I don’t think suburbs should exist because they take up so much more land than they should – it’s not efficient. I think right past the edge of a city there should be nothing but nature. When new residents move in they can move right into condos , apartments , and houses being built at the edge of the city.
I definately approve of small towns existing , nothing wrong with those at all but it should be hours from any city to ensure that it won’t become a suburb.
Suburbs should all be destroyed and patched up with nature. The cities themselves should maintain high density, and *get* density if it doesn’t have any. But with places like Atlanta and Houston none of this would be possible.
Zippity is that so explain further – the input from your fingers can’t back anything up.
Three cheers for NATURE!
I couldn’t agree more. It wouldn’t be so bad, except that forests are being demolished so that subdivisions can be built to sit vacant for a year. If we keep going at this speed, there won’t be much left. Even Alaska, our "last frontier" is getting Wal-Marts on every corner. Sick.
References :
Hmm….I live in a small town of about 800 people, and it doesn’t seem to be growing, thank God.
In fact, they built a subdivison down the road from me, and nobody has built a house in it yet, and it’s been there since 2006!
References :
I’d have to agree with you there, all that space that should be diverse ecosystems taken up by just grass and houses half the size of apartment complexes with maybe 4 people living in them…personally I think it should be public land for EVERYONE to enjoy. Call me a radical, I don’t care. Oh, and don’t even get me started about golf courses.
References :
Three cheers for NATURE!
References :
i dont agree. suburbs are perfect, not big city, and not farms.
and do you know how much space a house has?
i would NeverEver live in an apartment.
and dont hate on atlanta, i live around that area, and if you came here, you would get your ass kicked- a lot.
References :
sure does
nature is life
References :