Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...That's false, you can not build cities everywhere. Just because you have lots of uninhabited land doesn't mean you can build cities there. The Western half of the US is mostly uninhabitable due to various reasons like lack of water sources, topography, nature reserves etc.
There's no reason expansion "must" take place in those areas. There is still PLENTY of land.
Also, humans tend to change the environment to suit them.
As previously stated, cities are black holes of consumption.
Los Angeles' water supply is a good example.
The State of California via the State Water Project is diverting water from over 400 miles away via pipelines and aqueducts south to supply L.A.
One reason why North Americans don't think other countries build SFH type housing is that the tourists, travel shows and social media influencers usually stick to the historic/business centers or country estates (and occasionally slums/projects for social commentary).
Also a reason why North American urbanists vastly over-estimate foreign transit, cycling and walking modal share.
One reason why North Americans don't think other countries build SFH type housing is that the tourists, travel shows and social media influencers usually stick to the historic/business centers or country estates (and occasionally slums/projects for social commentary).
Also a reason why North American urbanists vastly over-estimate foreign transit, cycling and walking modal share.
The majority of people in the UK live in houses like this:
The State of California has a water crisis. Didn't you know this from your 'real world experience' as citizen of your country?
The example given was simply to illustrate that the absence of a particular resource in one area is not a bar to development.
...and their answer would be importing more water from elsewhere. Just like every city out there must bring in resources from outside of the city.
Your country has an energy and resource crises. Yet it is simply importing more from elsewhere.
California had a water crises before yet some thought it would be great to develop/"densify" in Southern California. More people in the area increased the water needed well beyond the water available. Political weight enabled diverting water away from areas that had it to feed Los Angeles through expensive aqueducts, canals, and pipelines.
Densification as you promote does not solve resource shortages - it tends to exacerbate them for the most part.
Of course that's not what tourists are seeing, yet all these places are still pretty dense and walkable.
Hmmm.
How sad.
Don't see anything particularly "exciting" about the dense "walkable" area. If anything the appearances seems a bit depressing. Don't think you'll find many wanting to trade in a house on a lot for a graffiti-laden multifamily unit.
I know many people say most of the world is way way and I mean way way overpopulated and cities build before the invention of vehicles and that is true for lot of countries but what about country by land mass close to the US land mass?
———————— Tot. Area (Km²)
United States Tot. Area (Km²) 9,372,610
When you look at say
Russia Tot. Area (Km²) 17,098,242 is bigger than the US
China Tot. Area (Km²) 9,706,961 is bigger than the US
Also Brazil Tot. Area (Km²) 8,515,767 just little smaller than the US
Why don’t you see cities like US cities in those countries when they have lots and lots of land. I don’t think the reason is land problem unless large part of the country land is not suitable for nice flat land for buildings homes because of mountains.
I don't know about Brazil, but the govt owns the land, not individuals, don't they? Second is...they don't need it, since the build UP, centering around big cities, or separately on farms. Third is...lack of citizens owning vehicles to travel the distance to work? Also, lack of extensive road system? Also, citizens can't afford to own homes? Just some guesses.
Those are different cultures, different way of life.
The USA suburbanization is really unique. Other countries are kinda similar, especially Canada, and also Australia and New Zealand. But in these countries the suburbs are a bit denser overall, I suppose. In some american suburbs the density is extremely low, with bigger houses and a larger distance between neighbours when comparing with these other countries.
In the case of Brazil, living in detached houses is far from uncommon. There are some geographical limitations because of the country's topography, as well as socio-economic limitations that make people build smaller houses in smaller lots, sometimes two or three houses in the same lot. So suburbs usually are associated with poverty here. But there are parts of the country where people have a better financial situation and the cost of living is decently affordable, so the suburbs are better (still much more dense than USA).
Why are the streets so narrow there? And why dense suburban than the US style?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
