Pollan's essay is about the historic and cultural significance of the American front lawn, not the American residential setback, but the two are in many ways inseparable. As Pollan shows, the intent of the setback at the outset was to mandate a grassy front lawn, whether it was wanted or not — either cost, social pressure or concerns about resale value will tend to discourage creative alternatives to the bluegrass turf rolled out, for one's convenience, by the developer. And what is the expense required to maintain all of this yard space?
While other countries routinely incorporate lawns into their detached single-family neighborhoods, it appears to be only England's colonial children — the United States, Canada, and to a somewhat lesser extent, Australia, New Zealand and a handful of other places — that have embraced the idea of large, decorative and open front lawns.
- $40 billion spent annually on lawn care
- 800 million gallons of gas annually for lawnmowers (not much compared to cars, however)
- 25 hours per year spent on lawn care by average homeowner
- 21 million acres (an area the size of Maine) devoted to home lawns. The contribution to low-density growth should be self-evident.
I too find grass to be appealing to look at, but I damn well hate mowing it. There aren't too many jobs out there quite as wasteful and pointless. Why can't Monsanto genetically-engineer grass which grows to 2", then looks the same the rest of the year? Damn you, reproductive cycle of grasses.
No comments:
Post a Comment