Warning. This post contains some venting about an article that was published in the Edmonton Journal about how losing our front lawns is somehow connected to creating a vibrant city.
In his article, journalist David Staples seemed to equate crowded building lots with neighbourliness. He agreed with developers who are attempting to get city planners to change the current building code /zoning laws that restrict the distance from the sidewalk to the front of the home.
Now I don’t know that this is the case everywhere, but the word ‘developer’ and ‘vibrant city’ are viewed by many as oxymorons. Developers promote what makes them money – period. There are very few that are remotely altruistic in their attitudes.
Development in itself is not bad. Few would disagree that rebuilding and even infills in mature neighbourhoods creates benefits. The problem is with the how and the where these projects are constructed.
There are communities in the city, mostly built in the late 1950’s – early 1960’s, that have streets with homes that have very large front lawns and I can see that the developer would perceive that as waste. They are correct in saying that few of these front yards are used for anything other than lawns.
But that was what the rules were then. What would a developer do now? Tear down a house in such a neighbourhood and replace it with a home that is set twenty feet ahead of the others on the street? Is this supposed to be good planning and help to create a vibrant city? Once the project is complete, a developer doesn’t have to worry about the animosity that will be directed towards the people who live in that house by other community members.
If developers want to move houses closer to the sidewalk, why not do this in new developments, new areas? There’s a reason why people choose mature neighbourhoods and it is precisely because of the size of the lots and the room in the yard.
Staples also said that people who sat on their porch would be more likely to speak to people walking by if the house was closer to the street. That opinion might hold more water if it wasn’t for the fact that developers build decorative front porches that are only wide enough to accommodate a few pigeons sitting side by side. Families don’t sit on these porches and locating them closer to the street would have the reverse effect. A person sitting on their porch would be exposed to the street and less likely to use it at all.
We love our privacy. Why else would we want houses to be built with large front garages facing the street that, for all intents and purposes, hide the house completely from prying eyes?
There is also the issue of security. Having to walk the distance from the street sidewalk up to a person’s front door clearly delineates what is public and private space. If that space was shortened, especially with front porches, it would be extremely easy for someone with bad intentions to access the property.
So go ahead, developers, build your projects in new areas where people know what they get before they buy – and their home is set like every other home on the block but please respect the setback in the mature neighbourhoods.
Johanne Yakula 
Hello Johanne,
I agree with your assessment. We have a front yard that is 40ft to the curb and are on our front porch a lot. We are also able to talk to neighbors as they walk by and not feel as though they are taking a gander at what we are having with our tea. Having said that, I was in an eastern city recently where the very old townhouses (1880s vintage), with decent porches were not 10 ft from the sidewalk. They must have been friendlier people back then than I am. You are unfortunately correct about most developers: high density housing=high density profit.
The Victorians were very private people overall. The rooms in their homes, for example, were divided between the “public” rooms (such as the hall, parlour, and if you were lucky to be invited, the dining room) and the private family rooms (everything else). However there were social conventions that needed to be followed when a person saw another. To ignore a person who passed by them on the street or a front porch would have been unspeakably rude. So, perhaps they weren’t necessarily friendlier – maybe they just had better manners.
Excellent points Johanne! Not a rant at all. Thanks for framing this so well. Maybe you should do an op ed piece for the Edmonton Journal?
In today’s paper David Staple’s speaks loudly in favour of allowing a developer, Aldritt, who he admits, already own two derelict apartment buildings in Jasper Avenue area, to erect the “tallest skyscraper in western Canada” in our previously “hands-off to development” river valley. That would open a crack that would see the river valley become an enclave for the rich – as only they could afford to live in highrises of that type that they are promoting.
What happens when a lot of rats are placed in an extremely small space?
I hear you.