[BlarfMcFlarf]

Amsterdam notably was designed for cars in the 70s afaik, but they consciously redesigned it over time. So I’m a few decades, it could be your American city.

[jacquesm]

No, they tried that but aborted the plan, fortunately.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jokinen_Plan

But not until they did quite a bit of damage, some of which remains today. If that idiot had had his way a lot of the historical city would have been destroyed.

[oska]

Unfortunately, idiots in many other cities around the world did have their way at that time

[jochem9]

Pretty much all of Amsterdam is pre-WW2 or older. Only the parts outside the A10 ringroad tend to be post war and more car friendly.

There were indeed plans to bulldoze large parts of the old city and build highways and high rises, but after many protests almost no plans were executed.

[dex69420]

American cities are built to benefit the people who pay for them. They don’t revamp things to benefit the poors.

[earthling8118]

An odd take, seeing as it is generally the poorer areas that are subsidizing the richer people's lifestyles. Not the other way around.

[wpm]

The city itself is often subsidizing the suburbs around them that bring all the congestion in. Car-oriented suburbs are hugely inefficient.

[65a]

I mean it was quite clearly designed for water traffic first. I wouldn't describe it as designed for cars in comparison to say Los Angeles or Kansas City.

[Tomis02]

Los Angeles was also not designed for cars. It was demolished for cars, as the saying goes.

[jacquesm]

The water traffic was the equivalent of today's trucks.

[65a]

Probably more efficient in some ways, definitely better for the environment.