I don’t know if there’s a name for it, but we have a similar lot. What we like is that our house, and many of the houses on those two streets behind, have trees along that lot line. So, when we look our our back window or are in our back yard, we do not see anyone else’s yard. As the seller of our house said, it’s like living beside a state forest. The deer wander through that wooded lot line. We can barely see any of the houses on the two streets behind.

On the other hand, in some neighborhoods, that lot line is utilities and fences and no landscaping or nature, and it would look almost industrial, and the houses and yards and play sets and sheds would always be in sigth.

If you are considering this lot, what is along that lot line stretching back to the left? Nature? Or chain-link fences?

Also consider that the neighborhood has more smaller lots than the one you are considering. You are probably paying a premium for that larger lot, but will probably not get that back when you go to sell the house in a few years.

These are new build houses. No trees yet. Fence will be there. Builder is not charging any extra premium for this.

You also look like you are on the main thoroughfare in and out of the neighborhood - it will be busier there than a side street. In my experience, they put the larger houses / larger lots in the beginning of the neighborhood to set the tone and start reducing lot size as you move toward the interior, but people have already had their expectations set with the larger homes / lots.

Probably not a bad lot at all.

If this is located in a warm climate such as Florida, your backyard lanai will be in the afternoon sun. You may want to avoid this.

Looks like your driveway is on the south side. Depending on the layout of the home, this may mean that you don't have any southern windows, and all of your living windows will be either west or north. West windows are hot in the afternoon. North windows do not get direct light. Something to consider.

How much more for Lots 79 - 86? They would give you a south-facing back yard, and access to the green space.

I would want 79-86 for sure. Facing those trees would be amazing

maybe I'm misreading the north arrow - isn't north to the upper right? Lots 79-86 have north facing backs?

You are right. I would rather have a North facing lot on a wooded area than south facing into neighbours

@A S agreed - AnnKH mentioned those lots would have south facing back yards, which is what confused me. The lots across the street from ours with the nice (north) views of the woods and prairie in our development are $100k more than ours! Yikes. Not in our budget unfortunately! Our lot backs up to other homes, but at least we're south facing.

"...Is it good...?"

The back of the lot faces west which is the worst possible orientation for a residence whose major public spaces (living, dining, kitchen) face the back of the lot.

I'd look for a lot where the back of the lot faces south. Or I'd walk.

My bad, I thought the long end of the arrow was north.

79 to 86 are premium lot with extra 50k$ . Not in my budget. Those backyard is north east . Plot 40 backyard is south west and front is north east . I am concerned how will be the privacy . As there is no direct house . Will it be good or worst .

it is mostly west which is the worst. Areas up on passive solar heating and cooling

Have you considered lots 17-23? Looks like their rear generally faces south, and the through traffic appears less than many other streets.

Also think this depends on the layout of the house. If the house has a lot of widows in main rooms on the sides, then you could look at corner lots, like 43 or 28, which would have nothing blocking southern exposure on the side of the house, and the garage on the north. The back would face east, which is preferable to west IMO. Since these lots are skinny, the house may be oriented with more side windows.

Corner lots are OK if you don't spend any time outside. I like a little more privacy than that.

Unless you live where there's a lot of snow - then shoveling all the sidewalk on a corner lot is the pits!

For privacy, it may depend on how Lot 40 uses the back of their yard. Our equivalent of 40 was great for years until they put in a pool a couple of years ago. On the other hand, they of up a stockade fence, so there's that.

I have to say, I like having no one directly behind us. We don't face anyone's windows, and they don't face ours.

Walk those lots

I would go to municipal offices and look at developers Master Plan. I would want to know what is planners have approved for those spaces marked “block x”. Etc. future apartments? Public park spaces? The master plan will spell that all out. Looks very crowded to me. Don’t believe anything “sales folks” tell you. Go to “source” documents.

I don't think that lot has a name. Plain, maybe?

It has some positives:

- It has a sidewalk

- It's a narrow lot, so you'll have to choose a narrow house plan ... and the best lighting -- the Southern lighting -- will be on one of the long sides of the house. You can choose a plan that places your main rooms on that side.

- The back yard will be private. (I will never live on a corner lot again.)

- Since it's in the middle of the neighborhood, you don't have any concerns about a business, etc. building in your back yard.

- It's one of the larger lots and is not adjacent to what looks like townhouses. This means less traffic and fewer people.

On the other hand:

- It appears to be designed for a driveway on the left side of the house (is that just on the plan, or is it set in stone?). This means you might waste some of that good Southern lighting on a garage.

- These are small lots. Will the house next door block that best Southern light?

- Yes, the back of the house will have the hot Western sun, and this does matter. If you go with this lot, you'd be wise to consider a covered porch at the back.

Even a covered porch will not block western sun. Ask me how I know.

I’m on a corner lot and have complete privacy in my backyard. It all depends on how one designs the house and surrounding yard. I personally love that I don’t have neighbors on two sides

Thank you everyone for your valuable comments. It gives me a good understanding from multiple angles.

@cpartist this. One of my good friends lives on a corner lot in socal, and her back yard feels like a private oasis. You forget that she even has neighbors until you hear them. Corner lots are what you make of them.

Ditto Virgil's question about Lots 17-23. They face NW, which our new house faces, and we love the natural light that is pouring into our house and the fact that the western sun isn't glaring into our main living area.

Concerning long, narrow subdivision lots: more often than not these sorts of lots tend to generate houses which may be close to one or both side property lines, often as close as 5' to the property line, if the side yard setback is as small as 5'.

What this means for house design on these types of lots is very few windows on the sides of houses since they are often so close to the adjacent neighbor's house. With only a 5' side yard setback, houses may be as close as 10' to one another.

This means that the front and rear elevations are the ones with the most and largest windows, while the side elevations have few and small windows.

This is yet another reason for making a southern orientation a major priority, locating the major public spaces facing south. For many, in order to achieve privacy, this means these spaces will face the rear of the property, and not the front where the street and sidewalks are located.

Translated into property selection criteria, this means the rear of the lot facing south is often the best choice of property options for simple rectangular house designs.

Virgil nailed it.

First When buying in a large subdivision its important to know how many lot/fence lines you will be sharing. Limiting it to 1 or two is ideal like lots 14,15,16 and 78. If you can't do that I keep the rule at 3. That means your back fence is only shared by one other home. For example lot 44 and 77 are sharing their lot line with 5 or 6 others. The lot you are enquiring about shares it with 4. Second know the direction your home is facing. Your largest sources of light on these types of lots will come from the front and back of your homes. In your case your home will get very little natural light in the position the lot is sitting in.

With only a 5' side yard setback, houses may be as close as 20' to one another.

Virgil, I submit that you sometimes have too much respect for tract builders...

Here is a home near my old hometown. Not my house so I will not give too many details...

The other side of the house is probably double that but still pretty tight and there are other houses in the neighborhood just that tight. I don't guess there is anything wrong with it, but at some point I have to suspect that just going townhouses is the answer.

I have never seen two single family homes that close together. That is saying a lot because I used to live in CA.

As land for building in any given area shrinks, lot sizes shrink too. Also, track builders project future economy two to three years ahead. As people anticipate markets, new build scenarios follow suit. Is this development in an area where property to build on is limited. Be my guess.

My old neighborhood had several streets with houses that close together. We lived with one side an abandoned alley which the house was 18 inches from it. The other side was a little wider but not by much.

As land for building in any given area shrinks, lot sizes shrink too. Also, track builders project future economy two to three years ahead. As people anticipate markets, new build scenarios follow suit. Is this development in an area where property to build on is limited. Be my guess.

That house is not in an area where land is limited or at a premium. I can still buy land near that development for $10,000 an acre.

Actually, this brings up an interesting aside. One would think that tract developers would use larger lots in areas where land is cheaper, but the opposite is often true. Tract builders make much of their money from land development. In areas where land is cheaper there is less margin to absorb the expense of planning the development, building roads and sidewalks, and installing utilities.

For example: assume a 20 acre tract that can be 100% utilized for homes. If planning and development cost you $2,000,000 and you would like to divide the tract up into 1/4 acre lots. Each lot will have to absorb $25,000 of development cost. If land is valuable and sells for $100,000 per lot then that leaves some room. But if land is less valuable and lots only sell for $30,000, then it makes no sense. However, what you can do is develop 10 lots per acre and then each lot only has to absorb $10,000 of development cost and a buildable lot will still be worth at least $20,000.

This is also why we see a lot more narrow and deep lots today. A narrow and deep lot will reduce the number of streets that are required to develop the same tract.

Developers develop land and sell lots to builders track or whatever is laid out in master plan. Builders buy lots and sell homes on the lots they own. They both cover their costs plus profit. Buyers pay what the market demands. So homes on small narrow lots are what this market apparently demands. In Gulf Coast Texas inland, we want homes where the main living areas are protected from hottest afternoon sun. So avoid South afternoon summer sun. So home orientation depends on geographical location.

The spacing between houses is dependent on zoning (or lack thereof). Spacing is determined by zoning setbacks along each property line, together with easements, if any.

This is why it's always important to check with the jurisdiction's zoning administrator before every buying property.

Bry, there's a story behind your photo of the two houses. I'm guessing there was no zoning ordinance at the time of building. And perhaps no adoptednbuilding code. The applicable building code has requirements for openings for two closely spaced buildings which would likely prohibit this spacing with the windows shown in today's code.

Developers develop land and sell lots to builders track or whatever is laid out in master plan.
Builders buy lots and sell homes on the lots they own. They both cover their costs plus profit.

The term "tract builder" is a term that literally means a builder who develops the land. The difference between a production builder and a tract builder is that a tract builder is a backward vertical integration of developer and builder. A builder who buys developed land is not really a tract builder, but the term often gets used when it doesn't quite apply.

All of that is neither here nor there, though, regardless of whether you have supply chain integration or not, the example holds true. Even if you have multiple parties the fixed cost distribution doesn't change.

Buyers pay what the market demands. So homes on small narrow lots are what this market apparently demands.

Buyers are the demand in the market. Furthermore, supply and demand are functions and price is the equilibrium point where supply crosses demand. It is just as correct to say that buyer's demand large lots with mansions on them, because just as small narrow lots are on the demand curve so are large lots with mansions, they are essentially the same curve. What determines what the market will deliver is the price of small lots versus the price of large lots with mansions on them. As the equilibrium price approaches the production cost you get innovation to new methods of profit.

In the case of home lots, we can think of it as two supply and demand curves, (1) the demand for a buildable lot, and (2) the demand for bigger lots. There is a higher demand for buildable lots than there is for bigger lots, this doesn't mean that people are not willing to pay extra for larger lots, they are. However, because of the demand for buildable lots of any size and the marginal cost of bigger lots, they are often not developed when land prices are low.

As land prices increase so does the equilibrium point of supply and demand and then larger lots may start to recover their marginal cost.

Bry, there's a story behind your photo of the two houses. I'm guessing there was no zoning ordinance at the time of building. And perhaps no adoptednbuilding code.

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia but only slightly less well known is this; never try to make sense of local politics. This is in a city of 300,000 people that has had zoning laws a very long time and this development is maybe 15 years old. A few tract builders have a lot of influence in the community and seem to manage to get anything they want.

There's a development in Paris considered one of the first "planned developments." Zoning laws? Only what the king approved. Extractions for zoning continue today.

"Place des Vosges, 1605-12"

In today's terms: zero lot line luxury single family housing. The name was fancier then.

Yes...all politics is local. Sometimes that's the story.

That says it all.

In New Orleans, where dry land is at a premium, 5' is the allowable distance between houses. This is why you see so many shotgun and camelback shotgun homes.

Most were built before air conditioning. There are windows on each side the houses as well as front and back. The side windows align with the side windows of the adjacent structure.

We could literally pass dinner pots between windows and did upon occasion.