lawns take up more space in the US than even corn, says NASA

[moominmolly]

Whoa. From bitterlawngnome:

The map shows how common lawns are across the country, despite a wide variability of climate and soils. Indeed, the scientists who produced the map estimate that more surface area is devoted to lawns than to any other single irrigated crop in the country. For example, lawns appear to cover more than three times the number of acres that irrigated corn covers. The large image shows a more detailed look at fractional lawn surface area in urban areas. In many cities, the urban core—where buildings, parking lots, and roads are densest—appears paler green.

From here, more information available on how they got this data (interesting!) and the ecological impact of lawns here.

I like having an open space that I own, on which I can practice stilt tricks and play with kids and lay in the sun on warm days, but even I have to admit that our national lawn fetish is really kind of creepy.

Comments

[sandhawke.livejournal.com]

So does music. Maybe not a lot of pesticides, but gas going to concerts, water that people drink, and to wash the clothes they got dirty, and the endless endless endless time spent listening to music and learning to play it, and none of it provides any native habitat for local fauna, or food for people.

...

I'm all for exploring options and making sure the costs are paid fairly (eg not subsidized by tax payers), but I think nice lawns are just like having nice food, nice clothes, nice music, nice stories, and way better than having a nice car.

[aroraborealis.livejournal.com]

I agree with your larger point, if I understand it correctly, which is that there are things that are good in the world for the pleasure people get out of them, even if they're resource-intensive. But I disagree that lawns are a good example of that for most people, and I think there's a great deal of social pressure to a) have a lawn and b) maintain it to a certain degree that puts it in a different category from pleasure goods like music, nice food, nice clothing, etc.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

The discussion in Bill's journal (http://bitterlawngnome.livejournal.com/749607.html?style=mine) brings up the vital point that many communities require property owners to have turf lawns. That definitely puts lawns in an entirely different class than these other goods. (At least, if there's a residential community out there which bans jeans and requires residents to buy only name-brand groceries, I probably don't want to know about it.)

Fortunately the conservationists have made some changes to the law in Missouri so my father's been able to plant a native garden on one side of the house. But, as you say, legality is one thing, social pressure another. He's gotten one nasty anonymous note about it and he can tell that most of the other neighbours aren't happy, but they're too passive-aggressively Midwestern to say anything to his face, even after he's invited them to.

[sandhawke.livejournal.com]

Okay, the peer pressure bit is awkward, because yeah, to the extent we feel good being surrounded by lawns (a point I make elsewhere), we have a free-rider problem.

Still, that's a lot like hygiene and styles and clothing. We want to be surrounded by people who look a certain way, so we pressure them to modify their looks and in some cases use vast resources to look that way.

So, are lawns any worse than clothing?

Possibly by degree -- I don't know the numbers -- but I think that's beside the point. (Which is that lawns make me feel good, so it's annoying to me that people who wear clothes for non-health reasons are telling me lawns are evil.)

Note that I'm a total free rider in my neighborhood, with the worst lawn on the block, because I'm bad that way.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

As I say below, lawns make a great deal of sense if you're going to play certain sports or games that require an even turf surface, or just lounge around on them. But I don't see most lawns being used in these ways. If they're just there to look at, then there are better options.

(This is why I've never understood "keep off the grass" signs. If it's not for people to tread upon, why plant grass in the first place?)

[sandhawke.livejournal.com]

What are the better options?

I don't know of any landscaping that makes me feel as good to look at. Lawns exude safety to my lizard brain, and probably a lot of other people's.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

I don't know why your brain would work that way unless your ancestors were still lizards in Jacobean times, when the modern turf lawn emerged. Before that, "lawns" were essentially cultivated meadows.

[moominmolly.livejournal.com]

We have a lawn (mostly clover) that I am attached to; nothing's quite as good for practicing stilt tricks that might make me fall. While much of our backyard has been turned by ceelove and starphire into productive & awesome garden space, I enjoy keeping that functional bit open because I love USING it. I can even understand why people keep mostly-unused lawns as a hedge against suddenly, oh, taking up bocce or whatever (though there are climates where that seems immensely wasteful). But, like you, I just viscerally don't GET lawns that aren't for using. They're not THAT pretty.