My subdivision rocks!

[I HATE PONIES]

Well I have never vandalized someone else's property but I do think its wrong.
In the end I would guess that to live in this subdivison you need pretty big balls based on the picture.

 

[Velocewest]

Planned communty ... the fancy new way to describe high density living and the way of the future.

Also known as "future projects..."

 

[Ol'Drippy]

I have to say that I've never "damaged" anyone's property other than my own. We used to "borrow" real estate signs/for rent/advertising/whatever we could get our hands on from all over town and go to one persons house and spend alot of time planting those signs into one persons yard.... that was fun, and really no damage done.

As far as all this talk of people not knowing what a subdivision is, y'all need to come on o'er to east tn, we've got all kinds of subdivisions, neighborhoods and ghettos

My subdivision is pretty cool for the most part. It is not my ideal choice of places to live, I'd like some land and less neighbors. However, we got this house at a steal (was my in-laws for a couple years, then they rented it for 8 years and was trashed) We breezed into this, and for the most part I like it.. I won't be leaving until I'm dead or can't make it up the stairs anymore I would imagine.

 

[garrett]

Andy's description is the most accurate. subdivisions are all zoned R-1 99% of the time with little to no other mixed uses. most of my work in the past was new town designs or ski resort developments. it was fairly progressive stuff with a strong hate towards the popular residential "subdivision" that Americans love so dearly.
for some reason we don't like setting the bar very high for ourselves. it's depressing.

lets take a bunch of poorly designed and constructed homes, place them randomly on small lots with little shared open space and sell them for $800,000. we shall call this place Brandywine Manor and Estates. brilliant!

 

[emmodg]

At "Brandywine Manor Estates", one can choose the 8,000sq/ft "Nottingham Berkshire Sir Worchestshire Model"!

 

[spydrjon]

The word subdivision is oxymoronical to me.

how does one subdivide a parcel of land? Isnt it still the same parcel of land, except now it has stuff built on it? or does it refere to individual lots being for sale? I dont know it seems unnecessary word to me.

Are you being purposefully dense or are you really to dumb to breath on your own?

 

[garrett]

did you ever see Boy in the Bubble, starring John Travolta?

 

[antichrist]

My favorite are the one's where they go in, clear cut the forest, build a bunch of overpriced, oversized crap and call it "Forest View Estates". I guess everyone must have on their living room wall a painting of the place before it was clear cut.

As for the vandal, what was his problem with Texas? Why did he only want Jews from New York living there?

 

[Leslie]

Haven't seen that one; I liked the 'Burbs w/ Tom Hanks, tho'....


Urbis is Latin for the wall of a city. If you lived outside the wall, you were suburbium. When a piece of land (predominantly tired farmland) outside of a city, is divided up to make residential lots, the whole property that was divided is then called a subdivision, and would be located in the suburbs.

A subdivision is a type of a community, and is a type of a neighborhood. However, a residential section within a city can also be a community and a neighborhood, but it may not be correct to call it a subdivision; it just depends on how that residential section came into being.

When I was in surveying class years ago, one of the major exercises they pressed upon us was taking a piece of land and figuring out how best to divide it into the most lots of a certain minimum size to maximize the profitability of the land sales. There's a reason why I am not a surveyor: I don't like little lots.

Driving around older and newer neighborhoods around town here, there is a distinct difference. The older houses away from the downtown area from the 50's and 60's and 70's are smaller, but have larger yards. The new subdivisions that have come about over the past decade or so, the houses are a lot larger, but they are on smaller lots, where you could spit out your window and hit your neighbors.

If I had to move into a "new" neighborhood (and at one time, we had bought a lot in a subdivision to build on to do that), we bought a really large lot on a curve to maximize how much elbow room our house would have, and was also one that would have had a private backyard (I don't like the idea of being in my backyard with all of my neighbors looking out of their kitchen windows, watching what I'm doing... not that I'm doing anything weird, but, I don't want to be under a glass).

When material prices skyrocketed a few years ago, we then decided to buy an existing house. It's in a neighborhood that is an older subdivision.. it was divided up almost 40 years ago, and the house was built a few years later. It's not a big house, but it's on a large wooded lot (almost 2 acres), with a very private backyard. Really friendly neighbors (we're having a cookout on Saturday for the four homes on our corner), yet we're all very unobtrusive... if you need a hand, we're all goad to help, but if you want to be left alone, we don't stick our noses into each other's business....

FWIW...

 

[2FUELS]

First; Listen to "Subdivisions" by RUSH, not really their best music but the lyrics ring true.

Second; even though I may SOUND like a tree hugger I have to agree with David Suzuki, most subdivisions are named after the natural habitat destroyed to create them. Examples from my area include:

Deer Run Drive
Quail Ridge
Lochmoor (WTF?)
Pheasant Valley
Turkey Creek
Eagle Point
Two Dogs Fucking (ok i made that one up)

 

[Leslie]

lol....

My subdivision is called Beechcliff Estates. Beechcliff Drive is the road on which I live. And, it is aptly named: we are on a nice rolling top of a bluff, with little cliffs as you drop down to Reedy Creek below us. Mature hardwood forest, with black walnut and buckeyes, oaks and maples, hickories and ash and poplars, and yes, lots and lots of beech trees.

So, used to, they'd preserve what it was.... but alas, no, not the new subdivisions with the mcmansions.....

 

[JeffM]

lol....

My subdivision is called Beechcliff Estates. Beechcliff Drive is the road on which I live. And, it is aptly named: we are on a nice rolling top of a bluff, with little cliffs as you drop down to Reedy Creek below us. Mature hardwood forest, with black walnut and buckeyes, oaks and maples, hickories and ash and poplars, and yes, lots and lots of beech trees.

So, used to, they'd preserve what it was.... but alas, no, not the new subdivisions with the mcmansions.....

Yeah we were in a similar position a few years ago Behind my house there were hundreds of acres of "wetlands" with abundant wildlife (Deer, Wild Turkeys, Bear etc) which used to wander into our back garden on the odd occasion. Then mysteriously overnight the land was "re-classified" and we now have hundreds of McMansions instead

 

[garrett]

NH is notoriously lose with their zoning and development laws. funny thing is their neighbor (VT) is the opposite.
people keep buying into the "dream" of this crap, so they continue to build it. we love crap and lots of it. we live in a disposable country.

 

[AndyThoma]

Actually the small lot big house is done on purpose. The current theory of land development, or redevelopment is high density living with ephasis on greenspace. SO put the houses close together and make the lot smaller. People perfer larger houses to smaller (duh). Houses closer together mean less roads to be built and less infrestructure needs as close houses mean collecting the poop is easier with sewers that are shorter. Then close houses mean less travel. If the houses are close together, and near walking distance to stores, less gas is needed by the home owners. Now you say I want a yard. Being a land development designer I tell you to got to the parks I created by pushing the houses closer together. The reason behind this idea is created by towns zoning laws. The parks as open space are to save the land side from unbroken chains of townhomes. The parks also collect water run off and act as a better filter to that water run of than streets and individuals yards. Size is key to better water filtration. So cleaner water tables. Finally the idea of common parks is to build relationships with your neighbors. A big yard might mean you kids only pay in it, not with the rest of the neighborhood kids. You will be inside the garage working on the rover instead of chatting with other neighbors. A common park and small yard might get you and your kids out of your house into a common open space park. You chat with people, kids beat up on the jew kid .... but you form a community ... or at least a antisymitic communty.


When I say this the future ... it is what is becoming standard practice accross this country. Zoning laws are forcing this. Developers want max money for each house. They don't care about what looks nice. If you don't like this, you need to got to zoning meetings in your town and vioce an opinion. So mixed use development with high density is here to stay. Funny thing is it a housing model that can be seen in any city 100years old. I site rockcreek park and bethesda md. Salt Lake City and the avenues area. Philly and Wisahickan park, nyc and central park. Funny not to Utahes, the avenues and sugarhouse is studied globally as a model for this type of development. It's concidered a model of the idea that worked. Both of these neighborhoods are 100 plus years old.

 

[garrett]

well you are partially right Andy. building closer together and creating larger open spaces for that particular community is "better", but not in the way the currently trend in developments is going. the big houses on small lots does not jive and is hardly considered high density.
the neo-traditional houses with 15' sideyards and 10' front yards is. detached garages and alleys in the back. i designed dozens of these mixed use/high density properties from NJ to VT and the progressive trend is continuing with them in townships and counties that tend to have a more educated board. sidewalks, convienence stores, churches and even retail and commercial are easily mixed in. removing curbed roads and introduce man made wetlands instead of retension and detention basins among other things make it all work more smoothly and "sustainable".
the McMansion developments are the worst case scenarios. they cost the towns and counties more than the original working farm did that it replaced. they are poorly designed, engineered and have little appeal in every way.
there are many great examples of what good design firms are producing and communites are embracing all over the east.

 

[AndyThoma]

Oh I agree with you.

A developer wants money, mcmansions sell. Americans like stupid big things to show off with, look at the hummer as example, we tend to view it as entitlement.

But I'll site MD, NC, VA, UT,CA, NV, CO, WV as states I have done design work for that are forcing smart, green development trends. I guess I did speak too generally and don't know about every state, and shouldn't imply all states will have this type of development.

PA is a good example, I did a priminary plat design for a 1500ac site near gettysburg. They don't have the strict zoning as say MD or CA has, so I could pretty much do what I wanted. But the developer wanted to use that developmental theory I mentioned above. Plan went to the township for approval and I got out of land development, so don't know what PA thinks of smart development. My guess, they don't like it as most central PA people seem to aspire to mcmansions with big yards. My family is included in those people .... my red neck past always catches up with me.

 

[garrett]

actually central PA (State College) had the first "real" PUD in the country called Toftrees. it was actually pretty progressive considering it was designed and built in the late 70s.
State College (technically Port Matilda) has another good example of "sustainable" design in regards to developments. Pantops is an area where the developer created standards similar to some of the more now broadly accepted "green" building going on. max SF allowed of mowed yard, no curbing, max SF of impervious surfaces, building materials used and minimal loss to hardwoods. add in some 50 acres of common land with nature trails and you have a pretty cool "development". my brother built a house there. not what i consider a progressive design as compared to communities outside Philly and in NJ, but a step in the right direction. a far cry from the shit Toll Brothers, Ryan Homes and the likes are producing. but i have a feeling bussinesses like Toll will be jumping on the "greenie" band wagon soon enough if they have not done so already.
eastern PA is quite different and NJ has been ahead of most communities. it's really a matter or re-writting most of the master plans for these townships and getting the surrounding ones to all agree. it's been a struggle for quite some time. brick by brick.

 

[galen216]

The problem in PA is that we have 100's, if not 1000's of burghs, boroughs and townships that all have their own planning commisions and councils. Nothing is organized at a higher level and too many people have hands in what is going on.

Maryland for instance is mostly organized at a county level so if a decision is made it's for the whole county. In PA a commisions ruling may only effect a 10 square mile area. I think PA is a beautiful state and has many assets but this is the one thing I hate. Their organization sucks and allows bad planning to happen.

 

[garrett]

Maryland can more easily do this, since their counties are more heavliy populated and consistant unlike PA which is far less dense. take Centre County for example. you have State College and then nothing. the zoning principles that affect the northern part of the county would not coincide with the needs of State College. NJ can do this far more easily too.
like i said one of the hardest things we had to do was getting all the townships to agree on changes. they all have their own self serving issues. the growth boundary that State College developed just 10 years ago now has no realistic use now.

 

[Leslie]

Yeah we were in a similar position a few years ago Behind my house there were hundreds of acres of "wetlands" with abundant wildlife (Deer, Wild Turkeys, Bear etc) which used to wander into our back garden on the odd occasion. Then mysteriously overnight the land was "re-classified" and we now have hundreds of McMansions instead

Most of my lot is behind the house, actually, I own down to the creek, so all of it will stay wooded, as will my neighbors on both sides. Lots of turkey, deer, foxes, raccoons and possums, squirrels and chipmunks, etc. (have yet to see a bear here on the east side, but there've been several spotted on the west side of town). Across the creek, you're in the flat of the valley, with highway 11W to the north on the opposite side (~a half-mile away). There's development along the highway, but not off of... most of the newer residental places are up out of the valley, on the north side of 11W, or south of us higher up on the ridge.

If you go upstream, towards the east, you're into farmland. If you downstream, there's a bit more farmland, a lot of wetland. There's a linear walking park right along the stream, which is going to limit further development close to the residences.

But, while it sounds funny, the saving bit right behind my house are the radio towers... there are four radio masts built in the lowland between us and the highway. The radio station holds a large chunk of the land, and aren't ever going to sell off any of it, so most of it is, and will stay, wooded wetland, with a bit of open meadow kept around the base of the masts.



Andy,

One sense, having them close together makes sense, as far as infrastructure costs. And, I don't mind going to a park, and I don't mind not having a big yard to mow (hence why mine is going to remain wooded). I can understand that some want a bigger house, but I'd rather not have as much to clean, to heat, to pay taxes on... But, I DESPISE having them packed in where you have no sense of privacy. I would much MUCH rather have a small house with a huge field for elbow room than I would a "mansion" that was 20' from my neighbor's "mansion".... such just doesn't appeal to me at all. Even if the house itself is nice, it's not worth it to me if it's packed in...