Americans, why do your cities look like someone did CTRL+C CTRL+V

Americans, why do your cities look like someone did CTRL+C CTRL+V

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roads_and_expressways_in_Chicago
streamable.com/c1dg0
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

...

Efficiency. One grid of infrastructure fails, we subvert the adjacent

Koyaanisqatsi

Because that's what they did. The only interesting cities are ones where the terrain prohibited this to some extent (waterways, mountains, etc.)

Space efficiency.

I'll take ease of travel over looking neat desu

Because North American cities didn't have a thousand years of development before the invention of the automobile.

Also, there's a lot of space here. Like a fuck of a a lot. I don't know if foreigners really understand how large North America is. In Europe if you drive on a highway for 5 hours, you can cross most of Germany. In North America a 5 hour trip probably doesn't even get you to the next province or state.

Europeans emphatically do not understand how large North America is. Coast to coast longer than the distance from Lisbon to Moscow

Unlike many European cities, which grew haphazardly outwards around small settlements over the course of centures or even millennia, a lot of cities in the US are less than 150 years old and were planned and built over relatively short periods of time, and thus were built with the vision of making the most efficient use out of the available space.

The irony of efficient designs being used in the vast emptiness of North America isn't lost on you, I hope.

>Europoors cannot comprehend the BEAUTY of American cities

because city layouts were designed recently using modern civic engineering practices.


cities like london have been around for 2000 years - the layout has obviously changed all over and there hans't been a singular design decision so it looks messy and not as organized.

You have to be a Mudslime. They're the only ones so vapid as to not know that the grid system for urban development was developed by the Roman empire, and that the US was just able to copy it without any retrofitting due to its young age.

>Los Angeles is beautiful
>said no one ever

Because Americans don't care about city planning from an aesthetic standpoint, but an economic one

I can't fathom what goes through the mind of the people who design interchanges. They're part beautiful, part horrifying mess.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roads_and_expressways_in_Chicago
>Chicago's streets were laid out in a grid that grew from the city's original townsite plan. Streets following the Public Land Survey System section lines later became arterial streets in outlying sections. As new additions to the city were platted, city ordinance required them to be laid out with eight streets to the mile in one direction and 16 in the other direction.
Were these cities designed by OCD people?

Bad urban planning. Tbe way things are legally divided up. Grid-pattern-housing. Planned communities. Less organic history owing to a younger countryhood.

Its called planning. Looking up, dumbshit.

It was a blank slate, so the European settlers who came here, you know the ones who build civilizations, decided to correct some annoying errors when they designed and built the cities here.

because a lot of american cities are like literally a few decades old rather than building ontop of what the ancestors did thousands of years ago like in real countries

That's a Mexican city.

It's easy to build efficient cities when they're less than 300 years old.

Grids are mostly due to germans. The french still built their faggy concentric roads.

Did you want people without OCD to design something that has to be transited through by millions of people every day? Maybe visit Madrid then.

because north america is a uniform piece of taylorist crap, designed to harbour massive amounts of cucks.

Is there something fundamentally wrong here?

to use more oil and fatten up the sheboons

>Frenchman calling anyone cucks

44 million ethnic German-Americans. Largest ethnic German population outside of Germany. If not for some 19th century laws and a couple unfortunate wars, the Midwest would speak German.

The most annoying city to drive in is Boston, it doesn't look like this and it sucks.

Simple question and you're already SEETHING

It's like an escher drawing

These are often the result of patchwork short-medium term fixes based on high traffic burden, rather than redesign the whole highway, they just add a bunch of fucked up ramps. It would be better to create a longer term fix but then you need to predict traffic patterns which is hard.

You can't have a roundabout when they're going 75mph.

Efficiency nigger. You want to spend an hour going in a circle, or half the time cutting through?

Intelligent Design.

>It would be better to create a longer term fix but then you need to predict traffic patterns which is hard.

To fix the problem long-term would involve shutting down the interchange for months, maybe years. Which is a big no no.

It's actually well laid out while driving. It has to be designed with the lowest common denominator in mind, and we have some real lows, which results in a clusterfuck from the aerial view.

The oil, auto cartels used public funds to dismantle cozy cities and build car dependant death traps you see today

It's called city planning you cuck

streamable.com/c1dg0
Shooo, Piere.

Basically, our cities were not built hundreds, if not thousands of years ago. Since we got to make most of our cities in the last century or two we had the ability to plan them pretty well instead of what happened in other old countries. Over in europe for example, tribes evolved into city-states so they weren't planned as nicely and just kind of lumped together haphazardly.

Pretty easy to navigate through our cities as a result it is nice. I am very jealous of the older countries and their nice architecture, though. We don't have 500 year old gothic cathedrals decorated by renaissance artists or cool shit like stonehenge. We got gay shit like cahokia since our natives blew. They got cooler down in central/south america and actually built some neat shit.

Is that Chicago? I used to live there, and when I would fly in, I would see the diagonal streets.

A E S T H E T I C

E

S

T

H

E

T

I

C

this is the only correct answer.

your debt is growing even faster

That pic makes me want to rewatch Talespin.

>Americans, why do your cities look like someone did CTRL+C CTRL+V
You mean " Cool as fuck " ? Just do

Long history of that starting with oil companies buying out trolley lines in NYC to shut them down to increase reliance on vehicles.

made my hair stand up

Also, our cities will never look like that again. It's been ages since I last saw a low pressure sodium lamp.

The Asian ones seem even crazier due to their compactness, though they usually require lower speeds due to the tighter curves.

You can drive 12 hours through Texas

Pressure sodium lamps are still the norm in practically every town i've lived in. Except when I lived in Arkansas. There's a shitload in and around Chicago.

That's what happens when a city is created in a couple of decades and does not grow gradually like they did in Europe.

this is one of my favorite things. it's funny how they think their countries can individually compete, and even more funny that they think the EU is a comparable institution to the USA.

greatest country on earth, unironically---and their collective hatred of us proves the point.

Damn right it is.

this.

thanks canada.

sure.

debt also doesn't seem like a real thing, though. that's just my uneducated opinion---im sure you can point to consequences both real and hypothetical, but i am still skeptical of this being a huge issue

niggers and kikes

Oy cynthia told those chinks we got the best gdp in tha world, murica fuck yeah.

Oy and cynthia count those food stamps will ya, been starving like a sorry dog these last few days...slurp.

did you never played sim city?

growth in debt to foreign countries is very good for the usa

Geographer here. I can actually explain this.

If you look at America, we have (primarily) four city/region planning methods.

1, Meets and Bounds: The "British" method. If you look at the overall, older parts of New England and compare it to the UK - the layout is similar. Each "area" is designated where one region meets something recognizable (at the time) - such as an old tree, or a river. Your land isn't square. It flows with the terrain.

2, Spanish Lots / Rancho / Spanish Grants: LARGE tracts of land in regular or irregular shape that follow valuable assets (woods, coal, cattle, etc.) EG: Ranches. Done primarily by Spain and later Mexico.

3, French Colonial: These are square land plots that follow waterways or secondary roads (French colonies primarily use waters as the primary 'road.') - Look at a picture along the Mississippi river - you'll see how farms are rectangle, etc. New Orleans is built like this too.

4, Public Land Survey System, Jefferson's Grid : This is the "big ugly squares" you see. See, when the US was unifying up it's territories, Jefferson was enamored with the old Roman Grid system. Rome isn't built like that but they did try to grid-ify shit in some cases. So Jefferson said "Hey let's make our expansion efficient. These are big, empty lands."

The idea is, if you divide the land up into grids, you can place towns at equidistant from each other. So farms and such have nearby assets. Land is fairly divided. Etc. This is over-simplified for Sup Forums's sake, but generally the case. Canada has a similar set up.

Later in American history, these plots were sub-divided further, and further, and further. Thus you end up with small squares inside big squares as lands got sold off where these systems are used.

Bonus Info: In the west, every-other section (sq mile) was sold to the old Railroads for cheap-as-shit. The idea was the railroads would build rails & develop towns. Needless to say this didn't get finished so... pic related.

>lower speed
>not drifting in your R32 Skyline during your morning commute

How French do their shit. SO fucking ugly. Worse than Americans. Many such cases. Shame.

Land Grants for example in a park that is mapped out here. It kind of worked out for natural purposes. Lots of clean, non-used woodlands.

>americans why are your roads all straight

because we do not want to have cluttered fuckfests like al-London

"SEETHING" Not really, I'm just finding it entertaining how pathetic you are.

I don't mean in the sense of "how can we fit as much as possible into as little space as possible", I mean that American cities are largely built with relatively modern considerations such as cars in mind. If you had the kind of traffic that cities like LA experience in a city like London, it would be gridlocked for weeks.

Would you say they're developed with balance between livability and efficiency in mind? American Suburbs all seem very samey to me.

>centuries of progress for perfect straight lines
>someone on the internet mad about it

How Rancho looks. It suits whatever need is present. Can be French-Like, Meets and Bounds, Grids, what-the-fuck ever. Total chaos.

Be a little self-aware.

Worse than Frankfurt holy christ!!!

Giant grids are easy to navigate around and when you have massive flat areas why the fuck would you make a circle?

American cities were planned. That means someone designed them.

European cities were grown. That means people just threw up tenements until it became so unlivable that your governments had to tear out the inner city and rebuild it, resulting in a American style city surrounded by crooked teeth neighborhoods. Replacing roads is harder than replacing buildings, so the European inner cities are often still all kinds of screwy.

Also, why do Europeans who ask this question never look at American cities with hills or bays? Only flat, inland places like Phoenix look totally uniform. Many European cities were built on shit land because they needed access to trade or to hide out from bandits too lazy to walk up a small hill.

basically.

Honestly, it was mostly efficiency. It was so farmers and locals would have a town every 6-ish miles. So fields would be easily maintained. So people didn't have to travel 15 miles to go to a church on the other side of a mountain. Etc.

It really was a comfort of life at the time... but the knock-on-effect is that everything American is square... until Neighborhoods. A lot of Neighborhoods are designed in a sort-of Meets and Bounds manner (pic related.) BUT they still "fit" inside a square (which is square because Joe Farmer in 1920 sold the whole thing, and it remained undivided and unused for fifty years.)

bootyblasted Toadie, wew!
but in all honesty I blame the kikes, the inferstructure here is pretty demoralizing. just pure faggotry, you should see some of the "modern" homes in western wa. shits on that phaggy time

Correcting writing error:
>mostly efficiency
>comfort of life at the time

I mean to say, Efficiency in the 1800s and early 1900s was a quality-of-life thing.

>does not know that money is created ex nihilo

i like old comfy screwed up city planning as much as anyone else but from a practical standpoint, especially in places with lots of tourism a dark souls map just doesnt cut it.

Oh please. They're pretty much on a grid and numbered as such. It's the varying shapes and heights of the buildings that makes it look so chaotic

>t. Former ambulance driver in LA

I mean that is pretty sick tho, grid life

Well where I live being Phoenix our tourism is our weather so the point is moot really. We have the best roads in the country and the probably the easiest city to navigate around in as well. Given that it's only 1/3rd the population of LA and still matches it's size in sprawl. This city is the least fucked in the future when it comes to modernization and infrastructure. The East coast with its loopy dopey roads that lead to nowhere are completely fucked.

city planning

What a fucking eyesore. Europe is filled with aesthetic architecture. The best we can come up with is a couple of cathedrals and fugly skyscrapers.

modern european planning > American city planning

At what point do we start going vertical? Like a second city suspended above the old one?

Because they literally did. Us cities and much of the rural institutions were created in the 19th century and followed a structured plan. Very different from organic growth of cities and town elsewhere in the world.

Okay mate. I wasn't defending anything, just explaining where everything comes from. OP asked. I delivered facts.

That is because many of its streets date as far back as the 1630s. There's a reason many European visitors to the US feel very at home in Boston.

Try again dumbass. It is going down as a % of gdp

>waaaaahhhh I want US to have population density problem like EU

Also take note juden how easier it is for us to drive. As in we can actually drive in densely populated cities

It’s actually the Spanish.

This. Also grid patterns are most efficient. I've been to Paris, Lisbon, Madrid and London. The curvy streets are cool up until a point. From then on they feel schizophrenic. They were built at different times with different widths and sizes. There's a street less than 10 feet wide in Lisbon that has traffic going through it. You can't drive from one end to another of most major European cities. And have to rely on public transit. Usually rail lines cut through certain areas in shockingly efficient grid patterns.

Yeah public transit in the US sucks outside of certain major cities. But between cities is miles of country you can drive on. I used to drive nearly 300 miles between vegas and LA every weekend with friends. It took us about 5-6 hours to get there.