Yawn. This has been the case forever as different construction methods and architectural styles come and go. With a small bit of architectural education you can walk around just about any city and guess the decade any building was built at a glance… or the century if we’re taking pre-industrial era.
The subhead, does it matter given the housing shortage, can be answered in a word: no.
I assume they are talking about all this mid rise mixed use stuff. In general I like it. It’s no more bland than single occupant suburban development or ultramodern or brutalist high rises.
Preach. Walking through any new subdivision in the burbs or more rural areas is so depressing. Cheap, cookie cutter houses squeezed on top of each other as far as the eye can see. At least there's a big push to make most of these mid-rise developments mixed use, making the area more dense and walkable. The benefits out weigh the cons.
Definitely a language bamboozle, but the author has a point: in a residential-only subdivision, dense houses feel "squeezed in" to a lot size for no real purpose. If you can't walk to anything other than identical houses, why locate them that close? Only justification I can imagine is "to make the developers more money on the same lot size."
Of course, I'm no fan of ultradense living. But in cities that have lots of businesses, parks, public transit stations, etc to walk to, density is a huge win, and the author uses the positive term to convey that.
Essentially the same trait is positive in one context but negative in another. Consider cakes and apples. Everyone wants a juicy apple. Nobody wants a soggy cake.
In this respect, I don't mean "density" as strictly spacial. The subdivisions I'm referring to stretch on for blocks with no businesses or services mixed in. Typically they're zoned strictly residential. No corner stores, transit, restaurants, coffee shops, etc. And this means people have to rely on cars to go do simple things like grocery shop or socialize outside the home.
There's quite a bit of research and discussion on the value of walkable communities if you're interested in learning more. Maybe you disagree, but I believe the kind of "density" created by mixed 5-over-1s is better for people and their communities than mile long cookie cutter subdivisions.
Glad I wasn’t the only one who noticed that nifty little PC language trick they employed.
As someone who has lived in both “squeezed on top of” and “more dense”, I’ll take the “squeezed on top of” over the “more dense” any day of the week. However my preference is “no one else living within a mile in all directions”.
A lot of folks who seek to minimise noise and even visibility of neighbors would consider subdivision side yards "squeezed" compared to rural single-family homes. The "squeezing" refers to the entire lot, not just the house.
The subhead, does it matter given the housing shortage, can be answered in a word: no.