Why are city centers in Europe thriving and US in decay? difference and why? Need help.?

Answer 1

Sounds like the subject of a 1500-word essay. I'm usually very wordy but today I'll just give some keywords because otherwise your monitor will break:

U.S.: car culture, mobility (willingness to move to other towns, cities, states), desire for home ownership, post-WWII economic boom and accessible mortgages making home ownership a realistic possibility, view of cities as being generally "dangerous", desire for space ("the Marlboro Man"), lots of land for real estate developers to develop and sell

Europe: public transportation, relative lack of mobility (though unemployment is changing this somewhat), normal to live in a flat / rented flat, view of cities being relatively safe (except the occasional odd quarter), desire to be close to cultural/social life, real estate development focused on cities (where higher rent can be demanded) ...

That said I think your question may also be a little off. Are city centres in the US really in decay? The centres of U.S. cities tend to be quite nice. Philadelphia is a great example. The downtown area is charming - though I get the feeling few people actually live there. The rest of Philly surrounding the downtown area is absolutely tragic, run down and pitiful, but then once you cross the city limits you see the bucolic farms and new gated communities -- apparently back to thriving PA again, just suburban and rural. What seems to be in decay in the U.S. is not the city centre itself, but urban communities. (And racism is absolutely an issue as well - you would have to be blind not to see that in Philly or any other U.S. city.)

And are European cities really thriving? Regrettably, it is true, there is a trend that I can see in my own P-city (Prague) of the young and well-off packing up and leaving the city for suburbia -- those bucolic farms and new gated communities again, this time interspersed with the occasional village and castle. They are moving for a lot of the reasons listed above as U.S. characteristics -- they are car orientated, want more space, are starting to view cities as dangerous (damn those tabloids) and either have the money up front or can take out a mortgage pretty easily to buy or build a home. Perhaps this is the beginning of the urban flight that destroyed great cities like Philly.

And I tried to keep my answer short...

Answer 2

I don’t see this to be the truth at all. Although, if what you say is true, the answer is obvious. Europe has an aging population and they are being replaced more by Muslim immigrants than of their own birthrates. (Not a racist statement, just a fact) Therefore, their cities are not expanding currently like the U.S. cities are. (suburbs, urban sprawl, etc…) Also, most Americans cannot afford to live in or near the city centers.

Answer 3

Liz's answer is right on the ball--I just wanted to comment that someone else previously said that there aren't any Walmarts in Europe except in England, which is ridiculous. First of all, there are a LOT of Walmarts in Europe; I lived near Mainz, Germany for three years, and there are three Walmarts in Mainz alone, plus another one or two in neighboring Wiesbaden on the other side of the Rhein River. Second, Walmart's no more responsible for European city growth than it is for American city deterioration--which, having lived on both continents, is more true than most Americans would care to admit.

Answer 4

There are a few large American city centers that are thriving: New York, Boston, San Francisco, Portland, OR. What they tend to have in common with similar European cities is that they are by happenstance and cultural and political pressure population dense (or legally encourage density) in settlement with good mass transportation systems. They are also cultural and/or intellectual centers. They are also are much to the left politically (a book came out a couple of years ago that showed a strong correlation between American cities' vitality and local acceptance of gays).

Answer 5

Romney isn't a not straightforward-line some thing, except per chance a not straightforward-line baby-kisser. He needs to win and adjusts his regulations in order to get as many votes as plausible. What you should agonize about is who he will hearken to if he receives potential. There are Republicans a rattling sight crazier than Romney on the prompt. His Vice-Presidential candidate is particularly more beneficial to the right. that's vitally not likely that Romney might want or be able to envision closer ties with Europe. correct wing human beings have a tendency in the route of isolationism, united states has a tendency now to not do o.k. in coming to formal agreements with different countries and so a procedures Romney has shown no longer some thing yet ineptitude in his journeys in yet another united states. in order to envision loose-commerce with Europe, united states may ought to comply with issues it received't comply with. the conception of yankee Exceptionalism is too sturdy.

Answer 6

Brown v. Board of Education killed US city centers ("inner cities.")
Forced integration led to 'white flight,' the remaining inner city residents were seen as undesirable (regardless of race); suburbs exploded with growth, and so did malls.
And I am NOT, by saying this, supporting segregation, which was wrong - I am pointing out the by-products of forcible integration (busing)

Answer 7

There are no Wal-Marts in Europe (except for England).