of spirituality' automatically convert oneself into a whole-hearted consumption addict?


Straw-man type fallacy.

By "materialism" I don't just mean a craving for material goods or consumerism. I'm thinking more of the metaphysical definition, in which the material world is all that one focuses on or believes in. I do think there's a connection between materialism and consumerism, however.



> America is the great bastion of consumerism, hardly Europe. Many US churches (especially Baptist ones) hold hard currency in higher regard than they do Jesus (send your money here now and receive instant remption! Have your credit card ready!). Christianity is a very individualist driven religion, as is capitalism - they go hand in hand. Whilst Europe is still a Capitalist region, it's nothing compared to the US where symbols of wealth are flaunted and hyperconsumption is treated as a diplomatic right rather than an unsustainable, irresponsible privilege.


The U.S. churches you are thinking of are clearly in the minority (though everybody seems to know about them). They have little to do with traditional or even mainstream Christianity



> America is by far the most consumerist society on Earth, its very economy and way of life survives on that. You can't just say that "Europe's worse than us" because everyone's moving away from organised religion. That's a completely ad hoc argument with little to no reason behind it. People don't need religion in their lives and there is no gaping hole in a person's soul when they realise the falicies behind it and leave it behind. They go on living as moral, responsible people.


I never said Europe was more consumeristic than the U.S. Only that if one follows the indicators, the U.S. is a far more religious (surely a sign of a spiritual component) than most of Europe, which helps to balance out the consumerism prevalent here.


----------



## :jax:

I have a little trouble seeing the link between spiritual consumerist Americans and the lack of pedestrian streets in their cities...


----------



## isaidso

^^ That's because there is no link between the 2. It's just an insulting religious view that they are better rounded people than atheists for believing in God and that people who've managed to keep themselves free of indoctrination have a void to fill because of this.

It's just one more absurd belief after another with many from US religious groups. Be glad, you live in Europe. You have no idea how irritating and imposing they are.


----------



## tvdxer

:jax: said:


> I have a little trouble seeing the link between spiritual consumerist Americans and the lack of pedestrian streets in their cities...


There is none. Somebody earlier went off on a tangent about how Europeans are farther to the left than Americans (as if that is a good thing), and I felt the necessity to join in. But for relevant comments...

The U.S. DOES have pedestrian streets - just not many of them. Part of the reason, as discussed here earlier, for European cities having pedestrian streets is their age - Barcelona's Barri Gotic, Granada's Albayzin, etc. far predate American cities. But a lot of pedestrianized districts are recent creations - I think many in Germany came about after WW2, and in San Sebastian most of the city, pedestrianized or not, does not seem particularly ancient. And those pedestrian districts are full of activity. But in the U.S., you have to keep in mind a few factors which may not be present (or as present) in Europe:

1) Resistance to walking: Americans are keen on parking right in front of the place they are going to, and often have an antipathy towards walking, at least for transportation (many walk or jog as a form of exercise / recreation, however). Some examples: When I was in high school, somebody used my car, which I had forgotten to lock, for illegal activities, and I was banned from parking in the lot there for a week. I live in a fairly rural area, seven miles (about 10 km) from the school, so walking there is impossible, it was getting too cold for biking (and I didn't have a good bike at the time), riding to school on the school bus as a final year (senior) student was embarrassing, and, to make things worse, there is virtually no on-street parking in the entire town (everybody has their driveways). So a friend who has a house near the school (about 1 km away) kindly allowed me to park in his driveway. When he discovered that I had walked to school rather than rode in his car, he was very surprised. Likewise, people drive a couple or three blocks (about 1/4 to 1/2 km) all the time. A pedestrianized zone where you might have to park a short distance away if arriving by car would be met with opposition from a lot of people.

Also, pedestrianized zones are ideally reached by bike or public transport. Well, outside of some major cities (NYC, for example) public transportation is considered the domain of the poor, and biking is often thought of as too dangerous, or avoided for reasons perhaps similar to walking.

2) Development since WWII: You show that picture of Louvain la Neuve. I'm aware of other new cities in Europe, too, and I'm sure many of these have either pedestrian streets or at least some sort of center. Well, it has been said that nobody has built a "downtown" (traditional city center) in the U.S. for some seventy or so years. Whether or not this is absolutely true I don't know, but the vast majority of development in the U.S. WWII onward has been in the form of decentralized suburban subdivisions. I'm no developer, but I think this is more or less how it works: a developer buys land (often from a farmer wanting to sell his land), secures permits from the city, utility lines are extended if not in place already, and then builds streets and houses (or sells lots for purchasers to build their own homes). In a recent suburb, you'll see these "developments" popping up all over, usually with an entrance, often a single entrance, off a highway. As the developments continue to be built, commercial buildings and perhaps apartments will be located along the highway in spaces zoned for them, with parking lots right out in front. A long strip of buildings generally forms - strip malls, big box stores, chain restaurants, gas stations, etc. Often the highway will have no sidewalk, since walking is something to be done for exercise inside the developments, while those going shopping or to work will be assumed to have and use a car for those purposes. The idea of putting commercial development INSIDE a subdivision near homes would be considered anathema to many, who buy a house in the suburbs (or exurbs) assuming peace and quiet, and even a small corner store can be assumed as a threat to that. That you might now be able to conveniently walk to a store rather than drive makes no difference to these people. Some of their opposition, however, might come from the generally ugly appearance of buildings located along suburban highway strips.

3) Focus on private rather than public space: I spent a few weeks in Spain in May and part of June and I was amazed by the street life, even in a moderately-sized city like Granada or a small town like Lanjarón. People seem to want to live life in public and outdoors. In the U.S., such a lifestyle might appeal to some younger people, who often spend a few years in the "city", but most seem to want to settle down, get a nice big house with a nice green lawn, and raise kids there. 

Also, I wonder if it is the smaller European homes that account for part of the increased pedestrian / street activity. In Spain, the average residence is something smaller than 100 m², typical for Europe. In the U.S., a normal-sized house would be closer to 180 m², and that's not including the yard. Perhaps we aren't as "pushed" from our homes, and to go outdoors, we only need to walk on our patio or in our yards...


----------



## Slartibartfas

tvdxer said:


> 1) Resistance to walking: ...


There is a difference between having no chance to walk or driving 1/4 - 1/2 km all the time. Against the latter there is medicine in sight: fuel prices. To make the distances shorter for the future the same medicine applies. I would not underestimate it.



> Also, pedestrianized zones are ideally reached by bike or public transport. Well, outside of some major cities (NYC, for example) public transportation is considered the domain of the poor, and biking is often thought of as too dangerous, or avoided for reasons perhaps similar to walking.


The reputation of public transportation is going to change and Americans which have been outside of the US in a country with a reasonable PT systems, or perhaps as you have said, just been to NYC will see that PT is not at all a inferior mode of transportation.

But its true, pedestrian zones are built within a good PT network and bike lane network, thats why pedestrian zones have to be the result of a long development of center building and PT integration. One should start with this process today.



> 2) Development since WWII: ....


Again, fuel prices will help people to come to reason again. I mean thats weird. I have been to West Reading which in itself is a rather old place for American standards, but still considered by most already a suburb. Its "speciliaty" is that it has corner pubs. People nonehteless drive to them hno: but at least they could easily walk as well. If you can't bear a pub at the next corner you are really a poor human figure. Thats my opinion. 



> 3) Focus on private rather than public space: I spent a few weeks in Spain in May and part of June and I was amazed by the street life, even in a moderately-sized city like Granada or a small town like Lanjarón. People seem to want to live life in public and outdoors. In the U.S., such a lifestyle might appeal to some younger people, who often spend a few years in the "city", but most seem to want to settle down, get a nice big house with a nice green lawn, and raise kids there.
> 
> Also, I wonder if it is the smaller European homes that account for part of the increased pedestrian / street activity. In Spain, the average residence is something smaller than 100 m², typical for Europe. In the U.S., a normal-sized house would be closer to 180 m², and that's not including the yard. Perhaps we aren't as "pushed" from our homes, and to go outdoors, we only need to walk on our patio or in our yards...


Thats the Mediterranean way of life. In northern Europe you won't find it, still you will find an as useful PT system and also pedestrian zones. 

btw if you look at the example of Almere in the Netherlands you will find a perfect example of how your suburbs could look like without sacrificing much at all of your life style except for your dependency from you cars and unnecessary large distances.


----------



## rilham2new

brianmoon85 said:


> To answer your question.
> 
> Americans HATE the cold
> and LOVE the heat, but would not like to be sweating like crazy
> *so that's why they prefer indoor mall areas unlike many cities in Asia.*
> Laziness also plays a major factor...people in the US hate walking and they think
> public transportation like buses are for poor people. Also, in the US the elderly or
> overweight people use their electric cars to shop around walmart, target, and other
> large stores. Overall, the US is a car-dominated society, if you don't have a car, u're pretty much screwed. :lol:


Which part of Asia do u refer to ?? I BET THAT MUST NOT BE IN south-east asia ... Here, we do loves Indoor shopping-malls with well-setup Air-Con anyway ...

U can see Bangkok, Manila, KL, Jakarta, Indian Cities, none-of them are pedestrian dedicated cities.

The things are even worst in Asian part of Middle-East countries when everybody seems driving a car due to super cheap oil price. At least only a few roads which are fully pedestrianized. I guess, that pedestrianized-street only common in Europe ...


----------



## trainrover

La Ville de Montréal presented me with a sidewalk-less street some day this last spring...I blushed, I didn't know the city here had it in for us promenadin' ilk...


----------



## spongeg

whistler village was designed to be carless

its a ski resort but its still a town its village centre is all pedestrian


----------



## spongeg

Slartibartfas said:


> It really sounds weird. Did people get in contact with each other from car to car, or did they just drive in circles without anything happening?
> 
> Anyway, I would say, if you have the chance to stroll around, on foot thats far superior. I mean most people don't live in Saudi Arabia or similar countries where they are forced to do it in this way. I mean certainly meeting up in a mall is way superior as well, if thats what comes the nearest to a center in your region.


yeah they would occasionally stop at a store or something and chat and than get back and drive some more

a lot of people played car games along the highway too

this was a really small town 15,000 or so pretty typical i think for a lot of towns to do

but it happens in vancouver as well

I think also have to add that in north america a lot of people work downtown and than return to the suburbs and have no desire to go back downtown to "hang out" 

although its changing now where more people are moving back into downtown i suspect a lot of downtowns don't have the resident populations like they do in europe asia elsewhere

it might change as new younger generations gravitate to this kind of idea perhaps


----------



## tvdxer

Slartibartfas said:


> There is a difference between having no chance to walk or driving 1/4 - 1/2 km all the time. Against the latter there is medicine in sight: fuel prices. To make the distances shorter for the future the same medicine applies. I would not underestimate it.


Well, fuel prices affect long distance commuting (which is quite common in the U.S.) much more so than ridiculously short drives to pick up bread or pop. While a one-way 30-mile commute in an efficient (30 mpg / 7.84L / 100 km) by American standards car might have costed, round-trip, $4.00 a few years ago, $8.16 now, and $17.00 if gas reaches the European level of ~$8.50 / gallon, the difference for a short trip to the corner store isn't going to change much. However, the mere sticker shock of higher gas prices might encourage walking, as could fitness.

Also, while I don't think fuel prices will ever return to the $1.00 / gallon level of the SUV belle epoque, neither do I think they'll reach the ridiculously high levels ($10, $12 / gallon) predicted by some any time soon - or at least before more efficient vehicles are made. But hey, perhaps we haven't seen the full aftermath of $4 / gallon gas yet ... perhaps the economy will recover as people adjust their lifestyles.



> The reputation of public transportation is going to change and Americans which have been outside of the US in a country with a reasonable PT systems, or perhaps as you have said, just been to NYC will see that PT is not at all a inferior mode of transportation.


Well, I'm guessing most people around here I know, my age at least, have been to New York, Chicago, or some other large city with good public transportation (maybe even Europe), and that hasn't changed them. At my university, for example, all students get free bus rides anywhere on the city bus system (DTA). You simply slide your student ID card, and bam, same thing as the $0.50 - $1.25 it costs to ride it, except free. Yet the school's abundant parking is nearly always close to full, and it's very difficult for people who HAVE to drive from 13-14 miles (20+ km) like me to find a spot. But many of these students, who don't live on campus (nor at home as I do) often commute from Duluth's "college" neighborhood, basically a bunch of blocks of old single-family houses (non-"suburbia" style) and some newer apartment construction sitting on the face of the hill below the two main universities and rented to groups of 4-5 students. Bus access is free and probably quite convenient, being that many of the homes are a short walk, if any at all, to the bus line, and the bus ride short, 2-3 km at the max, but most students still seem to choose to drive to school, spending money on gas, parking permits, and brake replacements (that hill is rough).

Most of these students started driving to high school when they were 16, and few planned on stopping. (In larger cities, however, the behavior is probably different) It's just the American mentality. Plus, I think you can differentiate taking transit in NYC or similar places, where having a car can be an inconvenience and is hardly necessary (at least in the Manhattan most tourists see and more central Outer Borough locations), and Duluth, where car ownership is virtually universal except among the poor, under-16's, and very elderly.



> But its true, pedestrian zones are built within a good PT network and bike lane network, thats why pedestrian zones have to be the result of a long development of center building and PT integration. One should start with this process today.
> 
> Again, fuel prices will help people to come to reason again. I mean thats weird. I have been to West Reading which in itself is a rather old place for American standards, but still considered by most already a suburb. Its "speciliaty" is that it has corner pubs. People nonehteless drive to them hno: but at least they could easily walk as well. If you can't bear a pub at the next corner you are really a poor human figure. Thats my opinion.


Well, the "NIMBY" (not in my backyard) folks would be especially opposed, because they don't want the perceived alcohol-induced noise and crime and then traffic near their tranquil suburban homes. Perhaps it's just that a lot of people come to the suburbs hoping to find "country living" (a big fad during the 90's, maybe early 00's) without sacrificing having city amenities within a short drive.



> Thats the Mediterranean way of life. In northern Europe you won't find it, still you will find an as useful PT system and also pedestrian zones.
> 
> btw if you look at the example of Almere in the Netherlands you will find a perfect example of how your suburbs could look like without sacrificing much at all of your life style except for your dependency from you cars and unnecessary large distances.


Almere looks nice, but from looking at "Bird's Eye Views" of the city on Virtual Earth, most of the homes seem joined together or are apartments. Conjoined homes, albeit with yards, are becoming more and more popular; but the apartment share probably wouldn't work in the U.S. You have to remember that the idea of raising a family in an apartment is considered somewhat anathema here, and even with ample green space as some of the places there have, there's the fear of child abductors, etc. that many parents have. Americans want their own slice of the national land pie, their own ground to stand on, which is understandable considering how much there is here. But I do think we can organize walkable neighborhoods that include single-family dwellings and townhomes / rowhouses with yards. If you look back to the early part of last century, this seemed to be the rule. Indeed, in many small towns, there is a nice, walkable downtown district (city center), which can be walked to from many homes and biked to in reasonable time from most. Moose Lake, Minnesota is a good example of this. Even the city's campground, right on the lake, was within reasonable walking distance (or very short biking distance) of the downtown - nice.


----------



## tvdxer

Slartibartfas said:


> It really sounds weird. Did people get in contact with each other from car to car, or did they just drive in circles without anything happening?
> 
> Anyway, I would say, if you have the chance to stroll around, on foot thats far superior. I mean most people don't live in Saudi Arabia or similar countries where they are forced to do it in this way. I mean certainly meeting up in a mall is way superior as well, if thats what comes the nearest to a center in your region.


Ha, in Duluth teenagers are known to "cruise the loop". In Duluth, "the loop" refers to Canal Park Drive in Canal Park, Duluth's tourist / entertainment district. There are usually a lot of people (tourists, teenagers, etc.) on the sidewalks around the loop in the summer, especially August, so a lot of 16 - 18 year olds go down there and drive / show their cars off, and their audio systems if the police don't catch them. As for interaction, there's a ton of people down there, because kids just hang around in that area. People don't necessarily stay in their cars the whole time. 

People just cruise around town when they're bored too, maybe visit friends' houses, eat at fast food joints, etc. Some people drive "routes", where they smoke pot - not sure exactly how that works. Some kids who I attended high school with would crash their SUVs into snowbanks.


----------



## Slartibartfas

spongeg said:


> yeah they would occasionally stop at a store or something and chat and than get back and drive some more
> 
> a lot of people played car games along the highway too
> 
> this was a really small town 15,000 or so pretty typical i think for a lot of towns to do
> 
> but it happens in vancouver as well
> 
> I think also have to add that in north america a lot of people work downtown and than return to the suburbs and have no desire to go back downtown to "hang out"
> 
> although its changing now where more people are moving back into downtown i suspect a lot of downtowns don't have the resident populations like they do in europe asia elsewhere
> 
> it might change as new younger generations gravitate to this kind of idea perhaps


I have been to Philadelphia last year and knew someone who owned a house in a district in the vicinity to the university campus or so. It was a pretty impoverished neighborhood. But the real estate prices exploded in the last years not just because of the general boom but because the neighborhood with its old city row houses but most importantly a railway station quite at the corner seemed increasingly attractive for many people.


----------



## krull

Well at least is a start.


*Closing on Broadway: Two Traffic Lanes*










*Part of Broadway Boulevard, a seven-block bicycle lane and dining area that is being set up on the West Side in Midtown.*


By WILLIAM NEUMAN
Published: July 11, 2008

In a surprising reshaping of the urban landscape, *the city is creating a public esplanade along a portion of one of its most prominent streets, Broadway in Midtown, setting aside the east side of the roadway for a bicycle lane and a pedestrian walkway with cafe tables, chairs, umbrellas and flower-filled planters.*

The esplanade, which the city is calling Broadway Boulevard, *will run from 42nd Street to Herald Square. Scheduled to open in mid-August, it will change that section of Broadway from a four-lane to a two-lane street.*

“I’m envisioning it as a public park on the street,” said Barbara Randall, the executive director of the Fashion Center Business Improvement District, which is working with the city’s Department of Transportation to create the boulevard.

*The work, which has begun without a formal public announcement, reflects Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s sweeping vision of reducing pollution and traffic congestion in New York, and particularly Manhattan, by increasing open space and encouraging bike riding and other alternatives to cars.*

The plan also makes clear that the Bloomberg administration, after losing its bid in Albany for a congestion-pricing plan that would have fought traffic by charging drivers to enter the area of Manhattan below 59th Street, intends to push ahead with smaller-scale initiatives to wrest at least part of the street from cars and trucks.

*Other recent initiatives from the Transportation Department include banning cars on Park Avenue on three Saturdays in August and exploring a bicycle-sharing program.*

The new esplanade “will transform all of Broadway, visually and mentally” Ms. Randall said. “People will start thinking of the street differently. They’ll start thinking of it as a destination where you can watch the world go by.”

Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan said that the esplanade, which was designed with the help of Jan Gehl, a well-known urban designer based in Copenhagen who has been hired as a consultant by the city, was part of a larger program to turn underused street space into public plazas in each of the city’s 59 community board districts.

But Ms. Sadik-Khan acknowledged that there was a special significance when the street was one of the city’s most famous thoroughfares.

“Broadway is not famous because there are a gazillion cars going through it,” she said. “We’re trying to have the public space match the name.”

“It’s a really important signal of how we can transform the streets of New York,” she added.

There are questions, however, about the impact the narrower Broadway will have on Midtown traffic. (Ms. Sadik-Khan said that a two-lane Broadway would be able to handle the traffic flow just fine.) Some workers in the area wondered whether people would flock to dine and relax so close to a busy route’s speeding taxis, noisy trucks and exhaust fumes.

“They’ll have carbon monoxide in their tuna fish,” said Corey Baker, 31, who works at a fashion branding company at Broadway and 41st Street.

Still, Mr. Baker said that the neighborhood would benefit from more open space and added that he might even use it.

“If it was a tourist crowd, then no,” Mr. Baker said. “If it was other people grabbing lunch, then it’s good.”

Many people interviewed on Broadway on Thursday were curious about the work, which included newly painted pavement and orange-and-white plastic traffic barriers that had mysteriously appeared on the street in recent days.

Ms. Sadik-Khan said that the department was planning to unveil the project closer to its scheduled completion, on Aug. 15. But she said that officials had spent months discussing it with the three business improvement districts and the local community board.

*She said the city was spending $700,000 to create the string of blocklong plazas from 42nd to 35th Streets. That includes painting the bike lane green, buying the chairs, tables, benches, umbrellas and planters and applying a coat of small-grained gravel mixed with epoxy onto the pedestrian areas, which will set them off from both the street and the bicycle path.*

The three business improvement districts — the Times Square Alliance, the Fashion Center B.I.D. and the 34th Street Partnership — have agreed to pay for maintenance, which primarily involves buying and maintaining the plants for the planters. They estimate the cost at about $280,000 a year.

The planters are a key part of the design because they will be the only thing separating the expanded pedestrian areas from the cars and trucks zipping by.

Nevertheless, many people on Broadway on Thursday said they would welcome the new plazas in an area that has a shortage of places to sit outdoors. About the only such place along that stretch of Broadway is Golda Meir Square, a small plaza in front of 1411 Broadway, at 39th Street, where folding chairs are set out during the day.

On Thursday, there were a couple of dozen chairs, all occupied. Those who could not get a chair sat among the pigeons on the steps leading to a platform with a bust of Golda Meir.

Andre Fisher, 54, a clothing manufacturer who works in the garment district, was soaking up the sun in one of the chairs. “I think we’ve got enough places for cars and not enough places for people to sit,” he said, endorsing the idea.

Several people wondered about the impact on traffic, but Ms. Sadik-Khan said that it would be slight. In its current configuration, Broadway has two lanes for traffic north of Times Square, widens to four lanes from 42nd Street to Herald Square, and then returns to two lanes.

Ms. Sadik-Khan said that the heaviest downtown traffic in the area was on the avenues, not on Broadway. And she said that drivers would learn to adapt.

“It’s going to be clear if you really want to go downtown and you’re in a car you’re going to be much better off going down one of the avenues than going down Broadway,” she said.

*The city has already carved out smaller plazas in several neighborhoods. One is at the corner of 14th Street and Eighth Avenue in Manhattan and another on a block of Willoughby Street in Brooklyn, where it intersects with Fulton Street. The city is also working to create more boulevard-like space along a shorter section of Broadway near Madison Square Park.*

On Willoughby Street, Shakir Thompson, 44, sat on a chair on Thursday studying a textbook on electrical theory. He said he used the plaza daily.

“It’s nice, it’s calm,” he said, despite the buzz of nearby traffic. “In the country they wouldn’t relate to this. But in the city we have to take what we can get.”












http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/nyregion/11broadway.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin


----------



## socrates#1fan

There are pedestrians here. 
Of course, cars decrease the number of pedestrians there are still a lot(especially as gas gets higher.).
In the nicer more prosperous cities you see a lot of people in the downtowns especially younger people.
Granted, not as much as you would in Europe or Asia but the trend is changing.


----------



## Chicagoago

city_thing said:


> I think you've hit the nail on the the head there. It's a cultural thing. Europeans are into elegant pedestrian streets and people watching. Americans are into brash and vulgar megamalls and minimal physical stress.



Haha, that's a bit harsh. I've been to a ton of nice malls in the USA, and they certainly weren't brash and vulgar megamalls. Most malls try to use soft lighting, decent quality flooring and accents, and tons of indoor trees/palms/flowers and some fountains in their central plaza areas. They are obviously relatively new places and don't normally look elegant, but they certainly aren't harsh dumps.


----------



## LoveCPH

Visit Copenhagen


----------



## Koen Acacia

Chicagoago said:


> Haha, that's a bit harsh.


No, it's not.
Europeans are into Elegance and Sophistication.
Americans are into burping and farting a lot. It's probably in your genes or something.
Oh, and we're also much more tolerant and open-minded.


----------



## CainanUK

Sacramento used to have the K Street Mall which was a closed K Street except for the Light Rail line down the middle of it. Not sure if you would consider Sacramento "major" though.


----------



## mikeleg

Polish thread - some nice samples:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=651978


----------



## ASupertall4SD

mikeleg said:


> Polish thread - some nice samples:
> http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=651978


I wouldn't say NO Pedestrian Streets. The fact is US Cities are typically more expansive by design, because we have the land to be expansive. Because of that, they don't have to have pedestrian streets because they can just grab new land and make a mall or large development. Its not as cozy for sure, but it works and well. 

BUT, back on point. I can only speak for Southern California here, Disney Walk is a huge "street" type of development, Irvine spectrum has the same feel, open air street for pedestrians, Universal City Walk is similar. We have the 3rd street promenade in Santa Monica which is probably exactly what you are referring to that the US has none of. Green St/Colorado in Pasadena in portions have pedestrian only areas, alleyways, etc. that wind around in a pedestrian street type of setting. Laguna has similar pedestrian type alcoves. There are a bunch. 

But really, because we have the land Europe may not have, we can not only have storefronts with large expansive sidewalks, we can have streets right in between for congestion relief. I don't see the problem.


----------



## WrightTurn

aquablue said:


> boston should clean up that street, make it an attraction not an eyesore...


It looks okay to me.

As for blocking off ten blocks of Fifth Avenue--you clearly have no idea how traffic flows in New York.


----------



## Mr Bricks

Pedestrian Streets have nothing to do with land. Many pedestrian streets in Europe are centuries old, nothing would stop American cities from having pedestrianised areas and streets as well.


----------



## Mollywood

Montreal has 2 permanent pedestrian streets (Price Author and Chinatown) as well as The Gay Village on Ste. Catherine St., which is closed all through the summer. Toronto has some shopping area streets closed on some Sundays, (Kensington Market) so it's a start.


----------



## Slartibartfas

ASupertall4SD said:


> I wouldn't say NO Pedestrian Streets. The fact is US Cities are typically more expansive by design, because we have the land to be expansive. Because of that, they don't have to have pedestrian streets because they can just grab new land and make a mall or large development. Its not as cozy for sure, but it works and well.


Oh, that good old argument... its flawed, big time.
Does for example look Madrid like being in a lack of space? There is only dry land around it, lots of it. Still it has lovely pedestrian zones. Just one example out of many.

Another classic is that European cities are soooo old and American cities were not built for the pre car age... that might be true for quite some American cities. It is not for a lot of other American cities. 

All in all I would say there is however a development toward the better taking place. As you also described above.


----------



## Taller Better

Mollywood said:


> Montreal has 2 permanent pedestrian streets (Price Author and Chinatown) as well as The Gay Village on Ste. Catherine St., which is closed all through the summer. Toronto has some shopping area streets closed on some Sundays, (Kensington Market) so it's a start.


Are they going to close the Gay Village again this summer? One of the beer companies, I think Bud Light or something, paid $100,000 to the City to cover the cost, but then anyone sitting on an outdoor patio was forced to buy only Bud Light (gag... I refuse to drink that stuff). I am not convinced it was a great idea, and I heard mixed reports. Some loved it, and some said it sucked the life out of St Catherine in the village. Prince Arthur is a great little area and the most successful. The Chinatown one is a very small block, like an outdoor mall, and I don't think much happens there at night.
I am very leery of taking hustling, bustling super wide strips like St Catherine in the village, or Yonge Street in Toronto and closing them off to traffic. There is a play between cars and people, especially in the gay villages.. drag queens hamming it up for the tourists, etc.... maybe it is a North American thing, but some streets are enhanced by the interaction of cars and people. Also North American streets tend to be MUCH wider than European ones. The perfect street to close off for a pedestrian area is a small, narrow one, with loads of restaurants or shops. Like that little laneway permanently closed off in Toronto. Wide streets are big areas to fill with people when you take the cars away. There has to be a pretty big draw to get people there on a consistent basis. I think an area ripe for turning into pedestrian is parts of Kensington Market (but naturally still having a way to access the shops with supplies), Mirvish Village, and the 
Esplanade around Church Street. Some areas are perfect for Saturday/Sunday only closure, like Little India, or Church Street in the gay village.


----------



## philadweller

Most of my US friends would love to move to Europe for the classy streets. Unfortunately it is not that easy to pick up and switch continents. There are plenty of streets in Philadelphia that cars cannot go down because they are too narrow. Europe is the best place in the world to live in my opinion. I hope Europeans realize what they have compared to the rest of the world. It does not get any better.


----------



## Slartibartfas

I would say Philadelphia would have a lot of potential in regards to a pedestrian friendly center. 

In Europe, you can see both developments. Those in positive direction and those in a negative one. Often both in the same city. I just hope that the sprawling trend does not only slow down but finally comes to a halt. That would be great.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Taller said:


> Are they going to close the Gay Village again this summer? One of the beer companies, I think Bud Light or something, paid $100,000 to the City to cover the cost, but then anyone sitting on an outdoor patio was forced to buy only Bud Light (gag... I refuse to drink that stuff). I am not convinced it was a great idea, and I heard mixed reports. Some loved it, and some said it sucked the life out of St Catherine in the village. Prince Arthur is a great little area and the most successful. The Chinatown one is a very small block, like an outdoor mall, and I don't think much happens there at night.
> I am very leery of taking hustling, bustling super wide strips like St Catherine in the village, or Yonge Street in Toronto and closing them off to traffic. There is a play between cars and people, especially in the gay villages.. drag queens hamming it up for the tourists, etc.... maybe it is a North American thing, but some streets are enhanced by the interaction of cars and people. Also North American streets tend to be MUCH wider than European ones. The perfect street to close off for a pedestrian area is a small, narrow one, with loads of restaurants or shops. Like that little laneway permanently closed off in Toronto. Wide streets are big areas to fill with people when you take the cars away. There has to be a pretty big draw to get people there on a consistent basis. I think an area ripe for turning into pedestrian is parts of Kensington Market (but naturally still having a way to access the shops with supplies), Mirvish Village, and the
> Esplanade around Church Street. Some areas are perfect for Saturday/Sunday only closure, like Little India, or Church Street in the gay village.


I think broad streets in the center don't have to be necessarily turned into pedestrian zones. Just cut back the road, reduce the traffic (by reducing lanes or whatever means) expanding the area for pedestrians with options for outdoor seats etc. There are a number of streets in Europe that are not pedestrian streets but have rather limited traffic and lots of space for pedestrian activities, much more than just a narrow sidewalk on both sides. Creating streets like these also has the potential to create a full pedestrian zone at a later point, in case demand has increased by these former measures. 

Take the Mariahilferstraße in Vienna as example. Its not a pedestrian zone still it offers lots of space for pedestrians, features benches, bike parking utilities, alleys, outdoor restaurant facilities...









The sidewalk is on both sides as broad as on the one you see here prominently and as you can see the road is everything else than narrow as well. So wouldn't that be an interesting concept for many American cities. Optionally, you can also fill the central part of the road with light rail lanes, or if you turn it pedestrian with park like features like a meadow with trees etc


----------



## gincan

I believe it's down to cultural difference, in europe walking is considered a perfered means of transport for short distances whereas in north america people use their car even when visiting their neighbours, the complete absurdity of driving 100 yards (sometimes even less) just isn't present in the american mindset. 

Here is a typical north american viewpoint, I've taken the text from (http://www.demographia.com/rac-barcelona.pdf)

"In the center of the main boulevard is a pedestrian area wide enough to accommodate four or perhaps even six lanes of traffic. Cars, which apparently local officials perfer to pretend do not exist, are crowded into two lanes in each direction on each side of the thoroughfare. This kind of mindless ideology is to be found all across europe, where city planners seem determined to make traffic worse and intensify air pollution."


----------



## philadweller

"I would say Philadelphia would have a lot of potential in regards to a pedestrian friendly center. "

That's because the city was built 200 years before the invention of the automobile thankfully. I hate cars. Can't wait to get rid of mine.


----------



## Svartmetall

gincan said:


> I believe it's down to cultural difference, in europe walking is considered a perfered means of transport for short distances whereas in north america people use their car even when visiting their neighbours, the complete absurdity of driving 100 yards (sometimes even less) just isn't present in the american mindset.
> 
> Here is a typical north american viewpoint, I've taken the text from (http://www.demographia.com/rac-barcelona.pdf)
> 
> "In the center of the main boulevard is a pedestrian area wide enough to accommodate four or perhaps even six lanes of traffic. Cars, which apparently local officials perfer to pretend do not exist, are crowded into two lanes in each direction on each side of the thoroughfare. This kind of mindless ideology is to be found all across europe, where city planners seem determined to make traffic worse and intensify air pollution."


That article was just downright scary. I hope to hell that people who actually hold that kind of view in Europe are actually a minority rather than a majority...


----------



## Captain Obvious

That's not a "typical" viewpoint. That's a Wendell Cox article. He's is one of the most vocal pro-sprawl, anti-transit advocates in the entire world. 

Posting one of his articles isn't a useful example any more than showing Le Corbusier's planned rape of Paris as an example of European attitudes. It's an extreme.


----------



## gincan

Captain Obvious said:


> That's not a "typical" viewpoint. That's a Wendell Cox article. He's is one of the most vocal pro-sprawl, anti-transit advocates in the entire world.
> 
> Posting one of his articles isn't a useful example any more than showing Le Corbusier's planned rape of Paris as an example of European attitudes. It's an extreme.


Well, you're right, but it's in line with what I'm hearing everytime there are pedrestrian vs car debates in america.

Less space for cars=more pollution is very common in debates and the absurd idea that pedrestian areas kill commerce because the shops are not accesible by cars...


----------



## Mollywood

Taller said:


> Are they going to close the Gay Village again this summer? One of the beer companies, I think Bud Light or something, paid $100,000 to the City to cover the cost, but then anyone sitting on an outdoor patio was forced to buy only Bud Light (gag... I refuse to drink that stuff). I am not convinced it was a great idea, and I heard mixed reports. Some loved it, and some said it sucked the life out of St Catherine in the village. Prince Arthur is a great little area and the most successful. The Chinatown one is a very small block, like an outdoor mall, and I don't think much happens there at night.
> I am very leery of taking hustling, bustling super wide strips like St Catherine in the village, or Yonge Street in Toronto and closing them off to traffic. There is a play between cars and people, especially in the gay villages.. drag queens hamming it up for the tourists, etc.... maybe it is a North American thing, but some streets are enhanced by the interaction of cars and people. Also North American streets tend to be MUCH wider than European ones. The perfect street to close off for a pedestrian area is a small, narrow one, with loads of restaurants or shops. Like that little laneway permanently closed off in Toronto. Wide streets are big areas to fill with people when you take the cars away. There has to be a pretty big draw to get people there on a consistent basis. I think an area ripe for turning into pedestrian is parts of Kensington Market (but naturally still having a way to access the shops with supplies), Mirvish Village, and the
> Esplanade around Church Street. Some areas are perfect for Saturday/Sunday only closure, like Little India, or Church Street in the gay village.


Yes, I believe Montreal will do it again this year, starting in June, as it was very successful last year. The only complaint I heard is that it attracted a lot of straight people, so The Gay Village lost some of it's gay vibe or as some would say, "it's FABULOUSNESS". lol

The Distillery District in Toronto is a pedestrian shopping area, although it's more like a small village. Ryerson University also plans a pedestrian street running through it's campus, downtown.

Kensington Market is prefect for a pedestrian area. I hope that happens permanently and not just on Sundays. (like they do now)


----------



## Slartibartfas

gincan said:


> I believe it's down to cultural difference, in europe walking is considered a perfered means of transport for short distances whereas in north america people use their car even when visiting their neighbours, the complete absurdity of driving 100 yards (sometimes even less) just isn't present in the american mindset.
> 
> Here is a typical north american viewpoint, I've taken the text from (http://www.demographia.com/rac-barcelona.pdf)
> 
> "In the center of the main boulevard is a pedestrian area wide enough to accommodate four or perhaps even six lanes of traffic. Cars, which apparently local officials perfer to pretend do not exist, are crowded into two lanes in each direction on each side of the thoroughfare. This kind of mindless ideology is to be found all across europe, where city planners seem determined to make traffic worse and intensify air pollution."


Wow, unbelievable. Is this kind of mindset really so common in the US?

I was in Barcelona myself. Even if you do not take the Subway but the Bus (at least on the lines I took) traffic jam is unknown, because of great bus lanes. Navigating in the city was fast and efficient (except for the huge construction works at one of the core stations, but thats certainly improving the system in the long run, as I think another line is being added to the system). 

Of course people like those who wrote that statement above, won't see that, as their mindset is a bit too limited for it. I guess when it would be as they like it, some highways would cut their ways through the core of Barcelona, and that would definitely stop sprawling... :nuts:


----------



## Taller Better

_"whereas in north america people use their car even when visiting their neighbours, the complete absurdity of driving 100 yards (sometimes even less) just isn't present in the american mindset"_

North America is a very big place with many diverse areas. I think it is a mistake to assume everywhere is like a suburb of Orlando, Florida.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Taller said:


> _"whereas in north america people use their car even when visiting their neighbours, the complete absurdity of driving 100 yards (sometimes even less) just isn't present in the american mindset"_
> 
> North America is a very big place with many diverse areas. I think it is a mistake to assume everywhere is like a suburb of Orlando, Florida.


True, nonetheless the share of "car only" suburbs is still in the US considerably higher than lets say in Europe, on average, of course there exceptions on both sides of the great pond.


----------



## Ingenioren

Because your streets are much wider - thus there is room for both cars and pedestrians, where as most streets in f.eks Oslo is to narrow for cars with the high pedestrian trafic - 2 meter sidewalks is not enough. For 5th avenue, the sidewalks are probably about the same with as most of our pedestrian streets.

A few cool examples:

Huge pedestrian area in La Dèfense - Paris:










A suburb of Malmö, Jakriborg - Sweden is built in old style and for pedestrians, only 1000 residents.


----------



## Slartibartfas

I think the central esplanada at la defense would need some modernisation. This huge area should be enriched with more than just concrete. In case you want to remain it open for possible large events, you could still use temporary details like banks, open air cafés, small to large moveable plant pots etc etc.

It could make that area much more interesting. Anyway, this concrete plate still is worlds better than the highway and subway below lying in the open. And of course, the sight axis between the Arc de Triomphe and the Grand Arche is nothing short of spectacular.


----------



## Taller Better

Slartibartfas said:


> True, nonetheless the share of "car only" suburbs is still in the US considerably higher than lets say in Europe, on average, of course there exceptions on both sides of the great pond.


Then let's compare apples to apples, and oranges to oranges. A bit pointless comparing American suburbs to downtown European examples. These types of discussions tend to ignore the millions of cars in Europe, and the important role they play and lead to sweeping generalisations. Not everyone in Europe rides their bike or walks to work, as witnessed by the huge infrastructure of autoroutes, and congested traffic patterns. Also, not every city in North America is pedestrian-free, or bicycle unfriendly. I am simply saying, let's keep the discussion relevant. 

Regarding the pedestrian square at La Dèfense, do people really feel it is a good square? There are a handful of people scattered across a massive area. I would say a very large hard surfaced square with no seating, and no destination in the middle (fountain, statue, art, etc...) is about as comfortable as walking around an IKEA parking lot. Why would anyone bother wandering out into the middle of that square? Squares should be of a size relative to the number of users, in order to keep them intimate, or at least designed to give a feeling of intimacy. That is the same logic why it is difficult to close a four or six lane traffic street down for pedestrians only, unless you can maintain large crowds of pedestrians. Wandering aimlessly down a cavernous windswept area is far less interesting than a bustling, people filled narrow street.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Taller said:


> Then let's compare apples to apples, and oranges to oranges. A bit pointless comparing American suburbs to downtown European examples. These types of discussions tend to ignore the millions of cars in Europe, and the important role they play. Not everyone in Europe rides their bike or walks to work, as witnessed by the huge infrastructure of autoroutes, and not every city in North America is pedestrian-free. I am simply saying, let's keep the discussion real.


Its not just the nature of (lower density) suburbs here and there. That is very important as well, but I commented on the share of them compared to the entire urban community they are in. 

It seems to me you are resorting to a straw man here. I never used such black and white claims that you accuse me of. (Or can you please point out where I wrote that there no cars but only bikes in Europe)



Regarding la defense. I actually share your criticism partially and have already commented on possible improvement. 

On a general view: I wanted to add that pedestrian zones are everything else than limited to old towns, they do not even have to look old and cozy. Fact is that they are even being built completely a new. Even currently many of the (well planned) major city enlargement programs in Europe feature a shopping street with good pedestrian facilities, that can be also a real pedestrian zone.

The best example I have currently in mind which is under construction the minute as I write this is the pedestrian zone in the new Hafencity in Hamburg. One of the largest city enlargement projects in current Germany. The pedestrian zone will feature a mixture out of small stores, department stores, cultural facilities, restaurants and in the higher floors residential and office usages. Constructed from the scratch.


----------



## Taller Better

Sorry, Slartibartfas, I was speaking in generalities, and unwittingly I appeared to be pinning it on you. These discussions always wind up being black and white regional stereotypes, with massive continents like North America being distilled down to one clicheed suburban image. It seems as if people watch the odd American movie and draw a whole lot of conclusions about "North American cities".  :cheers:


----------



## Slartibartfas

Taller said:


> Sorry, Slartibartfas, I was speaking in generalities, and unwittingly I appeared to be pinning it on you. These discussions always wind up being black and white regional stereotypes, with massive continents like North America being distilled down to one clicheed suburban image. It seems as if people watch the odd American movie and draw a whole lot of conclusions about "North American cities".  :cheers:


I am basing my judgement on only one visit to the east coast, and what I have read in various places.  So far to fair and balanced 

No but I was quite disappointed by what I saw there, apart from NYC everything was considerably more sprawly than I expected and as I understood it, if the east coast is like that, it will be hardly anywhere else much better in the US.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Taller said:


> Sorry, Slartibartfas, I was speaking in generalities, and unwittingly I appeared to be pinning it on you. These discussions always wind up being black and white regional stereotypes, with massive continents like North America being distilled down to one clicheed suburban image. It seems as if people watch the odd American movie and draw a whole lot of conclusions about "North American cities".  :cheers:


I am basing my judgement on only one visit to the east coast, and what I have read in various places.  So far to fair and balanced 

No but I was quite disappointed by what I saw there, apart from NYC everything was considerably more sprawly than I expected and as I understood it, if the east coast is like that, it will be hardly anywhere else much better in the US.


----------



## Taller Better

Well, definitely America is not Europe, and anyone visiting it hoping as such will be in for a cultural shock. The people who settled America mostly left Europe for economic reasons, and far from wanting to recreate the crowded land conserving Europe that they left behind, they deliberately wanted to sprawl out and enjoy the luxury of land ownership. If someone owned land back in Austria hundreds of years ago, no doubt they had a title. In America, it was possible for anyone to own land and have their own house! This was not looked down upon as a shoddy way to live... in fact it was considered hugely superior to living in a crowded tenement house "back home". So, completely different social factors shaped the New World. Those who visit now from Europe should be aware that they are not visiting a replica of "back home", and perhaps have an understanding of why. Sprawl, of course, continued unabated in suburbs for so many years that now municipalities are waking up to the fact it must be contained.
By the by..... suburban sprawl is not strictly a North American concept.


----------



## particlez

^wendell cox is a highly paid shill for the development community. 

let's not use the 'cultural' reasons for north american sprawl. sprawl was built in order to provide the highest expected returns for the development industry. unfortunately in north america and increasingly in places throughout the world with neoliberal economics, the financial motivations of the developers have been subverting the common good of urban planning. these issues have been creeping up elsewhere in the world as well. increasing car use and larger built areas are not limited to north america. 

unfortunately many people have confused their normative standards of big cars, suburban malls, office parks, and tract housing with an idealized image of living the good life. it's not rational, but then people aren't always rational beings. 

pedestrian-only areas do require higher immediate densities and/or good public transport links to function. unfortunately many of the newer 'lifestyle' centers (aka outdoor malls) aim to offer the aesthetics of outdoor pedestrian-only zones, yet most of their patrons are required to drive to this destination.


----------



## Taller Better

_"let's not use the 'cultural' reasons for north american sprawl"_

why not? I'm not promoting sprawl, I am saying there are obvious cultural and historical reasons why America is different from Europe. My other point is that "North America" is not some homogeneous great sprawl- it is a huge continent composed of many different regions. I live downtown in a very pedestrian friendly city, and like many people here downtown do not even own a car. Our downtown is one of the highest density populations on the continent, and we can use subway, bus, or streetcar as public transport to get from A to B.


----------



## particlez

^the 'cultural' reasons for sprawl are questionable at best. sprawl was promoted in the postwar era as a way for profit-hungry developers and their equally greedy and corrupt political toadies to get rich off greenfield development. now that we're accustomed to driving several miles for groceries, we've turned around and rebraded our wasteful ways as 'culturally distinct'. 

the sprawl is beginning to spring up in europe as well, albeit to a smaller extent. (and the euro-snobs are going to hate me for stating this) the waning social democracy and the gradual intrusion of developer-driven building is resulting in lower density developments on the outskirts of older established cities. alex marshall has written extensively on this.


----------



## Taller Better

_"the sprawl is beginning to spring up in europe as well"_


I think that day came and went about a half a century ago, beginning in earnest after World War II. Tourists who restrict their travelling to downtown areas of cities will not see it, but it is firmly established.


----------



## particlez

in any case, there's more and more of it. representative democracies have been losing their ability to legislate for the common good, and developers and their lobbyists see the gains in greenfield development. thus even cities with stagnant populations are seeing a profusion of big box stores, tract housing, etc. *master of the obvious*

at any rate, since you have acknowledged the existence of sprawl in culturally disparate europe and in north america, wouldn't it go against your cultural & historical reasons for its existence?


----------



## salvius

^ particlez, the point is not that many suburbs are still quite a bit below the density of the inner city - yes, they sure are. But many of the old streetcar suburbs now confined to the 'edges' of the old city and the first-generation suburbs have a similar density profile to many (many) suburban neighbourhoods; this is unlikely to change as the densification trends are similar in both. Yet, the densification in the suburbs is unlikely to deliver strong results without a true smart growth strategy (Cornell, as an entirely developer-driven exercise, doesn't count). 

Nobody is expecting to build out the subway to the suburbs, as this is a financially impossible prospect. However, LRT among major streets with strong bus feeder lines (let's remember, not everyone works downtown), and coupled with far better GO Train service would render some *serious* improvements to the overall transit connectivity _at or near_ current density levels. 

In any case, PM me if you'd like to continue the discussion.


----------



## particlez

^there are a lot of issues here.

first, functional pedestrian places like bloor cannot simply rely on the people within immediate walking distance. many other equally dense and mixed use areas of the older city are now decontextualized suburbs. the newer areas (like cornell) try to ape the aesthetics of the older areas, but are equally (if not more) automobile dependent as the worst of the decontextualized streetcar burbs. the built form (density, zoning, PT) of toronto worked in the past because the city was much smaller, could be serviced by a smaller PT network, and did not have a proliferation of both lower densities and decentralized workplaces, retail, etc. LRT is the best option right now. but street level transit, even with separate ROWs, will have severely compromised efficiency for people who (thanks to decades of greed-induced sprawl) now live 40-50 kilometers away from the core.

the 'smart' growth theories just won't be implemented within our present political arrangement. the developers, whose ultimate goal is to maximize investment returns, dominate local politics. as such, truly holistic attempts at smart growth have been ridiculed, dismissed as impossible, ignored, or watered down to the point of insignificance. you can basically state that the goals of urban planning have been thrown out the window by developers and the politicians who do their bidding. but instead of rightly pointing our finger at the ones who wield political power, the resulting sclerotic zoning of our built areas, and the seemingly unending need to build newer areas into the wilderness (we build beyond the greenbelts), we take jane jacobs out of context, and hail an idealized nostalgic ideal of what cities and buildings should look like.


----------



## AtD

Here are some photos of my home town, Adelaide, Australia. Like many American cities, it was founded in the first half of the 19th century (1836) and features wide streets running parallel to form a grid. Like many American cities, it is surrounded by low density suburbs of detached homes, dotted with shopping centres ("strip malls") and is car dependant. And of course, Adelaide is continuously bombarded with American culture. Adelaide has relatively low, but increasing, public transport usage. Up until recently it was home to two car manufacturing plants, General Motors Holden and (recently closed) Mitsubishi.

Despite all this, this is the most expensive strip of real estate in Adelaide:


















The city council is slowly shunning the car. Almost every street renewal project has seen less space for cars, fewer lanes, reduced parking and more space for pedestrians and public transport.

Space was recently removed from the main boulevard, King William Street, to install a tram line. The street used to be 8 lanes wide in places, now it is just 4 in parts. It could easily accommodate 10 lanes, if not more. The tram line is very popular.









Space was also recently removed from North Terrace, another key street, even though there is ample pedestrian space.









In the suburbs, Moseley Square, Glenelg, was recently closed to traffic and given a face lift.


----------



## rwaa

*A Proposed Major Pedestrian Street for NYC*

It is not for lack of citizen interest that we have no major pedestrian street in NYC. For more than 10 years we have been advancing a citizens' initiative to convert 42nd Street into an auto-free light rail boulevard, and have raised money for extensive technical studies on the costs and benefits of the plan. The projected economic and fiscal benefits are enormous, with a quick payback period (see our webiste, http://www.vision42.org). The only thing standing in our way is that the Mayor refuses to talk with us about it. Presentations to 340 different audiences, including community boards and two public forums, have generated considerable support. Forty distinguished citizens have joined our Advisory Committee, including four major real estate developers.

Roxanne Warren, AIA, Chair, vision42


----------



## rwaa

*A Proposed Major Pedestrian Street for NYC*

It is not for lack of citizen interest that we have no major pedestrian street in NYC. For more than 10 years, as part of the Institute for Rational Urban Mobility, we have been advancing a citizens' initiative, vision42, to convert 42nd Street into an auto-free light rail boulevard, and have raised money for extensive technical studies on the costs and benefits of the plan. The projected economic and fiscal benefits are enormous ($880 million per year), with a quick payback period (see our website, http://www.vision42.org). The only thing standing in the way of this project is that the Mayor has refused to talk with us about it. Presentations to 340 different audiences, including community boards and two public forums, have generated considerable support. Forty distinguished citizens have joined our Advisory Committee, including four major real estate developers.

Roxanne Warren, AIA, Chair, vision42


----------



## miami305

*Miami Beach - South Beach, Florida*

Lincoln Rd is very pedestrian friendly as well as much of South Beach for those of you who have visited the city.

LINCOLN ROAD.


----------



## Anderson Geimz

For American standards Lincoln Road and South Beach are walkable. For Europeans that's still a long ass way!
The only places in the US I've been (10 states, eastcoast) that were walkable were Manhattan and Center City Philly.

Downtown Atlanta surprised me in being somewhat walkable. Washington, Baltimore, Charleston, Savannah, Atlantic City, Miami (Beach) all are less walkable then they should be.


----------



## Woozle

American suburban sprawl was to a large extent driven by racial strife and white flight. Every effort to make the suburbs unwalkable and get rid of public transportation was driven by the same fear: of the urban poor (read: racial minorities) following the fleeing middle class/whites to the suburbs. 

With murder rates in many American cities exceeding those of major European cities 20-fold by the 60's, their fears can hardly be called unjustifiable. 

Europe now has the same issues; and, amusingly enough, after decades of left-wing moralizing preening, the European middle class is doing pretty much everything the American middle class did decades ago to isolate itself from the new immigrants, with many neighborhoods in old European cities experiencing massive white flight and become immigrant ethnic enclaves.

As long as pedestrian streets can be guaranteed safe of thugs, Americans will flock to them. Curiously, this now means imitation olde-towne shopping malls which have been the signature suburban development of the 90's and 2000's: certainly far more prominent statistically than the fantom "whites moving back to the cities" nonsense spouted by journalists after each occasional hipster sighting.


----------



## Xusein

Buffalo's Main Street is closed off to vehicles downtown and ironically it's the worst looking street downtown with vacant storefronts everywhere. It even has a light rail line going down it. Think they are opening it up to cars again though. So the whole thing is a lot more complex than at first glance.

Maybe someone else mentioned that here, but I still will bring that example up.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Woozle said:


> American suburban sprawl was to a large extent driven by racial strife and white flight. Every effort to make the suburbs unwalkable and get rid of public transportation was driven by the same fear: of the urban poor (read: racial minorities) following the fleeing middle class/whites to the suburbs.
> 
> With murder rates in many American cities exceeding those of major European cities 20-fold by the 60's, their fears can hardly be called unjustifiable.
> 
> Europe now has the same issues; and, amusingly enough, after decades of left-wing moralizing preening, the European middle class is doing pretty much everything the American middle class did decades ago to isolate itself from the new immigrants, with many neighborhoods in old European cities experiencing massive white flight and become immigrant ethnic enclaves.
> 
> As long as pedestrian streets can be guaranteed safe of thugs, Americans will flock to them. Curiously, this now means imitation olde-towne shopping malls which have been the signature suburban development of the 90's and 2000's: certainly far more prominent statistically than the fantom "whites moving back to the cities" nonsense spouted by journalists after each occasional hipster sighting.


The middle class and the wealthy are definitely not fleeing the urban cores, to the contrary the core urban areas are in a new bloom. If anything at all, there are problems in some of the suburbs, but the problem more of a social than a criminal one. Even these "ghettos" are hardly comparable to the ghettos of America a few decades ago. 

Regarding seperation you can see two contradictory trends, first the one you describe, but also the other way round, wealthy and middle class invading traditional poor minority quarters.


----------



## Slartibartfas

Xusein said:


> Buffalo's Main Street is closed off to vehicles downtown and ironically it's the worst looking street downtown with vacant storefronts everywhere. It even has a light rail line going down it. Think they are opening it up to cars again though. So the whole thing is a lot more complex than at first glance.
> 
> Maybe someone else mentioned that here, but I still will bring that example up.


There are a lot of examples of failed pedestrian precincts in the US indeed. It would be intersesting to find out why that is. 

PS: Is the light rail there in Buffalo a rather new one or an old one?


----------



## smokiboy

The failure of Buffalo's Main Street as a pedestrian only street is symptomatic of many other urban & social problems in Buffalo. The street itself is relatively well designed.


----------



## Slartibartfas

^^ So why is it failing then? I can't imagine that people could be too poor. Is it fear of crime? car centric world view?


----------



## Spookvlieger

Typical Belgian pedestrain streets in small cities:

Hasselt: pop 77.000








Oostende: pop 68.000








Aalstop 78.000








Mechelen: pop 80.000








Sint-truiden: pop 39.000 This is my hometown and i think they should make this street car free , now its only on occasions car free like on saturdays








Another thing is that our beautifull 16-17th century market square is a giant parking lot
































The photo's don't show so here is a link:
http://www.limburgvanuitdelucht.be/fotos.asp
It says; kies gemeente, then chose SINT-TRUIDEN
Then scroll to you will find an album "stadscentrum Sint-Truiden" translation: "citycentre"
THen you can see afther a few pictures our marked square...
Please try! Its a very interesting site with airial photo's of whole Belgium!


----------



## the spliff fairy

Woozle said:


> American suburban sprawl was to a large extent driven by racial strife and white flight. Every effort to make the suburbs unwalkable and get rid of public transportation was driven by the same fear: of the urban poor (read: racial minorities) following the fleeing middle class/whites to the suburbs.
> 
> With murder rates in many American cities exceeding those of major European cities 20-fold by the 60's, their fears can hardly be called unjustifiable.
> 
> Europe now has the same issues; and, amusingly enough, after decades of left-wing moralizing preening, the European middle class is doing pretty much everything the American middle class did decades ago to isolate itself from the new immigrants, with many neighborhoods in old European cities experiencing massive white flight and become immigrant ethnic enclaves.
> 
> As long as pedestrian streets can be guaranteed safe of thugs, Americans will flock to them. Curiously, this now means imitation olde-towne shopping malls which have been the signature suburban development of the 90's and 2000's: certainly far more prominent statistically than the fantom "whites moving back to the cities" nonsense spouted by journalists after each occasional hipster sighting.


This is very wrong superimposing what is happening in the US on Europe. First of all it isnt so cut clear a case of poor inner city and rich suburbia - its very patchwork rather than made up of concentric rings, to the extent of London where rich and poor live side by side on the same streets, and where even luxury developments must have 30-50% of their homes devoted to affordable housing. The only city to buck this trend is Paris with so large a historic heart, where the centre tends to be rich and the poor tend to live in the suburbs (the opposite of the US model). Other cities are patchwork, even in the suburbs where low detached housing will sprawl on one side and highrise apartment blocks on the other.










The other thing is this - there is no white flight in Europe akin to the US, yes people are suburbanising now and then, but that is not because they are fleeing some kind of ethnic ghetto, rather they are merely getting richer and more middle aged. Also racial division is unheard of on levels as US, even with larger communities. You will find many of the new middle classes that do move out are from all races, so while yes many new inhabitants coming into the city centres are immigrants and yuppies, the established communities before them are selling on at huge profit and moving to leafy suburbia. In London this has already happened to many of the Caribbean, Indian and Jewish communities that were once close knit but are now disparate. In London the centre is 50-60% foreign born, the outer rings are 30%.


And of course as mentioned before, the poor areas all over the board are currently being colonised by the rich for the property market, further mixing things up. The centres across Europe are booming due to this, the former industrial areas especially.


----------



## hellospank25

We also have this street in Melbourne where there is no cars

(I took the pic)


----------



## intensivecarebear

the spliff fairy said:


> its very patchwork rather than made up of concentric rings, to the extent of London where rich and poor live side by side on the same streets, and where even luxury developments must have 30-50% of their homes devoted to affordable housing. The only city to buck this trend is Paris with so large a historic heart, where the centre tends to be rich and the poor tend to live in the suburbs (the opposite of the US model). Other cities are patchwork, even in the suburbs where low detached housing will sprawl on one side and highrise apartment blocks on the other.


Do you have any informative links about this phenomenon in London (rich and poor mixed areas). I'm very curious about the way London urban structure is organized. I have a friend from there who said basically the same thing as you, that one can find low income housing literally across the street, or at least very near to, expensive flats/mansions. Maybe you can post more photos as well


----------



## the spliff fairy

Basically its a Victorian tradition started as building affluent in formerly salubrious areas increased the cachet and the presence of the new development. Also due to the fickleness of areas falling in and out of fashion rich and poor replace parts of each other in waves. For example Notting Hill, made up of grand mansion blocks was turned into bedsits by the 20th Century, home to multiple families living in each building, and a strong Trinidadian community. With increasing fashionability (Carnival, Portobello Market), this area is once again millionaires row, with the original inhabitants sold up and living in luxury in the suburbs. -But of course not all the properties have been converted and the local councils also house their new poor in the same districts, many of the council housing being worth millions, and with a long waiting list.

Likewise this also happens to much of the Inner City, once ex industrial blight (1/8 of the city's land became derelict when the docks closed), now colonised by property developers and yuppies shared with older poorer communities. The property bubble has in London also became bigger than anywhere else (for much of the 90s and noughties it was the most expensive land in the world), and thus the pioneering middle classes have resorted to moving into tower blocks and ex council estates, properties bought off the council for $100,000 and sold on the market for 3x that.

The last factor is infrastructure, as the city builds even more connections areas previously left off the networks are propelled upwards.

If you want all this in microcosm, there's a thread on Brick Lane, the Bangladeshi area, one of the poorest areas of the centre, yet whose property values are now astronomic - yet with its older established community (readoor) still holding strong. 

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1144231



.


----------



## the spliff fairy

Trellick Tower, Notting Hill

A 'brutalist masterpiece', apartments on this former council estate now sell for $1 million, whilst many original residents still stay.










The view from the top:










These historic multimillionnaire rowhomes are worth a mint - but adversely many are split into multiple apartments, including council properties.

So in other words rich looking streets will often house poor also, who have applied via the local council - whilst poor looking tower blocks will also house rich who are desperate to get on the ladder, and be central.


A typical residential London aerial, by tradition the rowhomes would be lower middle class/ middle class depending on the size and age of the rowhome (the orange roofs on the boxy ones were for the poor), anywhere near a park be for the rich, and highrises be for the poor. In this form it would still be mixed. However nowadays, everyone is even more mixed up due to property prices, its impossible to gage the worth of a property or who lives inside from the outside:


----------



## Spookvlieger

intensivecarebear said:


> Do you have any informative links about this phenomenon in London (rich and poor mixed areas). I'm very curious about the way London urban structure is organized. I have a friend from there who said basically the same thing as you, that one can find low income housing literally across the street, or at least very near to, expensive flats/mansions. Maybe you can post more photos as well


This is also the case in Belgium. There are streets whit this beautiful 18th century rowhomes that go 3-4 high, basicallly in every city, in one rowhome a really rich famely lives and has to whole home for themselves , the house next door is split up in 3 or 4 small appartments and poor people struggle to keep their head above water...


----------

