Poor Urban Planning in the States

[Foolsgo1d]

You forget one thing about urban planning and they would straight up lie to you about being future-proof for the next 100 years. You generally see these big building companies and other Civil engineering firms tout "fulfilling the needs of the next 100 years" or 21st Century.

Its a load of shit.

You cannot predict the weather that accurately and you want to try and predict population growth? What was the number of people in the US around the 1950/60s?

1960 United States Census. The Eighteenth United States Census, conducted by the Census Bureau, determined the resident population of the United States to be 179,323,175, an increase of 18.5 percent over the 151,325,798 persons enumerated during the 1950 Census

In 2k19? Its estimated to be well over 300,000,000. You have 800k+ just this year coming from those lovely southern shit holes. Add in half of those women springing a kid or two inside 2-3 years and where is that number?

The problem with urban planning, traffic, pollution, waste etc is the number of people. We are too many and no amount of planning or genius can sort it out except to have a very prolonged and terrible pandemic or food shortage.

 

[perro]

I think Indianapolis, Indiana is the worst planned out city from all the cities I've been to. They have buildings on top of buildings, malls inside apartment complexes, nice buildings next to ragiddy homeless shelters. Its like if they just put different kinds of buildings everywhere without any planning. Its like if they put the hood and nicer areas mixed in together. It was weird.

 

[Garuda]

A walk through Philly, or even a world-class city such as NYC, makes these facts glaringly obvious to the layman. Public transport is often unreliable and dangerous, and more alarmingly, there exists no regional railway that connects the nation as a whole. Cities are quite often not walkable outside of a small downtown (NYC being th exception here), which means one needs a car to participate in daily life. The lack of public gathering spaces is also quite pronounced, which points to a lesser capacity for civic engagement, such as neighborhood picnics in the local park. Speaking of which, green spaces are downright rare, and when chanced upon, visually unimpressive and heavily neglected (I.e. used heroin needles strewn about, unkempt weeds sprouting everywhere). To round it off, building quality can be generally hit or miss, but I have noticed that unsightly brick buildings with few windows seem to be the norm, with abdanoned buildings ("bands") becoming increasingly more prevalent.

For regional railways, there's Amtrak but its reach is rather limited in the interior of the country.

The lack of green spaces is usually due to the city government selling them off to pay off debts or whatever. In Minneapolis, the people voted to have the state government override the city government and create a totally separate body to oversee the parks, preventing the loss of green spaces. Thus it's one of a handful of cities that has a park every six blocks or so.

 

[Aizen]

A walk through Philly, or even a world-class city such as NYC, makes these facts glaringly obvious to the layman. Public transport is often unreliable and dangerous, and more alarmingly, there exists no regional railway that connects the nation as a whole. Cities are quite often not walkable outside of a small downtown (NYC being th exception here), which means one needs a car to participate in daily life. The lack of public gathering spaces is also quite pronounced, which points to a lesser capacity for civic engagement, such as neighborhood picnics in the local park. Speaking of which, green spaces are downright rare, and when chanced upon, visually unimpressive and heavily neglected (I.e. used heroin needles strewn about, unkempt weeds sprouting everywhere). To round it off, building quality can be generally hit or miss, but I have noticed that unsightly brick buildings with few windows seem to be the norm, with abdanoned buildings ("bands") becoming increasingly more prevalent.

For regional railways, there's Amtrak but its reach is rather limited in the interior of the country.

The lack of green spaces is usually due to the city government selling them off to pay off debts or whatever. In Minneapolis, the people voted to have the state government override the city government and create a totally separate body to oversee the parks, preventing the loss of green spaces. Thus it's one of a handful of cities that has a park every six blocks or so.

I would never take an Amtrak train or let anyone close to me board one - it's not only prohibitively expensive for the quality of service, it's also quite dangerous to ride. I can't recall how many times I've turned on the news to see yet another Amtrak derailment.

Due to cost-cutting measures, they have not implemented a safety system that allows the trains to turn corners safely. This in spite of the fact that every other developed country has had it for 20+ years now. And because Amtrak effectively has a monopoly on transnational transit, they simply don't give a shit about upgrades or maintenance (similar to the MTA in NYC).

If you want to learn more about this I would highly recommend this two-part series on the shit state of infrastructure in the US.

 

[Cobra]

I grew up in India until I was 12. Horrendous urban planning in most cities.

When I came to the USA at the age of 12, landing at JFK, the excellent urban planning was the immediate highlight, at that time not even knowing what urban planning was.

I think western people, especially Americans don't travel or experience much outside of the west itself so they find it difficult to grasp (not logically but from a feeling/emotional perspective).

For example, for all of the lack of urban planning, in Asian or eastern communities, it leaves people closer and connected with more group identity. Something the west severely lacks and moreso due to social media. In a significant number of USA western communities, people don't even talk to their neighbors. Being who I am, I see it as cringeworthy to be honest and very regressive from a quality of life perspective even if you have nicer things materially speaking.

I think it's important to think through the socio economic as well as cultural implications of urban landscapes.

 

[estraudi]

Pretty soon when humanity is zooming from planet to planet George Jetson style there will exist that one subset of people in this forum that will complain that the cosmos were really laid out poorly for people who prefer to walk from planet to planet in perfectly manicured sidewalks with 90 degree angles and wheelchair ramps.

"Cosmo planning is really terrible in this galaxy, Milky Way galaxy folks should really be mimicking Andromedan galaxy folks with their high walkability planet clusters."

 

[MusicForThePiano]

Pretty soon when humanity is zooming from planet to planet George Jetson style there will exist that one subset of people in this forum that will complain that the cosmos were really laid out poorly for people who prefer to walk from planet to planet in perfectly manicured sidewalks with 90 degree angles and wheelchair ramps.

"Cosmo planning is really terrible in this galaxy, Milky Way galaxy folks should really be mimicking Andromedan galaxy folks with their high walkability planet clusters."

Hugh-manatee can't even stop themselves from being infected by parasitical anti-cultures and underclass vermin preventing them from reaching said theoretical progress. There won't be any planet to planet anything. There's just the earth and all our miserable incompatible asses on it. That's the first step to change. All real progress stopped at 1913.

The American cities don't have the splendor and history of the European ones, let alone functional designs, barring a few colonial settlements.

 

[fokm]

When I came to the USA at the age of 12, landing at JFK, the excellent urban planning was the immediate highlight, at that time not even knowing what urban planning was.

After flying into Hong Kong and Tokyo, flying in to LaGaurdia in NYC is downright frustrating. There's simply no comparison. Want to get to downtown Tokyo from Narita? It's really simple even if you don't speak Japanese.

Want to get to lower Manhattan without paying for an expensive cab? It can be done, but there is no guidance at all. It's really off-putting, while also hilarious when people from NYC say it's the best city in the world.

 

[Cobra]

^I think it was my relative lack of experience seeing other cities that caused my mind to accept NYC as some mecca.

So I do have to adjust myself to say that cities in the Gulf/ME and the ones mentioned here like Singapore seem like they are much better planned. Culture wise also these folks seem to have a closer group identity.

Now this is interesting and also opens up the debate between proper urban planning and proper suburban planning. In the city I live in currently, Chicago, younger people (sub 30 in age) tend to be closer to the city and 30+ tend to drive 15+ miles to live in a bigger house with their wife and kids (like myself). There is also a lot more suburban development in areas like mine. Custom built homes are popping up everywhere around my house.

From this perspective, I think Chicago may be planned out better than NYC. That also opens up other variables such as wear and tear. With the amount of traffic NYC has seen from immigration, and the resulting urban transformation, compared to a city like Chicago, do we really expect that better Urban planning is that easy?

 

[Buddydowrongright2]

I have spent time in a few U.S. cities that I felt were more walkable and European, with acceptable or even excellent public transportation to match. Naturally the United States is going to lag far far behind European cities in terms of livability simply due to the fact that the proceeds from our relatively low tax rates mostly go to the permanent wars that prop up the arms industry and welfare programs to subsidize GloboHomo corporations. For reference, the most livable city I have lived in was Munich, so that's what I'm comparing these to.

Best:

New York - lived here. Excellent public transportation. So they are not as good as German trains. There are crazy assholes on them and bums taking a shit. But... that's the New World, buddy. The trains go, and they usually go on time. Can walk most places and where you can't walk, you can take a train. NYC has the best public transportation in the US hands down.

Boston - lived here. Also has excellent public transpo. Fewer crazies than New York. But also fewer trains. For all its batshit liberal insanity, Boston is actually not a bad city to live in if you don't mind the cold or the high cost of living. The benefit of Boston is it's small. You can walk across the city in a couple of hours.

Decent:

Seattle - visited for a week. City has public transpo that is okay. The city proper, at least, is easy to get around and pretty nice and well-maintained. The tradeoff is it's full of drug addicts and aggressive bums. There are hot chicks, though.

San Francisco - lived here (or close enough). The city proper has public transportation and it runs. It is also one of the few cities on this list that was planned to be a large city. Irishman-turned-Spaniard Jasper O'Farrell (namesake of O'Farrell street) planned the city as a grid in 1848 to maximize the living space for people coming from the East Coast during the Gold Rush. Large portions of the then-SF Bay were filled in with sunken ships and the city built on top of them. The city proper is a relatively small peninsula (7 miles by 7 miles) so many places are in walking distance if you're up for it. It is the opposite of a sprawl. Of course, the stereotypes about the ridiculous cost of living, homeless people shitting on the streets, and general liberal douchebaggery are all true.

New Orleans - visited here for a week. Not much public transportation to speak of, but the heart of the city is what - almost 400 years old I think? - and thus built before automobiles, so it is fairly easy to get around. Cost of living is also ridiculously low. There are obviously extreme urban planning issues regarding the levees as we saw in Hurricane Katrina. But during my stay there, I found it a pretty livable city. The people were nice and the food was good, too.

Worst:

Los Angeles - lived here. No surprises. Los Angeles was built by the auto industry. A hundred years ago, when the city was first beginning to flourish, they tried planning a vast network of subways and suburban trains that was supposed to rival New York's. The car lobbyists killed it. LA is the sprawl of sprawls. Everywhere you go, there is traffic. Everything you want to do, you will wait in line for. There is no way around and there are no shortcuts. You gotta sit there sucking in fumes with the rest of 'em. There is SOME public transportation runnning through the "core" or neighborhoods adjacent to downtown, some of it running as far north as Pasadena and as far south as Redondo. Those trains do run on time and frequently enough to be useful. But if you don't live pretty much next-door to the train station it's a moot point, as you will sit in traffic just to get to the train. I also got threatened with stabbing multiple times on the Green Line, which was fun. Oh and the busses in LA are pretty extensive too, but again, a homeless dude jerked off in the seat behind me at least once a month during the year I took the bus to work, so... Basically do not live in LA unless you are within a three-mile radius of your job or you manage to somehow snag a place literally next to your train station. And even then, bring goggles.

San Diego - lived here for many years. Another car city. Fun place to live but horrible layout unless you live in the North Park/Normal Heights/Hillcrest area, which is walkable and a pretty great area in terms of location and things to do. But Hillcrest is full of gays. So it goes.

Did not live in or visit, but have heard good things about...
Boise
Portland
Chicago

 

[fokm]

Did not live in or visit, but have heard good things about...
Boise
Portland
Chicago

Portland is a fantastic place that the libs killed. Crazy people on the street morning, noon, and night. Mostly white people who are very accepting. Lots of vagabonds. If it was a more conservative city, I'd move there in a heartbeat.

 

[Buddydowrongright2]

Did not live in or visit, but have heard good things about...
Boise
Portland
Chicago

Portland is a fantastic place that the libs killed. Crazy people on the street morning, noon, and night. Mostly white people who are very accepting. Lots of vagabonds. If it was a more conservative city, I'd move there in a heartbeat.

Sure, was only talking about how livable the city is. Not necessarily the people. I feel the same way about San Francisco. I'm sure that SF before the 90s was awesome, back when it was an actual city and not an AntiFa training camp.

 

[Garuda]

Public transport is often unreliable and dangerous, and more alarmingly, there exists no regional railway that connects the nation as a whole.

I can't recall how many times I've turned on the news to see yet another Amtrak derailment.

So you wanted a bunch of small rail conglomerates that formed a patchwork of rails spanning the entire country instead of one big railway like Amtrak?

Now this is interesting and also opens up the debate between proper urban planning and proper suburban planning. In the city I live in currently, Chicago, younger people (sub 30 in age) tend to be closer to the city and 30+ tend to drive 15+ miles to live in a bigger house with their wife and kids (like myself). There is also a lot more suburban development in areas like mine. Custom built homes are popping up everywhere around my house.

From this perspective, I think Chicago may be planned out better than NYC. That also opens up other variables such as wear and tear. With the amount of traffic NYC has seen from immigration, and the resulting urban transformation, compared to a city like Chicago, do we really expect that better Urban planning is that easy?

Was there ever a thing as proper suburban planning? I know it was built for the automobile but only to have three or four roads go through and the rest abruptly stop in cul-de-sacs or just loop around is just asking for a transportation nightmare. First ring suburbs are better off though as all the streets were just extended out from the big city in most cases, allowing you to walk to the retail areas instead of having to drive around a large dividing wall and across a four lane road.

As for the best urban planning, the key might be to never deviate from the original plan for the city in the first place.

https://www.revitalizeordie.com/blog-posts/2019/7/9/old-urbanism

This leads me to the conclusion that what we are really trying to do is nothing new at all. Revitalization is in essence, Old Urbanism. The solutions for declining cities aren’t ahead of us, they are behind us. Every city that is seeking to revitalize today was once a healthy, vibrant, resilient and sustainable place. The decline has resulted from changing what worked. If you look at the cities and districts that are most successful today, they have changed the least over the last century. Whether they fought back against sprawl or never suffered its effects, the healthiest places are the ones that still operate on a human scale. These are the places where businesses are still owned locally and downtown buildings are a source of pride, not shame.

 

[Aizen]

@Garuda

Excellent article. It's quite hard to find articles that touch upon community sentiment, as most Americans have been lacking such community for so long that they hardly notice its absense.

It's also important to note the role of driving in community fragmentation, as the act of driving is fundamentally antisocial (in the literal sense of the word) and discourages spontaneous, neighborhood interactions.

It is commonly touted that small town life is dead. Lies. Small town life has changed because we changed it. It is that physical design that has changed so substantially in so many places over the decades. What once defined a small town, was its sense of community. Unfortunately, as the center of the community has perished, so has the sense of community. If people no longer gather in the central marketplace, a downtown, they no longer have the opportunity to be with one another and get to know one another. If all trips require a car, people no longer happen into one another walking down the street and lose out on the opportunity to establish causal acquaintances. The nature of people living in smaller communities didn’t change over time, the design of their place did. Community has been designed out of our lives.

 

[debeguiled]