Originally Posted by bunt_q
I think because the aerotropolis as-envisioned is more of the light industrial, manufacturing, cargo, warehousing sort... The just as important but less glitzy stuff.
By the way, most new European development is somewhat Americanesque. Americans don't realize that because when we go on vacation we typically stay in the areas that were substantially built out 100+ years ago. The majority of new development sucks, just like 80%+ of new development in the U.S. sucks.
Agreed. Automobile to the door for "more."
Unlike in much of the US, metro areas in Western Europe grew into areas with many existing villages, so in Greater London or Paris, for example, there are hundreds of villages that are centuries old, linked for a century or more by rail to one or rail rings surrounding central cities (also less transit rail was ripped up after WWII because people there had lost the wealth necessary to own autos and finance freeway construction until the 1980s.)
The value of, and, the availability of land, for "Aeotropolii" in much of Europe, IMO, forces such developments to be more compact and less real estate development driven, than developements like DIA. A great example of this compactness is the new Berlin Airport
I grant that if the land were available in much of Europe (outside of the old borders of the USSR) developments would be far more real estate driven- with the caveate that the power brokers were be politicians, rather than those with the election money such as power brokers (real estate developers) in the US.