What I hate is the new, urban sprawly subdivision. These are the ones that bother me. In this area they're almost as bad as cancer, they're spreading so fast. And while I could possibly tolerate them if they weren't destroying woodland and farmland at a horrendous rate, that's not the only reason I don't like them.

I hate them because the developers cram as many houses onto one tiny piece of land as possible. Now, I understand the economics of this. It doesn't mean I agree with it.

And even THIS could be tolerated if the houses looked different. What bugs me the most about all of this sprawly development is that there is no character to the houses!! I can handle that in my case, because it's a townhouse and they're not rife with character, at least not on the outside. However, if I'm dropping $250K-300K on a brand new house, you'd better believe I'd want it to look at least marginally different from the 6 houses around me.

AND, not only that... I could understand that the developers can't cater to every whim, that they want to cram as many houses onto a lot to get the most money and that the farmers need to sell their land and the devs are the only ones paying...

However, what REALLY gets my blood boiling is the sheer gigantic size of these new houses. At least in Milton, Mississauga and Brampton, the new houses are enormous. This would be fine if you had 12 people living in each house, but like the people we lived with in Mississauga, they often have a family of 3 living there and then they have to rent out the rest of the place in order to pay their mortgage. I guess that's fine and dandy, but it shouldn't be a matter of course that you'll have to sell everything and rent out 3/4's of your house just to pay for it.

What ever happened to starter homes? Nowadays, that means a house that is newly built, not one that you can afford. This really bothered me when we were looking to buy a house. There's not much that's a decent size (around what we have here at the townhouse, say) that is in a detached house.

Not only that, everyone seems to think that a 'really old house' is one that's more than 5 years old. I don't know... For me, a house doesn't start to get near to being old if it's under 50 years. Maybe it's because I grew up in heritage houses on nice, NON-subdivided lots when I was growing up. Or maybe it's that the houses these days tend to fall apart after 9 years because they're slapped together with shoddy materials. I don't know.

I just know that I can't stand them! Just ask Julie about my opinions if the above missive didn't come across clearly... You asked why I didn't like them. Well, there ya go. :)