[Northern Light]

The globe and mail has a new article up on the subject of lawns.

Despite the title 'The Humble Garden Could be Under Threat" it actually takes an affirmative position that lawns aren't such a swell idea over all.

Is it time to decolonize your lawn?

The traditional lawn – manicured, verdant, under control – now finds itself at the confluence of two hot-button issues: climate change and Indigenous rights

www.theglobeandmail.com

Lawns are normally a monoculture (one species of plant only); typically, Kentucky Blue Grass (not native to Ontario).

That's not a terrible thing, though it certainly stifles biodiversity.

But the fact they are typically mowed to a height of 5-8cm also means they don't get to flower and have their normal biological function and range.

They also generate a fair bit of pollution via use of lawn mowers, leaf blowers and synthetic fertilizers and can consume copious amounts of water during the summer, at material expense.

One relatively new fact brought out in this article, though not properly fleshed out, is that while lawns do reduce the urban heat island effect vs pavement; they don't do so nearly as much as diverse/tall vegetation be that meadow or forest.

Not surprising when you think about it, 5cm tall vegetation essentially leaves the ground unshaded, so full sun warms it up and dries it out.

Where as 3ft tall vegetation partially shades the ground and retains greater moisture; and fully-shaded ground in forests so to a greater degree.

Good article, do wish it had a little less jargon in it with respect to colonialism.

Its not inaccurate, but needlessly politicizes something that can be more effectively advanced without it.

 

[crs1026]

^I agree the political slant does not help the argument - although there may be a valid observation to be made that Indigenous and non-indigenous attitudes towards lawns may indeed differ, and if we do achieve a more inclusive and less racist society, we may find ourselves living next to someone whose lawn use is vastly different to one’s own preferences, and one will just have to suck that up.

To my mind the change agents for different approaches to lawns will be
a) the recognition that lawn care is hugely harmful to the environment, between pesticides, fertilisers, gas lawn machinery etc - the No-Mow-May thing has solid science behind it -
but more importantly
b) as density becomes crucial, there will have to be public policy disincentives to retaining large residential lots. If you think the “War on the Car” was a divisive rallying cry - densification and cutting lot size will be even more controversial because it is a money issue and a lifestyle issue - just about everyone who is part of the status quo will be competing for financial gain, and so far there is plenty of market pressure to acquire lawns. The “War on the Lawn” is going to be bloody. (At the moment, large lots seem to be valued for the ability to build large-footprint monster homes, not to grow grass on!) As we have seen with roads, there will be the risk of a tyranny of progressiveness where the overzealous advocates will want to ram change down peoples’ throats faster than some can adapt, while others doggedly resist change to the bitter end.....lpolarizing the whole discussion.

I will confess that I grew up in a suburb where our large back yard was valued not so much as a gardening trophy but as child raising space. We had a hockey rink in winter and a big playground and swing set for summer. I don’t see that model disappearing where the land is available, but it may be impossible to maintain in the central urban areas....the city-country divide may grow. Don’t assume future generations will all want to live downtown!

My one technical question is - do all the concerns about heat, drainage, carbon recovery, etc change once one puts a tree canopy over the lawn? The City’s goal is not to have wide, open green space, but rather an urban forest. Some of us can’t grow grass in the shade worth s***, and as our trees mature we are considering alternatives anyways.

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

It seems that these days, writers feel the need to tick all the appropriate boxes.

 

[Northern Light]

My one technical question is - do all the concerns about heat, drainage, carbon recovery, etc change once one puts a tree canopy over the lawn? In respect of a tree, the impact on heat is about the amount of shade thrown off, particularly in July/August. So if a tree shades 80% of your lot, then yes, you're addressing heat, assuming you have softscape (lawn/plants/flowers) underneath In some cases, this would require many trees, depending on lots size and species choice. For instance conifers throw off much less shade than a typical hardwood. In respect of carbon recovery, one or more large trees will achieve much greater improvement that will a lawn. Its simply a vastly larger plant with larger 'lungs' (air exchange). Drainage is at least as much a function of soil and topography as it is plant material. Clearly, bare soil erodes much more so than vegetated soil, and run-off is higher still over hardscape/pavement as absorption is low. That said, a large tree will help take up more surface water, but it can only drink so fast. You need soil that is conditioned to hold water and/or topographical land features (swales/ponds/raingardens etc.) that can allow for that. Key in conditioning is that the soil is not compacted. The more you walk over it, play on it, stick furniture on it, the more compacted it gets. The more you leave it mostly alone, by all means taking the odd stroll through it etc, the less compacted it will be. A material issue that predates most home-ownership is that for decades, when subdivisions have been built, all the top soil is scraped off (several feet) as doing so makes construction easier (less mud, less vegetation/re-growth), easier to modify topography, and what tends to come back at the end is no more than 10-15cm of top soil followed by a coating of sod. This tends to give many folks crappy drainage, because the depth of quality soil built up over centuries isn't there anymore. That also tends to impair tree growth. Short of major topographical adjustment, its hard to fully fix; adding additional loose soils is helpful, and leads to healthier vegetation. The challenge is that any adjustment messes w/drainage towards the home, and can affect window wells and basement egress etc. Its a do-what you can if you're able thing. The City’s goal is not to have wide, open green space, but rather an urban forest. The City has many goals. It has a tree canopy goal (40% coverage, I would like that to be higher) The City also has a pollinator strategy. The City also has a biodiversity strategy. While there is certainly pollination in forests, plants that maximize the benefit to pollinators tend to require a fair bit of sun. They are typically meadow or wet meadow species. Biodiversity requires additional habitat types, without listing them all, this would include, Forest, Woodland, Woodland Edge, Meadow, Fen, Wet Meadow, Wetland, Swamp, Bog, and Shoreline/Coastal among others. Some of us can’t grow grass in the shade worth s***, and as our trees mature we are considering alternatives anyways. Lots of shade-loving native plants. Question is what do you want there? Do you want something to look at? Do you like a forest-look, or do want something more garden'esque? Do you want something low to the ground you could walk over if you felt like? Or would you rather something dense that you can barely get through, but is pretty and low-maintenance? A direct alternative to lawns that you can walk on would be native sedges and grasses (that like shade), and just let them do their thing. They really don't mind a bit of being stepped on. (not all the time) Carex pedunculata (Longstalk sedge) would be a good choice. So would Carex pensylvanica (Pennsylvania Sedge) Taken from: http://www.creekhillnursery.com/carthage/index.php?route=product/product&path=6&product_id=265 Alternatively you can plant shrubs under the trees, and do so for beauty or wildlife habitat. Purple-Flowering Raspberry (Rubus odoratus)is happy in shade. Taken from:https://goodnaturedlandscapes.com/plant-profile-purple-flowering-raspberry-a-summer-beauty/ Yes, the flowers look pink to me too, don't ask, I didn't name it. Alternate-leaf Dogwood, also called Pagoda Dogwood (Cornus alternifolia) also grows in forest-understory conditions. It can get fairly large if it gets lots of sun (9ft++) But will stay smaller but healthy under other trees. From: https://naturalresources.extension.iastate.edu/forestry/iowa_trees/trees/pagoda_dogwood.html Alternatively, Ferns are good growers in shade. Ostrich Fern is nice; will do better w/some sun....... but persist under tree cover. From: https://macphailwoods.org/nature-guides/ferns/ostrich-fern/ Or Chistmas Fern, which stays green through December and never fully goes away (where most ferns disappear over winter) From: https://macphailwoods.org/wp-content/gallery/christmas-fern/christmas-fern-2.jpg For something with a burst of late-summer colour, that's quite hardy, consider Blue-stem Goldenrod ( Solidago caesia ) From: https://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/showimage/89473/

 

[kEiThZ]

Front lawns are particularly useless in my opinion. Most people don't take care of them. And the new trend is to pave them over. Build homes closer to sidewalk or curb.

 

[Johnny Au]

Lawns can also become waterbeds:

 

[Northern Light]

Front lawns are particularly useless in my opinion. Most people don't take care of them. And the new trend is to pave them over. Build homes closer to sidewalk or curb.

I agree w/the first part; and I generally support homes being closer to the sidewalk; though I do like front-yard trees and they need a certain amount of unpaved ground around them to do well.

This can be addressed by having boulevard trees, but then we're back into issues w/salt, and also the typical boulevard isn't really wide enough for majestic trees, you really need a solid 2M wide.

 

[gabe]

I love my front lawn. I got a huge 100 year old maple on it. it keeps my grass green and protects my house from the hot sun. Even on the hottest days of the year i can sit outside on my patio and not fry.

 

[christiesplits]

Great thread. We have to acknowledge cultural trends and the symbol of the lawn as a sign of success. In the west end, you can usually identify Italian and Portuguese households by the quality of the front lawn.

 

[Northern Light]

Great thread. We have to acknowledge cultural trends and the symbol of the lawn as a sign of success. In the west end, you can usually identify Italian and Portuguese households by the quality of the front lawn.

Of course a lawn need not be a sign of a success.

Here are a couple of front yards in The Annex. Typical home prices in this area run about 3M.

Or for 2M a pop, you could look at these yards just off the Danforth near Chester:

or Pine Crescent in the Beach: (4-5M)

 

[kEiThZ]

Of course a lawn need not be a sign of a success.

It's not anymore. Landscaping is.

If you have nothing but grass and weeds, everyone will know you're house poor.

 

[yoshirocks702]

Based on what I've read in this thread, this would be an acceptable mix of tree shade coverage and mowed grass? I like how the whole 6 storeys is covered from the street, the only other issue perhaps there could've been a better mix of tree species?.

 

[44 North]

I love my front lawn. I got a huge 100 year old maple on it. it keeps my grass green and protects my house from the hot sun. Even on the hottest days of the year i can sit outside on my patio and not fry.

To chime in. Ivies can be great. Keep your house cool in summer (and warmer in winter since it baffles air movement). And not a potential liability like a +50yo tree.

 

[drum118]

First off not everyone knows or has the money to maintain a front and rear yard since they are living on a shoe string to afford the house either as an owner or renter. Renters will put very little for up keep of front yards and many cases the backyard. Seen far too many renters who fail to do a thing to their front yard that has next to no grass or overrun lawn that hasn't been cut in a year.

In the 1700 to the late 1800, there was no such thing as laneways since there was no cars back then or the need of large backyards in the Old section of Toronto. Even a front yard was very rare and only the mainly mid and upper class that could afford large lots would have front and rear yard to show how well off they were. You may find a laneway in some places as it got built at a later date or was a path at the time the houses were built. I can only recall to homes I grew up in Toronto that had a laneway behind us and outside the city core. All the core houses had no laneway and small front yards.

The first house I own was on a lot 20 x 150 with 25' front yard and a parking spot as there was no laneway behind the house. The largest lot I own was 65 x 160 with a laneway to park 2 cars and 25' of front yard. I love landscaping and cutting the lawn.

Today, the cost of land and landscaping is very costly to the point size of lots house been sold today is way smaller than it was 20 years ago since you need X houses on X land to make a buck without asking off the wall prices even though it is happening.

Its great to have trees on your lot to give you shade, but comes with a cost doing so. After major storms we hear of falling trees on houses and cars as well down lines. Until all lines are underground, we are going to have lines down after storms.

What I will say today goes against what I would say 20 years ago, but the day of large front lawn are at a end due to land cost and urban density. Having a lawn of 3 to 5 m (10-20') is the better way with no driveway in front of the house. All buildings should be a max of 5 m from the property line and doesn't need to be all concrete.

The one thing that need to be clear is water run off where there is no grass in the first place. If everything is pave over and concrete, the storm water system isn't going to handle it that will cause flooding and backup. Trees needs a lot of room for their roots to grow and that will depend on the type of tree in the first place. Trees are a must to have since they clean the air we breath, but there are other plants that will do the same without large roots.

One of my recommendation for the QQE LRT expansion was to plant flowers, shrubs and other low root things between the MGT and TTC ROW to help to cut down on clueless people who cross mid block and paying no attention to the streetcars.

 

[crs1026]

^The issue of over-paving is important. How much heat sink and water runoff could we address as we resize roads? Local (ie residential) roads need to be kept narrow to induce slower driving, many are wider than they need to be. Maybe changing that means more lawn, not less.

This point probably overlaps with Vision Zero, but the green impacts of road construction ought to be part of that discussion, and vv.

- Paul