Most urbanists look at this and wince, but there are attractive features of this type of suburbia:
• low lot sizes
• few front and side setbacks. This is usually dead space. The back lawn is for playing in
• more grid like, rather than cul-de-sac
• large homes meet demand for space
• low lot sizes
• few front and side setbacks. This is usually dead space. The back lawn is for playing in
• more grid like, rather than cul-de-sac
• large homes meet demand for space
Comments
I’d love to see more walkable amenities; not sure how economically viable they always will be
"where are the trees?" eyesore factor
Within that, this is a better way to do it, because smaller lot sizes enable cheaper homes and more effective density
Just to make the point purely urban/transit neighborhoods are actually fairly rare/niche in the US, so worth thinking of different choices of what suburbs can look like
https://www.homes.com/neighborhood-search/skokie-il/
I might be biased as a Chicagoan but alleys are great for keeping trash/pickup & cars/garages off the Main Street. But they do increase impervious surfaces.
Also, an advantage to wide suburban ROW is it's a lot easier to add cycling infrastructure vs 19th Century (or earlier) urban centres.
These are new and they still all look like 1000 sq ft at most??
Note that the plots are very small as well - tiny front and back gardens. It's density without the benefits of suburbia.
Density for density sake is not good design/ policy.
Back in my day, a kid would have four corner stores to walk to in case the family needed a half gallon or a bread for dinner.
MIX UP the uses. Make places walkable by giving people reasons to walk.
• e-commerce is a large share of retail goods
• we also have advances in home production like coffee etc
So most suburban households don’t have the same commercial needs