On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 01:19:08PM -0500, Neil I. Lifson wrote: > Spruce Hill Community Assoc. regularly oppose increases in density as a > standard policy (in our area). I don't know if other community > associations have such a policy, but it does stand to reason that by not > allowing houses to be further sub-divided, we preserve the architectural, > historical, and aesthetic qualities of our neighborhoods, and maintain > quality of life standards (such as they are).
But hasn't really explained, that I've seen, how density is related to quality of life or what density level is ideal. I sometimes think it's really more about parking availability than anything else. I find the neighborhood supports more businesses and services where it's denser. I like that. It also supports better transit options where it's denser. And, socially, I run into more people on the street where it's denser. I feel safer walking down a busy street at night than an empty one. I haven't noticed much difference in architectural, historical, or aesthetic qualities based on density, although economic level of renters/owners does seem to have some effect on the character of the street. -- Jeff Jeff Abrahamson <http://www.purple.com/jeff/> ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>. Archive is at <http://www.mail-archive.com/>.
