Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila
I think Europe does much better at providing "intermediate" suburban options that offer more safe/private open space but a more social environment. Smaller houses, either attached or detached, can be clustered around shared courtyards - everyone gets a private small yard or terrace but the whole thing is pretty park like.
In the US these kinds of developments pretty much came to an end with Radburn and Greenbelt in the 1930s... people in power believed these kinds of communities were too socialist since they had actual shared amenities. They wanted every man to have a castle instead, so they wouldn't be tempted to engage in society and do annoying things like "joining unions" or "agitating for basic rights".
The US does have (some) New Urbanist communities which offer more public space, but they are rooted in a weird nostalgic conservatism and exemplify a kind of nosy, rigid, superficial way of life. Other suburban development styles (e.g. Prairie Crossing outside Chicago) offer common open space, but the lot size/density is too low for socialization. Or they have small houses (more common in the Southwest due to water scarcity) but no common open space.
|
Like I said, the neighborhood where I grew up was very typical of post-war suburbia. Each house sat on its own lot but very few homeowners fenced their lots, especially the front yards (my family fenced the back because we had 2 dogs and wanted to be able to let them out without letting them run totally free) so we kids basically had the entire neighborhood as an outdoor play space. And even when the back yards were fenced, it was typically chest high fencing that allowed people to talk over the fence which they often did.
We had some Democrats but no socialists I recall. The family 2 doors down were unionists but they were unusual.
I think words like wierd, nosy, rigid and superficial simply don't apply and you really have no clue what life in those times and places was like.