Ever since ditching car culture and joining the urbanist cause (on the internet at least but that has to change), I’ve noticed that some countries always top the list when it comes to good urbanism. The first and most oblivious one tends to be The Netherlands but Germany and Japan also come pretty close. But that’s strange considering that both countries have huge car industries. Germany is (arguably) the birthplace of the car (Benz Patent-Motorwagen) and is home to Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz and BMW. Japan is home to Toyota, Honda, Nissan and among others. How is it that these countries have been able to keep the auto lobby at bay and continue investing in their infrastructure?
Yeah that’s why I talk about people not being able to afford them after ww2. And government not behind able to afford infrastructure after ww2. I don’t know why you insist on looking at the ancient past when post WW2 is the important part here. Heck WW1 too, it cost a shit ton. These were the pivotal events that shaped the modern world.
Okay, I might sound too negative. After WW2 car culture took off in Germany and Japan as well. May be a bit later due to overall wealth.
However, the OT asked how it comes that both countries have different urban planning - not building the city around cars despite having big car manufacturers.
My point is simply that the structure of German and Japanese cities were already shaped when cars were invented. Sure, there were bigger „modernizations“ with big streets cutting some cities in halves. But that’s more a niche.
The US had a population boom after WW2 and so the cities start to spread. Build car-friendly. https://marketsize.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/USPop.jpg
It’s a matter of degree. Yes they have cars and car infrastructure in Germany and Japan, but not nearly to the same extent as the US. That was OP’s original point and question.
You should do more digging, most cities in the US (the middle part anyway) were also set. But they spent the money to buy out plots, tear it down, and build massive infrastructure. Why? Because of what I said: they could afford it on both govt level and personal level. Europe was devastated because of back to back world wars which cost a shit ton. On the other hand the US profited from that. Even when you have relatively green field construction you still have to buy the land and still have to build, aka it’s still expensive. I’m just repeating myself so I think I’m out.