3 ms·

Preach. Walking through any new subdivision in the burbs or more rural areas is so depressing. Cheap, cookie cutter houses squeezed on top of each other as far

Preach. Walking through any new subdivision in the burbs or more rural areas is so depressing. Cheap, cookie cutter houses squeezed on top of each other as far as the eye can see. At least there's a big push to make most of these mid-rise developments mixed use, making the area more dense and walkable. The benefits out weigh the cons.

willnonya 4y ago
"squeezed on top of each other" is bad but "more dense" is good? There's a lot more to whether either of these are good than these talking points.
- vanilla_nut 4y ago
  Definitely a language bamboozle, but the author has a point: in a residential-only subdivision, dense houses feel "squeezed in" to a lot size for no real purpose. If you can't walk to anything other than identical houses, why locate them that close? Only justification I can imagine is "to make the developers more money on the same lot size." Of course, I'm no fan of ultradense living. But in cities that have lots of businesses, parks, public transit stations, etc to walk to, density is a huge win, and the author uses the positive term to convey that. Essentially the same trait is positive in one context but negative in another. Consider cakes and apples. Everyone wants a juicy apple. Nobody wants a soggy cake.
  - asebold 4y ago
    Yes, this is basically what I was trying to convey. Thank you.
- asebold 4y ago
  "dense and walkable" In this respect, I don't mean "density" as strictly spacial. The subdivisions I'm referring to stretch on for blocks with no businesses or services mixed in. Typically they're zoned strictly residential. No corner stores, transit, restaurants, coffee shops, etc. And this means people have to rely on cars to go do simple things like grocery shop or socialize outside the home. There's quite a bit of research and discussion on the value of walkable communities if you're interested in learning more. Maybe you disagree, but I believe the kind of "density" created by mixed 5-over-1s is better for people and their communities than mile long cookie cutter subdivisions.
- kcplate 4y ago
  Glad I wasn’t the only one who noticed that nifty little PC language trick they employed. As someone who has lived in both “squeezed on top of” and “more dense”, I’ll take the “squeezed on top of” over the “more dense” any day of the week. However my preference is “no one else living within a mile in all directions”.
drewcoo 4y ago
Go buy some cupcakes. Then play "housing developer" with them. I think you'll find there's no squeezing involved in stacking. There might be if you get rid of the "yards" and push them together, though. You don't need to use cupcakes. I added that because I thought the experiment would be more fun.
- vanilla_nut 4y ago
  A lot of folks who seek to minimise noise and even visibility of neighbors would consider subdivision side yards "squeezed" compared to rural single-family homes. The "squeezing" refers to the entire lot, not just the house.

willnonya 4y ago

"squeezed on top of each other" is bad but "more dense" is good? There's a lot more to whether either of these are good than these talking points.

vanilla_nut 4y ago
Definitely a language bamboozle, but the author has a point: in a residential-only subdivision, dense houses feel "squeezed in" to a lot size for no real purpose. If you can't walk to anything other than identical houses, why locate them that close? Only justification I can imagine is "to make the developers more money on the same lot size." Of course, I'm no fan of ultradense living. But in cities that have lots of businesses, parks, public transit stations, etc to walk to, density is a huge win, and the author uses the positive term to convey that. Essentially the same trait is positive in one context but negative in another. Consider cakes and apples. Everyone wants a juicy apple. Nobody wants a soggy cake.
- asebold 4y ago
  Yes, this is basically what I was trying to convey. Thank you.
asebold 4y ago
"dense and walkable" In this respect, I don't mean "density" as strictly spacial. The subdivisions I'm referring to stretch on for blocks with no businesses or services mixed in. Typically they're zoned strictly residential. No corner stores, transit, restaurants, coffee shops, etc. And this means people have to rely on cars to go do simple things like grocery shop or socialize outside the home. There's quite a bit of research and discussion on the value of walkable communities if you're interested in learning more. Maybe you disagree, but I believe the kind of "density" created by mixed 5-over-1s is better for people and their communities than mile long cookie cutter subdivisions.
kcplate 4y ago
Glad I wasn’t the only one who noticed that nifty little PC language trick they employed. As someone who has lived in both “squeezed on top of” and “more dense”, I’ll take the “squeezed on top of” over the “more dense” any day of the week. However my preference is “no one else living within a mile in all directions”.

drewcoo 4y ago

Go buy some cupcakes. Then play "housing developer" with them. I think you'll find there's no squeezing involved in stacking. There might be if you get rid of the "yards" and push them together, though. You don't need to use cupcakes. I added that because I thought the experiment would be more fun.

vanilla_nut 4y ago
A lot of folks who seek to minimise noise and even visibility of neighbors would consider subdivision side yards "squeezed" compared to rural single-family homes. The "squeezing" refers to the entire lot, not just the house.