Hacker News Reader

Comment by automatic6131 | Hacker News Reader

Lawns are functional though, they aren't just a status symbol. They can be, but they can also be a social and recreational space. Can also be a piece of art - you may laugh sure but, what is art? What is something kept for its aesthetic value alone?

Also over the pond it's an invention much older than merely the 18th century.

View on HN

This. Short grass around your structure increases the difficulty of rodent ingress. Keeping dead leaves raked and swept away reduces mosquito habitat. Sure you can put other plants there but the maintenance burden of them is going to be higher and depending on your roof and water/snow situation you might just wind up fighting a continuous battle against their destruction. In most of North America a lawn is simply the lowest maintenance way to keep nature at bay.

Also ticks.

My kids love to run around my backyard, and I keep it mowed and trimmed for them to do so.

The iconoclasm runs deep in techno-optimists, but some things stick around for a reason.

In my experience, urban parks do a much better job of this than backyards do. Urban density means more neighbors, and parks with other kids are much more appealing than backyards without.

Probably true - when I move to a dense urban area where a park makes more sense I will definitely take my kids there!

Backyards are different than frontyards. Your backyard is considered your private space and you can put a locked fence around it, store your stuff in a shed, put in a swimming pool, etc. You are more restricted with a front yard.

If I had the choice and I was forced to allocate, I would choose 100% backyard and 0% frontyard.

The land will never be reclaimed by anyone but the owner so why is it a big deal if someone manicures it. Buy your land and do with it what you will.

I think it matters when the owner wants to do something different but feels obligated to maintain the status quo by neighbors, and often even laws and regulations.

Ah the old HN Gaslight Redirect. My reply is to a personal opinion of the OP, you're reply is to another argument made by not me.

I think there is an important distinction between the front lawn and the back yard. In neighborhoods around my city, the front lawn is an entirely valueless piece of land (outside aesthetics).

>Lawns are functional

Here in DFW where we didn't see a drop of rain for 3-4 months and +100 heat, it was around $600 a month in water to keep it green. I also never see anyone outside playing on their lawn. I see landscape maintenance once a week at a minimum cost of $45 per visit. Can't forget all the poison laid down 6 times a year at 100 + to kill the weeds and fertilize. The costs are enormous and the environmental damage is insane.

Or you could just not water it, not fertilize it, not pesticide it and simply run the mower over it whenever the assorted vegetation (which will be mostly grass) exceeds a certain height.

It won't look "nice neighborhood" nice but it'll still be fine.

The HOA would fine me. I wanted to put in a more southern desert scape but they said I have to have grass.

The way homes are designed now, in places with basements, they also serve the function of hanging onto rainwater.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com