This seems like a letter from a bygone generation, struggling to understand something that has been obvious for a long time: lawns consume a lot of space and require a lot of work to maintain, while offering pretty much nothing in return unless you're really into the whole '50s-60s retro suburban thing. The question is not "why are lawns shrinking," the question is "how long will it take before people stop putting up with this silliness."
This is precisely the case. I doubt cost has all that much to do with it. Times have changed, and whereas in the past having folks over might include outdoor activities, it rarely does now. There are more entertaining things to do inside the house. And you have privacy. Most lawn care is just work, with equipment that costs money. And in the states, at least, if you don't do the work, you'll get fined. The city might even send someone out to do the work for you and charge you for it. Or you might have to deal with the housing association, which regulates what you can indeed to to your yard (sometimes they are fairly strict). If the area permits, you might be able to landscape your way out of most lawncare, but alas, that itself costs a decent amount of money.
The most redeeming aspect of the lawn is that it gives space between your neighbor and yourself. With some luck of location and money, you can make it fairly private - you know, just the sort of area to sit outside in the shade with your laptop and listen to the birds at the birdfeeder.
Lawns offer a lot in return... unless you just don't like being outside. Since moving to a big city, one of the biggest things I've missed has been a back yard to run around in and hang out with my friends. At some point, I might get too old for that, but I suspect I'll enjoy reading outside for decades to come.
The reason lawns are disappearing is because people don't like being outdoors as much as they used to. They don't want to play badminton with their friends outside or read on a lawn chair by a tree. They want to stay indoors and play Clash of Clans. After a while anything not covered by a roof and closed in by four walls starts to look like "silliness".
I love being outdoors, but a lawn hardly counts. If I want to go outside, I'll go outside - to a park, the arboretum, the beach, up to the mountains, across the mountains to the desert - somewhere interesting. I'll never be wealthy enough to own enough of the outdoors to make it matter.
I have a nice back porch with a grill and a picnic table, and there's a deck way out back with a firepit and some benches and some garden beds, but most of the back yard is gravel and I use it as a parking lot. It's really useful, living in a big city, to have a place off the street to store vehicles.
I also have a front yard, which is a total waste of space. It looks ugly unless I waste lots of time doing repetitive maintenance work, and nobody ever spends any time there because it's all exposed on a busy street. I'd rather rip it all out and have some kind of native plants jungle, but that takes time and money I haven't been able to spend on it yet. I'd be just as happy if the front yard didn't exist and my house fronted directly on the sidewalk.
If I wanted to play badminton or read on a lawn chair I would just go to one of the parks within a few blocks' walk. There's no reason for me to own that land.
I will say I've probably spent at least a hundred times as much time in back yards as front yards and it is great to live right next to a park (which I've managed to do twice).
> "If I wanted to play badminton or read on a lawn chair I would just go to one of the parks within a few blocks' walk."
I think maybe this is like the difference between having a computer with internet in your pocket vs having one in your basement (or a few blocks away!). In theory, you can go use it whenever you want. In practice, immediate availability changes habits and ways of life.
This absolutely changes habits and the ways of life. When my significant other and I lived in Texas we were 40lbs overweight with a huge lawn that was a PITA to maintain. Now in the city I bike 12-15 miles a day and we use the nearest Park a few blocks off.
I'd argue the green space is immediately available and better than a backyard I have to maintain.
"I'd rather rip it all out and have some kind of native plants jungle, but that takes time and money I haven't been able to spend on it yet. I'd be just as happy if the front yard didn't exist and my house fronted directly on the sidewalk."
I wish you lived in my neighborhood. A lot of people in SF south of 280 or in the outer sunset feel the same way you do about lawns, but they sure don't feel the same way you do about native plants. Instead, they value extra concrete and parking spots.
The article says the practice is illegal, but in many neighborhoods in SF, enforcement is largely non-existent.
Just to be clear, this isn't purely an aesthetic issue, there are major infrastructure problems here. In particular, paving over with non-permeable surfaces greatly increases the amount of runoff that makes its way into the storm system during heavy rains. San Francisco's system is an antiquated single combined sewage and storm system, which means that if the system is overwhelmed and drains back up.... that ain't just rainwater anymore.
I'm really into the whole retro '50s-60s retro suburban thing. My kids walk out the back door and play in the sandbox while I do the breakfast dishes. Most of the time they're playing with neighbors' kids because the lawns all run together in back. You can't tell me the park is just as good -- it's a couple of blocks away, and I can't watch the kids out the kitchen window. My back lawn gives a huge boost to my quality of life, and my kids'.
I actually think lawns are valuable, we just need to realize that they aren't "free", especially in places where water is increasingly scarce (like most of the heavily populated parts of California).
Lawns are pretty great places to put a blanket down and have a picnic, run around and play frisbee, badminton, or soccer, and so forth. They're just thirsty, expensive, and have other environmental issues.
I remember reading an interview with a water-friendly landscape architect (sorry no cite) who was asked a question about lawns, and the question was kind of phrased in a "of course you must hate lawns" kind of way. His response was, no not really, lawns have a place, we just have to realize they're costly and shouldn't be used casually. For instance, lining a long driveway or a freeway median with a lawn that has to be constantly watered but is never walked on is probably a bad use of water and the other externalities that lawns produce (pesticides and so forth). Many of the current uses of lawns aren't a good use - but even the water-friendly landscape architect feel that there are some situations where a lawn is a justifiable use of water. We just have to stop pretending that water is "free".
Sure, I'll agree with that. I spent the past weekend at a festival which wouldn't have been the same without its great glorious swath of green grass. It's the idea that everyone should have their own little scrap of lawn attached to their house which seems absurd to me, because it takes too much work for what you get and you can't get enough to do anything really interesting with it.
About 10 liters of gas will see me through the mowing season in a moderately sized lot. Now, I could probably manage that decently with a push mower, and the folks out in Great Falls or Potomac on quarter-acre lots must be burning more.
Lots are eco friendly in the sense that they make very good ground cover: the dirt under my lawn is running out to silt up the Chesapeake Bay. And they are permeable: most of the rain that falls on the lawn goes into the water table rather than running off into storm sewers.
I tend to agree with you that lawns aren't necessarily a bad thing. There are also more eco-friendly varieties of grass (though in my experience, they don't tend to be the nice soft grass). If all you're looking for is ground cover to provide soil filter and avoid erosion, there may be better choices than lawn.
In the town I grew up in (South Africa), there was a planning law that prevented the footprint of a house from being larger than a certain size. It had been that percentage for years and I'm hoping that it doesn't change because it's helped the area stay green and lovely without becoming overly built up.
Do similar planning laws exist in other countries?
I can't speak for the rest of America, but that law does exist in at least parts of Atlanta. Most people are surprised at how green and forest-y the urban parts of Atlanta are.
In Washington, DC, at least in some parts this is the rule. The builder of the McMansion next door had to jackhammer up part of the garage pad when he discovered he was going over the ratio. Neighbors down the street bought part of a neighboring lot not for use, but to offset an expansion they anticipated into their original lot.
Admittedly, there's a desire for me to be able to have sizable lawn to continue to foster and adopt abused and/or neglected dogs (fostered 5 and counting, one adopted he's a 50kg cuddly play thing... Seriously. Get a big dog and surprise yourself).
But, even I don't need a large lawn for that. I need something large enough that it isn't required to clean daily to prevent my furbabies rolling around in their own filth.
The urban sprawl, two tier property system in Australia is terrible for this. Houses have huge lawns or none. And the areas neglected more so than most for lack of shared greenspace have huge homes and huge lawns with less and less dedicated public spaces.
Atypical of wealthy suburbs actually (I'm looking at you, Tarragindi) there's little public recreational area because when the suburbs were designed in the 60's, home owners put fences up and declared it mine.
A great deal of places in the states have little-to-no shared (or public) greenspace within walking distance. It isn't just wealthy suburbs, but nearly entire cities. Small towns might have one such space. Larger cities (30-50k) had a few more, most were just small patches with playground equipment. Some towns I lived in actually had public green areas with playgrounds... that had no sidewalks or safe places to walk that led to them. The houses in the areas all had nice-sized yards, but I still found this curious.
I think whats missing is greenspace with a commercial element. If you attach a beergarden or cafe to a greenspace people will spend much more time there
That is an excellent idea. SOmething better than a concession stand at least. Some places wouldn't go for the beergarden, but a coffee & sandwich & store combo would probably work out nicely, especially if the local folks actually went there. Probably perfect in the area between the greenspace and the road.
Beergardens were common until WWII, at which point they were associated with Germanism. Most parks I see get very little use, one empty baseball field after another, it wouldn't take much to liven them up.
Agreed - most do get little use. Most the ones I see with different uses have different sorts of things for different ages and sorts of people. You are correct, it doesn't need to take much to liven them up. Most of the costs are upfront.
Heh. If only I were closer in location and had time and money... It'd be a fun project in areas.
25 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 10.3 ms ] threadThe most redeeming aspect of the lawn is that it gives space between your neighbor and yourself. With some luck of location and money, you can make it fairly private - you know, just the sort of area to sit outside in the shade with your laptop and listen to the birds at the birdfeeder.
The reason lawns are disappearing is because people don't like being outdoors as much as they used to. They don't want to play badminton with their friends outside or read on a lawn chair by a tree. They want to stay indoors and play Clash of Clans. After a while anything not covered by a roof and closed in by four walls starts to look like "silliness".
I have a nice back porch with a grill and a picnic table, and there's a deck way out back with a firepit and some benches and some garden beds, but most of the back yard is gravel and I use it as a parking lot. It's really useful, living in a big city, to have a place off the street to store vehicles.
I also have a front yard, which is a total waste of space. It looks ugly unless I waste lots of time doing repetitive maintenance work, and nobody ever spends any time there because it's all exposed on a busy street. I'd rather rip it all out and have some kind of native plants jungle, but that takes time and money I haven't been able to spend on it yet. I'd be just as happy if the front yard didn't exist and my house fronted directly on the sidewalk.
If I wanted to play badminton or read on a lawn chair I would just go to one of the parks within a few blocks' walk. There's no reason for me to own that land.
> "If I wanted to play badminton or read on a lawn chair I would just go to one of the parks within a few blocks' walk."
I think maybe this is like the difference between having a computer with internet in your pocket vs having one in your basement (or a few blocks away!). In theory, you can go use it whenever you want. In practice, immediate availability changes habits and ways of life.
I'd argue the green space is immediately available and better than a backyard I have to maintain.
I wish you lived in my neighborhood. A lot of people in SF south of 280 or in the outer sunset feel the same way you do about lawns, but they sure don't feel the same way you do about native plants. Instead, they value extra concrete and parking spots.
This has been the result:
http://sf.streetsblog.org/2013/01/28/cleaning-up-sfs-car-lit...
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Paved-over-S-F-yards-r...
The article says the practice is illegal, but in many neighborhoods in SF, enforcement is largely non-existent.
Just to be clear, this isn't purely an aesthetic issue, there are major infrastructure problems here. In particular, paving over with non-permeable surfaces greatly increases the amount of runoff that makes its way into the storm system during heavy rains. San Francisco's system is an antiquated single combined sewage and storm system, which means that if the system is overwhelmed and drains back up.... that ain't just rainwater anymore.
http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/news-san-francisco-sewe...
Only if you want a private outdoor space. If you don't care about it being private you can just go to a public park instead.
Apartments don't come in 1500+ square feet, all on the ground floor.
Lawns are pretty great places to put a blanket down and have a picnic, run around and play frisbee, badminton, or soccer, and so forth. They're just thirsty, expensive, and have other environmental issues.
I remember reading an interview with a water-friendly landscape architect (sorry no cite) who was asked a question about lawns, and the question was kind of phrased in a "of course you must hate lawns" kind of way. His response was, no not really, lawns have a place, we just have to realize they're costly and shouldn't be used casually. For instance, lining a long driveway or a freeway median with a lawn that has to be constantly watered but is never walked on is probably a bad use of water and the other externalities that lawns produce (pesticides and so forth). Many of the current uses of lawns aren't a good use - but even the water-friendly landscape architect feel that there are some situations where a lawn is a justifiable use of water. We just have to stop pretending that water is "free".
Lots are eco friendly in the sense that they make very good ground cover: the dirt under my lawn is running out to silt up the Chesapeake Bay. And they are permeable: most of the rain that falls on the lawn goes into the water table rather than running off into storm sewers.
I thought this was a good summary:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-hodel-pittenger-w...
Do similar planning laws exist in other countries?
Admittedly, there's a desire for me to be able to have sizable lawn to continue to foster and adopt abused and/or neglected dogs (fostered 5 and counting, one adopted he's a 50kg cuddly play thing... Seriously. Get a big dog and surprise yourself).
But, even I don't need a large lawn for that. I need something large enough that it isn't required to clean daily to prevent my furbabies rolling around in their own filth.
The urban sprawl, two tier property system in Australia is terrible for this. Houses have huge lawns or none. And the areas neglected more so than most for lack of shared greenspace have huge homes and huge lawns with less and less dedicated public spaces.
Atypical of wealthy suburbs actually (I'm looking at you, Tarragindi) there's little public recreational area because when the suburbs were designed in the 60's, home owners put fences up and declared it mine.
Edit: too many words or too little.
Heh. If only I were closer in location and had time and money... It'd be a fun project in areas.