>>1965965>It wasn't an argument about aestheticsIt literally was, dumbass. Read the comment thread. You're a moron.
>>1966032>I mean, I live in a house with a garden and a garage, it is very normal here tooGuarantee it's smaller than the US equivalent. Unless you're lucky/rare.
>hurr durr I've picked the densest part of western europe and ignored the less dense partsI've picked half of the fucking tree, dumbass and almost all the fancy HSR railways are inside that boundary.
Furthermore, the massive size difference between "Dense Europe" and "Dense US" is very relevant. It means even if you're on the fringes of you still have incentive to link with the main network, and the outer nodes of that network are probably fairly close. Bulgaria has areas like Sofia (continuous human habitation for 9,000+ years btw) linking to Niš and Belgrade within 200 miles then on to western Europe from there. Then the massively dense population center of Istanbul in the opposite direction. Atlanta is 500 miles from DC and no dense cities in between. So Bulgaria itself might not be dense but it's sandwiched by density (and itself has dense, ancient cities)
Face it, there's no honest, fair way you can select a 2.5 million square kilometer region of Europe that has the density profile of flyover US.
>This is exactly my point - it doesnt need to be a dense area like germany to have public transport connections.You've presented no evidence or argument to that point, though, meaning I have no chance to evaluate and analyze the quality of yours vs mine. Your accusation of cherry-picking is laughably weak and you have presented no counter-argument of equal-or-greater rigor. Plus you are massively biasing your language (eg "decently built").
Yes, cities can be made compact even if there's no geographic pressure for it. The US is not like that and Americans don't want it to be like that.
