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.
Hmm. I can think of similar size towns where most aren't. It also depends on "walking distance". Here's the two places at the same scale. Within 3/4 mile, more people are within the center in the British one compared to Louisville:
Beaver Falls, at least the gridded is more compact but still not as compact as the British one. Its rectangular shape means less would be in walking distance of any central point.
Louisville has lots of open space. We like it. The center of town is not the "center of town" if you get my drift. Main St. is on the east side of town. Did you draw that heavy line down the middle? That's a mile west of downtown. Still, most of the town is flat; it's easy to walk.
Most people in Beaver Falls lived within a few blocks of the main street, or "High Street" as the Brits call it. Its name is 7th Avenue. When I was a small child we lived around 3rd Ave, 4 blocks. Yeah, the Brits have small yards. FYI, the Beaver Falls city limits are basically the river on the east and the greenbelt on the west. That greenbelt goes uphill. The farther west areas are suburbs. The green area on the north is roughly the northern city limits, and the bridge near that point about 2/3 of the way down the map is ~ the southern city limit.
Hmm. I can think of similar size towns where most aren't. It also depends on "walking distance". Here's the two places at the same scale. Within 3/4 mile, more people are within the center in the British one compared to Louisville:
Beaver Falls, at least the gridded is more compact but still not as compact as the British one. Its rectangular shape means less would be in walking distance of any central point.
That is a really cool feature, that first one, the suburban town looks horribly planned and way too suburbia. I would definitely take the small town on the left over the small town on the right.
The second one I still prefer the small town on the left, but the small town on the right has a good simple grid system that seems to just be lacking the density in the core of the town.
Louisville has lots of open space. We like it. The center of town is not the "center of town" if you get my drift. Main St. is on the east side of town. Did you draw that heavy line down the middle? That's a mile west of downtown. Still, most of the town is flat; it's easy to walk.
The heavy line as in the separater between the two maps? That's just from the website.
Hmm. I would say they both have open space. The British one has open space a short walk form most housing, and it's all farm country not in between any development. It wouldn't make more sense to you use "Downtown Louisville" as a measuring point? A mile is far, IMO, that's about a 20 minute walk back and forth, easy for fun, time-consuming for multiple trips as practical transportation. Most would hop in the car if available, there's not much time savings for driving with the British one. I wouldn't have thought to consider hills unless very steep, just distance.*
Even considering the open space in between, it seems like the biggest space consumers is the larger yards. I don't really value all but very small yards, so I often forgot others see them as a benefit. Still, the British one does have backyards, but hard to see them on streetview. Here's a neat streetview of that British town.
*This seems to be a common problem whenever "walkable" is used. And no, I'm not going anywhere near the "interesting" walk argument, just how practical should count. Well, since I mentioned it, there's less walking on busy highway past strip malls. Here's a supermarket parking lot:
That is a really cool feature, that first one, the suburban town looks horribly planned and way too suburbia. I would definitely take the small town on the left over the small town on the right.
Uh-oh.
Quote:
The second one I still prefer the small town on the left, but the small town on the right has a good simple grid system that seems to just be lacking the density in the core of the town.
I will say, I prefer a grid to no grid, the issue I have with the town on the right is if they are similar population, then it is obviously more sprawling. The downtown is nice and dense feeling, though it could have used more townhouses and a higher density closer to downtown or possibly a good bus system (which it might have) to help people get to walking areas much easier.
The heavy line as in the separater between the two maps? That's just from the website.
Hmm. I would say they both have open space. The British one has open space a short walk form most housing, and it's all farm country not in between any development. It wouldn't make more sense to you use "Downtown Louisville" as a measuring point? A mile is far, IMO, that's about a 20 minute walk back and forth, easy for fun, time-consuming for multiple trips as practical transportation. Most would hop in the car if available, there's not much time savings for driving with the British one. I wouldn't have thought to consider hills unless very steep, just distance.*
Even considering the open space in between, it seems like the biggest space consumers is the larger yards. I don't really value all but very small yards, so I often forgot others see them as a benefit. Still, the British one does have backyards, but hard to see them on streetview. Here's a neat streetview of that British town.
*This seems to be a common problem whenever "walkable" is used. And no, I'm not going anywhere near the "interesting" walk argument, just how practical should count. Well, since I mentioned it, there's less walking on busy highway past strip malls. Here's a supermarket parking lot:
No, the heavy line that sort of goes down the center of Louisville. Did you not highlight this street? The yards in Louisville are not "large" by most standards; they are mostly <10,000 sf (~1/4 acre) and the newer ones are smaller than the older ones. Yes, I think Downtown Louisville should be a measuring point, I'm just saying it's on the east side of town. The town grew from east to west. Farther east is the city of Lafayette.
That is a really cool feature, that first one, the suburban town looks horribly planned and way too suburbia. I would definitely take the small town on the left over the small town on the right.
The second one I still prefer the small town on the left, but the small town on the right has a good simple grid system that seems to just be lacking the density in the core of the town.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Uh-oh.
Uh-oh is right.
The first suburban town is really horrible. It's so horrible, it strikes horror into people's hearts as they enter. (That is the real definition of horrible.) https://www.google.com/search?q=horr...x-a&channel=sb "causing or likely to cause horror; shocking.
"a horrible massacre"
synonyms: dreadful, awful, terrible, shocking, appalling, horrifying, horrific, horrendous, horrid, hideous, grisly, ghastly, gruesome, gory, harrowing, heinous, vile, unspeakable"
It's so horrible, the folks at CNN-Money rated it the best small town in the US in 2009 and 2011, second in 2013, and third in 2007. Just a horrifying place. If you go there, you'll turn into a zombie. Louisville, Colorado - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The second US city used to have a heavy-industry factory within walking distance of every man, woman and child. I'm talking steel mills (several), 2 cork works (smelled like hydrogen sulfide, think rotten eggs), and a railroad freight station. Mothers would tie up their small children so they wouldn't run out into the street and get hit by a semi when trucks supplying these factories rolled by. (BTW, on street parking!)
Most small towns are walkable by their very size, or rather lack of it.
Not exactly. It depends on the road layout and the zoning. It is very easy to have an unwalkable small town. I have been to many. Usually they have no crosswalks, or unprotected ones expecting you to cross highways or streets with speed limits over 40mph. No sidewalks. Or no compact development putting destinations within a short jaunt.
It is probably safe to say any small town that developed after 1940 give or take isn't very walkable. That is roughly when zoning began to require huge setbacks and parking lots.
Exclude the ones with agricultural roots, they tend to have huge lots and residences far from businesses.
Looks about the same size. But in the Spanish city, only the red buildings in the center are residential. The difference in density and compactness is as big between these two as the American ones with the British one. Is the Spanish one more walkable than that British one? Or at a certain point it doesn't matter? I'd say the British one has a few on the outskirts that might be a long walk away (about a mile).
Totally agree! You shouldn't only be able to choose living in a city if you want to not drive sometimes. Non car-oriented neighborhoods should be available in communities of all sizes.
This is the village I lived in. Population today of only about 1100 people. I liked that I could walk to 3 different restaurants, a pub, the bank, grocery store and bakery. I could also walk to trails that took me off into the forest!
There was no train station, but there was a bus that took you into a city about 15 minutes away. This is considered "rural" living in German, and there were farmers living in this village. But rather than living on the land they farmed, they lived in the village and drove their tractors out to their fields that surrounded the village. Just a very different concept that rural towns in the U.S.
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.
