An abridged version of an interesting post from the Garden Wise Guy blog on greenoptions.com:

“Would someone PLEASE tell me why there are lawns in front of houses? The kids are in their rooms playing computer games, chatting on AIM, or downloading pirated videos, so don’t tell me it’s about a place for them to play. Lawn in the backyard? Maybe. Into nude sunbathing? Get a chaise lounge and place it on your permeably paved patio. Something for the kids and dog to cavort on? O.K., there’s nothing to completely take the place of a patch of turf, but how many thousand square feet do you really need?

“Let me go on record as stating that a lawn that is not used for recreational purposes is an act of environmental arrogance. I’m talking about arrogance in the form of a blatant or ignorant disregard for the multiple environmental impacts of growing turf, at least the way the vast majority of people approach it.

“Arrogance is the use of toxic pesticides to maintain that perfect suburban carpet. Arrogance is having an irrigation system that hasn’t been adjusted for the season, checked out for leaks or had the heads fine-tuned to keep them from soaking the sidewalks. Arrogance is having your gardener run their inefficient mower that spews 10 times more emissions per minute than a car.

“Ya get the idea? Do you really have to have it? Imagine life without a lawn. Imagine a diverse, low water-using palette of texture and color that attracts birds and other fun critters. Be the pioneer on your block. Murder your lawn and set yourself free!”

A friend recently interviewed for a job at greenoptions.com, which is why another friend was browsing the site and then read the article aloud. A third friend criticized it for alienating the moderate audience since it would upset anyone who didn’t already agree. While this is somewhat true and the article is strongly worded (there were softening lines between), I absolutely agree that the way that we landscape the suburban environment is arrogant and unnecessary. I chuckled under my breath because I thought the third friend was mostly reacting in defense of his way of life. I don’t think that it is necessarily “arrogant” to unknowingly maintain the status quo, but it is for those who are alerted to the fact that inertia alone propagates individually-owned and excessively large lawns. I add this to the argument: knowing the work that goes into cutting and maintaining a lawn, is it not better to have much larger shared lawns in the form of parks (so long as they are safe and within comfortable walking distance)? San Francisco has much less acreage of lawn than any suburb, but these lawns are far more useful to me than any patch of my own grass possibly could be. When I venture out to these lawns, they 1) require no input of energy for maintenance in advance of my enjoyment, 2) contain many people with which to interact but plenty of space to stay away from them if I so choose, 3) offer stimulation in the form of arts, food, and activities, and 4) support any kind of athletic activity that might interest me. That said, I have spent far more time in San Francisco parks per month of living here than I ever spent on any of my family’s gorgeous suburban lawns. Any backyard beyond a small intimate one for barbecues and reading in solitude seems boring in comparison to a park that is made much grander by the compilation of many more resources than I could personally provide. I also don’t see what the point is of specifically owning this recreation space–why shouldn’t it be used by others when I am not occupying it? If we abandoned our ideas about the outside world being evil and out to get us (and our children), wouldn’t even the suburbs be better off with yards of native plants that were connected into one vast natural playground in lieu of the disjointed patchwork that exists today?