Quote from paket42x :

No.

when w?

Quote from manolixsvouros :

when w?

Gotta think about it

Quote from Bose321 :

Honestly not sure if you can call them real modern cities then.

Well, it's a question, what we call modern. If you take Helsinki or maybe Dutch cities, they must have decent ambient for pedestrians everywhere (or moving towards that). But in other ones, in the center, for the elites, there are the perks of the new urbanism (bike lanes, lowered pavements at intersections, no underpasses, bus lanes, etc.), but on the periphery, they are still modernist (high rises, no really urban streets, underpasses or bridges for pedestrians to cross unnecessarily wide roads).

What perplexes me is that in my city, the planning organ in full with the new urbanism advocates, but just 1-2 km from the center, they can't enforce legally or physically things like continuous pavement -- those can often be interrupted by parking pockets, or active façades (many developers fear people and make just a wall or a fence). So it's a big question whether or not, or to which degree a city is "modern".