I often see photographs of small European towns that can be seen off of popular train lines that are a strip of aesthetic, historical homes, sometimes with a well-manicured stream, creek, or river running through, often with a luscious, green field of crops and gorgeous mountains in the background. It's easy to daydream of life here and grow jealous of the folk living here.
...but then I think about how life must actually be like in these areas. I suspect that anything they may want to do has to go through a rigorous approval process. You cannot modify your home even in the slightest without approval, and that will only be granted within strict guidelines. You can't throw up a chicken coup in a bid to be self-sufficient. You can't pop into the gorgeous creek for a swim or hunt for wildlife. You better not leave your bin out for an extra day after pickup. Essentially I've concluded that living in these towns must be like living with an HoA on steroids. What is the point of living within beauty if it comes at the cost of your freedom?
My question for you guys... is this type of aesthetic town even remotely possible without heavy-handed regulation that makes it horrible to live in? Additionally, where on the spectrum of freedom to perfection would you want to live?
The Church was usually built by a rich farmer after the missionaries came to convert us barbarians into Christianity, the richer the farm, the bigger and more impressive the Church was, high towers was status and they all have large bells which they ring frequently to call to prayer a trend that continues to this day.
With the church and growing farms workers was needed and so came the church village which are usually not very organized at all, people settled down here and there and roads were built later, but everyone wanted to live close to church and small gardens was normal as people worked on the farm fields and needed the land for farming.
Few hundred years later in medieval times came the castles. Castles were usually built according to a master plan, usually a circle with all roads leading to the castle, his is were the original grid design comes from, but in European cities it's more of a circular grid. Modern day city governments simply expand on this layout without breaking it.
Large cities have grown together with neighboring cities which increases land value and forces new buildings to become a few stories taller, now here's the first major difference. In jew york for instance, they have an average height regulation, this of course (((they))) cheat by buying up a lot of land only to build low 1 story buildings or surface parking. In turn that allows (((them))) to built one skyscraper which is a lot taller than all other buildings.
European cities has no such (((regulation))), instead the entire city grows in height slowly, but no building grows much taller than any other, in most cases. There's always approval involved and if you're gonna build something in downtown Paris for instance, the look and size of the building is very limited as it has to match the style of all other nearby buildings. In smaller towns this of course is less important and you'll have much more freedom in terms of what you can build.
Another important detail is the city limits once again, because the cities are small to the surface they don't sprawl. By the edge you can literally have 2-3 story apartment buildings, then instantly forest or farm fields.
There's no minimum parking requirements, zoning laws are much more flexible and allow mixed use for instance were you have a small business on the bottom floor and apartments above in the same building, assuming the business isn't of the disturbing type. You have more freedom to run a business in your own home and apartments can be converted into small businesses for office purpose or similar.
The road and street layout are all managed by the city. This I think is a very important thing as well. Because the city will design a road network that is a lot more connected, no cul-de-sacks, but also no pass through traffic, yet walk and bike paths connecting everything. Kind of like a master plan, lot's are then sold and developers build on those lots.
From what I understand in the US a developer buys an entire superblock, then lay out the roads in a way that allows them to squeeze in as many houses as possible, this usually means a maze of very small lots, only single family homes, no businesses or offices and just one connection to a main stroad which means you can only leave that prison by car.
Due to higher land value, we also don't have much abandoned property, old buildings are either repurposed or demolished. No big box stores near the city center just sitting there abandoned to rot.
Ironically I think the reason European towns and cities look like they do is all thanks to less regulations, and individual local approvals for building designs rather than federal regulations, we also use locally sourced materials, which gives each town a more unique look and feel, a nice detail and looks a lot better than schlomos drywall INC.
Right to roam protects all the old paths, ensuring that no fucktard kike can buy land and fence it off just to restrict access to the nature. Private land that isn't used for anything that generates profit or part of a home zone is available to everyone, for hiking. There's rules in place, no cars, no trash left behind, no fires and so on. Follow them and you can hike, pick berries and mushrooms, camp overnight and some more. And the landowner can relax because if some fucktard kike goes out in the forest and gets molested by a bear, it's the governments problem, schlomo can't sue you for getting injured on your land.
This became a longer post than expected, but it's an interesting topic and lot's to discuss. :)
>Right to roam
This is something I wish the United States had. I don't know for sure how it is implemented in Europe, but how I'd wish it were in the United States is that you have the right to a 20-50 ft. easement for pedestrians between every single property along the property lines, even if you did not own the property. Except in those areas where the average property is *huge* (in those areas, perhaps an easement every 1,000 feet), this would provide a way for people to explore and maneuver without being among cars on set paths, without severely infringing on private property or people's privacy on their land. This will also ensure no property gets fully landlocked and generally encourage moving around on foot as opposed to car.
Additionally, I think the entire country needs better mixed-use paths that allow ATVs. This is something Europe is notoriously *horrible* at, but America is frankly not much better. It is odd because so many people in America own four-wheelers, off-road trucks, jeeps, and side-by-sides, but there is truly very little you can do with them. You can put around on your own land, trailer them to an ATV park and ride the same trails again and again, or trailer them to a state/area that has more lenient rules to allow for riding on the road, forestry roads which allow ATV traffic, and/or an extensive trail system. Wouldn't it be nice if every state had an extensive trail system and the ability to ride ATVs on berms (so you can get to the trail), such that you could take your ATV, Jeep, dirt-bike, mountain bike, or even hike from your house to some shops and restaurants?
Of course, one of the limiting factors with this is our population. We *are* overpopulated, and this necessitates regulation and limits what is allowed. It is not coincidence that those areas with the most extensive free-use trails are also those with the lowest population. People can say "we have room" all they want, but we don't have enough room to have all these people *and* freedom at the same time; which means we *don't* have enough room. With this many people, things like paved highways with strict vehicle regulations and constant monitoring are required. With this many people, things like hunting/fishing limits are required. With this many people, things like building codes are required. With less dense populations, all of this is unnecessary. You have real freedom.