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).
> 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.