Is there ony american city that is just not skyscrapers plus suburbs?

Is there ony american city that is just not skyscrapers plus suburbs?

Washington D.C.

There is a lot of cities that are only suburbs.

Skyscrapers are illegal in Washington DC

No, basically only San Francisco is more aesthetically like most european cities.
In every other city they demolish old buildings and make new ones.

The modern skyscraper was invented in Chicago so it shouldn't surprise you that skyscrapers are there.

And i don't get your question European cities are just "old" buildings with suburbs

no

Many. San Francisco for one.

The Financial District is where most of the skyscrapers are. Most of the city consists of diverse neighborhoods & parks, some massive (e.g., Golden Gate Park).

what city is it?

Portland has a nice mix.

New Mexico's whole shtick is having small cities.

Chicago, I think

Forgot pic.

See

Denver.

The list is endless, and this is a boring endeavor.

god san francisco sucks
looks like commie blocks
i prefer my cozy suburbs

I didn't know Chicago was so close to the water, I thought it was Miami at first

It's on the shore of one of the largest lakes in the world and is the literal center of transportation here in the US

>god san francisco sucks
>looks like commie blocks

>t. ignorant individual who has been to San Francisco

> *never been

I know, the wind city

What do you have against skyscrapers, Oliver?
Would you like it better this way?

That was actually an insult started new yorkers because they were butthurt that Chicago got to host the 1893 world's fair

i live here (southern california)

why would i want to live in a small commie block in shit francisco when i can have my own house and nice weather?

Is that not what cities are

I grew up in So Cal (the Palisades), but spent most of my life in San Francisco.

If you think those are commie blocks, you have no idea what a commie block is. I live in near proximity to some of those atrocities, and SF housing has nothing to do with Commie blocks.

Personally, I prefer year-round cool weather. To each his own.

Also, I don't like driving for hours to get to a destination.

Though, desu, you can live a nice life on the Westside and never leave it, without too much driving. But living in LA you're probably going to have to face long treks on the highways to get to various destinations, as a necessity of life.

...

...

How can you even afford san francisco? it's so fucking expensive that it doesn't seem worth it to live there

Any city that we built.

For most, it's either an in-law apartment in the Sunset/Richmond, or a shared flat.

In LA, you can spend the same money on more square footage, but you're liable to be in some goofy place like Hawthorne or Glendale.

Anyway, I was an attorney when I lived in SF. But I gave up on that practice and I don't live there anymore. Got the waderlust. Now living the cozy life in Old Town Krakow -- no commie blocks within miles.

Still, if I were to move back to the States, I'd still pick SF. Once you venture past the hills and the westside, it's largely a vast wasteland stretching to the desert.

I too find OP''s question bizarre, especially using Chicago as an example.

It's based on the European model of having a "city center" with neighborhoods arrayed around that core connected with a hub-and-spoke transit system.

The Burnham Plan (the first true comprehensive city plan btw) had a huge boner for Paris.

hmm, i don't know about LA, i wouldn't want to live there either. I live in solana beach

how much rent is the minimum for an in-law apartment in sunset? to me it seems hard to justify living in a small shared space when you could have your own house. attorneys can afford it for sure but not the average american

why did you choose poland? do you speak polish?

Boston

Several, especially on the East Coast and Midwest. You just posted one, and there's also Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, Seattle, and San Francisco, among other things.