3 ms·
I wouldn't say so. It felt more accidental to me than anything else. Like they just took a place designed for cars, shut the cars out, and yeah it's busy becaus
by TulliusCicero 8y ago
I wouldn't say so. It felt more accidental to me than anything else. Like they just took a place designed for cars, shut the cars out, and yeah it's busy because it's in NYC and there's plenty of density and shops, but the actual urban design itself still felt largely bad and dumb.
Maybe it's changed since I've been, though.
- romwell 8y ago> Like they just took a place designed for cars NYC was developed in its current form, with high-rises and all, well before cars were commonplace[1]. So no, they didn't take a place designed for cars, and yes, that's why it actually works when you take the cars out of the equation again. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_New_York_City#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_N...
- TulliusCicero 8y ago> NYC was developed in its current form, with high-rises and all, well before cars were commonplace[1]. Ha, no it was not. Oh, it was originally developed sans cars, that's true. But that's not the same thing as its current form. Cities are continually being redeveloped after all. You think Amsterdam was always so bike-friendly? Try googling for what it was like in the early 70's, before the "Stop De Kindermoord" campaign.
- romwell 8y agoPlease do tell how NYC has been radically re-developed since 1920's.