1. What are the author’s main points with this article?
In this article, Harrison’s main points regard overcoming the ordinances set forth to regulate the design of subdivisions. Because the ordinances set forth minimum requirements, developers tend to stick to just these bare minimums and then reproduce these designs over and over again – hence the term “cookie cutter housing.”
2. How do you feel about subdivisions after reading this article? Are they a positive addition to city layouts or is urban sprawl a negative phenomenon? Why do you feel this way?
This article did not change the way I feel about subdivisions. On one hand, I think that subdivisions are rather boring and redundant. Many (most!) of the houses look very similar, and the design of the homes and the neighborhoods overall is very “square.” However, I also believe that they are a necessary and hard-to-avoid result of urban sprawl. Because the developers are prompted by ordinances to just meet the minimum requirements, subdivisions are more efficient and cost-effective to develop.
3. Do you live in or near a subdivision? What about the author’s viewpoints are true or false, in your view (how is this article relevant to what you know?)
I do live in a subdivision, but the author’s viewpoints do not really apply to my neighborhood. Although the houses in my neighborhood are pretty evenly spaced out, their designs/styles (and, in turn, colors, sizes, etc.) are all quite different. However, this may be because my neighborhood is relatively new, having been developed only 13 or 14 years ago. Personally, I would not like living in a neighborhood where all of the houses look the same. I think that this gives the area a generic, almost sterile feel. It is much more attractive and appealing when the houses in a neighborhood are different and unique.
No comments:
Post a Comment