I'm not a fan of oversight and strictures myself, so I see where you are coming from. Cities can be challenging in that regard, but homeowner associations can be bad, also.
You mentioned density representing a cultural pathology in service of industrialization...
It's funny, I've thought of modern suburbs as being built for the convenience of developers, specifically the single-family single-use housing developments that have been so popular for new construction in the last several decades.
Regulations have kind of created a system favoring these very large developers who acquire cheap land on the outskirts of town, build only cookie cutter houses then walk away leaving people with nothing else to do nearby, no place to walk for a cup of coffee or a beer, or a corner store or library, friends from school are too far away for the kids to play with, the expense of one or more cars are required for each family, etc.
New housing seems to be built this way because it is the cheapest way for developers to turn a profit, and they don't care that it is unnaturally isolating for the people who live there.
I think there's already been too much state coercion in this matter for decades, zoning as described above. It's next to impossible to add an in-law cottage, or convert a house to a duplex, or site a tiny house in most places, or pocket neighborhoods, etc.
It's interesting that California is pushing to convert R1 to R3, allowing single family homes to be converted to triplexes. Other places are allowing accessory dwelling units. I'm a big fan of Japan's zoning, where everything is R3 minimum, with low-impact businesses also allowed in any residential building (with restrictions on height and setbacks). If you want more land with your house then you can buy the lot next door. They have neighborhoods with a variety of things to do, not just warehousing people far away from the rest of their lives.
You mentioned density representing a cultural pathology in service of industrialization...
It's funny, I've thought of modern suburbs as being built for the convenience of developers, specifically the single-family single-use housing developments that have been so popular for new construction in the last several decades.
Regulations have kind of created a system favoring these very large developers who acquire cheap land on the outskirts of town, build only cookie cutter houses then walk away leaving people with nothing else to do nearby, no place to walk for a cup of coffee or a beer, or a corner store or library, friends from school are too far away for the kids to play with, the expense of one or more cars are required for each family, etc.
New housing seems to be built this way because it is the cheapest way for developers to turn a profit, and they don't care that it is unnaturally isolating for the people who live there.
I think there's already been too much state coercion in this matter for decades, zoning as described above. It's next to impossible to add an in-law cottage, or convert a house to a duplex, or site a tiny house in most places, or pocket neighborhoods, etc.
It's interesting that California is pushing to convert R1 to R3, allowing single family homes to be converted to triplexes. Other places are allowing accessory dwelling units. I'm a big fan of Japan's zoning, where everything is R3 minimum, with low-impact businesses also allowed in any residential building (with restrictions on height and setbacks). If you want more land with your house then you can buy the lot next door. They have neighborhoods with a variety of things to do, not just warehousing people far away from the rest of their lives.