Dallas,Texas or Atlanta

[matt8325]

Originally Posted by Sugacoles

Hidden Hills USED to be the place to live located on the east side of Atlanta. Lots of crime, property value have been decreasing there since 2000 and its been difficult to sell a home over there since 2002. The traffic congestion in that area is terrible especially during rush hour. It's not what it used to be and I would think twice about living there. As a matter of fact I would think twice about living in the areas of Stone Mountain, Lithonia and some parts of Decatur. These areas have declined and Conyer is on its way as well.

Atlanta and it suburbs have become so congested that you almost have to go 30 miles outside of Atlanta to have some peace. However, on a more positive note, there's quite a bit of entertainment going on and always something to do. Its becoming more of a hip-hop place to be. Geographically, its located in a nice place close to Florida, Carolinas and not far from DC.

I wouldnt say Atlanta is close to D.C. They are about 640 miles apart. Atlanta is closer to most midwest cities than it is to most of the east coast cities.

[Tiger Beer]

Originally Posted by MantaRay

From what I can see, the Dallas suburbs have plenty of neighborhoods with rear facing garages, a feature that is really tough to find in other metro areas, and certainly doesn't tend to be replicated again and again in Atlanta subdivisions as in Dallas subdivisions. It is there (Suwanee for example), just not plentiful.

I've heard other people say they like rear facing garages as well.

I've yet to see them...what is likeable about them? Also, if they face the rear...that means the entrance is through the backyard? Meaning you have to drive around your house?

I've been curious exactly how those are setup.

[Saintmarks]

Originally Posted by Tiger Beer

I've heard other people say they like rear facing garages as well.

I've yet to see them...what is likeable about them? Also, if they face the rear...that means the entrance is through the backyard? Meaning you have to drive around your house?

I've been curious exactly how those are setup.

There are one lane alleys that run behind the houses that connect to the garages. This eats up land IMO, leads to extra paved over land. The houses have small postage stamp sized backyards as a result.

Go to Google Earth and scan just about any neighborhood in Plano, Frisco or McKinney TX and you can see the layout.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by matt8325

I wouldnt say Atlanta is close to D.C. They are about 640 miles apart. Atlanta is closer to most midwest cities than it is to most of the east coast cities.

It's 1100 miles away from Minneapolis, though. That's a long drive.

[MantaRay]

Originally Posted by Tiger Beer

I've heard other people say they like rear facing garages as well.

I've yet to see them...what is likeable about them? Also, if they face the rear...that means the entrance is through the backyard? Meaning you have to drive around your house?

I've been curious exactly how those are setup.

Go to MSNs online map program and search for "Capstan Dr. & Medina Ln. Allen, TX." Also, search for "Portland Trail Dr. Suwanee, GA." The best example is "E. 25th Dr. & Xanthia St. Denver, CO." Look at all 3 in Bird's Eye View. You can rotate the view with the rotate buttons on the left.

As far as what is likeable about them:
1. The front facade of the home is much dressier without a garage. And that goes for the facade of the entire block as well.
2. Your neighbors won't automatically know when you're coming and going all the time.
3. In cases like Suwanee where the neighborhood is built with front porches, it gives a better view of the street (or of parkspace if your home happens to front parkspace like in the Denver example). For people who REALLY like porches, it also provides the opportunity for a big porch- one that takes up most of the width of the front facade.
4. Kids and adults for that matter can walk and bike on the sidewalks (usually that type of neighborhood will have them) without worry about getting hit by cars entering and exiting homes. The only entrance/exit place will be at the rear alleys. If your side of the street has 20 homes, that reduces the potential pedestrain/automobile contact points from 20 to 2 (the 2 places the alley connects to a neighborhood street). And when walking or biking on the sidewalks, parallel parked cars act as a buffer between moving cars and pedestrians- ie. added protection.
5. If you like talking to neighbors, it's easier to do so from the front porch in this configuration.
6. Front yards are usually smaller, which just about nobody really uses their front yard for anything anyway. Less maintenance/upkeep, less water usage.
7. From a city standpoint, it results in less sprawl than if everybody had huge front yards and huge back yards. It is more efficient land usage and more efficient water usage for the city.

You still will typically have 3 ways to enter your home- the front door for anyone who parks on the curb, the garage, and usually there is a back door that lets out into the back yard from the house. Often homes in that configuration will have smaller back yards/side yards, but the idea is that it is more than made up for in a HUMUNGOUS public greenspace/park space. There is enough room in the yard to invite people over for a cookout, or to just relax, etc. but you don't really have to get in a car and drive just to let the dog run in the park or to catch frisbees or footballs in the park or to picnic in the park. All of that has been made convenient to your house. If it's a neighborhood that has retail nearby (or in it as the Denver example) then even better. A normal cookie cutter front garage subdivision is going to make you drive everywhere and make walking and biking more cumbersome.

[MantaRay]

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

There are one lane alleys that run behind the houses that connect to the garages. This eats up land IMO, leads to extra paved over land.

Not really extra. In normal front garage cookie-cutter subdivisions, front yards are bigger, which means more paving for each driveway. In a block with 20 houses, that being 20 on each side of the street, you've got 40 longer driveways. In rear facing plans, driveways are usually shorter, of course how much shorter depends on whether the garage is detached or attached, and an alley would be shared by those 40 homes. So I don't think the difference is that significant in paving. The REAL difference in paving is in sidewalks, which rear garage subdivisions will typically have, and front garage subdivisions will typically not have unless it was a planned development or closer to town where they were putting sidewalks even back in the '70s. That is particularly true in the Atlanta area.

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

The houses have small postage stamp sized backyards as a result.

And big public park space in the neighborhood to compensate. Although on occasion developers will get greedy and skimp on neighborhood park space to maximize house placement, which detracts from that key benefit of the whole concept.

[Saintmarks]

Originally Posted by MantaRay

Not really extra. In normal front garage cookie-cutter subdivisions, front yards are bigger, which means more paving for each driveway. In a block with 20 houses, that being 20 on each side of the street, you've got 40 longer driveways. In rear facing plans, driveways are usually shorter, of course how much shorter depends on whether the garage is detached or attached, and an alley would be shared by those 40 homes. So I don't think the difference is that significant in paving. The REAL difference in paving is in sidewalks, which rear garage subdivisions will typically have, and front garage subdivisions will typically not have unless it was a planned development or closer to town where they were putting sidewalks even back in the '70s. That is particularly true in the Atlanta area.

And big public park space in the neighborhood to compensate. Although on occasion developers will get greedy and skimp on neighborhood park space to maximize house placement, which detracts from that key benefit of the whole concept.

I don't see how the garage in the front verses the back makes a developer decide to keep more green space. Green space is there because of other factors.

Here in McKinney, TX, the premier planned development that started the suburban explosion, Stonebridge Ranch, has few if any neighborhoods with rear garages. A lot of the homes are golf view lots, creek lots and lake lots. Rear garages would ruin the embiance of having a view. Stonebridge Ranch has as much if not more designated open space than other neighborhoods without being a rear garage community.

Outside of this development there are a lot of neighborhoods with alleys and rear gargages. Don't see any difference in neighbors walking because of where their garage is located.

As I stated before, my two dislikes of this type of community:
1) Rear drives, rear alleys and rear garages impede on the backyard space on lots that typically are too small anyway.
2) People tend to park on the curb far more in these neighborhoods than in front garage neighborhoods, leaving room for only one car to drive down a street at a time. If you meet someone coming the other direction, you have to wait behind a parked car on the curb until it passes.

Cookie cutter applies to just as many rear garage neighborhoods as it does to front garage neighborhoods. The same three or four houseplans keep repeating over and over.

Nothing horribly wrong with rear garages, just prefer the other for these reasons.

[MantaRay]

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

I don't see how the garage in the front verses the back makes a developer decide to keep more green space. Green space is there because of other factors.

Actually these type of developments come from a certain philosophy of development. That philosophy includes having neighborhood parks. To set aside the land for neighborhood parks, and to at the same time let the developer make a good profit, the land has to be taken from each individual home. The garage in the back makes the developer able to decrease the lot footprint. With garages in the front, houses are usually wider. And people generally like to park in their driveways, so that means front garage developments typically extend the depth of the front yard to give enough driveway space for 2 cars end to end in typical developments. On top of that, they don't tend to make the back yards more shallow than the front yards, so that's a deeper back yard over a wider lot width. So overall the individual yard space is greater in a front garage development. That discourages developers from setting aside extra land for parks. With garages in the back, homes can be placed closer to the sidewalk, reducing the front yard depth, and the garage is only going to be so far from the rear alley, which reduces back yard depth. What remains is a configuration where there is mainly a side yard with a little bit in the back. So the overall yard space is less in rear garage development. That encourages developers to be willing to set aside more land for neighborhood park space.

If a development is 10 acres and each lot is 0.25 acres, that makes 40 homes possible with no greenspace. If a developer was forced to include 2 acres of green space, that reduces the homes they can use to make money from to 32. With a rear garage scheme, the same 10 acres with 2 acres of green space can, if each lot is 0.15 acres, accommodate 53 homes. That's 21 extra homes to make a profit with. So indeed rear garage configuration DOES make a developer more friendly to the idea of including a good deal of park space in the development because that developer can still make money.

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

Here in McKinney, TX, the premier planned development that started the suburban explosion, Stonebridge Ranch, has few if any neighborhoods with rear garages. A lot of the homes are golf view lots, creek lots and lake lots. Rear garages would ruin the embiance of having a view. Stonebridge Ranch has as much if not more designated open space than other neighborhoods without being a rear garage community.

You are talking about a golf course development. That is the exception. Most suburban developments are not golf course developments. So of course people are going to want wide back yards with nothing obstructing the view of the course and of course a golf course provides a lot of open space. I'm talking about the typical subdivision. Golf course subdivisions are atypical, they are not the norm.

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

Outside of this development there are a lot of neighborhoods with alleys and rear gargages. Don't see any difference in neighbors walking because of where their garage is located.

Maybe that's why Dallas keeps getting ranked at the top of the America's Fattest Cities list. Believe me, people in other cities who have those type of neighborhoods take advantage of the safer and more convenient walking and biking. I went to Stapleton in Denver and they were taking advantage of it. I went to I'ON in Mt. Pleasant SC and they were taking advantage of it. I went to Celebration in Orlando, FL and they were taking advantage of it. But then those cities aren't America's Fattest either.

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

As I stated before, my two dislikes of this type of community:
1) Rear drives, rear alleys and rear garages impede on the backyard space on lots that typically are too small anyway.
2) People tend to park on the curb far more in these neighborhoods than in front garage neighborhoods, leaving room for only one car to drive down a street at a time. If you meet someone coming the other direction, you have to wait behind a parked car on the curb until it passes.

1) Too small is a matter of opinion. These type of neighborhoods selling quickly and often at a premium to other neighborhoods in cities which don't replicate them as abudantly as Dallas demonstrates a greater demand for them in those cities. Since we're in the Atlanta thread I'll mention Glenwood Park as an example of that. Obviously that greater demand refutes the idea that the lots are too small. If we let the market decide if the lots are too small, the market has decided they are not. And again, the smaller lots tend to make for larger neighborhood green space/parks versus front garage (non golf course) ones.

2) You are correct on the slowing of traffic. And that is a good thing. It slows down traffic and thereby makes it safer for pedestrians. And that's the whole point of that type of neighborhood- it has increased pedestrian friendliness and convenience than the cookie cutter front garage neighborhood. Slowing the traffic in residential neighborhoods where children might be playing is a GOOD thing. In fact, if you research Traditional Neighborhood Developments, that is a key GOAL of the layout. So not only is it a good thing, it is an intentional thing.

[imaterry78259]

Originally Posted by MantaRay

From what I can see, the Dallas suburbs have plenty of neighborhoods with rear facing garages, a feature that is really tough to find in other metro areas, and certainly doesn't tend to be replicated again and again in Atlanta subdivisions as in Dallas subdivisions. It is there (Suwanee for example), just not plentiful.

Dallas also by far has the edge in public bike/walking trails that connect one part of the city to another. In that category, it's not even close. Atlanta has the Silver Comet, which connects the Smyrna suburb to the exurbs and rural areas, but certainly nothing going across town.

As far as lot size, Atlanta should have planned its suburban growth with much smaller lots like Dallas and with more of a grid street pattern like Dallas to distribute traffic more evenly and effectively. Atlanta typically has one way to get somewhere and the bigger lots have eaten up land and made sprawl even worse than it otherwise would have been.

Atlanta's advantages are its better weather (not as scorching) and being generally greener, if that sort of thing appeals to a person.

Take Gwinnet or Cobb county out of the Atlanta metro area?????

[Saintmarks]

Originally Posted by MantaRay

Actually these type of developments come from a certain philosophy of development. That philosophy includes having neighborhood parks. To set aside the land for neighborhood parks, and to at the same time let the developer make a good profit, the land has to be taken from each individual home. The garage in the back makes the developer able to decrease the lot footprint. With garages in the front, houses are usually wider. And people generally like to park in their driveways, so that means front garage developments typically extend the depth of the front yard to give enough driveway space for 2 cars end to end in typical developments. On top of that, they don't tend to make the back yards more shallow than the front yards, so that's a deeper back yard over a wider lot width. So overall the individual yard space is greater in a front garage development. That discourages developers from setting aside extra land for parks. With garages in the back, homes can be placed closer to the sidewalk, reducing the front yard depth, and the garage is only going to be so far from the rear alley, which reduces back yard depth. What remains is a configuration where there is mainly a side yard with a little bit in the back. So the overall yard space is less in rear garage development. That encourages developers to be willing to set aside more land for neighborhood park space.

If a development is 10 acres and each lot is 0.25 acres, that makes 40 homes possible with no greenspace. If a developer was forced to include 2 acres of green space, that reduces the homes they can use to make money from to 32. With a rear garage scheme, the same 10 acres with 2 acres of green space can, if each lot is 0.15 acres, accommodate 53 homes. That's 21 extra homes to make a profit with. So indeed rear garage configuration DOES make a developer more friendly to the idea of including a good deal of park space in the development because that developer can still make money.



You are talking about a golf course development. That is the exception. Most suburban developments are not golf course developments. So of course people are going to want wide back yards with nothing obstructing the view of the course and of course a golf course provides a lot of open space. I'm talking about the typical subdivision. Golf course subdivisions are atypical, they are not the norm.



Maybe that's why Dallas keeps getting ranked at the top of the America's Fattest Cities list. Believe me, people in other cities who have those type of neighborhoods take advantage of the safer and more convenient walking and biking. I went to Stapleton in Denver and they were taking advantage of it. I went to I'ON in Mt. Pleasant SC and they were taking advantage of it. I went to Celebration in Orlando, FL and they were taking advantage of it. But then those cities aren't America's Fattest either.



1) Too small is a matter of opinion. These type of neighborhoods selling quickly and often at a premium to other neighborhoods in cities which don't replicate them as abudantly as Dallas demonstrates a greater demand for them in those cities. Since we're in the Atlanta thread I'll mention Glenwood Park as an example of that. Obviously that greater demand refutes the idea that the lots are too small. If we let the market decide if the lots are too small, the market has decided they are not. And again, the smaller lots tend to make for larger neighborhood green space/parks versus front garage (non golf course) ones.

2) You are correct on the slowing of traffic. And that is a good thing. It slows down traffic and thereby makes it safer for pedestrians. And that's the whole point of that type of neighborhood- it has increased pedestrian friendliness and convenience than the cookie cutter front garage neighborhood. Slowing the traffic in residential neighborhoods where children might be playing is a GOOD thing. In fact, if you research Traditional Neighborhood Developments, that is a key GOAL of the layout. So not only is it a good thing, it is an intentional thing.

I am aware of the Traditional Neighborhood Developments that you mention. The penchant here in the Dallas burbs is not that persay, just a tradition that got started years ago for rear alleyways and rear garages. Not a different lot size, not a development that has more communal open areas, just the placement of the garage in the rear and an alley instead of a front entry garage.

Not that Dallasites don't walk as much, just a point that an alleyway and a rear entry garage doesn't automatically mean one will walk more than one whose garage is in the front of the house. Other factors have to be in place for that, closeness to shops, schools, libraries, other nearby activities that encourages walking. This goes with the TNDs that you mention. These Dallas burbs are not that (there are developments that do have this larger scope in mind) but the basic placement of a garage is not the issue. It is all the other factors in the development that encourage walking.