>>1877236You are completely off base in the argument
It did not destroy the cities, it took the residential element and separated it from the inner congestion of the urban environment
You also claimed that there was a better and more sound solution that was made in these original grids in cities, where there were tons of people
But no fucking jobs
Unemployment was high as F with thousands of people all vying for a good job in a tightly woven neighborhood
Only when these people moved out to their surrounding areas did the congestion actually stop and yes many things were built to accommodate for this movement to the suburbs and surrounding counties for commuters
This included the increase of efficiency of vehicles and the idea of a stronger public transportation network and privately owned but governed and subsidized rail lines.
I can see you were not that well founded in your statement because you wanted to try to speak about your favorite new rant of cars being that expensive and the rent too damned high
But now you think that further gentrification and urban renewal is necessary even though the blueprint did not call for that type of special use area to be built to cater to one lifestyle as branded by the businesses that move into the area.
You can clearly see that there were not very many jobs and now the area in your pic is commercialized and has a ton of work options there, and the people are moved away from that pollution into their own homes with yards.
Some stayed around so they could rant about their "families" having been moved to other locations where the rich ones could afford and the poor had to stay put but its really lame to see you take reality and add a "design and use" argument to the forums.
Where did you think that all the people were going to concentrate
Think you could manage that sewer system better with all those people around, and a disease spreading like covid in that tight area?
