"Cookie Cutter Housing"

1. The author's main points address subdivisions and the difficulty of overcoming the ordinances presented to avoid any creative incentive. Engineers, for example, are presented with a recipe but are limited to experiment with it because not much support is rarely given to go beyond the minimum-based "cookie cutter housing." Instead, the author states that a licensed worker must initiate, and essentially argue, a different design for subdivisions. He also suggest that rewards should be given to innovators so that they are inspired to create houses that are different from one another, benefiting prospective families and individuals who will reside in the subdivisions.
2. I believe that subdivisions are tacky and too ordinary because many of the houses can be compared to  a "cookie cutter community." Even though I did not grow up in a subdivision, I was able to experience and observe them because most of my friends lived in them. Many, or all, houses in a subdivision are nearly identical presenting a standard and uniform image. Regardless, I think subdivisions contribute to urban sprawl, but are not the cause. I feel this is the case because the introduction of automobiles made transportation easier, and therefore more popular. Individuals were able to travel farther, faster, and did so more frequently. As this occurred, families moved into suburbs and away from the city. This relates back to subdivisions, because they provide families, or individuals, a place to live besides the country, or in the city.
3. I do not live in or near a subdivision. The author is incorrect to state that "Nobody likes the taste of “cookie cutter” development," simply because individuals with, or without, families continue to reside in them. Families could choose to live elsewhere, but are drawn to the community that is created in subdivisions.