Earlier quoted context omitted.
you don't have to move there, its not a personal attack on you.
> its not a personal attack on you. Who is implying that it is?
You.
Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?
171–180 of 308 posts
Re: Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?
#172For some reason the vast majority of houses are ugly for the following reasons: the proportions are off. I mean, I understand the need to have smaller lots. But, if you're going to have a small 3K sq ft lot then you need to limit the width of the house to allow at least 20' on each side and raise the height of the house to two stories, if it's more than 800 sq ft. Another big reason for ugliness is the extremely shal…
> it doesn't cost much to put down some trees.
It would cost even less to leave some on the site, but it seems that builders prefer to scrape all the topsoil off.
Re: Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?
#173The way we finance housing is a factor.
Re: Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?
#174Survivorship bias.
All those old nice neighborhoods were also built by and for the wealthy. The lower classes lived in squalid tenements and slums that are now mostly gone.
Re: Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?
#175We can and we are! I’m the CEO of Culdesac. Our vision is to build the first car-free city in the US, starting with the first car-free neighborhood built from scratch in the US. That’s Culdesac Tempe, a 1000-resident neighborhood that is under construction now. Residents move in next year. Join our waitlist at culdesac.com. If you want to visit in the meantime, drop me a note. We have something exciting happening on…
How is this not spam?
Re: Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just think this is insane to me. We know the cost to build more intricate builds - it isn't a 2% cost increase its a 30 or 50% cost increase. There are already tons of restrictions on building and zoning in America. I like nice cars but I dont insist that everyone drive a European sports car just because it would be aesthetically more pleasing. Ultimately, a city/town will be better off if people can spend 20% of t…
And in 20 or 30 or 50 or 100 year, some of our descendants will walk/drive/fly/float through it all and wonder why we never built anything to last, or anything beautiful. Beautiful and comfortable neighborhoods ARE additional resources for ourselves, our families and our communities.
Nothing is stopping you from building a castle on your property now. My guess is the difference in price is about 5-fold - and the castle will need tons of costly repairs to adapt to whatever the favored amenities are.
I've lived in really old buildings. Even if the bricks on the outside were over 100 years old it was extremely expensive to update the air conditioning and windows to be a good living experience. Why take such a superficial view of what is "built to last" just because the outside stays the same? Best case scenario for a long last building is a ship of theseus situation. And while it may be cost efficient for historic college campuses to renovate their old buildings continuously, chances are this not applicable to random middle class homeowners.
Re: Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?
#177Buried in the article is an important point: people care a lot about interior and not much about exterior appearance. Typical cookie-cutter suburban neighborhoods are built assuming nobody walks around in them anyway. On the inside these houses are pretty deluxe, though. Also, in the US it's very difficult to build a house out of solid wood like my house from 40s. New materials might not look as nice but are less was…
Extend that deluxe interior to accommodate many of life's other joys and activities -- say a home gym, a theatre system, pool, study -- and folks can enjoy these things at home and thus not need neighborhood gyms, cinemas, recreation centers, libraries.
It's my opinion that the increased availability of such robust interior living has lessened the demand for many local services or public goods, leading to inevitable underinvestment (don't fund libraries! no one* uses them anyway) or otherwise lacking places (why add grills in the park if everyone* has their own patio with a grill anyway), creating further incentive to retreat into the perfect home with everything one can need, rinse and repeat.
Re: Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Healthy enough not to use cars" - man, that's a good one. I'll remember it next time my half-senile father in law has no other choice but to drive somewhere because there's no way around his car dependent neighbourhood - oh wait, that's every day.
If he is senile he should not be driving anywhere
That's exactly what kspacewalk2 is saying. He _should_ not.
Re: Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?
#179As the article hinted at the simple answer is Car Dependency. Suburbs are regulated and built to accommodate cars now and not people. The topic is explored thouroughly on the 'Not Just Bikes' youtube channel. https://www.youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes which uses information from urban planning group 'Strong Towns' https://www.strongtowns.org/ .
I often see urbanists and young people fantasize about life in car free mega cities. Having lived that life for years I can’t imagine why. A lot of cities that are beautiful and attractive also have room for cars. I would even argue it is a big part of what makes those cities attractive. There’s no substitute for the point to point on demand fast transportation that cars offer. In cities that aren’t overbuilt, it mak…
> There’s no substitute for the point to point on demand fast transportation that cars offer.
If you design cities to not have alternatives to cars then of course there's no substitute. All my day-to-day trips are currently faster using a bike+train, significantly less stressful, cheaper and also much healthier. People don't generally prefer specific modes of transportation, they just want to travel quickly and conveniently. That can be achieved with any mode of transportation, yet cars are the most expensive, most polluting, loudest, lowest density and most stressful.
I just took a look at a picture of Seattle from 2011 and it looks like half the area is dedicated to car parking with huge stroads everywhere. Having to take a car to go to the shops 300m away sounds like a total nightmare. And it's not even the suburbs! If those roads had little traffic on them then that was clearly just due to the population not having caught up. Once it did of course those roads weren't going to be enough. At that point you can either bulldoze more of the city for the car and still get awful traffic or provide better alternatives...
For reference this is the photo I found: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Downtown...
Re: Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
This may or may not be true, and it doesn't matter because single use zoning in most American cities makes it illegal to build walkable cities. It's pretty hard to establish what Americans prefer when the alternative what they have isn't allowed.
Single family zoning isn't simply a car thing. I live in a small, walkable, transit-friendly neighborhood full of crunch eco-liberals, and it is entirely hostile to upzoning for reasons having nothing at all to do with cars; it's a central tool of NIMBYism.
Oh my yes: whatever height is currently built is perfect, every currently vacant lot is a prize, etc. etc.
But the GP spoke of single-use zoning, a slightly different cudgel. I understand the abstract appeal of dividing up a map into neatly-separated areas, a la SimCity, but that just doesn't accomodate real life.