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.
This depends on what you call "medium density." At any rate, a person living in Goldsboro, NC is more likely to know his neighbors (and have more interaction with those neighbors) than someone living in Overbrook, Philadelphia.
I think it's more a question of how transient the given area is, rather than the actual density of the neighborhood.
My own neighborhood, up until the beginning of gentrification in the last decade, was a working-class white neighborhood few outsiders moved into. All of the locals seem to know one another. A neighbor around the corner, Claire, has lived here her entire life (grew up in her house) and has stories about all the houses and their former residents. When I go to vote, the old ladies say "oh, you're in Mary Pizak's old place." While I can't say I have many friends in the neighborhood, I am acquainted with a large number of people, just due to running into them all the time when I'm walking.
In contrast, in the suburban area I grew up in, we knew essentially no one. I had no real idea who lived in the mansion next door, although I occasionally went trick or treating there. I did know my next door neighbors on the other side, and at times the people whose yard was directly behind ours. That was it. And I don't think my parents had any more social connections. We didn't live in a neighborhood where people walked, so there was no chance to meet anyone but immediate neighbors.
I do agree, however, that a rural small town has more social interconnections than a big city neighborhood where most people are transplants. But I also think a tightly knit, working-class neighborhood has far more in common, socially speaking, with the small town than it does with a suburban subdivision.
The thing about rural small towns is that, at least in their traditional form, they tend to be relatively dense and highly walkable places. The traditional small-town downtown was largely based around a pedestrian-oriented public square, with businesses and civic uses surrounding it, and apartments above those businesses were not uncommon. Beyond the small-town downtown you found residential neighborhoods of various sorts. If there was a railroad connection, it would typically be close to that little downtown--if the town already existed and the railroad came through later, often downtown would relocate closer to the train station.
Farther out there might be small farms and industrial areas, depending on the town's reason for existence. These are often large low-density uses, so if you take the whole town into account at once, the overall density is low, but the actual part where people live is relatively dense. No skyscraper dense, but Goldilocks dense--dense enough where you run into your neighbors at the hardware store or the local diner.
This is the kind of unit that I'm talking about when I say "bungalow courts":
Cute. Also admittedly a nice way to make a footprint mostly building rather than lawn while maintaining green space. That said, I still don't know about the one-story thing. What is it with California's love affair with single-floor housing?
As an aside, by duplexes of 800 to 1000 square feet, do you mean this is the size of each duplex, or each side of the duplex?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
And here is a dingbat:
Yup, looks like a motel. If I was still in my rental days, I'd never take something like that. Always preferred to rent a house or live in a subdivided apartment within a big old house.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
Finally, here's a link to what may be the ultimate "apartments above the store" in my city:
Not what I was expecting at all. I'd show you some examples from my neighborhood, but the Google Street View in Pittsburgh is like four years old now, and my hood has been redeveloping so fast the most impressive stuff just isn't shown.
The thing about rural small towns is that, at least in their traditional form, they tend to be relatively dense and highly walkable places. The traditional small-town downtown was largely based around a pedestrian-oriented public square, with businesses and civic uses surrounding it, and apartments above those businesses were not uncommon. Beyond the small-town downtown you found residential neighborhoods of various sorts. If there was a railroad connection, it would typically be close to that little downtown--if the town already existed and the railroad came through later, often downtown would relocate closer to the train station.
Farther out there might be small farms and industrial areas, depending on the town's reason for existence. These are often large low-density uses, so if you take the whole town into account at once, the overall density is low, but the actual part where people live is relatively dense. No skyscraper dense, but Goldilocks dense--dense enough where you run into your neighbors at the hardware store or the local diner.
You just described where I live. There are a couple row house-like buildings and apartment buildings in the center, though there are some sections of newer suburban-style housing
What is it with California's love affair with single-floor housing?
Depends where in CA you mean. In the bigger valleys (eg, central valley) where land is plentiful, land isn't especially scarce or valuable, so it only makes sense to build the cheapest possible home.
In the more confined spaces (eg, SF Bay area) land is scarce and expensive, so you see multi-level homes (stand-alone and rowhouses, often intermixed in one development) built almost exclusively. Developers simply can't make a profit from building egregious wastes of space at this point in time, so they pack as many homes on as possible, two to four levels high.
Depends where in CA you mean. In the bigger valleys (eg, central valley) where land is plentiful, land isn't especially scarce or valuable, so it only makes sense to build the cheapest possible home.
Well in the Northeast, even in low density areas houses are typically two stories though we do get some ranch homes. Single story Californian homes look odd to me. Perhaps the explanation wburg gave a while ago (single story homes fit better in a climate where there is little heating need) makes sense though I saw more single story homes in the PNW than here.
Depends where in CA you mean. In the bigger valleys (eg, central valley) where land is plentiful, land isn't especially scarce or valuable, so it only makes sense to build the cheapest possible home.
In the more confined spaces (eg, SF Bay area) land is scarce and expensive, so you see multi-level homes (stand-alone and rowhouses, often intermixed in one development) built almost exclusively. Developers simply can't make a profit from building egregious wastes of space at this point in time, so they pack as many homes on as possible, two to four levels high.
No, all that makes perfect sense. It's just in modern stereotypical suburban subdivision (from McMansion on down) 2-3 story construction is pretty much the standard, even in areas where the land is pretty cheap. You'd think the California formula would have been endlessly copied for these subdivisions for that reason, but in recent decades it's been all but absent from the Northeast, Midwest, and much of the South. They certainly exist in older developments (see Levittown in its many incarnations), but they're pretty much seen as cheap/tacky now.
I think it's more a question of how transient the given area is, rather than the actual density of the neighborhood.
My own neighborhood, up until the beginning of gentrification in the last decade, was a working-class white neighborhood few outsiders moved into. All of the locals seem to know one another. A neighbor around the corner, Claire, has lived here her entire life (grew up in her house) and has stories about all the houses and their former residents. When I go to vote, the old ladies say "oh, you're in Mary Pizak's old place." While I can't say I have many friends in the neighborhood, I am acquainted with a large number of people, just due to running into them all the time when I'm walking.
In contrast, in the suburban area I grew up in, we knew essentially no one. I had no real idea who lived in the mansion next door, although I occasionally went trick or treating there. I did know my next door neighbors on the other side, and at times the people whose yard was directly behind ours. That was it. And I don't think my parents had any more social connections. We didn't live in a neighborhood where people walked, so there was no chance to meet anyone but immediate neighbors.
I do agree, however, that a rural small town has more social interconnections than a big city neighborhood where most people are transplants. But I also think a tightly knit, working-class neighborhood has far more in common, socially speaking, with the small town than it does with a suburban subdivision.
Given the off-topic discussion in a related thread, I thought it would be semi-detached duplex....The disadvantage is you have no control over your neighbor's remodeling
Not true in Denver, CO.
You must have party-wall agreement and a well-written one would prevent that.
For example, mine reads: 4.b. - "Neither Owner shall make or suffer any structural or design change (including a color scheme change), either permanent or temporary, and of any type or nature whatsoever, to the exterior of its Unit or Garage or the Patio Party Wall without obtaining the prior written
consent of the other Owner,..."
Cute. Also admittedly a nice way to make a footprint mostly building rather than lawn while maintaining green space. That said, I still don't know about the one-story thing. What is it with California's love affair with single-floor housing?
As an aside, by duplexes of 800 to 1000 square feet, do you mean this is the size of each duplex, or each side of the duplex?
It's a guess but I think 800-1000 for each duplex--they are 1-2 br apartments of around 400-500 sf each. Out west we have a lot of land, so we can more easily put things all on one floor, but part of the idea was to create a charming European-style cottage in an urban footprint. Our comfortable summers and mild winters also mean less need for winter insulation and shared walls--and more emphasis on outdoor living, landscaping and otherwise making the exterior of the house (or the neighborhood) part of the living space.
Quote:
Yup, looks like a motel. If I was still in my rental days, I'd never take something like that. Always preferred to rent a house or live in a subdivided apartment within a big old house.
Not all of them are that homely--I'll have to take some pics of prettier ones. And yes, they look like motels, but the rent is absurdly cheap. I lived in a place like this when I didn't make much money and couldn't afford the charming but expensive places. The view out the windows on either side were of beautiful century-old homes, which made living there much easier.
Not really a "dingbat" but a prettier example of 1920s apartment buildings: I think this example has a dozen or more apartments on a 40x160 foot lot. I don't think it has any parking spaces. https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&l...18.28,,0,-4.61
Here's a dingbat with a bit more design--instead of the exterior walkways, the halls are interior, and the ground floor is just an entrance in the front with stairs up to the second and third floor. Parking is in parking bays on the ground floor, accessed via the alley. https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&l...187.37,,1,-4.2
Also note the "six-up" apartment building right next door--and the single-family homes across the street.
Quote:
Not what I was expecting at all. I'd show you some examples from my neighborhood, but the Google Street View in Pittsburgh is like four years old now, and my hood has been redeveloping so fast the most impressive stuff just isn't shown.
Jerry's place might not be the best example, as it was not originally built to serve that purpose, but I like mentioning it when folks suggest that only the down-and-out and desperate would want to live above a store or restaurant!
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.
Not true in Denver, CO
