Grass is no longer green solution

[Dawid Magiera]

it’s about limits on lawn sizes in Bay Area, as it’s mentioned in the article limits are needed to reduce water usage, and lawns are drinking a lot, so
we will see more meadows, groundcovers and shrubs is the gardens, which is good.
Lawn is very exclusive form of green space those days.
 article
http://www.mercurynews.com/search/ci_14202658

[Roland Beinert]

Interesting article. My parent’s yard doesn’t have much lawn. It was one of the few spots in the neighborhood where there were still tall trees and native plants. If my parents had torn out the trees and put in lawn, I don’t think I would have enjoyed it as much. The dogs were fine, too. My parent’s neighbors have actually said they appreciate the fact that they can look out and see a bit of native forest.
Lawn really is used too much, and the excuses we use for putting it in don’t hold up well. If your client wants their entire yard to be lawn, remind them that 1). kids enjoy variety, 2). dogs don’t really care, and 3). they will end up wasting vast amounts of water and money. I’m not saying we should force our solution on a client, but feel we are obligated to at least offer alternatives to something that is a national obsession.

[Ben Yahr]

I think the tone of the article, and especially the graphic, is a little misleading. An 80/20% allocation of turf is certainly sufficient. This is not requiring people to dig up all of their lawn except for a 500 sf square. And if 500 sf fits 8 Mini Coopers, how many Expeditions could fit?

You could do some really neat stuff with 500 sf of lawn which would be far more interesting to a child or a dog than a flat 10,000 sf flat expanse of turf. Or you could walk your kid or take your dog to the park…

I wish I could read the comments following an article like that and be entertained, but they usually just make me sick.

[Author]

Posts