On Jun 17, 2008, at 3:43 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
Grant Robinson wrote:
You seem to have something against a 3000 square foot home. Why is
that, Dave? :)
Perhaps you've found meaning where none was intended. I have nothing
against 3,000 square feet. What gets my goat is a 3,000 square foot
home (or larger for that matter) sitting 6 feet away from another
one, and another one, and another one after that. I really should
send you pictures of the new development being built half a mile
from my house in Murray. These are 3,000-4,000 square foot homes
with no more than 6 feet of linear grass between them and the
property line, all the way around each house. From the kitchen, you
could spit on the golfers behind the house and just as easily hit
cars parked on the street in the front (not to mention the side of
your neighbor's house next to you). They look like a dozen eggs in a
carton. It's sickening how many McMansions they've crammed into that
tiny area on the edge of Mick Riley golf course. Oh well.
That makes things much clearer. I am also sickened by this practice.
I grew up in an older home in Alpine, and on the way to my parents
house they have started a subdivision just like that. Some of these
houses literally have no back yard. That kind of thing is what I am
against. I have no problem with homes that size, but I do have a
problem with homes that are out of proportion for the lot size (and
homes like that, in my mind, clearly are). My only consolation is
that no one is buying those homes, so hopefully they will amend the
plan to make the homes smaller or the lots larger.
I do realize some people don't to take care of a yard, but I've always
thought that is what "desert-scaping" is for. :)
Grant
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
