# Spacious America



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

What are you thoughts on the spacious nature of American Urbanity?









Pedestrian culture in Europe


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

Just because we have the space to sprawl does not mean that we should.....


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

depressing


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

^^ perhaps a rain-covered North American picture was not the best comparison to the sunny German town.


----------



## VanSeaPor (Mar 12, 2005)

DonQui said:


> Just because we have the space to sprawl does not mean that we should.....


No, rationing land-at the expense of the lower class-is far better.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

> perhaps a rain-covered North American picture was not the best comparison to the sunny German town.


Fair enough...It hope it doesn't have a big effect. 



> Just because we have the space to sprawl does not mean that we should.....


That's true. But I don't want to confuse this topic with 'sprawl'...even Manhattan (wide lanes/sidewalks) feels spacious compared to European standards.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

> No, rationing land-at the expense of the lower class-is far better.


I don't get how the 'spacious' way is better for the lower-class...could you explain. Thanks


----------



## sc4ish (Feb 12, 2006)

This thread isn't about urban sprawl, its about the width of streets and such i guess.

Those 2 picts in there dont show the difference between U.S and Europe though, it's more like warm sunny day vs ugly winter afternoon 

I personally preffer the european style, its much friendlier for pedestrians, but i hate when they get overcrowded though.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

Don't get me wrong, sprawl _is_ related...I just want to make the point that these tendencies exist in all parts of American cities...not just residential suburbs.


----------



## VanSeaPor (Mar 12, 2005)

gonzo said:


> I don't get how the 'spacious' way is better for the lower-class...could you explain. Thanks


Because "smart growth" land-rationing raises property values, as it's suddenly harder to get your dream home. This makes it hard for the lower class to buy a decent home, and makes them feel pressured to sell any house they already own. Even if they did, by the time they bought a new house-which would be in years-property prices would be unaffordable for them.

Another consequence of land-rationing is sprawl. The middle class will quickly sell their homes for ones beyond the regulation boundaries, and will quite happily sacrifice short commutes for that. Some move out of the city altogether.


----------



## ozscorpio7 (May 6, 2006)

Althoug i voted this thread makes no sense there are places like the german picture in almost every city in the US and canada , the streets are wide because they are streets and are suppose to be that way . And there are also spacious places in Europe too like Red Square o near brandenburg gate or lourve . 

they should put a pic of central park , somewhere near santa monica pier , the colleges etc etc.

Some big open areas are cool like brasilia designed by oscar niemayer .


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

> Because "smart growth" land-rationing raises property values, as it's suddenly harder to get your dream home. This makes it hard for the lower class to buy a decent home, and makes them feel pressured to sell any house they already own. Even if they did, by the time they bought a new house-which would be in years-property prices would be unaffordable for them.
> 
> Another consequence of land-rationing is sprawl. The middle class will quickly sell their homes for ones beyond the regulation boundaries, and will quite happily sacrifice short commutes for that. Some move out of the city altogether.


Yes, but with "compact" cities the 'expensive' real estate ends abruptly and closer to the city-centre...so, despite being "outside" the city, you are in-fact closer to the action.

The lower-class would probably suffer during the _reform_ process but not in the long-run.

This is just what I've gathered from your comments, I don't claim to be a formal expert on the subject. 



> Althoug i voted this thread makes no sense there are places like the german picture in almost every city in the US and canada


When did I ever say there _weren't_? There are people in Muslim countries who drink alcohol and eat pork...what's your point?



> the streets are wide because they are streets and are suppose to be that way


Why?To accomodate people who drive HUMMERS downtown as opposed to practical-sized cars?


----------



## sc4ish (Feb 12, 2006)

gonzo said:


> Don't get me wrong, sprawl _is_ related...I just want to make the point that these tendencies exist in all parts of American cities...not just residential suburbs.


streets in many new european suburbs arent as wide as american old suburbs, plus there're massive parking lots in the U.S... U.S is much more spacius than Europe.

I somehow like the feeling of feeling tiny as a pedestrian in some american cities because of the wide open spaces (not farms).


----------



## sc4ish (Feb 12, 2006)

double post


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

Could those who select(ed) "Other" for the poll briefly specify what they mean...thanks.


----------



## urbane (Jan 4, 2005)

DonQui said:


> ^^ perhaps a rain-covered North American picture was not the best comparison to the sunny German town.


That place looks too Disneyish to be an authentic German town.

Check out the link to the photo: http://www.zofona.com/images/fotomalaysia/malaysia09.jpg


----------



## jacobboyer (Jul 14, 2005)

and the america picture is a picture of a 4 lane road and the german one is a picture of buyildings seperated by a walking trail. The american picture is a picture of a small middle america town thats raining andf the other one is a nice fixed up town thats sunny.


----------



## urbane (Jan 4, 2005)

Maybe the title to the second picture should have read: "Pedestrian culture in Malaysian theme parks"


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

^^I think you meant to ask _me_"Are you sure that's an authentic German town?"

...otherwise you run the risk of making a fool of yourself.

Anyway you're right it's, technically, _not_ German (I never said it was)...It's *French*.












> the america picture is a picture of a 4 lane road


I never suggested it was a PEDESTRIAN road.



> The american picture is a picture of a small middle america town


That's not how I would describe Minneapolis...a city over 40x the population of 'Colmar'.


----------



## djrules5454 (Aug 1, 2005)

gonzo said:


> That's not how I would describe Minneapolis...a city over 40x the population of 'Colmar'.


Exactly. One thing I don't think many people here get is that most major American cities were developed with the car in mind. Another is that just about every American city that had 50,000 people in the 1940's has a street that looks like the one pictured, minus the cyclist lanes.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Could be a fake German village, the buildings do look a bit to straight. Normally historical half timbered buildings in Germany lean a bit or are crooked from the hundreds of years standing.

These photos are from a real German town, and are typical of the old town centers which can be found nearly everywhere you look in Germany. Surrounding this are wider streets of cause where cars can drive, but most town centers in Germany are pedestrian only. This particular town is Limburg.




























This particular town is called Rüdesheim


















When they get wider, where cars are found again, it may look like this: (this town is called Erbach)









This town is Oberursel


















Of cause, these above were just towns, In cities and towns you also have wider roads, usually further out from the absolute core of the old town, but this can vary. These ones are in Mainz


















This is Mannheim









And finally, even in the narrowest of old towns, you usually find somewhere they open up to a public platz/square/plaza which gives space and openess.

Frankfurt:



























etc...


----------



## urbane (Jan 4, 2005)

gonzo said:


> ^^I think you meant to ask _me_"Are you sure that's an authentic German town?"
> 
> ...otherwise you run the risk of making a fool of yourself.
> 
> ...



I looked up where you got the second picture in the thread's first post from. It's not from Colmar, it's from Berjaya Hills, a fake Malaysian village (link: http://www.berjayahills.com/) that imitates Colmar.

Here is the link, the picture you got can be found there if you scroll down to the bottom of the page: http://www.zofona.com/malaysia,-feb.-2006.html

So not only is it not French, it's not European either, which makes your description of the photo as representing "Pedestrian culture in Europe" inaccurate.

Now who is making a fool of himself ?


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

What of those French buildings were instead concrete block buildings without much detail. Not shopfronts, just a few warehouse doors. And fewer people. Would that still be better? It's a lot more than just the spacing. It's the buildings themselves, how nice the neighborhood is, the people present, etc.

There are places in Europea cities that look like our cities. And there are places in American cities can look like that. They are as much a function of time as place - the older colonial cities often had those narrow windy roads. But the most important issue is the quality of life in those places. We have few really nice narrow alley places in the US because, in many cases, any thing resembling that is in poorer neighborhoods. And if you were to create one new, it becomes a shopping center, not a neighborhood.


----------



## I-275westcoastfl (Feb 15, 2005)

Well european cities were made long ago at a time the streets didnt need to be very wide and when things were built close together for obvious reasons. American cities mostly when they became urban was in the 1900's when cities were planned to be orderly and practical like the grid system and roads were needed to be widened for traffic. But this is a stupid comparison because the picture shown was an old european town vs a 1940's american street and the cloudy rainy day thing was even better. But look at a modern european city well they have wide avenues too. I went through Warsaw, they had 6 lane avenues, here in florida we have six lane avenues. Why? Its for demand, in modern times around the world cars are becoming more popular needing streets.


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

gonzo said:


> Pedestrian culture in Europe


Are you sure this is in Alsace or Germany? - Looks extremly like Blumenau or these other germanized cities in Malaysia and Peru


----------



## VanSeaPor (Mar 12, 2005)

gonzo said:


> Yes, but with "compact" cities the 'expensive' real estate ends abruptly and closer to the city-centre...so, despite being "outside" the city, you are in-fact closer to the action.
> That is not necessarily true, for instance, many of the cities adopting these policies are already large and sprawled, they adopted the policies to stop further sprawl. Also, these policies would apply to a larger area, to stop sprawl over farmland. What'd be the point applying such policies _only_ to areas which are already fully developed?


----------



## spongeg (May 1, 2006)

what a dumb topic

european cities were layed out and planned before the invention of the car


----------



## Bond James Bond (Aug 23, 2002)

Y'know, when I see pics like this, I almost don't mind that American cities are so mind-numbingly bland and monotonous. That way we're not overrun by tourists.


----------



## ozscorpio7 (May 6, 2006)

gonzo said:


> When did I ever say there _weren't_? There are people in Muslim countries who drink alcohol and eat pork...what's your point?


 If you never said there werent then whats the point on making this poll ? You dont have to say something to mean it 
Why do you make those comments on muslim countries ? I know you are tryin to make a comparison but why chose that kind of comment?



gonzo said:


> Why?To accomodate people who drive HUMMERS downtown as opposed to practical-sized cars?


No street are wide because they are meant for CARS , motorcycles , trucks , tractors etc, anything with wheels but not people , that's why there is a sidewalk man! 
Also the comment on Hummers shows that you meant this poll for something else . Europe is so much better than the US so what ho cares anyway.


----------



## elkram (Apr 1, 2006)

Waste...discourages pedestrianism


Justme said:


> These photos are from a real German town


Thank you. Would you now mind posting some of fake ones, please?


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

Ok, where do I start.


> I looked up where you got the second picture in the thread's first post from. It's not from Colmar, it's from Berjaya Hills, a fake Malaysian village (link: http://www.berjayahills.com/) that imitates Colmar.


Fair enough, I searched "Colmar" under 'Google Image' and it was a search result. *I obviously would have had nothing to lose/gain by intentionally posting this pic since, as you can see, the genuine towns look just as disneyish, colourful and walkable and would have exemplified my point about "pedestrian culture" just as well.* 



> So not only is it not French, it's not European either, which makes your description of the photo as representing "Pedestrian culture in Europe" inaccurate.


This is what you wrote just before that sentence...


> a *fake* Malaysian village (link: http://www.berjayahills.com/) that *imitates Colmar*.





> Now who is making a fool of himself ?


Yes, I _am_ guilty of _assuming_ a Google result of "Colmar" would actually be of "Colmar"...but please don't ever insinuate that I try to deceive people, because that was the impression I got from your post.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

Cloudship,


> What of those French buildings were instead concrete block buildings without much detail. Not shopfronts, just a few warehouse doors. And fewer people. Would that still be better? It's a lot more than just the spacing. It's the buildings themselves, how nice the neighborhood is, the people present, etc.
> 
> There are places in Europea cities that look like our cities. And there are places in American cities can look like that. They are as much a function of time as place - the older colonial cities often had those narrow windy roads. But the most important issue is the quality of life in those places. We have few really nice narrow alley places in the US because, in many cases, any thing resembling that is in poorer neighborhoods. And if you were to create one new, it becomes a shopping center, not a neighborhood.


As I expressed to *Don Qui*...
The pictures I posted were *only* to exemplify the spaciousness factor....I disregarded other environmental elements when selecting the pics, I ask that people do the same thing when voting/expressing their thoughts on "Spacious America"...thank you.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

I-275westcoastfl,


> Well european cities were made long ago at a time the streets didnt need to be very wide and when things were built close together for obvious reasons.


Yes, there are proportionally fewer pedestrians now than there were back then, But does that mean people _still_ aren't interested in minimizing their daily commutes?...with a spacious city design fewer people can live within a reasonable driving distance from each other.



> orderly and practical like the grid system


I agree with you there that the grid-system is more practical or orderly...a European invention no-less (Glasgow).



> roads were needed to be widened for traffic


Well, the 'ideal' size of vehicles is a whole other matter.



> this is a stupid comparison because the picture shown was an old european town vs a 1940's american street


I was comparing the *systems*,not the pics...I obviously wouldn't compare a multi-lane road with pedestrian street, which is why I labeled the European street as such.


> the cloudy rainy day thing was even better


I've already adressed this.


> But look at a modern european city well they have wide avenues too. I went through Warsaw, they had 6 lane avenues, here in florida we have six lane avenues. Why? Its for demand, in modern times around the world cars are becoming more popular needing streets.


This is why I always use the word "wider lanes" and not "wider streets"...Obviously the Champs Elysees is wider than any hyper-sprawl residential road.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

Kuesel,


> Are you sure this is in Alsace or Germany?


As I understand, it's a duplicate of a Colmar street...Colmar is in Alsace.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

VanSeaPort,


> That is not necessarily true, for instance, many of the cities adopting these policies are already large and sprawled, they adopted the policies to stop further sprawl.


Better late than never...it seems a sensible policy in the long-run.



> Also, these policies would apply to a larger area, to stop sprawl over farmland. What'd be the point applying such policies only to areas which are already fully developed?


There exist places (ie. Manhattan) where the height of the buildings (be it residential or office) allow for maximum density (and I don't mean _over_-density). In places like these, I agree it would be pointless to reform.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

spongeg,


> what a dumb topic
> 
> european cities were layed out and planned before the invention of the car


...and that's why cars don't exist in european cities.:crazy2:


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

ozscorpio7,


> If you never said there werent then whats the point on making this poll ? You dont have to say something to mean it


OK ozscorpio, you obviously didn't understand what I was expressing, that's OK.

Basically that I'm refering to _tendencies_ in this thread (as in, relative spaciousness is a tendency in the U.S.), just as it's the tendency in Muslim countries is to not drink alcohol and eat pork.



> Why do you make those comments on muslim countries ? I know you are tryin to make a comparison but why chose that kind of comment?


Why not? Are you insinuating something?



> No street are wide because they are meant for CARS , motorcycles , trucks , tractors etc, anything with wheels but not people


Not all streets...If a street recieves a high enough proportion of pedestrian traffic a city will often conclude it's more efficient to designate it exclusively pedestrian.



> Also the comment on Hummers shows that you meant this poll for something else .


Am I not allowed to have an opinion and listen/contribute?



> Europe is so much better than the US so what ho cares anyway.


Nice try....In any event, this only one of many differences worth debating.:yes:


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

gonzo said:


> I-275westcoastfl,
> Yes, there are proportionally fewer pedestrians now than there were back then, *But does that mean people still aren't interested in minimizing their daily commutes?...*with a spacious city design fewer people can live within a reasonable driving distance from each other.


I find this a facinating discussion. And although I prefer the European style of Urban planning, I must remain unbiased here and point out one of it's major failures.

European cities are far more dense and compact than their American counterparts. This is certainly true.

But like American cities, many people still choose to move further out into the metro area for larger and more affordable housing. The two main differences are that still in most cases, these metropolitan towns are also quite dense (at least in comparison with American metropolitan towns).

However, because of urban planning methods in Europe, which often create green belts around the cities, distances can still be large, so commutes can be just as long as in the US.

The difference here is that a person who may live 40km from their core city center in Europe may live in a more dense urban town that is seperated by a green belt from the city (farms, forests etc) where as in the US this may be a low density suburb which connects loosely to the central core via further low density suburbs.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

^^Good point

I think the point also has to be made though that Europeans living in these 'sattelite' cities is not an inheirant bi-product of the European style of urban planning (correct me if I'm wrong).

What I mean is...
If some Europeans are taking unreasonably long daily commutes you know it's because they chose to, and not because the system has forced them to....otherwise developers would invade these greenbelt 'gaps' in an instant.


----------



## Kiss the Rain (Apr 2, 2006)

I dont think that a grid system and wide street will have that much impact on the amount of pedestrain. If you can find the "old US photo" thread in the US local forum, i think you guys will find that the streets are SWARMED with pedestrains, even more than that of nowday europe, even cities like phoneix and LA seems dense as hell.
Therefore, as long as the footpath is suffiently wide, many shops on the side of the street combined with the condition that the street is not surrounded by sprawl, then it will still attract considerable amount of pedestrains.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

gonzo said:


> ^^Good point
> 
> I think the point also has to be made though that Europeans living in these 'sattelite' cities is not an inheirant bi-product of the European style of urban planning (correct me if I'm wrong).
> 
> ...


Well, it is quite hard to develop on greenbelt land, as this is usually protected by governments.

Housing itself is not expensive in Europe, but land usually is, which is one reason why apartments or higher density living is more common, but also it is a choice by many people, as they prefer the lifestyle in denser urban area's. 

However, because of the way these greenbelts exist, long commutes are still forced onto people. Many would certainly rather have that cheaper house/apartment closer to their work. Others move to the metro because it may be percieved by them to be better for their children, but they would still prefer to have shorter commutes.

Of note, most of these satellite towns existed before commuting became the norm. They expanded from small villages because they were still close enough to be part of the core cities commuter belt. This is quite different from the US where many of these outskirt neighbourhoods developed from empty land.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Kiss the Rain said:


> I dont think that a grid system and wide street will have that much impact on the amount of pedestrain. If you can find the "old US photo" thread in the US local forum, i think you guys will find that the streets are SWARMED *with pedestrains, even more than that of nowday europe*, even cities like phoneix and LA seems dense as hell.
> Therefore, as long as the footpath is suffiently wide, many shops on the side of the street combined with the condition that the street is not surrounded by sprawl, then it will still attract considerable amount of pedestrains.


Sorry to blow your bubble here, but streetlife on average European streets are far higher than Average American streets. The main reason for this is a combination of density and excellent public transport networks, and yes, narrow streets help. In many of these area's with narrow streets, normal traffic is often banned and restricted to pedestrian access.


----------



## Kiss the Rain (Apr 2, 2006)

Justme said:


> Sorry to blow your bubble here, but streetlife on average European streets are far higher than Average American streets. The main reason for this is a combination of density and excellent public transport networks, and yes, narrow streets help. In many of these area's with narrow streets, normal traffic is often banned and restricted to pedestrian access.


Hello? Anybody home? Somebody is slow on uptake here. I said "OLD US photos", and the majority of those photos are taken just around WW2 and WW1.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

> Well, it is quite hard to develop on greenbelt land, as this is usually protected by governments


True. 

Why do you suppose governments would be willing to inhibit the natural growth of their city by "sealing" it in such a way (rather than increasng the # of parks distributed throughout the city)? *The urban design doesn't force them to*...so why _would_ they?...Do you know?:dunno:


----------



## James Saito (Nov 6, 2002)

I wonder how they deliver the goods to the shops along narrow pedestrian streets in European towns?


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

To get some reallity check into here again. This is a picture of a Viennese street. Its not from the city center, where predominantly pedestrian zones and very narrow streets (where there are one) predominate. (on an area of a few square kilometres). What you see is streets that is allready broader than the average here, in a neighboring district to the center. I would guess that most from the picture it derives from building activities from the late 19th century, which might correlate good to the urbanisation of many American cities.












Principally I would say the maii difference is that in Europe "car friendliness" has allready lost its status of the main maxime a few decades ago. Allthough the three decades from "Wiederaufbau" after WWI to the first oil crises, changed the look of many towns sustainably. Not to the better of course. Anyway, today authorities and also people are looking to get a place worth to life, a "people friendly" town, not a city that is perfect for cars but bad for pedestrians and the overall quality of life.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

And if you just want a picture of narrow European streets, here you get an authentic one. Its 100% real, I grant you as I have been there just yesterday


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

James Saito said:


> I wonder how they deliver the goods to the shops along narrow pedestrian streets in European towns?


In towns with a large network of very narrow streets you have everywhere single one direction only lanes. with hardly sidewalks and optionally a row of parking cars. (in Italy a common sight). 

The pedestrian zones are normally broad enough to drive with a car through it. I am not sure how it is regulated, but I think the goods will be delivered mostly in the morning, as its really rare to see them during the day in pedestrian zones. Also many of the buildings at pedestrian zones have a backdoor to streets. (And might they be as narrow as the pedestrian zones). The only larger city with effectively no streets just a single huge pedestrian zone (except one at the periphery) is Venice, but they have all based on boats.


----------



## Christoforo (Mar 26, 2006)

Slartibartfas said:


> And if you just want a picture of narrow European streets, here you get an authentic one. Its 100% real, I grant you as I have been there just yesterday


Kinda like this street:


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

gonzo said:


> True.
> 
> Why do you suppose governments would be willing to inhibit the natural growth of their city by "sealing" it in such a way (rather than increasng the # of parks distributed throughout the city)? *The urban design doesn't force them to*...so why _would_ they?...Do you know?:dunno:


Simple, it was (and to a lesser degree still) an attempt to curb urban sprawl. 

The UK was the first country to start the concept of the Green Belt. With the growth of the railways, London experienced rapid physical expansion to a degree never seen in a city before. Where once it was a geographically tight dense urban area, it quickly expanded to the new concept of "suburbs". In fact, the railway companies were created by developers of these new suburbs as a way to get people to move to their area by offering fast access still to their work in the city. (which differs from most other cities where rail came later and was created _after_ the suburbs were developed).

The government at the time feared that this growth would continue without control and the country would loose so much of it's beautiful countryside. So Green Belts were defined in the idea it would stem the outward expansion.

It worked only to a certain degree. The problem was, once the land between the city and the greenbelt was all used up, the development had to continue on the other side of the green belt. People still wanted those bigger, cheaper houses even if it meant moving further away. So, in many ways it didn't really stop sprawl but just moved it further away. 

Other tight planning laws ensured that the developments outside of the greenbelt remained to a certain level of density and all the green belt served was a geographical border.

Although pretty much usesless in many ways, it is still popular with people, as these green belts keep an open rural landscape still close to the city. It's a pleasant thing to drive through and few want to get rid of them even if it would help drop housing prices and open up vast area's of land.

If the green belt say around london was abolished, it could solve almost immediately that city's housing shortage and bring prices back down to affordable levels. But of cause, current home owners and developers don't want this as it would drop their property value over night. Environmentalists don't want this as it would fill up green open space with urban developments, and the farmers and lucky few who live in villages there (that existed before the greenbelt was created) don't want it either. So, despite the problems they create, they will almost certainly stay.


----------



## urbane (Jan 4, 2005)

gonzo said:


> Ok, where do I start.
> Fair enough, I searched "Colmar" under 'Google Image' and it was a search result. *I obviously would have had nothing to lose/gain by intentionally posting this pic since, as you can see, the genuine towns look just as disneyish, colourful and walkable and would have exemplified my point about "pedestrian culture" just as well.*


Maybe to the undescerning eye it looks just as disneyish.



> This is what you wrote just before that sentence...


I don't see how the sentences you quoted contradict anything I had written previously. If it's a fake Malaysian resort that imitates Colmar, it's still not European (guess what ? It's still in Malaysia !) and remains an imitation.

Just to give you an example of the problem: to show the pedestrian-friendliness of U.S. cities I could have posted a pic of the "Main Street USA" section of Disneyland Paris full of people walking around and having a jolly time with their kids !




> Yes, I _am_ guilty of _assuming_ a Google result of "Colmar" would actually be of "Colmar"...but please don't ever insinuate that I try to deceive people, because that was the impression I got from your post.


When did I insinuate that you were trying to deceive people ? I was stating that the picture was not of an authentic European town. At most this means that I insinuated that you didn't do your homework before posting this thread, but that's all.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

> Maybe to the undescerning eye it looks just as disneyish.


Well hey, you checked the URL / spotted the disneyshness and this thread is better for it. Even though the disneyish factor is quite beside the point and had nothing to do with why I selected the pic for 'pedestrian culture'.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

> I don't see how the sentences you quoted contradict anything I had written previously. If it's a fake Malaysian resort that imitates Colmar, it's still not European (guess what ? It's still in Malaysia !) and remains an imitation.


I don't deny that it's an imitation. It's that you used the word "inaccurate"...when the whole purpose of an 'immitation' is that it 'duplicate'...otherwise it sounds like the fact that it's in Malaysia, and not _right next_ to Colmar, is supposed to make it more "Malaysian-looking" when there's nothing remotely Malysian-looking about it.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

> When did I insinuate that you were trying to deceive people ? I was stating that the picture was not of an authentic European town. At most this means that I insinuated that you didn't do your homework before posting this thread, but that's all.


Ok...I just would have apreciated if you adressed to _me_(because _I_ would be the person to correct the matter had *Justme* not posted his pics.) I just found that a little curious so I was defensive...Cheers.

ps. Excuse the triple-post...I'm at a hyper-slow library computer which shuts-down after a few minutes.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Christoforo said:


> Kinda like this street:


Thats a very nice shot indeed. On first sight I was really surprised you have locations like that in the US. Its nice to see that there exist complexes that take the European model as source. (although it looks a bit Las Vegas like)

When looking what place this is exactly, I was a bit disappointed though. But still, its cool that also shopping malls like this one are constructed in the US. Even if it might be just because its an over the top luxury mal. 



WRT the issue at hand. I think its an easy thing to see the difference between the example I brought and yours:

The neighborhood of your example:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=...7578,-118.400876&spn=0.0024,0.003884&t=h&om=1

... and of mine:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=...3,16.368599&spn=0.003668,0.011265&t=k&iwloc=A


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

Justme said:


> Simple, it was (and to a lesser degree still) an attempt to curb urban sprawl.


Doesn't 'urban sprawl' suggest a wastefulness though? I always viewed London as a city with a relatively thorough density.

..and building upward rather than outward (in London) could risk producing a HongKong-like density (narrow lanes + tall residential/office buildings) which is _over_-doing it IMO.


----------



## Dallas star (Jul 6, 2006)

This could get nasty!


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

gonzo said:


> Doesn't 'urban sprawl' suggest a wastefulness though? I always viewed London as a city with a relatively thorough density.
> 
> ..and building upward rather than outward (in London) could risk producing a HongKong-like density (narrow lanes + tall residential/office buildings) which is _over_-doing it IMO.


Sprawl is handled different in each country. British sprawl isn't like the US one where endless los density suburbs spread out from the cities. In British sprawl, you have large area's of medium density row houses when end at the green belt. Then you have endless seperate villages, towns and cities that radiate from the core outside the greenbelt. They are usually medium density and plenty of countryside in between, but although different to the sprawl in the US, they are still sprawl in their own rights - in that these seperate towns grew to accommodate the expansion of the city for commuters (especially London).


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

I just thought this pic was appropriate for the thread (it's Canada though)...








...you could probably fit four buses side-by-side on that street...and this is in Vancouver, a city with natural land limitations (Sea/mountains).

Even the most suburban areas in Europe's don't resemble this (from what I've seen at least) whereas a '2 way' road in _Manhattan_ doesn't differ much from this one in terms of width.

Just as America's cities are spacious throughout, Europe approach to conserve space seemingly extends to even the most rural of places as one can observe these remote highways in Europe with narrow lanes and a narrow gap between on-coming traffic... 









as compared to this American interstate (note the gap)...









...Of course, I'm not saying there aren't exceptions.


----------



## Kiss the Rain (Apr 2, 2006)

Although right now in the US everythings seems too big and wide, thats just simply because there are still plenty of undeveloped land avaliable. When it reaches the population like europe(which is not very far away with the current speed of population growth), they would automatically change to a denser way of planning as land gets more and more expensive.


----------



## Bluewarning (Oct 25, 2006)

Xäntårx said:


> Not at all... I prefer more space in both our roads and our residentials. This is North America, not Europe.


Yes, especially up north here where it snows and freezes alot. Dense roads would be a nightmare to drive on.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Bluewarning said:


> Yes, especially up north here where it snows and freezes alot. Dense roads would be a nightmare to drive on.


Do you think you invented winter? Here in Austria with 2/3 of the country being located in the midth of the alps, we know what snow and ice are.

Completely overbroad streets dont help easening the real problems this brings with it.


----------



## Bluewarning (Oct 25, 2006)

Slartibartfas said:


> Do you think you invented winter? Here in Austria with 2/3 of the country being located in the midth of the alps, we know what snow and ice are.
> 
> Completely overbroad streets dont help easening the real problems this brings with it.


yes, but you forget the quality of your public transportion...compared to these American burbs' that are 100% in reliance of automobiles.


----------



## sbarn (Mar 19, 2004)

gonzo said:


> Suburban Spokane, USA (near Vancouver)...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Haha, Spokane Washington is no where near Vancouver (whether its either the one in British Columbia or Washington State)... Spokane is on the Washington and Idaho.

In any case, I don't know why you use a picture like that because the width of that street is clearly the exception to the rule. Obviously suburban streets in America are wider than their counterparts in Europe. In fact, there were a few streets like that in Fort Collins Colorado, which used to be used as a railroad right of way... parallel train tracks used to go down the center of the street and have been paved over in subsequent years.


----------



## Bluewarning (Oct 25, 2006)

yes, I have rarely seen a street that wide in a suburb unless it was a major avenue or street.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Bluewarning said:


> yes, but you forget the quality of your public transportion...compared to these American burbs' that are 100% in reliance of automobiles.


Of course, that would explain your huge highways and the large lanes in your cities. But the picture I posted, does not show that, it shows a residential area. Its completely impossible by all means no matter what that a light populated area like those residential areas are, you would need a street like that only remotedly. How much lanes would that be here? 6-10 perhaps? No way, everyone would have to permanently drive 4 cars and drive circles in the neighborhood to get it only somehow looking bussy.

But there is one thing I would like to know. Are important transit routs or streets marked? You know the lines between the lanes and such?


----------



## jacobboyer (Jul 14, 2005)

^^dont they have to have that big space between it so cars dont cross the median and cause a pile-up.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

sbarn said:


> Haha, Spokane Washington is no where near Vancouver (whether its either the one in British Columbia or Washington State)... Spokane is on the Washington and Idaho.


It is "Near" as it relates to Canada and the U.S.








...never did I suggest it was in the Vancouver metro area.



sbarn said:


> In any case, I don't know why you use a picture like that because the width of that street is clearly the exception to the rule.


If I thought this was the rule I wouldn't have posted the Vancouver pic right before that one, which is clearly narrower to anyone with reasonable eyesight. Plus, I asked if this width was necessary/ideal to "some"...not "all".


----------



## Bluewarning (Oct 25, 2006)

Slartibartfas said:


> Of course, that would explain your huge highways and the large lanes in your cities. But the picture I posted, does not show that, it shows a residential area. Its completely impossible by all means no matter what that a light populated area like those residential areas are, you would need a street like that only remotedly. How much lanes would that be here? 6-10 perhaps? No way, everyone would have to permanently drive 4 cars and drive circles in the neighborhood to get it only somehow looking bussy.
> 
> But there is one thing I would like to know. Are important transit routs or streets marked? You know the lines between the lanes and such?


Those are rare. I have never seen a road that big. There are suburbs in Milwaukee and parts of the city that look more like the London verison. Of course, these are the older parts. The newer developments are the stereotypical McMansion neighborhood--but still--they are not THAT big. America boomed during the days of the car--we have to remember this. America will not look like Europe--which is made up of dense cities dating from back in the day. The car was and still is a major part of our culture. Its a big country and we have the ability to spread out--unlike these dense European nations like Austria, the U.K., Netherlands, Belgium, etc. 

yes, usually they are marked. I dont know whats up with that street. Like I said, its odd. A street that large would usually have four to maybe 6 lanes.


----------



## Kiss the Rain (Apr 2, 2006)

gonzo said:


> It is "Near" as it relates to Canada and the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just an off topic question, does seattle gets lots of snow in winter like other northern cities like chicago and boston? If not much, then precisely how much?
I'm thinking of moving to the states and seattle would be my primary option, but i just love snow so much too!!!


----------



## HoustonTexas (Nov 30, 2004)

gonzo said:


> But I don't want to confuse this topic with 'sprawl'...even Manhattan (wide lanes/sidewalks) feels spacious compared to European standards.


Probibly because while European Cities were developing, america wasn't even discovered yet...


----------



## HoustonTexas (Nov 30, 2004)

gonzo said:


> To accomodate people who drive HUMMERS downtown as opposed to practical-sized cars?


Maybe because American cities developed with cars, as appose to European, which developed with only cart and buggies in mind.

If you didn't know that, then your just posting this thread for bullshit reasons.


----------



## ♣628.finst (Jul 29, 2005)

EtherealMist said:


> that is RIDICULOUS HAHAHA


Ridiculous for Boston-NY belt... 

though I had seen a few New England rural roads as wide as that. That's not the norm even for Western US or Western Canada (For suburbs)


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Bluewarning said:


> Those are rare. I have never seen a road that big. There are suburbs in Milwaukee and parts of the city that look more like the London verison. Of course, these are the older parts. The newer developments are the stereotypical McMansion neighborhood--but still--they are not THAT big. America boomed during the days of the car--we have to remember this. America will not look like Europe--which is made up of dense cities dating from back in the day. The car was and still is a major part of our culture. Its a big country and we have the ability to spread out--unlike these dense European nations like Austria, the U.K., Netherlands, Belgium, etc.
> 
> yes, usually they are marked. I dont know whats up with that street. Like I said, its odd. A street that large would usually have four to maybe 6 lanes.


Good to hear that this is not standard on your side of the pond.

Is there a reason why you changed the way from the more "european style" (the one that looks more like the UK picture" to a broader version? Whats the idea behind it?

You have a point considering the available space. But even where plenty of space is free to use, like in Scandinavia, the urban landscape is not as spacious.

Its not only about available space, its about reachability. Its about the question, do you want to have a city where pedestrians reach anything. Its about quality of life. The American perspective in my eyes reduces itself to the position what is best for their cars, instead of asking what is best for themselves.


PS: a street as broad as this fully dedicated to cars, would perhaps have 8 lanes in Europe


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

HoustonTexas said:


> Maybe because American cities developed with cars, as appose to European, which developed with only cart and buggies in mind.
> 
> If you didn't know that, then your just posting this thread for bullshit reasons.


If you look at Italian cities for example, even completely new quarters would have streets you would consider as unbelievable small. You have some point no question, but it does not fully explain the issue.


----------



## TheKansan (Jun 22, 2004)

I was born in 1979, I had absolutely no control over the development anywhere in this country. That being said I feel no need in defending my home against this bullshit. The reasons for the development styles of the US are well known.


----------



## EtherealMist (Jul 26, 2005)

Technology is enabling us to build more spread out and we the room to do so. Earlier in history we couldnt build too spread out because of travel time and we couldn't build that high so narrow streets was more necessary.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

TheKansan said:


> I was born in 1979, I had absolutely no control over the development anywhere in this country. That being said I feel no need in defending my home against this bullshit. The reasons for the development styles of the US are well known.


No one blames you for errors generations before you committed. Its for the things we do and support what we get judged for.

We have in Europe some terrible examples of "car friendly" cities too. Especially in Germany some cities have transformed into such a thing after WWII did not leave much intact. Perhaps its the direct comparision that you in the US lack, but people here would exchange their "car friendly" city any moment with handkisses against a traditional European one.


----------



## sbarn (Mar 19, 2004)

Kiss the Rain said:


> Just an off topic question, does seattle gets lots of snow in winter like other northern cities like chicago and boston? If not much, then precisely how much?
> I'm thinking of moving to the states and seattle would be my primary option, but i just love snow so much too!!!


Seattle does not get as much snow as Chicago or Boston... temperatures are moderated since the storms move off the pacific (its a marine climate), whereas cities in the upper midwest and northeast receive weather decending from Canada (continental climates).


----------



## sbarn (Mar 19, 2004)

gonzo said:


> It is "Near" as it relates to Canada and the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I somehow missed the pictures of Vancouver on your prior post, so I see the connection you were trying to make. However I have to say that anyone who lives in Spokane would not consider themselves 'close' to Vancouver.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

HoustonTexas said:


> Maybe because American cities developed with cars, as appose to European, which developed with only cart and buggies in mind.
> 
> If you didn't know that, then your just posting this thread for bullshit reasons.


Sorry but your arguement relies on the "notion" that what they drive in Europe are, in fact, not cars...which is, IMO, "BS".

TheKansan,


> I was born in 1979, I had absolutely no control over the development anywhere in this country. That being said I feel no need in defending my home against this bullshit. The reasons for the development styles of the US are well known.


Who' blaming _you_?...and how about backing-up your "BS" statement.

EtherealMist,


> Technology is enabling us to build more spread out and we the room to do so. Earlier in history we couldnt build too spread out because of travel time and we couldn't build that high so narrow streets was more necessary.


As *Don Qui* put it earlier..just becuse we "can" do something, doesn't automatically make it a good idea.


----------



## MexAmericanMoose (Nov 19, 2005)

funny ass thread....


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

Funny = Some American roads are funny?

Funny = This thread has no substance?


----------



## Bluewarning (Oct 25, 2006)

Slartibartfas said:


> Good to hear that this is not standard on your side of the pond.
> 
> Is there a reason why you changed the way from the more "european style" (the one that looks more like the UK picture" to a broader version? Whats the idea behind it?
> 
> ...


Perhaps just the lifestyle in Europe, especially Scandinavia. American cities have had alot of problems (so did European cities) and many who could afford to--left the city. Americans in general seem to like space and more land. Perhaps that is based off us being an immigrant nation that came from poverty that didnt have land--I dont know. I think it will change with our generation however. Young people like the cities..they like the activity and dislike the boredom of the suburbs. Even empty nesters and other baby boomers are starting to move back into the city. Milwaukee is seeing a boom in its downtown area--driven by many of these people who want to be closer to everything. 

And your cars are so much smaller than ours.  Your cars about are half the size of our trucks, SUV's, Hummers, etc.


----------



## Bluewarning (Oct 25, 2006)

gonzo said:


> Sorry but your arguement relies on the "notion" that what they drive in Europe are, in fact, not cars...which is, IMO, "BS".
> 
> .


really now, why do you care? Why are you getting so bent out of shape about how some Americans live? Europe did develop around horses and buggies....around castles and within walls. This is a fact. American cities with huge suburbs like Houston, Dallas, L.A., etc. were certainly not small hick towns before there were cars--but they were not the huge city like London, Paris, Berlin, etc. were.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

Bluewarning said:


> really now, why do you care?.


Because it's an interesting subjest IMO.



Bluewarning said:


> Why are you getting so bent out of shape about how some Americans live?


I'm not getting bent out of shape...we're just exchanging ideas here, I'm listening to other people's arguements aswell and will aknowledge when I agree with them.



Bluewarning said:


> Europe did develop around horses and buggies....around castles and within walls. This is a fact..


This doesn't make reasonable-sized cars incompatible with them



Bluewarning said:


> American cities with huge suburbs like Houston, Dallas, L.A., etc. were certainly not small hick towns before there were cars--but they were not the huge city like London, Paris, Berlin, etc. were.


I agree.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Bluewarning said:


> Perhaps just the lifestyle in Europe, especially Scandinavia. American cities have had alot of problems (so did European cities) and many who could afford to--left the city. Americans in general seem to like space and more land. Perhaps that is based off us being an immigrant nation that came from poverty that didnt have land--I dont know. I think it will change with our generation however. Young people like the cities..they like the activity and dislike the boredom of the suburbs. Even empty nesters and other baby boomers are starting to move back into the city. Milwaukee is seeing a boom in its downtown area--driven by many of these people who want to be closer to everything.
> 
> And your cars are so much smaller than ours.  Your cars about are half the size of our trucks, SUV's, Hummers, etc.


Thats an encouriging developement. Here in Europe after decades of the unstopable growth of the sprawl we witness the beginning of a similar trend.

But of course its easier to return into a city not torwn apart by highways and x-lane streets, by heaviest traffic everywhere etc. The main advantage of living in the city is that you dont need a car anymore. Thats at least how it is in European cities normally. Here in Europe there has been done quite much to raise the quality of life inside of the cities again.

PS: I personally use mostly the bycicle to get around. For getting to the other side of the town or when being in accompany I also take the public transport.


----------



## Bluewarning (Oct 25, 2006)

Slartibartfas said:


> Thats an encouriging developement. Here in Europe after decades of the unstopable growth of the sprawl we witness the beginning of a similar trend.
> 
> But of course its easier to return into a city not torwn apart by highways and x-lane streets, by heaviest traffic everywhere etc. The main advantage of living in the city is that you dont need a car anymore. Thats at least how it is in European cities normally. Here in Europe there has been done quite much to raise the quality of life inside of the cities again.
> 
> PS: I personally use mostly the bycicle to get around. For getting to the other side of the town or when being in accompany I also take the public transport.


I think getting Americans back into the cities will be a much more difficult task. The sprawl on your side of the pond is so much different than ours. Ive seen these sprawl pictures of Paris--and really, they could fit nicely with some American cities. 

I personally, would love to ride bikes around to work and stuff. Alot of people in this city ride bikes and there are some very nice and efficent trails. Unforutuanly, I live on the outskirts of town. However, the trails are so nice--I have rode my bike from my house all the way to the downtown of the city in over an hour. 

American cities also need to lower the taxes, improve the schools, and provide more jobs to bring more people into the cities again. Life in teh suburbs is simply more alluring because of this.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

gonzo said:


> ..Obviously the Champs Elysees is wider than any hyper-sprawl residential road.


I'm starting to reconsider what I wrote...

Champs Elysees...









A hyper-sprawl residential road...









It appears a close call, no?


----------



## Kiss the Rain (Apr 2, 2006)

It's more cosy in a densely packed community, i dont feel very secure if there are lots of open space around me.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

^Are you in New Zealand?...If so, it's pretty spacious right?


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

Does this apply to _interiors_ aswell?

European Standard?...









American Standard?...


----------



## Kiss the Rain (Apr 2, 2006)

gonzo said:


> ^Are you in New Zealand?...If so, it's pretty spacious right?


Yep, overall, the coutry is quite spacious, but since i live in the city it's a different thing. The sprawl here is nowhere near as the states and IMO it's getting very close to the ideal new urbanism suburb.


----------



## Brandon1978 (Aug 31, 2006)

*Manhattan Spaciousness*



gonzo said:


> Fair enough...It hope it doesn't have a big effect.
> 
> That's true. But I don't want to confuse this topic with 'sprawl'...even Manhattan (wide lanes/sidewalks) feels spacious compared to European standards.


There may be good reason for the wider streets and sidewalks in Manattan. Manhattan is very densely populated (even by world standards) and all the buildings go up, so it's probably a good idea to allow greater space betwen buildings for sunlight, et cetera.


----------



## sbarn (Mar 19, 2004)

gonzo said:


> Does this apply to _interiors_ aswell?
> 
> European Standard?...
> 
> ...


I'm sorry but your generalizations are tiresome... have you ever been in a NYC apt? A SF apt? Many dense cities have apts are tiny compared to what seen in the suburbs. You can't generalize the U.S. with one picture.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Kiss the Rain said:


> Yep, overall, the coutry is quite spacious, but since i live in the city it's a different thing. The sprawl here is nowhere near as the states and IMO it's getting very close to the ideal new urbanism suburb.


I wouldn't go as far as saying "nowhere near" as sprawled as the States. I have lived in New Zealand and it is one of the most suburban - low density nations I have ever visited. Of the three main cities, only Wellington has anything that resembles a commuter rail system, and even then it's small. Road traffic rules and it's no wonder due to the sprawl and low density.

Keep also in mind that only Auckland is a reasonable sized city geographically. Christchurch and Wellington are simply too small in population to compare with many other well known cities around the world. 

The streets in New Zealand can be pretty wide, suburban and quiet.


----------



## miamicanes (Oct 31, 2002)

Well, as far as home designs go, the last time I checked, there were developers in Britain, China, Russia, Spain, and France building entire suburban communities of houses whose plans were taken straight off American home plan websites. Literally, down to the room dimensions in feet & inches and terminology. A house with a "lanai" in Wisconsin is creepy. A house with a "lanai" in Scotland or St. Petersburg, Russia is just plain wrong & immoral  Call it a "porch", or "all-seasons room", or something, but dear god... a *lanai*?!?!? 

Dimensionally, 3.5 foot wide halls are regarded as the bare minimum for new homes in America, with 4 feet being expected where reasonable. I suspect the same is true in Europe, with 1 meter being regarded as the bare minimum, and 1.25 meters being the norm.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Bluewarning said:


> I think getting Americans back into the cities will be a much more difficult task. The sprawl on your side of the pond is so much different than ours.  Ive seen these sprawl pictures of Paris--and really, they could fit nicely with some American cities.
> 
> I personally, would love to ride bikes around to work and stuff. Alot of people in this city ride bikes and there are some very nice and efficent trails. Unforutuanly, I live on the outskirts of town. However, the trails are so nice--I have rode my bike from my house all the way to the downtown of the city in over an hour.


Thats cool. How biking friendly are American cities? Is it only yours that has so good trails?

A very common compromise if one lives too far away from the city center (like you as it seems) is to bike to the next high priority Public transport station, and for the rest taking the metro etc. As especially in the suburbs, the ways can be a bit longer to them. 
Of course that scenario only works, if your city has a high priority public transport system.


WRT my own town, Vienna, I have to say that its not the bike friendliest city. But things have been considerably improved the last decade. Nonetheless it can be a bit adventureous to bike on certain streets. On others where good trails exist allready its very comfortable though.



> American cities also need to lower the taxes, improve the schools, and provide more jobs to bring more people into the cities again. Life in teh suburbs is simply more alluring because of this.


I guess thats a very complex issue. I do not dare claiming to have a clue how you could solve it.

My guess will be that as soon as the energy costs (mainly gasoline) rise to a realistic level, lets say two or three times of what they are currently in the US. The trend towards sprawl will automatically slow down considerably. Nothing is more effective than the demands of your own burse.


----------



## miamicanes (Oct 31, 2002)

One factor that contributed to the relative demise of American inner cities was their increasingly redistributionist fiscal policies throughout the 20th century. Wealthy people have _always_ paid higher property taxes and endured a net outflow of tax dollars from their neighborhoods... but a hundred years ago, cities made sure that the schools in wealthy neighborhoods were a little bit nicer, the parks were a little bit prettier, the streets were a little bit cleaner, and generally made its wealthy residents feel special and cared-for. City governments knew perfectly well where the cash to subsidize the _rest_ of the city came from, and did everything they could to cultivate their "nice" neighborhoods.

Fast-forward a half-century or so to 1970s New York. The streets were dirty everywhere, crime was out of control, every last public school within 20 miles of Central Park sucked, and Central Park itself was a borderline war zone, where a woman going alone in broad daylight was in danger of getting mugged, and anyone -- male or female -- was putting their life in real danger by going anywhere near it after dark -- alone OR in (unarmed) groups.

The same was true to some degree in just about every big city in America -- Detroit, Cleveland, Miami, Boston, Philadelphia, DC, Dallas, L.A., and the rest. As the middle and upper-class residents fled, the remaining voters were increasingly poor, broken families with insatiable appetites for expensive government services. America's cities were literally in death spirals.

It wasn't until a few bold, visionary mayors (Giuliani in New York, Diaz in Miami, and others across the country) began to confront the problem honestly, and realized that cities had to *work* to attract the kind of residents they need to survive economically, and bend over backwards to make themselves desirable to non-poor people. Compare 21st century New York with the Koch era, or 21st Century Miami with "Miami Vice" Miami under, say, Xavier Suarez (under whose miserable mismanagement the city's bond rating dipped below 'junk bond' status, and the city itself went bankrupt), and the contrast is obvious.

20 years ago, if a public figure predicted that someday, people who live in the City of Miami would be _thankful_ they lived there instead of in unincorporated Miami-Dade County, they would have been *laughed at*, and their public credibility would have been ruined (at least, if they insisted that they were serious, and not just telling a late April Fool's joke). Now, it's unincorporated Miami-Dade COUNTY that looks like the festering pile of corruption and incompetence, and the City of Miami just keeps getting better. In neighborhoods with soaring property values (east of I-95 and/or south of SR-836), the City is bending over backwards to affirm the neighborhoods' new status as expensive places to live. With generally good results


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

*Brandon1978,*


> There may be good reason for the wider streets and sidewalks in Manattan. Manhattan is very densely populated (even by world standards) and all the buildings go up, so it's probably a good idea to allow greater space betwen buildings for sunlight, et cetera.


As it turns-out, this _eventually_ worked-out for Manhattan with its population explosion but I don't think it was an efficient approach when its urban design was originally implemented.




sbarn said:


> I'm sorry but your generalizations are tiresome...


A question can't be a generalization.




sbarn said:


> have you ever been in a NYC apt? A SF apt? Many dense cities have apts are tiny compared to what seen in the suburbs.


I'm not asking what cities have...I'm asking what the norm is.



sbarn said:


> You can't generalize the U.S. with one picture.


Again, norms...I've already used the words "tendencies" and "not exceptions" enough on this thread and _that_, frankly, has become tiresome.


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

Jeez, this thread is still going on? Most of these posts are just people in europe and the US hurling shit back and forth at each other.

It's not like everyone in the US lives on some wide quiet suburban street. Ever been to New York? Philly? Boston? Chicago? San Fran? Seattle? Providence? St. Louis? Any older area of almost any city in the county?

It's all relative as to where you live and play. I think the sprawling suburb thing in the US might be overplayed a bit in Europe as far as thinking almost everyone in the county lives in some boom-burb. It's just on TV and movies a lot because it's "in" right now. PLENTY of people live in the thousands and thousands of small towns around the county and the older small, medium and large cities. There are hundreds of narrow and pedestrian streets in cities all over our country.


----------



## Bluewarning (Oct 25, 2006)

> Slartibartfas said:
> 
> 
> > Thats cool. How biking friendly are American cities? Is it only yours that has so good trails?
> ...


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

bluewarning said:


> No, ours isnt the only one--the are lots of cities that have good biking trails. Others I can think of off the top of my head are Minneapolis, Portland, and Madison. I would think that most of the denser U.S. cities are ideal for biking--not to sure about places like Phoenix though. Then again, who wants to ride a bike in 115 degree heat!?


I am surprised by that, but positively suprised. I hope its also used by as many as possible.

In Vienna its funny. Getting by bike to work is not something limited to poor ones or so. If you look to the biking trails towards the inner district, you will be astonished who uses bikes there. From some heading in dress to the operas employee entrance, or some offices in the center, to students and some professors etc. They might be still a minority among their profession by taking bikes, but no one wonders oneself when they are seen on bike. 

But as I have said before, Vienna is not really a "biking capital". Estimations lie somewhere around 4-6% of all distances are done by bike. 

WRT cities like Phoenix. I agree, in too hot regions its hard to use the bike. People in Italy therefore use mopeds. And not too few of them 



> Yeah, Milwaukee doesnt have too much in the ways of public transit--but you see people in Chicago riding bikes to train stations. There is one station I was at in the suburbs that had all kinds of bikes parked outside it. I would do it, but this city is pretty anti-rail.


Wow, "anti-rail". I was not aware that there are comunities that openly oppose the rail. Whats the argument? The the money is needed for streets? Or that it won't be used anyway?



> I would like to visit Vienna someday. It always seems like it is left behind when you hear about European trips--where everyone goes to London, Paris, Amsterdam, and Barcelona.


It perhaps is because, neither does it have a large country backing up the name of Vienna, nor does it resemble to a northern Venice, nor has it mediterranean climate or an amazing beach (+ sea next to it).

It seems that Vienna is far more popular among Asian people. Japanese, South Koreans and Chinese seem really to be fans of the town. You know the major brand and cliche of Vienna is to be the "(classical) musical capital" of the world. That might be more attractive to Asians then US Americans, as Asians seem to be nearly fanatic about baroque and classical music.

Furthermore, how many US Americans know Vienna? Probably not as many as those who know Paris and London. Its forgotten that Vienna was only 100 years ago the 4th largest city on earth, and its forgotten that it was the capital of an empire with 50 million inhabitants in a world that had only 1 billion people. And the city also represented that size and importance on the edge to the 20th century. It still represents a size and importance that ceased away in the year 1918 after the lost war and the falling apart of the empire. But dont get a wrong impression, after the fall of the iron curtain that cut the connections completely to nearly everything that once belonged to the empire, Vienna woke up again. Not as political capital, but as economic hub in the heart of central Europe.

Vienna might be the best place where old K&K glory fuse with modern arts and nightlife in a unique way. A city that has classical open air concerts visted as good as rock concerts where dance balls are still an institution but at the same time modern nightlife and the student life is vibrating. And not to forget, Prague, Budapest and Bratislava (to which a century long history connects us) are just a day trip away by train.



> I would like to check it out. How difficult would it be riding in the city there? Seems like it would be tough on such a dense street to navigate on bike.


You can, in case you come to Vienna. On many places there are bikes to rent. The first hour for free, the next two hours at a cheap price and every additional hour 4 € or so. But be warned, the Viennese bike trail network has two faces. The one of the very nice and consequent major lanes, and the chaotic still in progress pitchwork in between. It shoud be possible as tourist though to get usefull biking route plans from the Tourist information. 

Funnily its not so much the narrow streets that make problems, but the broad ones  Especially where I live you often have no seperate lane for your bike, so you have to act as part of the normal traffic of the street. If there is no place for cars to pass me by, than they simply have to drive behind me. That means instead of 50 only 20-25 km per hour speed. But narrow streets usually dont have that heavy traffic anyway. And there are often places where they can pass me anyway. 

The good thing is that when streets are restored or modernized, nowadays the factor bike allways is considered.


----------



## TheKansan (Jun 22, 2004)

gonzo said:


> TheKansan,
> Who' blaming _you_?...and how about backing-up your "BS" statement.
> 
> EtherealMist,
> As *Don Qui* put it earlier..just becuse we "can" do something, doesn't automatically make it a good idea.


All I am saying is that I can't defend the actions of the millions of americans who prefer sprawl. I can't defend the actions of the developers or city planners who prefer lower densities and seperation of uses. All I can do is what I am doing now. I live in the dense urban core of my city. I try to lead as urban a lifestyle as possible, and I spread the word.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

^OK then.:cheers:


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

Again, keep in mind that the typical American preference is quite different from that in Europe and Asia. Perhaps it stems from the fact that this country developed from pioneers and people looking to forge a new life in teh wilderness, but Americans, in general, feel better when they have more space around them. They are much less comfortable living on top of one another, and don't tend to like a ton of construction. In fact most people's idea of relaxation and paradise involve being somewhere away from civilization. So the more you build up the city, the more they are likely to want to go further out.

Over here, people are also of a different mind when it comes to safety. Protction trumps avoidance, in the American mindset. Which is one reason why people prefer bigger cars wiht more space around them.

I have no idea what that road you pictured is, or where it is or what story is going on. It is a huge road, and definitely not the norm. But we do have huge roads around here. And in general, the largeer portion of the population prefer them to the twissty small roads.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Cloudship said:


> Over here, people are also of a different mind when it comes to safety. Protction trumps avoidance, in the American mindset. Which is one reason why people prefer bigger cars wiht more space around them.


Its a myth that cars have to be excessively larget to be as very safe. In fact the safest cars belong to the class of limousines not to the SUV's. And Limousines can be also very reasonably sized.


But for the rest of your post, I tend to agree. Americans seem to have really a fundamentally different point of view on all those things.


----------



## ♣628.finst (Jul 29, 2005)

Cloudship said:


> I have no idea what that road you pictured is, or where it is or what story is going on. It is a huge road, and definitely not the norm. But we do have huge roads around here. And in general, the largeer portion of the population prefer them to the twissty small roads.


Indeed. I naturally prefer wider roads rather than narrow, dense downtown roads. Perhaps it is more so for us than younger urban dwellers in NYC, LA, Miami ,SF or any denser North American cities, because they are accustomed to such density. 

In fact, some of our large cities have the lowest population density around the world. For example, Edmonton, Calgary, Atlanta, Spokane, Boise, etc. have their average population density lower than 1,000 in their metropolitan area.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

I agree that you don't have to be uge to be safe, but for most Americans, that is the first thing they think of. More Mass equals a better chance of survival against the huge 18 wheeler next to you.

I just got back from a trip out west and down south. Out there the roads tend to be much wider, a more lanes (often multiple turning lanes) and muh straighter and flater. It is a challenge to get back into the mode of driving up here in New England. So you are never going to get rid of spacious roads and wide lanes. So instead I think the focus needs to be on better planned roads and better planned neighborhoods.

It was a bit interesting in visiting some of the shopping centers there. One, in particular, was done with a number ofsmaller buildings - the village concept. The feeder roads were tree-lined, and because of grade issues, there were a number of terraced dividers. If you got out of the mindest of viewing it as sprawl, you saw that it was, in a way, a micro-cosm of a neighborhood itself. I think that type of approach could be encouraged and built upon.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

Double Post - Please Delete


----------



## miamicanes (Oct 31, 2002)

> Perhaps it stems from the fact that this country developed from pioneers and people looking to forge a new life in teh wilderness, but Americans, in general, feel better when they have more space around them.


I think that pretty much nails it on the head. Europeans view wilderness as something valuable to protect. Americans view wilderness as wasteland to terraform and civilize. We're pioneers. It's what we do and admire.

European: "That's Foo Forest" (forests actually have names there!)

American: "There's nothing out there yet, it's just wilderness right now..." (wilderness viewed as temporary, dirty, uncivilized & worthless state of being)

Europeans build roads through mountainous areas on tall, slender viaducts & cable-stayed bridges. Americans demolish the mountain and use the rubble to fill in the adjacent valley... or shear off half its face to create a 200 foot wide right of way, build the road, then do a happy dance after proving once again that there's nothing nature can throw at us that we can't overcome.

Want to *really* freak out someone from the Netherlands? Tell them how utterly cool Zuider Zee is, then ask when they're going to start "Phase II" and expand the country out to the next arc of islands...


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

Actually, I find that the eurpoean idea of wilderness is really different than the US. They do have an ability to coexists both humans/tech nology and nature. In the US we have a problem with that - it's either complete wilderness or complete construction. If you head to areas out west there are miles and miles of absolutely nothing. In some ways we feel like little specks lost in a huge world.

Getting back on track, it does reflect in the way we build roads. Building a dead straight wide road over a barren land is a lot easier than it would be in the middle of a hilly forest. And when you have vast distances to cover, you want to move as smoothly and quickly as possible.

what works for one environment doesn't necessarily work for another. American roads are wider. That could be the result of cars, or it could be why cars are more common over here.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Cloudship said:


> Actually, I find that the eurpoean idea of wilderness is really different than the US. They do have an ability to coexists both humans/tech nology and nature. In the US we have a problem with that - it's either complete wilderness or complete construction. If you head to areas out west there are miles and miles of absolutely nothing. In some ways we feel like little specks lost in a huge world.


I wasn't aware of that until recently. But it really seems to be true.

In Europe also nature that is not labeled "National Park" has a worth in itself. Turning nature into a construction site or destroying it otherwise is something that has to be justified by a considerable need or advantage on the other side. Principally nature no matter where has to be preserved as much as possible and destruction of it has to be limited to the unpreventable dimensions of destruction. Thats at least the concept.

An important point might be though that not much real wilderness is left in vast parts of Europe. There is some left in the outskirts and some islands of wilderness in the more central parts but its rare. No surprise, its something we think is very valuable. But our valuation does not stop there, we reckognize that the vast parts of green lands and forests are in fact "cultural landscape". That means it exists only due to the factor human. And also this is something worth to prevent from being altered in a way that the biodiversity is harmed unnecessarily. 

Btw we have in Europe also areas where not much grows. Thats also home to animals and plants (that are often endangered or rare too). Also desert has in a way its value too. No question not as much as more populated green areas, but to annihilate it completely would be something wrong too. 


Another point, isn't it interesting, Europeans also were colonizers once ago, especially in the middle ages. But then not much was left to colonize anymore. It isn't too weird that also the US will fact that faith eventually. But I guess already before you will be forced by various reasons to consider your world view. At some not so far point in the future you simply won't be able to afford the luxury of wasting land and destroying the environment just for the "goddess" named car or "we like it bigger".



> Getting back on track, it does reflect in the way we build roads. Building a dead straight wide road over a barren land is a lot easier than it would be in the middle of a hilly forest. And when you have vast distances to cover, you want to move as smoothly and quickly as possible.


Streets have a value and forests have a value. I doubt any street could be so important as to justify destroying a whole forest without a real need for that. You can also do so if the street is really needed with a low impact on the forest.


> what works for one environment doesn't necessarily work for another. American roads are wider. That could be the result of cars, or it could be why cars are more common over here.


Its an chicken/egg problem I guess.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

In the US, and I am not saying I necessarily agree with this completely or completely disagree with it, either, but...

the fact is that in many parts ouf the country we have endless areas of what would be called wilderness in Europe, but which is just rural areas to the US. One thing about the US, we are endowed with some utterly incredible natural features, so simple grasslands and forests tend not to be as highly regarded here. People see woods as something in the way more than something to preserve. 

And speaking of cultural landscape, that is an interesting point, in that in Europe natural areas are identified more closely with urban areas than in the US. And urban area is man built, nature is the stuff that surrounds it, unamed . Kind of the natural resource, more than an item within itself. But also, there is more of an identity with place. The cultural landscape, so to speak, is how you or a group of people identify with the natural surroundings. In America there seems to be a lot less sense of belonging to one place, a greater sense of mobility and, well, change. 

Tying this back into the roads issue, to someone in Eurpoe a road is a place to live on, a social gathering space, a means to connect to other people, and a way to identify location. In the Us, streets are more a functional device, something that more closely relates to mobility and escape. In some of the newer parts of the country, you are finding that sidewalks and pedestrian areas do not directly relate to roads - they are independant elements, each serving a different purpose.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

Well since the subject is about Spacious America, ill compare it to whatever I want. 

Remember, as physically large as the United States is, our major cities dont have to be as big/dense as they are ie: NEW YORK, CHICAGO, SAN FRAN, BOSTON, PHILLY, etc.

As opposed to almost every other country in the world with everything invested into one main city ie: UK with London, Japan with Tokyo, France with Paris, China with Shanghai etc. (is someone finally gonna bring HK into the China comment?) Look at these examples, they all represent a significantly smaller geography than the U.S., with a population centered around a certain area and into one main city. You go to London, what more is there to see in the U.K. geographically? **** even Japan. One country on par with the U.S. in geographical diversity is China, and both very similar seeing that the basis of the population although not all of it is based on the Eastern Coasts. You come to the United States, you go to NYC, you are left with many other different cities to go to, tons of different geography. The United States is extremely spacious and I do love it. It means great diversity such as Los Angeles and New York City, both polar opposites regarding cities, and geography. both being on opposite ends as well. In between the two, is a multitude of diverse geography and cities. I find it to be very all around.

New York City, as large and as dominant as it is, does not have to be how it is. Youd figure the 300 million people in the United States would be more spread out seeing such spacious geography, but then again, we have the second largest metro in the world, not to mention skyscrapers. Do I have to go on about other significances regarding (NYC) economy, crime, infrastructure, etc?


----------



## jmancuso (Jan 9, 2003)

actually, japan has as many 1 million plus cities as we do it's just that tokyo is the capital and freaking huge. while china has about 4 or 5 NYC sized metros plus another dozen or so million plus cities.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

the main point of my statement was geography. Japanese cities are wayyyyyyy closer than the United States. More of a concentrated population because well, look at Japan. Its geography is tiny and mountainous allowing it. The U.S. is very spacious and still manages a good number of ppl in their cities despite even suburbanization.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Spooky873 said:


> the main point of my statement was geography. Japanese cities are wayyyyyyy closer than the United States. More of a concentrated population because well, look at Japan. Its geography is tiny and mountainous allowing it. The U.S. is very spacious and still manages a good number of ppl in their cities despite even suburbanization.


What about Germany? Its very decentralized. You have Berlin, Munich, the Ruhr-region, Frankfurt a. Main etc. In fact how politically and economically centralized a country is does not depend in my opinion on its geography but its history. France is larger than Germany with less people, still Paris is its very heart.

And you totally underestimate the diversity of many European countries by themselves, not to speak about Europe as a whole. For example the for your measurements tiny Austria. It has Glaciers, high Alps, hilly forest regions, impressing river scapes, flatlands, whine regions, high plateaus and while it has tons of alpine lakes, it also has one of the largest steppe lakes in Europe. In fact if you are visiting the steppe in Austria you will not believe you are still in the same country. Apart from the rural regions of course the urban area of Vienna gives a strong contrast. 
Thats just one tiny country. If you start with France, the range is even far larger. In fact there you have the Mediterranean south with all what belongs to it, you have high alps, low valleys, and as ultimative contrast the northern parts. The Normandy might be the very opposite of what the Cote d' Azure is.

I dont say the US has not also a vast range, but to claim European countries have a single style nature is hillarious. Within Europe you find nearly everything you can be looking for, except tropical regions of course, but you dont have too many of them either,do you?


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

Slartibartfas said:


> I dont say the US has not also a vast range, but to claim European countries have a single style nature is hillarious. Within Europe you find nearly everything you can be looking for, except tropical regions of course, but you dont have too many of them either,do you?



That's just it. In Europe you accomodate a whole lot in a small area. Germany is only a little more than half the size of the state of Texas! The scale of our unpopulated areas is thus much larger than anything you have in Europe, that is why it is tread less as something that needs to be preserved as much as a resource. Why tax the land som much with dense development when you are dwafed by all this barren land? Agreed you can't populate everything, but we have on average in some areas populations in the single digits per square mile.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

Germany lacks a mega city. Their cities are medium sized.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

Armon said:


> I high doubt that this is how most of the chinese population will end up living. But in US most of the population lives in settings fimilar to this.


Not quite. In a few areas of the country this is the norm, but in many areas we are not this formal. We tend to have a lot of simple streets with a more diverse mix of houses. Only the latest developments, and maybe parts of Cali and Florida, is this type of thing that common.



Daniel_Portugal said:


> american cities have less movement than european cities. most of it because the sprawl.


Can you elaborate on this more? By movement are you talking transportation or people moving from one place to another? Also keep in mind that in the US much of our population does not live in the city itself, but on the outskirts. And by mobility, we are talking picking up and moving to a diffferent state, not just a new house.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

Kiss the Rain said:


> Btw, mongolia is not part of china.


certainly the part of inner is autonomous.


----------



## Daniel_Portugal (Sep 24, 2005)

Cloudship said:


> Can you elaborate on this more? By movement are you talking transportation or people moving from one place to another? Also keep in mind that in the US much of our population does not live in the city itself, but on the outskirts. And by mobility, we are talking picking up and moving to a diffferent state, not just a new house.


I'm talking about people density walking the streets at city center/downtown. in general, there are more density in major european cities than in major american cities. 

and the same happens between major european cities and major asian cities. major asian cities have more density of people walking at city center than major european cities. but in specific case of these major asian cities... i think surpass the cosmopolitan urban vibe and goes to something like "to much crowd".


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

miamicanes said:


> Call it a hunch, but I think China's explosive development is going to end up looking a lot more like suburbs in Texas and Florida than quaint, compact car-free European villages. Anyone know the price of a Hummer in Rmb?


Wrong. 
Depressing suburbs like that exist in all countries - be it Sweden, China, Argentina or Australia. But only in the US (and Canada and Australia) do most people actually live like that.
I can't see any indication whatsoever that the Chinese suddenly would drive SUVs and live in single family homes outside the cities. In fact, it would be impossible.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

Daniel_Portugal said:


> I'm talking about people density walking the streets at city center/downtown. in general, there are more density in major european cities than in major american cities.


People in the US aren't that keen on crowds. And it has gotten worse over the last 5 years. That is one reason. But I also think our cities have a lot less focus and diversity. Now this depends upon which city you are talking about, but many of our cities, the downtown area is either only business offices, or pretty slumish areas. People tend to spend more time doing their own things than socializing. We have a different (and I won't say I totally agree with this) sense of family - a family is a mother, father, and several children. Forget about casual relatives and such. And particularly out west and down south, where there is such a strong conservative movement, that nuclear family is held in pretty high regard.

But I also think it speaks to our mobility, in that we don't spend our life in one space - we move around - we work in a different location than where we live, where we shop, where we like to relax, and who we socialize with. I suppose you could say this wastes energy, just as I would say we aren't as sedentary.


----------



## Daniel_Portugal (Sep 24, 2005)

ofcourse not, and major US cities downtown has a very cosmopolitan ambience i think. 

offtopic: i heard that in new york, if some stranger asks some information to a local, it has a great probability to the local "show is middle finger". is that true? 

here if some tourist asks something, we tend to answer him gladly, and we usually smile if he say "thank you" in portuguese  "obrigado"  ehehehe


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

Daniel_Portugal said:


> offtopic: i heard that in new york, if some stranger asks some information to a local, it has a great probability to the local "show is middle finger". is that true?


I think you have watched a little too much TV.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

and everyone scoffs at america's stereotypes. its all over, not just here. mr. portugal thank you.


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

Personly I don't really hate sprawl - but I do hate the grid system is covering huge areas!

I'm also a huge walking fan, a thing I rarely get to do over large areas in the states, compared to Europe where every city is "walkable"


Visiting American cities is fun and there's a lot to see ( it's all new and shiny ), but I'll take a German town everyday over the Satets for living, even if it doesn't look like Disneyland


----------



## Daniel_Portugal (Sep 24, 2005)

staff said:


> I think you have watched a little too much TV.


i heard that in this forum.

and i *asked* to somoene who knows better than me, if it is true or *not*  i hate stereotypes and obviously i dont create my opinions based on them.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

Actually, New York City is one of the more friendly cities. People can seem rather sitant at first - it's a defense mechanism of having too many people and such big buildings. And they don't know where everything is, so you do often gt blank stares. But because there are such a mix of people, they actually can hold together well, and there are a lot of stories of people working together when tragedy strikes.

So the stereotype is just that - not reality.


----------



## Daniel_Portugal (Sep 24, 2005)

cool  better for nyc then 

btw: there is a big mix of people in many cities over the world  i think its a thing that "happens" in major cities. one more, other less. but all major cities in a whole have a big mix of ppl...


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

Daniel_Portugal said:


> ofcourse not, and major US cities downtown has a very cosmopolitan ambience i think.
> 
> offtopic: i heard that in new york, if some stranger asks some information to a local, it has a great probability to the local "show is middle finger". is that true?
> 
> here if some tourist asks something, we tend to answer him gladly, and we usually smile if he say "thank you" in portuguese  "obrigado"  ehehehe


:|

I have heard that in Portugal, the people don't bathe and still use donkeys to go around the country side. And the woman have moustaches while their husbands sell towels. Oh, and that you guys are the least developed part of Spain.

:crazy:


----------



## newyorkrunaway1 (Nov 21, 2004)

i dont like the word "hate," but i absolutley hate the way america develops itself. it seems all we care about is sprawl, mocing further and further away from the "bad crime-ridden" city. it just keeps going and going and going and.......

^^^^^^...........................................................................
urban core ... spraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawl


----------



## TheKansan (Jun 22, 2004)

I like the sprawl. It makes us unique. Where else are there so many wealthy people that the average joe can afford what would be considered a mansion in other countries?


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

TheKansan said:


> I like the sprawl. It makes us unique. Where else are there so many wealthy people that the average joe can afford what would be considered a mansion in other countries?


The day peak oil hits, don't come crying for more subsidies from the NorthEast.

You've made your SUV-McMansion bed, now lie in it when you have to pay $10 a gallon.



PS: Made largely in irony, because even hooty-tooty transit friendly New York has suburbs that sprawl for miles and miles. Don't see them rushing to take subways either. hno:


----------



## miamicanes (Oct 31, 2002)

Gas isn't going to cost $10/gallon anytime in the meaningful future, for multiple reasons. The whole concept of "peak oil" is a statistical joke. As the price of oil goes up, the amount of oil that becomes profitable to drill goes up, too. If gas prices permanently rose to $4/gallon, Canada and the United States would instantly become the two biggest oil-producing nations on earth, because both countries have enough oil shale that could be profitably turned into gas at $4/gallon to sustain the rest of the world for at least another 500 years.

Plus, even $4/gallon gas isn't going to force the abandonment of McMansion suburbia. For one thing, an average McMansion costs about $2,500 or more to own. Higher-priced gas will cost *maybe* an extra $25 or so per week. Compared to the cost of everything else, it's a drop in the bucket. 

Think about it... lots of people bitched about expensive gas last year and talked about buying more fuel-efficient cars... but when they figured out how much it would cost them to sell their current SUV and replace it with a more fuel-efficient car, then divided that cost by $25/week, the economics got shot to hell and they just decided to keep what they had because it wasn't worth bothering.

Looking at it another way... the world hit "Peak Wood" about 140 years ago. People switched to coal for home heating because it became cheaper than wood, and now use wood only for expensive furniture and luxury floorcoverings. Cheap furniture gets made from particleboard, and cheap floors get covered with laminated pictures of wood. And still, for about $5, you can buy a shrinkwrapped quarter-log to burn in the fireplace on Christmas... assuming the fireplace doesn't have fake ceramic logs and burn natural gas.


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

miamicanes said:


> Gas isn't going to cost $10/gallon anytime in the meaningful future, for multiple reasons. The whole concept of "peak oil" is a statistical joke. As the price of oil goes up, the amount of oil that becomes profitable to drill goes up, too. If gas prices permanently rose to $4/gallon, Canada and the United States would instantly become the two biggest oil-producing nations on earth, because both countries have enough oil shale that could be profitably turned into gas at $4/gallon to sustain the rest of the world for at least another 500 years.
> 
> Plus, even $4/gallon gas isn't going to force the abandonment of McMansion suburbia. For one thing, an average McMansion costs about $2,500 or more to own. Higher-priced gas will cost *maybe* an extra $25 or so per week. Compared to the cost of everything else, it's a drop in the bucket.
> 
> ...


That's nice. I'll take the words of respected scientists over your layman's opinion. 

I don't doubt that eventually some replacement for oil will be found. However, oil is not just gas, but computers that make the modern economy run, plastics that keep modern medicine sterile, and fertilizers that feed modern humanity staving off the long feared but never manifested famine that economists predicted.

I hope I'm wrong. But I'd rather pretend and live like oil would not be around then happily guzzling away this vital resource ASSUMING that someone eventually will come up with some alternative.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

I hate to say this, but knowing people who are in the geophysical field, I am afraid he is right. Right now we only tap - at best - 40% of the available oil in any one reserve. In many cases it is much less than that. Higher prices will make it more efficient to tap that extra oil. But more importantly, it also funds and drives research in how to extract more oil from any given reserve. Lastly, we are finding new fields all the time - we just found a huge deep water field off the Gulf Coast.

Now that doesn't mean to go out and waste oil. The price of oil, in reality, has much less to do with actual availability than it does on stock market trends. Be frugal for frugality's sake. But don't get too carried away with the scarcity argument, because that can be easilly shot down.


----------



## EtherealMist (Jul 26, 2005)

i think urban sprawl is affect every city in the modern world no matter what country its in. Its obvious in America because of its a newer phenomenea and America has newer cities. Also America has the room for (the topic of the thread).


----------



## sogod (Jul 12, 2004)

staff said:


> Wrong.
> Depressing suburbs like that exist in all countries - be it Sweden, China, Argentina or Australia. But only in the US (and Canada and Australia) do most people actually live like that.
> I can't see any indication whatsoever that the Chinese suddenly would drive SUVs and live in single family homes outside the cities. In fact, it would be impossible.


That looked like a pretty nice neighborhood to me. I've seen a lot of depressing dank dirty polluted urban areas in Asia. I have no doubt that given a choice most people, especially those with families, would choose American style suburbs over those depressing grey city blobs. And while China is more crowded than the US, and Asian culture doesn't have as much a problem with crowding as Western culture does, they still got lots of space to build on. If we can build cities in the middle of the desert with millions of people, I am sure they can too.


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

sogod said:


> That looked like a pretty nice neighborhood to me. I've seen a lot of depressing dank dirty polluted urban areas in Asia. I have no doubt that given a choice most people, especially those with families, would choose American style suburbs over those depressing grey city blobs. And while China is more crowded than the US, and Asian culture doesn't have as much a problem with crowding as Western culture does, they still got lots of space to build on. If we can build cities in the middle of the desert with millions of people, I am sure they can too.


Wrong again.
The Chinese culture and lifestyle is to live in the city, preferably as close to the city centre as possible. It's the same thing in Europe - sure there are people living in American style suburbs (just like in Japan, China or Thailand), but most people prefer to live in the city.
You have to remember that the inhabitable land area of China is not extremely large - it wouldn't be possible for the Chinese population to spread out like the US population. There isn't enough space for it.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

TheKansan said:


> I like the sprawl. It makes us unique. Where else are there so many wealthy people that the average joe can afford what would be considered a mansion in other countries?


Sprawl is just like an endless addition from one newer small rural European village to another one with no end in sight and tons of highways in between.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Cloudship said:


> I hate to say this, but knowing people who are in the geophysical field, I am afraid he is right. Right now we only tap - at best - 40% of the available oil in any one reserve. In many cases it is much less than that. Higher prices will make it more efficient to tap that extra oil. But more importantly, it also funds and drives research in how to extract more oil from any given reserve. Lastly, we are finding new fields all the time - we just found a huge deep water field off the Gulf Coast.
> 
> Now that doesn't mean to go out and waste oil. The price of oil, in reality, has much less to do with actual availability than it does on stock market trends. Be frugal for frugality's sake. But don't get too carried away with the scarcity argument, because that can be easilly shot down.


Yes we push the oil limit increasingly further. But thats no reason to make onselves illusions and think it will go on like this forever. Oil deposits are not endless in number. And the finding of new fields does not nearly catch up to the prognoses of oil need once China and India also demand their fair share. (Or maybe even others)

The point is, even though oil might be there in a sufficient amount for the next 50 years, it will be possible that it could become significantly more expensive. Not to speak about the spreading global instability. What puzzles me most is, that you as so "national security" aware people don't see on of the greatest dangers to your nation that exists beneath a significantly changing climate and an atomic war.

Oil prizes will rise, no way around that, if you prepare already today for that, you will be on the lead if thats the case ultimately. If not, than you just will have to see how others take it over.


----------



## TheKansan (Jun 22, 2004)

DonQui said:


> The day peak oil hits, don't come crying for more subsidies from the NorthEast.
> 
> You've made your SUV-McMansion bed, now lie in it when you have to pay $10 a gallon.


I'm sorry, but where did I ever say I live in a McMansion and drive an SUV? Trying to feel smug and superior, but truthfully you just end up looking foolish. 

The day peak oil hits, I will be riding around in my Honda Civic Hybrid getting 66mpg using ethanol.


----------



## TheKansan (Jun 22, 2004)

Slartibartfas said:


> Sprawl is just like an endless addition from one newer small rural European village to another one with no end in sight and tons of highways in between.


This is what small rural European villages look like?

Overland Park, Kansas, stereotypical suburban sprawl. Office parks, big-box stores, highways, subdivisions, the works.


----------



## choyak (Oct 29, 2005)

That 'Orange County China' thing is so bizarre/weird/hokey. I wonder do I live in the 'real thing' or is the 'real thing' Orange County, Florida??????


----------



## EtherealMist (Jul 26, 2005)

TheKansan said:


>


Ughhh 

That is just awful


----------



## miamicanes (Oct 31, 2002)

Well, right now, the trend for wealthy Chinese homebuyers seems to be "copy American suburbia down to the last curbside mailbox", but in a few more years, I think they'll start coming up with unique things of their own to do... some of which will probably make their way into American homes. 

One interesting feature I read about that's apparently popular among high-end Chinese homebuyers is a negatively-pressurized enclosed second kitchen (the air pressure inside is slightly lower than the air pressure in adjacent rooms, to ensure that air from the rest of the house ONLY flows INTO it). Apparently, traditional Chinese cooking can generate lots of oily smoke that can get into the furniture. Keeping that smoke confined within the kitchen solves the problem completely 

As far as China's interior being "unbuildable"... just look around America (particularly the western part), and never say "never". It's amazing where you can build if you're rich and have money to burn (a direction in which China definitely seems to be heading). Just look at Phoenix and Las Vegas. Or most of Florida. Cape Coral in particular... 50 years ago it was just a wet, muddy, mosquito-infested swamp... terraformed by its developer into miles and miles of neighborhoods with expensive homes and backyard deep saltwater canals. Or on the other side of Florida, Miami Beach (~70% of which is geologically manmade and artificial. How many symmetrical oval islands have you ever seen in nature?)

I can even think of a good reason WHY Chinese developers will soon be pushing the frontier further and further west into the desert -- increased freedom. China isn't going to suddenly become a libertarian utopia overnight. But there WILL be parts of the country where the government isn't quite as aggressive at imposing its will, or where the local officials smile at Beijing, then turn around and do whatever they wanted to do in the first place. Most likely, those places will be in the western desert areas of the country. 

Remember, that's what drove much of the development of the _American_ west... there were big areas that were essentially "lawless", and other areas where the government's control was a polite joke. And people moved there to take advantage of it. Even today, the people who live "out west" don't take kindly to interference from Washington (witness the increasing tension between California and the feds over marijuana, and all the slightly-wacky "survivalists" in Idaho who collectively own more weapons than the militaries of some small European _countries_). Not to mention the ultimate example -- Las Vegas, a city whose initial development was largely planned and financed by organized crime, located in a desert-rural state with almost no population (back then) to speak of and elected officials who could easily be bought off. The corruption and criminal element might be history now, but it's naive to think Las Vegas' location is somehow a coincidence.


----------



## choyak (Oct 29, 2005)

China and USA are approximately the same land area, and in China most of the population is on the east/south. That is a huge population to be mostly in that area. I can see ambitious developers creating substantial cities in the western China the size of Phoenix. I am pretty sure there would be people willing to move there!!! Hopefully there would be some traditional Chinese housing also, with modern interiors. You see that here in OC a little bit, one house in a neighborhood with Chinese design influences, pointed eaves, Feng Shui design concepts (can't see the stairway from the front door, etc.).

That kitchen idea is good. I have some friends Malaysian Chinese but they put a range hood (from Taiwan I think) that is like 6 times the airflow of an American range hood, it sort of works but the enclosed idea is alot better.

OH WOW, I got the OC china web site. It has a 'CBD'!!!!
http://www.orangecounty.com.cn/mother.html

And there are like EIGHT 'Orange Counties' in USA!!!


----------



## Kiss the Rain (Apr 2, 2006)

choyak said:


> China and USA are approximately the same land area, and in China most of the population is on the east/south. That is a huge population to be mostly in that area. I can see ambitious developers creating substantial cities in the western China the size of Phoenix. I am pretty sure there would be people willing to move there!!! Hopefully there would be some traditional Chinese housing also, with modern interiors. You see that here in OC a little bit, one house in a neighborhood with Chinese design influences, pointed eaves, Feng Shui design concepts (can't see the stairway from the front door, etc.).
> 
> That kitchen idea is good. I have some friends Malaysian Chinese but they put a range hood (from Taiwan I think) that is like 6 times the airflow of an American range hood, it sort of works but the enclosed idea is alot better.
> 
> ...


Wrong, the majority of the western china is close to unhabitable, if we have conditions like phoneix in the western china, i assure you, people will just FLOOD there.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

Slightly off topic, but what are the conditions of most of western China that makes it unihabitable?


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

TheKansan said:


> This is what small rural European villages look like?
> 
> Overland Park, Kansas, stereotypical suburban sprawl. Office parks, big-box stores, highways, subdivisions, the works.
> 
> ...


Hm, if this is representable for your sprawl, than I am wrong indeed. If areas like the one at this link are common though, I would say I was right.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=...048,-77.249165&spn=0.035266,0.090122&t=k&om=1


----------



## Kiss the Rain (Apr 2, 2006)

Cloudship said:


> Slightly off topic, but what are the conditions of most of western China that makes it unihabitable?


Well, i can give you hundreds of reason if i were a geologistic, but here are the ones i think are the most important.
1, Simple logic will answer your question, if it were not uninhabitable, then i doubt the population will be so concentrated in the east where it's extremely cramped.
2, Most of the western china has a elevation of no less than several thousand metres, especially tibet, people who are not fit or can't adapt to the high allitude will develop one kind of sickness of the other.
3, the soil is extremely unfertile.
4, The climate is usually intensely cold due to the high allitude.


----------

