The main issues with them is that they are don't create much community, with their lifeless corridors and alienating common areas, and that the ground-floor retail tends to be (apparently) reserved for overpriced retail chains that come and go every few years, presumably because they charge high rents for large spaces. They also tend to not have balcony space for people to decorate so from outside they look completely un-personalized.
If they were less soulsuckingly lifeless nobody would mind them. Also as a result of their soulsuckingness it's hard to imagine treating one as a long-term home, which compounds because they're more soulsucking due to having nobody people treating them as long-term homes. Also they are usually not for sale as condos either so that's another reason they don't feel like long-term homes. (Nor are they able to personalize them significantly).
Some of that blame can be laid at the feet of north american two staircase fire code requirements.
Rules that all units need 2 different staircases really dictate the sort of layout that is physically possible, nearly always resulting in a long central hallway with stairs at either end that feels very impersonal. The resulting units are also not great places to live, with windows on a single wall. Every bedroom needs an egress window, so building 3+ bedroom units almost never pencils out. It's all 1-2 bedroom 'starter' apartments, rather than the types of beautiful 'for life' apartments you'd see in pre-war new york buildings.
Since the staircases are required no matter what, developers are incentivized to stretch the horizontal distance between them as far as possible to amortize the space penalty of the stairs, making the building feel even more impersonal once inside.
If single stairs plus a sprinkler or other fire suppression was allowed multifamily buildings could be set on much smaller lots, with more corner units that have windows on 2 sides or even small, skinny apartments with half or the full floor dedicated to 3-4 bedroom units. The interiors would have far more light and the buildings would be much more human-scale, all contributing to things feeling a lot more personal. There could also be a lot more green space and gathering space scattered in smaller parcels, breaking up the hulking 5+1s we have all become used to.
A bit, yes, but most of the community problems can be solved without changing that. The community problems are due to the way they're run: basically, owned by profit-maximizing hedge funds.
> The main issues with them is that they are don't create much community, with their lifeless corridors and alienating common areas
What I noticed with development patterns when I lived in Munich, is that there were a LOT more "pedestrian plaza" type areas scattered throughout the city compared to US cities.
I think that's what's needed, is any given neighborhood having at least a few plaza areas with some open space, some benches, a fountain, etc.
I'm not sure the culture in the US would lend itself that way.
Parks and public commons areas tend to become the dumping ground for unsolved social issues. Those who've fallen through society's cracks. Those who would abuse the ability to interact with others to interact in uncouth ways. Issues of space size and use density. Even during the height of Pokemon Go when (mostly) nerds were incentivized to visit city parks the mostly polite use was frowned upon as an unwanted crowd interfering with those who'd traditionally use the same public space.
Then there's the more 'accepted' version of gatherings in cities: paying various retail places for the privilege of being there, usually at a markup that reflects the value of being in such a dense area.
Fixing both of those problems, and any others I didn't mention, will take political will and a shift in culture. Programs to connect the unfortunate with the social integration or support help they need, and measures to combat rent-seeking (laws and tax biases) seem like a distant pipe dream.
That same 95% might have less than a thousand homeless people total and theres just too much park acreage for the few who might loiter there to ever dominate a park. Its a non issue. People go to the park in places I lived that are large and small. By and large the few homeless people who congregate in parks very much don’t want to cause a big nuisance and a police visit and keep to themselves.
In my experience parks in suburban areas tend to be reserved for sports facilities (baseball, tennis, etc) and playgrounds. They’re not usually nice places to hang out.
I went to this park two weeks ago, because it is one of very (very) few that performs ancient Greek drama in mask every year. This is quite a rare thing.
When you have a lot of them it creates community. There will be more demand for specific types of shops and businesses, more space for parks, and more pedestrians so generally safer.
A big fat citation needed on all of this. It’s all just your personal opinion and you make a lot of assumptions about all these developments lumping them all together as if they’re 100% identical.
You really think none of these 5-over-1 buildings have community amenities like gyms, pools, coworking spaces, party rooms, and other features like that?
I think the truth is that there’s such a deeply ingrained hatred for multi-family buildings in the United States that buildings like this are held to impossible standards, and that’s what you’re doing here.
You could accuse almost any McMansion sub-development of every sin you’ve listed besides having hallways - which is kind of a hilarious accusation to make, that hallways impede communities. Tell me, which McMansion development forces you to walk by your neighbor like a hallway does? It’s really the opposite, you can leave your McMansion home without even stepping food outside your private property - garage to car to road to Starbucks drive thru. No need to get out of your car or interact with anyone.
And the idea that all these developments only have overpriced retail is not only laughable but it still beats out McMansion developments for having zero retail of any kind. But again we are holding multi-family developments to higher standards than single family homes that are so lovingly adored.
They have amenities but they are often reserved for the people who actually hold a lease vs the community, unless that amenity is renting one of the public facing retail units. In contrast seems like there are more public/municipal improvements brought in when bog standard suburbia is built by developers instead, where a developer might have to also build public parks and roads and schools.
Since when do suburban subdivision developers build public parks and schools? I have never heard of a single family housing development that did that. They may build roads and then turn over the more expensive long-term maintenance over to the town.
What’s wrong with multi-unit buildings that have private amenities? Do you let people into your yard to use your swing set and pool? Aren’t there a lot of single family home communities not have private HOA amenities too?
Once again a higher standard is being applied to multi-family homes because of how much Americans are conditioned to hate them. Anything a multi-family building does is sinful but the God-fearing single family home’s private amenities are sacred freedom-loving private property.
of course it's my personal opinion, it's a post on the internet. But it's pretty obviously true also. So obvious, if you live around them, that IMO the onus for proof is on the person finding something good to say about them.
> You really think none of these 5-over-1 buildings have community amenities like gyms, pools, coworking spaces, party rooms, and other features like that?
of course I don't. they have those and suck anyway.
> And the idea that all these developments only have overpriced retail is not only laughable but it still beats out McMansion developments for having zero retail of any kind. But again we are holding multi-family developments to higher standards than single family homes that are so lovingly adored.
yeah, McMansions are worse. If only there were other options besides those two. Oh wait there are tons. Like "all of Europe".
My proof is "I have lived places that didn't suck and it's pretty clear what the differences are". Anyone who has also lived somewhere that didn't suck will also see the difference pretty clearly.
The best cities in Europe are primarily built in the exact same housing configuration as 5-over-1s.
The quintessential Parisian walk up building is basically a 5-over-1.
The only difference is that America has their 5-over-1s built in the middle of heavily car-centric infrastructure, and that America has a majority single family home population that fights against the very idea of multi-unit buildings.
That was almost exactly my point, that American 5-over-1s are bad not because they're 5-over-1s but because they're done badly. But it's more than just the car-centricness. It's all the other Americanisms as well.
I think this vague idea of them being bad because of various Americanisms is just really "America bad."
I will go through each one of your complaints and point out how they aren't really unique to America in any way and can be applied to a lot of places with celebrated urbanism.
> with their lifeless corridors and alienating common areas
The only corridor I saw in the Danish walk up apartment I stayed in was an alarmingly steep staircase. I'll take a lifeless ADA-compliant corridor over that any day. Half of the stairs I took in Tokyo were basically outside the building which kind of sucked when it was hot and humid.
> and that the ground-floor retail tends to be (apparently) reserved for overpriced retail chains that come and go every few years, presumably because they charge high rents for large spaces.
Do a Google Maps search for "McDonald's in Paris, France." Wouldn't you know it, McDonald's is in the high-rent central districts of Paris. It's almost as if urban central cities are desirable to live in and command high rents!
> They also tend to not have balcony space for people to decorate so from outside they look completely un-personalized.
Do a street view anywhere in central Paris and there are a bunch of balconies but nobody has decorated them at all. A balcony is not a plus for many people: if you have small kids and pets they can be more of a liability.
> If they were less soulsuckingly lifeless nobody would mind them.
The sameness in architectural design is cool when it comes to Tokyo, East Berlin, Scandinavian minimalism and modernism, Philadelphia's historic row homes, Victorian housing across America, architects like Mies Van Der Rohe, but it's not cool in 5-over-1 in North Carolina. Basically, sameness is everywhere, but you're criticizing it in one application in an arbitrary way.
> Also as a result of their soulsuckingness it's hard to imagine treating one as a long-term home, which compounds because they're more soulsucking due to having nobody people treating them as long-term homes.
Countries with lower home ownership rates than the USA: Sweden, France, New Zealand, UK, South Korea, Denmark, Austria, Germany, Switzerland. Your personal opinion is that renters don't treat their rentals like they are home, but that's an example of derogatory classism if you ask me.
> Also they are usually not for sale as condos either so that's another reason they don't feel like long-term homes. (Nor are they able to personalize them significantly).
If they were less soulsuckingly lifeless nobody would mind them. Also as a result of their soulsuckingness it's hard to imagine treating one as a long-term home, which compounds because they're more soulsucking due to having nobody people treating them as long-term homes. Also they are usually not for sale as condos either so that's another reason they don't feel like long-term homes. (Nor are they able to personalize them significantly).