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.
A walkable, self-contained neighborhood doesn't need public transit to cross--any more than it needs automobiles to cross. Both are redundant on the strictly neighborhood scale of a few blocks--walking distance. Transit systems are used to get to other neighborhoods--or other cities--like steam railroads, interurbans, streetcars, and yes, bus systems using roads built for cars and trucks.
And were those decisions about residential vs. commercial location based on some desire to separate uses, or out of a desire to consolidate retail locations on the common town square, which was typically the heart of the town's transportation network? Again, most of my experience is with western towns, but generally the train station became the de facto center of town--if a town existed before the train arrived, the train either went downtown or the new train station moved downtown to its proximity.
Were these "strictly residential" neighborhoods always so? Traditional neighborhoods had corner stores on every block, generally with the owners living in adjacent or upstairs quarters. Often these corner stores have been demolished and replaced with newer buildings, or their former retail identity has been masked or supplanted.
Small towns around here in Ontario... and most of Canada, have the bulk of the retail along the main drag with the surrounding parts of town being largely residential. In Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes and coastal BC, the main drag would usually be close to a river or lake, with the railroad off to the side. In Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the BC Interior, the railroad would be closer, usually running parallel to the main drag about a block or two away.
And were those decisions about residential vs. commercial location based on some desire to separate uses, or out of a desire to consolidate retail locations on the common town square
You know, I may be old, but I wasn't around in the early 19th century when a lot of these towns were settled. But just from reading up on the histories of a lot of these towns I've lived in, I'd say yes, the towns were designed so that residential districts were set apart from the commercial districts. Depending on how large the town was, and how much money the homeowner had, that could have been anything from a block to a half mile away from the main street.
Quote:
but generally the train station became the de facto center of town
In the Midwest and even most of the Pennsylvania towns I'm familiar with, the railroad depot was apart from the downtown commercial district; the tracks run on the edges of the commercial districts. Businesses like the lumber yard and the feed mills lined the railroad tracks. Nobody wants a train running through their neighborhood, even in the 19th century.
Quote:
Were these "strictly residential" neighborhoods always so?
The newest of all the houses I lived in in those days was built in 1890, so I'd say ... yes.
Quote:
Traditional neighborhoods had corner stores on every block, generally with the owners living in adjacent or upstairs quarters.
In a small town, where no one lives more than 4 or 5 blocks from the main street? Generally not.
If you're talking about small towns no more than 4-5 blocks from the main street, with a train station on the other side, you're talking about pretty much the pedestrian/mixed use ideal. Everything within easy walking distance--the lumber yard and feed mills next to the tracks were where the townspeople worked, which made their daily commute extremely simple. The train station may not have been the physical center of town, but it rapidly became the functional center--the place where mail, telegraphs, freight, passengers in and out of town, all passed.
The point, once again, is that the traditional small-town pattern is a lot closer to the early 21st century "mixed-use neighborhood" than the 20th century auto suburb. Walkability does not equal skyscrapers and big cities--it is in fact closer to traditional American towns than that 20th century suburb ever could have been.
In the Midwest and even most of the Pennsylvania towns I'm familiar with, the railroad depot was apart from the downtown commercial district; the tracks run on the edges of the commercial districts. Businesses like the lumber yard and the feed mills lined the railroad tracks. Nobody wants a train running through their neighborhood, even in the 19th century.
In the Midwest and even most of the Pennsylvania towns I'm familiar with, the railroad depot was apart from the downtown commercial district; the tracks run on the edges of the commercial districts. Businesses like the lumber yard and the feed mills lined the railroad tracks. Nobody wants a train running through their neighborhood, even in the 19th century.
In my town (mostly 19th century), tracks run through the center. It's embanked a bit. I can see the train tracks from where I live.
Main street is 4 story buildings with retail on street level; apartments and some offices above. Side streets have retail at first, and then residential, but there's sometimes a bit of mix. I lived about half a mile from the town center; it was mostly houses but there was an old brick commercial building next door that was used as an office building. But normally you won't get retail too far out on a side street; visibility is important.
Are you serious? The urban dwellers would be complaining about the farm odors, just like they do now when they move into the exurbs next to a farm, and then complain because the farmer uses manure to replenish the soil.
Sure, it's just imagining. (1)How will the farmers get out to the heartland of the US to tend to their crops? Rocket ship? How will the lumberjacks get to the forests? Are we going to built subway lines to the cuttings? So you're going to ask them to live in the cities?
(2)Or is it you didn't consider that there are actually jobs done in this country that don't occur in offices and cubicles?
(3)There's a difference between imagination and play-time.
1. If you read carefully what I have written, you will notice I did not say that interstates and current roads were going to be demolished. So you know.... Cars? Is that what people call them? Yeah, I think it is. People will use these "cars" and these "interstates" and "roads" to get to these places that are not in the city.
2. No, I am well aware. That's why, if you read my post carefully, I never said that everything outside the city was to be relocated inside the city, and I never said that everything inside the city had to be relocated in the suburbs.
1. If you read carefully what I have written, you will notice I did not say that interstates and current roads were going to be demolished. So you know.... Cars? Is that what people call them? Yeah, I think it is. People will use these "cars" and these "interstates" and "roads" to get to these places that are not in the city.
2. No, I am well aware. That's why, if you read my post carefully, I never said that everything outside the city was to be relocated inside the city, and I never said that everything inside the city had to be relocated in the suburbs.
This is where your food is grown! Do you see any cities near here? How many hundereds of miles do you want farmers to commute each day? I'm not the one being perposterous here.
2. But you said that all PEOPLE would be in one or the other.
(1)Urban farms could never meet the needs of the entire population. You want a herd of cows on your roof to provide milk?...
(2)My imagination tells me this is unrealistic. The poster below beat me to what I was going to say about work. (3)I also think it's funny that someone would find it more sustainable to transport farm wokers, nuclear power workers, loggers, whatever to the work area, rather than these people actually living near their work.
1. Ah, of course! It certainly is silly to think that a country that can send people to the Moon would be able to figure out how to grow food in a city environment. Impossible!
2. Your imagination? It seems to me the part of a person's brain that does critical thinking should be responsible for deciding whether or not something is "unrealistic". Not the part that imagines things.
If I let my imagination do all my critical thinking I could very easily say that I live in the #1 city in the USA. And we all know that would be a product of my overactive imagination.
3. I think it's funny that some people find it more sustainable to live a significant distance from all the things that they utilize on a daily basis. Having work, entertainment, transportation, restaurants, shopping, etc. 30 miles away from a person's residence simply so a person can have "space" and "good schools" seems to be a little on the "Throwing the Baby out with the Bath Water" type of deal.
This is where your food is grown! Do you see any cities near here? How many hundereds of miles do you want farmers to commute each day? I'm not the one being perposterous here.
2. But you said that all PEOPLE would be in one or the other.
1. No. They don't have to. Just like people who live in another city or state might make a drive/flight to their place of business for a work week at a time. Also, you seem to be looking at this with a very limited imagination. Can and will new cities/suburbs pop up in my "scenario"? Yes. Will everyone move into NYC, Chicago, and LA? No. Toledo, Ohio and Lafayette, Indiana are both cities. So is Lawrence, Kansas.
There was no provison on where the cities or suburbs had to be (geographically)
2. Yes. I said people. There is a difference between people and a bridge. Or a water tower. Or a farmhouse. Things will stay where they are. PEOPLE will call a city or a suburb, home. People will still be able to move about how they wish, but what they write on a postcard is what they will call their place of residence; a city or a suburb of a (now defunct, in this scenario) city.
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.
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.
