This reminds me that there are many municipalities and homeowners' associations that essentially require you to mow your lawn weekly or bi-weekly, lest your grass gets too long and they fine you, because... reasons.
It's really gross that we allow people to be such busybodies.
What is impact of more natural landscaping wrt ticks in 'ew England?
This also gives you an opportunity to explore varieties and cultivars that don’t stay fresh for long (no commercial viability) but are delicious when picked fresh
You can also look into plants that often aren’t commonly available just due to being obscure. Kiwi berry, beach plum, etc
Not for everyone, of course. But it can be a great way to make use of a large suburban property if you aren’t attached to the grassy field look.
That's only a side effect of "way less life" though
Sandy soil that's so nutrient-deficient that you can't grow anything without chemical fertilizer.
And then the damn St. Augustine that everyone obsesses about (a) still needs watering during the summer if it rains too little & (b) gets aggressively eaten by fungus if it rains too much.
It's seemingly not uncommon for people to resod their lawn every few years. And they replant the same grass type that just died!
I guess my point is chances are you’ll be fine. Do what you can to prevent bites but don’t freak out about them.
Doing stuff on your lawn is only part of its function. Much of the value it provides, arguably most of the value is a combination of:
1. More distance and acoustic isolation from neighbors. A larger property with a house in the middle of it separated from others by space means you hear your neighbors less and they hear you less. It makes your home a little more of a sanctuary.
2. A better view out the window. Windows and the views they afford are a critical part of the indoor experience. They provide a connection to a larger space so that the house doesn't feel claustrophobic or too artificial. A window that opens onto a calm expanse of green can make the house feel more spacious and tranquil.
Now, of course, those benefits have to be weighed against the trade-offs. But, in general, people are not completely stupid and if millions of them have lawns, it's probably at least somewhat because they actually like having lawns and aren't mindless sheep manipulated by culture and nefarious HOA laws into having them.
This purpose does not necessarily need to be serviced by a lawn, which is just a patch of grass.
Lawns are stupid.
Whether you were a nobleman in 17th century England or a suburbanite today, the lawn is a symbol of success — a reflection of who you are as a person. A good, clean, weed-free lawn is a sign you have the wealth and resources to devote to such a fundamentally meaningless project.
See for example 26 Parkfield Drive, Youngtown Tasmania on your real estate platform of choice (Google search will do) to see what I mean.
But yeah fuck off with the judging. I like space and I like living in the city.
(We kept part of our grass for exactly that reason but it helps that we don't have to water the lawn here. With added clover I'm quite happy with it.)
Lots of things are inexpensive when ignoring externalities.
But I'll give you one anyway - it's a nice buffer between me and my stupid neighbors.
If humans displace natural grazing animals, something has to replace them. A lawnmower.
I live on 6 acres. Half of it I leave wooded. I have a small hobby vineyard. And the house and garage. The rest, well, it has to be mowed. Because I don't have sheep or goats to do it for me.
Even when I lived in Toronto on a 25'x100' property, I had to mow almost weekly to keep weeds down.
Yes, the lawn thing is a bit silly. But people who act like a native plant or whatever garden or landscaping is less labour intensive are fooling themselves. I've tried both. Around here, it'll fill with burrs and dandelions and pigweed and ticks and whatever in no time at all.
Invasive species can be a nightmare on their own but even the native ones can become impenetrable if you let it go too long.
Even if you have nice forest around your house you’ll pay for it with wood rot, termites, moss and mildew, and gutter cleanings. I loved living with trees over the house but ultimately decided I’d rather live with a bit more clearing.
It's not just grazing animals btw. It's fire. Large parts of the US Southeast, for example, used to be savanna, basically grasslands interspersed by trees. Fire is necessary to maintain that, to beat back woody growth.
Those areas were instrumental in the "American Dream"-style imagery so the rest of the country imitated it, even though it's absolutely insane in some places.
Also the amount yards are used varies greatly by area, and by family size.
I live in upstate NY, where grass grows more or less on its own. You can have a lush lawn here without weeding or watering if that's your choice.
Yes, I participate in no mow May. And I know my golf course fairway yard neighbors judge me. Especially with all the dandelions and clover patches I let go un-mowed all year long.
It is really dumb that we spend so much time, energy and costs on something that is only visual. Imagine if people spend the same amounts on something that produced food.
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-stupid-is-our-obsession...
kickball
whiffle ball
touch football
tag
hide-and-go-seek
"Mother, may I?"
throwing baseballs, softballs, footballs
the neighbor's teenage son practicing his golf swing with a plastic ballAlso, grassses tend not to survive the summers here, so there's an increased fire risk which is probably not then covered by my insurance policy as it would arguably be negligence.
I left my back yard go one spring, my partner wouldn't go out there sue to snake risk, grass was over 5ft. It's now back to something approximating the standards implied by the surrounding houses.
Launceston, Tasmania.
Not for me, but some people hate long grass and are willing to waive their property rights so they don't have to see it.
I'm glad there is an outlet where they can do their own thing without involving me.
The fact that this sometimes becomes a municipality issue is a major failing.
Personally I think the burden of unsightly-ness is usually far overblown. I just don’t think it’s that big of a deal if my neighbors don’t maintain their lawn as long as it doesn’t spill into mine.
Most places I've seen that have strict property standards end up being ugly swaths of green lawn with absolutely nothing pretty growing.
The trash is obviously a problem, which can be addressed directly.
We've been suggesting The Others are dirty, unkempt, and irresponsible in order to ostracize them since the dawn of protectionism.
That is: that HOA rules and enforcement results in better-maintained properties.
What I have observed as a near-universal property of neighborhoods is that there are good neighborhoods and bad neighborhoods. This always correlates with the quality of the population of the surrounding area, and sometimes (but not always) correlates with its socioeconomic status and property vales.
Anecdotally, where I have seen the most overgrown grass, dogshit, and intra-community hostility, there typically is a HOA present. While one could argue that these communities have an insufficient level of rule enforcement, this is contrary to the reality where some neighbors are constantly surveiling and reporting others and compliance notices and warnings are sent out regularly.
The best neighborhoods, as measured by low crime, well-maintained properties, sense of community, and so-on, are often those without an HOA at all. They tend to be expensive, but aren't necessarily so. Here, a compliance notice or warning is unheard of. Generally, neighbors know and help one another and there is a broad, unspoken social contract concerning the way things ought to be. People do the right thing because they know they ought to, not because someone is holding a big stick over their head.
For maximizing both quality-of-life and net worth, it's therefore a good idea to target these neighborhoods as a primary residence, even if it means allocating significantly more capital to acquire the asset. Going hand-in-hand with this, it is also inherently a good idea to uphold the social contracts and take care of one's own property, as interests are aligned throughout the community.
The real issue, as far as I'm concerned, is what are you letting grow. If you just let it all out, it's not likely that you just have commercial grass growing, but a bunch of weeds. Now I like weeds, myself, but some are less desirable than others, particularly some invasive ones, and neighbors can complain (mine don't). My approach is to selectively weed the lawn (yes, by hand, and it's a half-acre) to try to rid it of the weeds I don't want, and selectively encourage those I do (e.g. in my case, the native fleabane which flowers in May). I do see a difference in the number of insects visiting fleabane compared to non-native weeds. Now, I'm in a rural enclave of an urban area in an environmentally sensitive part of Virginia, so my approach is different than it might be if I were in a California suburb, for example.
In the UK at least, they say wildflower meadows flourish on poor soil, where dandelion, dock and grass struggle. Sometimes you read that you should scrape off the fertile topsoil before sprinkling wildflower seeds, but this seems kinda perverse to me.
Instead, I weed the dock and dandelion by hand. Both have pretty evil taproots. This is enough of a task with my small garden, I can't imagine doing it for a half-acre!
I have quite a lot of tree cover, so I planted native bulbs beneath the lawn which have done reasonably well (they mostly come up before the trees are in leaf). I basically don't mow these patches from February til June, as the bulbs are best left until they die back naturally to store up energy for the next year. I mow a winding path through the long grass which looks rather nice (mowing around the longer areas is a good general tip for making things look neat rather than neglected). Other than that, I seem to have clover, creeping buttercup, cow parsley and common vetch. I rather like the vetch so spread it around a bit. This year I've put in a few ox-eye daisy plugs, which I'm told I may live to regret, but we'll see.
https://twitter.com/simonsarris/status/1629638819954786305
https://twitter.com/simonsarris/status/1651949172931674112
The fields naturally have lots of clover, black eyed susans, milkweed, and daisies. I've also planted a lot of my own flowers.
You can still have parts cut low, and if you leave the rest taller even the low part seems to resist drought better.
I used to mow ~3 acres with just a gas push (self-propelled) mower. Now I have the "modest" X330. You don't need a big machine to do this. Though you do have to go slow when you cut at the end of the year around October.
Two, lawns are the biggest agricultural crop in the US. Especially when you consider sod and seed.
Lawns are basically wastelands, supporting little to no biodiversity. Removing them does material good to the surrounding area.
Most services want you on a weekly schedule because they make more money. Close-cut lawns are thirstier.
It can take effort to find services that will only come twice a month but they are out there.
Lawns aren't just ornamental for many...if you are on septic, the lawn is helping to recycle septic discharge, and trees would root too deep and break the lines.
That's comparing (an estimate of the) total lawn area to only the irrigated portion of corn (around 17% of the 91 million acres of corn in the US). If less than 40% of lawns are irrigated (which seems entirely plausible), then turfgrass is not the largest irrigated crop by any measure.
Total for total, corn has more. Irrigated for irrigated, lawns have more iff ~39% or more of the total area is irrigated. I doubt that 2/5ths of all lawn area is irrigated, but good statistics on that were not readily findable (and certainly not cited in the article).
Most dog owners use the backyard in a similar fashion.
Though thats only the backyard. Front yard could be rock, plants, flowers, long grass, etc and wouldn't make a difference.
We mow heavier around the house because of this, too lazy to do everywhere.
Where we haven't been mowing really bad weeds have taken over. We are poisoning our way through them but it takes time.
> Lawns cover 40 million acres, or 2%, of land in the US
This is because they are amazing. They have a lot of mental health benefits with little mental work. You just mow... and immediately see the benefits of your work. Mowing is like the first coat of paint. It's a great example of how people are happier in the moment doing chores than in the moment with their kids.
This theme adds mental work, which is fine if you have it to spare, lawns are great iterative projects.
If you need something green to walk on there are plenty of herbal/clover mixes that produce flowers for insect life. Alternatively you can build raised beds and plant flowers and vegetables. Or native wildflowers. Or trees.
Getting rid of my lawn was the best decision I've made w.r.t. to my land.