4 ms·

The Case Against Lawns

4 points by howard941 8y ago

benj111 8y ago
"After the neighbors replaced the nearby woods with an oversized house and lawn" The lawn is the least of the problems cited here. And its quite geographically specific. If you get heavy rain, you want grass to absorb run off. Because lawns aren't going to be replaced by trees and natural wilderness. They'll be replaced by paving.
- eesmith 8y ago
  I felt it was pretty clear that while details (like the one about the neighbors) were geographically specific, the point wasn't to get rid of all grass. The term "lawn" in this essay is a short-hand for "turf grass lawn". For example, the starting suggestion was "Getting rid of turf grass and replacing it with native grasses, prairie, or whatever natural ground cover happens to be inherent to the place you live and that doesn’t require fertilization, pesticide use, or mowing". If you need grass to absorb run off, then go ahead and use grass which has evolved in and for that local climate. I felt like the author should have pointed out some of the politics involved, like city or neighborhood rules which place limits on the height of the grass. One of the houses near me when I lived in Illinois used prairie grasses. I loved it. But the grasses were a lot higher than the turf grass of the neighbors, which upsets people who 1) value the turf grass lawn look and 2) believe, perhaps correctly, that their house value depends on having neighbors who agree with 1).
siruncledrew 8y ago
What I’ve noticed about lawns: From looking at pre-1990s houses in the suburbs, I have noticed that lawns typically comprise a large percentage of the lot size. It seems to me, back when those houses were built, a desirable quality of a suburban home was having a ‘lawn where the kids could play around’. Lawns also were (and still are) a personal show of accomplishment, so people took interest in their lawns and the lawns of others. (If you watch 80s and 90s movies with suburban shots - like Donnie Darko - it also shows “the American lawn” in the suburbs). In newer houses built after the 2000s, I’ve seen house size comprise more of the total lot size, and lawn size reduced. I figure this is a sign of the trend to have a big house over a lawn. It’s fairly economical today to build a template-style cul-de-sac or subdivision of “large” homes built closer together (thus smaller lawns) to capitalize on the land. Plus, if someone is spending a lot of money on a house, then I suppose they want to get their money’s worth in amenities (2 car garage, 3+ full baths, nice kitchen, big living room, etc), which means more house is needed. There’s also less reason to care about having a lawn if it’s going to get less use out of it. On speculation, maybe 70% of the lot is house, with the remaining 30% of the lot being a small front yard and larger fenced back yard. Aside: As for having natural lawns that are more locally ecological friendly as opposed to manicured grass, I think the main impediment is people’s perceptions and fear of “pests”. Either neighbors get pissed off or they complain about property values, local ordinances, HOA bylaws, etc to some local government about “non-standard” lawns that promote ecological cohabitation. It’s kind of weird so many people in the suburbs have this view. Like they are actually afraid of having nature next to them, when the suburbs are a place outside the city built right next to nature and rural land. I used to live close to a small park, and I would leave out unused food at night on ocassion for deers, rabbits, and stray cats that would wander around, instead of throwing it away. My neighbor saw me doing that and threatened to call the cops on me, and report me to the health board and animal control. If animals were wrecking havok on neighbors yards I would understand, but neighbors like these are so protectionist of their yards, they will blow up a petty thing to huge proportions and find a way to get “the law” on their side to make life miserable for someone. As if I am putting them in grave danger because a deer ate some berries in my backyard. I don’t understand why people would buy a house next to a park if they really needed to be so fenced off.

4 points by howard941 8y ago

"After the neighbors replaced the nearby woods with an oversized house and lawn" The lawn is the least of the problems cited here. And its quite geographically specific. If you get heavy rain, you want grass to absorb run off. Because lawns aren't going to be replaced by trees and natural wilderness. They'll be replaced by paving.

eesmith 8y ago
I felt it was pretty clear that while details (like the one about the neighbors) were geographically specific, the point wasn't to get rid of all grass. The term "lawn" in this essay is a short-hand for "turf grass lawn". For example, the starting suggestion was "Getting rid of turf grass and replacing it with native grasses, prairie, or whatever natural ground cover happens to be inherent to the place you live and that doesn’t require fertilization, pesticide use, or mowing". If you need grass to absorb run off, then go ahead and use grass which has evolved in and for that local climate. I felt like the author should have pointed out some of the politics involved, like city or neighborhood rules which place limits on the height of the grass. One of the houses near me when I lived in Illinois used prairie grasses. I loved it. But the grasses were a lot higher than the turf grass of the neighbors, which upsets people who 1) value the turf grass lawn look and 2) believe, perhaps correctly, that their house value depends on having neighbors who agree with 1).

siruncledrew 8y ago

What I’ve noticed about lawns: From looking at pre-1990s houses in the suburbs, I have noticed that lawns typically comprise a large percentage of the lot size. It seems to me, back when those houses were built, a desirable quality of a suburban home was having a ‘lawn where the kids could play around’. Lawns also were (and still are) a personal show of accomplishment, so people took interest in their lawns and the lawns of others. (If you watch 80s and 90s movies with suburban shots - like Donnie Darko - it also shows “the American lawn” in the suburbs). In newer houses built after the 2000s, I’ve seen house size comprise more of the total lot size, and lawn size reduced. I figure this is a sign of the trend to have a big house over a lawn. It’s fairly economical today to build a template-style cul-de-sac or subdivision of “large” homes built closer together (thus smaller lawns) to capitalize on the land. Plus, if someone is spending a lot of money on a house, then I suppose they want to get their money’s worth in amenities (2 car garage, 3+ full baths, nice kitchen, big living room, etc), which means more house is needed. There’s also less reason to care about having a lawn if it’s going to get less use out of it. On speculation, maybe 70% of the lot is house, with the remaining 30% of the lot being a small front yard and larger fenced back yard. Aside: As for having natural lawns that are more locally ecological friendly as opposed to manicured grass, I think the main impediment is people’s perceptions and fear of “pests”. Either neighbors get pissed off or they complain about property values, local ordinances, HOA bylaws, etc to some local government about “non-standard” lawns that promote ecological cohabitation. It’s kind of weird so many people in the suburbs have this view. Like they are actually afraid of having nature next to them, when the suburbs are a place outside the city built right next to nature and rural land. I used to live close to a small park, and I would leave out unused food at night on ocassion for deers, rabbits, and stray cats that would wander around, instead of throwing it away. My neighbor saw me doing that and threatened to call the cops on me, and report me to the health board and animal control. If animals were wrecking havok on neighbors yards I would understand, but neighbors like these are so protectionist of their yards, they will blow up a petty thing to huge proportions and find a way to get “the law” on their side to make life miserable for someone. As if I am putting them in grave danger because a deer ate some berries in my backyard. I don’t understand why people would buy a house next to a park if they really needed to be so fenced off.