Setbacks give back a little green
Regarding Architect’s Viewpoint, “Time to Permit More Livable Lots,” Feb. 25: This unimaginative case for the end of lot setbacks doesn’t acknowledge one of the key purposes of setbacks: neighbors. Many builders seem to think that a home can be a claustrophobic island alone in the universe of its lot. No neighbors, no neighborhood and no benefit to considering other people’s investments. Just fill the lot right up to the wall of the neighbor’s house and eliminate their creativity and options.
Why do builders ask people to settle for that when there are better -- and more valuable -- options?
The example of the U-shaped courtyard is even more short-sighted and a distortion of the concept. Placing outdoor space solely in the center of a home confines it to the lot itself -- a necessity in some courtyard applications. But in the lush environments of Southern California, this suggestion is not just unneighborly, it is a bad investment. It robs homeowners of the chance to leverage shared views and greenery.
Why not talk about how to make properties feel more spacious by using neighborhood character and ambience to everyone’s benefit? There are architects and landscape designers who can see beyond the mandated 5-foot strips and do something far more upscale than jamming walls right up against one another.
CYNTHIA BOWIE
La Crescenta