This year, I left a portion of my lawn unmowed. I seeded it with a $10 bag of wildflower seeds. It's given me 4 months of beautiful flowers, loads of polinators, many butterflies, and it's given me less yard to mow. I now think that lawns of neatly trimmed grass are about as dumb as it gets.
Yes, a big problem for insects in suburban areas is humans tendency to want "manicured" nature. Just walk around anywhere in e.g. silicon valley, where lawns are kept short and there are less than a dozen types of trees and bushes (also often trimmed) and you'll note there are very few insects, which has resulted in even fewer types of birds and practically no small animals. Insects need old, decomposing tree trunks and branches on the ground, and humans tend to remove those because it isn't tidy enough for them. I share a vacation house on a small (maybe 5 square km) island in the archipelago of Stockholm and despite there being houses on almost all of that island, we have 120 different species of birds on it. This is likely a result of a longtime policy that says house owners should strive to keep old, fallen trees when possible and avoid tidying up their land too much, and the parts that are public land are not interfered with much at all.
Yeah. I have a stack of fallen tree limbs / logs in one relatively hidden corner of my lawn. It turns into super good soil. It's got a bunch of insect life there, as well as good fungal life. And my neighbor's chickens love it.
A lot of people don't like having insects in their homes, so it would make sense that they manicure their lawns to reduce the number of insects around their homes.
It might, but how far do insects actually travel? If it was really restricted like that then it would surely be better to concrete over the yard and park their cars there.
I've seen various flying insects more than a hundred miles out to sea but I accept that not all insects fly.
now think that lawns of neatly trimmed grass are about as dumb as it gets.
Not just dumb: as far as biological life goes those trimmed lawns are pretty close to dead useless land.
Now, you don't even need the bags of flower seeds though it helps. Just mow your lawn + remove biomass only twice a year. At max 3, if you've been using fertilizer in the past, or down to 1 if the soil has gotten rid of most nutritients: by cutting grass and removing it you remove nutritients so the fast-growing plants (grasses, nettles, ...) get less of a chance while the slower growing ones (amongst which a lot of wild flowers are, as wel as plants which used to be common before mass-scale agricultuter but are now rare because they don't get a chance mostly due to the abdundance of nitrogen deposition) will florish. For maximum ecological results you'll also leave certain pieces untouched for a year (some butterflies/files/spiders need long grass to survive winter). Do this for a couple of years and your once neatly trimmed green piece of land will turn into an actually valuable piece of colourful nature. I realize this is not for everyone, e.g. it's not an ideal place to play football or teach your kids how to ride their bike, but if you have the chance it's worth giving it a shot.
An ideal tool for applying the above principle is the scythe. It has several advantages over machines like mowers and weedwackers: you learn how to use a nice tool which does not burn fossil fuel, makes no noise except from a satisfying 'swoosh', is relatively cheap yet will likely outlive you. Depending on how you use it it can be a tai-chi-like moment of peace to start the day, or you gan go full-on and treat it as your work-out instead of going to the gym. And in the end it is less work than keeping grass trimmed throughout the growing season (unless you have a robotic mower, or vast amounts of land): mowing/raking for a couple of hours twice a year doesn't even come close to the amount of time I see my neighbours running around with all their mowing devices bi-weekly even though I have more grass to cut than they have.
We hardly watered our lawn during the three year California drought. Let it go dead and even had exposed soil in spots. When the rains came again we didn't mow for many months. It was fun to see all the different plants and wildflowers sprout and grow. Wish I could have given it a burn after it dried out in the summer instead of mowing, but in urban Oakland I don't think that would have gone over well.
But in all seriousness, yes.. lawns are evil. Created in Victorian Britain to demonstrate wealth.. "look at me, I can afford to have un-productive land". I try to minimise them as much as possible on my 1.5 acre lot. Veggie gardens, mushroom logs, wetland and lots of dead wood as in the video
That all said, I keep a couple of hives, this might be the last year. For the last couple of year my otherwise very healthy hives have collapsed around this very time of year, I just noticed one wasn't doing well all of a sudden.
Roughly when everyone is putting stuff on their lawns for winter, especially the golf course a 1/4 mile away. I know correlation is not causation but it's an unusual time for hives to fail, they've been working all summer building up and it is this point that they are their strongest.
Frankly, my feeling has been for a while that we, as a species, are at the end of our golden age.
Ha, did exactly the same thing, since I noticed nearly no bees or other insects last year. I dedictated around 200 m² of my lawn to nature. I think it helped: This year, there where so much more of them to see.
Aren’t there local ordinances in some jurisdictions, requiring an orderly yard about the house? For sure, in many places there are laws regulating tree count and what you can and can’t chop down. I swear I’ve heard of fines for unmowed lawns too.
HOAs, township laws, etc — it is somewhat common in the US to be unable to do anything but grow grass in your front yard. We took advantage of the CA drought and tore out all our grass in front and replaced it with drought tolerant natives. It looks better and the kids didn’t play there anyway. And now we have monarchs.
In all seriousness, if anyone tells you you can't have a thriving eco system in your yard, fight them on every level. Manicured lawns should be outlawed, not encouraged.
21% of all Americans live in common-interest housing. Half of that is condominiums, half is HOA-governed housing. It's a safe bet that large portions of that heavily restrict lawn conditions. Add in another ~10% of the country living in multi-family apartment buildings, which usually have no lawns or owner-controlled lawns.
And, of course, single-family home lawns in any densely populated area are likely to be regulated, many of which aren't high income. I can't get numbers on how many of those ~70% of Americans are under town restrictions, but it's not a trivial number.
So no, it's not just HN's demographics. This is genuinely widespread in the US; I'd estimate that at least 100,000,000 Americans live under some form of these restrictions.
Homeowners on HN are wealthier and live in more densely populated areas than the average American homeowner. Wealth directly correlates with minimum standards of upkeep. Population density correlates with volume of rules and regulation. A suburb of Portland ME and Portland OR both likely have a bylaw disallowing you to run a pig farm without some paperwork/approval.
A suburb of Portlad OR is far more likely to have a bylaw or HOA reg about grass height or some other nit picky thing than the suburb of Portland ME because the OR suburb is wealthier and wealthy people have the time to care about these things, care about what the standards should be and care about how to enforce them.
Yes, many Americans live somewhere one or more rules/laws that control what they do on/with their own residential property. The Americans who are most represented here likely have far many laws/HOA rules with which they much comply.
Sure, agreed, but that's not what you said before.
Someone said it's "somewhat common in the US" to be restricted from growing eco-friendly laws. You "fixed" that statement by adjusting it to "somewhat common in the US in the parts of the US that are over-represented on HN".
The initial statement was true, there was nothing to fix. It might be "very common" among HN readers (though I'll bet they skew more urban than you're suggesting), but it really is "somewhat common" nationwide.
And the distinction isn't irrelevant, because this isn't just a parochial HN-reader concern - turf covers roughly 2% of US land. Not all of that is lawns, and not all of those lawns are legally constrained, but as I tried to demonstrate, the total amount is significant. I'm not objecting to the point that this situation has heavy demographic skew, I'm objecting to the implication that it isn't widespread.
Keep in mind the "more free" places also tend to be much less dense in general (not just fewer HN readers, fewer people in general). So even if it's relatively geographically isolated where these rules exist, it still covers a substantial portion of Americans (including HN readers).
AFAIK, I can do with my garden whatever I want to do, as long as a I don't turn it into forrest. But that's here in Austria. What you describe sounds terrible. Fines for not mowing? In which country do you live?
In the United States most (all?) cities have local ordinances regulating lawn height. For example, in Portland, Oregon “lawn areas” can be no more than 10 inches high[1]. Mind you, this is just for the city and only applies to lawns, not gardens, or forested areas on large acreages. I imagine it stemmed from helping reduce fires near dwellings, but that is a total guess. Rural areas will have different regulations though.
>Rural areas will have different regulations though.
Sometimes those can be even worse. I lived in a town of 300 growing up, and we often had to deal with the mayor's wife and occasionally the mayor himself coming to our door to tell us we were in violation of some lawn ordinance or another. This is particularly obnoxious considering that the only way to even look up town ordinances is to go to the other side of the county to view the documents at the county office.
People are free to not move into a HoA area or gated community though. I'm looking to buy a house soon, and any HoA with any real authority causes me to reject the house based just on that. There's nothing wrong with the idea of "lets all agree to these rules that define a neighborhood we all would like to live in" in theory, but in practice the HoA contract is often a cudgel used to bludgeon people who aren't well liked into submission.
Yes, but government doesn't go away. You get HoAs that spring up outside of Denver, Austin and all the other places people from SV go when they're sick of SV. They get there and realize that while they don't miss lawn height rules they don't like their neighbor's copious power tool usage well into the evening or loud parties they create a HoA thinking that they won't recreate the situation where they come from. After all, they only want the rules to reign in or drive off a few people who's behavior they don't like. Over time the list of rules and regulations grows and personal freedom to do what you want on your own property slides down the greased slope into the abyss. It starts at reasonable noise restrictions (nothing >85 db as measured on your property line after 10pm on weeknights) and grows to include disallowing motor homes and trailers to be visible from the street, acceptable mailboxes and so on. The influx of poeple who don't want to put up with community (local government or HoA) micromanagement of what they do on their own property tapers off and is redirected at some further out suburb of whatever unnamed "up and coming" city we're talking about or to the suburbs of some other city all together. The cycle repeats itself. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
This isn't SV specific DC, NYC or pretty much any other large city has a slow drip exodus of upper middle class people from it's suburbs to the less stifling suburbs of some other city with similar results.
This is not specific to HoAs. Most non-rural ordinances have some definition of what is legal to have for a lawn, and those generally forbid natural growth.
The issue is homes/lots in dry areas with 1-meter-high dead weeds. After the California fires, and how quickly they spread, I can understand the concern.
That said, since the drought, there are thousands of dead lawns, and I've never seen these laws enforced.
They are regularly enforced with notices to clear weeds by a date certain or they will be cleared with costs charged to the property owner, at least in some CA jurisdictions.
I'm doing this when I move to a house with a garden, in a couple of years (my girlfriend needs to finish her PhD first).
I'll still want some lawn to play ball and such, but I'm all for keeping some wilder areas in the corners, let whichever flowers want to grow, grow there.
I highly recommend planting some milkweed in that area. I've done just about the same as you, although the previous owner had planted the milkweed. The monarch butterflies rely on it, and they're currently in decline.
oh my goodness, a home on my parent's street did this with their entire front yard. We turned the corner and I think it made us both instantly smile. It was precisely the dose of beautiful color we needed that day.
Of course later we drove by as they were all dying, not quite as dazzling a display lol That noted, I am all for this!
