NEVER LET A TOWN PLANNER PLAN A TOWN
THE SHELTER JOURNAL | NO. 009
What happened to the Australian backyard?
For generations, one of the great symbols of Australian life was not inside the house. It was behind it.
The backyard was where clothes dried, vegetables grew, children disappeared for hours and a tree eventually became large enough to shade the house. It held the shed, the dog, the cricket pitch, the compost heap and whatever project was too noisy, dirty or unfinished to bring indoors.
It was not empty land waiting to be developed. It was the most adaptable room in the Australian home—the room without a roof.
So what happened to it?
THE HOUSE GREW. THE LAND SHRANK.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics provides a remarkably clear picture. Between 2005–06 and 2019–20, the average site area of new houses approved across Australia’s major capital cities fell from 602 square metres to 467 square metres—a reduction of 22 per cent.
Over the same period, the average floor area of those houses increased from 234 square metres to 248 square metres.
The block lost 135 square metres.
The house gained 14.
More recent ABS figures show the same underlying pattern: between 2012 and 2021, average capital-city house sites fell another 13 per cent while average house floor area remained almost unchanged. In Greater Brisbane, the average site fell from 571 to 459 square metres while the average house became larger.
Australians did not simply move into smaller homes on smaller blocks. We continued placing substantially the same house—often with four bedrooms, two bathrooms, multiple living areas and a double garage—onto progressively smaller pieces of land.
The house consumed the backyard.
THIS IS NOT DENSITY
Good urban density can produce excellent places. Compact housing can support public transport, local shops, walkable streets, parks and strong communities. Some of the world’s most humane cities achieve density without sacrificing light, landscape or public life.
But much of Australia’s outer-suburban development is not genuine urban density. It is detached housing compressed onto smaller lots while remaining dependent on cars, distant employment and expensive infrastructure.
We kept the driveway, garage, front setback and freestanding house. We reduced the distance between neighbours and removed the useful land around the building. The result delivers many of the disadvantages of density without enough of its benefits.
The side boundaries become narrow heat corridors. Windows face fences or neighbouring walls. Deep floor plans require more artificial lighting and air-conditioning. Roofs, driveways and paving replace soil capable of absorbing rain. Large trees become difficult to establish precisely where their shade is increasingly needed.
The backyard did not become a shared park, civic square or productive communal garden. In many developments, it simply became another bedroom and a media room.
WHO PLANNED THIS?
Town planning is supposed to protect the public interest. It controls where homes may be built, how land may be divided, how streets connect and what minimum standards development must meet. In theory, it should consider the life of a place long after the developer has sold the final lot.
In practice, the planner works inside a system dominated by land value, infrastructure charges, development yield, market expectations, financing costs and political pressure to approve more dwellings.
The title of this article is deliberately unfair to individual town planners. They did not create the problem alone. Developers generally build what can be financed and sold. Buyers make decisions within the choices and prices available to them. Governments demand additional housing while attempting to limit urban expansion. Councils inherit roads, drainage and public spaces they must maintain indefinitely.
But planning converted all of those competing pressures into physical form.
Research by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute found that reducing lot sizes did not necessarily produce new housing types. Developers commonly placed the same—or larger—detached housing product onto smaller land parcels because it was familiar, marketable and financially reliable. Bedrooms, living zones and double garages remained primary; useful outdoor space became secondary.
The planning system could count the resulting dwelling.
It could not measure what had been lost.
A backyard has no bedroom count. A mature tree contributes nothing to gross floor area. Space for a child to play, a family to grow food or a resident to repair something has little recognised financial value. Soil, shade, privacy, adaptability and contact with nature are difficult to express in a development yield.
What cannot be readily counted is easily designed out.
LAND THAT WAS ALLOWED TO REMAIN ALIVE
The Australian backyard was never perfect. Suburban expansion consumed farmland and habitat, increased infrastructure costs and produced car-dependent cities. Large blocks are not the only way to create good homes, and preserving every backyard cannot solve a national housing shortage.
But the answer was not to retain the oversized detached house while deleting the landscape around it.
A better system would allow smaller and more efficient homes, shared infrastructure, adaptable buildings and genuinely useful communal space. It would distinguish between unused setback and living landscape. It would measure shade, water, soil, privacy and human activity with the same seriousness applied to vehicle access and lot yield.
Most importantly, it would begin with the life people are meant to live and work backwards towards the plan.
Instead, we began with the maximum number of saleable lots, fitted a familiar housing product onto each one and called the result a community.
Visit the Gold Coast—or almost any rapidly growing Australian city—and the outcome is visible at full scale. Enormous roofs nearly touch their boundaries. Garages dominate streets intended for people. Houses advertise abundance while the land around them has been reduced to narrow strips of decorative landscaping.
We became wealthy enough to build larger houses and apparently too poor to leave room for a tree.
THE END OF THE CHAIN
Architecture became disconnected from shelter. Construction resisted manufacturing. Land became a financial instrument, and planning learned to translate its value into yield.
Manufacturing may yet set architecture free, but it cannot free architecture from a planning system that assumes the conventional house, the conventional subdivision and the conventional pattern of development must continue indefinitely.
Perhaps a town should never be planned by a town planner alone. It should also be shaped by builders, ecologists, engineers, children, older people and the families expected to live there. It should include people who understand that the spaces between buildings can matter as much as the buildings themselves.
The Australian backyard did not disappear because Australians stopped wanting one.
It disappeared because land became too valuable to be left alive.
Town planning was supposed to protect the public interest from the pressure of private development.
Instead, it learned to calculate yield.
We did not plan better towns.
We planned the life out of them.
Comments