3 ms·

That's a weird assumption, given that it's the exact opposite. In most European cities it's better to walk especially if you're under time constraints or have a

That's a weird assumption, given that it's the exact opposite. In most European cities it's better to walk especially if you're under time constraints or have an appointment, it's going to be usually quicker and more predictable in terms of time needed than driving.

koonsolo 2y ago
The fact that you get downvoted is mind blowing. European cities have a clear policy to make it harder for cars and easier for other transportation. The previous poster is basically saying "Most Europeans use the cities they live in as open air museums, and not to live in. They don't have time constraints, they don't have appointments, they don't work there". Living the life in Europe, as a full-time open air museum visitor, it's great!
- trgn 2y ago
  A city not worth visiting is a city not worth living in.
- mdp2021 2y ago
  > The previous poster is basically saying No. For fuck's sake no. The parent poster (parent to my original post) wrote that there is little to «expect» from a city, and recommended at least the in turn parent poster - who wrote about having been an exception as a city walker - to go to a park for walking. So I informed the parent poster that to walk in many European cities is, opposite to that idea, an experience of architecture, monuments and art. I.e.: walking many European cities is far from unusual and with reason. The idea of the poster above about time constraints and appointments is delirious and completely disconnected from what I wrote, literally, briefly, clearly, and exactly with the purpose of avoiding misunderstandings. I hope the above post is at least only the consequence of rushed reading.
mdp2021 2y ago
Which assumption? Just to be sure there were no misunderstandings: I wrote that "If the agenda allows, you will need to enjoy the open-museum city by walking - faster methods will decrease the ability to pay attention": that is not inconsistent with "If the agenda does not allow enjoying the open-museum city, you may want to consider walking as a more reliable way to respect the scheduling".

koonsolo 2y ago

The fact that you get downvoted is mind blowing. European cities have a clear policy to make it harder for cars and easier for other transportation. The previous poster is basically saying "Most Europeans use the cities they live in as open air museums, and not to live in. They don't have time constraints, they don't have appointments, they don't work there". Living the life in Europe, as a full-time open air museum visitor, it's great!

trgn 2y ago
A city not worth visiting is a city not worth living in.
mdp2021 2y ago
> The previous poster is basically saying No. For fuck's sake no. The parent poster (parent to my original post) wrote that there is little to «expect» from a city, and recommended at least the in turn parent poster - who wrote about having been an exception as a city walker - to go to a park for walking. So I informed the parent poster that to walk in many European cities is, opposite to that idea, an experience of architecture, monuments and art. I.e.: walking many European cities is far from unusual and with reason. The idea of the poster above about time constraints and appointments is delirious and completely disconnected from what I wrote, literally, briefly, clearly, and exactly with the purpose of avoiding misunderstandings. I hope the above post is at least only the consequence of rushed reading.

mdp2021 2y ago

Which assumption? Just to be sure there were no misunderstandings: I wrote that "If the agenda allows, you will need to enjoy the open-museum city by walking - faster methods will decrease the ability to pay attention": that is not inconsistent with "If the agenda does not allow enjoying the open-museum city, you may want to consider walking as a more reliable way to respect the scheduling".