U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-07-2010, 03:45 PM
 
871 posts, read 1,957,049 times
Reputation: 596

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by UKUKUK View Post
Are you kidding? Are you driving a Ferrari on an imaginary super highway? I just don't get it :S

Also, the population density between Lexington and Paris is not even low enough for it to be considered STATISTICALLY rural.

I'd really like to see someone drive through the entire city in 20 minutes at a time when people are still in town from the bedroom communities. (7 PM or earlier)
wrong wrong wrong. rural, as defined by the US census, is 999 per square mile or as low as 1 person per square mile. the population density of bourbon county is 66 people per square mile. not even close. even fayette county's density is 916 people per square mile, as most of the county is rural.

and i dont know what to tell you. its 10 mintues, ive driven it. if i could put you in the car with me i could prove it, but the closest thing i can show you is from google maps. apparently you think its lying, but usually its pretty damn close to accurate. lexington is 10 miles long. at 30 mph per hour that is 20 minutes. its pretty damn simple and its been done. by me. i really have no idea what youve been doing, but its damn simple.

really. go to where all the roads converge in downtown lex, and hop on paris pike. in 10 minutes youll be in this. and its that simple.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-07-2010, 05:00 PM
 
Location: The Lakes
2,372 posts, read 4,450,720 times
Reputation: 1136
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyJohnWilson View Post
wrong wrong wrong. rural, as defined by the US census, is 999 per square mile or as low as 1 person per square mile. the population density of bourbon county is 66 people per square mile. not even close. even fayette county's density is 916 people per square mile, as most of the county is rural.

and i dont know what to tell you. its 10 mintues, ive driven it. if i could put you in the car with me i could prove it, but the closest thing i can show you is from google maps. apparently you think its lying, but usually its pretty damn close to accurate. lexington is 10 miles long. at 30 mph per hour that is 20 minutes. its pretty damn simple and its been done. by me. i really have no idea what youve been doing, but its damn simple.

really. go to where all the roads converge in downtown lex, and hop on paris pike. in 10 minutes youll be in this. and its that simple.
You don't factor in the traffic, ESPECIALLY on Paris Pike. Again, let me borrow your Audi R8, please. I need to find a way to get places that fast.

Also, Paris Pike is lined with development pretty far out, and as far as targeted, location specific density, those areas have higher than 500 people per square mile. The numbers you posted are used only to designate an area as rural with a low population core. Lexington has a very high population core and is surrounded by areas with a moderate population core therefore the number used to designate a rural area is 500 persons per square mile. However at any given point along Paris pike or any area that you can drive to within 30 minutes, population density should be well over 500 per square mile, unless you are talking about horse farms, which are not a definite marker of rural, rather large businesses. That's like saying the Mall of America is in a rural location because of a low residency within 1 mile of the center of it (at least I believe it's larger than 1 square mile, I may be wrong on that, the point stands though)

Also, stop taking figures from Wikipedia. As Lexington-Fayette is a merged city-county, it seems they'd list the population densities as the same. They aren't listed in such a way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2010, 05:25 PM
 
871 posts, read 1,957,049 times
Reputation: 596
Quote:
Originally Posted by UKUKUK View Post
You don't factor in the traffic, ESPECIALLY on Paris Pike. Again, let me borrow your Audi R8, please. I need to find a way to get places that fast.

Also, Paris Pike is lined with development pretty far out, and as far as targeted, location specific density, those areas have higher than 500 people per square mile. The numbers you posted are used only to designate an area as rural with a low population core. Lexington has a very high population core and is surrounded by areas with a moderate population core therefore the number used to designate a rural area is 500 persons per square mile. However at any given point along Paris pike or any area that you can drive to within 30 minutes, population density should be well over 500 per square mile, unless you are talking about horse farms, which are not a definite marker of rural, rather large businesses. That's like saying the Mall of America is in a rural location because of a low residency within 1 mile of the center of it (at least I believe it's larger than 1 square mile, I may be wrong on that, the point stands though)

Also, stop taking figures from Wikipedia. As Lexington-Fayette is a merged city-county, it seems they'd list the population densities as the same. They aren't listed in such a way.
basically, youre now just arguing for the sake of arguing. paris pike, is not by any definition, lined with development. bourbon county, is not by any definition, urban. northern fayette county and bourbon county are rural. hell, bourbon county has a lower population density than harlan county. i cited the popualtion density of lexington not to prove that lexington itself is rural, but to prove that fayette county as a whole is not very dense, as nearly all the density is confined to the southern part of the county (where lexington is). because of that, you need but a very short drive to be out in the country (the point of my first post) you truly can be out in a rural area (albeit one that is close to an urban area) within a 10 minute drive from downtown lexington. ive never experienced traffic on paris pike that could hold you back more than 5 minutes. plus, that would only be during a specific part of the day.

why you are arguing this, i have no idea. but you and i both know that i could WALK from downtown lexington to rural areas in 45 mintues. that whole nonsense about it taking an hour to exit lexingtons city center is just that, nonsense. i can be past cynthiana in the time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2010, 01:21 AM
 
74 posts, read 225,442 times
Reputation: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyJohnWilson View Post
honestly that looks very dull and ugly. that grayish/tan skyline, little circle shaped trees, ugly pier. very, bland and suburban looking. reminds me of phoenix. you showed me that houstin is uglier and more dull looking than i originally thought.
Houston looks nothing like phoenix, and phoenix is nice looking, also. and i hardly see any gray/tan...but beautiful metallic fiber glass buildings instead , circular trees? what kind of a statement is that? are they supposed to be triangular? the pier of kemah is FAR from ugly...its one of the biggest attractions in the houston metro and with THREE seperate skylines that can easily rival with any city in the country w the exception of NYC....houston is far from ugly and dull....seems you are the only one that replied with this negative statement...so that means you are inputting your own perceptions into my pictures...Houston is nice and i dont know how you could've got BORING and UGLY from these pictures..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2010, 01:49 AM
 
871 posts, read 1,957,049 times
Reputation: 596
Quote:
Originally Posted by houstonboi22 View Post
Houston looks nothing like phoenix, and phoenix is nice looking, also. and i hardly see any gray/tan...but beautiful metallic fiber glass buildings instead , circular trees? what kind of a statement is that? are they supposed to be triangular? the pier of kemah is FAR from ugly...its one of the biggest attractions in the houston metro and with THREE seperate skylines that can easily rival with any city in the country w the exception of NYC....houston is far from ugly and dull....seems you are the only one that replied with this negative statement...so that means you are inputting your own perceptions into my pictures...Houston is nice and i dont know how you could've got BORING and UGLY from these pictures..
first off, beauty is relative. but the picture that stuck me as ugly was this one

and not all trees are shaped like little balls that way. they dont have to be triangles. come on man, have you ever been out of houston? you could drive probably a half hour east of houston and see better ones. those are the ugliest little trees ive ever seen.

and there grayish or brownish generic looking buildings remind me of other boring sprawl-lands (phoenix comes to mind). especially in the photo you provided (which you apparently was supposed to disprove this) houston looks really dull, ugly and bland. it looks like the taller version of suburbs. to me, this is incredibly ugly, just the way this is. <---- and many people think that looks good, so apparently beauty is relative. however to me you actually make houston look more dull and ugly than i previously thought. i had no idea it was that bland and ugly looking. it really looks like a gulf coast version of phoenix (the ugliest major city in america)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2010, 07:40 PM
 
4,811 posts, read 8,812,285 times
Reputation: 2764
California is nothing but hot weather and beaches

San Diego


Big Bear



Death Valley

Last edited by BacktoBlue; 07-16-2010 at 07:51 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2010, 01:42 PM
 
74 posts, read 225,442 times
Reputation: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyJohnWilson View Post
first off, beauty is relative. but the picture that stuck me as ugly was this one

and not all trees are shaped like little balls that way. they dont have to be triangles. come on man, have you ever been out of houston? you could drive probably a half hour east of houston and see better ones. those are the ugliest little trees ive ever seen.

and there grayish or brownish generic looking buildings remind me of other boring sprawl-lands (phoenix comes to mind). especially in the photo you provided (which you apparently was supposed to disprove this) houston looks really dull, ugly and bland. it looks like the taller version of suburbs. to me, this is incredibly ugly, just the way this is. <---- and many people think that looks good, so apparently beauty is relative. however to me you actually make houston look more dull and ugly than i previously thought. i had no idea it was that bland and ugly looking. it really looks like a gulf coast version of phoenix (the ugliest major city in america)
Looks fun to me!! And as far as the trees go....c'mon man, this picture was taken at 1,000-2,000 ft in the air...which means the trees look bland because you are not close enough to see the distinguished features....Phoenix don't have three HUGE swkylines, also...and the beautiful greenery either.....and how does a skyline looks like "taller versions of surburbs"..and I could easily put pictures of palm and pine trees also...but its all equally as beautiful to me...and where did you get UGLY from?? the media? because i see not a hint of UGLY in these pics...i see unique beauty....and why don't you post some pics of your city....instead of talking about mines....or better yet..get on a plane and VISIT!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2010, 04:57 PM
 
6,760 posts, read 10,430,059 times
Reputation: 2996
Old thread, but here goes anyway.

There aren't any pretty fall colors in Texas, everything just turns brown and falls off.





Both photos from Lost Maples State Natural Area in the hill country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2010, 05:46 PM
 
Location: Silverthorne, Colorado
884 posts, read 1,523,185 times
Reputation: 737
Colorado is completely covered in green, forested peaks.


Great Plains. by lucre101 on Flickr


Great Plains.


Western Slope.


Oklahoma is nothing but a dry, dusty wasteland with no culture where everybody lives on a cattle ranch.


Oklahoma City. About to be very impressive once the Devon tower is completed!


Bricktown in Oklahoma City.


Most of the Eastern half of the state looks like this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2010, 08:56 AM
 
Location: S.W.PA
1,361 posts, read 2,508,465 times
Reputation: 1040
Quote:
Originally Posted by jluke65780 View Post
These don't really prove your point about the rain.....this is like me saying "El Paso is dry" and posting pictures of it raining there.
Works for me- desert plants and grasses= dry climate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top