The problem is that "development" in the USA tends to mean converting whatever is there into the same dystopian hellscape of six-lane highways, curb cuts, big-box stores, strip malls and fast food joints. Likewise, "densification" means copy-pasting in those vaguely inauthentic corporate "modern aesthetic" apartment blocks that look exactly the same on every corner of every city, with the highest number of floors the developer could possibly get permission to build.
There's an even worse variant of this in the "upzoning" movement - which in practice simply means taking the existing suburban infrastructure, built around highway strip malls and car dependency, and increasing the number of automobiles by 50%. It's no surprise that "NIMBYs" are against it.
What the USA desperately needs is a widely-accepted (in the professional circles of architecture, RE development, and urban planning) definition of what a "nice place to live" actually looks and feels like, along with rules or principles that are generally followed to achieve it. Thematically the "five minute city" is a good place to start, but the aesthetic aspect tends to be lacking.
Easton, Maryland, is a useful case study. A perfect small town in the model urbanism sense. Always been a moneyed place, but recently turning even more explicitly toward trying to be a place for wealthy people, esp. under the influence of a NYC energy tycoon.
I agree with PRG's comments above. As you know, this development style is baked into modern development in places where there is "pressure" (ie money to be made by big players) for whatever reason, proximity to an amenity (like a ski area) or a small town that is close enough to a big metro area to be desirable. I think this is where the Strong Towns incremental development ideas come in to play and that will be dictated by public policy. Essentially, what you want is a set of regulations that allows smaller but incrementally larger development with low friction. This keeps it from being exclusionary, but keeps the scale human sized and keeps big players out. Some thoughts on how to approach this are: a variety of smaller lot sizes that have MAXIMUMS (and never allowing consolidation), no parking requirements, by right incremental intensity that has no limit on people/families per dwelling, mixed use everywhere, grids of streets etc. From a development pattern standpoint this is all neoclassical, but with checks to keep it from happening a large scales. I think a carefully developed form-based code and regulating plan with these attributes could work well and be pretty easy to administer. Because the lot sizes are small, no wall street financed builder is going to want to touch it.
Another good question: could we have more of these places, rendering the ones we do have less exclusive? The answer to that one is probably in your second question.
What doesn't appear in your post is the phenomenon of truly small towns in middle-America. Your experience is with suburban and exurban VA which deserves careful questioning, of course, but where I grew up in Central PA, you've got small-scale urbanism out the wazoo just waiting to be improved and is also NOT in the cross hairs of rich. For example, Mt. Carmel, PA or my own hometown, Watstontown. So many diamonds in the rough, at least from an architectural point of view. Thanks for your questions.
Middleburg has a certain mystique because it is the de facto heart of the Hunt Country, and because of its mythology - the Kennedys lived at Atoka. Yet it is also a viable and vibrant town, where neighbors meet at the Safeway, attend one of several churches, send their kids to its elementary school or to our nearby middle and high schools (I grew up in a nearby desirable Zip Code in Waterford). Loudoun's small-town residents have tried for decades to welcome new residents who buy homes from developers who profit from proximity to our towns (the variations on the use of "Waterford" in subdivision names is enormous and indicates a lack of reality: "Waterford Manors" is somewhat absurd, given that the village was founded by Quakers in the 1700s and houses are not stately or ornate).
People may move to Loudoun with certain visions of living in the country (learning how to ride and joining a hunt, for instance - horses in recent decades have been cross-bred to accommodate more portly riders upon whom a T-bred would collapse), yet unprepared for the realities of life without cell service or WiFi. Our once-open roads are now congested, and it has taken ongoing effort to save the County's gravel roads from commuting newcomers who lobby for pavement. The rising costs of houses in places like Waterford and Middleburg because of the development around them has driven out our former lower-income neighbors - not desirable to us at all - and has raised property taxes as the County struggles to pay for services and schools for new children (and their vocal parents, who criticize our teachers and curricula).
Plenty of people join community groups and volunteer endeavors and are welcome in both towns - all Western towns. But at this point, it is not really a case of "NIMBY" - Loudoun has no back yard left. And our fight has historically been with the BOS and its refusal to issue zoning and other development restrictions, not with new neighbors.
I gave up on shopping in nearby Leesburg some time ago, because unless you time it properly, traffic on 7 is a nightmare. Instead, with my childhood knowledge of back roads, I prefer the longer drive to the Middleburg Safeway, where I still see a friend or two.
The problem is that "development" in the USA tends to mean converting whatever is there into the same dystopian hellscape of six-lane highways, curb cuts, big-box stores, strip malls and fast food joints. Likewise, "densification" means copy-pasting in those vaguely inauthentic corporate "modern aesthetic" apartment blocks that look exactly the same on every corner of every city, with the highest number of floors the developer could possibly get permission to build.
There's an even worse variant of this in the "upzoning" movement - which in practice simply means taking the existing suburban infrastructure, built around highway strip malls and car dependency, and increasing the number of automobiles by 50%. It's no surprise that "NIMBYs" are against it.
What the USA desperately needs is a widely-accepted (in the professional circles of architecture, RE development, and urban planning) definition of what a "nice place to live" actually looks and feels like, along with rules or principles that are generally followed to achieve it. Thematically the "five minute city" is a good place to start, but the aesthetic aspect tends to be lacking.
Easton, Maryland, is a useful case study. A perfect small town in the model urbanism sense. Always been a moneyed place, but recently turning even more explicitly toward trying to be a place for wealthy people, esp. under the influence of a NYC energy tycoon.
https://www.washingtonian.com/2021/01/15/paul-prager-king-easton-new-york-energy-mogul-remaking-eastern-shore-town/
A number of gorgeous small towns in Western Mass. are the same way, and increasingly, in the Hudson Valley.
I agree with PRG's comments above. As you know, this development style is baked into modern development in places where there is "pressure" (ie money to be made by big players) for whatever reason, proximity to an amenity (like a ski area) or a small town that is close enough to a big metro area to be desirable. I think this is where the Strong Towns incremental development ideas come in to play and that will be dictated by public policy. Essentially, what you want is a set of regulations that allows smaller but incrementally larger development with low friction. This keeps it from being exclusionary, but keeps the scale human sized and keeps big players out. Some thoughts on how to approach this are: a variety of smaller lot sizes that have MAXIMUMS (and never allowing consolidation), no parking requirements, by right incremental intensity that has no limit on people/families per dwelling, mixed use everywhere, grids of streets etc. From a development pattern standpoint this is all neoclassical, but with checks to keep it from happening a large scales. I think a carefully developed form-based code and regulating plan with these attributes could work well and be pretty easy to administer. Because the lot sizes are small, no wall street financed builder is going to want to touch it.
Another good question: could we have more of these places, rendering the ones we do have less exclusive? The answer to that one is probably in your second question.
What doesn't appear in your post is the phenomenon of truly small towns in middle-America. Your experience is with suburban and exurban VA which deserves careful questioning, of course, but where I grew up in Central PA, you've got small-scale urbanism out the wazoo just waiting to be improved and is also NOT in the cross hairs of rich. For example, Mt. Carmel, PA or my own hometown, Watstontown. So many diamonds in the rough, at least from an architectural point of view. Thanks for your questions.
I think there has been some research about where replacement costs differ greatly from market prices. I can't find any right now, but here's a small explanation. https://www.corelogic.com/intelligence/market-value-vs-replacement-cost/
Congratulations on your "verification"!
Middleburg has a certain mystique because it is the de facto heart of the Hunt Country, and because of its mythology - the Kennedys lived at Atoka. Yet it is also a viable and vibrant town, where neighbors meet at the Safeway, attend one of several churches, send their kids to its elementary school or to our nearby middle and high schools (I grew up in a nearby desirable Zip Code in Waterford). Loudoun's small-town residents have tried for decades to welcome new residents who buy homes from developers who profit from proximity to our towns (the variations on the use of "Waterford" in subdivision names is enormous and indicates a lack of reality: "Waterford Manors" is somewhat absurd, given that the village was founded by Quakers in the 1700s and houses are not stately or ornate).
People may move to Loudoun with certain visions of living in the country (learning how to ride and joining a hunt, for instance - horses in recent decades have been cross-bred to accommodate more portly riders upon whom a T-bred would collapse), yet unprepared for the realities of life without cell service or WiFi. Our once-open roads are now congested, and it has taken ongoing effort to save the County's gravel roads from commuting newcomers who lobby for pavement. The rising costs of houses in places like Waterford and Middleburg because of the development around them has driven out our former lower-income neighbors - not desirable to us at all - and has raised property taxes as the County struggles to pay for services and schools for new children (and their vocal parents, who criticize our teachers and curricula).
Plenty of people join community groups and volunteer endeavors and are welcome in both towns - all Western towns. But at this point, it is not really a case of "NIMBY" - Loudoun has no back yard left. And our fight has historically been with the BOS and its refusal to issue zoning and other development restrictions, not with new neighbors.
I gave up on shopping in nearby Leesburg some time ago, because unless you time it properly, traffic on 7 is a nightmare. Instead, with my childhood knowledge of back roads, I prefer the longer drive to the Middleburg Safeway, where I still see a friend or two.