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.
With roommates, space per person can be much smaller. The apartment above me was 8 people in about 2000 sq feet = 250 sq feet / person. Or 9 including cat. The cat believed he belonged in my apartment as well. He'd hang on my screen window and meow at me to let him in.
the cat:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
One of mine likes the closets; maybe she's gay!
Cat likes to crawl in corners and small spots. Underneath the dresser:
The purpose of the forum is to discuss urban planning ideas. Not to bring up old threads that annoy you or argue about vague stereotypes of urbanists, suburbanites or urbanistas. If you want to argue against something, argue against what the poster is saying. Discussion on stereotypes of people or posters is not permitted. Topics that belong in the forum are listed here:
This is more of a difference between families using less space per person than childless adults than urban vs suburban. I think in the poll you created, the urban posters with children had smaller square footage per person. I think is almost always true as long as the childless adults aren't living in a roommate situation — children don't normally pay for housing costs so it's harder to afford to increase space with people, and common area space doesn't increases less than linearly by the number of people. And for those living in large units (esp single family homes), they use the same space with or without children.
With roommates, space per person can be much smaller. The apartment above me was 8 people in about 2000 sq feet = 250 sq feet / person. Or 9 including cat. The cat believed he belonged in my apartment as well. He'd hang on my screen window and meow at me to let him in.
Cities where the proportion of children has decreased have shown large population declines without much decay. You'd be hard pressed to find any abandonded housing in Boston, but population has declined almost 25% from its peak. San Francisco and New York City are the exception, but I assume both have added some new housing stock and existed housing units are crowded (roommates, or for New York City immigrant families in small spaces as shown by one semi-regular poster). Same with suburbs that started with mostly families with children and became a mix. Levittown has had a 20% population decline from its peak, and there hasn't been any decay, a Levittown home isn't that cheap (~ $300k +). The county Levittown is in has declined for the same reason.
Since this is your post, I guess it's OK to respond to it, even though it discusses an old thread. There was no way to separate urban from suburban respondents in the poll.
Pittsburgh has a lot of dilapidated housing, and its population is about 50% of its peak in 1950 or so. Many schools have been closed all over the metro area, actually, and more should probably be closed.
You got one poster wondering if the building of car dependent suburbs is immoral or unethical.
I didn't care for the morality discussions much either, at least after several pages. My response was to add my photos of pretty (and very moral) mountains!
I like your cat. Some day I will post a picture of my two, and the snake one of them caught.
He's the upstairs neighbor's (8 people / 2000 sq ft). They moved out a few weeks ago. No cat.
Maybe I should get my own.
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.