Similarly, the US has a crazy highway system that was originally intended to move tanks around in case of an invasion. We live in a car-centric country because of war machines.
Most European countries built railroads to facilitate troop movements. It’s also the reason they originally all had different track widths, so other countries couldn’t easily move troops in.
Id argue also because the country is “young” in that the US did not have to evolve from an existing medieval infrastructure, but I’m not a historian and this is just my intuition lol
Your intuition is completely wrong about that. The US had an extensive system of railways and has since demolished a huge percentage of them.
American cities also used to have things like walkable towns and streetcar networks, which were destroyed in the '60s and '70s in favor of parking lots. America wasn’t built for the car; it was demolished for it.
I didn’t mean to imply that tall buildings were torn down, and the analysis doesn’t refute the point that a whole bunch of (non-tall) buildings were torn down.
I simply couldn’t find better matching images, posting from my phone in the few minutes I had to spare.
I’m providing a self perceived explanation, not an excuse, please let’s just leave it at that because I dont appreciate your tone and this kind of strawman
I’m sorry is that aimed at me? What’s with the aggression? The user above edited their post with more info AFTER that interaction.
I was only saying that the US (and Northern America in general) being built upon (stolen) land that had not been urbanized before like for example Europe could also be a reason why the transportation infrastructure is so dehumanizing, you don’t see blocks and urban grids like the US in Europe (except for rebuilt and new cities) because of the landscape and the fact that there were buildings since medieval times.
I’m not trying to have a worldview, or justify / being an activist for the car infrastructure, I’m just participating in the conversation and sharing my thoughts, and getting piled upon by random users?
You are clearly stating that you are not an historian and this is just your intuition. People give you information and facts contrary to your intuition, and you accuse them of being mean and agressive.
No. It’s not a reason. It could, but it’s not. They are telling you. Sorry.
I never asked not to be refuted. I asked not to have my intent reframed and to not be talked to dismissively. If something I said was wrong, I’m more than happy to be corrected, I’m glad you and pedz added more context. You labeling it as “completely wrong” and "harmful misinformation” (what kind of escalation is this??), and attributing motives to me is the part I’m pushing back on. I’m done engaging here. PLEASE.
Similarly, the US has a crazy highway system that was originally intended to move tanks around in case of an invasion. We live in a car-centric country because of war machines.
Most European countries built railroads to facilitate troop movements. It’s also the reason they originally all had different track widths, so other countries couldn’t easily move troops in.
That’s the sad thing about Civ 5. Once you build roads and the invaders have mobile infantry, you’re 3 moves away from your capital being raised
You’re looking at it wrong. Once they build roads, their capital is 3 moves away from being raised.
If you’re not using orbital lasers on enemies still using knights you’re doing Civ wrong
(Or playing FreeCiv online.)
I did wonder why they didn’t all agree when building what width to build them. Kinda makes sense now
Id argue also because the country is “young” in that the US did not have to evolve from an existing medieval infrastructure, but I’m not a historian and this is just my intuition lol
Your intuition is completely wrong about that. The US had an extensive system of railways and has since demolished a huge percentage of them.
American cities also used to have things like walkable towns and streetcar networks, which were destroyed in the '60s and '70s in favor of parking lots. America wasn’t built for the car; it was demolished for it.
Case in point, downtown Houston:
1940s:
1980s:
Those two images depict different parts of Houston and should not be used to punctuate your otherwise excellent point
More context here, from the last time it was brought up
https://feddit.uk/post/22213773/14336228
I didn’t mean to imply that tall buildings were torn down, and the analysis doesn’t refute the point that a whole bunch of (non-tall) buildings were torn down.
I simply couldn’t find better matching images, posting from my phone in the few minutes I had to spare.
I’d recommend not using the images at all, the Vox train map was powerful enough
I dont remember learning about trains prior to the 1600s
The obvious point of your comment was to imply that there’s an excuse for the US’ car-centricity, and there just isn’t.
I’m providing a self perceived explanation, not an excuse, please let’s just leave it at that because I dont appreciate your tone and this kind of strawman
“I refuse to update my world view based on the facts you provided, and the fact you provided them makes you mean.”
I’m sorry is that aimed at me? What’s with the aggression? The user above edited their post with more info AFTER that interaction.
I was only saying that the US (and Northern America in general) being built upon (stolen) land that had not been urbanized before like for example Europe could also be a reason why the transportation infrastructure is so dehumanizing, you don’t see blocks and urban grids like the US in Europe (except for rebuilt and new cities) because of the landscape and the fact that there were buildings since medieval times.
I’m not trying to have a worldview, or justify / being an activist for the car infrastructure, I’m just participating in the conversation and sharing my thoughts, and getting piled upon by random users?
You are clearly stating that you are not an historian and this is just your intuition. People give you information and facts contrary to your intuition, and you accuse them of being mean and agressive.
No. It’s not a reason. It could, but it’s not. They are telling you. Sorry.
You were perpetuating harmful misinformation. You are not entitled to demand it not be refuted.
I never asked not to be refuted. I asked not to have my intent reframed and to not be talked to dismissively. If something I said was wrong, I’m more than happy to be corrected, I’m glad you and pedz added more context. You labeling it as “completely wrong” and "harmful misinformation” (what kind of escalation is this??), and attributing motives to me is the part I’m pushing back on. I’m done engaging here. PLEASE.
They were in use since ancient times.
fortunately we are starting (with some resistance, but not as much here) to redesign around bicycles