Make div (height) occupy parent remaining height
Asked Answered
V

9

163

Consider the following HTML/css code sample:

<div id="container">
    <div id="up">Text<br />Text<br />Text<br /></div>
    <div id="down">Text<br />Text<br />Text<br /></div>
</div>
#container { width: 300px; height: 300px; border:1px solid red;}
#up { background: green; }
#down { background:pink;}

where I have a container div with two children (also here: http://jsfiddle.net/S8g4E/). The first child has a given height. How can I make the second child to occupy the "free space" of the container div without giving a specific height?

In the example, the pink div should occupy also the white space.


Similar to this question: How to make div occupy remaining height?

But I don't want to give position absolute.

Venenose answered 27/6, 2012 at 12:13 Comment(1)
I tried als giving second child height 100% but doesn't work: jsfiddle.net/S8g4E/1Venenose
D
228

Expanding the #down child to fill the remaining space of #container can be accomplished in various ways depending on the browser support you wish to achieve and whether or not #up has a defined height.

Note (2024): CSS now has max-content property value for sizing as well, so if you don't have a fixed height (e.g. 100px) then you might be able to use that.

Samples

.container {
  width: 100px;
  height: 300px;
  border: 1px solid red;
  float: left;
}
.up {
  background: green;
}
.down {
  background: pink;
}
.grid.container {
  display: grid;
  grid-template-rows: 100px;
}
.flexbox.container {
  display: flex;
  flex-direction: column;
}
.flexbox.container .down {
  flex-grow: 1;
}
.calc .up {
  height: 100px;
}
.calc .down {
  height: calc(100% - 100px);
}
.overflow.container {
  overflow: hidden;
}
.overflow .down {
  height: 100%;
}
<div class="grid container">
  <div class="up">grid
    <br />grid
    <br />grid
    <br />
  </div>
  <div class="down">grid
    <br />grid
    <br />grid
    <br />
  </div>
</div>
<div class="flexbox container">
  <div class="up">flexbox
    <br />flexbox
    <br />flexbox
    <br />
  </div>
  <div class="down">flexbox
    <br />flexbox
    <br />flexbox
    <br />
  </div>
</div>
<div class="calc container">
  <div class="up">calc
    <br />calc
    <br />calc
    <br />
  </div>
  <div class="down">calc
    <br />calc
    <br />calc
    <br />
  </div>
</div>
<div class="overflow container">
  <div class="up">overflow
    <br />overflow
    <br />overflow
    <br />
  </div>
  <div class="down">overflow
    <br />overflow
    <br />overflow
    <br />
  </div>
</div>

Grid

CSS's grid layout offers yet another option, though it may not be as straightforward as the Flexbox model. However, it only requires styling the container element:

.container { display: grid; grid-template-rows: 100px }

The grid-template-rows defines the first row as a fixed 100px height, and the remain rows will automatically stretch to fill the remaining space.

I'm pretty sure IE11 requires -ms- prefixes, so make sure to validate the functionality in the browsers you wish to support.

Flexbox

CSS3's Flexible Box Layout Module (flexbox) is now well-supported and can be very easy to implement. Because it is flexible, it even works when #up does not have a defined height.

#container { display: flex; flex-direction: column; }
#down { flex-grow: 1; }

It's important to note that IE10 & IE11 support for some flexbox properties can be buggy, and IE9 or below has no support at all.

Calculated Height

Another easy solution is to use the CSS3 calc functional unit, as Alvaro points out in his answer, but it requires the height of the first child to be a known value:

#up { height: 100px; }
#down { height: calc( 100% - 100px ); }

It is pretty widely supported, with the only notable exceptions being <= IE8 or Safari 5 (no support) and IE9 (partial support). Some other issues include using calc in conjunction with transform or box-shadow, so be sure to test in multiple browsers if that is of concern to you.

Other Alternatives

If older support is needed, you could add height:100%; to #down will make the pink div full height, with one caveat. It will cause overflow for the container, because #up is pushing it down.

Therefore, you could add overflow: hidden; to the container to fix that.

Alternatively, if the height of #up is fixed, you could position it absolutely within the container, and add a padding-top to #down.

And, yet another option would be to use a table display:

#container { width: 300px; height: 300px; border: 1px solid red; display: table;}
#up { background: green; display: table-row; height: 0; }
#down { background: pink; display: table-row;}​
Drawstring answered 27/6, 2012 at 12:19 Comment(13)
I would like #down to have #container height - #up height. So overflow hidden is not what I'm looking for. And also don't want to use absolute position. Thanks!Venenose
@Alvaro, I've added another option, using table displays. Disadvantage here is compatibility. P.S. An element positioned absolutely inside a container with position: relative; positions it relative to the container, not the window. So, that should be a viable option.Drawstring
Could you please give me an example of what you mean with 'An element positioned absolutely inside a container with position: relative; positions it relative to the container, not the window.' Your table solution isn't exactly what Im looking for:I would like #down to have #container height - #up height. (In this solution #down height = #container height)Venenose
Table-row should be working for you, see this jsFiddle for proof. The position absolute method, will not be able to yield the same results as this fiddle, so we can scratch that off the list (#down and #container will have the same height in that scenario).Drawstring
You're asking a lot, @Alvaro. CSS is not a scripting language; it can't calculate stuff. You're stuck with either illusions or js.Whom
@Venenose with the table solution down height is equal to container height. This jsfiddle will show this pretty clearly.Suppletory
Thank you, this is the answer I was seeking, The table one. I just missed MrSlayer last comment. Thanks.Venenose
@Jezen, I used Javascript codes to do the calculation first, but then found when I have animation involved, it really became a hassle. You have to do setTimeout to delay the setting of #down's height so that #up has finished animation. If css can resolve it is great. I feel the display:table solution is great.Starfish
@Quantastical, thanks for your help, but in your latest edit you just copied the answer I posted. Some mention about it at least would be nice.Venenose
@Venenose Actually, I didn't just copy the answer you posted, but I do apologize if you feel cheated or something. I received an upvote on my answer, so I updated it after re-reading the original content, and provided new content after seeing how frequently viewed this question was. I did this in order to ensure future visitors had all the available options in the accepted answer. I mean no disrespect to you, your question, or your answer. I've updated my answer to ensure you receive all credit for coming up with the idea of using CSS3 calc units.Drawstring
Of course, no problem. Sorry if I misunderstood. Thanks for the new edit.Venenose
That concise flexbox solution totally made my problem work out: "google maps fill remaining space in variable width and height container in angular + ionic" (including the keywords here for that reason). Nothing else worked, max-height was never respected and so on.) All the other "responsive" solutions I googled just "responsively" changed height corresponding to width. But I wanted to just fill all available space. imgur.com/gallery/BIo7MBqHypanthium
I had the same problem. The "Grid" solution is helpful but my case was different in a sense that I didn't know the fixed size of height (the 100px value shown in example). In this case the value grid-template-rows: max-content helped.Pard
T
33

Abstract

I didn't find a fully satisfying answer so I had to find it out myself.

My requirements:

  • the element should take exactly the remaining space either when its content size is smaller or bigger than the remaining space size (in the second case scrollbar should be shown);
  • the solution should work when the parent height is computed, and not specified;
  • calc() should not be used as the remaining element shouldn't know anything about another element sizes;
  • modern and familar layout technique such as flexboxes should be used.

The solution

  • Turn into flexboxes all direct parents with computed height (if any) and the next parent whose height is specified;
  • Specify flex-grow: 1 to all direct parents with computed height (if any) and the element so they will take up all remaining space when the element content size is smaller;
  • Specify flex-shrink: 0 to all flex items with fixed height so they won't become smaller when the element content size is bigger than the remaining space size;
  • Specify overflow: hidden to all direct parents with computed height (if any) to disable scrolling and forbid displaying overflow content;
  • Specify overflow: auto to the element to enable scrolling inside it.

JSFiddle (element has direct parents with computed height)

JSFiddle (simple case: no direct parents with computed height)

Traditional answered 16/5, 2020 at 23:15 Comment(2)
Yeah, this is easy with flex. I was surprised none of the other answers pointed to it...Bookbinder
This is by far the best answer. Thank you!Cardigan
V
24

Its been almost two years since I asked this question. I just came up with css calc() that resolves this issue I had and thought it would be nice to add it in case someone has the same problem. (By the way I ended up using position absolute).

http://jsfiddle.net/S8g4E/955/

Here is the css

#up { height:80px;}
#down {
    height: calc(100% - 80px);//The upper div needs to have a fixed height, 80px in this case.
}

And more information about it here: http://css-tricks.com/a-couple-of-use-cases-for-calc/

Browser support: http://caniuse.com/#feat=calc

Venenose answered 20/2, 2014 at 6:19 Comment(4)
I, too, have been using CSS3's calc where wide browser support is not as important (IE8 and below and Safari 5 don't support it).Drawstring
Any way to do similar with a dynamic #up height?Tybi
@AdamWaite, with a dynamic #up height, you will want to use the overflow solution described in the other answer.Drawstring
calc should not be used in simple case. It causes unnecessary re-flow with is very resource consuming in browsers. In many cases will also introduce clunky UI behavior since re-flow affects other elements and forces them to re-flow themselves.Energid
L
6

My answer uses only CSS, and it does not use overflow:hidden or display:table-row. It requires that the first child really does have a given height, but in your question you state that only the second child need have its height not specified, so I believe you should find this acceptable.

#container {
  width: 300px;
  height: 300px;
  border: 1px solid red;
}

#up {
  background: green;
  height: 63px;
  float: left;
  width: 100%
}

#down {
  background: pink;
  padding-top: 63px;
  height: 100%;
  box-sizing: border-box;
}
<div id="container">
  <div id="up">Text<br />Text<br />Text<br /></div>
  <div id="down">Text<br />Text<br />Text<br /></div>
</div>
Ludendorff answered 4/3, 2013 at 22:7 Comment(0)
S
2

Unless I am misunderstanding, you can just add height: 100%; and overflow:hidden; to #down.

#down { 
    background:pink; 
    height:100%; 
    overflow:hidden;
}​

Live DEMO

Edit: Since you do not want to use overflow:hidden;, you can use display: table; for this scenario; however, it is not supported prior to IE 8. (display: table; support)

#container { 
    width: 300px; 
    height: 300px; 
    border:1px solid red;
    display:table;
}

#up { 
    background: green;
    display:table-row;
    height:0; 
}

#down { 
    background:pink;
    display:table-row;
}​

Live DEMO

Note: You have said that you want the #down height to be #container height minus #up height. The display:table; solution does exactly that and this jsfiddle will portray that pretty clearly.

Suppletory answered 27/6, 2012 at 12:16 Comment(5)
I don't want #down to exceed #container heightVenenose
I just noticed that. You can add overflow:hidden to to hide the extra content.Suppletory
I'll copy/paste what I said to MrSlayer: I would like #down to have #container height - #up height. So overflow hidden is not what I'm looking for. And also don't want to use absolute position. Thanks!Venenose
The problem with this is that if you revert the two divs in your example then the green div is outside.Pre
This does not answer the question at all. It states "To occupy all of the remaining height", event though this occupies all of the remaining height, there will be overflow.P
U
2

check the demo - http://jsfiddle.net/S8g4E/6/

use css -

#container { width: 300px; height: 300px; border:1px solid red; display: table;}
#up { background: green; display: table-row; }
#down { background:pink; display: table-row;}
Underpainting answered 27/6, 2012 at 12:20 Comment(2)
You should add height: 1px to #up to ensure it takes the minimum amount of height. Here's the browser support for display: table: caniuse.com/css-tableHypsography
Could you please show me how can this solution be achieved in this "more complex" example, please: jsfiddle.net/fyNX4 Thank you very muchVenenose
B
2
<div class='parent'>
  <div class='child'>
  <div class='child last'>
</div>

<style>
.parent {
  display: flex;
  flex-direction: column;

  .child {
     &.last {
        flex-grow: 1;
     }
  }
}
</style>
Bookbinder answered 5/6, 2022 at 16:39 Comment(0)
M
1

You can use floats for pushing content down:

http://jsfiddle.net/S8g4E/5/

You have a fixed size container:

#container {
    width: 300px; height: 300px;
}

Content is allowed to flow next to a float. Unless we set the float to full width:

#up {
    float: left;
    width: 100%;
}

While #up and #down share the top position, #down's content can only start after the bottom of the floated #up:

#down {
    height:100%;
}​
Manager answered 27/6, 2012 at 12:22 Comment(9)
Note that #up actually covers the top part of #down: jsfiddle.net/thirtydot/S8g4E/9Hypsography
Yes, that's how it works. But if OP doesn't need a rounded border or something other fancyness on #up, then it is probably acceptable.Manager
This solution is close, but I would like #down to have #container height - #up height. (In your solution #down height = #container height). Thanks'Venenose
@Alvaro: Why does it need to be like that? This solution looks correct in most cases, even if it is only an illusion.Hypsography
Well, this question is a simplified example from this more "complex" example: jsfiddle.net/fyNX4 There wouldn't work, no?Venenose
Well, in this case probably the display:table solution is the best.Manager
I was trying to implement table solution to the "complex" example, but can't get it to work..Venenose
Biziclop,That is great! Please could you post this as an answer here: #11212655 And I'll give you the correct answer. Thanks!Venenose
Hi, I added the table solution there :)Manager
W
-2

I'm not sure it can be done purely with CSS, unless you're comfortable in sort of faking it with illusions. Maybe use Josh Mein's answer, and set #container to overflow:hidden.

For what it's worth, here's a jQuery solution:

var contH = $('#container').height(),
upH = $('#up').height();
$('#down').css('height' , contH - upH);
Whom answered 27/6, 2012 at 12:19 Comment(2)
Thanks I was looking for a pure Css solution.Venenose
No reason to downvote. Seems valid JS solution. It's just not css based.Rosemarierosemary

© 2022 - 2024 — McMap. All rights reserved.