5 ms·

I do! I'm from Austria/Vienna and I love our high density cityscapes. There is no need for a car in cities since you can get anywhere with public transport. I u

I do! I'm from Austria/Vienna and I love our high density cityscapes. There is no need for a car in cities since you can get anywhere with public transport. I usually use my bike, though, which has a huge part of the city within 20 minutes driving distance. In comparison, when I was working in Santa Clara, CA, there was virtually nothing within 20 minutes and the public transport was next to useless. I'm also not a fan of the huge expressways every other corner. Not my kind of city.

paganel 10y ago
> There is no need for a car in cities since you can get anywhere with public transport Visiting Vienna some time ago was the first time when I realized that if I ever were to move to another city from the one I'm currently living in (a capital city in Eastern Europe) that city would need to have a decent tramway network, just like Vienna does (trolley-buses also count). Relying only on cars or Diesel-hungry buses for carrying people around a big city is barbarous. It also counts that I don't like taking the metro, as traveling 45 minutes - 1 hour per day underground doesn't fit my idea of "good travel".
- briandear 10y ago
  Vienna is definitely an outlier in terms of awesome. It's one of the more "perfect" cities in terms of size and connectivity. I might argue that Zurich is right up with it. However, Paris is overrated in terms of transport -- summer on the RER or the metro is rather close to hell in my book. No air conditioning and sardine-like UX. Good luck if you have to go shopping, you had better go during off hours or you'll be unable to get your stuff on the train. But then again "off-hours" doesn't really exist in Paris since aside from stores in designated tourist zones, shops are required by law to close by 7pm. I think Berlin does a pretty good and London seems to manage the sprawl of the city rather well. For non-European cities, Seoul is one of my favorites. Extremely extensive subway, though admittedly during rush hour, it's positively insane. But you never have to walk more that 200 meters to get anywhere it seems.

paganel 10y ago

> There is no need for a car in cities since you can get anywhere with public transport Visiting Vienna some time ago was the first time when I realized that if I ever were to move to another city from the one I'm currently living in (a capital city in Eastern Europe) that city would need to have a decent tramway network, just like Vienna does (trolley-buses also count). Relying only on cars or Diesel-hungry buses for carrying people around a big city is barbarous. It also counts that I don't like taking the metro, as traveling 45 minutes - 1 hour per day underground doesn't fit my idea of "good travel".

briandear 10y ago
Vienna is definitely an outlier in terms of awesome. It's one of the more "perfect" cities in terms of size and connectivity. I might argue that Zurich is right up with it. However, Paris is overrated in terms of transport -- summer on the RER or the metro is rather close to hell in my book. No air conditioning and sardine-like UX. Good luck if you have to go shopping, you had better go during off hours or you'll be unable to get your stuff on the train. But then again "off-hours" doesn't really exist in Paris since aside from stores in designated tourist zones, shops are required by law to close by 7pm. I think Berlin does a pretty good and London seems to manage the sprawl of the city rather well. For non-European cities, Seoul is one of my favorites. Extremely extensive subway, though admittedly during rush hour, it's positively insane. But you never have to walk more that 200 meters to get anywhere it seems.