this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2026
75 points (97.5% liked)
Videos
17985 readers
289 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
- Videos only (aside from meta posts flagged with [META])
- Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
- Don't be a jerk
- No advertising
- No political videos, post those to !politicalvideos@lemmy.world instead.
- Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
- Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
- Duplicate posts may be removed
- AI generated content must be tagged with "[AI] …" ^Discussion^
Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well, you're either unaware of, or just ignoring a lot of things that do not fit into your tidy explanation.
Every been the Bay Area in the US? You know what it takes to ride a bike from one side of SF to the other and any direction? What about crossing a bridge to Oakland? What about crossing the GGB to get to literally any other city on the other side?
Also,.most major US cities were not built for walking, only East Coast earlier cities. Let me ramble off a bunch that discount your point: Los Angeles, Atlanta, Chicago, Seattle, San Diego, Denver, Philadelphia, and even Washington DC.
Your immediate response is going to be something like "Well they WERE originally...", but that doesn't matter. Maybe 100+ years ago, but that's not where we live. We live in the reality of now, and that reality is that none of the cities are AS accessible by walking or bike as they are with cars. If not Topography, then the general logistics of where jobs vs living spaces are located.
People don't have the luxury of choosing where they get to live in the US anymore in proximity and convenience of their commute to work. Just not the reality of things. No argument you might have will beat the consumer logic of finding the most ideal place to live first, and worrying about the commute second. Likely to be by car.
I have literally biked many of the routes you're discussing here. I live in Sacramento and regularly visit the Bay Area without driving. Actually, that's already the most convenient way to do so. But that's a fun outing, not practical urban transit. Practical urban transit takes place within or to adjacent neighborhoods. That's the whole point. Once you reach a certain density of amenities, car infrastructure and travel becomes totally impractical. This density is well below American suburbs, which is why our cities are all clogged with traffic and people are being flattened left and right.
For occasional longer distance trips you can rent a car or take a train. We're not talking about inter-city travel here. The point is, like the above video, people, especially children should have the ability to safely navigate their neighborhoods. And this is totally achievable in the US.
Regarding the history... all of those cities predate automobiles and most of them still have dense, walkable neighborhoods. A few demolished them. It's the surrounding suburbs that were built for cars. But they can and should be rebuilt in a better way. It will be a process but the alternatives are far worse.
Most of Seattle is readily walkable, I'd often go on basically hikes through the city taking 6+ hours. There's definitely a few places that are difficult to get from one area to the next but individual neighborhoods and most the connecting areas are solid for pedestrians and bikes. Denver though holy fuck I've never been somewhere less walkable it's a disaster there
You literally just said "walkable", and then referred to it as "hikes". Hiking is not walking 🤣
It's the difference between somebody with mobility issues walking two blocks, or eight. Neither Seattle or SF even attempt to pretend they are walkable because of the topography.
I don't think that's the gotcha you think it is? What do you call a 6+ hour walk, a casual stroll? You have to bring water and food when you're out for that long doesn't matter where you go which is why I called it a hike. I can walk for 6+ hours in Seattle and be in walkable neighborhoods the entire time with proper sidewalks, shops, parks, and near transit to head back if I don't feel like continuing to walk
The least walkable topography is near downtown where you have the one line, streetcars, and busses. There are several transit options to get in, out, and around the downtown hills; hell the monorail is still running if you are feeling fancy. Outside of downtown you have the one line that's being expanded every day with busses leading out from it's stops. I won't say Seattle has it perfect or is the best but it is undeniably one of the better US cities for walking and they're actively working to improve it in several ways
Great! Glad you can do that.
Your elderly neighbors can't, and also can't ride a bike 8 blocks to the nearest grocery store, then lug groceries home.
The terrain in Seattle is just not walkable, is my point.
And for them there is the one line, street cars, and busses that elderly and disabled people regularly use. Literally every grocery store I know of in Seattle has a bus stop within a block of it and all but like 2 are on flat ground. I feel like I'm going crazy am I missing something about what counts as walkable?