Why is every North American city like this?
>>59802794
1.96
>>59802794
Not true
>>59802794
>Algiers Point
>>59802992
Name one North American city that isn't like this that isn't New York, Montreal, San Francisco or Quebec City.
>>59802794
That's just New Orleans.
>>59802794
I liked most of New Orleans, the area around Tulane was pretty nice. To answer your question though, most cities are just normal places where normal people live, and then they have a few square miles of theme park style entertainment for tourism and marketing purposes. Chicago, Las Vegas, New York, Los Angeles are all like this. They have small areas where people can go to see cool stuff and take pictures and shit like that, and then the rest of the city is just for the people actually living normal lives there.
>5% of the city is full of tourist traps and protected historical buildings
>95% of the city is where locals live normal lives
I wonder why...
>>59803067
It's 90% of North American cities. No one knows what a city is here.
>>59803260
chiraq?
because european cities are historical product through the eons
they are not the people factories that we have here, it is not comparable
>>59803197
I agree, the designated tourist trap area should be a containment zone so the rest of the city could be left for ordinary people, but that's not what I'm talking about. Literally everything outside tiny historic areas in North America are ridiculously low-density so you have to drive everywhere, the buildings are needlessly ugly, and it's meant to be as plain and boring as possible. It seems like the rich and powerful who design cities here don't give a fuck about normal people. They just build places to put the riff-raff. It's so utilitarian. You just have to build some boxes, put a few supermarkets, malls and auto-dealerships, and you're done.
>>59803564
I say bullshit. It isn't "historical". It's was just designed by people who had didn't have a retardedly utilitarian view of what a city should be.
>>59803260
I mean i understand why New Orleans could have given such an impression seeing how 95% of it is underwater
>>59802794
Its not like that in Philly, Chicago, or NYC, or Boston - these cities you can spend your whole life in and still only scratch the surface of what's on offer. Guess it depends on the density whether or not any of the urban neighborhoods have any character of their own.
Don't know much, about it, but isn't the most relevant part of Chicago in 2016 the part they call Chiraq? That isn't "really cool". The really cool part is the benign peaceful part in the center of the city.
Let's just build medium-density cities again. I don't care if it looks like Japan. I would prefer it looked like pic, but it could be like Japan, where the cities have modern architecture but aren't low-density. The automobile lobby and corrupt property developers have fucked up North American cities. They want everything to be an auto-suburb. That's just retarded. Let's have some diversity.
>>59803629
when I went through Europe a it was mostly the same there though. the truth is, the average poorfag living anywhere needs to have a practical life to fit his average income and lifestyle. most cities that are comprised of middle class normies working 8 hours a day wont benefit from Las Vegas tier entertainment all over the place. boring practicality usually beats entertainment when it comes to the average joe
>>59803629
>It isn't "historical"
OF course it is.
European cities have been in place sometimes over 2000 years. Can you name one 2000 year old NA city? That means it started as a village, then a town, then a bigger town, all while not having access to horses and carts n shit. Everything had to be tight in, all the relevant stuff was in a small area. As people are born, they need a house, so the son will build a house near the parents etc. and that's how the city grows.
Most of our cities didn't happen like that. Instead, an assload of people all moved in at the same time - these people had horses and carts n shit so there was no problem spreading everything out/people living way out in the boonies on 10'000 acres
>>59804005
damn, if it weren't for the snow, this could be from a medium sized city in brittany
>>59802794
the French Quarter is for faggots and tourists
>>59804005
If you do your research, you'd find that urban populations are increasing, that suburbs are now the place for minorities to go due to low home prices. There is a 'downtown' renaissance going on in a lot of cities. The rise of the 'hipster' over the past two decades has led to more bike friendly/car averse city planning and things are changing dramatically. The number of public parking spaces in Philadelphia has shrunk by 2200 over the past 5 years, but at the same time the occupancy levels in the city's garages has fallen. All the while, population is increasing and multifamily occupancy is at an all time high. This just shows that public tastes and preferences are shifting dramatically away from the car and towards a well integrated, multi-modal public transport network.
Furthermore, the rate that suburban offices are being built has come to a screeching halt. Suburban office vacancy is only increasing as companies move back to where the young educated people are - the city. Thats why you can look at any city, Philly just as an eg. since I work real estate there, and the amount of office space and for sale condominium construction is through the roof. We'll have a new skyscraper very soon that will be the tallest in America outside of NYC and Chicago. You know, Philadelphia, the one with the reputation for being shitty.
>>59804110
This isn't an entertainment district. This is just a normal area in a normal city that hasn't been cucked by the auto industry. People used to build like this before big-auto took over our cities.
>>59804128
Look at Frankfurt. Look at Nagasaki. Look at parts of Los Angeles even. This has fuck all to do with history. It has to do with how we CHOOSE to build our cities.
>>59804512
Yeah, I see an urban revival too. I don't get how anyone ever thought it was a good idea to have a city that's 95% suburb. It literally makes no sense. I'd get 50-50, but literally 90%+ is insane, and the youth especially are voting with their feet and proving that people aren't interested in that sort of life.
I see how back in that day moving out to the suburbs was great, when there was a city to go to. But now that there are suburbs of suburbs of suburbs, it's just getting ridiculous. Who wants to commute 60~90 minutes to get places?
>>59804512
Yeah, I've been noticing that kind of trend myself. A city like Detroit, arguably the most notorious example of a shrinking city, is now seeing some noticeable revitalization in - you guessed it - the downtown area, and the city proper has even seen its first population increase in about 60 years. The Motor City was built almost entirely around the automobile and the boom of its industry, and the way that it was planned out reflects on this fact. But now that a majority of the city's industry has moved out, along with about 2/3 of its population in 1950, the low-density suburban neighborhoods are decrepit and many lots are completely empty. But the higher-density city center is faring much better.
If Detroit is to truly see a revival in the future, then the city should not try try to revitalize itself by bringing a million residents back into the old suburbs -- but instead, it should bring in the ~600 thousand remaining residents closer into the center (and bring back more public housing, as opposed to private)
>>59802794
this is true but the cool 5% of new orleans were actually the housing projects that got torn down
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ww9VlmXKYgs
![img_7667[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/hNKIQKz.jpg "img_7667[1].jpg")
>>59805392
honestly, it's like horizontal social housing. Noone is going to stay there if he has the means to move out
(right?)
>>59802794
Wasn't that city wiped and rebuilt?
Could've planned it properly from scratch.
