On Jun 17, 2008, at 5:20 PM, Corey Edwards wrote:
On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 16:54 -0600, Grant Robinson wrote:
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 wouldn't want to live in a house like that either, but I'm not
certain
I see anything wrong with it. It's just a lot more urban than what's
traditionally been built around here. Think of the row houses in San
Francisco or Georgetown. People are certainly paying a pretty penny
for
those and they're literally right next to each other. They're
essentially a jumbo apartment. It's not my cup of tea but it's a
fact of
life for an area where land has become scarce and expensive.
Those types of houses flow. There are a bunch of them together in an
"urban" environment surrounded by other types of buildings that
reinforce that flow. If you plopped those homes down in the middle of
the average neighborhood in Utah, they would look ridiculous and out
of place. Where they are, they look beautiful and classic and (in the
case of the some of the Victorian ones) historic. It is all about the
flow.
Grant
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
