[*LucyE*]

I was reading this article this morning and it made me think.

‘‘If you look at any new Australian suburb. It is dramatic. It jumps out at you. Up until the 1980s it is all one thing - it is all trees,’’ he said.
‘‘By the end of the 1990s, it is all roof to roof.’’
He said any city needed backyards and Brisbane was no different.
‘‘Firstly, green space around buildings and housing is very important, it has a definite function,’’ Professor Hall said.
He said backyards absorbed stormwater, cooled homes and increased biodiversity.
‘‘So it has a very important role for the community as a whole and that is all in addition to all the recreational advantages and also the outlook from houses.’’
The solution was residents must ask local councils to demand that small blocks of land were not ‘‘covered’’ by large homes, he argued.
Professor Hall said only 50 per cent of a block should be covered by a house and the people of Brisbane should be debating the issue.

I live regionally on acreage so I love having my space and gardening. I can understand others who don't enjoy or have time to garden would prefer to have less yard maintenance. I can understand them wanting a freehold block rather than a unit as well.

I think it is too rigid to make a blanket rule about the percentage of land that must not be built upon. Times do change, populations grow and lifestyles evolve. It's important to have green space but that can be created as shared public areas. It doesn't have to be private space that causes anxiety for home owners and excludes others from using it.

What do you think?

This post has been edited by *LucyE*: 23/02/2013, 08:15 AM

[BetteBoop]

I would prefer high density living confined to a particular geographical area than the relentless urban sprawl which is destroying more and more of the natural landscape every year.

Regardless, trees serve a genuine purpose in suburbia. Most importantly, they give us cleaner air.

Developers are short sighted and incredibly greedy though. If they squeeze another house in there, they will and councils allow it because developers and local councils are often the same people.

We continue to wreak total destruction on the natural environment until it's inhospitable to any life other than human, and even that's debatable. It's incredibly depressing.

[kpingitquiet]

I think it depends. Backyards are very important if there are crappy community greenspaces and recreational areas. Less so if you have fantastic parks, good public transit (less need for space to park/service cars), lots of recreational activities.

Living in suburban ADL, I'd go flipping nuts without a decent backyard. We spend half our life in that yard. Living in NYC I was fine with only a balcony to call my own because I had the vast and awesome Prospect Park only 2 avenues away and could walk to a zillion other activities.

I think Aussies need to embrace multi-story living. Same (if not more) living space with a much smaller footprint, allowing for more greenspace.

San Francisco is probably my ideal design for urban dwellings. Multi-story, high-density, no front yards but serviceable backyards (at least big enough for bbqs, paddling pools, small veggie patches, and a doggy bathroom), fantastic public transit, and TONS of public nature/recreation space. Similar setups work well in many US and European cities without everyone trading in private homes for apartments.

[ILBB]

We live on close to 1000 square metres in suburbia - but all the older homes not renovated are being demolished to put up multi density occupancies. Some of these are 3 stories (housing up to 11 units) and have no backyards. They are also getting rid of most of the existing trees, which is the feature of the suburb - which is a great shame! However we are on a couple of train lines, close to a transport and shopping hub, close to both private and public hospitals and many, many schools. It is a much better place to be housing people than out in the scrub - increasing urban sprawl, where no amenities exist and building McMansions with touching rooflines.

I also think that the pp's are correct - we can live without backyards but we need our urban environment set up in such a way so we can access parks and shared community spaces. We also need things like footpaths and bus routes/cycle paths in order to get to such shared spaces. Not many developments that I know in Aus are embracing such principles.

[~Supernova~]

I'd go nuts without a decent sized backyard. Both of my kids spend the majority of the day outside. I'm also happy to live in a smaller house to attain this.

High density living, with no backyard, and living in your neighbours lap, does not appeal to me on any level.

[squeekums]

Link wouldnt work on my phone, so basing answe on quoted part.

While I dont think it should be a blanket rule on how much is left as land and house size, I personally could never live in a house with no yard.
I hate these new houses where they squeeze 3 houses on what was a 1 house with yard property.
Concrete Shoebox comes to mind. They look alike, no yard, blerg
NMS
My idea of hell is apartments and smell my sh*t closeness in houses.

[kpingitquiet]

I should clarify, by embracing multi-story living, I don't mean apartments, necessarily. Rather 2-3 story single family homes offering 200+ sqm of living space with 67-100sqm footprint, vs sprawling 200+sqm footprint single-story homes.

[poppy_star]

He said backyards absorbed stormwater, cooled homes and increased biodiversity.

This pretty much sums up why houses need yards, doesn't really have much to do whether people want to garden etc. Yes I firmly believe that dwellings should restricted to a percentage footprint. I hate houses that cover more than 75% of a block, they are nasty blight on the landscape.

This post has been edited by poppy_star: 23/02/2013, 10:50 AM

[countrymel]

I should clarify, by embracing multi-story living, I don't mean apartments, necessarily. Rather 2-3 story single family homes offering 200+ sqm of living space with 67-100sqm footprint, vs sprawling 200+sqm footprint single-story homes.

Yes. I lived in London for several years and the Georgian terraces were great.

Small back yard, but still big enough for some trees and a BBQ - but with large communal parks everywhere.


I live out in the sticks on acreage - but in my former life as a city dweller I lived in the inner city - soulless suburbs with cheek by jowl McMansions taking up the entire block is my idea of hell - and a social disaster.

[kpingitquiet]

Exactly, countrymel. The London, Georgetown, NYC (brownstones), San Fran style of urban housing can be stunning and very good for high-density living.

I get that in previous eras it wasn't wise to have a 2nd story in much of Australia due to the physics of heat and a lack of cooling, but new homes almost all have ducted cooling in our area so it really shouldn't be an issue anymore.