Quote Originally Posted by kfergos View Post
It's not the housing development per se -- it's the way 99.9% of new housing developments in New England are built:

1. Cut down all the trees.
2. Build X number of nearly identical homes not less than 4,000 sq ft.
3. Fill in minuscule yard around said homes with grass (definitely no trees).
4. Repeat ad nauseum.

The older housing developments can be very pleasant, with big shady trees and homes set well back on good-sized lots. If they built new ones like that now, I'd be kind of OK with it. It's the cookie-cutter McMansion developments that have been going in all around this area that I'm afraid will happen here, too, and that's what makes me so sad: Losing something unique to the Wal-Mart of housing.
I agree, but I also think that 99.9% of developments everywhere are awful. The stress that these developments put on local ecosystems and even the infrastructure of communities that approve funding without fully considering the consequences is usually high. I don't really believe that there are vast quantities of people who think "Hey! Let's move to a big ol' tree-less housing development where all the houses look IDENTICAL!" but they end up doing it because that's what's available and the houses are *new* and appear to be less work. I agree that in New England in particular (my home!) space is precious in the metropolitan areas and there are developers circling everywhere trying to make a buck. The majority of developers are not interested in creating sustainable communities, they're looking to make fast cash.