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?
Why do you use abbreviations? Who the fuck should know what it means? Americans maybe? Is this referring to nigger housing programs?
> 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?
See, disconnect yourself from the idea that having freedom leads to chaotic mess of ugliness. This is what jews like to do, but intentionally. They place literal ugliness into the view just to ruin it, and call it art (Brutalism).
The reason there are villages/cities in Europe that have a homogeneous style is because the same people built the things, the materials available were the same, and/or people simply imitated the style because it is a proven concept or cheap at that time. Regulations may reinforce that, but I don't think they are the foundation for it.
To deviate from the style of others is also a decision. In Hungary for example it is quite common to have similar styles. For one, concrete is used for the walls, buildings are white, and the roof is red. Rarely a roof is different, even more rarely the wall is not white. Often there are houses that have a similar amount of spacing in between - for example there are areas where you only have a tight corridor of open space (property outside the building), and the buildings are all shaped orthogonally to the street.
In cities often you have buildings that close off the entry, so that you have inner courtyards. Why not do it differently? Well, actually there are quite some places that do it differently, like having vast areas with large living spaces with parks and trees in between.
So there is a tendency to imitate the style of those surrounding you. This vehement "going against the stream" that ruins the local style is uncommon.
Americans. It's a commonly used term here, but it makes sense that it's not a term everywhere. You can't blame me for using a regional term. Anyway, it's short for "homeowner's association."
Essentially, in America, a wealthy developer will buy a large plot of empty land and build a bunch of houses on it, including building the roads and sometimes other amenities (like a community pool). This is how most "subdivisions" come about, which are characterized by very similar looking houses, all moderately manicured and soulless. Once built, the developer begins selling the houses to prospective homeowners. However, they typically set up an HoA (homeowner's association) and require anyone who purchases the home to sign into it. The contract then prevents the home from being sold unless the next buyer also signs into the HoA, and so on.
Since these associations are based on contract law, they have far more leeway to enforce rules that local governments cannot. The HoA is set up in such a way in the contract that essentially runs it like a small government, so the residents can vote to abolish it if they so desire or change the rules (although, for some time, the developer owns enough of the properties themselves to have the controlling vote.)
In practice, what you often end up with is one or two busy-body neighbors (usually stay-at-home wives to working husbands) who make it their entire life to go around enforcing petty offenses. These associations would prevent such things as painting your garage door purple or leaving garbage on your front lawn or not cutting your grass... but they can also be more pestering and prevent things like putting up a new mailbox without approval or parking a car in your driveway (rather than your garage) for longer than a few hours. Every HoA is different.
But I don't want to portray this wrong. A lot of people *prefer* to live in an HoA because they prevent their neighbors from trashing the place. A lot of people view them as a necessary evil. Ultimately, while I wouldn't live anywhere with an HoA, I do see the appeal and I think they are the least offensive form of governance (because they are truly voluntary; you chose to move into that neighborhood, and are hyper-local; you can literally make a difference by getting involved).