You're viewing a single thread.
Lawns are better than concrete
lawns are shit and they were actually a tool for colonialism. they quite literally came in fashion because rich people in europe were flexin with their wealth because they could spend their land and work force for lawn that looked pretty and contributed for nothing. they even took those same lawn species for america so keeo that same flexing going on.
fuck lawns. Go actually diverse meadow plants that bugs need!
also lawns are insanely unecofriendly despite being plants.
Except in europe we have trees, flowers, vegetables, plants. Real gardens.
Not just an ugly lawn like this, you never see just a lawn with nothing on it.
Are americans allergic to trees or something ?
These days, you'll lose your homeowners insurance for having trees anywhere near your house. They're legit taking drone pictures on that now.
I guess it could be because of big storms in some areas, but losing it really ? Why not just more expensive for vulnerables/dangerous trees ?
This is nonsense
Read the title, your argument shouldn’t be things better than lawns
It should be that concrete is better or no argument at all
I never said they were worse than concrete. just stated that lawns are shit and shouldn't existed
edit: I do understand your comment though and I just wanted to rant aboutnit
Lawns beget concrete elsewhere (in the form of parking lots) by being too low-density for walkability.
Bus, Cable Car, Train, Bicycle
You would think people in this community wouldn’t say something so foolish
Yes, what you're saying is foolish.
It's an issue of low density. Having single-family houses spread apart with lawns necessarily lowers the viability of methods other than driving because e.g. you have to walk farther to get to destinations, there are fewer riders per mile along the transit line, etc.
Look you don’t know what you’re talking about and it’s fine
The roads do way more for spreading people apart than the lawns do
Whether you have grass or trees on people’s property does not impact density
Whether you build a single-family house with a yard or an apartment building on a lot absolutely impacts density. Hell, even among single-family houses, whether the minimum lot size is 9000 square feet or two acres (real zoning categories on my city, BTW) absolutely impacts density.
An apartment with a lawn vs an apartment without doesn’t impact density
Nor does a two hectare lot with one vs a two hectare lot without
You just keep insisting on missing the point, don't you? This thread is not actually about grass vs. other plants with density held equal, and never was.
name a more wasteful use of land
Me: concrete
You: you’re missing the point
You say that like those are the only two options.
Grass lawns aren't.
Lawns are 100000% better than an impermeable hardscape like concrete.