Poll of the Day > Rant: lawns are stupid wastes of space, water, energy

(+) Yeah! (+)

adjl posted...

Caring about appearances to the point that one maintains a grass lawn instead of something vastly less destructive, however, is destructive and should be condemned as such.

In this moment I am euphoric, and not because of some puny lawn's blessing, but because I am enlightened by my own appearance.

overconsumption isn't even close to being solved and even the smallest baby steps are considered extremism. We are on a crash course to complete societal collapse within a few centuries.

---

LinkPizza posted...

Hes right, though. Some people dont have a choice. Like if youre renting, or have an HOA that says you have to have one Or have nothing else to out there. Plus, I feel getting rid of lawns in a stepmom the wrong direction, anyway. Thats getting rid of more nature, isnt it? The issue isnt the grass itself, right? It what it cost to maintain it. So we should fix that issue

Link I dont agree with you and Im not going to debate with you because we will go back and forth for 50 posts. There is a massive wealth of information available if you want to actually learn why lawns and many types of landscaping are so destructive and wasteful. Its a lot more complicated than just lawns are good because grass is plants we live in a complex ecosystem and there is evidence all around us that we can really fuck it up if we are careless.

Fuck HOAs

---

Mead posted...

wrong

we are ripping out the old rules and fixing what we can. It is simply not acceptable for things to be the way they have been.

Dude I hate lawns but you have to be practical about it. My point here is the lawns already exist, whether a home buyer likes them or not. People aren't buying homes and putting in lawns where there weren't any - well some probably are, but most of them were already there.

I would have loved it if homes with already xeriscaped yards were readily available, or would even settle for one with workable land that's not covered in grass, but that's largely not the case. I don't have the time to go tearing out all my grass and re-landscaping it right away, or the money to pay someone to do it for me. I want to do what I can but converting is a process that can take a long time.

I live in Los Angeles County. I do not think my city itself is being that strict about water usage but I still would rather switch to either woodchips or desert plants instead of a lawn. I driven by Joshua Tree plenty of times and some homes have really nice front yards with just desert plants.

---

InfestedAdam posted...

I live in Los Angeles County. I do not think my city itself is being that strict about water usage but I still would rather switch to either woodchips or desert plants instead of a lawn. I driven by Joshua Tree plenty of times and some homes have really nice front yards with just desert plants.

Im in fountain valley and the sheer amount of water I see just draining along down into the drain at the end of the block makes me sick considering the drought

---

adjl posted...

Caring about appearances to the point that one maintains a grass lawn instead of something vastly less destructive, however, is destructive and should be condemned as such.

Doesnt that depend on the lengths they go, though?

Mead posted...

Link I dont agree with you and Im not going to debate with you because we will go back and forth for 50 posts. There is a massive wealth of information available if you want to actually learn why lawns and many types of landscaping are so destructive and wasteful. Its a lot more complicated than just lawns are good because grass is plants we live in a complex ecosystem and there is evidence all around us that we can really fuck it up if we are careless.

Fuck HOAs

I didnt say its good just because its plants. I said the problem is then maintaining of them. So, if we fix that, they should fix the problem, right?
---

LinkPizza posted...

I said the problem is then maintaining of them. So, if we fix that, they should fix the problem, right?

And the "fix" here is to not have grass. It requires a lot of water, needs regular trimming and is meant to cover a large surface area.

Plenty of groundcovers are out there which demand much less water and don't need to be trimmed. Or you can hardscape or mulch parts of it with intermittent plants instead.

Even if you haven't researched this at a detailed level I feel like if you've just observed plants in your life, it's common sense. It's easy to see how easily weeds grow and grass is hard to keep alive - but instead of being like "hmm what are some pleasant plants that grow easily", people just take that as a cue to pump as much effort into their lawn as possible. Just find some low maintenance plants!

Also, lawns are not evergreen in many climates, but surely people know what evergreens are, it's like come on, get with the picture

CoorsLight posted...

And the "fix" here is to not have grass. It requires a lot of water, needs regular trimming and is meant to cover a large surface area.

Plenty of groundcovers are out there which demand much less water and don't need to be trimmed. Or you can hardscape or mulch parts of it with intermittent plants instead.

Idk. I never water mine. And I just cut it like once every two weeks or whatever Guess thats why I dont really see an issue with it
---

Conner4REAL posted...

Owning a house instead of a condo or co op is dumb.

A ton of hidden costs.

buying any home is also financially idiotic if you move every 5 years like a great deal of people do.

unless there is a drastic upswing in residential property values in your neighborhood and thats the reason for the sale then odds are the price you are selling it at will not net you much of a profit given that to the early part of those mortgage payments you are making very little of it goes to pay off your principal.
dont belive me google any amortization schedule.

what youve just said is very dumb

---

LinkPizza posted...

Idk. I never water mine. And I just cut it like once every two weeks or whatever Guess thats why I dont really see an issue with it

Well lots of climates that aren't suitable for lawns have them anyway. If you're not in a drought prone state then it's not as bad but it still lacks biodiversity and needs to be mowed, which is not great

CoorsLight posted...

Well lots of climates that aren't suitable for lawns have them anyway. If you're not in a drought prone state then it's not as bad but it still lacks biodiversity and needs to be mowed, which is not great

I see. So, it mostly bad is certain places. Like places that have droughts and stuff. Also, is biodiversity important? Because just getting rid of lawns doesnt mean itll help biodiversity
---

I feel like this was already explained but yes, biodiversity is important. It can help introduce beneficial pollinators, fertilizers, predators, etc. which help maintain the ecosystem

Edit: For example if you are growing crops it's nice to have flowers around to attract bees, which will help your crops grow better. Having just grass doesn't help you get bees

CoorsLight posted...

I feel like this was already explained but yes, biodiversity is important. It can help introduce beneficial pollinators, fertilizers, predators, etc. which help maintain the ecosystem

Edit: For example if you are growing crops it's nice to have flowers around to attract bees, which will help your crops grow better. Having just grass doesn't help you get bees

Wouldnt it be possible you might have less biodiversity, though? If people just get rid of their lawns and dont replace it with anything, youd have less diversity
---

Kanatteru posted...

so do it in a park or field? idk why not having a lawn means you're playing in rocks

I would prefer my kids to stay in my yard to play with their friends. Or at the very least a neighbors/their friends yard at least while they're young. I also don't want to have to take my dog to the dog park every time they want to go out and play.

Contrary to popular belief - yards are not that costly to maintain. Roughly 30% of water user for the average household is devoted to watering the lawn which sounds like a big deal until you figure out that ALL water usage for lawns (residential, business, and municipal) is using about 6% of the total water consumption in my state at least and I live in a desert. That's including the inefficiencies, people watering at stupid times of the day, etc.

So you could potentially save a whopping 30% of 6% (1.8%) of water usage in a desert state by converting every bit of grass to rocks.

Yay.

Also, lawns absorb heat (which extends to your home and reduces the need for AC). Lawns absorb CO2. And they're better at preventing soil erosion than its counterparts.

Can I live without a lawn? Sure. Do I want to so I could potentially save 1.8% of the state water supply? Nah.

People that don't want lawns can buy a house that doesn't have a lawn. Most of the shitty houses being built today are built with virtually no land and might as well be townhomes. On the other hand, I enjoy my lawn and will continue to enjoy it.

---

I think you premise of this thread is extremely flawed. I don't know where you live, but I struggle to kill grass here. The grass I do have I cut regularly because I don't want rodents/mosquitos/etc. No different than washing/cutting/maintaining your hair so you don't get lice.

LinkPizza posted...

Wouldnt it be possible you might have less biodiversity, though? If people just get rid of their lawns and dont replace it with anything, youd have less diversity

Okay and people who are against lawns don't generally suggest doing this. I swear you just act obtuse on purpose on all these little details. If you wanna keep your lawn then fine but you don't have to constantly act like everything that challenges your worldview is 100% incorrect

Everyone might it do it. But many who dont care either way probably will. Which could cause other problems. And you could technically get the extra diversity even with lawns. My mom use to have a little garden by the house. Just a few flowers she liked. And I dont think Im being obtuse. Just looking at this from different angles and talking about it. I dont see a problem with that. This is a forum where we talk about stuff. And I dont know much about the destructive nature of lawns

And if you think that I think that, everything that challenges your worldview is 100% incorrect, then you literally know nothing about me. I usually talk about how everything doesnt need to be the same for everybody and stuff like that. So, please dont insult me with your lies
---

You go on and on all the time about "well I like this thing this way", as if we don't get that, with a bunch of poorly informed perspectives sprinkled in. You're never interested in engaging with a topic to learn some new things or take a different approach, it's just you doing everything to hold your stance and repeat "well different people have different opinions... it's okay to like different things..." ad nauseam. It's fucking obnoxious.

adjl posted...

If you don't have the time, energy, or interest to do a proper garden (and, to be fair, many don't, and that's okay), clover looks mostly the same, never grows high enough to warrant mowing, uses vastly less water, never needs fertilizing (in fact, if you have a 50/50 clover/grass lawn, the clover will fix enough nitrogen to sustain the grass without added fertilizing), outcompetes most weeds, can still be walked on as desired, flowers occasionally so it's not just boring green all the time, and actually benefits pollinators.

I'm actually making a note of this. I like the sound of it.

---

I agree, pretty much all you need to do is cut it, if it's brown in the summer then it's brown in the summer. I would definitely consider them wastes of space too, we should be living in townhouses and plexes and shit in the suburbs. But that's another story

LinkPizza posted...

Doesnt that depend on the lengths they go, though?

It's obviously worse to be super-neurotic about lawns and mow them every day and whatnot than to maintain one more sensibly, and it's much less destructive to maintain a lawn in, say, England than in California (it's almost like the practice was imported or something), but whatever the conditions and how excessive your maintenance practices are, maintaining grass is pretty much always going to be more destructive than alternatives (other than paving the whole thing). Whether it's water costs, energy/emissions costs, or simply the opportunity cost of not filling that land with something pollinator-friendly or otherwise more beneficial to the local environment, grass is worse than pretty much any other organic alternative.

Smarkil posted...

Contrary to popular belief - yards are not that costly to maintain. Roughly 30% of water user for the average household is devoted to watering the lawn which sounds like a big deal until you figure out that ALL water usage for lawns (residential, business, and municipal) is using about 6% of the total water consumption in my state at least and I live in a desert. That's including the inefficiencies, people watering at stupid times of the day, etc.

So you could potentially save a whopping 30% of 6% (1.8%) of water usage in a desert state by converting every bit of grass to rocks.

I'm not quite sure how that math is supposed to work. 30% of household water usage is 30% of household water usage (which is indeed huge; if 30% is allocated to lawn maintenance, the remaining top 3 water consumers of showers, laundry, and toilets are all going to be less than that). That it only amounts to 6% of state water usage (which is also huge for a single item, especially a single item that's so unnecessary) is more a reflection of how much greater non-household water usage (mostly agriculture) is than household. There's no reason to multiply those together.

Furthermore, as many people have said, nobody's suggesting the whole lawn should be turned into rocks. Just that a giant field of grass is largely useless and substantially better things (that aren't just rocks) could be done with the land.

Smarkil posted...

Also, lawns absorb heat (which extends to your home and reduces the need for AC). Lawns absorb CO2. And they're better at preventing soil erosion than its counterparts.

Pretty much any plant can make all of those claims, and do so better than grass can. Clover in particular absorbs more heat (by virtue of being a darker colour), yields more net CO2 absorption (by not growing high enough to warrant mowing and therefore not producing nearly as much biomass that's destined to decompose), and forms a stronger root structure that's better for preventing erosion. All while also using less water, naturally outcompeting weeds to negate the need for herbicides or manual weeding (which causes more soil erosion by disturbing root structures), and self-fertilizing.

Smarkil posted...

I would prefer my kids to stay in my yard to play with their friends. Or at the very least a neighbors/their friends yard at least while they're young. I also don't want to have to take my dog to the dog park every time they want to go out and play.

There are plenty of alternatives to grass that are just as good for play areas. Pure clover isn't quite hardy enough to handle really high traffic, but many better options exist.

Smarkil posted...

People that don't want lawns can buy a house that doesn't have a lawn.

It's less a matter of not wanting a lawn and more a matter of not wanting so much land to be wasted on harmful, useless grass lawns. There's plenty of benefit to having the space for a lawn, just not filling it with grass.

---

Criminalt posted...

I'm actually making a note of this. I like the sound of it.

The only major considerations are that it isn't hardy enough to stand up to really high traffic (though, really, grass suffers for that too), and if the whole lawn is clover instead of a mix, you may need to reseed parts of it every few years. That, and you may need the occasional mow if you don't want the flowers or want to get rid of them more quickly after they wilt, but that happens much less frequently than for grass. Clover lawns are very much growing in popularity these days because they're just so much more reasonable to use as ground cover than grass. Sedum is another option that's getting more popular (also low-water, zero-maintenance, similar look), but it's less ideal because it doesn't stand up well to foot traffic (it's a succulent and breaks easily, though the broken bits will root just as easily so it recovers pretty quickly).

Plenty of landscaping companies also offer their own blends of ground cover that will work for different lawn needs. If you're interested in alternatives, it's worthwhile to shop around. There are so many better things you can do than grass, and enough growing demand for those options that suppliers are responding.

---

Criminalt posted...

I'm actually making a note of this. I like the sound of it.

Yeah, I'm adding clover to my list. I see a lot of sites saying it's actually better to do a mix w/ grass (otherwise it can't handle heavy foot traffic and needs reseeding every several years), so I'm curious what's the best low maintenance grass to mix w/ it.... Tried googling for a zoysia clover mix, but didn't get much for results...

Other than just it grow out, bro (which obviously isnt ideal) what IS a good alternative to having a lawn?

I dont own a house right now, but I utterly despise yard work so if theres a way to make a yard / lawn more low maintenance I will gladly take that.

---

rexcrk posted...

what IS a good alternative to having a lawn"

rexcrk posted...

I utterly despise yard work so if theres a way to make a yard / lawn more low maintenance I will gladly take that.

Simplest approach might be to pave the area with concrete. Depending on local restrictions, that may count as widening the driveway and may require a permit.

Personally I think woodchips or marble stone is an ideal and low maintenance approach in lieu of traditional lawn.

---

CoorsLight posted...

You go on and on all the time about "well I like this thing this way", as if we don't get that, with a bunch of poorly informed perspectives sprinkled in. You're never interested in engaging with a topic to learn some new things or take a different approach, it's just you doing everything to hold your stance and repeat "well different people have different opinions... it's okay to like different things..." ad nauseam. It's fucking obnoxious.

I can talk about what way I think of things. But I never say you have to agree. People dont always agree, and thats fine. And I dont think my perspectives are poorly informed. They maybe different, but thats it. And I actually am interested in an engaged and interested in topics. I look at somethings in a different way. But some stuff, I dont. I dont really see a problem with that. Sometimes, I hold my stances, and sometimes, I change. Just because you dont see it doesnt mean it happens. Its not like youre in every topic I go into. Im not even always in this board. I got to plenty of other ones, too. Including game boards So, if Im so obnoxious, just put me on ignore Or just dont respond so I know who I can talk to

adjl posted...

It's obviously worse to be super-neurotic about lawns and mow them every day and whatnot than to maintain one more sensibly, and it's much less destructive to maintain a lawn in, say, England than in California (it's almost like the practice was imported or something), but whatever the conditions and how excessive your maintenance practices are, maintaining grass is pretty much always going to be more destructive than alternatives (other than paving the whole thing). Whether it's water costs, energy/emissions costs, or simply the opportunity cost of not filling that land with something pollinator-friendly or otherwise more beneficial to the local environment, grass is worse than pretty much any other organic alternative.

So, if you didnt water it and planted flowers, it would probably be ok?
---

adjl posted...

I'm not quite sure how that math is supposed to work. 30% of household water usage is 30% of household water usage (which is indeed huge; if 30% is allocated to lawn maintenance, the remaining top 3 water consumers of showers, laundry, and toilets are all going to be less than that). That it only amounts to 6% of state water usage (which is also huge for a single item, especially a single item that's so unnecessary) is more a reflection of how much greater non-household water usage (mostly agriculture) is than household. There's no reason to multiply those together.

If you want to quibble about the percentages then fine. When you separate business and municipal water usage - residential usage is even lower at about 3% of the total water usage for the state. So literally 1% of water usage in the entirety of the state is devoted to watering lawns. Oh my god the horror.

If you want to go down the 'necessary' route then you could argue very little water usage is necessary. I could piss in a hole in the ground and save 2 gallons of water or whatever it is to flush every time I expel my bodily fluids. I could use baking soda to scrub my armpits to keep the stank off instead of taking a shower. Why not right? I could be saving a whole tenths of a percent of water usage by convincing every person in the world to do it.

adjl posted...

Furthermore, as many people have said, nobody's suggesting the whole lawn should be turned into rocks. Just that a giant field of grass is largely useless and substantially better things (that aren't just rocks) could be done with the land.

Timmy - go long! Just snake your way through the barrel cactus and you'll be fine.

adjl posted...

Pretty much any plant can make all of those claims, and do so better than grass can. Clover in particular absorbs more heat (by virtue of being a darker colour), yields more net CO2 absorption (by not growing high enough to warrant mowing and therefore not producing nearly as much biomass that's destined to decompose), and forms a stronger root structure that's better for preventing erosion. All while also using less water, naturally outcompeting weeds to negate the need for herbicides or manual weeding (which causes more soil erosion by disturbing root structures), and self-fertilizing.

No they can't. I don't think you can find a single ground cover that can hold up to traffic that does not require watering of the same frequency or more so than water in a desert climate. A combination of variety grasses is the only natural ground cover that can weather high traffic areas, hold up in a desert climate (with watering once or twice a week).

Artificial grass exists, sure, but it doesn't have any of the above benefits and I would argue has a significantly greater impact ecologically than grass does. Not to mention it feels like shit. It gets hot as shit. There's no possibility for a breakdown of natural materials in artificial grass, etc.

adjl posted...

There are plenty of alternatives to grass that are just as good for play areas. Pure clover isn't quite hardy enough to handle really high traffic, but many better options exist.

No.

adjl posted...

It's less a matter of not wanting a lawn and more a matter of not wanting so much land to be wasted on harmful, useless grass lawns. There's plenty of benefit to having the space for a lawn, just not filling it with grass.

If you just want something to look at - then don't have a lawn. You don't need it. If you want it to have a purpose and look good? Have a lawn.


---

I think we have alternative options for high traffic areas

They're called paths

---

Clench281 posted...

I think we have alternative options for high traffic areas

They're called paths

k, ill call you the next time we're playing football in a parking lot

---

Smarkil posted...

k, ill call you the next time we're playing football in a parking lot

Well, a parking lot isn't really a path. But anyway.

This topic is very obviously targeting ornamental lawns that serve no other function than the aesthetic. If you actually, truly and honestly participate in the kind of activities that require a large amount of lawn space, at the frequency that otherwise damages plants like clover, then go ahead and keep/maintain your grass lawn. You are in the less than 1% of households that do so (while also lacking access to, or opting not to use, local parks).

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that it isn't the far more likely scenario that you're defending your lawn just to keep up the illusion that just maybe you might use it some day (like people who keep their running shoes and gym membership despite not going in months if not years).


---

Lazy millennials angry about yardwork what else is new
---

Do you actually have kids right now Smar or are you talking hypothetically? Cause if you do that really snuck up on me, especially if they're already old enough to appreciate playing on a lawn any more than crawling around on the floor

Clench281 posted...

Well, a parking lot isn't really a path. But anyway.

This topic is very obviously targeting ornamental lawns that serve no other function than the aesthetic. If you actually, truly and honestly participate in the kind of activities that require a large amount of lawn space, at the frequency that otherwise damages plants like clover, then go ahead and keep/maintain your grass lawn. You are in the less than 1% of households that do so (while also lacking access to, or opting not to use, local parks).

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that it isn't the far more likely scenario that you're defending your lawn just to keep up the illusion that just maybe you might use it some day (like people who keep their running shoes and gym membership despite not going in months if not years).

There's what, like 10 million families in the US with kids? Even that's probably conservative. Kids like lawns. Parents can't always take them to the park and there be pedophiles in them there hills.

CoorsLight posted...

Do you actually have kids right now Smar or are you talking hypothetically? Cause if you do that really snuck up on me, especially if they're already old enough to appreciate playing on a lawn any more than crawling around on the floor

Nah. Not that I'm aware of anyway. But it'll happen eventually. I do however frequently have my sisters kids over and we enjoy my lawn and play cornhole and soccer and shit. Cause lawns are A-OK in my book.

Plus, I actually enjoy taking care of my lawn probably in the same way people enjoy buying flowers and what not for their home. It's a nice little hobby.

---

Smarkil posted...

There's what, like 10 million families in the US with kids? Even that's probably conservative. Kids like lawns. Parents can't always take them to the park and there be pedophiles in them there hills.

"High traffic" means very frequent play on the lawn, though. If it's just a matter of "sometimes the kids like to go outside and run around," you don't need anything nearly as hardy as grass.

---

adjl posted...

"High traffic" means very frequent play on the lawn, though. If it's just a matter of "sometimes the kids like to go outside and run around," you don't need anything nearly as hardy as grass.

I dont know what kinda nerd childhood you had but I was doing that quite literally every day. And again, sports is rough on everything even grass.

And we're arguing about this again for 1% of water conservation if every person (at least in my state) agreed to complete remove their lawns. I reduce my water spending during drought months and that's about the most interest I can muster in the solution.

---

maybe they should finally build reservoirs.

if ca had built them a decade ago we would have far more water
---

You all do realize concreate is worse and causes other environmental issues like runoff, water pollution, and soil erosion correct? (not to mention the impact of creating the concrete in the first place)

One of the driving forces behind many green initiatives is just that; more green space not less.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills reading some of these comments. I honestly hope most of you don't believe half of what you are saying.

Concrete was mentioned once by a single poster, only recently, and was not suggested by any of the posts giving suggestions at length.

Maybe your crazy pills are causing you to read one comment out of 90 posts, assume that represents the whole thread, and dismiss it based on that.

What a weird thing to focus on. It's almost like you're posting in bad faith. But who would go on the internet and do that?

---

if we didn't have lawns then the world would be concrete and rocks, don'tcha know

---

How about instead of a lawn you just have an entire copse of trees?

---

Lokarin posted...

How about instead of a lawn you just have an entire copse of trees?

An orchard would be lovely. I can't wait to install one when I own some land.

---

Clench281 posted...

An orchard would be lovely. I can't wait to install one when I own some land.

yeeee, cuz I think you love bugs and stuff - have you see my macro pics?

https://i.imgur.com/jK2oL7R.jpg

---

Yeah I'm going to have a full pollinator garden of milkweed and native wildflowers, and some mason bee hotels

---

11110111011 posted...

You all do realize concreate is worse and causes other environmental issues like runoff, water pollution, and soil erosion correct? (not to mention the impact of creating the concrete in the first place)

One of the driving forces behind many green initiatives is just that; more green space not less.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills reading some of these comments. I honestly hope most of you don't believe half of what you are saying.

A big issue with a lot of environmental alternatives is they're often cynically motivated commercial pushes with little research or benefit behind them.

Did you know cloth grocery bags are "oops all carbon emissions and water/land consumption"

---

11110111011 posted...

You all do realize concreate is worse and causes other environmental issues like runoff, water pollution, and soil erosion correct? (not to mention the impact of creating the concrete in the first place)

One of the driving forces behind many green initiatives is just that; more green space not less.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills reading some of these comments. I honestly hope most of you don't believe half of what you are saying.

Myself, adjl, and others have talked about all sorts of plants to use instead of grass. Others have mentioned options like mulch.
Yes, paving it all would be ugly and bad for the environment and pretty dumb. Good thing only one post even said that...

Lokarin posted...

How about instead of a lawn you just have an entire copse of trees?

You don't want trees too close to your house. Not only for the risk of collapsing from a lightning strike or something, but also the roots can potentially grow out and disrupt your utility lines or even get to the foundation.
I'm kinda torn on the matter... The lot I'm buying will mean a south facing house, so I kind of want a tree in the front yard to help block out the massive amount of sun beaming in, but I'm not sure the house will be set back from the road enough to leave enough space for one... I think the general rule is to keep them 20+ ft away?

Yeah the fact that a guy said to pave over your whole lot is hilarious lol. There's like five or six different reasons why that's a really dumb idea

LinkPizza posted...

Plus, I feel getting rid of lawns in a stepmom the wrong direction, anyway.

I don't know about that. Plenty of people like a well groomed stepmom.
---