ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ต.ค. 2024
- Across the globe, there are more than 10,000 different cities. While Cities in the United States are dominated by cars, European Cities are the complete opposite. But why are US Cities so different, and why didn't they follow the European Blueprint for building a city. While American cities used the grid method to design and organize traffic, European Cities used the Radial method. This can be seen in a City such as Paris where the Radial design is used very often.
While across the Globe are known for having large populations, recent studies have found that people are preferring to live in an urban environment rather than a city. Throughout the next few decades, European Cities will be put to the test to see if their pedestrian oriented design will allow them to avoid a decline in population.
London and Paris are European Cities while New York and Los Angeles are American Cities. Across the globe there are more than 10,000 cities.
Thank you for watching and subscribe if you enjoyed the video!
#City #Paris #Design © 2023 Arkive Productions LLC
I understand there were a lot of mistakes with this video, and I apologize for that. The sources I used for this video had very inaccurate information and I am sorry for that. In the future, I will do a better job verifying the information various sources post online before using it in my videos.
Despite errors and the fact that you presented possible factors to better walkability as the ultimate/most important reason for it, your video is still worthwhile. And this comment is a great sign for the future of your channel, and of its quality.
I'd say simply listing your sources in the description might encourage you to "investigate" them, and thus enrich and nuance your analysis.
In any case, it would definitely make it easier for your viewers to dig deeper in the subjects you present.
@@abadyr_ Thanks I appreciate it. I will work on developing a way to organize the sources I use to research for my videos and allow my viewers to access them.
Then maybe your should reupload this video and fix the mistakes? You know, most people will not see this comment of yours
@@ArkiveYT I have a question, do city blocks count as bad design?
No offense, but if you see, at the minute 3:26, that City Cente are like an square/octagon, similar like american cities, but it's true that some parts is like u said.
The grid vs. radial planning comparison makes no sense. I mean, NY is used as an example in the video and it was designed as a grid way before cars were even invented. Barcelona on the other hand is also a grid throughout almost the whole city and is one of the most walkable cities in the world. The grid city in Europe actually goes back to the Roman Empire, way before US cities were a thing, as they built cities in a grid pattern similar to their military camps, but it was kinda lost during the middle ages and beyond.
In fact, usually the most walkable, vibrant and economically active neighborhoods in US cities are exactly where the grids are, as they commonly are the oldest parts of the cities, while the rest is suburbs (which is what should be pointed as why US cities are worst planned than european, not the grid steets).
Another thing to note is the US cities do not use the grid pattern anymore for over half a century, which means most of US urban areas came after when grid pattern was the norm.
I think if you want to understand where the urban planning in the US differs from Europe and how it impacts things like walkability etc, you should look at zoning and suburbia, as they are what forbids anything other than a single family homes in a cul de sac to be built in most of US cities, and this complete separation between residential and everything else, with the maze-like street patterns of cul de sacs, stroads and highways, is what kills US cities. In comparison, Europe sees mixed used and multi family homes, be it duplexes, triplexes or 4-6 story buildings, as something desirable, not to be avoided.
In the end, the older grid neighborhoods are actually where the US cities comes closer to what European cities are like, as they were built before all this zoning and suburbia nonsense
One of the best comments on a video haha
I see you've watched Amsterdam videos.
Okay so it wasn't just me then. I felt that this video said a lot of nothing.
You beat me to this comment. I found it laughable when he said the grid was designed for cars.
I guess its more correlation and not causation
The more I see how pedestrian friendly I see European cities are the more jealous I become.
The Netherlands is #1 on my list of countries to visit (and possibly move to) because of that. It has to be one of the most pedestrian and bike friendly countries in Europe.
@@VeeTHis yeah
@@VeeTHis it's the place I want to move to when I can.
I can walk to work. Big flex i know.
@@VeeTHis honestly it’s so bike friendly that it decreases pedestrian friendliness in my experience
1:52 "In cities such as Paris and Denmark" - Wow! Impressive research.
There was a mistake here and I apologize. I meant to say "In cities such as Paris and 𝗶𝗻 Denmark"
@@ArkiveYT by the way, New York was designed by Europeans 🇪🇺
Did you forgot that US was a British colony? It means, US is copy of Europe
@@ArkiveYT
Many European cities have grown like trees.
In many cities, the constructions, road courses and road widths as well as the dimensions of the houses/parcels correspond to "the conditions and needs prevailing at the start of construction".
Many cities in Europe still show this growth pattern, at the beginning of the city often more winding and oriented towards central points (e.g. market squares and churches), in later construction and planning phases (over centuries) with newer and adapted to the needs of the time and construction planning.
Also, many cities after the Second World War did not start a complete reconstruction of their infrastructure but tried to rebuild what was destroyed.
After World War II, many cities in Europe had a chance to become what many US cities are today.
However, the residents did not want this.
Also, many US cities looked different up until the 1940s than they do today.
From around the 1950s, entire city districts were leveled and redesigned in the USA, in the sense of modern use (cars).
@@arolemaprarath6615 lol they looked better before the second world war
You basically stereotyped the Europeans with the French example. I'm from Portugal and our policies don't help farmers keeping their lands instead of selling it to huge developers. What happens here is just the opposite. This is just an example but shows how you have to be careful by stereotyping.
It was an overall terrible video. He does have good video editing skills though.
For most people unfortunately, Europe is just Western Europe, and America is just the USA (excluding Latin and South America which are literally a part of America)
As politicas urbanisticas portuguesas foram um desastre nos anos 80-90. Lisboa foi a cidade mais afetada.
Também não podemos esquecer outras politicas desastrosas como o encerramento massivo de ferrovia, o fim dos elétricos de Braga e coimbra e a decadencia dos trasportes públicos no porto em nome do automóvel, a criação de grandes áreas suburbanas no conselho da Amadora e Odivelas que não passam de dormitórios.
Para não falar das politicas centenárias, que levaram à criação de pequenas vilas separadas a curtas distâncias, com um uso de terra terrivelmente ineficiente, mas sem gerar nenhuma área urbana mensurável para criar atividade económica substancial. (por essa razão, passear no distrito de viseu pode ser bonito, mas ao mesmo tempo, entristecedor)
-London wasn't planned (it's a mess of roads built by different people)
-Lots of European cities are grids , they're just designed well with grids
- that is no wear close to how you pronounce champs Elysées
And that is nowhere close to how it's spelled! Have a look in the mirror before criticizing
NYCs grid was designed in 1811. Well over a century before cars
Coming from Germany and having visited Manhattan this year, I loved the way every address can be found easily because of the coordinates.
Great idea!
The reason that European cities are better designed is not that they don't use the gridsystem. Reasons why Europe is better are:
-better infrastructure for bikes and pedestrians
-good public transit
-mixed Zoning
-Cities are much denser (less detached houses), unlike suburbs in America
It is also not true that European streets are often build with radial design. I'm European and I have rarely ever seen something like this.
True and european cities have also grid system such as, Barcelona And Stockholm
And we don't have parking lot taking up space everywhere
Most of this stems from the fact that European countries are much smaller than America
I agree with everything your said, Niclas. I live in the Netherlands. 80 % of the people live in row houses with gardens. That is amazing since the Netherlands it the most densely population country of Europe. We kept our houses and gardens small, no big front yards. New houses are 3 to 4 stories high, to save space.
American houses are double if not triple the space.
@@chrispopovich700 Compare Chicago to Paris. New York to London. Moscow to LA. The European cities listed are all bigger than their American counterparts except New York, AND function better.
US cities were bulldozed for the car, not designed for the car. Even with the grid system you can easily make it work.
Just block of some roads, centre to suburbs make these pedestrian and cycle roads. Side streets closed for cars to, think like 5 to 10 side streets closed before hitting an intersection. Easy, you only need to want it.
The Spanish super blocks are a good example of this.
Narrator: European cities did not use the grid plan
Me, a catalan: **laughs in Barcelona’s Ildefons Cerdà plan** (Literally the creator of the term “urbanism”)
(Also, WTF? The grid plan is an invention of the Roman Empire, any city founded by the romans two milena ago used the grid plan, and you can still see that in old city centers all across Southern Europe)
Gotta see Amsterdams plans to transform it into the next Dubai.
I would like to add a few things. If I remeber correctly the romans built the walls first, then they constructed the roads (always two main roads that cross each other in the middle and thus forming a cross shape) and then they designed the insulae (the term island comes from this word), basically squares that would be filled with buildings (rich people would own a whole insula and the just build one big building while in many insulas there were many buildings with multiple floors in which the poor people lived). Correct me if I'm wrong tho.
Dude you limited your whole research to Paris. Paris is very different than most European cities and is far from organic in its design. Do proper research and don’t stereotype European cities as Paris. And NYC is among the most walkable cities in the US, so you’re actually weakening your argument quite a bit.
He could have used Houston or Los Angeles
"European cities had a different look at city planning" you missed one of the most important differences: most European cities old, and the older something gets, the less planned it is. When it's first built every city is kinda planned, but over the years so much has changed in European cities that I wouldn't call much of it planned anymore
A lot was planned.
However, over the decades and centuries use, population and means of transport have changed.
The cities have adapted comparatively little (viewed from the center outwards).
The growth stages appear more like "tree rings".
The oldest and often most crooked parts in the center, becoming "more modern" or more spacious towards the outside.
Many cities have not, so to speak, erased their history of growth through large-scale demolition and complete new construction/new planning.
as if we in Europe don't know what the demolition of buildings is. if a place becomes cumbersome or useless because there are old buildings" which doesn't happen because every building inside can be modified by creating shopping centers on different buildings *Venice*"then come demolished we don't need every old building
@@sylviarohge4204 I really like your tree trings analogy, thanks for that!
Gridded cities were not designed for cars - they were designed initially for horse and buggies but primarily for streetcars and efficient public transit networks. Cars didn’t exist when most gridded cities were planned in the 1800s, but you are correct that they were used to maximize space. Gridded cities are not bad, nor are they a death knell for sustainability or walkability. While they do lack a certain human scaled aspect, making these spaces livable comes down to encouraging granularity in the planning/construction of new buildings and ensuring that public transit and active transportation are given the lion’s share of street space.
You should check your biases and consider that grid method is at least 4000 years older than cars . It was the way at least some ancient cities was built. Also there lots of European cities that are build by grid method at least in some part (like Vasilievsky island in St. Petersburg, that was like Russian Manhattan in 18 century (while other parts of the city was build radially). Even American grids was in place prior to cars adoption.
I mean why do you even want grids if you design with cars in mind? Too much intersections will slow down traffic compared with longer stretches of radial main streets. if anything, grid design was perfect for street cars and optimizing density.
Grid plan was to make things easy to navigate. Boston is an example of a European style city and it is near impossible to navigate for non-residents
Boston , with Washington DC or Savannah are exceptions. I think Boston is the most european city of the US !
My hometown (Turku, Finland) is based on a grid. That's because the whole city burned down (except for the cathedral) in 1827. Then it was rebuilt on a grid for fire safety in mind. Not a north-south-east-west grid, of course. The grid is aligned on the river that flows through the town.
00:07
That is incorrect. Even cities like New York were not built car-centric. They were later rebuilt for cars. (60s - apparently today because highways continue to get wider)
Controvercy though but i think the grid system and straight roads are a good way to plan a city
Ps New Yorks grid system is an older city plan than for the mayorety of Paris city plan
with high frequency intersections to slow down cars like philly not salt lake city
This is a huge generalisation. Also you called the country Denmark a city..
I think you have a US-centered view as well as an anti-car bias, grids have been used in many regions of the world (Asia, Europe, Latin America) for centuries before cars even existed, and they aren't necessarily hostile to pedestrians. Most Mexican cities have a historic center based on a grid, and they are dense, bustling and very walkable parts of town, because when they were built everything had to be reachable by walking distance.
I think it has to do more with patterns of property and government intervention, as cities in the New World were built from scratch, with the convenience of simple plot structure in mind, because they needed to distribute land among settlers without complication. In cities founded by the Spaniards, it was a tradition to place a square in the center, surrounded by government and church buildings, in case they needed to defend the town they would summon all troops to the square (which was named plaza de armas, or square of arms). Another advantage is that the grid allowed for easy growth to every direction if the terrain allowed it.
In contrast, European cities were built in the middle ages, where central government authority was weaker or non-existent, so there was no predefined way to build a city, and towns then grew along the roads that led out of the city or near centers of resources "organically", hence the irregular layout.
The Romans are especially known for their love of grids.
But… American grids existed before cars were even a concept?
Options
The grid but low density
Spaghetti inefficient layout, but mid-rise density to make up for inefficiency, and human scale (feels good to walk, grids feel slower and boring)
My hometown, Buffalo,NY was designed with the radial spoke design. It makes for some interesting building designs.
You've butchered the pronunciation of Champs-Élysées 2:38. You also didn't mention the outlier of Washington DC, one of the only cities in the U.S. that was radially designed.
Somewhat fittingly, by the French lol.
Great Video. Please keep on going :D
Another awesome video! I love the utilisation of the satellite imagery from Google maps/Earth!
D.C. is an example of a radial city in the US . It was designed by Pierre Charles L'Efant, after the gardens of Versailles
Why do Americans use the official name and not just say Washington City? Technically it is a federal District but in Mexico no one calls Mexico City "District federal"
@@gamermapper The city is named Washington, D.C. or the District of Columbia (The official name). I believe they're interchangeable. At least it is for me as a DMV native. As for why, I suppose Washington, the District of Columbia is a bit wordy. I hope that helps :)
@@gamermapper Theres like 100 places called Washington in the US, including a whole state on the other side of the country, so people try to be as clear as possible, or not say it at all. Which is one of the reasons most people just say (D.C.), also because its quicker to say.
@@hyojinchoii Aye another DMV native. For added clarity I also wanna add that originally there was a Washington City within the federal district, as well as a couple other cities/towns like Georgetown. Washington City borders only included what is today downtown DC. The Organic Act of 1871 combined all the existing municipal governments within the federal district under one, which made all of the land "Washington, DC" and allowed the city to grow, making Washington and DC geographically interchangeable. Technically yeah theres no purpose to both parts of the name but its a historical quirk.
@@davisdavis468 Also I think so addresses makes sense. That way there's a City (Washington)and what would normally be a state (District of Columbia)
This video is so bad for so many reasons, I've drafted 3 different comments to try and begin to address them and ultimately just decided I don't have the time. I love urban design and city planning channels. Please do better
Actually, also the grid method comes from Europe. It was invented by Ancient Romans to build their military camps, called “castra”, and there are a bunch of cities in Europe which still follow this ancient plan like Turin, Italy
American city where demolitions for cars. Not build for cars
This is a great video! Very nice touch in illustrating the difference between grid and radial. Though, I would like to point out a couple of things between American and European city layouts. Old cities from both continents were originally designed with walking (ex. new york and paris) But the biggest difference is that paris and other old European cities were expanded out organically over houndres or thousands. And for American cities, since America was young, common planning practice was designing everything in a grid (because of the access and commerciability like you stated), and this was common practice across cultures especial through colonial and new world expansions in every western culture :0 However, the largest impact in how cities were designed today was because of the 20th century. The US saw the car and was like, 'this is all we are going to design with', while Europeans tried the car-centric designs too during this time. But Europe realized sooner than the US that cars are not what cities needed and during the 70s, 80s, and 90s transformed their cities with walkability and transit 😎
The US can be very walkable in their older cities but us Americans love our cars too much T_T
American Cities weren't designed for the car, they were destroyed for the car. The US used the grid plan way more than 100 years before the invention of the car, and there were more than 50 cities larger than 100k inhabitants even before the car was a thing. And where did you get the weird claim that they were designed for "profitability"?
This makes no sense. Cities like Melbourne and Vancouver follow the grid layout and are consistently ranked as the worlds most live able cities. Often land use tends to be what makes a city well designed ie, space for roads vs shopping streets. Not the layout
Denmark is NOT a City, it's a COUNTRY!!
"Grid cities are designed for cars"
[Citation needed]
3:22 Bangkok my mothercity, I really appreciate all the detail you‘ve put into, despite the fact that Bangkok is the only asian city has been shown in this video.
I literally thought that was in magallanes Avenue in Manila.
I saw also Hong Kong
I see nothing wrong with new york's design, its actually better designed than london (both cities have a huge traffic problem)because both cities have almost the same population but new york is smaller than London, since Europe doesn't build a lot of skyscrapers the cities keep expanding over time damaging the environment.
In my opinion the best designed country is japan with a population of of 125 million and 68.5 % of forest area, if that's not a well designed country then i dont know what that is
I stopped taking the video seriously when it said New York, a city designed in the 17th and 18th centuries and where over half of the residents take public transit, was designed for the automobile.
You can make the argument that the grid system was a lot easier to adapt to the automobile, but in no way was New York designed for it.
It's not true that Europe doesn't use grid city planning. The grid actually harkens back to a Roman military building method in which two main roads would intersect and many paralallel lines would follow each. Today you can see many Roman cities which were initially born as military encampments which have the grid. Similarly, cities built in the neoclassical age, also have a grid inspired by roman designs. Many example are in southeastern Sicily, where at the end of the 17th century a massive earthquake destroyed many old settlements and cities were rebuilt with an almost perfect grid.
'For example cities like Paris or Denmark' LOOOOOOL
cities such as paris and denmark.
There was a mistake here and I apologize. I meant to say "In cities such as Paris and 𝗶𝗻 Denmark"
"Europe are well designed"
Balkans and Eastern slavs:
Grids have existed since ancient times. Ancient Egyptians used their own grid system when planning cities, for example. Americans did not create the grid.
The thing about the grid plan is that it existed wayyyyy before cars and was actually built for streetcars. The problem is not grids, its cars
bro sounds like obf and cheddar combined
1:55 "in cities like Paris and *DeNmArk* "?! Denmark is a nation in Europe, with its capital being Copenhagen
There was a mistake here and I apologize. I meant to say "In cities such as Paris and 𝗶𝗻 Denmark"
@@ArkiveYT There were actually quite a lot of mistakes. This one is actually the least important when the whole premise of your video is wrong and the examples that you use are not supporting your point.
My biggest issue with radial cities is the hierarchical feeling between the (generally) rich old central city and the not as rich outer newer parts of the city. Grid cites have a built environment that feels much more equal.
There isnt a decline in people moving away from cities, theres an increase. Not sure where you got that fact from.
Love America but i look forward to moving to Paris for school. I personally prefer walking over driving. Its like a form of meditation
Actually, grid cities weren't build for cars, in my country for example, Colombia, and in general in the Spanish America, Spanish conquistadors build grid cities 300 plus years before cars existed, it was a city design completely oposed to Spanish or European medieval city design. But those were the first grid modern cities. If I'm not mistaken, Mayans and Aztecs also built grid cities. As much as you people like all that "American exceptionalism" bs, Americans didn't invent the grid city.
The problem with U.S cities is not that they are gridded, the problem is that the U.S manage to become a car centric society in the XX century, and is understandable, the car was an American invention, but that doesn't have to do with the grid, Europe was incredible car centric too after WWII, because it was the U.S the one who helped rebuild western Europe, and it was the American way the one that imposed itself after the war, but Europeans restarted changing their car centrism from around the 70s or 80s.
It takes a lot time to drive in American cities. In European cities, for example London or Moscow, it's so easy to go almost anywhere, because there's more roads and and they're not exactly straight
Bruh London is the most congested city in the world
Actually, European cities aren’t just like that because they’re older. Plenty of European cities were going to try the post-WWII American way of urban sprawl, but grassroots protests stopped a lot of them. Some cities did get partially torn down for highways, though.
It was also a choice on the part of American people. American cities used to be more pedestrian friendly when we relied primarily on rail to travel and build this country.
Places like Coventry and Glasgow in the UK are good examples of cities partially demolished for the car. Then there's Milton Keynes which is a brand new city planned and built after the war with a huge emphasis on the car.
You need to get better-fitting dentures. Also, lots of American cities weren't designed specifically for the car. LA wasn't designed for the car: most of the San Fernando Valley was. Early 1900's films reveal people walking all over New York City streets. You might want to check out NotJustBikes to get a better overview.
Most european cities were founded before Cars, so streets don't have to be that straight forward, and there are not a lot of Grand highways.
I love that about European cities, they are sooo aesthetic.
Viena, Oporto and Hamburg are my favourites.
The euopean cities find growing, much. much harder...
and the traffic in them is again much much worse.
The grid sistem is superior if smaller grids are subdivided and have their own shopping/entertainment/education centers and yes, more, much more green space/parks.
The future is probably a mix of them and belt road plus public transport. (... what americans fear the most :)) )
“And you might not see many”
Meanwhile Barcelona:
Do you write scripts yourself or you have writer? They are really amazing in all the videos.
Thanks :)
I write the scripts, edit the videos, and do the voice-over.
@@ArkiveYT that seems to be a lot of work. How much time does script take? I assume it must be hardest and most time consuming.
@@user-ts6pr5tb2j It really depends on the topic. I would like to publish one video every week but the script writing by far takes the longest.
@@ArkiveYT still how long does it take to get a script done on an average? And are you to investment or partnership on your channel?
The Grid plan isn't the problem
Wow dude lots of points missed. Hope you make a revised/better one. Zoning/housing and/or city walkabilty/accessibility are huge factors.
To anyone who is dissatisfied with the content of this video: Not Just Bikes covers Everything much better.
Misleading video title. You didn't describe why Paris is designed insanely well.
being an expat that has lived in europe/uk for a decade now, I have long seen a problem with the way american cities have been designed. Designing cities for vehicles is not only bad for the environment, but bad for peoples' health when you in america have to literally drive everywhere for anything. In Europe/UK public transit is so good compared to terrible public transit in the UK, you are able to easily get about and walk to many destinations. Also because of the way cities are deisigned in Europe/UK, you are able to see a lot more parks than in the states which easily gives you a feel of less congenstion etc.
Grids have no bearing on walkabilty and your example of the few intersections on the champs élysées is an example of something that is bad for walkabilty because it speeds cars up.
Cities such as Paris and Denmark?
Question… how much research do you put before making a video?
The cities of Paris and Denmark?
Bruh Denmark isn't a city, but whatever
There was a mistake here and I apologize. I meant to say "In cities such as Paris and 𝗶𝗻 Denmark"
@@ArkiveYT It just triggered me a bit, as a european from a small country, but otherwise great video.
Older American cities like Philadelphia, New York, Boston and Baltimore are still very walkable. Urban sprawl is the problem not the grid.
Not Just Bikes does a much better job of explaining the problems with US and Canadian street design and zoning then this video. Also a channel on Tokyo, whose name I can’t recall, does a good job of explaining why zoning is so critical to how well cities function or don’t. Good city design is not limited to Europe. Why do so many of these vloggers focus on US vs Europe comparisons as if the rest of the world doesn’t exist? Oh wait, I think I know the answer to that.
America has neighbourhoods where people walk everywhere and live close together. They are called ghettos in Chicago or in NYC the Bronx!!
Imagine navigating a city using polar coordinates and needing to learn about radians.
NYC is famously walkable because of it's narrow street grids. So are cities like Barcelona and the countless other cities that use the grid system. WTF?
Grid systems are good for commercial and residential uses. So are street patterns like the system that London and Paris use. It is more common to see high levels of pedestrian commercial activity in non North American cities like those in Asia, Latin America, Europe, Africa etc because the street patterns in those areas are more accomodating to commercial businesses. It is the US, Canada, and Australia that are known for strictly segregating residential and commercial land uses and building street patterns like cul de sacs, lollipops, and loops that are hostile to commercial development.
You should have researched this topic further before making and posting this video. Sincerely a pissed off urban planning student.
In most of America, pedestrians or cyclists are second class citizens. If one does not spend $$$ on gas, registration, insurance, maintenance of car, the government treats him as inferior human being. Hence they have no priorities to build infrastructure for these groups of population. In America, it’s about $$$, not about making life of people healthier or more convenient or less stressful.
Bikes also drive next to cars. in eu btw
I like to live in city close to others people but it’s expensive.
Property price is the one that turns many people off when deciding where to live.
Meaningless office jobs and high rental prices doesn’t help city growth much.
Why European Cities are Insanely Well Designed, and like allways, exept portugal and eastern europe
It hard to see How they Can be built in the Middle OF no where like las vegas
European cities are old and therefore were built when the population was much smaller, so back then, people really only needed to walk or ride quadrupeds for transport. American cities are typically modern and therefore grew when the population augmented, and that was also when it was time to invent something that could hold more people and maybe also move faster than a quadruped ever could.
Nope. American cities grew organically just like those in Europe, and the US at one point had the best public transport systems in the world.
Then the oil and car lobbies had it all torn down for freeways, parking lots, and cars.
I think that its mainly that european cities are on average not just ‘built’. Theyve evolved over centuries and in some cases millennium’s. Whereas major US cities were built in an already highly industrialised world, and were built over 2 or one century, which meant that standardised layouts already existed and were implemented from the start.
Still waiting for the part - "why european cities are insanely well designed".
Isn't it just a comparison b/w grid and less-grid (radial) planning?
Elements that make a well-planned city imo:
1. Accessibility - for people (cars, bikes, bicycles, wheelchairs, etc.) to the places they wanna be at (workplaces, shops, schools, hospitals, houses (duh)).
2. Desiribility - for businesses (footfall), for communities (quality time and a good childhood for families, socialization for friends, training and support for sports...)
3. Reliability - utility services, transportation, food sources (x-marts, grocers), climate (control/adaptability), crime (to not happen)
At the end of the day its all about compromises. From this video I understood that people compromise on distance to their desired destination because they have cars, people compromise on not having a car because they can access their destination in other ways. What makes them wanna go there though AND accept that compromise is a list of pros and cons of not living in that city. The pros outweigh the cons. If only you gave the pros, I'd have understood "why european cities are insanely well designed".
Your video is extremely misleading. New York City has 1,350 miles of bike lanes while Paris has only 430 mil. I don't understand why you want to make it seem like NYC is not bike friendly.
1:52 Denmark is my city!!!
Why do you call US cities American cities and why do you call the US america ? It is very confusing.
Us cities are based on math notebooks
U forget one vital difference. Cities like London, Paris and Berlin didnt start as mass populations at all in the beginning. They were maybe 100 people in these cities as start, and it took many hundreds of years before they reach 10 000. Then hundreds a years to reach 1 million. Comparason to american Cities like New York who gain this populations in matter of very few years. If New York had been develop as a city in europe it would never worked at all and u would got a very strange city.
Glasgow where I live is a grid system and traffic is bad but it's still walkable and being more pedestrized.
Try drive in most towns in Europe they're awful design wise but they're very old so not much u can do
I prefer grid, is easy to get around vs radial.
Did he really just say Chanz day leezays
Here where I live, in Paraná Brazil, some cities like mine (Cianorte) are radial cities inspired by the garden cities of Ebenezer Howard. You dont need to Go to Europe to see better city plans than USA..
This video is quite poorly researched. London wasn't even a planned city. It's layout sprung up organically over time as the city grew.
Grids have a much greater benefit in the modern era due to how much easier way finding is for people who are not familiar with the area.
new yorks grid plan was made 200 years before car were invented, how tf was it designed for cars? you should use different examples because new york is one of the least car dependant cities in the us.
But couldn't you say that in many ways (Paris excepted) that old cities had no planning and just grew haphazardly, while American cities (for better or worse) had a road plan
pretty much from the beginning?
Detorit is kinda like both
I live in Milan and haven't owned a car in years. I walk to work, walk to the shops, occasionally take the metro for a night out... American zoning laws are horrible
Dude, we have heaps of microgrids in european cities, but they're broken up into neighbourhoods that are small compared to us neighbourhoods.
Yeah honestly i love their design. But honestly i love cities with a lot of skycrapers more...
Age hasn't anything to do with city design. It's all to do with willingness. America had cities before there were cars. European cities were at the same point as American cities, are we going "car" or "walkability". Europe in general went with walkability. At the same time they went against urban sprawl and weren't held back by zoning laws like the US has.
1:52 "European cities such as Paris and Danemark" Denmark is not a city, tho
what if we combined both methods??🤔🤔
H E L L
I think many European cities weren’t planned at all… at least not in the modern sense of the word.
Cities like Denmark?
That's why European countries create less pollution and America and asian countries create more pollution
I'm from Asia