I’m sorry is that aimed at me? What’s with the aggression? The user above edited their post with more info AFTER that interaction.
I was only saying that the US (and Northern America in general) being built upon (stolen) land that had not been urbanized before like for example Europe could also be a reason why the transportation infrastructure is so dehumanizing, you don’t see blocks and urban grids like the US in Europe (except for rebuilt and new cities) because of the landscape and the fact that there were buildings since medieval times.
I’m not trying to have a worldview, or justify / being an activist for the car infrastructure, I’m just participating in the conversation and sharing my thoughts, and getting piled upon by random users?
You are clearly stating that you are not an historian and this is just your intuition. People give you information and facts contrary to your intuition, and you accuse them of being mean and agressive.
No. It’s not a reason. It could, but it’s not. They are telling you. Sorry.
I did NOT say facts are mean, and I’m NOT accusing anyone of being aggressive for disagreeing with me. I’m trying to participate in the conversation and add one factor among many, not “the reason” and not a justification for how things turned out. It can be wrong, incomplete, an oversimplification, but I don’t think the tone of the responses I’ve gotten are warranted, has social media become so toxic that this is glossed over?
“Your intuition is completely wrong” is dismissive, “The obvious point of your comment was to imply…” guesses my motive instead of engaging with the point (again the context they added was provided as an edit AFTER this initial confrontation), the sarcastic paraphrase is just scornful, “You accuse them of being mean and aggressive” I don’t and I keep trying to deescalate?
I think we’re talking past each other at this point, so I’m good leaving it here.
I can’t tell you about the US but I’m from a “young” country too. Younger than the US. The westward expansion of Canada passed the Great Lakes was entirely dependent on railways. It was a national project to make sure the country could actually exist in the first place. It’s what built most of the prairies. Having a railroad that traversed the country was seen as a primordial enterprise that had to be realized at any cost. It was a way to bring European colonizers and troops in the west. Here’s another ad in French.
French colonizers arrived in Québec in 1608. Sure, there were no trains and they relied on the St-Lawrence for more than a century. By the end of the 1700s colonization was expanding westward using canals and locks. First small ones like at Coteau-du-Lac, then bigger ones like the Lachine canal that was built in the 1820s.
But just like in a lot of other parts of the world, our young country also saw the industrial revolution and the invention of trains. The first rail line in Canada was between La Prairie and Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, to help people traveling between New-York and Montreal. Passengers were taking boats between New-York and St-Jean using the Champlain and Chambly, then would have to take a coach between St-Jean and La Prairie, before getting on another boat to finally get to Montréal. So a rail line was constructed. It eventually linked Montréal and New-York directly. Most of it still exists.
I’m sorry is that aimed at me? What’s with the aggression? The user above edited their post with more info AFTER that interaction.
I was only saying that the US (and Northern America in general) being built upon (stolen) land that had not been urbanized before like for example Europe could also be a reason why the transportation infrastructure is so dehumanizing, you don’t see blocks and urban grids like the US in Europe (except for rebuilt and new cities) because of the landscape and the fact that there were buildings since medieval times.
I’m not trying to have a worldview, or justify / being an activist for the car infrastructure, I’m just participating in the conversation and sharing my thoughts, and getting piled upon by random users?
You are clearly stating that you are not an historian and this is just your intuition. People give you information and facts contrary to your intuition, and you accuse them of being mean and agressive.
No. It’s not a reason. It could, but it’s not. They are telling you. Sorry.
I did NOT say facts are mean, and I’m NOT accusing anyone of being aggressive for disagreeing with me. I’m trying to participate in the conversation and add one factor among many, not “the reason” and not a justification for how things turned out. It can be wrong, incomplete, an oversimplification, but I don’t think the tone of the responses I’ve gotten are warranted, has social media become so toxic that this is glossed over?
“Your intuition is completely wrong” is dismissive, “The obvious point of your comment was to imply…” guesses my motive instead of engaging with the point (again the context they added was provided as an edit AFTER this initial confrontation), the sarcastic paraphrase is just scornful, “You accuse them of being mean and aggressive” I don’t and I keep trying to deescalate?
I think we’re talking past each other at this point, so I’m good leaving it here.
I can’t tell you about the US but I’m from a “young” country too. Younger than the US. The westward expansion of Canada passed the Great Lakes was entirely dependent on railways. It was a national project to make sure the country could actually exist in the first place. It’s what built most of the prairies. Having a railroad that traversed the country was seen as a primordial enterprise that had to be realized at any cost. It was a way to bring European colonizers and troops in the west. Here’s another ad in French.
French colonizers arrived in Québec in 1608. Sure, there were no trains and they relied on the St-Lawrence for more than a century. By the end of the 1700s colonization was expanding westward using canals and locks. First small ones like at Coteau-du-Lac, then bigger ones like the Lachine canal that was built in the 1820s.
But just like in a lot of other parts of the world, our young country also saw the industrial revolution and the invention of trains. The first rail line in Canada was between La Prairie and Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, to help people traveling between New-York and Montreal. Passengers were taking boats between New-York and St-Jean using the Champlain and Chambly, then would have to take a coach between St-Jean and La Prairie, before getting on another boat to finally get to Montréal. So a rail line was constructed. It eventually linked Montréal and New-York directly. Most of it still exists.
And just like in Europe, eventually railways replaced canals and we had them every where. Every fucking where. I come from the south of Québec and there’s easily half a dozen abandoned railways from the 1800s in my region alone. It was possible to go to the smallest villages by train. But then highways, cars, abandoned lines. VIA Rail’s network keep shrinking. All of North America’s rail network is shrinking.
No, it’s not because we’re “young” countries that we didn’t have the chance to develop a robust rail network.