If you’ve ever been to any European countries, you have probably seen the significant difference between there and in the US. Some think America can’t compete with the connecting towns, thriving communities, and pleasing downtown marketplaces of European countries. But, even if there were vibrant communities in American cities, when you think of the phrase “downtown America” per popular opinion, more often than not, it probably means poverty, homelessness, and a lot of broken windows. So, why are European cities so much better than American cities?

One main difference between both sides is the scale in which cities were built. It’s a no-brainer that America is a relatively “new” country compared to almost every European country. European countries are walkable, and American cities are not. This is because European cities were designed and built way before the introduction of cars. Towns and markets needed to be connected via horse and walkable simply because there was no other transportation. It made Europe feel lively, livable, and human. It created a more natural landscape suitable for interaction, visitation, and exploration. As a result, cities are largely embraced, turning into high-quality environments to provide for sustainable and inclusive living. For example, Copenhagen, the capital of Denmark, is on track to become the first carbon-neutral city in the world, exhibiting housing constructions on a scale, price, and sustainability level that makes the rest of the world look in awe. 

Meanwhile, it is the complete opposite in America, where suburban living is in high demand and urban living is at an all-time low. Unsurprisingly, American cities fail to provide adequate living, find portions of their population homeless, and suffer from weakening traffic congestion. 

Research shows that cities like Phoenix and Los Angeles contribute 6 times more carbon into the atmosphere per capita than any average European resident, and the state of California lists transportation as the leading cause of carbon output. The main difference in the carbon footprint is primarily due to the result of the preferred urban mobility model. Cities configure and model themselves through the most widespread transportation and choose their neighborhoods, layouts, and building types accordingly. Typically, the most dominant form of transportation is by car or a combination of walking, cycling, and public transit, but that doesn’t work in the US. 

Houston is an excellent example of how bad American cities can get. Almost 80% of Houstonians commute to their work via car (2019 American community survey). Of course, there is a transit service, but research has shown that civilians living there often choose to take the car to save time and money. In addition, 58.8% of civilians believe that there needs to be much more improvement in the mass transit system for Houston to remain a prosperous city. 

There are multiple ways that Houston could become a better city, but these are my opinions only. The first thing they could do is plant more trees. The increase in trees would look prettier but would also decrease the amount of carbon in the air, leading to better air quality. They could also limit the amount of gas administered cars on the road. For example, switching to electric or low-admission vehicles as a whole. The last major thing they could do is stop investing in highways and other things that are making their climate worse and instead invest their money in energy efficiency. Again, they need to invest in their community rather than the things directly causing what is happening to the environment.

In conclusion, there are multiple issues with American cities that cannot just be fixed immediately but instead, need to be carefully looked at by one or a group of people that are set on the idea of catching up with a lot of the European countries that surpass American cities in a lot of ways.