Cookie Cutter Housing

One of the author's most important point in this article is that city ordinances should not be minimum-based, but instead should be reward based. City ordinances provide guidelines to developers, surveyors, engineers, and planners about certain minimum dimensions and area restraints. Ordinances determine things like how far apart houses must be spaced, how far houses must be from streets, and how wide streets must be. The author says that because city ordinances provide minimum requirements, developers will often create designs that meets the standards, and simply reproduce the design over and over again to make a cookie-cutter community. The author also talks about how the way that the system is set up prevents engineers and surveyors from striving for innovation, and also prevents anything from changing. In order to go against the rules, a licensed individual must place his or her reputation on the line. Conflict with a city council is highly feared among these subdivision designers because if the change fails, the designer might not be consulted on future products. Instead of taking this risk, it is much safer to stick to the conventions. One final important point that the author makes in this article is that engineers should think more about the quality of life of the individuals living in the developments that they design. The exact same house design, side by side in a cookie cutter community, is not the best living option. Every community is different, and individuals deserve homes that are designed specifically for their communities.

This article did not really change the way that I think about subdivisions. I feel that subdivisions are very positive factors that are part of the American way. It is difficult to imagine our country without subdivisions. Many years ago, Americans lived primarily in either big cities or in the country. Many people either worked in industrial jobs or were farmers. However, as transportation and road developments made it easier for Americans to get from one place to another, people moved out of cities and established communities in the suburbs. Subdivisions provide a favorable alternative to either living in a large city or living in the middle of nowhere. That being said, I do not think the author of this article is suggesting that we eliminate subdivisions from the United States. Instead, I think he is trying to suggest alternatives that would make subdivisions better places to live. However, since I am not trained in housing and development in the same way that the author is, I do not feel his frustration. I am not particularly bothered by cookie-cutter subdivisions. Of course, it would be nice if every house in every subdivision was different, but this does not seem like the most efficient or cost-friendly option.

I live in a subdivision in a Detroit suburb. In my area, the author's viewpoints are not especially applicable. All of the homes in my subdivision are very different in terms of design, color, and layout. They have a great deal of space in between, and have large yards. Some of the houses are two-stories, while others are ranches. The only time I have every seen a subdivision like the author seems to be describing is in movies, so I have a very difficult time relating to the author's points in this article.