|Re: City vs. Country||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Thomas Hackett (thhackettvassar.edu)|
|Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 08:44:52 -0500|
This debate has been interesting to me. In the cohousing group I am associated with this is an ongoing concern (since we haven't settled on a site). We live in an area where (small)city, suburban and rural possibilities all exist. The key issues seem to be convenience (sidewalks, services, minimized commuting), schools (the perception--exaggerated in my view--that city schools are less desirable) and cost. The cost issue is driven largely by town planning regulations which mandate two-acre lots. Even though we could cluster, this would still require us to have 60 acres for 30 units. I'm in the city camp myself, but consider it largely a matter of personal preference. Speaking of cities, I'm curious if others have read Jane Jacobs' book "The Death and Life of Great American Cities." Although published in 1961, it seems to be relevant today. (Disclaimer: I'm not nor have I ever been an urban planner.) Fred H. Olson wrote, >BTW a somewhat related historical note. My ancestors came here from >Scandinavia in the 1870's and many got land under the Homestead Act. >In Scandinavia, most farmers lived in villages and and farmed nearby land. >. . . This difference between American and European developments seems to persist today. It has been quite evident to us in our brief visits to Europe, particularly Germany and Switzerland. I personally find the clustered villages and open spaces of Europe (what I've seen of it) more aesthetically and socially appealing than our (sub)urban sprawl. Again, this is personal preference. Tom Tom Hackett thhackett [at] vaxsar.vassar.edu http://pages.prodigy.com/mhvny/tphhome.htm
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.