4 ms·

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 th

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.