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.
I'm kinda confused what you meant there. Aren't campers/RV parks different from mobile home parks? I think what the OP is referring to is mobile homes, like the photo he posted earlier in the thread.
Yes, RV parks are different from mobile home parks.
But what seems to be confusing the OP is that many people -- in this thread and elsewhere -- refer to mobile homes as "trailers," from their earlier days when mobile homes were smaller and it was easier to haul them around from park to park. The terms "mobile home" and "trailer" are used interchangeably.
And you still don't find many mobile home parks in the suburbs, whether you call them trailers or mobile homes.
Have you ever been to the south? Mobile home parks are very common in metropolitan suburbs of the south and the west.
But don't confuse trailer parks which are common in rural areas, with mobile home parks. A rule of thumb is, if it has to be smogged like an RV or a trailer then its a trailer park type home. These are common in rural areas. But mobile homes don't have to be smogged because they are affixed to the ground. They don't have their own engine. They can be moved of course but not easily and only at great expense, you have to hire a specialist to do it. You can't simply drive it off like an RV or a trailer. I worked in a smog and repair shop before so I'm familiar with them.
Uh yes. And I live in Texas. Not exactly the South.
And I know what a mobile home is. I drive by a few places that sell them. I don't see them in suburbs. But perhaps you have a different view of what a suburb is.
Mobile home parks are very common in metropolitan suburban areas in California--both the "landscaped semi-permanent park" type and the "temporarily parked plastic patio furniture" variety. They are also found in rural areas. "Suburb" here, as it does elsewhere, refers to residential neighborhoods inside city limits, smaller residential-oriented cities outside the primate city, and in unincorporated areas.
Some examples:
One in the suburb of Citrus Heights, an incorporated city:
"Suburb" here, as it does elsewhere, refers to residential neighborhoods inside city limits, smaller residential-oriented cities outside the primate city, and in unincorporated areas.
I going to start a bit of an aside because I think your definition is too broad. I'm going to use New York City again as an extreme example. The Upper East Side is a residential neighborhood in the city limits (few offices or industrial area). Here's one of the busier sections on a commercial street:
There are even your typical big box stores: Staples, Best Buy and more! Mostly apartments on other streets.Is this a suburb to you? If not, when does a city neighborhood become a suburb.
Re: mobile homes
Since California (I think) has a small fraction of residents living in rural areas than almost any other state (except maybe small dense states like Rhode Island), those numbers might show California has an unusually high number of mobile homes in non-rural areas.
You're confusing campers/trailers with mobile homes/trailers; mobile homes and trailers are interchangeable in most parts of the country, and refer to the permanent structure that you're talking about. Mobile home parks also are called trailer parks or trailer courts, and the homes are affixed to a foundation. However, they can also be moved -- it puts the "mobile" in mobile home.
You can call them whatever you want. Trailer parks, mobile homes, tornado bait, suburban shanty towns, whatever. To me they're just plain ugly. Doesn't change the fact they are very prevalent throughout southern and western metropolitan areas. As if suburban 'architecture' weren't ugly enough, they make them that much uglier. Which is what the thread is about anyway.
I disagree strongly with most of this. While the density of Manhattan can be a bit annoying and I agree that there other nice looking and more pleasant cities, the concentration of people is what make it unique, with more interesting activity, shops that could only be supported with a high volume of people. The one big center is what makes it a vibrant place. I think the centralization and density is a strength, not a weakness. Also any transit oriented city must have a dense crowded center; few transit systems support multiple centers. It's far easier to have your train system connect everyone to the city center rather than to multiple hubs. It would also be harder for people from the whole metro area to reach their jobs if there wasn't job centralization.
Density is one of the essentials for good urbanism. But there's a limit to it, imo. Density is a good thing to have, but too much density creates too much traffic congestion and a sense of being overwhelmed by the density. That's not vibrancy, its chaos and confusion. Sitting on the freeway or being stuck in miles long bumper to bumper traffic in midtown Manhattan for hours on end is not my idea of good urbanism. Or walking on the sidewalk neck deep in pedestrian traffic.
There's a limit to how many people and cars can be packed into a given area before stress starts to take its toll. People are social beings but we also require our space. Let's have some moderation here. Skyscrapers are the culprit here, imo. Beyond their poor aesthetics, skyscrapers are often the source of massive traffic congestion, creating uncomfortably high levels of population density. They're like giant human sardine cans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Just because European cities don't have as many skyscrapers don't mean they don't have a dense center. Just like American cities, European cities have a dense center and then less dense areas around it (I assume Paris is extremely busy as well, close to New York levels). I think most large European cities have busier centers than all but a few American cities, with more job centralization.
No argument there. I prefer to live in more moderate European level of density if possible. I don't like low density (as represented by the suburbs) or too much density, as represented by skyscraper cities...one of the reasons why I no longer live in SF and probably why I wouldn't like to live in NYC either.
Last edited by cisco kid; 02-07-2012 at 01:06 PM..
I think the impression of crowdedness in Manhattan doesn't have that much to do with residential density though. The highest population densities in Manhattan are around 200,000ppsm at a census tract level and around 100-150,000 ppsm at a neighbourhood level. Barcelona and its suburbs have densities on par with Manhattan, but they don't feel as crowded at the street level. This is the Northern part of L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, a suburb of Barcelona: La Florida, Avinguda Ponent, 37, 08905 L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, España - Google Maps
This area has a population density of 135,000ppsm and population 138,000, a little denser but smaller than the Upper East Side (densest neighbourhood in Manhattan) which has a density of 110,000ppsm and population of 217,000. Paris' 11th Arrondissement is the same density as the Upper East Side and only a little smaller too. The 11th Arrondissement has larger city blocks than L'Hospitalet, but it still doesn't feel too crowded. It would probably benefit from having cars parked underground instead of on the street (and widened sidewalks), but it's not really feasible to do that with the neighbourhood built out and it's still not too bad.
There are a few differences though, this suburb has smaller city blocks on average, which means more streets. These streets often have decently wide sidewalks, but only one or two lanes of auto-traffic, which helps keep the traffic from being overwhelming and the sidewalks less crowded. Another difference is that Midtown Manhattan's density should take into account employment, not just residents. The daytime densities of Midtown are probably about 500,000ppsm. This is not just because it has skyscrapers but because office buildings can generate higher densities than apartments. Offices can have larger floorplates, which means higher building coverage and built densities, and office workers generally have less floorspace per person than residents. The more residential parts of Manhattan feel much less crowded than midtown.
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.
