https://twitter.com/heguisen/status/1727564950376448222
https://i.imgur.com/21E3exR.png
Chris Horton 何貴森，駐臺外媒、目前為自由記者、也是臺灣外籍記者聯誼會副會長
本文用爆卦 因為提到一些政治內容
https://i.imgur.com/tJ6SwLj.png
Taiwan's urban design makes it clear that cars are more important than
pedestrians or cyclists, who are an afterthought at best
*cars and scooters
台灣的城市設計明確地表明，汽車和機車比行人或騎單車的人更重要，行人或騎單車的人
頂多只是個附加配件。
與網友的對話
https://i.imgur.com/Ztlyz2P.png
網友 Lemnos: I think it’s because Taiwan streets were mostly built under the
Japanese, before modern transport. It’s very distinctive. If you look at
Singapore or SK, it’s American engineering. In HK, British.
我覺得是因為台灣的街道大多是在日治時期建的，在現代交通工具出現前。很有特色。
你看新加坡或南韓，都是美國的工法。在香港，則是英國的。
何貴森: Sure, but Japan left in 1945... the different incarnations of the ROC
have had nearly 80 years to improve things.
同意，但日本在1945離開了... 台灣的不同政權已經有將近80年的時間來改善這些問題。
網友 Lemnos: But street scapes are hard to adjust, property laws and physical
restraints. Not an excuse, just reality in dealing with inherited
infrastructure.
但街道景觀難調整，有產權法律和物理限制。這不是藉口，處理基礎設施有現實面的考量
網友 Need: Absolutely no excuses...if you look at even older streets around
TW, they had 亭仔跤 (tîng-á-kha) or verandas for pedestrians. The ROC
government just never put too much thought or wanted to spend $ in developing
TW. They just saw TW as a temporary base before they reclaim China.
完全沒有藉口...如果你看看台灣甚至更古老的街道，他們有亭仔跤或行騎樓。中華民國
政府從來沒有太多思考或想要花錢在台灣的發展上。他們只是把台灣當作暫時的基地，
在他們重新佔領中國之前。
網友 Lemnos: I think a bit unfair, if you know the history. The physical
constraints to remodel the existing streets was a political/ social issue.
Not a high priority as you infer. Redevelopment does not just incur costs,
but social costs of existing owners, renters, commercial interests.
如果你懂歷史，不會這樣評論。重改造現有街道的物理限制是1個政治/社會問題，不是你
口中的高優先事項。重建不僅會帶來成本，還有現有業主、租戶、商業利益的社會成本。
網友 Need: My point is that the Japanese actually left a fairly well
developed urban planning in TW. Most of these poorly planned streets were
designed & built by the KMT who clearly didn't give a shit. Social costs? KMT
could care less about the Taiwanese for things that they really wanted to do.
日本人其實留下了相當發達的城市規劃給台灣。多數的規劃不良的街道是由國民黨設計和
建造的，他們顯然不在乎。社會成本嗎？國民黨對台灣人所真正想做的事情毫不在呼。
作者: Colonial Japan clearly failed to anticipate the rise of the SUV in 大安區
顯然，日治時期沒有預見到 SUV在大安區的崛起。（外國人的諷刺XD）
網友 Need: Haha... I bet most of 大安區 were planned by the KMT. BTW, the only
reason my neighbourhood was relatively well planned was because it was develop
-ed mainly for government (bureaucrats/military) personnels and with US aid.
哈哈... 我敢打賭大安區的大部分是由國民黨規劃的。順便一提，我住的社區規劃相對好些
，是因為它主要是為政府（官僚/軍事）人員規劃的，並且得到了美國的援助。
作者: My neighborhood definitely planned by the Japanese - lots of pre-40s
buildings here.
我的鄰里肯定是由日本人規劃的 - 這裡有很多40年代以前的建築。
網友 Need: No tîng-á-kha (verandas) ? 沒有亭仔跤 (騎樓) 嗎？
第二段對話 （一樣是回應作者的推文關於車本主義）
網友 Need: Not in this part of Taipei...clean and wide sidewalks on both
sides of every single street here.
台北的這一區不是車本主義...這裡每條街道的兩邊都有乾淨而寬敞的人行道。
作者: Where is this magical place of which you speak?
你說的這個神奇的地方在哪
備註
難得愛台的外媒開炮了，還是外籍記者聯誼會副會長XD
平時超級挺台灣的，這時候指控台灣的城市是車本主義，會被攻擊嗎～