My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-7-14-PC
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2010-2019
>
PC Packets 2014
>
05-7-14-PC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/9/2015 3:33:34 PM
Creation date
9/22/2014 3:21:56 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
192
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Growing Closer 1 <br />monotony Many examples of “bad” density arise from <br />the “stack ’em and pack ’em” approach to housing design, <br />which is tempting to developers in our age of mass produc- <br />tion. This option has been available since the 1940s, when <br />William Levitt built 17,000 homes seemingly overnight on a <br />Long Island potato field. Applying factory techniques to on- <br />site construction and working at a large scale, his development <br />company created an instant suburb of affordable homes, which <br />sold quickly to first-time homebuyers. Levitt’s strategy relied <br />on speed and standardization. He offered only one model—a <br />30-by-20-foot Cape Cod–style house—that stood in a uni- <br />form location on a standardized lot. By eliminating variety and <br />employing an assembly-line construction method, Levitt pro- <br />duced thousands of homes in record time. Levittown became <br />a model for the successful mass production of housing. It also <br />became an icon of 1950s uniformity. <br />While large-scale standardization brings down the cost of <br />construction and makes housing more affordable, it also breeds <br />monotony. When the same building form is repeated relent- <br />lessly across a broad area, it provokes a response that there are <br />“too many” structures, regardless of the actual number. Density <br />is perceived to be greater than it is. <br />All too often, the term “density” evokes an image of repeti- <br />tive, featureless housing developments with little greenery and <br />no privacy. Some dense neighborhoods are bleak, but it’s not <br />a function of how many housing units are built on each acre. <br />Crowding and monotony are the consequences of poor design, <br />not the inevitable results of density. <br />how we Can Love denSiT y <br />If the next 25 years are like the past quarter-century, we will <br />continue to spread ourselves thin across a diminishing land- <br />scape. If our fear of density persists and we build the next 60 <br />million housing units at 3 to 5 units per acre, the costs will be <br />huge. To maintain the low-density lifestyle in this new era <br /> <br />■ <br />1-30AX1801 <br />Top and bottom: Las Vegas, Nevada <br />Opposite: Chicago, Illinois <br />1-30AX1801 <br />050309-0186
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.