zlacker

I genuinely think the answer is _way_ simpler and less dramatic than people think.

In general, a city is more walkable and dense the earlier it developed. NYC and Boston are walkable cos they're old. Parts of Chicago are, but it did most of it's growing post-car so most of it isn't. LA did practically almost all it's growing post-car and so is awful for walkers.

It's the same in Europe - most of London is walkable because it hit a multi-million population pre-car. Milton Keynes is a concrete car-jungle because it only developed post-war.

>>dukeyu+(OP)
I’ve lived in several barely finished neighbourhoods and all were walkable: Hammarby Sjöstad in Stokholm, Jätkassari in Helsinki, the new Ancoats in Manchester…

All smelled of fresh paint and wet concrete. All were built with the intent to be walkable, and all are wonderful places to live. I never felt the need for a car once. What matters is not the age but the intent of the designers.

>>dukeyu+(OP)
That's wrong. Many, many cities had walkable neighborhoods bulldozed and replaced with highways and parking lots, intentionally. In both the US and the EU. Many of the most walkable places have been reclaimed from cars.

>>bertil+Z1
So have I. That's why I said _general_.

>>diggin+92
Yes, I've lived in a couple of them. That's why I said _general_.

>>dukeyu+A3
Well, is it generally true though? I don't even think it's very useful to talk about... compared to discussing how car manufacturers and sellers have intentionally stripped us of good urban design over the last century, and the ways in which some cities have undone some of that damage.