In general, the front yard / side yard / back yard distinctions are entirely about the "character" of a neighborhood and making it look nice.
Most places that have regulations -- at the town or HOA level -- discourage you from doing anything in the front yard besides landscaping. Eg, a shed in a front yard will be forbidden.
Usually the restrictions will be more safety based for back and to some extent side yards. It's sort of a "do whatever you want but don't make us look at it" mindset.
It will cause the most problems if you build the house far back on the lot (since then you end up with a lot of unusable front yard and a tiny back yard), if your back yard is unusably shaded, if your trying to maximize the use of your small lot to the limits, or if you don't pay attention to the rules and either buy a house without knowing them or do a lot of work that has to be undone.
Since we're being pedantic, many cities have different rules for what is allowed in a front yard vs. a back yard, which may actually be the problem... this often leads to the occasional news story about the town that forces someone to remove a garden in their front lawn, etc.
Different neighborhoods work differently. I played baseball in my front yard. First (and only base, besides home) was the mailbox across the street.
But it's true that a lot of people don't use their front yards for much, except perhaps as a noise buffer from the road. If you go a non-lawn route, you'll need to be careful to maintain it in a way that doesn't encourage intervention by neighbors, municipalities, etc. On the other hand, I'm rewilding a bit of my back, and nobody says anything.
The sillier and more wasteful thing in my view is the front yard. The back yard is a luxury and definitely an instance of conspicuous consumption in denser suburbs and cities, but it's easy to see why people like it -- it provides an open yet semi-private space where you, your kids, or your dog can play, and also a convenient place to host a gathering with your friends. When weather permits, you see people in their back yard all the time.
The front yard, however, sees much less use in most neighborhoods, at least until you're so far out in the country that you practically live on a farm -- it's rare that you'll see anybody on the front lawn unless they're mowing or landscaping it or on their way elsewhere, precisely due to its lack of privacy. The suburbs in general can, with some debate, be accused of being a result of the lack in imagination in adapting the estates of the British landed gentry to smaller lot sizes; the front yard is much less defensible against this accusation. The only practical functions of the front yard in relatively dense suburbs, such as those making up most of California, are these:
- Provide an appealing botanical decoration for the front of the house.
- Decrease noise from passing traffic.
- Prevent passersby from looking into your windows as easily.
But the puny size of front yards in these suburbs limits their effectiveness in satisfying these objectives, which would be much better served by a hedge or ivy-covered wall. These shouldn't be much more expensive than the front lawn, especially considering that you could either eliminate the front yard and expand the back yard or gain increased privacy in the front yard would make people more likely to use it.
There's a big difference between country-lawn and suburb-lawn.
Suburb lawn is mostly useless. Front yard is a road buffer that you have to spend time and money maintaining all summer for little benefit, back yard is so large mostly because parks and pools are too far away or don't exist because population density is so low (because lawns are so big).
Many of my neighbors have front yard gardens, often because depending on the orientation of the house (it's a dense area) the front yard might have the best light.
Nobody complains, and if anything, such gardens are often complimented (often enviously by those of us on the shady side of the street). People here like the look a well tended space.
I'm sure there's some ordinance on the books disallowing it - like most US cities - but nobody would report it anyway, and the city (Oakland CA) has bigger problems to worry about.
Are you construing a requirement to have a lawn as prohibiting more intensive gardening? I have never heard of that.
What I do see all the time is the front setback given over 100% to driveway and parking. These neighborhoods become very drab, even though if you look on satellite view there’s plenty of plant life - it’s just all locked away in private backyards.
My personal preference is neither. Pull the buildings right up to the sidewalk. Present an interesting pleasant facade to pedestrians. But to the extent you are going to have setbacks, they should at least have some redeeming aesthetic value.
I really don’t se why this is a thing for front yards either. Growing vegetables are just as pretty as a lawn, and even if you don’t think so, surely productive use of the land ought to take priority.
I find it so strange that such restrictions only seem to exist in the US, where there is normally so much emphasis on individual freedom.
You forgot "... and a front yard." I was surprised when I moved from Los Angeles where working on a car in front of the house was not unusual, to Sunnyvale where there was as specific rule that said you could not work on your car on your front yard. Your driveway was ok, but not on the street (except for temporary repairs) but not on your lawn.
The claim was that it prevented toxic chemicals from entering the water table. Most folks seemed to thing it was to avoid the 'blight' of people leaving cars up on blocks in front of their house. Oh, and in case you're wondering there is also a rule that your lawn can't be more than 50% concrete :-)
The streets can be plowed and maintained by the city. That's how it works in my locale. If the city needs aesthetic standards, they can enact them city-wide. Good luck. In my neighborhood, front yards range from fully wooded, to manicured grass, and everything in between.
Paddling pools and wrestling don't take a 1/5 acre lawn (not atypical suburban plot size). In my previous house, the back yard was heavily landscaped/hardscaped - patio, retaining wall, rocks and shrubs on the hill, etc. The front was lawn. Still plenty of room for my son to run around. And if he wanted more space, he went to the park around the corner.
There's also a substantial difference between a "natural" lawn, where clover and other plants are allowed vs the stereotypical "perfect" lawn (in the US) with a single grass species (and heavy application of herbicides and fertilizers).
Go ahead and try and make a vegetable garden in your front lawn. City inspector will probably cite you in many places in the US. We have the front lawn because we made everything else illegal.
I had a neighbour who did a permaculture front yard that was ridiculously beautiful, but unfortunately the tall grasses etc became a haven for rodents which caused problems for multiple neighbours.
Sometimes there are good reasons why a regular grass yard might be ok.
Most places that have regulations -- at the town or HOA level -- discourage you from doing anything in the front yard besides landscaping. Eg, a shed in a front yard will be forbidden.
Usually the restrictions will be more safety based for back and to some extent side yards. It's sort of a "do whatever you want but don't make us look at it" mindset.
It will cause the most problems if you build the house far back on the lot (since then you end up with a lot of unusable front yard and a tiny back yard), if your back yard is unusably shaded, if your trying to maximize the use of your small lot to the limits, or if you don't pay attention to the rules and either buy a house without knowing them or do a lot of work that has to be undone.
reply