NOPE NOPE NOPE!
Have you been taking pictures in my neighborhood??
I would not want to have to look at this. I don't really understand why anyone would think this is okay.
Y'all
do realize that this sort of thing does not require an HOA to prevent, right? If somebody did this around here, they would get fined by a city code enforcement officer (an actual sworn police officer), not some megalomanical jerk at the HOA.
(Also, I'm mostly in the "it's their property so they can do what they want" camp, except for the part where they're obstructing access to the sidewalk.)
Like I said, I'm not familiar with those types of areas and that seems like a bad idea to me. Cities should at least leave the option to create a new subdivision where the developer does nothing but what is required to dedicate the streets, sewer, water, etc. and then allow the neighborhood to be just subject to whatever zoning requirements are already in place.
IMO, even that is giving the developer too much control. The street grid should be designed by the city planners and the developer should just have to accept it. And when I say "grid" I really do mean grid, implying small blocks with lots of connectivity, as opposed to the gigantic gated cul-de-sac mazes connected by six-lane arterial highways that developers are prone to building now.
Jack, I'm not sure if there is sarcasm in your statement. You don't want to give any control to the developers who bought the land. You want to keep 100% control so that you can enforce a rigid grid pattern with small blocks.
I happen to like grids and small blocks, but that's an urban design. Small blocks with lots of connectivity aren't the best solution for suburban neighborhoods where children play and run in yards and between yards.
Anyway, I know you're very knowledgeable about city planning, I just was amused at how you don't like to give anyone too much control...unless it's you. Like Henry Ford said....customers can have a car in any color they want, as long as it's black.
First of all, I wonder if there's a disconnect between our definitions of "suburban." There are two main kinds of suburbs: pre-WWII ones, which are made of single-family houses but which
are built on a grid with small blocks (and generally narrower lots such that the houses are deeper than they are wide), and post-WWII ones, which are built in a dendritic street pattern with few ways in and out and lots of cul-de-sacs such that the residents have to drive on arterial road superblocks to get anywhere. Also consider the difference implied by the word "neighborhood" vs. the word "subdivision" -- they sometimes get used interchangeably, but they're not synonyms.
To me, the definition of "urban" depends on context (e.g. in roadway design "urban" means anything with a curb and gutter, as opposed to "rural" which means using a ditch for drainage). In this context, IMO an "urban" neighborhood implies
at least townhouses/row houses/brownstones, but more likely, 3+-story apartment blocks.
FYI, in my pre-WWII suburb, it is perfectly safe for children to play in the front yards and streets, and there is about the same amount of traffic as the post-WWII suburbs I grew up in. More to the point, those kids can actually easily walk to places (school, parks, stores) whereas when I was growing up I was basically trapped in my subdivision until I got a driver's license. Small blocks with lots of connectivity
are the best for kids!
Anyway, I would say that all suburbs should be of the pre-WWII type, or if you think only post-WWII suburbs are "true" suburbs then I would say that they shouldn't exist at all. Dendritic street patterns that require driving on arterials to get anywhere are
harmful to lower-income people economically, human health in general (since they discourage biking and walking), and environmental sustainability. They are also much more expensive to maintain than denser, pre-WWII suburbs (both in terms of infrastructure and services like firetruck coverage, trash pickup and school busing) but on average do not generate enough extra tax revenue to make up the difference (because larger houses may be more valuable, but one on a lot twice the size is generally less than twice as valuable as two smaller homes would have been), making them economically unsustainable in the long run.
Finally, it's not about me wanting control (and I'm not a city planner anyway); it's about the fact that my tax dollars shouldn't be subsidizing unsustainable infrastructure.