U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-20-2009, 08:05 PM
 
4,268 posts, read 8,355,736 times
Reputation: 1785

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reallybigshoe View Post
Compare the cost of keeping a green lawn, not just owning a weed field.

Annually (figure 5000 sqft)
$960 to pay someone to cut it.
(Can't link my price chart, but that's the price)

$350 in fertilizer.
(http://www.lawnsite.com/archive/index.php/t-38712.html)

$650 water bills.
(Lawn Pro: Cost of Watering Lawn (http://www.lawnpro-kc.com/lp/cost.water.html - broken link))

Total $1960 savings per year on 5000sqft after the difference has paid for the artificial grass. I exaggerated.

Cost to install Artificial - $18,000

Cost to sod - $4125
Irrigation - $5000
First year total - $11,085
Fifth Year - $20,885
Tenth Year - $30,685

No watering, no mowing, no fading, no edging, no fertilizing, no chemicals, no pet damage, no pests, no allergies and no muddy paw prints. You never have to worry about lawn trimmings, or grass allergies. And it will never turn brown in the heat of the summer. It reduces air pollution because it eliminates the need for gas-powered lawn mowers and trimmers. Many people donít realize how much time and money they spend on their yard only to have it look terrible most of the time.
Ok, a big chunk of that is assuming one pays a gardener and waters A LOT. The ecological considerations are significant, but I'm not sure the cost savings is as significant for a person who doesn't already hire out for their entire landscaping.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-20-2009, 11:18 PM
 
Location: NW San Antonio
214 posts, read 442,717 times
Reputation: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
Ok, a big chunk of that is assuming one pays a gardener and waters A LOT. The ecological considerations are significant, but I'm not sure the cost savings is as significant for a person who doesn't already hire out for their entire landscaping.
You'd either be saving the money hiring someone to mow, or saving the time to mow. The money I added for services was only to cut, edge, and blow trimmings.

The water and fertilizer is consistent with the needs of a lush green lawn. Artificial is clearly not for people who don't care for that. I can't imagine anyone but a lawn lover spending any money on their lawn these days, except to have it cut to stay out of the heat. People who love to have that green lawn on the other hand spend thousands each year achieving that. It's all in what you desire.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2009, 08:07 AM
 
4,268 posts, read 8,355,736 times
Reputation: 1785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reallybigshoe View Post
You'd either be saving the money hiring someone to mow, or saving the time to mow. The money I added for services was only to cut, edge, and blow trimmings.

The water and fertilizer is consistent with the needs of a lush green lawn. Artificial is clearly not for people who don't care for that. I can't imagine anyone but a lawn lover spending any money on their lawn these days, except to have it cut to stay out of the heat. People who love to have that green lawn on the other hand spend thousands each year achieving that. It's all in what you desire.
I think most people like a lush green lawn, but many of us recognize that's hugely irresponsible in a drought prone area. It's not the cost, It's the usage of water.

I kind of liken it to buying a hybrid car. While at a certain price/gallon of gas, the extra cost to buy the hybrid will become cost-effective, the reality is it's not likely to save you much money, esp. in the short term, unless the cost of a gallon approaches European rates. You don't really buy a hybrid to save money, you buy it to save fuel, to reduce emissions, and generally lessen your environmental impact.


Some people like to landscape/work on their lawns themselves. btw - I use an organic fertilizer which is cost/bag more expensive than the chemical stuff, but it works much more efficiently, which ends up costing less overall.


btw - I don't mean to be argumentative. I do think artificial grass is a very promising alternative in drought prone areas and one worth investigating and encouraging (we've already laid our sod in the past 1.5 yrs - zoysia and bermuda - so won't be changing anytime soon). I just like to see actual cost comparisons that show exactly where the "savings" is, when that is the argument used to support it. Such comparisons are often comparing apples vs. oranges, and an overwhelmed consumer forgets to look at that.

Last edited by Chaka; 07-21-2009 at 08:40 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2009, 02:30 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
1,893 posts, read 4,862,837 times
Reputation: 1471
I agree with Chaka. I don't see saving $3000 a year with atificial grass. Even in this drought I have one of the nicest lawns on my street. I spent around $20 this year on Corn Gluten meal, I buy 2 yards of compost and spread it myself in one day every 3 years and I'm only watering once a week and then for only about 2 hours. In a good year I only mow once week and I consider it good exercise that I need anyway. It just doesn't seem worth it to me. I think on Kens 5 they said about 10 a square foot. It would cost me about $60,000 to replace my real grass with AG at those prices. Sure I've got a few brown spots and a few bare spots in high traffic areas but not $60,000 dollars worth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2009, 08:11 PM
 
36 posts, read 101,696 times
Reputation: 41
I have a couple of questions / observations about the turf.

I just got back from Vegas and several of the hotels have artificial turf in front of their buildings. My wife took her shoe off and said the turf was very very hot. As in you wouldn't want to walk barefoot across it.

I know Vegas was 113 degrees and San Antonio doesn't get that hot. However I wonder hot much heat is retained and radianted back up?

Second question is I've been watering around my foundation to try to prevent the soil from drying out and shifting. I would imagine that one would still have to water around your house to prevent this even if you had turf.

Thoughts?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio
Similar Threads
View detailed profiles of:
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:31 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top