Every time I go abroad, whether it's Europe, Japan, or most other places, I'm always struck by how international cities do such a better job of prioritizing people. Their public spaces are so enjoyable and safe to simply walk around in or bike through. American cities by contrast inevitably prioritize vehicles, even in Manhattan where fewer than 1 in 4 people even owns a car. We could be doing so much better, but simply aren't. No one seems to have the political will to make improvements.
Many Asian cities developed today and still do better than us. I really don't know what to blame other than American culture of individualism over thinking of things for the greater good.
The Vegas Strip is the absolute poster child for the American mentality of prioritizing drivers even when pedestrians radically outnumber them and could make much better (and more profitable) use of the space.
Fremont St (the Old Strip) is much more enjoyable than the new strip now, because they actually had the balls to pedestrianize the entire thing. It's a much more enjoyable experience; you can walk along at ground level, popping into whatever businesses you want while drinking your beer, and at no point do you have to take a bridge over a giant highway wasteland.
Just compare these two photos and consider which you'd rather walk around in as a pedestrian:
That means, if you have one bus stop for every 400 residents or one metro station per 30,000 residents, Los Angeles residents have to walk a hell of a lot further to get to the bus stop or metro station.
I much prefer any given random street in Kyoto, which doesn't have on-street parking. On-street parking is such an eyesore and takes up so much space that could be better used. When on-street parking isn't available, fewer people have cars, and you instead see people biking around everywhere. The end result is a nicer, safer, less-polluting, denser, and healthier city, with better mass transit.
I think it's baloney that "the American psyche doesn't allow it", it's just that disrupting automobile traffic is a huge burden on a ton of people, and given the history of American cities, most people rely on autos as their primary form of transportation.
What ton of people would this be a huge burden for? In other areas in the world this works perfectly fine. You can also make zones where cars have to go very slow if they absolutely have to go to some building. It's a psychological thing.
I know people in this city that live 2 miles from their work. I told me SO who's from Singapore this and she couldn't believe that they'd still drive every day. It may be so in very sprawled areas but it's absolutely due to psychology in the denser cores of cities that existed before the car revolution in the 50's to 60's.
In Singapore I wouldn't walk 2 miles. The metro isn't great either unless you happen to be on the right line, I'd just get a cab or uber, they're very cheap.
I don't know what you're talking about. If you'd rather not walk that far (it isn't far but say it's raining or it's super hot) and that's also a quick bus ride away.
Also, the "metro" is great but it can get crowded like any train can during peak. You gotta qualify what you mean by "unless you happen to be on the right line."
Singapore is always the same temperature -- very humid and 32 degrees during the day. It's never super hot (temperature record is something like 35), but it's always hot and muggy and about to rain.
I used to walk from Sim Lin Square to Raffles, less than 1km, always regretted it.
Clarification would be if you didn't have to change. If it's a 10 minute taxi or 2 metro changes, I know which I do in SG. I commuted from Haugong via taxi for a month rather than take a bus/metro/bus
Europe was a bit like this too, but it seems the wave reversed earlier than in the US [0]. A lot of guys on reddit are very annoyed at parking lots etc etc.
[0] not a US citizen but the legend says that cars are too deep into american culture
.jpg){kind=link}
