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.
Is this 1920/ early 30s "original suburban" neighborhood any better?
At least it's walkable..
walkable, pleasant houses, porches it looks like, and within a few years from the photo the trees should be grown in - and yeah, walkable and a rectilinear street grid.
So they are all the same, which looks bad in an aerial photo - how does that make it a bad place to actually live?
walkable, pleasant houses, porches it looks like, and within a few years from the photo the trees should be grown in - and yeah, walkable and a rectilinear street grid.
So they are all the same, which looks bad in an aerial photo - how does that make it a bad place to actually live?
Well, you said it in your first sentence. These subdivisions clear out acres upon acres of trees and leave less to grow. Also, most suburban neighborhoods aren't as dense/walkable.
Well, you said it in your first sentence. These subdivisions clear out acres upon acres of trees and leave less to grow.
compared to what? obviously denser than this clears less trees - but this clears less trees than the later suburban developments with lower density. you can build a lower density suburb and leave the trees, but that tends to be a lot more expensive - and over time, the nabe with the trees cut down will get its trees back.
Where I live the treees and landscapes are outside the cities not ib them. I have never heard soemone say lets go to the city to see the countryside and get some fresh air really.Many cities have old buidlig fallig down with their exposed asbestoes;unsafe play areas for same reason.
Is this 1920/ early 30s "original suburban" neighborhood any better?
At least it's walkable..
I'd rather live in that suburb than my example anyway. At least those houses are better porportioned. Today they are probably surrounded by trees too...if they haven't been plowed over and made into apartment complexes.
walkable, pleasant houses, porches it looks like, and within a few years from the photo the trees should be grown in - and yeah, walkable and a rectilinear street grid.
So they are all the same, which looks bad in an aerial photo - how does that make it a bad place to actually live?
Yea, I was being a bit hasty. I'm sure it's fine, but my point was that this "original suburb" was just as cookie-cutter esque if not more than the previous photo shown. And yes, if you look at the neighborhood on google streetview you will see trees, which makes the housing monotony a bit less obvious.
Though, I don't think single family at the densities in the photos work that well. I think the neighborhood might look better as two-family semi-detached homes, as the walls of the houses are very close already. Then the side of the house not adjacent to another would have a bit more green space. My town does that in its dense areas and it works well.
I'd suspect many of the pro-urban posters would prefer a neighborhood laid like the Queens Village to a newer lower density suburb that wasn't cookie-cutter.
I'd rather live in that suburb than my example anyway. At least those houses are better porportioned. Today they are probably surrounded by trees too...if they haven't been plowed over and made into apartment complexes.
No, they're still around. Area is surrounded by trees. A house there costs $400-$450k; wonder what they sold for originally.
Because it is not a choice between being taxed into submission or have disease.I think you will find cholera outbreaks are typically a congested areas problem.
But I am not a politician trying to get money to share with my special interest crooks.
You're making an assumption that there is simply enough space for everyone to live on a large lot, served by a dirt road. But if you were to take the population of, say, New York City, you'd have to cover the entirety of New York state with dirt roads. Eventually some of those septic tanks and leach fields would get into the groundwater, or those who preferred outhouses or dumping their poo in the road would build up, and yeah, you'd get cholera or some other outbreak. But if your kids die from water poisoned by your neighbor's feces, oh well, at least they died free, right?
Speaking of which, there was a cholera outbreak in Haiti last year. Why? No access to clean municipal water.
I'm not sure which is more laughable--the idea that a nation of 300 million people can all live out in the country if we just spread out enough, or the idea that the highly-technological, infrastructure-heavy, vehicle-dependent and heavily-subsidized world of the suburbs resembles "the country" in any way, shape or form.
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.
