It’s normal in the US too. The person in the post doesn’t have a clue WTF they are talking about. There are mixed use buildings everywhere in the US. Most town squares and new apartment complexes are mixed use.
No, it’s not normal. In almost every US city, the vast majority of housing is single-family homes.
I mean, I get that suburban sprawl is bland and forgettable, but that doesn’t mean you can literally forget it exists when making an argument like that!
It’s not “normal” as in most housing is mixed used. It’s “normal” in that most towns have at least one building that is mixed use. At least county seats that have a courthouse square. It’s certainly not like they are hard to find in the US.
“Not completely unknown, but still relatively rare” is not the usual definition of “normal.”
Let me put it this way: if you saw somebody commuting to work on a unicycle one day, would you then claim that unicycling to work is “normal?” After all, you found “at least one” example of it…
I’ll not engage in an argument over semantics. I don’t care what you qualify as “normal”. Regardless, mixed housing doesn’t seem to me to be significantly rarer here than it is in the UK, and it’s becoming increasingly more common with new developments too. The person I responded to referred to it as “normal” there, and so I used the same term because i think it’s nearly as common here. If you have a problem with that, bite me.
Here’s the context of your example (I had to make a rough guess myself because I couldn’t find a proper zoning map.) Note that I was generous with how much of the town might actually match the land use you claim is so “normal:”
“Bob’s Burgers”-style buildings are almost certainly prohibited by law everywhere that’s not highlighted red. Frankly, they’re probably also prohibited in the areas that are red, and only exist where they’re grandfathered in.
I can say that with confidence because that’s typical of almost every town and city in the entire United States. Places that actually have decent amounts of mixed use, relative to the amounts of single-family houses, are very much the exception.
No, I rejected your point because it was trivial, at best, if not outright wrong.
Sure, there’s usually a little bit of mixed-use housing in most towns, mainly in areas that were built before zoning laws existed, so it isn’t completely unknown to most people. But if that’s what you think counts as “normal,” you’re making the most vacuous argument you could possibly do.
Alternatively, if you agree that “normal” means “constituting a norm” as it usually does – i.e., that it’s usual, or typical, or common – then you are just flat-out wrong because the vast majority of housing in the US is single-family detached houses, not mixed-use.
Come to England! This is normal here!
Also New York. And a lot of places, actually.
You just gave the most famous outlier in the entire country as an example.
It’s normal in the US too. The person in the post doesn’t have a clue WTF they are talking about. There are mixed use buildings everywhere in the US. Most town squares and new apartment complexes are mixed use.
No, it’s not normal. In almost every US city, the vast majority of housing is single-family homes.
I mean, I get that suburban sprawl is bland and forgettable, but that doesn’t mean you can literally forget it exists when making an argument like that!
It’s not “normal” as in most housing is mixed used. It’s “normal” in that most towns have at least one building that is mixed use. At least county seats that have a courthouse square. It’s certainly not like they are hard to find in the US.
An example, here’s a pretty typical square in a small Midwest town surrounded by shops with apartments on top: https://media.istockphoto.com/id/1348819217/photo/aerial-shot-of-small-town-salem-indiana-town-square.jpg?s=612x612&w=is&k=20&c=X3FM9YL2K9CEikXer7pmxC_imF2bx8VE5mMAU8qq_d4%3D
“Not completely unknown, but still relatively rare” is not the usual definition of “normal.”
Let me put it this way: if you saw somebody commuting to work on a unicycle one day, would you then claim that unicycling to work is “normal?” After all, you found “at least one” example of it…
I’ll not engage in an argument over semantics. I don’t care what you qualify as “normal”. Regardless, mixed housing doesn’t seem to me to be significantly rarer here than it is in the UK, and it’s becoming increasingly more common with new developments too. The person I responded to referred to it as “normal” there, and so I used the same term because i think it’s nearly as common here. If you have a problem with that, bite me.
Here’s the context of your example (I had to make a rough guess myself because I couldn’t find a proper zoning map.) Note that I was generous with how much of the town might actually match the land use you claim is so “normal:”
“Bob’s Burgers”-style buildings are almost certainly prohibited by law everywhere that’s not highlighted red. Frankly, they’re probably also prohibited in the areas that are red, and only exist where they’re grandfathered in.
I can say that with confidence because that’s typical of almost every town and city in the entire United States. Places that actually have decent amounts of mixed use, relative to the amounts of single-family houses, are very much the exception.
Fuck me, you’re good at missing the point.
No, I rejected your point because it was trivial, at best, if not outright wrong.
Sure, there’s usually a little bit of mixed-use housing in most towns, mainly in areas that were built before zoning laws existed, so it isn’t completely unknown to most people. But if that’s what you think counts as “normal,” you’re making the most vacuous argument you could possibly do.
Alternatively, if you agree that “normal” means “constituting a norm” as it usually does – i.e., that it’s usual, or typical, or common – then you are just flat-out wrong because the vast majority of housing in the US is single-family detached houses, not mixed-use.