Re:Rural Kansas is dying
by cup-of-tea on Tuesday May 01, 2018 @02:57AM
(#16965055)
In the UK that would be a town. Nowhere near rural. My parents live in a village with less than 100 people living there. That's rural.
Re:Rural Kansas is dying
by boomboomsubban on Tuesday May 01, 2018 @04:28AM
(#16965390)
Though we do lack a word for village, it doesn't address the issues with urban/rural.
That said, a village with a hundred people doesn't guarantee rural, The City of London's 10,000 residents for example.
The city of london is only a part of a bigger city. A village with 100 people means that there's uninhabited space around that village.
Re:Rural Kansas is dying
by boomboomsubban on Tuesday May 01, 2018 @07:35AM
(#16966167)
It was an extreme example saying town size isn't the entire thing.
Many U.S. states have villages, towns, and cities legally defined. It varies by state.
https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/GARM/Ch9GARM.pdf
Manhattan proper is an urban area but Frankfort and Wheaton both discussed in the article are within 45 miles of Manhattan. You dont have to go more than a few miles outside of Manhattan to be back in "Rural" areas.
Agreed on the further away from a true city comment, that is whats happening in Western KS.
The labeling system seems outdated. I live in an area that is rural, yet everyone in a 120 mile radius of me would say I lived in a city. A new classification of "rural city" seems necessary.
The pedantic version of rural America is dying a rather ugly death. There are still nice places in the Midwest, but the further away you are from a true city the bleaker it often becomes.