
The Shrinking of the American Lawn - misnamed
http://www.citylab.com/navigator/2016/07/the-shrinking-of-the-american-lawn/490157/
======
marssaxman
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."

~~~
xiaoma
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".

~~~
marssaxman
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.

~~~
xiaoma
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.

~~~
electricEmu
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.

------
FuckOffNeemo
Fields and parks > lawns.

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.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
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.

~~~
patrickburke
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

~~~
Broken_Hippo
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.

~~~
patrickburke
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.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
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.

------
perseusprime11
Lawns are also not eco friendly as they suck up huge amounts of energy to
regularly cut grass.

~~~
cafard
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.

~~~
geebee
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.

I thought this was a good summary:

[http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-hodel-
pittenger-w...](http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-hodel-pittenger-
water-lawn-20150917-story.html)

------
rezrovs
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?

~~~
cafard
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.

