While I really hate lawns and have been trying to eliminate ours inch by
inch (it is an issue between me and my S.O. which is the only reason I'm
going that slow), they do have a purpose when you have children that enjoy
any kind of yard play (soccer, baseball, football, cartwheels, etc.). The
only reason that I don't let mine grow wild and be taken over by wild
flowers is respect for the neighbors but I sure do hope that someday people
come to their senses and create housing developments that have a "green" for
the children to play on and everyone else uses their land for gardens that
produce food and beauty. DK



"Frogleg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 10:00:59 -0400, "Mary Ellen & Chris Magoc"
wrote:

"JanuszB" wrote in message
. com...

snip
If we must eradicate
some invasive plants let start with grass as killing hundred thousands
of acres of lawns will make our waters less contaminated from excess
chemicals and bees or butterflies will have a lot more colorful weeds
to feed on we can survive with a meadows dandelions, clover and
biological diversity will be improved maybe more than by
eradicating purple loosestrife;-))) Caring for nature do not have to
mean restoring precolonial biological diversity.


GREAT POINT! [are lawns "native"????] As I recall, they were also
"introduced" as well.

As I understand it (and this may well be myth). grass lawns were first
established in Europe to demonstrate the property owner was wealthy
enough to keep land out of productive agricultural use. Of course,
this is also true of flower gardens and other formal plantings. Lawns
are like neckties for men. No earthly use, but a sign of
respectability. :-) With recent droughts, it has become more
noticable that maintaining lawn grass uses a *lot* of water. While
there may be native grasses of some areas (Bermuda?) that are
low-growing, no maintenance groundcovers, my mental picture of native
'grassy plains' is one with knee-to-armpit high dryish vegetation --
rather unsuitable for suburban landscape. And a fire hazard.

Providing "habitat" for native wildlife is lovely when the wildlife is
birds and butterflies; less so when surburban plantings encourage
snakes (which I happen to like in *small* doses), raccoons, skunks,
squirrels, rabbits, rats, etc., etc.

That is, these issues rarely can be reduced to good/bad, Us vs. Them
absolutes.

"dkat" wrote in message
.net...
While I really hate lawns and have been trying to eliminate ours
inch by
inch (it is an issue between me and my S.O. which is the only reason
I'm
going that slow), they do have a purpose when you have children that
enjoy
any kind of yard play (soccer, baseball, football, cartwheels,
etc.). The
only reason that I don't let mine grow wild and be taken over by
wild
flowers is respect for the neighbors but I sure do hope that someday
people
come to their senses and create housing developments that have a
"green" for
the children to play on and everyone else uses their land for
gardens that
produce food and beauty. DK

In other words, you want someone ELSE to provide for your kids and not
you.

If you don't want a lawn, fine... Just don't expect the city to put in
a park to keep your kids happy!
You think that wildgrass is good, yet you want the developer to put in
the exact lawn you want to get rid of... Sounds like hypocrisy to me!


"Frogleg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 10:00:59 -0400, "Mary Ellen & Chris Magoc"
wrote:

"JanuszB" wrote in message
. com...

snip
If we must eradicate
some invasive plants let start with grass as killing hundred
thousands
of acres of lawns will make our waters less contaminated from
excess
chemicals and bees or butterflies will have a lot more colorful
weeds
to feed on we can survive with a meadows dandelions, clover
and
biological diversity will be improved maybe more than by
eradicating purple loosestrife;-))) Caring for nature do not
have to
mean restoring precolonial biological diversity.


GREAT POINT! [are lawns "native"????] As I recall, they were
also
"introduced" as well.

As I understand it (and this may well be myth). grass lawns were
first
established in Europe to demonstrate the property owner was
wealthy
enough to keep land out of productive agricultural use. Of course,
this is also true of flower gardens and other formal plantings.
Lawns
are like neckties for men. No earthly use, but a sign of
respectability. :-) With recent droughts, it has become more
noticable that maintaining lawn grass uses a *lot* of water. While
there may be native grasses of some areas (Bermuda?) that are
low-growing, no maintenance groundcovers, my mental picture of
native
'grassy plains' is one with knee-to-armpit high dryish
vegetation --
rather unsuitable for suburban landscape. And a fire hazard.

Providing "habitat" for native wildlife is lovely when the
wildlife is
birds and butterflies; less so when surburban plantings encourage
snakes (which I happen to like in *small* doses), raccoons,
skunks,
squirrels, rabbits, rats, etc., etc.

That is, these issues rarely can be reduced to good/bad, Us vs.
Them
absolutes.

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 01:32:15 GMT, "Phrederik"
wrote:


"dkat" wrote in message
v.net...
While I really hate lawns and have been trying to eliminate ours
inch by
inch (it is an issue between me and my S.O. which is the only reason
I'm
going that slow), they do have a purpose when you have children that
enjoy
any kind of yard play (soccer, baseball, football, cartwheels,
etc.). The
only reason that I don't let mine grow wild and be taken over by
wild
flowers is respect for the neighbors but I sure do hope that someday
people
come to their senses and create housing developments that have a
"green" for
the children to play on and everyone else uses their land for
gardens that
produce food and beauty. DK

In other words, you want someone ELSE to provide for your kids and not
you.

If you don't want a lawn, fine... Just don't expect the city to put in
a park to keep your kids happy!
You think that wildgrass is good, yet you want the developer to put in
the exact lawn you want to get rid of... Sounds like hypocrisy to me!

No it sounds like a reasonable COMMUNITY solution to a problem of
perceived over use of water hogging fertilizer and pesticide intensive
lawn grass. If the COMMUNITY decides to go with the commons idea then
no one is imposing their will on the majority since the group
governing the place makes the decision. Watch that knee jerking, might
hurt yourself.
Dave Fouchey, WA4EMR
http://photos.yahoo.com/davefouchey
Southeastern Lower Michigan
42° 35' 20'' N,
82° 58' 37'' W
GMT Offset: -5
Time Zone: Eastern

Does this mean that you also object to community basketball courts, pools,
tennis courts, etc.?

They are making some really beautiful suburban communities now where you can
walk to the public transportation, neighborhood stores, etc. with old time
common grounds and buildings for the community to function without having to
drive for absolutely every want and need. Note I said community not
suburban parking lots with places to keep your car while you sleep.

DK

"Phrederik" wrote in message
.. .

"dkat" wrote in message
.net...
While I really hate lawns and have been trying to eliminate ours
inch by
inch (it is an issue between me and my S.O. which is the only reason
I'm
going that slow), they do have a purpose when you have children that
enjoy
any kind of yard play (soccer, baseball, football, cartwheels,
etc.). The
only reason that I don't let mine grow wild and be taken over by
wild
flowers is respect for the neighbors but I sure do hope that someday
people
come to their senses and create housing developments that have a
"green" for
the children to play on and everyone else uses their land for
gardens that
produce food and beauty. DK

In other words, you want someone ELSE to provide for your kids and not
you.

If you don't want a lawn, fine... Just don't expect the city to put in
a park to keep your kids happy!
You think that wildgrass is good, yet you want the developer to put in
the exact lawn you want to get rid of... Sounds like hypocrisy to me!


"Frogleg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 10:00:59 -0400, "Mary Ellen & Chris Magoc"
wrote:

"JanuszB" wrote in message
. com...

snip
If we must eradicate
some invasive plants let start with grass as killing hundred
thousands
of acres of lawns will make our waters less contaminated from
excess
chemicals and bees or butterflies will have a lot more colorful
weeds
to feed on we can survive with a meadows dandelions, clover
and
biological diversity will be improved maybe more than by
eradicating purple loosestrife;-))) Caring for nature do not
have to
mean restoring precolonial biological diversity.


GREAT POINT! [are lawns "native"????] As I recall, they were
also
"introduced" as well.

As I understand it (and this may well be myth). grass lawns were
first
established in Europe to demonstrate the property owner was
wealthy
enough to keep land out of productive agricultural use. Of course,
this is also true of flower gardens and other formal plantings.
Lawns
are like neckties for men. No earthly use, but a sign of
respectability. :-) With recent droughts, it has become more
noticable that maintaining lawn grass uses a *lot* of water. While
there may be native grasses of some areas (Bermuda?) that are
low-growing, no maintenance groundcovers, my mental picture of
native
'grassy plains' is one with knee-to-armpit high dryish
vegetation --
rather unsuitable for suburban landscape. And a fire hazard.

Providing "habitat" for native wildlife is lovely when the
wildlife is
birds and butterflies; less so when surburban plantings encourage
snakes (which I happen to like in *small* doses), raccoons,
skunks,
squirrels, rabbits, rats, etc., etc.

That is, these issues rarely can be reduced to good/bad, Us vs.
Them
absolutes.

"dkat" wrote in message
.net...
Does this mean that you also object to community basketball courts,
pools,
tennis courts, etc.?

They are making some really beautiful suburban communities now where
you can
walk to the public transportation, neighborhood stores, etc. with
old time
common grounds and buildings for the community to function without
having to
drive for absolutely every want and need. Note I said community not
suburban parking lots with places to keep your car while you sleep.

I'm not a big fan of public courts, etc... but as long as they are
maintained properly and are acutally used they are a good thing. Also,
with all the loonies out there, you have to watch your kids anytime
they are playing away from home. Community areas used to be great...
now they're just someplace to get snatched from.

My objection is simply that you want somewhere else for your kids to
play so you can have your 'garden'. If you have kids, the FIRST place
they should be playing is in their yard.

"Phrederik" wrote in message
.. .

"dkat" wrote in message
.net...
While I really hate lawns and have been trying to eliminate ours
inch by
inch (it is an issue between me and my S.O. which is the only
reason
I'm
going that slow), they do have a purpose when you have children
that
enjoy
any kind of yard play (soccer, baseball, football, cartwheels,
etc.). The
only reason that I don't let mine grow wild and be taken over by
wild
flowers is respect for the neighbors but I sure do hope that
someday
people
come to their senses and create housing developments that have a
"green" for
the children to play on and everyone else uses their land for
gardens that
produce food and beauty. DK

In other words, you want someone ELSE to provide for your kids and
not
you.

If you don't want a lawn, fine... Just don't expect the city to
put in
a park to keep your kids happy!
You think that wildgrass is good, yet you want the developer to
put in
the exact lawn you want to get rid of... Sounds like hypocrisy to
me!


"Frogleg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 10:00:59 -0400, "Mary Ellen & Chris Magoc"
wrote:

"JanuszB" wrote in message
. com...

snip
If we must eradicate
some invasive plants let start with grass as killing
hundred
thousands
of acres of lawns will make our waters less contaminated
from
excess
chemicals and bees or butterflies will have a lot more
colorful
weeds
to feed on we can survive with a meadows dandelions,
clover
and
biological diversity will be improved maybe more than by
eradicating purple loosestrife;-))) Caring for nature do
not
have to
mean restoring precolonial biological diversity.


GREAT POINT! [are lawns "native"????] As I recall, they
were
also
"introduced" as well.

As I understand it (and this may well be myth). grass lawns
were
first
established in Europe to demonstrate the property owner was
wealthy
enough to keep land out of productive agricultural use. Of
course,
this is also true of flower gardens and other formal
plantings.
Lawns
are like neckties for men. No earthly use, but a sign of
respectability. :-) With recent droughts, it has become more
noticable that maintaining lawn grass uses a *lot* of water.
While
there may be native grasses of some areas (Bermuda?) that are
low-growing, no maintenance groundcovers, my mental picture of
native
'grassy plains' is one with knee-to-armpit high dryish
vegetation --
rather unsuitable for suburban landscape. And a fire hazard.

Providing "habitat" for native wildlife is lovely when the
wildlife is
birds and butterflies; less so when surburban plantings
encourage
snakes (which I happen to like in *small* doses), raccoons,
skunks,
squirrels, rabbits, rats, etc., etc.

That is, these issues rarely can be reduced to good/bad, Us
vs.
Them
absolutes.

Phrederik wrote:
"dkat" wrote in message
.net...

flowers is respect for the neighbors but I sure do hope that someday

people

come to their senses and create housing developments that have a

"green" for

the children to play on and everyone else uses their land for

gardens that

produce food and beauty. DK


In other words, you want someone ELSE to provide for your kids and not
you.

If you don't want a lawn, fine... Just don't expect the city to put in
a park to keep your kids happy!

He's not talking about retrofitting an existing area. He's talking
about new development, specifically along the lines of the New Urbanist
movement.