4 ms·
While I'm not too familiar with "the dominant model", I guess I should have clarified: > The results of the dominant model of town organization in the USA leav
by wonder_er 9y ago
While I'm not too familiar with "the dominant model", I guess I should have clarified:
> The results of the dominant model of town organization in the USA leaves much to be desired
Way over-priced homes, auto-oriented urban/rural design, an excessive love for parking lots, houses all look the same...
Towns across the US share way too much in common for it to be something that spontaneously arose out of millions of tiny decisions.
The developed parts of California cannot be anywhere close to the Arden idea - there's endless rules, zoning restrictions, boards and commissions to try to sway, etc.
- majormajor 9y agoThe dominant model in the US has downright cheap homes. Partly because of the parking lots and auto-oriented organization (if you can keep building out, you have a lot less upwards pressure on price). CA/NY is not representative of home prices in most of the country. It's not perfect, but neither is the NY model, the London model, the Tokyo model, the Beijing model...
- TimJYoung 9y agoJust to clarify: most of NY state has inexpensive housing (at least compared to NYC). Also, much of it is turn-of-the-century houses, not necessarily the 50s+ auto-oriented suburban tract houses, although it does have its share of those, also.