> That's not geography, that's urban planning, or a lack of it.

You're basically right, but it's land use regulation. We have plenty of 'planning' in the US, and it mostly keeps in place what's already there. If you look at the places built in the US before zoning codes and 'planning', a lot of them are actually quite nice because they were built more to adapt than things these days, which are "built to a finished state" to borrow a phrase from the folks at Strong Towns.

I seem to recall from a geography A-level course about 35 years ago in the UK that historically Los Angeles' spread was something to do with the city fathers offering incentives to adjoining communities to become part of Los Angeles - something like 'call yourself Los Angeles and we'll give you access to our water or electrical grid'.

Is that right? A bit hazy after all this time.

Los Angeles had the water supply from Owens Lake, which enabled it to dictate terms to a lot of surrounding land whose owners wanted to develop (e.g. the San Fernando Valley).

It's a huge, fairly flat coastal basin, and although the city limits don't cover the whole area, Los Angeles itself is 500 sq mi, which is larger than Phoenix, or 50% more land than New York City. It's really, really big.

I visited LA for the first time last year, I remember descending to LAX and being absolutely blown away by the sheer scale of LA stretching for dozens of miles below. The same approach into London Heathrow/Gatwick seems positively rural in comparison.

I used to think the opening city shots in Blade Runner were an obvious exaggeration but apart from the Tyrell Corp building it looked pretty much the same.

That doesn't sound right at all, it's almost the opposite of the current situation. Only a small part of the Los Angeles sprawl is officially in the city of Los Angeles. Another hundred communities aren't officially called Los Angeles, but might as well be.

Nah, it's basically right. The process just ended before it was complete, apparently triggered by the collapse of the St. Francis Dam.

It's history. In medieval times European villages were an hour's walk apart at most. Then they grew. So now we have towns that are within half an hour relaxed cycling.

The US was still rather empty by the time faster transport came along.

And no one ever drove you off your bike in Munich yet? Lucky you!

I use my bike every day and I don't mind the winter either. I still can count the times I've been hit. Near misses though happen almost daily. Especially with cars turning right not watching bike lanes.

Good luck and keep on cycling!

Bavaria is basically the Texas of Germany. They love big cars and traditional gender roles, and they hate any vehicle not powered by fossil fuels.

I was tempted to say the same, but urban planning is certainly an aspect of geography. It's just not necessarily to do with the physical landforms, though the parent here could have been referring to both the flat nature of the Netherlands and the urban planning.

Aside from this , it's overall pretty repuslive to see how my hometown continues developing with the expectation that people will just drive out and drive back.