Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

RiverCityBronco

World's Worst Designed Cities

Recommended Posts

That "slant streets" thing happened in soooo many Western cities. Half the city started on the river or railroad, half started on a grid off of that area, and they merged. Why pick out Missoula specifically?

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boston is poorly designed. Anyone that's driven through Boston knows what a phucking pita it is to navigate that city.

 

This is how nearly every city in Europe is. The street grid is more an American concept, or at least a newer concept.

 

That "slant streets" thing happened in soooo many Western cities. Half the city started on the river or railroad, half started on a grid off of that area, and they merged. Why pick out Missoula specifically?

 

This, it is a ridiculous list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atlanta barely deserves to be there, let alone Missoula.  How is New Orleans not on there?  Half below sea level, no proper drainage, and concret slab walls to keep water in.  It's a literal fish bowl.  Cities that are auto-centric should also get a nod.  LA metro should be on there for magnitude with no true plan of travel infrastructure besides highway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading about Jakarta made me think of my time living in Manila. How did that gem not make this list? Great people but maybe the worst designed city I've ever seen and then the airport..... OMG. That gives the city a 10 out of 10 in the shit scale. The subway has 2 lines and covers like 1/10th of the city and when you factor in how cheap it is to ride the thing you'll understand why there are about 10K on each train. 

I can't sing and I can't dance but I can make romance - Macho Man Randy Savage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one from the MWC, but kinda weird that they included Missoula with these other large cities:

http://www.thrillist.com/travel/nation/cities-with-the-worst-urban-planning-jakarta-dubai-and-dhaka-top-our-list

Missoula is a great town, but there is no rhyme or reason to the street lay out. It's as if every single cow trail that came into town got a name and some asphalt thrown on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atlanta barely deserves to be there, let alone Missoula.  How is New Orleans not on there?  Half below sea level, no proper drainage, and concret slab walls to keep water in.  It's a literal fish bowl.  Cities that are auto-centric should also get a nod.  LA metro should be on there for magnitude with no true plan of travel infrastructure besides highway.

 

IMO Atlanta is the poster child for an auto-centric city. Moreso than LA, which is why it's on the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That "slant streets" thing happened in soooo many Western cities. Half the city started on the river or railroad, half started on a grid off of that area, and they merged. Why pick out Missoula specifically?

And they singled out Missoula for its "slant" streets? You wanna bang on slant streets in an actual city, start with downtown Denver. 

 

And if they want to rank poorly laid-out really small cities, I'd suggest they visit Rock Springs, Wyoming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO Atlanta is the poster child for an auto-centric city. Moreso than LA, which is why it's on the list.

They are redoing the entire beltway with connectors that feed in and out of the DT, negating much of the problems that the loop caused.   LA isn't doing really anything.  Atlanta is doing pedestrian-bike trails in and out of the downtown, and around the beltway.  LA isn't really doing anything.  To say LA isn't the model of auto-centricity in America is ridiculous, and why it should twice over be in over Atlanta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are redoing the entire beltway with connectors that feed in and out of the DT, negating much of the problems that the loop caused.   LA isn't doing really anything.  Atlanta is doing pedestrian-bike trails in and out of the downtown, and around the beltway.  LA isn't really doing anything.  To say LA isn't the model of auto-centricity in America is ridiculous, and why it should twice over be in over Atlanta.

 

Perhaps, but LA has a more extensive light rail and a more vibrant downtown.

 

The big difference is the way the suburbs are built. LA's suburbs are still very dense, whereas in Atlanta once you leave downtown everything seems to be built on .5 acre lots with no sidewalks.

 

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2015/02/los_angeles_is_the_least_sprawling_big_city_in_the_us.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps, but LA has a more extensive light rail and a more vibrant downtown.

 

The big difference is the way the suburbs are built. LA's suburbs are still very dense, whereas in Atlanta once you leave downtown everything seems to be built on .5 acre lots with no sidewalks.

 

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2015/02/los_angeles_is_the_least_sprawling_big_city_in_the_us.php

A more vibrant downtown?  Unless they completely redid everything in DT Los Angeles, there is no way that is true.  When people say, "I am partying in LA" it usually meant anywhere but downtown.  As for the suburbs, shouldn't they be suburbs?  Inglewood isn't a suburb by the status quo definition of a suburb.  It's an annex of sprawled out LA.  Atlanta is typical of most southern suburbs, less dense, less grid layout.  What a typical suburb looks like in other parts of the country, actually. 

 

People valued land in Los Angeles more than what they did in Atlanta, and now you have Los Angeles-light all around it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, i've heard L.A. is actually trying to do some good things.  Reversing decades of sprawl and bad planning is hard to overcome. 

They are, and yes it takes a comprehensive effort.  The advantage of ATL is that they don't seem to have such a long-winded process to actually implement design.  What will take LA (or southern CA in general) 20 years will take the rest of the US half that time, for 70% of the cost.

 

FWIW, I don't like ATL or LA, I find them both overrated as "vibrant" and prefer to not go to them if I don't have to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A more vibrant downtown?  Unless they completely redid everything in DT Los Angeles, there is no way that is true.  When people say, "I am partying in LA" it usually meant anywhere but downtown.  As for the suburbs, shouldn't they be suburbs?  Inglewood isn't a suburb by the status quo definition of a suburb.  It's an annex of sprawled out LA.  Atlanta is typical of most southern suburbs, less dense, less grid layout.  What a typical suburb looks like in other parts of the country, actually. 

 

People valued land in Los Angeles more than what they did in Atlanta, and now you have Los Angeles-light all around it. 

 

I think you'd be surprised if you saw DTLA. It has revitalized a lot in the past 5 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are, and yes it takes a comprehensive effort.  The advantage of ATL is that they don't seem to have such a long-winded process to actually implement design.  What will take LA (or southern CA in general) 20 years will take the rest of the US half that time, for 70% of the cost.

 

FWIW, I don't like ATL or LA, I find them both overrated as "vibrant" and prefer to not go to them if I don't have to.

 

I can definitely agree with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...