Tag: development

Although there are many similarities between European and American cities, their differences tend to outweigh one another. The majority of the physical differences are due to deep-rooted and long enforced policies that European countries and governments take most seriously as methods to control growth within their cities. Whereas in the United States, very different objectives have been sought, policies more lax and the momentary desire to develop the vast frontier trumped the real need for properly developed towns and cities. The expansive mindset of the country has been a catch-22, as cities have paid the price.

European cities are definitively different from their American counterparts, as they have retained the concept of “old urban systems,” and the city centers remain relevant, continuing to hold meaning throughout the decades even though they have seen their share of changes. The merging of history, culture, involved citizens, small businesses and appropriately placed public spaces boost the elements that support this city center ideology. Small and local businesses remain in demand; therefore, encouraging the local economy and larger corporations are no longer such a considerable threat, as they have become in the United States. These cities look different and surely feel different than most American cities because they do feel older and most were originally planned as small, fortified towns which eventually grew out of their fortifications into burgeoning towns and cities as more people relocated. Because European countries lacked the same ‘frontier’ to explore, they had to set-up strict regulations and policies that would ensure the viability and longevity of their cities. They had to find ways in which to deal with the population increases, while maintaining the same key characteristics that set their cities apart from one another.

As American cities began to expand, they started pushing the borders of the original framework, but instead of keeping the boundaries somewhat intact, urban sprawl took control. “Since 1950 about half of America’s central cities at least doubled their territory by annexing new suburbs.”[1] This would later wreak havoc on the future health of American cities and leave behind faulty and spread out fragments. This phenomenon can be seen perfectly in Miami, Florida. Miami sprawled from originally having 300 residents in 1896, right when the city was incorporated, to 5.5 million in just a century. To cope with the surge of new residents Miami sprawled in every direction, creating smaller disconnected neighborhoods. Downtown Miami suffered and became obsolete as chain stores took over in new strip malls that were more accessible to these neighborhoods; it literally became a ghost town full of homeless people. Only recently has downtown Miami been able to reemerge as major revitalization and planning have been kicked into full gear. There have been great advances downtown with the addition of a new performing arts center, art museums, boutiques and shops, restaurants, housing, parks, etc. that make downtown once again relevant and welcoming.

The main mechanism that changed the course of events for both American and European cities was transportation. In the United States, the majority of the transportation budget was reserved for the implementation of highways as urban sprawl was taking over. Automobiles had become the next big thing in this country, as individualism was further marketed, allowing citizens to move farther away from the city centers. No longer did the city center have to be a concentrated hub as people had migrated to the outskirts, this changed the mindset and expectations of downtowns in the United States. Europe was late to the rise of the automobile and instead focused on railroad transportation, ensuring that the country as well as neighboring countries could be easily accessible to the general public. Even though European cities expanded, creating new neighborhoods, they were still compacted in comparison to the level of sprawl in the United States. For example, “the urban region of Paris comprises 1,300 municipalities,”[2] but because of the planning of arrondissements and the implementation of taller buildings, the city has managed to retain a concentrated city feel that is geared more towards the city-citizen relationship versus the suburban-city experience. A similar city is Barcelona, Spain, as much of the downtown interworking is comprised of former medieval and narrow streets that are not automobile-friendly, but they do oblige active citizens to maneuver. This aids in retaining a citizen-driven city center.

Larger American cities such as Chicago, San Francisco or New York have tried to maintain this citizen-driven city center, but as they have ‘grown-up’ and stretched to accommodate growth, only certain parts of these cities still incorporate this feeling. But, as mentioned earlier, it is more complicated than simply changing an aspect of an American city to replicate the feel of a European city – there is more at play than meets the eye. It took years of intensive and restrictive planning to ensure European cities would maintain their look and feel. The two are just different. Public policy has played a large role and the fact that European and American policies are so different has been a major reason why their cities have ended up being so different from one another.

[1] Nivola, Pietro S.. “Fit for Fat City: A “Lite” Menu of European Policies to Improve Our Urban Form.” The Brookings Institution. http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/1999/01/metropolitanpolicy-nivola (accessed June 24, 2014).
[2] Ibid.