Aesthetics vs Size

I want to develop the rear of my property with two 2-story townhouses. The area available is approximately 15.1 frontage by 29 length. Car access is from a sealed ROW at the rear. Pedestrian access to the front street is by a 1.5m path running alongside the existing house.

I can divide the block two ways . Length wise with each property having a 2 car garage facing the ROW and the entrance to each house also on the ROW (required by R-Codes). Or I can build one behind the other with a driveway running along the side, providing access to both properties.

In the former case, the site size will be 215 m2 each. The later will give me about 161 m2 each. The builder assures me that with innovative design, I should be able to get my required 230 m2 of internal living space (incl. garage) and an adequately sized courtyard whichever option I choose.

Although the driveway wastes a lot of space (particularly access to the garage, which requires 6m from the side fence), the 2nd option has several factors in its favour.

– the builder says it is cheaper to build squarer properties than long narrow properties
– access is easier during construction (materials can be stored on the driveway, whereas they wouldn’t be allowed on the ROW)
– existing front property will have access to ROW via driveway
– a squarer house with a driveway in front can be built more aesthetically pleasing than a narrow house.

I like the idea of the driveway, but I am concerned about saleability afterwards. Not having developed before, I am not sure how important aesthetics is compared to size for potential buyers.

Even though roughly the same internal floor space and outside entertainment space is available for both options, is a buyer likely to be deterred by getting a smaller site even though the house aspect is more aesthetically pleasing? This would be in comparison to many properties nearby that have been developed length wise with approximately 200 m2+ site sizes.