this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
274 points (96.3% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26638 readers
2823 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I've heard the legends of having to drive to literally everywhere (e.g. drive thru banks), but I have no clue how far apart things are.

I live in suburban London where you can get to a big supermarket in 10 minutes of walking, a train station in 20 minutes and convenience stores are everywhere. You can get anywhere with bus and train in a few hours.

Can someone help a clueless British lemmyposter know how far things are in the US?

EDIT

Here are my walking distances:

  • To the nearest convenience store: 250m
  • To the nearest chain supermarket: 350m
  • To the bus stop: 310m
  • To the nearest park: 400m
  • To the nearest big supermarket: 1.3km
  • To the nearest library: 1.2km
  • To the nearest train station: 1km

Straight-line distance to Big Ben: 16km

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I never knew Boston was designed for cars (yes, that's sarcasm, Boston is known for its roads being enlarged footpaths dating back hundreds of years, some of which started as paths that animals took).

The US is much more complex than such a simple statement. US cities, historically, weren't so much designed as grew. And I still see that today. My town, a suburb of a city, was established about 1860 (140 years ago), when there was empty space between it and the city - farmland.

It certainly wasn't "designed for cars" that didn't exist at the time. The town I grew up in existed before cars.

And I've seen this all over the place. The cities grow until they run into small towns, which then become suburbs of the city. These small towns were often agriculture based (or manufacturing based), because farms need to take their cop to the train, the train stop ends up growing a town.

The only "designed" city I can think of is one in Maryland. There are others, but cities aren't "designed" - that implies an over-arching plan. Cities are organic, they grow.

If you want to make a "design" argument, Western Europe is much more in line with this idea, since so much infrastructure was destroyed by two successive world wars over 20 years, and the reconstruction with "modern" engineering and design that took place starting in the 1950's.

[โ€“] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I was going to say if it was built before 1950 then it was probably better, but even then most cities were in fact radically changed and altered by the car. Even Boston was radically changed, bulldozing entire neighborhoods just so they could build the interstates through. (Those neighborhoods were mostly minorities of course, even in Boston if you look up where they decided was the "best" locations for the interstates guess whose neighborhoods were affected) - and even then those car-centric design decisions are still reverberating today. Look at Boston's number one infrastructure project over the last 30 years - The Big Dig. Purely 100% because cars were a focus. Even now it's still designed as a car centric approach because the entire "park" they put up is surrounded by a massive boulevard that you have to cross, surrounded by car noise.

Small towns too were radically altered by the car. Where small towns had hubs near the train station where people would get on now sprawl was not just there - but encouraged. Why live in the center of town when you could go live on the outskirts away from people?

So yes, your argument of "But cities were built before" - yes, many were. That doesn't mean that we didn't destroy huge portions of them just to accommodate drivers.

So I'll amend my statement: Cities were bulldozed and rebuilt for the car.

Good Armchair Urbanist video about The Big Dig and Boston's interstates: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5pPKfzzL54