A slice of Europe

I mean it's meaningless
were we independent of the rest of the country we'd probably be more akin to Europe especially in politics but our infrastructure too
but we aren't so all in all we're not that different from the rest of the country

I disagree. I think having height restrictions on buildings improves the quality of a city immensely. A lot of D.C. still has height restrictions and it’s still beautiful because of it.

newfoundland is ireland part 2.

I will bet every one of my earthly possessions that you've never been to Europe.

I totally disagree.

Old cities have a nice vibe. New cities feel empty.

You can design new cities with a good design and layout but its rare. Why destroy what already works

DAS RITE

Attached: Snowy Deadwood.jpg (1440x841, 233K)

Philly really needs height restrictions

Well Boston almost felt like Europe when I visited, 15 years ago.
I doubt there are nations with so many blacks here

Idk why this retard think Boston is European, but Quebec City certainly is...

I read how some Dutch pirate converted to Islam and the Ottomans held the Canadian coastline for a month or so.

The fact that they discovered it so fucking early is what's mind boggling, not the fighting. Vikings were great sailors and adventurers but only decent fighters

I agree that there is real value in preserving the historical heritage of north american american cities, but at the same time DC or SF-style restrictions stifle positive development and cause massive rent inflation

Quebec is 97% white, it’s more European than France tbqh

Attached: 589EAF1B-07E6-4C89-8A14-FC9C922EE6B4.jpg (1600x1000, 434K)

Attached: 60FF7C54-E0AE-47D9-AC88-C0121CF7E3CB.jpg (699x466, 192K)

I might make a fool of myself but looking at pictures of cities like Birmingham, boston doesn't look very dissimilar to some european cities

fuark dude i wish i went to mcgill but my ex went there
i also would've lost my mind leaving home that early

Most UK cities are butt fucking ugly and full of these things nowadays

Attached: homes-in-england.jpg (847x567, 253K)

Birmingham has only been relevant for 150 years at most. Before that it was a small town. It's not a historical metropolis.

No, we are better.
t.New England

Attached: 21886343796_ce969058f8_b.jpg (1024x692, 463K)

The only "beautiful" part of DC is the national mall. Even this is purely aesthetic.

Really flawed argument here. Just because city designing techniques and traditions had positive consequences half a century ago doesn't mean they can't have profound negative impacts today.
Considering the amount of change that has occurred in engineering, transportation, communication etc. in the past 150 years it makes since that city designs have become outdated. Restricting development to European levels is nothing short of authoritarianism.

I prefer to the Tokyo model. After WWII they had to completely rebuild the city from the ground up, but they did it with basically no zoning laws. It development freely and through the forces of economic competition.

Mixed-use zoning with free rein on development is simply better and results in much cheaper cities to live in.

This is true.

Attached: 1_e34bTNMvpQvLhE5TCuXqUg.jpg (1000x665, 231K)

That's not too bad, they have worse (pic related) but we also have some shithole old mill/factory towns.

Attached: Cog_Lane_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1443551.jpg (640x480, 75K)

>i also would've lost my mind leaving home that early
pathetic desu

We have terraces like these too. There nice when there done up which they usually are cause there worth a fucking small fortune.

maybe but looking at other b-tier biritish cities I wouldn't say they're worlds apart from boston. Most european cities aren't the living museums some people in this continent might imagine them to be.

Attached: boston (2).jpg (750x1000, 874K)

Georgetown in DC is beautiful

Just hand it over, nice and slow

not that bad compared to other US or European cities