Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999
No, they're designed for people who happen to have cars. Meanwhile, the old cities were designed for a time when people were much more disposable.
|
They're designed to facilitate driving at the expense of all other considerations of livability or any other modes of transportation. Which coincidentally, actually makes driving less convenient since it forces everyone else to do the same.
I've always found that it's generally easier to drive in urban environments than suburban ones - distances are shorter, fewer other people are driving, and there are more low-traffic routes to choose from because not all through traffic is funneled to a handful of collector routes. And I can also choose to not drive if that's the better decision in a given circumstance. Win-win!
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999
No it's not, because without the mobility of the car, or at least the rail (which usually has the longest commute by time), the modern city would still look like a lot like the slums of old. The inner city would look a lot different in Manhattan, central Chicago, central London, central Paris, etc if modern mobility hadn't allowed millions to expand their housing and working options.
|
The reaction to the overcrowded, polluted urban tenements of the early 1900s was stuff like this:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/hhi2eXZFQngsrBpcA
The shitty sprawl seen above is more recent, and in no way shape or form has any direct relationship to overcrowded urban environments.
As Steely said, there's a whole world of urban options between the Lower East Side circa 1910 and Rosella, IL.