Why has the back yard disappeared in the valley? (Phoenix: 2013, new home)

[pbenjamin]

Our last house, in NE Phoenix, had a 15,400 sq ft lot. Had enough room in the back for a sport court, pool and a relatively large grassy area. It was great when we had kids, but became unnecessary and labor intensive when it came down to just two of us. Current location has 8960, which is plenty. I don't like most of the new construction with tiny lots, though. Looks like they are doing 5000 sq ft and less.

[ElleTea]

Originally Posted by Wally Sconce

People complain about urban sprawl in one breath than want a suburban/urban acreages to live on. What do you need a large backyard for in this climate? Grass uses too much water and requires too much upkeep.. A custom pool and/or a patio is all you need when the communities or HOAs provide rec facilities and areas for you. Another thing I noticed about Phoenix is that it's one of the few cities where you can still find bungalows being built, they take up a lot of lot space.

Yard does not necessarily equal grass. Just having space is nice. (and desert landscaping is the way to go here.)

[pbenjamin]

I don't think that sprawl has that much to do with lot size. It has more to do with leapfrog development, building where there is no infrastructure and under-utilized infill space. When they build in the middle of nowhere and demand roads and services, it's sprawl no matter how microscopic the lots are.

[FloppyRunner]

I guess I don't understand why we're complicating it so much.

A developer pays X amount of dollars for large plot of land. He/she/they can build a small number of homes with a ton of land per home for a lot of money, a huge number of homes with a tiny amount of land per home for not a lot of money, or somewhere in between. The free market has indicated that people will put up with less yard if it means they get more house per dollar, so most mainstream (read: affordable) developers have gone with the second option, or on that side of the spectrum anyway.

[asufan]

Urban sprawl definitely exists here and it is not really a negative thing IMO, it is market driven. People here want their own yard and want to put their kids in good schools, etc so the suburbs are popular. The valley does not really have a good urban core like most cities this size, the best jobs here are in the suburbs (or at least more than exist downtown). It's a lifestyle thing here, people aren't clamoring for extensive mass transit, high density development and growth restrictions, that's Portland.

[asufan]

Originally Posted by FloppyRunner

I guess I don't understand why we're complicating it so much.

A developer pays X amount of dollars for large plot of land. He/she/they can build a small number of homes with a ton of land per home for a lot of money, a huge number of homes with a tiny amount of land per home for not a lot of money, or somewhere in between. The free market has indicated that people will put up with less yard if it means they get more house per dollar, so most mainstream (read: affordable) developers have gone with the second option, or on that side of the spectrum anyway.

There's more people that can pay $250,000 for a house than can pay $500,000 for a house, that's the decision many builders make, especially in areas with lower incomes. I am in South Chandler and large lots are in abundance, even the newer stuff, but the prices are in the $450-$750K+ range which restricts the market that can afford to buy there.

[The_Cadillac_Lawyer]

One thing that stood out to me when I relocated here was how the homes are so long and narrow. My guess was builders wanted to fit as many lots onto a parcel of land as possible and had the zoning configured to match.

[enigmadsm]

Originally Posted by FloppyRunner

I guess I don't understand why we're complicating it so much.

A developer pays X amount of dollars for large plot of land. He/she/they can build a small number of homes with a ton of land per home for a lot of money, a huge number of homes with a tiny amount of land per home for not a lot of money, or somewhere in between. The free market has indicated that people will put up with less yard if it means they get more house per dollar, so most mainstream (read: affordable) developers have gone with the second option, or on that side of the spectrum anyway.

this is a good point, much of the land in the state is state/federal land. So the land that is available for purchase isn't all that cheap in comparison to other places, i guess that could explain why these businesses are trying to stuff as many homes per acre to make a hefty profit.

[jessicarae1060]

Building bigger houses on smaller lots is a trend throughout the country not just in the Valley area. The trend is towards more "greenspace" in communities and smaller lots for homes. It is a way to also conserve water. That being said, I'm right with you...I would like a bigger lot!

[stevek64]

Large lot sizes don't necessarily have to be pricey. More rural areas of surprise, waddel. Etc have good lot sizes for reasonable prices, far from the 450-750k range. Also there are nice size lots with nice homes in nice areas built in the 90s and before. And I think some of the homes built during those times used construction materials that I prefer as a side bonus.

I think the main advantage of a decent lot size is that it buys a bigger buffer between your neighbors so you don't have to be on top of everyone, hearing every backyard conversation, etc. A corner lot can help in this respect also for a nice privacy buffer for side space on a quiet street. As for maintenance on a large/larger lot, I agree with what others have said in that maintenance only exists if one creates that type of yard environment. Crushed gravel with some cactus/native plants is about as easy as it gets maintenance wise.

But yes, in the end, it is all about supply and demand. People keep buying what's being put out there by the builders and don't care about the trend of micro lot sizes, that's what you're going to see mostly.