Urban Reserve?

[rabbit33]

Originally Posted by ThomasCrown

Are you sure about that? That seems like an extremely small lot for Stonebridge Ranch. That's .1 of an acre.


I'd argue builders are moving to that... lots in subdivisions used to be .25 acre around here in the 60's through the 80's. They're getting smaller and smaller now, but .1 still seems very small unless you live in a zero lot line house.

Read "A Field Guide to American Houses", Virginia McAlester, to understand better the evolution of city and near-urban lot sizes and shapes.

My 1939 house is on a narrow deepish (60 x 125) lot, 1/6 ac. roughly, as it's about the last of the streetcar subdivisions and frontage was minimized to reduce how far people had to walk from the streetcar stop. The deep lots allow for a kitchen garden in back.

[Leonard123]

Originally Posted by ThomasCrown

Are you sure about that? That seems like an extremely small lot for Stonebridge Ranch. That's .1 of an acre.


I'd argue builders are moving to that... lots in subdivisions used to be .25 acre around here in the 60's through the 80's. They're getting smaller and smaller now, but .1 still seems very small unless you live in a zero lot line house.

Absolutely positive. That's what my survey shows. If you drive around, you see the lots around Stonebridge tend not to be so deep. The homes and lots in my village though are also quite small relative to other villages. Yet, they look a lot bigger than modern floor plans that are twice the size. This yard looked enormous in comparison to where I had lived in California.

Even with that, my yard is a bear to maintain, and it's very costly even to get mowed. These are high maintenance homes.

My argument is not that lots are too small but that they are too narrow and deep. This requires essentially building a trailer or otherwise very limited and unworkable floor plan. No amount of square footage can keep it from being horribly cramped. It provides no benefit or illusion of space inside or out. In fact quite the opposite.

[Trimmings]

Originally Posted by Leonard123

My argument is not that lots are too small but that they are too narrow and deep. This requires essentially building a trailer or otherwise very limited and unworkable floor plan. No amount of square footage can keep it from being horribly cramped. It provides no benefit or illusion of space inside or out. In fact quite the opposite.

So if we took your 63 x 68 lot, and added another 68' at the back so that you would now have a 63 x 134' lot (which is actually still tiny), so that you could put a pool and a private entertainment area at the back, your house would now be on a "long and skinny" rectangular lot, and suddenly you would have a cramped house with oddly shaped rooms?? I think I would even choose the large triangular lot over a tiny square lot.

[TheOverdog]

They're getting smaller and smaller now, but .1 still seems very small unless you live in a zero lot line house.

Mine in McKinney was .15 of an acre - the house was 2600 sq ft but was more vertical than spread out ranch, so the yard was plenty big. Mine now on .25 of an acre has a far larger front yard, but is sited poorly and probably about the same size backyard as the one in McKinney.

[Leonard123]

Originally Posted by Trimmings

So if we took your 63 x 68 lot, and added another 68' at the back so that you would now have a 63 x 134' lot (which is actually still tiny), so that you could put a pool and a private entertainment area at the back, your house would now be on a "long and skinny" rectangular lot, and suddenly you would have a cramped house with oddly shaped rooms?? I think I would even choose the large triangular lot over a tiny square lot.

I don't consider 63 feet to be narrow, so that's just a large lot to begin with (and certainly not one I would choose). The more common 40-50 feet is narrow, although you can possibly work some things in with the right floor plan, and it would not be compatible with designs popular today among home builders.

[tcualum]

Originally Posted by Trimmings

And the triangular lot leads to a triangular house. And that in turn leads to some really weird rooms with unusable space.

We have a triangular lot with a point in front. Our house is L-shaped and we love it. The bedroom and the quiet parts of the house are one one leg and the public, busy parts of the house plus the garage are on the other leg. We love it. I can work in the kitchen and watch TV without waking the kids up. Opening and closing the garage door doesn't wake anyone. Since the bottom of the triangle is in the back our backyard feels expansive.

[Trimmings]

Originally Posted by tcualum

We have a triangular lot with a point in front. Our house is L-shaped and we love it. The bedroom and the quiet parts of the house are one one leg and the public, busy parts of the house plus the garage are on the other leg. We love it. I can work in the kitchen and watch TV without waking the kids up. Opening and closing the garage door doesn't wake anyone. Since the bottom of the triangle is in the back our backyard feels expansive.

That sounds great. But in the case of the triangular lot where the architect uses every inch of the property up to the setbacks (as they did in the house posted at the beginning of this thread), then we arrive at triangular rooms. Rooms with pointy parts. Useless pointy parts. Your house sounds wonderful, with no triangular pointy rooms.

[hbdwihdh378y9]

Originally Posted by tcualum

We have a triangular lot with a point in front. Our house is L-shaped and we love it. The bedroom and the quiet parts of the house are one one leg and the public, busy parts of the house plus the garage are on the other leg. We love it. I can work in the kitchen and watch TV without waking the kids up. Opening and closing the garage door doesn't wake anyone. Since the bottom of the triangle is in the back our backyard feels expansive.

My lot is shaped like a piece of Bundt cake. Lot is 16,000 square feet, and hardly any is wasted on the front yard. House is 62 feet wide. Typical 1970's Lake Highlands U shape. The floor plan makes sense. Bedroom wing (four bedrooms and laundry room) on one side of the U, living room/dining room open space at the bottom of the U, and informal dining space/kitchen/den/garage compose the other side of the U. Living room opens to covered space between indoors and the pool.