Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Europe often lacks the sheer area off raw land the US has to play with.

Layouts are often older.

Most modern homes do include drives, i Live in a rea built in the 30's and the houses al have drives, because they built front gardens.

there out villagey so land is less a premium, but still as fitting, though a good 70% of gardden area is out back not upfront.

nfe wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


Well, as mentioned. It depends on what you mean by city.

What most Europeans would call a city, is what Americans would call "the Inner City". Somewhere with hyper-dense population.

In the US things are more gradual. Inner City>suburbs>rural. In Europe the line is much more abrupt. You're in a hyper dense urban area, and then suddenly you're out in the sticks.

I'm not sure that that is true. I can't think of a European city without suburbs. That said, what I was referring to about not realising I was in a city was approaching inner city Orlando and San Antonio, anyway. To a European eye, their inner cities are unbelievably spacious. It's largely down to the available space, of course, as you say (plus the lineage we've been talking about).

The other thing is that certainly he UK, and I believe most other European countries, have very strict green belt and planning laws. My wife is from the mid-West and the amount of sub-division and sprawl you get out in "rural" areas amazes/horrifies me. Land division seems to be much more distinct in the old world.

There's a few abrupt changes in Scottish cities; usually because post-War housing estates were chucked up on the outskirts of places like Glasgow to ameliorate slum overcrowding. There's a few schemes where the last buildings before you hit farmland are clumps of 20-storey tower blocks.

It's only 25 miles from the centre of Glasgow to the sort of landscape you'd expect in Westeros or Middle Earth.

That's proper country, not like Surrey.

Scotland is propper countryside.

Same with Yorkshire, Northumberland, North you get good countryside!

If by countryside, you mean 'raw terrain'. The number of abandoned collapsed houses, filled in mines, and rainy rocky hills covered with nothing but sheep I've seen up North I've lost track of.

Yeah its pretty barren and fairly wild terrain!
The weather is a tad more wild up there too!

Rather windy on Northumberland coast

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's proper country, not like Surrey.

Surrey appears to have an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the South Downs. It's just that they're more than a bike ride away from the centre of London.

 Jadenim wrote:

nfe wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


Well, as mentioned. It depends on what you mean by city.

What most Europeans would call a city, is what Americans would call "the Inner City". Somewhere with hyper-dense population.

In the US things are more gradual. Inner City>suburbs>rural. In Europe the line is much more abrupt. You're in a hyper dense urban area, and then suddenly you're out in the sticks.

I'm not sure that that is true. I can't think of a European city without suburbs. That said, what I was referring to about not realising I was in a city was approaching inner city Orlando and San Antonio, anyway. To a European eye, their inner cities are unbelievably spacious. It's largely down to the available space, of course, as you say (plus the lineage we've been talking about).

The other thing is that certainly he UK, and I believe most other European countries, have very strict green belt and planning laws. My wife is from the mid-West and the amount of sub-division and sprawl you get out in "rural" areas amazes/horrifies me. Land division seems to be much more distinct in the old world.

In the Eastern US for sure. Out west its a little less of a problem since so much land is owned by the federal government. But yeah, we don't have as much in the way of limitations on development. Its lead to a lot of farmland getting made into housing.

The worse problem is that the new city dwellers who move out there start getting offended by rural activity. A rooster crowing is enough to get the cops called on you sometimes, yet their little yappy dogs are just fine

 Ketara wrote:
If by countryside, you mean 'raw terrain'. The number of abandoned collapsed houses, filled in mines, and rainy rocky hills covered with nothing but sheep I've seen up North I've lost track of.

We normally just save time and call this bit Yorkshire ...

Godzone.

 reds8n wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
If by countryside, you mean 'raw terrain'. The number of abandoned collapsed houses, filled in mines, and rainy rocky hills covered with nothing but sheep I've seen up North I've lost track of.

We normally just save time and call this bit Yorkshire ...

Sure they abit desolated. But they be Yorkshire!
Proper Yorkshire!