Well, yeah, I guess.
But as a general rule, you wouldn’t have more space in front than in the back. I’m sure there are exceptions, but in areas where yards are large enough to be usable recreational space, the back yard tends to be larger. Like, if I was going to sketch out a typical suburban development from my area of the country, the houses would be about two thirds of the way from the back property line.
This is the street I grew up on. You can see that though the house fronts are very close to the street, with tiny front yards, the back yards are huge.
Admittedly, we didn’t spend much time playing in my back yard because it was filled with vegetable gardens and fruit trees. Like the kids JakeRS refers to we played in the street because there was virtually no traffic. And of course, it was a working class neighborhood so nobody had a pool. (Since decayed into a slum, with many houses, including mine, torn down.) In those days city houses might have a small aboveground pool for the younger kids in the side or back yards, but in the suburbs all pools would be in backyards, either by ordinance or homeowner association agreement. A few houses in the wealthier neighborhoods in the city have backyard pools but those are unusual. I’m sure southern cities would have pools in far greater numbers, though.
The rise of the American suburb, characterised by Levitt Town in the 1960s (and presumably the suburban attitudes that go with it) were satirised in the song ‘Little Boxes’ during the folk/protest era.
In the UK we have something called the ‘Barratt house’, which has associations of middle-class conformity.
Previous generations, each time there was a building boom, had their own staple designs. Our attitudes towards them change. Modern designs are rarely appreciated for their style.
As said above, the general case is the majority of the yard space is in the back, not the front.
Most US suburbs built after the 1950s do not have separately fenced front yards. Large swaths of the country do not have (or allow) fenced back yards. Other large swaths of the country have substantially all back yards fenced. Which is which where is a matter of historical accident.
Pools are a special case. Under current laws in most areas, pools must be fenced to a certain height a certain distance back from the water. This is to reduce the risk of kids drowning.
So for yards with pools in those parts of the country where backyard fences/hedges are rare or prohibited you’ll find the main body of the backyard is open to the neighbors, whereas a 4 to 6 foot fence surrounds the pool and nearby decking, patio, BBQ pit, etc. Some areas require this fencing to be see-through, while others require it to be opaque. Others don’t care one way or the other.
Pools in the front yard are vanishly rare across the country as a whole.
In the Midwestern U.S. suburbs I’ve lived in, a fence is required by ordinance if you have a pool, which is usually in the backyard.
I’m pretty sure that requirement is found in other areas of the U.S.
Oops, ninja’d by LSLGuy.
A nitpick. The first Levittown was built in the 1940s, with a second outside of Philadelphia starting in 1952. They were very different from the California suburbs, which was what Malvina Reynolds was satirizing. Daly City, CA is certainly made of closely packed houses but its set-up actually resembles a city grid rather than a sprawling suburb or for that matter Levittown.
This street view gives you a clear idea of what the song is about.
On a side note, do front lawns help avoid flooding? A friend lives in a Chicago suburb (Elmhurst) where lots of McMansions have replaced small houses on small lots, eliminating front lawns. He says some residents claim the increased flooding there is due to fewer front lawns to absorb rainfall. Anything to that?
We’ve got a lot of those little houses in my neighborhood (Heritage). Most of them are fairly old and pre-code, but I was surprised to see on of my neighbors put one in this summer. And a nice job he did of it, too. There is one older home next to the Wildwood Bakehouse that looks tiny from the front and yet has four mailboxes out front. That’s a lot of people on a 1920’s lot.
As for the HOAs a few people mentioned, a lot of us find them pretty strange, too. I wouldn’t buy a house in a HOA, that’s for sure. Cutting your lawn helps keep down the number of snakes, rats, possums, and raccoons that want a place to live near sources of restaurant trash cans and dry pet food left out overnight. City code requires reasonable 12” or less. They’ll also ticket you for having old pools, tires, or buckets with stagnant water since this is breeding grounds for mosquitoes. But rules about not painting your house purple or stringing up Christmas lights in your back yard are just bizarre to me.
I’d have to see hard numbers to believe it. When Houston just got flooded maps showed that 25% of the entire city had been paved over, contributing to the loss of wetlands that would have absorbed water. Lots of McMansions in a suburb is nowhere comparable.
I think it depends on what kind of flooding you’re talking about. Some McMansions in a suburb aren’t going to increase hurricane-type flooding, where large parts of cities are under multiple feet of water. But decreasing the size of yards (whether by putting a larger building on the lot or paving over the yard ) might affect the sort of less destructive and more local flooding where one street is under a few inches of water while the next street over isn’t.
It’s the latter type of flooding. You’d be hard-pressed to find a block without at least 2 or 3 McMansions, but I’m not sure how that small a percentage of houses would have such a big impact on flooding. I find the whole theory puzzling because there are vast urban landscapes with little or no grass outside of the occasional park, yet they have little trouble with flooded streets.
It might have to do with how the sewer system was designed to begin with. Houses in my neighborhood were built with the front and backyards elevated a few steps from the sidewalk. Some of my neighbors have paved over their entire front and back yards and when it rains heavily, you can actually see the water falling from the front yard onto the sidewalk. You don’t see that happening with the unpaved yards. I don’t think it really has an effect on flooding- but there are only a couple of houses like that on the block.
Hmmm… my experience visiting several places across the USA and Canada (which picks up this sort of suburban ethic from the USA) is that the back yards if the home owners could afford it tended to have 6-foot-high fences to provide privacy, while the front yard was a rarely-used showpiece - lush lawn, pretty flower garden, the occasional roaming gnome or plastic flamingo. (Joke from old-time Toronto “How do you know where the pink flamingos live? they have plastic Italians on their lawns…”)
Particularly people with in-ground pools tended to have the whole back yard fenced off, tight to the house, unless their back yard was so big that fencing the pool and deck still left room for a decent-sized yard. (In writing Freakonomics, the author mentioned that in attending a support group after his child died years ago, he was surprised to find the majority of people in the group had lost their child from drowning in a back yard swimming pool.) Also, people with dogs found it often more convenient to fence in the whole yard rather than have a dog on a chain. It generally depends on the size and placement of the garage. That’s another trend not discussed much - old-time subdivisions and quasi-urban spreads had back lanes, and a garage off the lane. This is generally out of favour because it doubles the amount of roadway needing maintenance, snow clearing, etc. Later developments, the garage was behind the house and the driveway ran past the house, often with a convenient side door. As land became more expensive, the garage became attached to the side of the house to reduce space - but a two-car garage took up too much extra space. For a while there were garages built into the house, but the construction and health issues are a problem (CO2 isolation, fire risk, proper insulation of the garage ceiling, etc.) Lately the garage has moved to the front. The last subdivision plans I read about discussed 45-foot wide lots, with an absolute minimum 10-foot separation (fire break) between house exterior walls. I saw an article about a Northwest city (Seattle?) and its battle against “turtle houses” - the garage is now attached to the front of the house, so the front of the lot is essentially divided in half - one half is a small patch of lawn leading to a front picture window, the other half is occupied by a two-car garage and a paved driveway. As lots get narrower, the garage now dominates the front. The front lawn, like the front porch, has gone from being a feature to being a vestigial ornament. Of course, the neighbourly atmosphere of a suburb has been destroyed by air conditioning; nobody goes out of their house once the temperature gets beyond medium warm.
See this: Google Maps
The subways were never extended to the part of Queens where I grew up. Development was from cheap mortgages and the desire for houses after WW II and during the baby boom. I have lived in suburbs in NJ and California, and neither is all that different from where I grew up in Queens.
Some things are very dependent on location and building date. Where I lived in NJ no one had backyard fences. Where I live in California everyone has backyard fences. My house, built in 1953, has a reaonable setback and back yard. A block from are houses, build 15 years ago, which are bigger but which have tiny setbacks and minute backyards. Land is more expensive now so the builders crammed more houses onto the space they had.
It seems to me that a lot of newer American suburbs seem to be built on the principle of maximum floor area for a given plot size, with virtually no garden space. Example: Google Maps
I believe the term is “zero lot line”?
I don’t know what the term is, but yes, in my experience your assessment is pretty accurate. People here seem to want the biggest house they can get which still fits on the lot.
Something that’s been happening in some older Chicago suburbs for a while now (and, I’d assume, in other places, too) is people buying old houses, tearing them down, and building new, larger houses that are as large (i.e., as close to the property lines) as the local codes allow.
I suspect that a lot of it is people wanting new houses (with big rooms and modern amenities), but wanting to live in certain older suburbs (good school districts, and shorter commutes into Chicago than in the distant suburbs, which is where most of the new construction is now happening).