3 ms·

What a ridiculous take. Spread businesses out more rather than in one place. Let me guess, you never go anywhere without your car??

tagoregrtst 5y ago
Let me guess you never lived in Europe? Europe is mostly very many small, sub million, cities with jobs scattered throughout the city largely created before the automobile. The jobs are spread throughout the city in the buildings people live in you can choose to live in the neighborhood where you work. Or, the American model where all the jobs are in the city core in monsterous buildings (most not skyscrapers, but anyway ugly orgies of concentrated office space) while everyone lives far in a suburb.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  > Or, the American model where all the jobs are in the city core in monsterous buildings (most not skyscrapers, but anyway ugly orgies of concentrated office space) This is a creation of modern urban planning; it's not a "natural" consequence of having skyscrapers. Europe has its megacities and hyperdense cores too (which do feature mixed business/residential use, unlike much of the U.S.), and America has its scattered historical towns.
  - tagoregrtst 5y ago
    I mostly agree, thats why I used mid sized European cities as an ideal, not London or Paris. And, it wasn't to pick on the US - Charleston SC or Savanah GA come to mind as an very livable cities (minus the tourists). Instead US cities suffered the advent of the car more since they were newer, less established. Finally, I agree that (mis century “progressive”) Urban planning is mostly to blame. Where I don't agree is that the skyscraper is a blameless misused tool of the urban planner. In the cities that built them, skyscrapers hurt the city. And European “megacities” are as unlivable (unless you’re 25-35) as any American megacity. Give me Bologna over Milan any day.
Talanes 5y ago
What a ridiculous take. I live in San Francisco without a car, and there are entire classes of business I can't easily shop at because they're concentrated in shopping centers elsewhere in the bay. Concentrated business districts only help you avoid using a car if you live on top of them.
- tapland 5y ago
  I live in a European city with only a handful of buildings above 5 stories tall. Population density is too low for anything but a few restaurants and a grocery store anywhere but in the city center and a few larger shopping centers around the outskirts. The mix with businesses give mostly lunch restaurants that are closed in the evenings and it's just as much a ghost town as anything else after hours.
  - ido 5y ago
    It’s not because of 5 stories not being enough. I live in Berlin where almost all buildings top out at 5-6 stories and there are restaurants and shops all over the city.
  - tagoregrtst 5y ago
    Thats very interesting. When I lived in Europe, I lived in a town of 20k. I could easily walk two towns over, and a major European town was a short train ride away. We certainly didnt have night clubs we certainly had fancy restaurants everywhere catering to families who wanted a night out. Europe is not very monolithic!

tagoregrtst 5y ago

Let me guess you never lived in Europe? Europe is mostly very many small, sub million, cities with jobs scattered throughout the city largely created before the automobile. The jobs are spread throughout the city in the buildings people live in you can choose to live in the neighborhood where you work. Or, the American model where all the jobs are in the city core in monsterous buildings (most not skyscrapers, but anyway ugly orgies of concentrated office space) while everyone lives far in a suburb.

zozbot234 5y ago
> Or, the American model where all the jobs are in the city core in monsterous buildings (most not skyscrapers, but anyway ugly orgies of concentrated office space) This is a creation of modern urban planning; it's not a "natural" consequence of having skyscrapers. Europe has its megacities and hyperdense cores too (which do feature mixed business/residential use, unlike much of the U.S.), and America has its scattered historical towns.
- tagoregrtst 5y ago
  I mostly agree, thats why I used mid sized European cities as an ideal, not London or Paris. And, it wasn't to pick on the US - Charleston SC or Savanah GA come to mind as an very livable cities (minus the tourists). Instead US cities suffered the advent of the car more since they were newer, less established. Finally, I agree that (mis century “progressive”) Urban planning is mostly to blame. Where I don't agree is that the skyscraper is a blameless misused tool of the urban planner. In the cities that built them, skyscrapers hurt the city. And European “megacities” are as unlivable (unless you’re 25-35) as any American megacity. Give me Bologna over Milan any day.

Talanes 5y ago

What a ridiculous take. I live in San Francisco without a car, and there are entire classes of business I can't easily shop at because they're concentrated in shopping centers elsewhere in the bay. Concentrated business districts only help you avoid using a car if you live on top of them.

tapland 5y ago
I live in a European city with only a handful of buildings above 5 stories tall. Population density is too low for anything but a few restaurants and a grocery store anywhere but in the city center and a few larger shopping centers around the outskirts. The mix with businesses give mostly lunch restaurants that are closed in the evenings and it's just as much a ghost town as anything else after hours.
- ido 5y ago
  It’s not because of 5 stories not being enough. I live in Berlin where almost all buildings top out at 5-6 stories and there are restaurants and shops all over the city.
- tagoregrtst 5y ago
  Thats very interesting. When I lived in Europe, I lived in a town of 20k. I could easily walk two towns over, and a major European town was a short train ride away. We certainly didnt have night clubs we certainly had fancy restaurants everywhere catering to families who wanted a night out. Europe is not very monolithic!