All of the homes have much larger private yards than with conventional planning - not sure what restrictions there would be to fencing, but in general all rear yards are significantly larger than if planned on a grid.
With coving the average lot size increased approx. 30% - while some of that increased space allowed larger homes (architectural shaping) - most of that increase is yard space. Also keep in mind that various places in the USA have different yards. Up north in the USA and I think in New Zealand where you are, large rear yards is the norm and as such we have larger yards up here than in most southern USA regions. In Florida, the typical rear yard is just 20' deep - most of Trasona is much deeper than the acceptable typical. In Texas, we are seeing some developments as low as 10' deep by minimum regulations! People think because we are providing a park-like streetscape with varied front yards we sacrifice rear yard space because they might see a layout in a region where miniscule rear yards are the norm - and their region that would be unacceptable. If you Google Earth Trasona and compare to whats being built today competing with it, it will be obvious that front and rear yards are much larger than similar density products elsewhere. And that's 'garden' space.
What about providing for backyards and outdoor places for owners gardens etc?
All of the homes have much larger private yards than with conventional planning - not sure what restrictions there would be to fencing, but in general all rear yards are significantly larger than if planned on a grid.
With coving the average lot size increased approx. 30% - while some of that increased space allowed larger homes (architectural shaping) - most of that increase is yard space. Also keep in mind that various places in the USA have different yards. Up north in the USA and I think in New Zealand where you are, large rear yards is the norm and as such we have larger yards up here than in most southern USA regions. In Florida, the typical rear yard is just 20' deep - most of Trasona is much deeper than the acceptable typical. In Texas, we are seeing some developments as low as 10' deep by minimum regulations! People think because we are providing a park-like streetscape with varied front yards we sacrifice rear yard space because they might see a layout in a region where miniscule rear yards are the norm - and their region that would be unacceptable. If you Google Earth Trasona and compare to whats being built today competing with it, it will be obvious that front and rear yards are much larger than similar density products elsewhere. And that's 'garden' space.