It is (indirectly) to me. I often visit the US, and I'm always amazed that I can't seem to go anywhere walking. The distances to go anywhere are huge. It seems to be that way because cities in the US where designed / build with cars in mind.

In Europe cities were obviously not build with cars in mind, and as a result I enjoy here a much higher density of amenities (and suffer much worse driving conditions / parking time).

Having all this space available for cars is not transparent to pedestrians.

> It is (indirectly) to me. I often visit the US, and I'm always amazed that I can't seem to go anywhere walking. The distances to go anywhere are huge. It seems to be that way because cities in the US where designed / build with cars in mind.

Huh, why would you think that? I'm not sure there's a major city in the U.S. that wasn't already a major city pre-car. And cities weren't redesigned post-car, that's why a lot of them have road problems. U.S. cities are spread out because of suburbanization. It's only going to increase as the workforce becomes more remote-based.

> I'm not sure there's a major city in the U.S. that wasn't already a major city pre-car.

Los Angeles. Possibly more.

> And cities weren't redesigned post-car, that's why a lot of them have road problems.

Sure they were. Not from scratch, but incrementally. Its true that because it was incremental and not ground-up, and mostly affected new development and re-development, that cities that were major cities pre-car (like NYC) look very different than newer cities (Los Angeles).

> U.S. cities are spread out because of suburbanization.

"Suburbanization" is an effect, not a cause. Designing for cars is a (but not the only) cause.

New York City is the most obvious example, but most large east-coast cities were large pre-car. And many cities made major infrastructural changes in light of the car, mostly in the form of the addition of elevated highways, some of which are now being torn out again because of their negative effects on neighborhood continuity, urban fabric, etc. Examples of the former would include the I-395 underpass/mixing bowl into DC and chunk of I-5 that separates downtown Seattle from Capitol Hill, and examples of the latter include the ripping out of the Embarcadero freeway in San Francisco and (likely) the Alaska Way viaduct, also in Seattle.

I think you could make a reasonable case that at least 7 of the 10 largest US cities were not "major cities pre-car". Depending greatly, of course, on exactly what "major" means. Note that none of these cities resemble older, denser cities like NY in their layout.

LA Houston Phoenix San Antonio San Diego Dallas San Jose

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...

Las Vegas. I know it isn't a typical case but it is definitely pedestrian unfriendly and largely if not entirely developed post-car.

Edit: Even along the strip itself it is hard to take a direct line and you need to go over bridges etc. Walking from the main part of the strip e.g. Bellagio to the convention centre is only a couple of miles but is a pretty unpleasant walk. Whether it is better than waiting for a bus/taxi from CES probably depends on the condition of your feet and the shoes you are wearing.

I do understand that in the Summer it would be a pretty unappealing walking any distance at all.

Note, however, that suburbanization is a post-car phenomenon.

I visited orlando last year, and it was impossible to get anywhere on foot, mostly due to distance but often also because pedestrians had not been taken into account in the road planning process. In fact, there was a large shopping mall visible across the road from our hotel, but no allowances had been made for crossing that road in anything but a vehicle, so we had to take a taxi to get there, or 2 buses.

Have you been outside the east coast?

Real estate in most cities is extremely expensive. Now consider all the space we give away for free so people can momentarily store their cars.

Some people have realized the extreme bargain this is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/08/nyregion/a-rent-free-place...

(I say this as someone who drives to work each day and parks on the street.)

Yes, think about the space taken up by parking, and the visual barrier it presents.

There's a shopping and restaurant strip between me and my office. The shop owners campaign for maximum street parking for the convenience of their customers, on top of the side-street and off-street parking behind most of their buildings. Yet at almost all hours, the entire strip is lined on both sides with cars to the point that anyone passing can't easily see shop windows, foot traffic, the social proof of people eating in a popular restaurant, etc. You just drive on through because it lacks appeal.

Think about a shopping centre and how open-air parking means that the complex takes up a huge amount of space and sets it all back so far from the road for anyone walking. If we took out parking allocations (or went with undercroft parking) and collapsed cities or filled in those areas with more "living" spaces, I think the result would be more appealing. Blocks could be more lively or smaller and more walkable.

There's some interesting stuff about parking here: http://www.cato-unbound.org/2011/04/04/donald-shoup/free-par...

Assuming this is an actual rather than rhetorical question, I'd recommend Donald Shoup's The High Cost of Free Parking: http://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Parking-Updated-Edition/dp/1...

A whole lane for parked cars each side of a street often means no dedicated lanes for public transit like buses or trams. Letting them get stuck in traffic is a huge loss for the many people that commute on them.