Bigger is not always better.
That’s what Amy Folmer Rieke and her husband, Adam Rieke, found when they were looking to buy a home in Naperville.
They considered houses on sprawling lots in several subdivisions, but they chose to build their new home on a lot that measures 50 by 145 feet–or 7,250 square feet.
Although they could have afforded a larger lot, the couple, who have a newborn son, Gabriel, opted to put their house on a smaller lot in an established, older part of the community. It’s within easy walking distance of the city’s lively, historic downtown.
“There is a draw to that big 5,000-square-foot house where you can have a swimming pool in the backyard,” said Amy. “But we wanted a smaller, cooler house.”
Their contemporary-style house is constructed of cedar and stone. It has two stories and 2,650 square feet.
Although it has only a small backyard and side yard, it has an ample front porch. Instead of growing grass in the backyard, they recently installed a brick patio, rock wall and a fire pit.
“I don’t need a huge backyard,” said Amy Folmer Rieke.
“The neighborhood is very eclectic,” she said. “You’ve got the smaller, older homes and you have the large houses that are worth $1.5 million.”
What is a small lot? It depends on where you are looking. In Chicago, lots tend to be even smaller than the one the Riekes bought — say about 30-by-125-feet or 3,750 square feet.
In Burr Ridge, a small lot would be 10,000 square feet. And those 10,000-square-foot lots were developed decades ago on land that was later incorporated into the village.
The minimum lot size now imposed by Burr Ridge for new construction is 20,000 square feet or about a half-acre. The comprehensive plan indicates a preference for lots that are even larger — at least 30,000 square feet.
Doug Pollock, community development director, said lot size is a way for a community to control density.
“But the primary reason in Burr Ridge is ecological — the preservation of topographical features — stands of trees, creeks and slopes,” he said.
Pollock, who worked for the village of Lombard from 1987 to 1995, said the story on lot size was much different there.
“In Lombard, a large lot was 10,000 square feet. And a lot of them were around 7,500 square feet. That was appropriate for that town. It’s not that it’s better or worse (than in Burr Ridge). It’s just different.”
A pre-automobile look
Towns like Lombard and many others that were first developed before the rise of the automobile still have a stock of smaller lots, said Jim Testin, community development director in Plainfield.
These were clustered around walkable downtowns that provided residents with access to the amenities they needed — be it the post office, dry cleaner or grocery store.
“I have lots that run from 5,000 or 6,000 square feet to lots that have 20,000 square feet,” Testin said.
Small lots also were the standard at one time in Lemont, according to Tim Teddy, community development director.
“Lemont is an early to mid-19th Century town,” said Teddy. “Pre-automobile, the lots were smaller and narrower and the houses filled much of the lots.”
In Deerfield, Planner Jeff Ryckaert said the village has a significant stock of lots that have been labeled as “small.”
“Out of a total of 6,000 lots, we have about 1,600 that have less than 9,000 square feet,” he said.
Many of these lots were developed in earlier decades and are in the same size range as the lot that the Riekes purchased — between 7,200 and 7,500 square feet.
If living in the suburbs doesn’t give you more green space, than why go there?
Unlike life in the city, having an ample swath of green space where children can play or the dog can run has long been tagged as one of the joys of suburban living.
Living large may appeal to many, but having a cozy lot has the benefit of having less lawn to mow, said Honore Frumentino, a Realtor with Koenig & Strey in Deerfield.
She lived for 20 years in a subdivision called Poet’s Corner in Deerfield.
Owning what has now been identified by the village as a “small” lot produced a sense of neighborliness among the people who lived there, she said.
“My kids grew up in a 50-foot-wide lot,” she said. “It was great because we all kept an eye on each other’s kids.”
While the signature of the 19th Century may have been small, narrow lots, they tended to grow in size during the 20th Century.
A typical property became wider as garages were added for cars.
The average size of lots nationwide, however, has been on the down slide for the last 20 years or so, said Gopal Ahluwalia, staff vice president for research at the National Association of Home Builders in Washington D.C.
The average lot size nationwide in 1987 was 17,600 square feet By the time 2,000 rolled around, it was 12,400, he said.
The reason lots are getting smaller can be attributed to the costs of development, said Ahluwalia.
“In a lot of places, the land is at a premium so lots are smaller,” he said.
Although the idea of little or no lawn maintenance and yard work may be appealing, John Budz, a real estate agent with Realty Executives Elite in Lemont, said it is uncommon for a client to walk into his office asking to see houses on small lots.
The trend toward smaller lots “is not propelled by demand,” he said. “It’s propelled by the profitability of the developer. They’re going to cut the lots to the minimum because they’re going to make more money.”
“It’s not that people are wanting smaller lots. The push is for the developer to get more houses per acre,” added Frumentino.
Communities throughout the Chicago area have taken note of this trend toward smaller lots and have updated their codes to impose minimum lot standards that are larger than in the past.
In older suburban towns where it’s easy to find lots of about 7,500 square feet or less, officials are imposing new minimums.
About two years ago, Lemont, for instance, imposed a minimum lot for a new single family house of 12,500 square feet. In Deerfield, it’s 10,000 square feet.
Like Pollock in Burr Ridge, Teddy in Lemont said the village is using minimum lot size as a way to control density. In towns with older neighborhoods that have seen a wave of teardowns, villages also see value in controlling the size of houses that can be constructed on relatively small lots.
Under new regulations in Deerfield, for instance, a house cannot consist of more than 40 percent of the lot on which it sits. That means a 10,000-square-foot lot cannot have a house that is larger than 4,000 square feet.
Community planners also said that lot size is a way for a community to establish its unique look or identity.
In Plainfield, the minimum lot size is 12,500 square feet. But, if the right development comes along, that rule may be broken.
Testin said a development with lots as small as about 8,500 square feet might be considered if it seemed appropriate and in keeping with how the village views itself. Such a development, he said, might have design elements like front porches that promote a sense of neighborliness and interaction.
Mixing lot sizes up in a community also might be an alternative to the lots of similar sizes that some might see as monotonous.
“We have to ask ourselves, `Do we really want a community that’s all made up of larger lots or do we want a diversity?” Testin asked.
For Amy Folmer Rieke, the answer is clear.
Having smaller lot in an established neighborhood with easy access to amenities like restaurants and shops “is like life in the city,” she said.
She doesn’t worry that her young son will one day yearn for a large backyard equipped with a swing set and other toys.
“There are plenty of parks around,” she said.
