3 ms·

My more ideal city would have higher density housing but with small private yards, if only decks that seem like yards, something like this: http://www.dwell.com

by genwin 13y ago

My more ideal city would have higher density housing but with small private yards, if only decks that seem like yards, something like this: http://www.dwell.com/house-tours/article/mountain-dwellings-urban-development-copenhagen http://www.dwell.com/house-tours/article/mountain-dwellings-... In the US we have high density housing (condo skyscrapers) and low density housing (suburbs) but not much in-between that's nice.

enjo 13y ago
That's not true for any city I've been to in the U.S. I'm seriously trying to think of a single one that doesn't have sprawling bungalow neighborhoods near the center of the city. These are historically known as "streetcar suburbs", as most cities had actual fixed transit networks throughout the city itself. Today these are close-in neighborhoods full of generally smaller homes with yards. They tend to have small yards, as they are generally built pretty close together. I live in Denver which has an enormous number of those homes ringing Downtown. New Orleans has the garden district and surround. San Francisco fits that bill with the huge number of row-homes in the city(although the costs are nuts). Portland most certainly has a lot of that stock. Capitol Hill all the way to the Queen Anne in Seattle fits that bill. Dallas has the park cities. New York City has queens. Little Rock even has an excellent selection of inner-city bungalows (the neighborhoods are in poor repair, but they exist). The issue we have in the U.S. is cultural. I think it's a widespread mental disease. We're willing to drive enormous distances, spending huge chunks of our lives in cars, so that we can own giant houses full of rooms we don't even use. It's nuts.
- genwin 13y ago
  If it's too expensive or inner-city or a money pit or ugly or cheaply-built it's off my radar. That includes Capitol Hill and Queen Anne-type areas, or anything built prior to 1950 and most stuff built after 1990. Given my criteria, in Denver a 1960s+ small house would likely still have a big lot. If not a big lot it tends to have parking for only 1 car. Albuquerque has the best type of higher-density housing I've seen with quality townhouses, having small private yards and 2-car garages in the suburbs.
kingmanaz 13y ago
Historically, elm-lined streets made neighborhoods comprised of smaller homes more attractive: http://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/news/images/amelmstreet.jpg http://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/news/images/amelmstreet.jpg Todays municipalities are shunning urban forestry for miserly xeroscape landscaping. "Native landscaping" is often anything but, and has turned entire neighborhoods and towns into gravel strewn deserts. Obsession over costs has reduced much of America into a series of soulless strip malls and gated communities. Historic districts are today largely devoted to tourists while the rest of America lives in chicken wire and stucco tract homes made by economic refugees rather than craftsman. America is ugly because its people will not pay for beauty. Regarding smaller yards, a return to < 1000 sq. ft. Sears-Catalog style architecture may be a more aesthetic alternative than heaping up duplexes or townhouses, or heaven forbid, closely packed trailer parks. Also, building codes should be loosened. Nothing kills the spirit of a neighborhood like "military review" uniformity in home construction.

by genwin 13y ago

enjo 13y ago

That's not true for any city I've been to in the U.S. I'm seriously trying to think of a single one that doesn't have sprawling bungalow neighborhoods near the center of the city. These are historically known as "streetcar suburbs", as most cities had actual fixed transit networks throughout the city itself. Today these are close-in neighborhoods full of generally smaller homes with yards. They tend to have small yards, as they are generally built pretty close together. I live in Denver which has an enormous number of those homes ringing Downtown. New Orleans has the garden district and surround. San Francisco fits that bill with the huge number of row-homes in the city(although the costs are nuts). Portland most certainly has a lot of that stock. Capitol Hill all the way to the Queen Anne in Seattle fits that bill. Dallas has the park cities. New York City has queens. Little Rock even has an excellent selection of inner-city bungalows (the neighborhoods are in poor repair, but they exist). The issue we have in the U.S. is cultural. I think it's a widespread mental disease. We're willing to drive enormous distances, spending huge chunks of our lives in cars, so that we can own giant houses full of rooms we don't even use. It's nuts.

genwin 13y ago
If it's too expensive or inner-city or a money pit or ugly or cheaply-built it's off my radar. That includes Capitol Hill and Queen Anne-type areas, or anything built prior to 1950 and most stuff built after 1990. Given my criteria, in Denver a 1960s+ small house would likely still have a big lot. If not a big lot it tends to have parking for only 1 car. Albuquerque has the best type of higher-density housing I've seen with quality townhouses, having small private yards and 2-car garages in the suburbs.

kingmanaz 13y ago

Historically, elm-lined streets made neighborhoods comprised of smaller homes more attractive: http://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/news/images/amelmstreet.jpg http://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/news/images/amelmstreet.jpg Todays municipalities are shunning urban forestry for miserly xeroscape landscaping. "Native landscaping" is often anything but, and has turned entire neighborhoods and towns into gravel strewn deserts. Obsession over costs has reduced much of America into a series of soulless strip malls and gated communities. Historic districts are today largely devoted to tourists while the rest of America lives in chicken wire and stucco tract homes made by economic refugees rather than craftsman. America is ugly because its people will not pay for beauty. Regarding smaller yards, a return to < 1000 sq. ft. Sears-Catalog style architecture may be a more aesthetic alternative than heaping up duplexes or townhouses, or heaven forbid, closely packed trailer parks. Also, building codes should be loosened. Nothing kills the spirit of a neighborhood like "military review" uniformity in home construction.