Grass lawns becoming less common around metro Phoenix (Scottsdale, Peoria: real estate, rent)

[Mister-A]

As a prospective transplant, I'm also of the mind that people should generally be doing what they want to do. Beyond an HOA that had it in mind from the outset and everybody bought in knowing what they were buying, I don't see where I should tell my neighbor he can't have a lawn or he should be telling me I have to.

With that said, we're in agreement that we would want to xeriscape. I've seen it ugly, and I've seen it beautiful. I aim to get a lot of color, shade, and still produce some edible fruit, too, while selling the lawnmower along with the snowblower before we move. It will require irrigation and labor to keep it beautiful. Just not mowing.

In fact, "oasis" might be just the right word for what I have in mind: true oases that I've seen pictures of have many tolerant plants thriving around the water source (...my spool...), but rarely lush grasses.



I do recall a graph in the LA Times which argued that lawns had the potential to be bigger sources of evaporative water loss than uncovered pools.

Water agencies are learning pools aren't a big factor during drought - LA Times

Originally Posted by Valley Native

an oasis determined to keep the desert in the actual desert, and away from the city itself

Of course, that's a challenging statement when market forces are inexorably pushing "the city" out into "the desert".

[Heath V]

Originally Posted by BIG CATS

Then move to Savannah, GA. Bon voyage.

No I don't have to, I'm free to have grass here.

[asufan]

Love my grass. Properties in my area that have grass landscaping sell faster and for more money, I have noticed.

[seattlecoming]

Originally Posted by asufan

Love my grass. Properties in my area that have grass landscaping sell faster and for more money, I have noticed.

I prefer grass too, and I had a very lush green yard with trees and roses when I lived in Phoenix but it was soooo much upkeep and expense with high water bills, et al. In a way I can understand the desire to convert to natural landscape but it can be more unsightly and hotter than well-kept greenery.

[asufan]

Originally Posted by seattlecoming

I prefer grass too, and I had a very lush green yard with trees and roses when I lived in Phoenix but it was soooo much upkeep and expense with high water bills, et al. In a way I can understand the desire to convert to natural landscape but it can be more unsightly and hotter than well-kept greenery.

When people do desert landscaping, I find they add much more shrubbery to try to soften the landscape a bit (a yard full of 90% grass looks good, 90% gravel looks horrible without plants and shrubs). The cost to maintain those plants are about equal to grass, I pay $45 every 2 weeks and never deal with it.

[John7777]

If grass naturally grew in Phoenix, I wouldn't have an argument with nice green lawns. But let's face it, grass isn't made for the desert. So, people have rocks and cactus in their yard, or maybe just natural desert vegetation. A little bit of drip irrigation and you're all set. Easy.

[Java Jolt]

I like the look of some desert yards if they are weed-free but they make lousy play areas for children and pets.

They generate heat too.

Imho a house is not a home in the Phoenix area unless it has grass, shadetrees, and a pool, the combination of these three things make the summertime heat much more bearable.

I'm not too concerned about the abundance of water or lack thereof, it seems as though we have enough water for the foreseeable future.

[Adamson865]

Originally Posted by wit-nit

Let's not fool with mother nature, grass is not a natural commodity here. It upsets the balance with water usage, higher humidity, allergies, non native bugs, non native weeds etal...

But where does one stop? We're not native to the desert either. Should we leave?

[ScottsdaleMark]

Originally Posted by rah62

But where does one stop? We're not native to the desert either. Should we leave?

Usually the answer is, everyone else should leave except for whoever's complaining about it and their friends/family/like-minded people. It's everyone else moving here that's the problem. It really seems to be very adaptable to whenever that person or their progenitors got here. E.g., "I moved here in 2000 and it was fine until the housing boom and now it's out of control and now it's time to address the issue" or "I just got here last year but I'm a conservationist and I have a more modern understanding on this issue, I haven't been fooled by this outdated lush-oasis mythology" or "I'm a native and so anyone who wasn't born here has no right to come in here and use these resources and tell me what to think" etc. etc.

I guess I would just say that I think there is usually a responsible middle path. Ultimately as long as no one is being wasteful there's no point getting too self-righteous about one's own landscaping choices -- that is but a small part of everyone's ecological footprint; a much more salient question for one's overall water use would be whether one consumes meat or not, and thankfully this is not the forum in which to start arguing over that.

[Wally Sconce]

Lawns are a stupid waste of time and money, created by French/English nobility who had nothing but free time on their hands.

The History of Lawns | Organic Lawn Care 101