Council Eyes End to Front Garages

[O-tacular]

Excerpt:

Monday, February 8, 2010

News Calgary & Alberta
Council eyes end to front garages

Advocate worries this will kill backyard gardening

By SHAWN LOGAN, Calgary Sun

Last Updated: 8th February 2010, 9:35am

Backyard paradises in Calgary could soon be concrete gardens, warns a local activist.

As city council pores over proposed changes to its Land Use Bylaw Monday, the Calgary Food Policy Council fears a plan to force garages into the rear of new homes with back lanes would see the booming business of home gardens wilt.


Link: http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alberta/2010/02/07/12782346.html
...

Thoughts?

[frinkprof]

Does anyone know of any studies comparing back-lanes vs. no back lane housing development? Land consumption, density, crime, greenspace-per-lot, etc.? I'd be interested to read something on the matter before forming an informed opinion. Not sure about the claims by the CFPC. Seems to me a back garage doesn't preclude gardening. I could see it limiting the size of garden though I guess.

My uninformed opinion - I hate snout houses. Almost everything about them.

---------------------------

Need to add a link O-tacular, and technically can't copy-and-paste the entire news story here.

[mooky]

No matter where you put the garage, it still takes up roughly the same amount of area, right? So why not slide the house forward on the property and gain more in the backyard?

[bookermorgan]

http://www.mattamyhomes.com/Alberta/images/rotating01.jpg

Mattamy has some not too bad looking front garage homes

[freeweed]

Pretty bizarre idea to completely ban one form or another like that.

Personally I'm not a fan of wasting that much land on *2* vehicular accesses to a property - a street AND a back lane is just that much more concrete for the same living space. Seems even more auto-centric. But some prefer it, so let them both be built.

About the only sensible "all back lane" style that I've ever liked was some streets I saw in Winnipeg (copied from somewhere else) - all houses had back lanes only, but their front yards had no street in between. Creating a wonderful greenspace between the houses, with a nice sidewalk running down the centre.

Bad quality picture, but gives the idea. (http://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&ll=49.888904,-97.109903&spn=0.003097,0.006539&t=h&z=18)

Not sure what this whole "eyes on the street" thing is supposed to protect, anyway. Forcing everything into back lanes just means the "bad guys" go there instead. Plus, at least in modern (past 30 years or so) Calgary developments, back laned houses typically have much larger back yards than front - so people still spend all of their time in the back yard. Next to their garage/driveway...

If anything, I'd rather see the City try to stop this "every single lot must be completely fenced off from its neighbours" mentality. I loved living in a house where 10 or 12 neighbours all had no fences, and you had this wonderful greenspace in between all the houses. Now everyone just jams themselves into a tiny postage stamp yard, walled away from ever seeing your neighbours.

[freeweed]

http://www.mattamyhomes.com/Alberta/images/rotating01.jpg

Mattamy has some not too bad looking front garage homes

Yes, and we could also look at moving garages to the side of houses, where they used to be in many places. Best of all worlds, although it does require completely different lot dimensions. You don't have these ridiculously deep narrow lots; instead you have wide, shallow lots. Same space, but MUCH more attractive.

The biggest driver behind modern "snout" design is space savings - developing above a garage is a great way to have more space on the same sized lot. I just wish it was to the side of the house instead of jutting out front, personally.

[Full Mountain]

Heres a thought what about rather than getting rid of the front garage altogether restrict the distance from the front door to the front of the garage....ie the front/main door can only be x meters or a percentage of width rearward from the front of the garage...This would maintain the eyes on the street while allowing for the choice of front garage with rear garden

[DizzyEdge]

http://www.mattamyhomes.com/Alberta/images/rotating01.jpg

Mattamy has some not too bad looking front garage homes

Those are definitely better than others I've seen.

This one is a decent example as well:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2223/2743841244_336f00f600.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/skomra/

[Ramsayfarian]

Pretty bizarre idea to completely ban one form or another like that.


About the only sensible "all back lane" style that I've ever liked was some streets I saw in Winnipeg (copied from somewhere else) - all houses had back lanes only, but their front yards had no street in between. Creating a wonderful greenspace between the houses, with a nice sidewalk running down the centre.


This was tried in Dover.

[Riise]

...a street AND a back lane is just that much more concrete for the same living space. Seems even more auto-centric. But some prefer it, so let them both be built.

...

Not sure what this whole "eyes on the street" thing is supposed to protect, anyway. Forcing everything into back lanes just means the "bad guys" go there instead.

The ban on the supply of snout houses isn't intended to have a single goal but allow for the achievement of linked goals. As Mooky pointed out, the removal of the garage from the front allows for the elimination of pointless and often under-utilized front yards, this allows houses to be pushed closer to the sidewalk and create a more human-scaled environment, this environment can be easily surveyed via the additional windows that can be placed on the extra frontage space made available, and putting garages in the rear allows for the creation of mew housing that could be situated above the garage and provide surveillance on the mew/back-lane.

[WhipperSnapper]

I've seen a number of studies and laneways do require more land and the garages do take away from the backyard. Pushing the houses forward towards the street is not always an option with respects to city allowances where they sometimes own half your front lawn.

Roof top terraces are taking over infill in central Toronto. It does require the homeowner's attention and is several flights up from the kitchen but does provides a fair amount of outdoor space for a house that covers around 80% of the property.

[Full Mountain]

This was tried in Dover.

There are some condo units in Renfrew that have a similar layout ie all the units back on to the parking lot and face towards the street and park around it These Here (http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=renfrew,calgary&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hl=en&hq=Renfrew&hnear=Renfrew&ll=51.060872,-114.03461&spn=0.002505,0.006968&t=h&z=18)

[frinkprof]

Pushing the houses forward towards the street is not always an option with respects to city allowances where they sometimes own half your front lawn.I would think this could be mitigated by moving utility easements to the back lanes, thereby allowing the building envelope to move forward toward the sidewalk.

[korzym]

This will just act as another tax on Calgarians. If this goes through many will be forced to pay the cost of paving their back lane. If the gov wants to intervene in any way, make it a law that the driveway cement area cannot be wider than the width of the garage door opening.

Personally I always though it would look better to have two concrete strips go up to the garage with a tile in between the two cement strips for your tires that lets a bit of grass and vegetation grow, through criss-crosses in the tiles

There are better options out there if you put your mind to it, lots of decent examples brought up already in pics.

[You Need A Thneed]

I definitely don't think there should be a complete ban on front garages, but I hate driving through communities where there are only front garaged homes, that all look pretty much exactly the same.

I do like the look of some of the houses up in Sage Hill (elsewhere I'm sure too) where the second floor extends out over the entire garage - it makes the garage seem much less prominent.

Thinking about place like McKenzie Towne, there are lots of streets with no front garages, but the houses are all about 10 feet from the sidewalk - there isn't room for anything in the front yard.

[fusili]

I understand the motivation for this initiative, but think it might be a little extreme. As someone else mentioned, locating front entrances closer to the front property line is a good compromise. Personally, I don't see the point of having both a street on the front and a lane on the back, either one is made redundant. I really don't see the problem with not having a back lane in the first place. It saves on space too.

[zooropa]

As a Mckenzie Towne resident, I can tell you that our small front yard does get used very little, except for some flower gardening and time spent on the porch. the backyard, despite the fact that it has a double garage, still gets used more and we also have a garden. not sure why having a garage in the back means there is no room for a garden...it's a garden, not a farm! ours is a raised garden that runs the length of the garage and is no deeper than i can reach with my arm...and it is more than we can manage sometimes. initially the only hang up i had about the detached garage in back was the walk in winter or rain into the house. and now after doing it for a few years i can say that a 10 second walk across the yard is such a small inconvenience that i much prefer it, with a nice looking porch out front, to the convenience of the attached front facing garage with no nice porch.

[Riise]

I've seen a number of studies and laneways do require more land and the garages do take away from the backyard.

Yeah, they do take up more space but I think it is a compromise that can be accepted and made easier to do so if the paving surface is made out of a permeable surface.


I really don't see the problem with not having a back lane in the first place. It saves on space too.

If the back lanes turn into mews then it provides the ADUs with direct access to the street/lane.


not sure why having a garage in the back means there is no room for a garden... it's a garden, not a farm!

Very well put!

[Xelebes]

Hey O-tac, please post the link to the article source and use an excerpt from the article, not the whole article.

[Stang]

I'll jump in with a little bit of "me too".

I personally don't like the look of front garages, but I'm not sure that a ban is the way to go. I think that if there were more options for rear garages, people could make a choice. Garrison Woods is a good example of some good-sized houses with rear garages - much nicer to look at. Most new neighbourhoods that I have seen either offer smaller "starter homes" (although I hate the term), or larger houses with front garages.

I often joke that we don't see the neighbours across from us (ours isn't a front garage, but across the street is) because the "mouth" opens up and sucks their vehicle in. Then spits it out later.

I actually like what Korzym says about having a couple of strips for your tires and then let the grass grow in between. If maintained, could look very nice and much better than a giant slab of concrete. The garage door would still be a bit of an eyesore, however.

[You Need A Thneed]

I actually like what Korzym says about having a couple of strips for your tires and then let the grass grow in between. If maintained, could look very nice and much better than a giant slab of concrete.

I don't think this works out very well in real life, the grass/whatever inbetween the tire tracks never grows very well. It would be often driven on, road sand/salt/gravel would fall of of cars onto the soil - making the soil not very friendly to plant life, cars parking there would block the sunlight for long periods of time, etc.

I think installing a variety of looks for the concrete pads would be a better idea instead of every single one being simple uncoloured broomed finish concrete. Add some colour, and stamped patterns, plus add landscaping around the driveway, make them vary like the houses do.

Here at our office, the driveway (not leading to a front garage), is made of stamped coloured concrete that looks a lot like big flat stones. It looks really good.

[freeweed]

Most new neighbourhoods that I have seen either offer smaller "starter homes" (although I hate the term), or larger houses with front garages.

Like it or not, there's a reason that term is used. And it explains much of the vehemence thrown towards attached, front-facing garages.

It's cheaper to build a house without a garage, all else being equal. If these "starter homes" were always built with garages in the back, that wouldn't be the case, but that's not how things are done. Maybe the city should require all new homes to be built with garages, to take away some of this perceived class separation, and let people decide which they prefer on merit alone.

[Dado]

:previous:

I'm not following your logic here. With vehicle access at the front, the only real options* for a garage are the snout design (cheap) and the integrated design (much more expensive). Either way, the garage, if you're going to have one, pretty much has to be built at the time the house is constructed.

But with rear lane access, the garage can be skipped and just left as an empty driveway. People can build their garages later if they so desire, or build a bike garage or a garden shed or whatever they fancy. At any rate, skipping the garage is a pretty easy way to chop several thousand dollars off the initial purchase price of a house.


One of the issues with rear lanes is that they increase the total amount of land used for roads, which reduces density. This is where reducing the road width can help, so RoW is transferred from the front to the back. Another appealing option is something like the one posted earlier from Winnipeg, where the entire concept of front and back is reversed; still I'd make the front lane at least wide enough to drive on.


*The side garage would be an option with wider lots but that just increases the requirement for cross-streets.

[freeweed]

But with rear lane access, the garage can be skipped and just left as an empty driveway. People can build their garages later if they so desire, or build a bike garage or a garden shed or whatever they fancy. At any rate, skipping the garage is a pretty easy way to chop several thousand dollars off the initial purchase price of a house.

That is exactly why these are termed "starter" homes, and why there's a perceived "low end" vs "higher end" distinction between the two house types.

[hulkrogan]

With the rear garage you aren't wasting a decent chunk of lot on a big concrete driveway. You should be able to shrink lot sizes and still have more useable space, or, preferably, push the house up and have a giant back yard with a garage. More windows on the main floor of a house sure makes for a nicer interior.

[freeweed]

With the rear garage you aren't wasting a decent chunk of lot on a big concrete driveway. You should be able to shrink lot sizes and still have more useable space, or, preferably, push the house up and have a giant back yard with a garage. More windows on the main floor of a house sure makes for a nicer interior.

Conversely, with a front garage you could push it forwards and eliminate the large concrete pad in front. I've seen this with townhouse style condos although I suspect it would draw even more ire from those dead-set against front garages.

Oh, and plenty of rear garages are built deep into the property, with a large concrete apron out front. Also with side garages in places that still have them (older areas usually). They're just not required to do so as is typically the case with front garages.

[devonb]

Roof top terraces are taking over infill in central Toronto. It does require the homeowner's attention and is several flights up from the kitchen but does provides a fair amount of outdoor space for a house that covers around 80% of the property.

This is what we're thinking of doing in our back yard. We'd like a double garage for my wife's car, my motorcycle and tools, but we don't want to lose the yard space for the garden. So, we're thinking we'll eventually put a rooftop garden on the garage and reclaim the space that would otherwise go to waste. I haven't looked into pricing, but I'm sure it's not cheap.

[Ferreth]

I wonder why no one builds houses with attached garages backing onto the lane rather than the front. I've seen a few older houses where the owners have "attached" the garage to the house by enclosing the space between the house and the garage. What I hate is all the houses with a garage sticking out the front and nothing above it - waste of good space. These days, you can usually get a "bonus room" built into that space, which usually improves the look of the house IMO.

I'd say rather than banning front garages, there needs to be some thought given to restrictions on what can be built. The first thing I would ban would be building any front garages on feeder routes, bus routes or any other heavier traffic community streets. Those places all get back lanes and room for back garages. There is no way a car should be backing out onto one of these roads. Frankly, if it's a bus route, it pretty much should be relegated to higher density to start with, not single house with garage type stuff.

Second, I'd restrict how much garage frontage you can have on the front of a house. A double garage looks out of proportion with a small house - restrict those to single car, and put the garage under the first level. The same goes for attached units, single garage under each unit, with some stagger between units to break up the monotony.

Thirdly, I'd remove back lanes from any plan for a street allowing predominately front garages. As previously mentioned, it's a waste of space.

I'd also encourage designs that allow things like decks over garage roofs - in one friend's case they have a bonus room and a deck over their garage (it's a bigger house with an ample 2 car garage) There are several of these in my neighborhood - I have a deck on my backyard garage which makes up for the lack of yard to some extent, and another person has a hot tube on theirs - a little 'public' being on the front side for my taste, but they happen to have a nice city view there to go along with that. :cool:

[McMahon]

From the article:

Paul Hughes, chair of the CFPC, said proposed amendments to the document that guides city development could be the death knell for backyard gardens and green spaces if it’s approved.

“Paving paradise is exactly what we’re doing here — we’re turning our backs on our heritage and people being able to make decisions with their own properties,” he said.

I don't get this argument at all. In fact, it's ridiculous. If a person wants to grow vegetables in their backyard, then they're going to buy a home with a large backyard. It's not as if people are going to be forced to buy these "front garage"-less homes. They'll just make a decision on it, like they would any other decision when buying a home.

[niwell]

The article was awfully reactionary and shallow on facts, but I guess it is the Sun. "OMG, but how will people EVER be able to grow all the food in their backyard PARADISE in this AWFUL recession". Considering this would only be on streets with laneway access, I'm not sure what the huge deal is. How many new houses with laneways even have front garages? From the new areas I've driven through I'd guess it would be a minimum. Consumer choice would involve picking a house that doesn't have a laneway so you can have your front garage.

And there are certainly advantages to the detached laneway garage that people have already mentioned. Another would be that the presence of a structure at the back of your lot actually creates a more private setting for your backyard. It's kind of nice compared to some new houses where it seems like you're looking directly into the neigbour behind you.

A larger issue may be the nature of suburban Calgary in that developers have almost exclusively chosen to go with the deep-narrow lot configuration which more or less dictates either a snout house or laneway parking. You can still achieve similar suburban densities with a shallow-long configuration which provides for the side garages others have posted. Not saying this is better, but it is another option. Ottawa has gone almost exclusively in this direction for new single family homes, and places like Markham have a mix of lot styles (albeit not necessarily in the same development) for new housing.

[freeweed]

Wow, did I ever read this story wrong. My impression was that council was seriously debating a complete ban on front garages. Hey, we've seen weirder.

For those as stupid as me (maybe I'm the only one): this is only a ban on front garages on properties that already have a back lane. Which completely makes sense - why have the worst of both worlds? The awkward look of a snout, combined with still having to trudge through your yard with your garbage/recycling.

niwell is right. I've rarely seen back lane houses with front garages, and when you do see it, it looks ridiculous. I think maybe 1-2 streets in an average new neighbourhood in Calgary do this.

Please someone tell me I'm not the only one who made this mistake. :blush:

[O-tacular]

:previous: :previous: Lake Bonavista is the worst for this as there are alleys everywhere and virtually no detached garages in the back. Houses are almost exclusively snout.

[You Need A Thneed]

So, this is just about having no alleys in lots that are intended for front attached garages? So, basically the most pointless discussion ever? There are already virtually no lots in new communities that have both alleys and are designed for front garages. The only places where it does happen is where the community design requires it due to some quirk.

They should just turn around the houses and have rear attached garages. The problem is the Land Use Bylaw that requires 6 metres from the rear property line to any living space (attached decks included)

[Wentworth]

There is an excellent real life case study on this issue here in Wentworth. A few streets were designated for "Euro Zone" homes with rear garages, the remaining lots were designed for traditional front-garage homes. When we were building we seriously considered the laned homes because they had great street appeal. But that came at a price. For starters, the lots were smaller because of the space eaten up by the lane. If you had a detached garage, then that meant doing the sprint every morning from the house to the garage. In a cold city like Calgary, people love their attached garages. If you opted for a rear attached garage, then you ended up with practically no back yard as you had both a garage and a driveway in the back yard now. The back yards of these homes also had a somewhat claustrophobic feel. Perhaps some of that could have been resolved by moving the homes forward. Anyways, these lots did not sell well. The developer took several deep cuts on the lots and eventually permitted garage fronting homes to be built on them. The result was a little silly looking, I'll have to see if I can find it on Google Street View.

[frinkprof]

Bump.

This doesn't look too bad to me, much better than the Beige stucco. What we need to do in this city is ban front entry garages, you should use the alley like most of MacKenzie town does.

[LFRENCH]

well thank you frinkprof

I for the life of me cannot figure out the debate on either the front or rear garages? maybe someone can give me a run down on the issue

A)Why are front garages such a big deal?
B)How does a front or back garage differ in the density?
C)How do we believe we are going to get better architecture from moving the garages into the back?

I'm not trying to be a smart ass, more of a dumb ass:P However I just don't understand how this debate is happening :sly:

[Wentworth]

Just Google "snout house" and you will find the case against this type of housing, e.g. http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/arts/civicarts/Areaplanning/urbandesign/snouthouse/snouthouse.htm

[freeweed]

well thank you frinkprof

I for the life of me cannot figure out the debate on either the front or rear garages? maybe someone can give me a run down on the issue

A)Why are front garages such a big deal?
B)How does a front or back garage differ in the density?
C)How do we believe we are going to get better architecture from moving the garages into the back?

I'm not trying to be a smart ass, more of a dumb ass:P However I just don't understand how this debate is happening :sly:

Basically it comes down to this:

1. Some people hate the look, period, without any particular reason (we all have our own valid tastes).

2. Some people dislike the perceived "affluence" that comes with a front garage. Remember that back in the day you were lucky to be able to afford a garage period, and the only people who could put one facing forward (ie: not in a back lane) were the wealthy. As building types changed and our houses grew bigger (and cities just planned differently) we started to see a lot of "regular folk" being able to afford a front garage, albeit at a premium over a rear garage. This difference continues today in every neighbourhood in Calgary, at least. Front garaged houses are always more expensive than rear garaged homes, all else being equal - at least in every single neighbourhood I compared prices in. This really bothers some people, but I leave it as an exercise to the reader as to why. A tremendous number of people I've known over the years fit into this category - they know squat about density, urban form, pedestrian realms, and all the stuff you're about to here in forthcoming posts. They plain and simple do not like front garages, because it makes the owners look like they have more money and that they're flaunting it (cars == affluence, to some). You can really spot these folks because they're not so much against snout houses as they are ANY front-facing garage. The convenience of just pulling up and into your garage (and walk right into your house) seems to always come at a premium, and this upsets some people.

3. Front garages end up taking some of the "visibility" out of a neighbourhood. You're basically putting a huge wall on the front of your house, as opposed to having windows - the "eyes on the street" effect. This of course assumes that all or most commonly used rooms in a house face the street, and really would have to be mandated into building codes to have any meaning. Forcing bedrooms to face the back of the house, etc. I know of many, many laned areas where the majority of the busy rooms face the rear of the house, for instance. This could be mostly mitigated by having attached garages at the side of the house, and plenty of front windows - but see point #2 above. It's still argued against by many, because ANY front garage presence is BAD.

4. Obscure arguments about what is and is not pedestrian friendly. I find this has far more to do with having bloody sidewalks than anything else. I've seen plenty of back-laned neighbourhoods with no sidewalks - tell me that's pedestrian friendly. Put sidewalks in and people will walk, as evidenced by the throngs of people walking their dog and kids by my house every single day. But to some, having a garage in front says "no pedestrians allowed". Oddly, having double the pavement for the same number of houses has always struck me as even more auto-focused, but I'm in the minority here.

5. Really, a lot of this comes down to whether or not you view a visible garage as saying "cars first, bitches!" or "um, nearly everyone has a car, this is just accepting reality". Many people here fit into the first category, I fit into the latter. It's a psychological difference that ain't gonna be easily solved on an Internet forum. There's a lot of irony here in that plenty of people with garages (front or otherwise) don't actually put their car into them, they park on the driveway/street and fill their garage with crap. When I've lived in laned areas, it always seemed like the road was covered with parked cars on both sides. Tell me that doesn't say "cars first, bitches!", but again I'm in the minority here. And of course having a front garage but not actually putting a car in it is really stupid - that IS effectively putting up a wall on the front of your house for no good reason.


Note that I'm completely in the dark as to actual research on any of this, this is purely my own anecdotal evidence from living in and visiting every type of residential neighbourhood over the years. And actually trying to find out WHY people have a preference for something or other, beyond either "it's what I grew up with, therefore that's how everyone should live" or "my parents had this and I'm rebelling against their lifestyle, so everything they did is wrong" (which generally dominate, but some folks actually think about this stuff a little deeper).

The front/rear garage preference has been a minor obsession with me since I was a teenager, so I've talked to hundreds if not thousands of people about it. It's always amazed me just how many different responses you can get on something like this.

[frinkprof]

^Freeweed,

I've actually never heard anyone have the sentiment you describe in point #2. I'm really not sure if it's a common one. Maybe I'm in the dark here.

I agree with your point #3. The existence of sidewalks is probably more important than building design/lot layout, from a pedestrian friendliness standpoint anyway.

[fusili]

I got nothing against front garages. Build what ever the hell you want. Its your choice, not mine.

[Stang]

For me it boils down primarily to aesthetics. I just like the look of a house and yard that isn't dominated by a garage door and a concrete pad.

Secondarily is a feeling of isolating the house from the street. Most homes with garages in the front are 80% garage, and the remainder is the front door and maybe a window. Whenever I'm in a house with a front garage, it feels like the house is isolated from the street (and therefore the neighbourhood).

I don't have any science to back it up, but that's just the feeling that I get. Maybe I'm just strange. ;)

Should the be banned? Nope. Let people have the choice.

As Freeweed mentioned, I do sometimes feel that there is a perception of affluence with front garages, whether right or wrong. A 1400 square foot house with a rear garage = starter home. The same living space with a front garage = move-up home (albeit a smaller one). To me, those terms are industry creations anyway, but the perception exists.

[agent_imperial]

I think it would be rather draconian to ban front facing garages! There is nothing wrong with either type in my opinion.

I've lived in homes with both front and rear facing garages. I may be the exception to the rule, but I found the front facing garage to be more social than the rear facing garages. I certainly had far more random chats with neighbors when I was out polishing my car, or doing maintenance on my bike or just randomly working on a project in the front garage than I ever did in the garages that faced the alleys.

I found that front facing garages actually gave people a purpose to spend more time in their front yards, where as in the communities with rear facing garages everyone spent more time in their backyard and didn't really have a reason to be in the front yard.

However, from a purely aesthetic standpoint, a home with no garage on the front is much more appealing to me.

[Wentworth]

1000 words (or less):

http://i39.tinypic.com/nwzrlx.jpg

[SubwayRev]

I think it would be rather draconian to ban front facing garages! There is nothing wrong with either type in my opinion.

I've lived in homes with both front and rear facing garages. I may be the exception to the rule, but I found the front facing garage to be more social than the rear facing garages. I certainly had far more random chats with neighbors when I was out polishing my car, or doing maintenance on my bike or just randomly working on a project in the front garage than I ever did in the garages that faced the alleys.

I found that front facing garages actually gave people a purpose to spend more time in their front yards, where as in the communities with rear facing garages everyone spent more time in their backyard and didn't really have a reason to be in the front yard.

However, from a purely aesthetic standpoint, a home with no garage on the front is much more appealing to me.

I'd never thought of it that way. Asthetically, it's probably nicer to have one in the back, but functionally and socially, it's probably better in the front. Looking at Wentworth's picture, I can see the front 'yard' of the house with the driveay getting used much, much more than the house next door. Be it kids playing hockey, fixing a bike, or whatever.

[freeweed]

^Freeweed,

I've actually never heard anyone have the sentiment you describe in point #2. I'm really not sure if it's a common one. Maybe I'm in the dark here.

Well, it's not generally stated so plainly. Like I mentioned, I've really had to dig at people to get to the root of why they believe what they do, and eventually I've heard that comment from many, many folks. They dress it up in all sorts of fancy language but really it comes down to "my parents/France/Jeebus survived with X, so why should anyone want anything more". People coming from overseas have said this pretty straight to my face - WE in England survive just fine with our houses as is, you North Americans don't NEED this extravagance. As soon as someone starts arguing like that, it smacks of class envy.

I also grew up with a lot of traditional "blue collar" (better term, lower income) types who could never afford to live in areas with front drives. Believe me, many of these folks had no problem stating pretty much what I've written.

Obviously not everyone (folks here tend to have a much deeper thought process), but you have to admit that there is a LOT of anti-SFH, anti-suburb, and anti-car sentiment that really is about that. It's the same reason some people go on rampages about how evil Bearspaw/Springbank is. They really aren't looking at a sustainability/transit/infrastructure issues, they just think that no one should have this much land or a 4 car garage or an SUV or a pool or whatever it is that is the topic of the day.

Like I said, around here people tend to have actual reasons, but even still those types of sentiments do creep in from time to time from certain posters.

As much as I hate to stereotype, let's face it - there are far more Camaros up on cinder blocks in areas with back lanes compared to snout houses.

And now I've probably pissed off 95% of the forum. :haha:

[freeweed]

I'd never thought of it that way. Asthetically, it's probably nicer to have one in the back, but functionally and socially, it's probably better in the front. Looking at Wentworth's picture, I can see the front 'yard' of the house with the driveay getting used much, much more than the house next door. Be it kids playing hockey, fixing a bike, or whatever.

This is what I've experienced myself. I've lived both ways and when living with a back lane, people were almost never in the front of their house. Now that I've got a front drive, I say 'hi' to my neighbours at least several times per week. We just tend to do things in the front more often, because that's where the focus of the daily activities are. Mind you if I had kids I imagine I'd spend a lot more time in the backyard... about the only time I'm back there now is to mow the grass, or BBQ'ing on the deck.

Now, in areas where people do not all have cars, then everyone generally uses the front door. And they tend to hang out in front more often. But those areas are not very common in a city like Calgary.

I understand and somewhat agree with what Wentworth is trying to convey (to me snout houses are the lesser of 2 evils at best), but I also understand the difference between theory and practice. In theory houses with front walks are awesome and 10x better. In practice, not so much. At least from my experience.

[fusili]

I agree with you freeweed. I don't care how people choose to live, or how they choose to design their homes, or what types of people they choose to live with. All I care is that they pay the proper price for it. And I really don't see any municipal cost implication for front garages.

[Calgarian]

The social aspect is a good point, it's just that front facing garages are damn ugly! and rear garages almost mandate a better alley treatment (paved vs gravel).

[freeweed]

The social aspect is a good point, it's just that front facing garages are damn ugly! and rear garages almost mandate a better alley treatment (paved vs gravel).

Well, rear garages are the only reason you'd ever even NEED (or in my opinion, want) an alley in the first place. But yeah, they definitely should be paved if they're to exist at all. A good part of my distaste for back lanes is having lived on graveled ones. :yuck:

[LFRENCH]

Thanks for the input.

I guess since I grew up on Vancouver Island perhaps I don't see the issue in the same light. When I lived in Hawkwood I was always amazed however how none of the houses had a entirely intergrated front garage.

Aside from the older areas around downtown we don't see garages in the back of the house, when we do they are usually accessed from a driveway down the side of the house as well.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&q=victoria&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Victoria,+Capital+Regional+District,+British+Columbia&ll=48.420404,-123.378021&spn=0.001339,0.003484&z=19&layer=c&cbll=48.420352,-123.377912&panoid=jOiRSid-uyKVmve79lCcZQ&cbp=12,41.86,,0,8.05

[hulkrogan]

I found the front facing garage to be more social than the rear facing garages.

Absolutely. I've got a rear garage now and didn't see my neighbours all winter. On a front garage you end up shovelling and in the summer in and out of it when working on the yard etc. The plus side is I didn't have to shovel a driveway all winter.

Thanks for the input.

I guess since I grew up on Vancouver Island perhaps I don't see the issue in the same light. When I lived in Hawkwood I was always amazed however how none of the houses had a entirely intergrated front garage.

Aside from the older areas around downtown we don't see garages in the back of the house, when we do they are usually accessed from a driveway down the side of the house as well.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&q=victoria&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Victoria,+Capital+Regional+District,+British+Columbia&ll=48.420404,-123.378021&spn=0.001339,0.003484&z=19&layer=c&cbll=48.420352,-123.377912&panoid=jOiRSid-uyKVmve79lCcZQ&cbp=12,41.86,,0,8.05

Speaking of shovelling, that's the major downfall of that design in Calgary. Clearing off a side driveway SUCKS. Also, you eat up quite a bit of yard for the concrete drive, more than any other option.

[bigcanuck]

An example from an established neighbourhood in Calgary - shoveling the following driveways would be a chore for sure:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&q=victoria&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Victoria,+Capital+Regional+District,+British+Columbia&layer=c&cbll=50.952179,-114.091673&panoid=RtrLH_HvRIzRRrCVbuJKJg&cbp=12,152.92,,0,10.35&ll=50.95228,-114.091247&spn=0.001183,0.003157&t=h&z=19

[Blood PuP]

The front yard is pretty useless for most people, they spend all of their outside time in their back yard. I do not get why we do not see more houses pushed completely to the front of their lot. Instead of splitting up the space put it all where it will actually is used. And with this of course you want the garage in front. No space wasted with a driveway because there is no front lawn to cross.

Also I do not think garages are necessarily ugly. All of the pictures I have seen of houses with front garages that look ugly are not ugly because of the garage. They would be just as ugly without the garage. The houses are ugly because they are a monument to bland. They are a beige assault on your soul. Giving houses some sort of character and differentiation from their neighboring houses is much more important to looking good than the orientation of the garage.

[Riise]

2. Some people dislike the perceived "affluence" that comes with a front garage.

That is rather interesting, I have never really heard that reasoning before.


Oddly, having double the pavement for the same number of houses has always struck me as even more auto-focused, but I'm in the minority here.

This doesn't have to be the case. I'd like having garages in the rear to be part of a transition from alleys to back lanes. The other part of this transition is having ADUs or work units fronting these back lanes. Like the image below but with a garage on the ground floor.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01477/p-london-mews2_1477305i.jpg
Source: telegraph.co.uk

http://babuk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/london-mews2-225x300.jpg
Source: babuk.com


5. Really, a lot of this comes down to whether or not you view a visible garage as saying "cars first, bitches!" or "um, nearly everyone has a car, this is just accepting reality".

I think most planners these days have to accept that reality but can they not accommodate this reality without prioritizing it?

[sim]

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&q=calgary&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Calgary,+Division+No.++6,+Alberta&ll=51.04022,-114.087484&spn=0.000553,0.002406&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=51.04022,-114.087485&panoid=SlhysRpbq061GVVqlrRoiw&cbp=11,0.98,,0,5

I would embed, but I can never seem to make it work on here.

Anyway, I think the above are pretty good front door garages. Recessed partially into the ground.

[Dado]

The existence of sidewalks is probably more important than building design/lot layout, from a pedestrian friendliness standpoint anyway.

I live in a neighbourhood without sidewalks (and without curbs as well) and it has always been considered pedestrian friendly. People's front lawns and gardens just extend right out into the street on the level. The thing is that the neighbourhood is so old that people have always walked on the streets from long before anyone had a car and this tradition has never stopped, so culturally in this neighbourhood the streets are for everyone.

I suspect that if everyone was relocated in one go and a new population brought in this might not be the case any longer, but since that won't happen it seems that our sidewalkless streets will continue to be pedestrian-friendly. I don't know if this can be replicated in a new neighbourhood because the state of things in this neighbourhood is not just a physical artifact but a cultural one as well, so short of populating a new neighbourhood with a significant majority from a neighbourhood like this one, it might not be possible to create new sidewalkless pedestrian-friendly neighbourhoods.

As an interesting footnote, I do note however that we have a couple of streets with curbs in the neighbourhood but without sidewalks and these streets have a fundamentally different "feel" to them as a pedestrian. You have a sense that you don't really belong there. We even have one street with a curb on one side and none on the other so walking on the side without the curb feels a lot more comfortable than walking on the side with it. It's really an interesting study in the psychological effect of design.

[Dado]

The front yard is pretty useless for most people, they spend all of their outside time in their back yard. I do not get why we do not see more houses pushed completely to the front of their lot. Instead of splitting up the space put it all where it will actually is used. And with this of course you want the garage in front. No space wasted with a driveway because there is no front lawn to cross.

Also I do not think garages are necessarily ugly. All of the pictures I have seen of houses with front garages that look ugly are not ugly because of the garage. They would be just as ugly without the garage. The houses are ugly because they are a monument to bland. They are a beige assault on your soul. Giving houses some sort of character and differentiation from their neighboring houses is much more important to looking good than the orientation of the garage.

I agree, sort of, in that avoiding snout garages can improve the look of the street and that front lawns are generally wasted space. Nevertheless, front garages do pose a design challenge. With larger (or at least wider) houses, garages can be disappeared into the façade as just one element amongst many but as house width narrows the fixed-width garage comes to occupy an ever larger proportion of the façade (it's even worse with 1½ or double width garages and especially garage doors - please, if you're going to have a double width garage at least put two doors on it). Once you're down to less than 20' there's virtually no façade left for anything else. Going from two to three storeys helps here since it increases the total façade area by 50% which reduces the impact of the garage door, but builders seem quite reluctant to build three storeys.

[Bassic Lab]

Front garage neighbourhoods are problematic for life cycle reasons relating to parking. Admittedly this seems, based entirely on anecdotal evidence, to be less of a problem than it may once have been. First, smaller family sizes clearly alleviate the issue. Secondly, people seem to move far more often, resulting in newer neighbourhoods constantly maintaining a greater demographic mix across age levels. That said, there is still an issue. These homes can typically only accommodate parking for two and half cars on any kind of regular basis. Two can use the garage and driveway while there is usually only enough room for one car to park on the street for every two houses. If more than two adults are living in the house (think grown children, a roommate, a parent, etcetera) then it is beyond the threshold and if this is repeated along a street then parking is cluster f*** for the whole block.

Am I the only one that dreads going to a party in these areas? It becomes impossible to find somewhere to park. Neighbourhoods that are fifty years old never have this issue. Sure the lot sizes are often larger but the mixture of rear entry garages and single width (instead of the now common double width) front driveways that lead to a side garage allow for a great deal of on street parking. With parallel parking becoming a lost art form, it is often possible to grab a great spot even if you're late to the gathering.

[Wentworth]

The City needs to pick and choose its battles. The article doesn't make it really clear why the City would want to ban front garages, but if most Calgarians clearly favour this form of housing, I would not go about alienating voters merely on the basis of some marginal hypothetical social benefit to laned housing. The reason some surburbs aren't walkable isn't because they are full of snout houses, it's because there is nowhere to walk to.

[Wentworth]

Front garage neighbourhoods are problematic for life cycle reasons relating to parking. Admittedly this seems, based entirely on anecdotal evidence, to be less of a problem than it may once have been. First, smaller family sizes clearly alleviate the issue. Secondly, people seem to move far more often, resulting in newer neighbourhoods constantly maintaining a greater demographic mix across age levels. That said, there is still an issue. These homes can typically only accommodate parking for two and half cars on any kind of regular basis. Two can use the garage and driveway while there is usually only enough room for one car to park on the street for every two houses. If more than two adults are living in the house (think grown children, a roommate, a parent, etcetera) then it is beyond the threshold and if this is repeated along a street then parking is cluster f*** for the whole block.

Am I the only one that dreads going to a party in these areas? It becomes impossible to find somewhere to park. Neighbourhoods that are fifty years old never have this issue. Sure the lot sizes are often larger but the mixture of rear entry garages and single width (instead of the now common double width) front driveways that lead to a side garage allow for a great deal of on street parking. With parallel parking becoming a lost art form, it is often possible to grab a great spot even if you're late to the gathering.

I think it probably has more to do with the fact that the density of newer areas is much higher as compared to the neighbourhoods of fifty years ago, e.g.
Copperfield vs. Fairmont (http://i44.tinypic.com/aoszv6.png)

Cougar Ridge vs. (http://i40.tinypic.com/2rxgyzr.png)

[Bassic Lab]

I think it probably has more to do with the fact that the density of newer areas is much higher as compared to the neighbourhoods of fifty years ago, e.g.
Copperfield vs. Fairmont (http://i44.tinypic.com/aoszv6.png)

Cougar Ridge vs. (http://i40.tinypic.com/2rxgyzr.png)

That is definitely part of it. Like I said, the wider lots contribute to the ease of on street parking but they're not the sole cause. I have no difficulty finding a parking spot in the "starter home" sections of newer neighbourhoods. It is even easier to find parking in inner city areas where 25 foot lots have become the norm due to infills despite the fact that I'm sure non-resident parkers take up far more space there than in far flung suburbs.

Also your second pic really showcases the benefits of grid streets with alleys. There is plenty of evidence of infill construction there, not only the four houses on 25 foot lots but a number of the larger single buildings appear to be duplexes. It is also relatively easy to see how small, 3 to 6 storey, apartments buildings would fit into the urban fabric. Good luck promoting further densification in Cougar Ridge.

[halifaxboyns]

When I moved from Halifax, I had never heard of rear lanes and I was really surprised how wide spread they were in Alberta.

I lived in a pretty old neighbourhood in Halifax - all driveways off the street. In fact, my childhood house didn't even have a sidewalk on my street - we were the anomoly street because all the others around me did and we had a school.

I think the context of the street or neighbourhood should dictate whether or not a front driveway is appropriate. If there is a lane and the majority of houses access off the lane - then I think the majority should rule. That being said, I'm torn on the issue because communities that many people value as being diverse have a mix of styles and appearance.

I think the arguement gets simpler when you have a context like one house on a block with a front driveway and everyone else is off a lane -that's when that house becomes a bit of a stand out.

When many of the new communities are planned, most of them have the access determined right away. But I do think it should be one of the other - too many hard surfaces.

I don't believe the city is looking at banning front driveways; but if they do want to push people to use laneways - i'd say house should be moved as far forward as possible (depending on if there are utility right-of-ways).

[Policy Wonk]

Well, rear garages are the only reason you'd ever even NEED (or in my opinion, want) an alley in the first place. But yeah, they definitely should be paved if they're to exist at all. A good part of my distaste for back lanes is having lived on graveled ones. :yuck:

You should see the alley the next street over from my house, a fucking new Mississippi delta is forming in the street from the alley eroding away and being deposited in the street.

[freeweed]

The City needs to pick and choose its battles. The article doesn't make it really clear why the City would want to ban front garages, but if most Calgarians clearly favour this form of housing, I would not go about alienating voters merely on the basis of some marginal hypothetical social benefit to laned housing. The reason some surburbs aren't walkable isn't because they are full of snout houses, it's because there is nowhere to walk to.

To be fair, the City isn't planning on banning front garages. I believe the article was about banning front garages in laned areas. ie: no need to do both on the same property. I don't disagree with this one, that's the ultimate in stupidity and excess pavement.

[freeweed]

That is definitely part of it. Like I said, the wider lots contribute to the ease of on street parking but they're not the sole cause. I have no difficulty finding a parking spot in the "starter home" sections of newer neighbourhoods. It is even easier to find parking in inner city areas where 25 foot lots have become the norm due to infills despite the fact that I'm sure non-resident parkers take up far more space there than in far flung suburbs.

It's funny that you say this because in my experience it's the exact opposite.

With your typical front drive in Calgary, you have room for 2 cars in the garage, 2 on the driveway, and often 4 in the driveway. I'll admit that in places where the driveways just abut each other, there isn't much room for on-street parking - but this is usually alleviated by park/greenspace features and other pieces of excess land that always result from curvilinear design. The few visitors that come always manage to park within 10 houses or so. I've never seen the same vehicle parked on my street more than a few days in a row, ie: not a single resident regularly uses on-street parking.

With laned areas, you're lucky if you can fit 2 cars in the back. The garage sits right next to the lane, so there's no driveway to speak of. The only people who can fit more than 2 cars back there are the ones that have opted to go with a car pad instead of a back yard, and those are few and far between. With the narrow lots these days, you can't even really fit more than 2 cars across, so it's either 2 in a garage or 2 on a pad, AND THAT'S IT. Every other car in the household ends up on the street.

When I lived laned in Silver Springs, there was rarely any available parking on our street. Residents always had one or more cars out there. I know they were residents because 3/4 of them had extension cords running down the front yard in the winter, with elaborate devices to elevate the cord over the sidewalk (I won't even get into how trashy this looks). When I visit friends in "starter" areas (Copperfield is a notorious example as it's very dense) I often have to park several minutes walk away. Everyone just parks out front of their own home, because it's way more convenient than driving all the way around to the back.

When I visit friends that have a front drive.. I just park on their front drive. I'm not sure where you go where you cannot do this.

In cities that don't have these ultra-skinny lots, it works wonderfully. My folks' place in Winnipeg is all front-drive and they have room for nearly 2 cars per house on the street, on average. That's *8* vehicles, per house. It takes a hell of a lot of house parties happening at the same time before parking becomes an issue. I've never seen a back-laned area that even comes close to that.