Submitted by dropkickninja t3_zwvgd5 in vermont
xHUCx t1_j1y0kxk wrote
Well theyre building new houses in williston. 100 new single family homes on mt view
VT_Racer t1_j1z7nke wrote
That will be 1/2 million starting price...
xHUCx t1_j1za7so wrote
Theoretically theyll start on "the annex" at some point on 2a. Just past that weird stovepipe and flag store. Idk that looks like a finny type development with mixed housing types:
cohray2212 t1_j1zmj5k wrote
Williston is going for the Soviet era building method of just having a single architect design an apartment complex they build 200 times and an office building they build 200 times.
It looks like a newer version of THIS
xHUCx t1_j1zohqk wrote
I lived at finny for about 5 years. Theyre nice apartments in a nice neighborhood. In guesing you probably havnt walked around there because all of the 5 or so developments there have a unique look and feel.
The bigger problem with them is affordability. For the space they are very expensive
cohray2212 t1_j1zuxe1 wrote
I used to live in Williston, too, for about 15 years. I'm just not used to that level of development so my opinion is probably more cynical. IMO it's closer to Soviet planning than anything historically present in Vermont. Those brick office buildings being built by 89 in Williston are a great example of what I'm talking about. It's the same drab building and Williston has now built it over 20 times. The apartment complexes surrounding Home2 are the same as well. Give Williston 30 years and those apartments will look like THIS
They are hideous but very practical. It's painfully obvious we've lost control of our housing economy and are desperately trying to keep up with demand. Hard not to draw a parallel to Soviet city planning.
No-Ganache7168 t1_j217k38 wrote
Maybe it's a thing in Vermont. Here in Lamoille County it seems the same architect who gets his inspiration from low-budget 1990s motels is designing a lot of the new rental properties. I would imagine it's more affordable to building non-descript box-like buildings than ones with interesting architectural details.
Prohamen t1_j20y5at wrote
yeah that is dope, i like shit like that
KITTYONFYRE t1_j1zkong wrote
sweet, urban sprawl. badass. this is exactly what I think of when I think of vermont
xHUCx t1_j1znnus wrote
It was a tight vote. It almost wasnt approved.
Sprawl sucks but houses are needed. Its at a farm field already abutting development and about a mile from wcs/old williston. I dont if you took a look at the annex and seen finny. They are fairly progressive (and contriversial too). That town planner matt is reasonably forward minded.
KITTYONFYRE t1_j1zxrxx wrote
> houses are needed
no, housing is needed. not sfh. up not out. etc.
Luckcu13 t1_j22phf1 wrote
I agree with you but perfect is the enemy of good.
KITTYONFYRE t1_j2487ln wrote
in this case, "good" is worse than nothing
and I say that as someone in the housing market without somewhere to live, not as someone sitting in my nice single family home that I own.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments