It reminds me a bit of the Daybreak[1] privately built master planned community in Utah build by a mining company. Not sure how well it's coming along, but seems like they wanted everything to be walkable and pleasant.
My sister lived in Daybreak, and one time I came to visit and ended up a half block shifted from her place. The house looked identical and I almost let myself into some random strangers house. I decided to knock at the last second and was quite surprised when a stranger answered.
It felt a little creepy, things were just a little too uniform.
I think in general, people seem to prefer character...at least some do. This is why people are so anti-sprawl, not just because of pollution and unwalkable-ness, etc, but because they lack character.
Even if you had a perfect, walkable, sustainable, 22nd century community with chi and all that, if it seems like Commune 2A, people won't be as crazy about it as say, a flat in NYC or a cobblestone street in Europe. Not that everyone can afford such places (I can't), but something near a sense of place probably is 80% of people's desires.
There is a famous romantic comedy from the Soviet Union (I forget the name) based in this premise- a drunk guy gets off an airplane in the wrong city, goes to "his" apartment (identical) and his key even fits the door so he enters. It turns out to be a woman's apartment and hijinks ensue
As noted in the article, we engineers love to plan solutions to problems but in reality people like randomness, cities that grew over time, and the illusion of choice
From the pictures, it's not my kind of town either --but to be fair, lots of tract housing is very uniform with slight color variation, sometimes.
I think they could have used some "reinterpretation" of Victorian, cape, colonial, etc... rather than replicate en-masse. But, like I said, lots of places are cookie cutter developments; it's not unique in that way.
That's pretty cool, didn't know about it. Thanks. I thought it was interesting that their sales went up in a down housing market. That seems like a pretty clear mark of quality.
The source for 1/5 is the original wiki article[1], which also includes this gem:
"
On October 1, 2005, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced the construction of the Oquirrh Mountain Utah Temple, which was built in a prominent ___location in the Daybreak development. Ground was broken for the temple on December 16, 2006, and the temple was dedicated on August 23, 2009.
"
If the fact that a temple was built in a prominent ___location in the community doesn't convince you there was a push/bias from the church I don't know what would. Certainly more evidence than "must be quality".
That doesn't entirely characterize the whole story. First off, people should realize there are 4 LDS Temples (3 running, 1 being renovated) in the Salt Lake Valley. There are even more within a short drives distance (including two in Provo, UT, within walking distance of each other!). There is no shortage of Temples around Utah. Where there are large populations of similarly minded individuals, you will give them the amenities they want (and Mormon's want Temples).
Second, while only active members of the LDS Church in good standing can attend the Temple, anyone who can attend the Temple may attend any Temple within the Church at any time and for any reason. The Oquirrh Mountain Utah Temple is not exclusive to Daybreak.
Finally, Temples are split into "Temple Districts" which is where most of the volunteers for running a Temple are selected from. The Oquirrh Mountain Temple District runs from Magna and the Salt Lake City International Airport in the North to Herriman and Bluffdale in the South. Daybreak is a tiny dot on that map. It serves a lot of people outside of Daybreak and is anything but exclusive.
Now, I can safely say I don't believe that people move to Daybreak because of quality but they also don't move there because the Church endorsed it. They move there because of good, old fashioned, marketing. Daybreak has huge signs all over the place offering "affording living with amazing amenities". They send out mailers and even people door to door inviting whole neighborhoods to come to open houses, have a BBQ in Daybreak, enjoy the lake and pools, shopping, and entertainment. It's all very enticing. But that's all it is, marketing.
The LDS Church builds temples in an area _after_ there is a large enough group of members in the surrounding area to ensure the temple will get used.
There are very specific numbers used to determine where temples should be built. It is only an endorsement that there were enough nearby members to justify building one, not that members should move there.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daybreak_(community)