Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh man, that isn't even half as bad as it could be. It would have been actually been an acceptable area had they not hacked all the trees. You would think that the people who live that far into the countryside would at least want to experience some quasi-nature thingy. Grass really doesn't help in that arena.
Yeah, it does seem stupid. My grandmother used to live in Willits, California and I recall the houses looking like any other from the front but they all backed up into a dense forest. It was really great. The backyard had a small gate that opened up to huge redwoods.
Sounds like you grandmother's town was half-way there. They forgot the front yard. Calif. is nice in that its sprawl isn't as sprawly. In Minnesota, they would have hacked those trees. In Arizona, they moved the gardening pot that the tree was in.
I wonder if you are making an assumption that the trees were cut down? Usually, developments are built on former farm land that is no longer making a profit for the farmer.
Many new developments have trails that run behind the houses instead of sidewalks. Building a walking path right alongside a roadway is not environmentally smart.
Having a neighborhood with land surrounding each house is a lot better than having the entire surface of the neighborhood covered with concrete. I do not agree that cramming a bunch of homes together is better for the environment or for the general physical and mental health of our population. This neighborhood is clean, not full of trash. That's good for the environment, too.
Having a porch on the front of your house encourage people to be outside while it is raining or when the sun is too hot. It encourages neighbors to stop by and say hello, because they see you outside. This means people don't need to drive somewhere just to socialize. So it seems to me that a porch helps the environment, too.
One other environmental advantage of building trails behind homes instead of sidewalks-- trails can be dirt or digitized gravel. That's MUCH better for water permeation than sidewalks are.
I am happy to see this topic brought up in a thread. I try not to be an alarmist but I am concerned about the future and all of the costs that will be associated with it. Gas prices are going to continue to rise. There is no doubt about that. And along with that will be higher heating costs for our homes. I understand why people may want to shrug off an urban environment for the "safety" of a more secluded area. But,I just can't see paying 4 bucks a gallon for gas and I know that it's coming. I recommend watching "A Crude Awakening". It is a decent documentary about energy. I always wonder why so many people criticize cities and their populations. People should be thanked for choosing to live in a more compact space.
I wonder if you are making an assumption that the trees were cut down? Usually, developments are built on former farm land that is no longer making a profit for the farmer.
Many new developments have trails that run behind the houses instead of sidewalks. Building a walking path right alongside a roadway is not environmentally smart.
Having a neighborhood with land surrounding each house is a lot better than having the entire surface of the neighborhood covered with concrete. I do not agree that cramming a bunch of homes together is better for the environment or for the general physical and mental health of our population. This neighborhood is clean, not full of trash. That's good for the environment, too.
Having a porch on the front of your house encourage people to be outside while it is raining or when the sun is too hot. It encourages neighbors to stop by and say hello, because they see you outside. This means people don't need to drive somewhere just to socialize. So it seems to me that a porch helps the environment, too.
Looks like a nice place to me...
I agree with much of the above. I don't know how it got started on this thread that the trees were cut down. I agree with the porch issue, too. In fact, that is part of "New Urbanism", which gets frequent kudos from the anti-suburban peeps on this forum.
I do think that sidewalks are necessary. I think the lack of sidewalks is what makes many parents feel the burbs are unsafe for their kids to walk in. It also makes it safer for the adults to make a quick trip to the grocery store, etc.
I agree with much of the above. I don't know how it got started on this thread that the trees were cut down. I agree with the porch issue, too. In fact, that is part of "New Urbanism", which gets frequent kudos from the anti-suburban peeps on this forum.
oh, I don't know, there were SEVERAL places near where I used to live in Tennessee where it seemed like they cut down ALL the trees THEN decided, hmm? what are we going to build here? And never mind flattening out all of the hilly land...
oh, I don't know, there were SEVERAL places near where I used to live in Tennessee where it seemed like they cut down ALL the trees THEN decided, hmm? what are we going to build here? And never mind flattening out all of the hilly land...
Well, it is all speculation. It is true that new housing is frequently built on former farmland, which already had the trees removed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
