Seattle has a lot of this inside the city. There were big articles on it in the papers when I was out there.
People have been calling Americans obsessions with lawns insane for many decades, even though they had reasonable uses. Today’s world reduces almost all of those reasons. Social media, video games, smaller families, easier transportation drive people indoors or to approved group meeting places. And who wants to spend their precious leisure time taking care of a lawn? The trend for increased indoor time and decreased outdoor time pushes for larger houses with less space around them. I think it makes perfect sense for individuals. The problem in Seattle seemed to be that developers were putting up multi-story apartment houses on formerly one-family lots. Those were hideous and added to the horrendous parking issues Seattle’s narrow streets have.
Canton? When I came back from China, that was on my blacklist for precisely that reason. If I ever ever become a real estate developer, I tell myself I’m going to offer 1 acre lots, but realize I’m deluding myself because zero lot lines will be much more profitable. God, I hate people. A home isn’t just the interior.
It would be difficult to argue that they didn’t help prevent flooding. A front lawn is always going to soak up more water than a lawn that’s paved or even gravelled (because the grass uses water over time and there may be other plants with deep roots - the occasional tree for example - that help suck up groundwater). The amount of help it gives is debatable but it must make some difference.
Cities that don’t have lots of grassy areas tend to have other flood defences built in, but places where there were previously lots of lawns don’t have those because they never needed to, and cities also depend on the outlying suburbs and countryside helping with floodwater.
I have a front “area” (sort of basement garden) that’s concrete and always has been, and a back garden that’s almost all grass, trees, flowerbeds etc, with a side return that’s also always been concrete and is on the same elevation as the front area. Both concrete areas have drains but they’re small - and I live in a city, which might be why they built drains in to the concrete. On a rainy day the front area fills up a lot more than the side return because the side return has the garden to soak up the rain whereas the front area only has the pavement and road in front of it. One rainy night the front area was inches deep in water but the back area had nothing at all. Multiply that by lots of houses independently deciding to concrete their driveways or build houses on them (especially if they don’t put in drains like mine has and I bet some of them don’t) and the effect is going to be really noticeable.
At any rate there can’t be zero effect from getting rid of sources of rainwater sinks.
Lawns as flood protection can’t be looked at in isolation, you have to also consider the infrastructure required to support living in such an environment, which in the US means extra roads, parking lots, and mostly single-story single-use buildings. That by far negates any benefits from the lawn itself. The more development is spread out to try to accommodate stormwater management (buffer zones, retention ponds, bio-swales, even greenbelts) the more pavement is created to get people where they need to go. I think you need to look at it on more of a per-capita basis to be honest about the effects. In a similar vein, a 100 story skyscraper creates the same amount of rainwater runoff as a 1 story building with the same footprint. That’s an extreme example, but it applies similarly when comparing suburbs and cities.
It has to do with noise and privacy. People want the houses built back away from listening to the street traffic. I’m surprised being from Europe this concerns you since most people who have talked about this from Europe I’ve known criticize why do people in the US build their homes so close to the road when they have a large lot.
People also like to have to live in a community so kids can come and play together in the front yard. If it was in the backyard, you can’t see if your friend is home to come over and play or not.
The reason why many homes are very large lots aren’t built back far enough, is because it the utilities cost to run power. This is why you see cheap idiots who don’t plan property buy 10 acres in the country, and built a nice home only to not have budgeted for the utilities cost. So instead of having the home intelligently placed in the middle of the property for privacy and to enjoy nature, they built it right off the road which totally negates the reason you moved out into the county anyway.:smack:
Not having the house in the middle or back of the property means you don’t have to plow a mile of driveway, walk that far to get your paper or mail, make your neighbors and delivery people trek down to your door, or any of the other values of being close to a road.
These may be small annoyances but they add up and have to be balanced against isolation. People can rationally make the calculation come out either way.
No. There is only one correct way to accomplish every task in the history of human civilization, and that way is the one that aligns with my personal preferences.
Cite? You’re making broad generalizations as if they’re universal. Zoning is the number one reason houses are built where they are, regardless of the preference of the home builder/home buyer. If “people wanted” to build their houses farther away then front yard setbacks wouldn’t be required.
Again, a broad generalization. Not everyone has kids, and frankly not everyone cares about being part of such a community (in a small town you’re basically forced to be part of the local community since there’s no other choice, in the city you can choose your community based on mutual interests disconnected from geography, but I digress). Until the advent of the automobile, the street is where kids played, and if you had a front lawn or garden they wouldn’t trample it. Also, being right up on the sidewalk isn’t a problem on most quiet residential streets, whether in the city or the suburbs. Having the buildings closer to the street and each other creates a documented visual cue to motorists to slow down, and it’s also easier for residents to see what’s going on up and down the street and keep better tabs on what the kids are doing out there. Houses closer together and closer to the street evoke more of a community feel than otherwise, believe it or not.
I’ve never heard this cited as a reason before. Power/telecom are much cheaper to run than water, gas, or sewer, though in a 10-acre locale those are likely unavailable. Even so, if you want the lines underground it’s pretty easy to trench it yourself, or just put them in overhead. Historically there was no downside to having a country home or farmhouse near the road, because there was virtually no traffic, and what traffic there was didn’t make an appreciable amount of noise or cause any danger. If you were running an inn or just wanted to be more neighborly (as much as you could be in such a situation anyway), then having a street presence made sense. Even now, other than noise from traffic, you don’t gain much by moving your house farther from the road. It’s still a very low-density locale so the privacy benefits show diminishing returns, while you do increase somewhat your utility runs (as well as increasing the cost to pave and maintain your driveway), but also you make getting the mail and taking out the garbage more of a chore. (Thanks for beating me to most of these Exapno).
But we’re talking here about homes where all of that stuff still holds true and there’s now no lawn. We are looking at lawns in isolation because that’s the thing that’s changed.
That is the correct term, and I find that style of housing abhorrent. We see more and more of these as the DFW area builds up, and I wonder why the owners don’t just get a condo or apartment. A co-worker just bought a new 5 bedroom house in a “desireable” part of the city, and had to negotiate a relocation of her air conditioning unit because it interfered with the neighbor’s fence. I have no idea why people accept this.
For those reasons, we chose a double lot to provide at least some separation from neighbors. Here is a picture of the side yard. Although closer than I’d like, it gives us a little room so we’re not cheek-to-jowl with the other houses. I value my privacy more than most, as you can see from the fence height. The HOA/City refused a variance for an 8 foot fence, claiming I had to stick with the max of 6 feet like everyone else. So I hired dump trucks and workers and raised the front yard a few feet (for flood control reasons, honest).
And while there is always a legal minimum setback, there is usually no maximum setback. So a building can be built next to the property line with no back yard whatsoever. There are a few of those in my neighborhood.
For the newer suburbs, as mentioned earlier, the city typically owns the first 6 to 10 feet from the curb. So right away, if you want to fence off the front yard or are allowed to, the fence would be set back a ways and cut the lawn in half. Secondly, many communities think front lawns blocked by privacy fences are unsightly - since it defeats the whole “open suburb” concept we’ve been discussing. It gives “bad guys” roaming the suburbs easy places to hide according to the usual paranoia about crime. (A lot harder to hop 6-foot fences through back yards than to run in and out of front yards along the road). Plus, it’s unsafe to have vehicles popping out of driveways with limited visibility, as well as kids on bikes, etc. So similarly, shrubs or hedges that block the view are not allowed.
nelliebly, I live in Elmhurst. Opinions vary as to the exact causes and appropriate solutions to flooding. You can see info at the official website.
I’m confident that there are a couple of primary causes. First, the town has inadequate storm sewers which can get overloaded in very heavy rains. When that happens, water collects in the lower lying areas. Also, up to the 60s, the storm and sanitary sewers were combined. My house - built in late 50s, has no sump pump, and drainage tiles drain directly into the single combined sewer pipes. I believe up through the 70s, builders had the choice of connecting to the sanitary or storm systems.
The west side of Elmhurst is lined by Salt Creek, which passes through several communities. Storm/overflow discharge into Salt Creek is regulated, as the creek impacts downstream communities. If you look along Salt Creek, there has been irresponsible paving within the floodplain. A hotel/parking lot built near North Ave and Rte 83 was an especially egregious example.
Though the city denies it, I (and most residents I’ve talked with) believe residential construction since the 80s plays a huge role. Elmhurst (along with Hinsdale and a couple of other towns) have long been the teardown centers of Chicago’s western burbs. Elmhurst derives considerable revenue from builders and residential property taxes. From the 80s through the naughts, the philosophy was pretty much build, baby build! Small ranches/bungalows replaced by million+$ homes, digging down with 10’ basements.
As of approx. 5 years ago, significant new ordinances were passed reducing lot coverage and requiring on-property drainage for new construction, as well as some other measures.
The city has also embarked on a HUGELY expensive project of building retention ponds for flood control.
I could go on and on, but I doubt anyone cares. But the size of front yards has nothing to do with the flooding problems. In Elmhurst I’m pretty sure the front setback is 30’ - which is similar to most other burbs in the area. And the teardowns have always been subject to the same setback requirements - i.e., have had the same sized front yards - as older homes.
These communities had built-in greenspace in addition to being near other public parks. Granted, Fairmount Park as originally designed was quite a drive from the PA Levittown, but there are/were plenty of public parks in southern Bucks County to serve the needs of Levittowners.
