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.
Yes, IF
[] The former for an automobile, the latter for a cart.
NO, IF
[] The former for a cart, the latter for an automobile.
Oh, so you're going to get specific, now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid
So I guess you're fine living in one of these? It's perfectly functional.
Are you one of the types who dresses in old t-shirts and jeans every day because appearances don't matter? As clothing, jeans and t-shirts are perfectly functional, but if that's all you wear then people might start to get the impression you were a slob.
I don't know CK, that trailer is sporting clerestory windows!
I suppose a lot of architects disagree that modern day buildings are not architecture. You may not be aware of the reasons for such design. For example, you may wonder why many suburban office buildings are jagged. It is to create more (higher rent) corner offices.
Me either. These, with minimum frontage widths, are good examples of legislated sprawl, IMO.
Why is this such a mystery?
These ordinances reflect the will of the body that makes them. It seems they want nor more than a certain amount of density. Setback and lot width essentially sets the size of lots. That means among other things that someone probably can't squeeze a huge house on a small lot - or could prevent someone from splitting a lot in two and putting in two tiny (cheaper) homes.
You may not like these ordinances, but they are hardly difficult to understand.
These ordinances reflect the will of the body that makes them. It seems they want nor more than a certain amount of density. Setback and lot width essentially sets the size of lots. That means among other things that someone probably can't squeeze a huge house on a small lot - or could prevent someone from splitting a lot in two and putting in two tiny (cheaper) homes.
You may not like these ordinances, but they are hardly difficult to understand.
Around where I live though, the governments are generally pro density. NIMBY types will oppose apartment buildings, destruction of farmland/natural areas or increased population, but I've never seen anything to indicate they would prefer new low density single family subdivisions over new high density single family subdivisions. If a developer thinks they can sell homes with minimal front setbacks, why stop them?
Also, aren't there cases with minimum setback rules in older neighbourhoods that force new homes to be set back further than their neighbours?
Single family homes have been around for dozens of centuries. Apparently this is how many people want to live: in a single-family home, in a residential neighborhood.
Your pie-in-the-sky dreams have many obstacles to surmount, but the largest of these is consumer preference. Keep dreaming.
Not true. Most people don't want to live in the suburbs anymore, especially the young.
Times have changed since the fifties and so has consumer preferences.
Study: People prefer walkable communities - MSN Real Estate
According to a new report by the National Association of Realtors (http://www.realtor.org/press_room/news_releases/2011/04/smart_growth - broken link), we are part of a growing movement that cares more about being close to shopping than having vaulted ceilings and a two-car garage. The NAR study found 56% of those surveyed preferred smart growth communities, and nearly three out of five would choose a smaller home if they could have a commute of 20 minutes or less
WASHINGTON - White flight? In a reversal, America's suburbs are now more likely to be home to minorities, the poor and a rapidly growing older population as many younger, educated whites move to cities for jobs and shorter commutes.
These ordinances reflect the will of the body that makes them. It seems they want nor more than a certain amount of density. Setback and lot width essentially sets the size of lots. That means among other things that someone probably can't squeeze a huge house on a small lot - or could prevent someone from splitting a lot in two and putting in two tiny (cheaper) homes.
You may not like these ordinances, but they are hardly difficult to understand.
But why not set a lot size and let people chose who close they want their house to front the street.
I personally prefer neighborhoods with small setbacks. Nicer streetscape, feels friendlier to me, and I used my old bedroom used to face the street on a house that was a small setback; I liked watching the people go by on my street. Some may not like setback rules, but I think setback rules are imposing.
I think it's the reverse. A setback would make it easier to see a skyscraper on the same side of the street. The links I posted without setbacks it was difficult to get a full view of height of the skyscraper.
Btw, looking at ciscokid's image link, that doesn't look like a real skyscraper; it's simulated.
Agree sometimes when close to buildings you really dont even realize they are there, but from further you can see them.
Here is an example from the street you would hardly the tall building exists.
which may have to do with street width, as looking up you can see the building but hardly notice it on the street, epsecially as today is is not fronted by a larger restaurant with seeting that pours out into the street Philadelphia, PA - Google Maps
Industrial areas, lowrise office buildings, and that sort of construction, those are boring as ever to look at -- I don't see that as anything modern, however -- even back in the Victorian era, warehouses, many institutional buildings like small hospitals and schools, they were bland boxes too, although with wood shingles on the sides.
I took a few photos around town of older buildings. They're not pretty, but I think they have more style to them than a lot of single-use (esp strip-mall style) construction today.
This is the back of an apartment building:
An old factory building now mostly reused as office space:
Mixed use commercial with obviously, a restaurant & bar on the bottom floor.
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.
