Hacker News Reader

Comment by reidjs | Hacker News Reader

Why people would put so much effort into growing useless grass is astonishing to me. You can grow anything there and you choose grass? Why? I assume it has to do with an HOA? Or aesthetics? Or it’s easier?

View on HN

I’ve always taken grass as a granted for landscaping in climates that support it. Didn’t know there was so much hate for grass until this thread.

I think grass is utilitarian. It’s carpet for outside. The kids can play on it, you can bbq on it, have a picnic, etc.

As for why you’d want to keep it short? Bugs, utility, etc. The taller you let it grow, the less usable the space is and the more critters move in (critters that bite in the Midwest)

As for why you wouldn’t let stuff rot on top of your outdoor carpet over the winter, vs process it through a compost pile and spread it as fertilizer in the spring…

If the Internet has taught me anything, it's that someone, somewhere will object to something, no matter how mundane or usual that something is. I guess I can now add 'having a lawn' to the list I'm keeping of the many ways my boring, suburban, SFH, car-owning lifestyle is killing the planet.

I don't hate grass, I actually quite like it. But I think a lot of people put way too much effort into lawn care, complain about the effort, and then stand on it maybe 3-4 times a year. At least those in my family do. Then they act surprised when I mention that I don't think I'd bother going though the effort to maintain a lawn. I'm not really interested in adding mowing a lawn every week or two to my chore list.

So, I guess I hate the expectation of a lawn more than the lawn itself.

The utility isn't even that good. Standing/sitting on lawn isn't that nice. It's always got a humid feel to it and will stain your clothes. Much nicer to just have pavers and shade.

It’s important for me to have grass to keep the dogs away from the ticks. Since I like the grass, I put about 2-3 days a year into maintaining it and making it as nice as I think is necessary. And mow 40mins a week. But growing grass can be just as rewarding as growing anything else.

> But growing grass can be just as rewarding as growing anything else.

This is true in the general sense, but it's also mostly subjective. There are plenty of divisive yet enjoyable pursuits in the world.

> But growing grass can be just as rewarding as growing anything else.

Well, you can’t eat it. So doesn’t that immediately knock it down some pegs from growing many other, edible things? It’s also not great for pollinators and other important participants of the food chain, so perhaps that reduces its mental rewards?

If you can eat it, then so can a lot of other critters. The rabbits, possums, and squirrels quickly figure out you're the Grub Hub of the neighborhood. The crows will join in, too. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but if you think you're growing food for you to eat then boy are you in for a surprise!

Also, most lawns I've seen will inevitably have clover, unless you're overly aggressive with your herbicides, which most people aren't. The pollinators are supported, not that that really helps anything since they're not commercial pollinators.

I'm a never-HOAer, but I do like my own lawn for the aesthetics and utility for the kids, dog, for having friends over, and frankly, for the distraction and sense of accomplishment that growing a beautiful and lush, dark green carpet of grass provides.

We grow a small family vegetable garden as well, which is probably substantially less practical than buying the equivalent amount of produce at the best and most expensive organic farmers' market you could imagine.

My lawn has 100s of plants in addition to grass. I’ve never actually seen a lawn that was just grass.

What’s astonishing to me is how deeply some folks care about what I plant around my house for my own enjoyment, and how willing they are to nominate themselves to tell me to change it.

The nice thing about grass is how little effort it takes to maintain. Not everyone wants to be a full time gardener.

Aesthetics, good for kids to play on, easy to maintain. I’m not a fan myself but I get it.

Aesthetics. You want sunlight for a variety of reasons, so you cannot grow trees, passability, so not thick bushes, and you don't want it looking like crap. A lawn is am easy default. Pass any zombie home with unmaintained lawn for even a month in the height of the summer and it's obvious why continual manicure is needed. It's not a happy equilibrium, but it is a stable one.

It stems from the manicured and ornate lawns of European nobility. It became a status symbol to have land that could be used for no practical purpose but aesthetics. In the 50s and 60s effort to industrialize, suburbanize, and add chemicals to everything, cookie cutter neighborhoods could be pumped out with simple no-thought-to-design lawns. They looked clean and required tons of upkeep and fuel and chemicals, and spending to one up the Joneses was a big thing in a newly rich society. In many ways it was the same as the nobility - your neighbor (or someone in a less affluent area more likely) who works two jobs doesn’t have time to maintain a lawn for no reason, so you could feel good about yourself for having a clean, useless front yard sign telling everyone how you’ve made it!

It’s functional. Grass is nicer to walk around on than sticks, rocks, and prickly weeds. Most animals (rabbits excluded) don’t nest as close to the house.

Lots of people do like the aesthetics and perhaps some HOAs are strict about it, but I think most people maintain their lawn because it’s what they think they’re supposed to do.

Personally I think small lawns are great but would love to see more natural landscaping with native plants.

If you have small kids that like to play outside, you would likely have grass, not trees or something else that is more wild.

Ridiculous, kids love trees. But also, rats and therefore snakes love leaves, as does fire. If you live in the woods the kids will love it, but you still have to keep leaves away from the perimeter of the house.

You would let a small child just run around in the forest? OP said small. Where I live the woods have bears and mountain cats. A teenager may be able to navigate those dangers successfully but a small child, toddler age, would not do so alone.

> You would let a small child just run around in the forest?

Yes of course! My entire childhood was spent running around in the woods. Bears and mountain lions are rare and most of them are more scared of you than the other way around. No more than a small handful of people are attacked by those across the entirety of North America, the last time a child was killed by a mountain lion was about 25 years ago. There were only two or three fatal mountain lion attacks against kids in the 90s, two in the 80s, and three in the 70s.. there are less than 20 of these kind of incidents in the entire 20th century across all of North America. Why the hell would you bring up such an unlikely risk? And fatal bear attacks are only marginally more common, they're still incredibly rare.

Your kids are many thousands of times more likely die from choking on food than by getting attacked by an animal in the woods, do you ban grapes in your house? How did you become so cowardly? Forbidding kids from playing in the woods is absolutely pathetic, reading your comment left me with a feeling of visceral disgust.

as someone from the uk, I would be terrified of poisonous spiders and snakes more than bears or mountain lions

Some snakes can certainly kill you, but it's rare. Partially because rattlesnakes are courteous enough to warn people who get too close (rattling) and partially because North American hospitals all know what the native venomous snakes are and have antivenom for them. Most people who get bitten by venomous snakes were deliberately messing around with them but there's a small chance that you might accidentally step on one that wasn't rattling. Copperhead bites are more common than rattlesnake bites, probably because they don't rattle as much, but they're less likely to kill.

There are only one or two kids killed by snakes per decade in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_snake_bites_in_t...

Spider deaths are even more rare. Brown recluses are pretty spooky though.

> most of them are more scared of you than the other way around. No more than a small handful of people are attacked

I personally like to think of the stats too, but then again, why wear a seatbelt?

Also, how many early deaths are caused by air pollution from lawn mowers? As I understand it they emit orders of magnitude more harmful particulate matter than vehicles. Something like 1hr / wk being equivalent of driving a modern sedan from New York to Miami.

Lawnmowers also kill people outright, about 90 people a year which is way more than bears: https://www.newsweek.com/lawnmowers-kill-more-people-bears-s...

I actually went to school with a kid who was run over by a lawn mower. He survived but it chewed up the side of his leg and left him with a limp. I think he was lucky he could still walk at all.

What an amazingly useful article for this discussion! Sometimes the internet still manages to surprise me.

Yeah, I searched "lawn mower deaths" on DDG and that was the first result. I had to do a double take, uncanny relevance.

> You would let a small child just run around in the forest?

Plenty of us did as children as recently as the 90s, and even at that point it was less common than previous generations. I wouldn't do it today either, but the reasons are societal and/or emotional rather than any high statistical danger.

The historical fashion trends behind it are fascinating.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/anthropology-in-practic...

Originally if you think of Manor house gardens, wasting farmable land to just keep lawned gardens was a sign of wealth.

I guess from there the whole thing evolved to american real estate selling "american dream" aesthetics.

What would you put that is better? Although not perfect, lawns IMO are a good combination of practicality/aesthetic/maintenance.

Sheep, cows and goats were the original reason

Reply on news.ycombinator.com