At that point you may as well just have an apartment complex with a park. Single family homes for the sake of it at the very edge of praticality. This is the last dieing breath of a failing model of housing
Gardening, owning a workshop, are two hobbies which are pretty much impossible in apartment complexes (as are many other things which are deal-breakers to anyone with enough income to have an opinion on the matter). However to think it's either "apartment complex" or "detached house with five parking spots and a grass monoculture" is a false dichotomy. A terraced house with 3 stories and a basement used to be the standard for the working class where I live, and it is a huge shame they went out of fashion.
Row housing sits halfway between apartment buildings and detached houses, density-wise. Maybe much closer to apartments if you're comparing against low-rises with ample green space.
This is obviously the niche that the trend in the article tries to fill, while failing hard due to zoning laws forbidding terraced housing despite the fact that the exact same lots would immediately double the livable space at almost zero cost (besides a few grand in fireproof and soundproof materials I guess).
Why are they still detached? So much wasted space here.
Nad might aswell build up, 3 stories, shops at the bottom and apartments up top.
Oh wait, thats illegal in most areas of the US.. good ol Freedumb
They are doing this in the US currently. The problem here is that corp America has fucked us all so hard that when buying a house you're not just competing with people more well off than you but companies with bottomless pockets.
so you either live far from where you work or have to live up your neighbors ass in one of these type of buildings whose units aren't any more affordable. Not everyone wants that despite your insistence that AmErIcAn FrEeDuMb is to blame.
I would have loved one of these as a young single guy. Far better than a similarly sized studio apartment that doesn't gain me any equity. The real estate market has been pushing people to buy more than they need (and more than they can afford) for years. I assume these are on concrete slabs, but if they had a full basement it would be plenty of space.
We have done 399 and it was just fine. Even had a portable washer that we pulled out of the closet every Sunday. People tend to overestimate how much space they really need, probably because their furniture is gigantic.
People are framing this like its a dystopian nightmare. The fact is that you SHOULD be able to buy a small 2 bedroom something when you're young. It doesnt need to be huge or glamorous.
Seriously. Housing supply is not the issue despite what the media wants to scream at you. The issue is the vast majority of new developments are massive McMansions that the average person has absolutely no hope of ever affording. The concept of a starter home is basically dead.
I recently finally got it through my family's skull that, no, I can't just go build a garage and slowly build onto it as I can afford like my great-grandparents dide. That starter homes are essentially nonexistent, and that a fairly large portion of those that do are being bought up and demolished to be turned into McMansions.
Ths dystopian part is the cost. When I first opened article I was like ok if these are under 50k maybe it makes sense
He paid $145,000
145k in the paradise known as San Antonio Texas....
Unless family is keeping him there I don't understand. Even if family was the reason I'd still expand my search to an hour or 3 away before I bought that.
Just 90 minutes out gets you a nicely built brick house in Beeville with a 2 car attached garage on a corner lot with a fenced in yard so your dog can run around.
I kinda echo the comments, just build apartments with really good soundproofing. Give everyone their own little yard and have a nice community garden. Add a restaurant or real bakery to the ground floor. Have a grocery store a block away.
Smaller, absolutely, but are you able to visualize what 400 ft² looks like? Because I've lived in an apartment that was a little under 500 ft² and it was not enough for two people to live in anything like comfort.
I lived in a 400-something square foot apartment with my girlfriend for a few years, and we were comfortable. We of course wanted more space, but we were comfortable.
Most people require at least a modicum of privacy occasionally. In fact, even extroverts require that. It's just not healthy to basically always be in the same tiny room with your partner.
Also, I'm guessing neither of you had any sort of IBD. Because you really want a little space with that.
The bathroom had a door that closed, and when things were gonna be especially noisy we asked the other person to put on headphones. But the reality is that regardless of living space size, most people in long term relationships hear plenty of body noises from their partner and are generally fine with it.
Yeah, but good luck if you both need to use the bathroom at the same time. 400 ft² is not enough for more than one person unless you are destitute with no other choice.
The secret is to leave the house without your partner regularly. Each person should have their own social life so the other gets their alone time to recharge. Even things like going to the grocery store, walking the dog, or staying late at work helps in this scenario.
I wasn't suggesting that you purposely stay late at work to avoid your partner. I'm saying that it's something that realistically happens.
There's also the gym, hobby shops, whatever you enjoy doing outside of the house. Staying attached to your partner at the hip is a horrible habit for long-term success.
We were just fine. In fact it took us time to adjust to a new place because we were used to being able to speak casually from any party to any other part of the house.
At least where I'm from, the owners are told in advance when I spectors are coming.
Like, there was a turkey processing plant in my hometown. Everyone knew they broke multiple labor laws, but they never got caught, because they always got a heads up days in advance. Anyone not legally able to work, just didn't work that day.
Inspectors show up to a half empty plant, say everything is fine
I admit I only read about half of it, but I don't think the second half could convince me why anyone would ever think this concept works.
If you teach children to guess based on the pictures, they are not reading - that much should be obvious. I'm confused how they would even start to read anything without pictures. You cannot guess based on the context if you cannot read deep enough to establish one, even worse your context could be wrong.
However, the worst advice is to skip words. You're not learning new words if you skip anything you don't know already.
The article only hints at this in the end, but there's a lot of money to be made in selling learning material to schools.
My opinion: While the origins of the "three cueing" method may have been well intentioned I'm guessing lobbying and kickbacks are what's keeping it in schools, not it's effectiveness.
While the origins of the “three cueing” method may have been well intentioned I’m guessing lobbying and kickbacks are what’s keeping it in schools, not it’s effectiveness.
There is also the fact that the resistance to classic phonics in the USA developed as an anti-Bush stance during the 2000s. People thought they were taking a progressive stance against his family's conservative ideas about reading by adopting the cueing methods.
Turns out his family's passionate attack against cueing was actually completely justified even by the science of the time, let alone what we know now.
Bush is not a good guy but partisanship has ruined multiple generations of Americans' ability to read, and this cueing bullshit has been leaking into other countries too.
When I asked him what he makes of the cognitive science research, he told me he thinks scientists focus too much on word recognition. He still doesn't believe accurate word recognition is necessary for reading comprehension.
"Word recognition is a preoccupation," he said. "I don't teach word recognition. I teach people to make sense of language. And learning the words is incidental to that."
He brought up the example of a child who comes to the word "horse" and says "pony" instead. His argument is that a child will still understand the meaning of the story because horse and pony are the same concept.
I pressed him on this. First of all, a pony isn't the same thing as a horse. Second, don't you want to make sure that when a child is learning to read, he understands that /p/ /o/ /n/ /y/ says "pony"? And different letters say "horse"?
He dismissed my question.
"The purpose is not to learn words," he said. "The purpose is to make sense."
Cognitive scientists don't dispute that the purpose of reading is to make sense of the text. But the question is: How can you understand what you are reading if you can't accurately read the words? And if quick and accurate word recognition is the hallmark of being a skilled reader, how does a little kid get there?
Goodman rejected the idea that you can make a distinction between skilled readers and unskilled readers; he doesn't like the value judgment that implies. He said dyslexia does not exist — despite lots of evidence that it does. And he said the three-cueing theory is based on years of observational research. In his view, three cueing is perfectly valid, drawn from a different kind of evidence than what scientists collect in their labs.
"My science is different," Goodman said.
This idea that there are different kinds of evidence that lead to different conclusions about how reading works is one reason people continue to disagree about how children should be taught to read. It's important for educators to understand that three cueing is based on theory and observational research and that there's decades of scientific evidence from labs all over the world that converges on a very different idea about skilled reading.
Exactly what happened here. I’m not a big bowling fan and don’t go very often, but Bowlero bought up every spot in town and hiked up the prices. Shocked me last time I went and definitely turned me off the idea of going again.
Amazing story. And the conflicts among 3M 's own scientists--the need to know, but not know, and what that means for the people doing the work, how it just breaks them and spits them out. This is obviously not limited to a few bad companies--it is baked into the corporate landscape. It is a big reason young people are not excited about "growing" our sick economy. What's in it for people? Poison and humiliation and kill your own values so Grandpa can retire.
Excellent Reads
Top