I guess I struggle with the choice of the word cliche. Like most homes, my kitchen is next to the dining room, the bedrooms are upstairs, and I store my tools in the shed. Does that make my home cliche? Or is it the layout that works best for how the majority of Americans live? Built in 1906, my home is in many ways identical to ones built in 2006.

Getting beyond the semantics of word choice, though- when you're dealing with a standard-sized lot, there are certain things that will play out pretty much the same for everyone who has the same functional requirements of that space. You can get as cute as you want with your space planning, the bottom line is that it MUST work for how the user will live in that space. If a designer's only reason for sticking the grill in the back corner is because no one else does that, s/he has failed.

Part of our job as designers is to understand space and circulation... and reality. I had a homeowner ask me for an outdoor kitchen in a gorgeous wooded glade, a quarter mile from the house. I told her before I would design that, I was moving her current grill to that spot and I'd check in with her in two weeks. Four days later, she called to have me put the grill back where it was; the outdoor kitchen will now be fifteen feet from the kitchen door.

Is it my job to do what the client wants? Yep. It's also my job to make sure the client understands all the ramifications of his or her desires.

On smaller city sized lots here in the San Francisco Bay Area, it may often make sense to locate the people use area out away from the house entirely, and I have done many designs with a smaller deck or stairs/landing at the house, a pathway of some sort out into the yard, and a larger patio or deck or arbor at the rear of the lot. Often this is for reasons of best sun exposure, or a chance to create more privacy when multi-story houses over look a small 30 wide by perhaps 40 to 50 foot deep back garden. It is sometimes the best approach to locate it away from the house to avoid having the house "loom" over the use areas.

In such small spaces, it often makes more sense to forgo a lawn entirely, and place more emphasis on screening trees and shrubs to frame a view or provide more privacy.

Small urban lots with sideyard set backs which may be only 4 feet to property lines, or often in San Francisco zero feet between houses, is a different animal from a half acre lot in the midwest. I also find that small urban lots with multi-story homes are more often about the view of the garden from the second or third floor looking down, as much as from ground level.

If the garden is large enough, as well as the budget, it might make perfect sense to have multiple patio/deck areas of different sizes, and some oriented to each other and some screened/obscured, and perhaps an overlapping design of squares of lawns broken up by hardscapes and/or plantings to cut-off one encompassing view of the entire space at once. I personally find it boring to be able to see the entire garden at a glance as soon as once exits the back door, but sometimes this approach does make the most sense.

I really like Marcinde's practical response to a design client's perhaps impractical request. I wish it were always so easy to convince a client that what they think they want isn't what they will appreciate once it is built. I fully agree a designer's role is about helping a client make the appropriate choices for their situation, personal tastes, and maybe even their peculiarities.

The primary challenge or lowest goal of design is to avoid negatives. I have a spot in my yard where the previous owners built a ground level deck. It looked great, felt natural.

BUT it created this perfect "U" shaped dish to retain water.

Two really good posts above. I'd add that another consideration in a small space can be multiple use surfaces rather than space committed to proprietary use. In other words, you can chop a property up into small areas with decks, arbors, fish ponds, swing sets, ... that are only good for certain things and restrict others. That may or might not matter.

This is one reason why lawn is a common occurance as described by the OP. It is a surface that can be used for play, to entertain, stick a clothesline, set up tents,.... Definitely not appropriate in certain areas of the country, but pretty useful in others.

It goes back to what Marcindc said. You really have to know what they want and need in order to do the right job for the client. That can take you in a lot of different directions, but a lot of folks have similar needs which brings back some similarity a lot of the time.

I agree about the back yard being the best place for children to play safely, and for relaxing and entertaining in privacy.

However, I do believe that front yards are often not utilized well. This area could be used entirely for plants, rather than lawn. If arranged well few would even realize there were vegetables planted with the flowers and it could be very attractive. Many crops are quite decorative, in fact we grow scarlet runner beans in our front yard strictly for their decorative value (and a bit of nostalgia). You might research "the potager garden" and "square foot gardening" for ideas. Depending where you live fencing might be necessary and you'd have check bylaws for your area.

I would agree with Marcinde, don't base a design on just being different for the sake of not being like everyone else. After all, we all wear blue jeans and drive cars and like greasy food. Be different for a purpose that meets the your needs.

If you're a plant collector, then maybe the grass is just taking up display space

I'm not at all sure why the typical usage of a 'standard' backyard has to be deemed "cliche". It seems to me that the design would be cliche only if it lacked character and creativity. It's how one puts together the parts - patio/entertining area, lawn play area, planting beds or edible garden - that determines if the final plan is only a cliche or creatively reflects the personality and the needs of the homeowners.

In spite of peoples struggles with the word everyone knew the kind of garden I was referring to, would standard, average ordinary or nothing special have worked better? My objective in using the word was to draw attention to generic ground preparation rather than preparing for something specific and individual. Everything else is design which solves the cookie cutter problem, come to think of it 'cookie cutter' might have been a better choice considering the reaction to 'cliche'.

On the first day of a studio drawing class, we were told to draw a tree. 10 minutes. Go.

After 10 minutes, the prof came back and lined up all of the drawings on the floor. Then she said that none of us drew a tree, even though there were 20-odd tree-like drawings in front of her.

We all drew the idea of a tree, she said. We drew what we thought a tree is - trunks, roots, branches, (and leaves, in some cases). No one had bothered to go to a window to take a look at a tree outside.

I think that with the "cliche" or "cookie-cutter" style backyard, it's not quite the fact that these backyards are the "generic" backyard, but rather the idea of a backyard. The flower beds don't serve any purpose other than to fulfill the idea of a flower bed; hence, a typically too-shallow planting bed that encircles the lot. It's a bed, it has flowers. And then the homeowner doesn't know why it doesn't quite look so right.

- Audric

"The flower beds don't serve any purpose other than to fulfill the idea of a flower bed; hence, a typically too-shallow planting bed that encircles the lot. It's a bed, it has flowers. And then the homeowner doesn't know why it doesn't quite look so right."

Is the goal a flower bed or are they after the part that is not the flower bed? We can look at it and see what we like to work with - planting beds. But, we might be missing the possibility that the maker of it is more concerned about the part that is not flower bed. If the beds are bigger, the real usable space may smaller.

We always critique from our own values and project them onto ther person who did what they did whether or not they were working under the same criteria.

Something to think about. Is the "cliche" really that we all think every backyard has the same goals that we would have for it?

audge- I've never been able to figure out what the sound of one hand clapping is, so can you finish the story and say what you were supposed to have drawn? Maybe it's the pre-morning-coffee sludge in my brain, but I don't get it.

As for the topic at hand, cliche is defined as "a trite, stereotyped expression that has lost originality and impact by long overuse." Did the "standard" backyard ever have impact? Or was it just another functional space, like a garage or a shed? We see outdoor spaces in a different light, because we value them more than most- whether we're industry professionals, or avid home gardeners, or a mix of both. For a large portion of the population the yard is there when they want it, it does what they need it to (playspace for the kids, room for a pool, bathroom for the dog, parking lot for a finicky Oldsmobile), and they really don't care beyond that. Which I don't think is cliche, it just is. I get what laag is asking, but I don't see cliche as fitting that scenario either.

As you seem intent on the semantics Marcinde I offer cliche as being synonymous with stereotype. I think laag gets it common problem = common answer.

I think you are being equally thick with Audric's story. They did draw what they were supposed to have drawn because it demonstrates the unoriginality of thinking. Unoriginal thinking leads, at the end of the day to cliche.

If you were asked to draw a person's face, it is most likely that you will start with the outline of the head, then draw in eyes, a nose, a mouth, ears, etc. After all, it's what a face is made out of.

If anyone is familiar with Betty Edwards' "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain," then you know that to draw a face, you don't draw eyes, ears, a nose and a mouth, but instead you draw shadows, highlights, and lines. Taken out of context, they do not make much sense on their own. All together, they work to create an image of a face.

With the backyard, I don't mean that the flower beds are the end goal. When the yard is seen as the sum of individual elements (patio + lawn + gardens), rather than the entire space as a whole (both negative and positive space considered), the end results tend to resemble the "cliche." It is a matter of thinking of "what things to use" vs. "how things are used."

- Audric

I thought the point of the exercise audge described might be to demonstrate that things like 'tree' (and 'garden' and 'landscape' etc.) mean different things to different people, so that it's necessary for the student/designer to first get a good understanding of what things mean to the client before rushing into drawing anything...? i.e. maybe the 'right' answer for the exercise would have been to first ask the prof. what kind of tree? deciduous? evergreen? particular species? age of the tree? season of the year? in what kind of landscape context? etc. before starting to draw. On the other hand, it was probably a more effective lesson to have everyone produce their own image and see how widely the images varied.

'We always critique from our own values and project them onto ther person who did what they did whether or not they were working under the same criteria.

Something to think about. Is the "cliche" really that we all think every backyard has the same goals that we would have for it?'

I think that's very true and often demonstrated here in the give-and-take in response to posts. Looking around at other gardens in our neighbourhood and general area, it is pretty clear that I/we garden with very different goals than most. If/when we sell this place, I'd expect a subsequent owner to rip much of the garden out and replace it with something more 'low maintenance', although this garden is pretty low maintenance if you understand the plants and what they need. But this garden is my garden and a new owner would need to make it their garden, which is bound to be something different, perhaps something 'cliched' (tried-and-true might be a 'warmer' description :-).

I prefer your explanation woody, although it is true that given an opportunity to describe 'garden' as has happened here in the past people rush to the dictionary and describe a cliche. It would have been weird if all 20 drew the same tree though wouldn't it? Have you ever seen a group of toddlers drawings of a house?

audge & woodyoak- great answers, that makes a lot more sense. Thanks.

ink- I'm sorry that my search to correctly frame the question is offensive to you and makes you think I'm thick. Or is it that in so doing, I'm not being properly deferential to you? Do you prefer I genuflect on the right knee, or the left?

I don't know what kind of computer you think I have marcinde but I can't see your knees from here. We are only having a discussion and I am not in the least offended by your nit picking, neither should you be by me pointing it out.

more by being called thick. But then, if you can't see where that would be insulting, perhaps you are as well.

Hi I'm new here and love the banter, it's a little scary as well. As to the 'cliche; Good functional use of a property is never 'cliche. It only becomes this way if you do what everyone else does. You could slap any shed on a property and it will hold all your tools. A shed that is built to complement the home is appealing could be used as a potting area, out door office, or all of these things. A patio can be used for placing lawn chairs or it can be elaborated on with things like water features outdoor furniture with lighting such as found in the home. To keep it interesting a wine cooler can be made handy with cabinets for storage. Seating with overstuffed cusions. Pergolas with overhead lighting and the use of dimmer switches. A bat house on the property will keep the mosquitos at bay for many blocks. (hope the neighbors don't mind.) A kids area does not nessesarly mean a swing set it could be a water slide. By the way I don't have kids but was one once. For me the bottom line is how do you want to use your space and how much of your personaliy do you want to project into this space? How much money and time do you plan on putting into the area? Are you planning on staying there until you die or go to a nursing home? Are you planning on getting a good resale? The kids aren't going to be there forever so the area can always be transformed into something else, maybe a small golfing green for putting practice. Decide how best the area should be used with future plans in place. Your needs change as your life does. Know where and how to place the hardscapes the first one is already there. Be smart where the trees are planted and what thier purpose is. Move on accordingly the rest will fall into place, and it won't be 'cleche because it is yours. By the way loved the book Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain. Thanks for letting me add my input. Now don't hurt me!

An automobile is "cliche" by having the same general layout. Similar to the small rectangular back yard, many are used differently and serve different priorities. Many of the things that benefit one priority detract from another. They certainly are not all the same. Some are clearly more appealing than others to other people, yet each of them are purchased by somebody who obviously decided to based on his priorities of the moment - none of the others fit or they would have been chosen instread.

"When the yard is seen as the sum of individual elements (patio + lawn + gardens), rather than the entire space as a whole (both negative and positive space considered), the end results tend to resemble the "cliche."

Do you mean then that cliche is mediocre or just trite and unappealing?

Very interesting discussion, as it does address some of the why and vision leading up to design or the lack of it (hence cliche?)