A big yard and a compact community with lots of great stuff to walk to. That's what a lot of folks look for in homes. But, as Atrios says, the two are not necessarily compatible:if everyone has a big yard the community ceases to be especially walkable. That isn't to say that you can't have developments with yards relatively near to retail, so that there is stuff within walking distance. You can still have corner shops or similar, but having sufficient residential density to support significant neighborhood-serving retail isn't really compatible with everyone has a big yard.Keep your yard! Just understand the tradeoff."Density" is the key word there. This isn't about how much space there is for walking. You can build greenbelts amidst yards and put sidewalks down next to estates. But big houses with big yards mean relatively few residents per square mile. And relatively few residents per square mile means relatively few potential customers to support local retailers, restaurants, grocers, and so forth. That's not to say yards are evil, just that they, like everything else, come with tradeoffs. My thinking -- coming from Southern California, a land of nice yards -- has always been that I'd prefer a city where I could walk around and do stuff to a yard where I can sit around and do stuff. A city oriented towards my use is simply going to have more to do than even a really large yard*. But others may find that their mileage varies.*Full Disclosure: Growing up, my best friend's yard had a trampoline. That was pretty great.Image used under a Creative Commons license from D'Arcy Norman.
