3 ms·
> I think that’ll hold true until around the 5k people mark. The towns that are "important regional centers" in Northern Scandinavia are often smaller than tha
by detaro 5y ago
> I think that’ll hold true until around the 5k people mark.
The towns that are "important regional centers" in Northern Scandinavia are often smaller than that.
- Aeolun 5y agoI think the problem is that these are only ‘regional centers’ by virtue of there being absolutely nothing else around. I don’t think it invalidates the point that you can’t expect to find all amenities if you live in a community that cannot support them. I’d be willing to bet that 95% of people lives in more populated places, and 90% of the remaining 5% lives so out of the way by choice (e.g. if they _wanted_ to move closer to a more populated place it wouldn’t be an undue financial burden).
- Ma8ee 5y agoLike what? What town would you classify as an important regional centre that has less than 5000 inhabitants?
- Alan_Dillman 5y agoThe De Smet, South Dakota example is a good one. For a more northerly North American example, High Level Alberta, Canada has a population of 3100 and a service population of 20k. First settlers in 1947, it was incorporated in 1965. There is a paved airstrip long enough for a 747, and a hospital. It would be the sleepiest of little villages in southern Europe and/or the USA, and would have a service area not much bigger than its population. The further north you go, the more towns have and require outsized services.
- Ma8ee 5y agoBut none of them are in Scandinavia.
- CRConrad 5y agoSveg?
- NordSteve 5y agoExample: De Smet, South Dakota. Regional hospital, county seat, population 1000. Area is 1/10th the size of New Jersey.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]