3 ms·

The United States is 200x larger in size (excluding Alaska) but has only 20x as many people as the Netherlands.

by wincy 5y ago

ajross 5y ago
The urban cores of New York and Boston are denser than any city in Europe! I mean, yes, it's true that the "empty" spaces are much bigger in the Americas. But you don't need a personal automobile to reach places you go only occasionally, and often for leisure. There's absolutely no reason that kind of lifestyle is impossible here. It's not what we chose[1], but there's certainly nothing about the geography the precludes it. The focus, and later dependence, on extended exurbs connected with roads for private vehicles is very much a policy decision. [1] Actually it is what we chose, up until the 1950's, when we chose to build in different ways.
- xboxnolifes 5y ago
  > The urban cores of New York and Boston are denser than any city in Europe! And unaffordable to the vast majority. I'd love to have plenty of walkable city options in the US, but they aren't going to appear overnight by banning cars when you need them to get around places over half of the people in the US live in.
- animal_spirits 5y ago
  People also forget that Europe has had continuous non-nomadic people living in most places for thousands of years already, while the US has only had that for a few hundred years. Many things that have already been figured out in Europe for centuries (roads, dams, levies) are still in progress developments in the US
- goatlover 5y ago
  The US has tons of smaller cities and towns. New York and Massachusetts included. There might be trains going into Boston and NY, but you still need to get around the smaller population centers if you live or visit there. The Northeast has a big mix of highly urban areas and countryside.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  The whole point of the thread is that there's a lot of variance in density within the US, and we shouldn't regulate the rural midwest like we regulate NYC. > It's not what we chose[1], but there's certainly nothing about the geography the precludes it. The focus, and later dependence, on extended exurbs connected with roads for private vehicles is very much a policy decision. It's an amalgamation of a hundred years of policy decisions and private investment based around those decisions, and it would take as long to reverse it even if there was political appetite for it. And there's not much appetite for it because most people prefer the convenience and comfort of cars. To that end: > There's absolutely no reason that kind of lifestyle is impossible here. It's not a matter of whether that lifestyle is possible, but whether it's desirable. Most Americans find the convenience and comfort of cars to be preferable to public transit.

The United States is 200x larger in size (excluding Alaska) but has only 20x as many people as the Netherlands.

by wincy 5y ago

The United States is 200x larger in size (excluding Alaska) but has only 20x as many people as the Netherlands.

The urban cores of New York and Boston are denser than any city in Europe! I mean, yes, it's true that the "empty" spaces are much bigger in the Americas. But you don't need a personal automobile to reach places you go only occasionally, and often for leisure. There's absolutely no reason that kind of lifestyle is impossible here. It's not what we chose[1], but there's certainly nothing about the geography the precludes it. The focus, and later dependence, on extended exurbs connected with roads for private vehicles is very much a policy decision. [1] Actually it is what we chose, up until the 1950's, when we chose to build in different ways.

xboxnolifes 5y ago
> The urban cores of New York and Boston are denser than any city in Europe! And unaffordable to the vast majority. I'd love to have plenty of walkable city options in the US, but they aren't going to appear overnight by banning cars when you need them to get around places over half of the people in the US live in.
animal_spirits 5y ago
People also forget that Europe has had continuous non-nomadic people living in most places for thousands of years already, while the US has only had that for a few hundred years. Many things that have already been figured out in Europe for centuries (roads, dams, levies) are still in progress developments in the US
goatlover 5y ago
The US has tons of smaller cities and towns. New York and Massachusetts included. There might be trains going into Boston and NY, but you still need to get around the smaller population centers if you live or visit there. The Northeast has a big mix of highly urban areas and countryside.
throwaway894345 5y ago
The whole point of the thread is that there's a lot of variance in density within the US, and we shouldn't regulate the rural midwest like we regulate NYC. > It's not what we chose[1], but there's certainly nothing about the geography the precludes it. The focus, and later dependence, on extended exurbs connected with roads for private vehicles is very much a policy decision. It's an amalgamation of a hundred years of policy decisions and private investment based around those decisions, and it would take as long to reverse it even if there was political appetite for it. And there's not much appetite for it because most people prefer the convenience and comfort of cars. To that end: > There's absolutely no reason that kind of lifestyle is impossible here. It's not a matter of whether that lifestyle is possible, but whether it's desirable. Most Americans find the convenience and comfort of cars to be preferable to public transit.