Mon Jun 7th, 2010 at 09:01:29 PM EST
I've noted for a long time the connection between street width and local quality of life (e.g. my blog post Wider roads are poorer areas). Others have noticed this too. The New World Economics blog has a series discussing this idea with lots of nice pictures (scroll to the bottom of that page and work upwards through the links).
Does this resonate with people? Especially those who have lived in multiple cities with different styles. What did you like and dislike?
Personally I've spent time in old style villages (e.g. St Andrews), Traditional cities (e.g. Toulouse), 19th century hypertrophism (Fort Collins), 20th Century hypertrophism (NYC), Suburbia, and various New (s)Urbanist environments in the bay area. Of these, I really liked Traditional Cities and Villages but currently live in a working class suburban area in Melbourne. I enjoy the fact that I can walk to the railway station and to the local shopping area, but this article has made me question the long term value of living in an area where the street is wider than my house block.
Given the steady collapse of the world economy, should I sell my house while the market is going up and buy inner city Melb, leaving behind my chickens and veggies and fish (for eating) and gain a significant order improvement in my ecofootprint and happiness?