How the fuck does this happen, historically?

>he doesn’t want to live in a comfy cyberpunk Blade Runner world
Pleb

He's not talking about interchanges you retard, he's talking about suburbia.

Einstein wasn't an anti-natalist.

Okay, I'll put it in simpler terms for a brainlet like you: how many Einstein-level genius intellects will be born and prosper in the environment depicted in the image? Isn't that the pro-life argument?

Hard to tell when OP's picture is one of the most famous and influential highway interchanges. In that case, is still wrong. It's not lack of zoning but too much zoning. The United States never really bought into mixed-use zoning like Europe. Suburbanization was deliberate government policy to get people (white people) to own real estate.

Mexico City is ridiculously huge.

It was a lake not so long time ago...

This is simply not true. Plenty of people want to, and do live in rural communities.

Claro, ya lo sabia

Basically Ford introduces the affordable mobility scooter (automobile) to the American public and Americans love it so much they literally stop building cities to accomodate anybody who doesn't ride a large mobility scooter everywhere.

Why didn't they just build up instead of out?

Mexicans can't build up, their shit just falls over, especually during earthquakes.

Earthquakes, can't afford to build up, they already are, infrastructure issues, the list goes on.

Can't into building codes

Why? Do you like sitting in a traffic jam for hours on end?

Their nation is on several faults so, yeah.

Urban areas outside Europe is just a disgrace

Precisely no, that's a good reason to not live there. Besides, I'm smart enough to not live far from my job. I know people in this kind of urban area who have 2 hours of travel to work, and it seems to be very common. How is that efficient?

zoning actually often encourages that kind of sprawl with things like parking requirements and not allowing multi unit dwellings

Satanic influence on a freshly discovered continent.

Towns are not planned the way they should be. Things blocks are planned for.

>Drainage
>Access

Those from a civil perspective are the most important things, is it going ti withstand a q10, q100 flood, or will it fail? Can people get onto the site easily and safely. That's about it. There is not major planning done in majority of cities, which is why they all have traffic on them. Give it 100 years and that picture will look vastly different.

The way cities develop now is highly "unnatural" it's pretty much block per block and then they have to just work according to their surrounding blocks.

I work in civils and structural drafting, it actually baffles me, but really there is no other choice. Like most cities today have been around for hundreds if not thousands of years, how are you going to plan that far ahead in the future? You can't know why a city will take off and you can't effectively plan for it. You can really only build cities from the ground up knowing it will hopefully take off.

lobbying in the government for the most part. Los Angeles had an above-grade light rail system back in the first half of last century which was ditched for freeways. Developers and planners lacked the foresight that the freeway system in LA without a good public transit system would result in traffic, newer and faster cars that made some of the freeway designs out-of-date, and litigation from some jurisdictions that prevented the completion of the full freeway system in the region.

On days that some of us have to work on Monday holidays or if we drive on actual holidays, you can appreciate that the LA freeway system in theory should have worked/works, since you can get from point A to B quickly and without issue. The problem is, many of the freeways were built with the old 40s-50s cars that typically go up to a maximum speed below today's cars, and so a lot of the entrance/exits, curves, infrastructure (bridges or lane numbers) quickly became obsolete and dangerous. So you eventually you have to widen the freeways to alleviate pressure and you end up with the 110 freeway in the OP.

Also, cities like Beverly Hills, Norwalk, and others put resistance towards having freeways built through them, so routes ended up incomplete which affected business districts like Century City in the middle of an urban black hole that were originally gonna be served by a freeway.

The 105 (the right-left freeway in the OP) was the last new freeway built in LA. It was planned to hold the Metro Green Line light rail to run along the median for transport to LAX, which made it an extra wide freeway with large interchanges to account for the Green Line and carpool lanes.

Cont.

I love sprawl, it makes property cheap. This is why sprawly cities like Phoenix and Dallas are significantly cheaper to live in than cramped up NYC and Philadelphia.

It wouldn't be so fucked if it was still a lake. Spanish can't do anything right.

>LA
>people being able to afford housing

you mean taking 'loans' right?

LA actually isn't that sprawly relative to their population.

When I first saw this image a while back I thought it was from some SCI-FI dystopia.

What the fuck is the point of your quotations?

Dallas isn’t really sprawly, property is cheap because we’re attempting to sprawl out though.
Arizona is just a shithole

there's nothing comfy about the slums of mexico city

>Build on a flat featureless desert
>lol look at the vast urban expanse.
Also yeah zoning and not using space more efficiently by not building structures like towers or commie blocks and promoting suburban car culture. By comparison cities like London and New York are more dense and to the North of LA in San Fran even. Looking at it from satellite imagery, Tokyo, another more dense metropolis looks even larger, probably the largest.

>cyberpunk
>comfy
Cyberpunk is supposed to be a dystopia

>I love sprawl, it makes property cheap.
Is this your only criterion for happiness? The funniest part is that I'm 100% certain that my house (+1 ha of land) costs half less than any of these rectangle dystopian shit.

extremely pleb tastes

>Bladerunner
>being this idealistic
youtu.be/sITW5tr7KQg

Phoenix is richer than Dallas

What tastes? It's supped to be shit by design.

Blade Runner was high tech, high rise. Mexico City skyline is about as impressive as Indianapolis and it's low tech as fuck.

You are like a little babby, watch this

Once again the problem is not the highway interchanges but the dump around where people live.

Oh yeah, I guess we have that too

We get these shitty new estate suburbs on the outskirts, we call them "spray on suburbs".

All the houses are the same style, basic as fuck, no backyard, same front yard; depressing as fuck

>Cabidalism

Its sad that Brisbane still manages to have better infrastructure than Sydney or Melbourne despite shit like this

That's fucking beautiful.

This shouldnt be allowed. Humans are a mistake

Europe is going to adapt well to the encroaching energy crysis. America is going to fold. When liquid fuel becomes expensive all of those suburbs and empty business nexuses called cities will become useless...

Now that I think about it, the destruction of suburbia might lead to American cities creating some epic skylines as people flock to city apartments and vertical construction becomes that much more important.

All cities in Australia are shit

Fuck off, Jeffersonian xeno.

If you live in a small town then sure.

I am so thankful I wasnt born in Shitmerica

Cities in every country suck dick though.

>dystopia
A meme word. We live in a dystopia today. We lived in a dystopia 100 years ago. We've always lived in a dystopia and we always will, and yet we have never lived in a dystopia and never will. That's because it's all in the eyes of the beholder. That's why "dystopia" is ultimately a meaningless word.

Somebody give those poor wetbacks a skyscraper.

This is you, Veeky Forums.
youtube.com/watch?v=FCtJ1_2Sf-s

So deep. Go back to redit.

Not an argument.

I accept your surrender, fufufu. *sheathes katana*

Your trains are much better, our public transport relies almost entirely on buses

Cars are important because of the vast land area of the US, however you have to understand that the car culture we have in the US is not just an option most people decided to stick with.
This explosion of car culture comes from a few factors.
One being the boom of suburbia in the mid-20th century and white flight from the cities.
The second being the effect of this boom.
Businesses in most areas of the US are fined a certain amount if they do not have sufficient car parking spots. As a result, it's financially more beneficial to build a business with parking spaces on or near the property which only further maintains this car culture.
Add onto all this the car lobbyists and the financial benefits gained by way of gas, oil, insurance, real estate, and who knows what other interests.

I'm CERTAIN besides financial lobbying and the now 'familiarity' of this lifestyle that allows people to be okay with this, there are other laws that maintain this car culture lifestyle, though I wouldn't be able to tell you what they are.

"liquid fuel" will just be replaced.
There's too much suburbia to let it just fold.

I'm pro-natalist mostly because I don't trust anyone decide who can and can't reproduce. Besides, birth rates are falling anyways.

It's Mexico City. The poor fucks living in the slums can't afford to large buildings up to code, so they just keep it small.

>liquid fuel
As much as I hate to be on the same side as the left, electric cars are going to slide right into where gasoline used to be.

classic

>too much suburbia to let it just fold
doesn't matter, they will be abandoned after all the copper wiring is ribbed out the walls
>electric cars are going to slide right into where gasoline used to be
no, electric cars a going to be as common as jet-packs. There not enough lithium in the world to even replace 3% of cars. And on top of that the car its self is a massive mistake.

cant wait desu

why is this a problem again?

so this is the legacy of the USA

Me on the left

Brisbane is a fucking hellhole to drive in idiot

Southside subhuman

>mfw bayside
bayside bestside

>he doesn't live a miserable inner-city existence of insomnia, nihilism, and world-loathing

fucking braiblets

>mfw people say they don't mind suburban sprawl

Yeah but better than Sydney

What a fun! Can I play too senpai? :^D

Don't you fucking insult my Goddamn city. Indy is fine.

If Indiana Jones was named after a dog, Indianapolis is dog city

>he doesn't live in a beachside suburb with easy access to the bay, hourly ferries to stradbroke, and only 40 mins from the city centre and an hour from the GC
you are clearly a smarter man than I

This. Whites trying to fight and win a demographic war with non-whites at this point is like Japan trying to win a war of attrition with the United States in WW2. It's a losing battle at this point, best thing to do is just shut down the borders and focus on preserving quality of life in Europe and America. Anything else is suicidal.

imagine how spooky a massive population decline would be like in the suburbs of America...wasteland depopulated suburbs.

It would be an improvement, honestly.

I live near such a place, in the desert no less.

It's still vastly preferable to this.

>inb4 some cuck calls this "vibrant" or some other buzzword that glorifies urban dystopias

What the fuck is the point of your stupid question?

>picture from an elevated point
>picture with vegetation
>picture without visible atmospheric pollution
intredasting

Have a look at the outskirt suburbs of Detroit

>picture of an average american city sprawl
>better post a third world shithole dystopia instead of a regular city to show suburbs are ok
really made me think

Not an argument. Why are you defending that image?

You only build up when you cant build out.

Things develops out of need, not just because you COULD do them. Mexico city is full of factories and corporate offfices for massive business with billions of dollars (Bimbo, FEMSA[coca cola manufacturer], Cemex, Telmex, etc), yet even they havent felt the need to build skyscrapers.