3 ms·
"Huge dirt field" is not the only alternative to lawn. I would NEVER live somewhere where some busy-body group of Karens can tell me what I can, can't or must p
by mdoms 5y ago
"Huge dirt field" is not the only alternative to lawn. I would NEVER live somewhere where some busy-body group of Karens can tell me what I can, can't or must plant on my own property.
- closeparen 5y agoA lot of people would never live somewhere lacking greenery.
- cinntaile 5y agoNobody in this thread is saying that though, so it's unclear who or what you are arguing against?
- mdoms 5y agoAre you implying that not having a lawn means not having greenery? I would argue the opposite is true. While a monoculture lawn may be "green" it's about as barren a green space as you can imagine.
- closeparen 5y agoAre you construing a requirement to have a lawn as prohibiting more intensive gardening? I have never heard of that. What I do see all the time is the front setback given over 100% to driveway and parking. These neighborhoods become very drab, even though if you look on satellite view there’s plenty of plant life - it’s just all locked away in private backyards. My personal preference is neither. Pull the buildings right up to the sidewalk. Present an interesting pleasant facade to pedestrians. But to the extent you are going to have setbacks, they should at least have some redeeming aesthetic value.
- mdoms 5y agoYes, a lawn precludes an alternative usage of that space. That's just physics.
- closeparen 5y agoI just checked my local code and it calls for “lawn, ground cover, hedges, bushes, or other vegetation, maintained as necessary to create a neat and attractive appearance.” That seems reasonable. Are you seeing codes that require specifically grass and not other vegetation?
- mdoms 5y agoYes that is what this thread of discussion is about. > I don't understand why a lot of people have a lawn in the first place > > Often times it is required by law or HOA.