Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Drive through most American suburbs and tell me if most people use their front yard. Most would rather spend time in their more private backyard. Also, if the garage leads to the access alley way behind the house, why would you be looking at a garage door? And how is having a garage in the back worse than having a garage dominating the front of the house?
Also, those things you can see in your back yard is called landscaping, being in a neighborhood that is built more like a small town doesn't effect that view, you can still landscape your backyard.
Because I'd prefer to have a shorter driveway and more front yard. Maybe if you like to play basketball or something in your longer driveway. I also consider space on the side of the house wasted. I don't really use it for anything besides storing garbage cans. There's not enough space on the side of my house for a two-car driveway, so that would require the houses to be farther apart. Alleys require room that doesn't get used for much of anything, so you're adding maybe about 30% more road that's basically useless. I guess you could offset this by moving the houses closer to the street. Personally, I'd prefer to look at people's front yards as they are more aesthetically pleasing than to have an ugly alley. Two of the three bedrooms face the backyard. Either the alley lights are going to be glaring into those rooms or it'll be poorly lit. With the number of people with motion activated lights these days that's even more annoying. YMMV.
I'm also talking suburban, or at least, suburban cities. Moving the garage to the back of the house would take up MORE space from the lot than having an attached garage w/driveway. Part of that is because all building codes require setbacks and clearance around a structure. Most modern codes also require some amount of driveway for the garage, in other words, it can't just front on the alley with zero lot line.
We and our backyard neighbors decided when we moved in 24 years ago (they had been there a year at that point) that we both wanted shrubbery/trees along the lot line. We subsequently put up a fence b/c we put in an above-ground pool and it was required by the city and our own common sense. Looking out my back window right now, I see our pool, our garden, some lilac bushes right at the fence, and then the neighbors' trees. That's a much more pleasant sight than a garage and garbage cans.
I am aware of the codes, which is why we have poorly built suburbs today rather than a suburban city full of small walkable neighborhoods. Also, you are aware that garage cans can be hidden in the backyard, and that a garage is nothing more than a small building. If lots were able to have longer backyards to better accommodate the changes needed, then it would be less of an issue.
I think you are more against the idea you have in your head than the reality of what I am talking about. Have you ever visited a small town and thought the places was a horrible concrete jungle and why would anyone want to live there? Of course not.
"New urbanism" is developer speak for slightly prettier and better designed greenfield, master planned, car dependent suburban developments. It's an aesthetic difference to charge a premium, but does little to address the stated goals. A veneer.
What I rather more prefer is appropriate infill development and upzoning of existing urban areas, as well as improved inner city transit service. Easier condo conversion and lot subdivision. Eliminate minimum setback and parking requirements. The market is absolutely demanding more urban living options -- prices are insane right now -- just let the market respond.
No - New Urbanism includes all sorts of things including Greenfield TND and TOD, infill, brownfield redevelopment, revitalization of downtown cores, the relationship of buildings to the street, road diets, suburban retro-fits, affordable central housing, advocating for a return to complex and complete streets and generally in favor of close, compact and connected communities and opposed to urban sprawl in all its iterations.
I invite you to go to the CNU.org website to learn something about this. You can access many many presentation on a huge diversity of subjects at any one of their conferences.
Here's a list of topics discussed at CNU 20 (the latest available on the web).
A Brief History of the New World
Achieving Sustainable Communities
Across the Transect: From Historic Preservation to Composting
Beyond Bike Lanes: Building a Culture of Bicycle Safety
Charrettes and the Next Generation of Public Involvement
Clearer Thinking: Urbanism + Transit
Designing and Developing Walkable Urban Grocery Stores
Florida Mobility Policies: Regional Rail to Enhance Mobility
Form-Based Economic Development on Main Street
From Balanced Roads to Transit Oriented Development - Part I
From Balanced Roads to Transit Oriented Development - Part II
Functional Classification: The Least Interesting Policy That Dominates Most Everything
Global Capitalism & The Tall Tower Reconsidered
Growing "In" in the 21st Century: Incremental Growth Patterns
Havana: Paradigm of a Caribbean City
Heterodoxia Architectonica
Hispaniola: Birthplace of the Latin American City
Making Urban Facades
Meet the Candidates: CNU Board Elections
Mechanical vs. Passive Technology: Looking for Balance in Building Science
Moving Lifelong Communities to Scale
Multifamily Residential Building Types for an Enhanced Public Realm
New Urbanism and Historic Preservation: Collaboration Strategies
Philanthropy and the New Urbanism
Parking: Planning to Store the Cars Properly, Amid the Pedestrians!
Preserving Affordability: Gentrification without Displacement
New Urbanism 101
Pro Formas for the Rest of Us
Realizing Streets for Everyone, and Getting Someone Else to Pay for Them
Rainwater-In-Context Speed Presentations
Resilience and Adaptation
Seaside 30th Anniversary: Architecture can transcend style
Seminal New Urbanism in the Sunshine State
Small is Beautiful: Local Economic Networks of the Pre-Auto Era
Space, the First but Not Final Frontier: Analyzing space, uses, and transportation
Sprawl Repair and Infill: From Incremental to Wetrofit to Agriculture
The Economic Benefit of Good Urbanism
The New Town of Cayalá, Guatemala
The Misunderstood Transect: Theory vs. Practice in New Urbanist Codes
The Paradox of Emerging Cities
The Real Deal: Implemented lncremental Urbanism
The Next Generation of New Urbanists: A One-Day Congress
The Reality of Live-Work Today
The Secret Life of Trees
Time is on Our Side
To the Developing World and Back Again: The International application of New Urbanism
Too Much Water or Too Little?
Two Traditions of Latin American Urbanism
Understanding the Role of Sustainable Urbanism in the Conservative Agenda
Urban Freeways: Devastation and Opportunity
West Palm Story: Downtown Back from the Brink
Today's Best Form-Based Codes
Where is the Market Taking Us?
Why Did We Stop Walking & How Do We Start Again?
Why We Write
Because I'd prefer to have a shorter driveway and more front yard. Maybe if you like to play basketball or something in your longer driveway. I also consider space on the side of the house wasted. I don't really use it for anything besides storing garbage cans. There's not enough space on the side of my house for a two-car driveway, so that would require the houses to be farther apart. Alleys require room that doesn't get used for much of anything, so you're adding maybe about 30% more road that's basically useless. I guess you could offset this by moving the houses closer to the street. Personally, I'd prefer to look at people's front yards as they are more aesthetically pleasing than to have an ugly alley. Two of the three bedrooms face the backyard. Either the alley lights are going to be glaring into those rooms or it'll be poorly lit. With the number of people with motion activated lights these days that's even more annoying. YMMV.
That alleyway would be used as a service road for getting to the garage and service vehicles for picking up trash and recycling. Also, one could play basketball in the back or utilize the alleyway space for something like that.
Alleys are only ugly when they are not properly taken care of, neighborhood associations can correct this issues.
What does the side yard space have to do with the need for a two car garage?
Also, why would homes be less aesthetically pleasing because the front yard is smaller? I never said anything about getting rid of the front yard all together.
I am aware of the codes, which is why we have poorly built suburbs today rather than a suburban city full of small walkable neighborhoods. Also, you are aware that garage cans can be hidden in the backyard, and that a garage is nothing more than a small building. If lots were able to have longer backyards to better accommodate the changes needed, then it would be less of an issue.
I think you are more against the idea you have in your head than the reality of what I am talking about. Have you ever visited a small town and thought the places was a horrible concrete jungle and why would anyone want to live there? Of course not.
Too much sprawl. But I dislike front-facing garages. So we'll make more sprawl for the necessary alleys and longer back yards to get rid of them. All will be good, because it was the snout garage that made places unwalkable. When we make them even more sprawl-ey and spread out but remove the snout garages, then it will all be fixed and people will walk everywhere.
4. Who is opposed to mass transit? Show me a post where a suburbanite said that there should be no mass transit.
I like and support mass transit where it makes sense, but I don't support suppressing cars, car ownership, or not building or expanding any highways (thus obstructing traffic and increasing congestion). The addition of mass transit should be for the purposes of increasing mobility, not decreasing it, but generally New Urbanists support the latter. In other words, the more common approach is to punish driving rather than offering a choice to ride a train or subway in addition to driving. New choices in transportation is a good idea, but the perverted use of the "more choices" idea to punish driving renders the bulk of the pro-transit movement toxic from my perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
The hell it's not. I got it from the OP
If only some of these urbanists could hear themselves. They want to discourage private property, personal space, car ownership, car travel, and truthfully any form of independence. Notice that I say "New Urbanists" instead of "New Urbanism", because New Urbanism itself is compatible with drivability and mobility, but unfortunately most of its adherents seem to want to make driving as painful as possible. A good example is their obstruction of any new or expanded highways or freeways, and their full-throttled support of strangling traffic flow even on major thoroughfares.
My pet theory is that NU's emphasis on community and walkability makes it easy prey for collectivists, authoritarians, and NIMBYs, all of which are entrenched interests in politics and government. If you have a pre-existing anti-freedom/anti-mobility orientation, then NU looks very attractive; anti-driving and anti-private property sentiment is easily plugged into the NU matrix, and once you add in the NIMBYs you've suddenly got a powerful coalition in favor of government control and against driving and private property. A convenient cloak for this is provided in the form of community and walkability, and suddenly New Urbanism becomes the norm in urban planning circles with backing from the establishment and wide swaths of the general public.
Anyway, the point I'm making is that my objections to New Urbanists don't center around New Urbanism so much as the ideas and attitudes that are plugged into it by its adherents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
I'm also talking suburban, or at least, suburban cities. Moving the garage to the back of the house would take up MORE space from the lot than having an attached garage w/driveway.
An attached garage in the front makes sense in a suburban setting, and a front garage is easier to access than one tucked away in the back. Unless you have a small house a two-car front garage won't ruin the aesthetics of the house, either. I also don't think a particular type of garage or setback should be mandated by law - if you want to build a house, I couldn't care less where you put the garage, or even if you have one at all.
Too much sprawl. But I dislike front-facing garages. So we'll make more sprawl for the necessary alleys and longer back yards to get rid of them. All will be good, because it was the snout garage that made places unwalkable. When we make them even more sprawl-ey and spread out but remove the snout garages, then it will all be fixed and people will walk everywhere.
If you have noticed, I have suggested that suburban development be built in a way that better resembles small town communities rather than sprawling suburbs that require a car to do even the most basic needs.
That alleyway would be used as a service road for getting to the garage and service vehicles for picking up trash and recycling. Also, one could play basketball in the back or utilize the alleyway space for something like that.
Alleys are only ugly when they are not properly taken care of, neighborhood associations can correct this issues.
What does the side yard space have to do with the need for a two car garage?
Also, why would homes be less aesthetically pleasing because the front yard is smaller? I never said anything about getting rid of the front yard all together.
People play basketball on the regular street here all the time. I mean, it does help that I live in a properly designed neighborhood so traffic is limited to people that actually live on the street, eg, very light. Service vehicles pick up trash on the street here, so there's no real advantage.
Our sideyards are about 5 feet wide, not even enough room for a one-car driveway, let alone a two-car driveway. Of course, if you're wasting space running an alley between blocks that's not an issue. It's only a problem if you want to have backyard garages without a space wasting alley. Then you have to move the houses apart farther to fit a standard 20-24 foot driveway all the way to the back of the house, plus maybe an extra foot buffer between the house and fence line. So basically on one side you have to go from 5 feet to 22-26 feet.
Personally, I prefer yards to concrete so a house with more concrete and less yard is less aesthetically pleasing. For someone that likes concrete (alleys, extra long garages) more than yards, such as yourself, that might not be true. I'd say you're in the minority, however. Most people prefer snout garages as the most practical way of getting a garage in a small lot suburban environment. Now, if you're from the East Coast and your preconceived perception of a suburb is a quarter acre lot, maybe that's different. In the Western US, however, our lot sizes are much smaller than that. Quarter acre lots are HUGE and generally reserved only for most affluent parts of affluent exurban communities.
I happen to agree with the gorgeous old neighborhoods, which does kind of take the wind out of the sails of those who feel having a big front yard is a modern, "suburban" thing.
Maybe in other parts of the country, but here (and in most of the Northeast) excluding small towns or the edges of large towns), big yards are the exception "in town". Generally houses here aren't set back from the street by much, and if they are the yards are small. Even when lots are larger, the front yard tends to be small. So yes, judging from what I'm familiar with, big front yards are a modern "suburban" thing.
Most people prefer snout garages as the most practical way of getting a garage in a small lot suburban environment. Now, if you're from the East Coast and your preconceived perception of a suburb is a quarter acre lot, maybe that's different. In the Western US, however, our lot sizes are much smaller than that. Quarter acre lots are HUGE and generally reserved only for most affluent parts of affluent exurban communities.
I guess, but snout garages just look weird to me; I'm not used to them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
