[lliwta]

> I think that making a consistent experience absolutely destroys the unique culture and history of places

To be fair, the unique culture of the place used to be "industrial farming corn field" is most cases. It's not like anyone is tearing down 100 year old neighborhoods to build big boxes to serve suburbs (actually, the suburbs are far more likely to save those places than destroy them).

[pnathan]

> unique culture of the place used to be "industrial farming corn field" is most cases.

Ha, yes. But - thought experiment. What if, instead of another 'burb with winding streets, it started out by defining a downtown core kind of setup: 4-6 story buildings with retail storefronts and apartments above. Put the 'extra' space into a commons area, plus maybe a mini-park possibly with original area flora and fauna. So your 1/4 mile x 1/4 mile place gets a lot more dense and has a lot more to offer within an easy 10-minute walk. Bonus points if you figure out how to build a "tool shed" local workshop to replace the ubiquitous garages. :)

[gangstaplot2]

I would live in something like this happily, but for one thing: I have three large dogs. Without a yard, it's a lot of work, and I'd hate to think I couldn't keep a few dogs around.

[gangstaplot2]

Now that the suburbs people want to move to the city with all of their square footage, they're destroying my 100 year old neighborhood, bulldozing Victorian and Craftsman homes to build zero lot-line homes in their places.

It makes me want to throw up. Every time the council pushes for a Historic Overlay, it turns into a revolt with Tea Party style propaganda.