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.
They're both green. They're both living plants. Some people on this forum have a beef with grass, too. It's found in parks.
So what to the bolded, they're not discussing anything here. Without naming names, I can't tell if you're referring to me, so I don't know how to respond. Cut grass isn't really natural, it's rather manicured, I never regarded lawns as really part of the natural landscaper.
So what to the bolded, they're not discussing anything here. Cut grass isn't really natural, it's rather manicured, I never regarded lawns as really part of the natural landscaper.
Well, silly me, I thought we were discussing the term "green", which could take in trees, which have been roundly dissed by some on this forum! Lawns do absorb CO2, and cause cooling. Benefits of planting lawn | Conserve H2O
The most walkable places to me are kid-friendly, female and elderly friendly. Would you feel comfortable letting your young children walk around the area by themselves? Would a female feel comfortable and safe pushing her baby around the neighborhood in a stroller? Or feel safe walking alone to the grocery store? The kind of places where people actually want to walk and prefer it to driving.
Well, silly me, I thought we were discussing the term "green", which could take in trees, which have been roundly dissed by some on this forum! Lawns do absorb CO2, and cause cooling. Benefits of planting lawn | Conserve H2O
I didn't object to mentioning trees, just the "some people". What poster's views stated on prior threads have to do with anything? If the lawn increases the developed area, which here, would have been forest otherwise, which absorbs more CO2 and is more environmentally positive.
False, false, false, false, false, false. You keep relying on this false idea and you keep suggesting this even though it isn't true. This "urbanist" actually loves trees and think they are important to have lining streets. There should be trees lining every street.
Katiana's referring to me, because I once said I think street trees are pushed as a universally positive amenity when there are some places where too many is a bad idea. Specifically, that on narrow streets with minimal building setback (e.g., many old rowhouse neighborhoods), they tend to obscure the buildings too much.
Cut grass isn't really natural, it's rather manicured, I never regarded lawns as really part of the natural landscaper.
The idea that cut grass was a good thing came out of the evolution of English country estates. They had well-trimmed grass because livestock on-site (typically sheep, cattle were too hard to control) would periodically be released onto the grounds to mow down the grass to near its roots. When lawns jumped to smaller private residences, people initially would rent sheep from neighboring farms for this service, until mechanical (and later electric) lawnmowers became feasible. But the idea is ultimately to recreate the look of pastureland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
Well, silly me, I thought we were discussing the term "green", which could take in trees, which have been roundly dissed by some on this forum! Lawns do absorb CO2, and cause cooling. Benefits of planting lawn | Conserve H2O
Lawns do absorb CO2, and given grass is faster growing than trees, I would expect that they absorb it more rapidly than trees do. But every time you cut the grass and dispose of the trimmings, you're basically releasing the CO2 back into the air. Trees, in contrast, bind up more of it in the long run, since they use it to grow wood which will stay intact for centuries.
Katiana's referring to me, because I once said I think street trees are pushed as a universally positive amenity when there are some places where too many is a bad idea. Specifically, that on narrow streets with minimal building setback (e.g., many old rowhouse neighborhoods), they tend to obscure the buildings too much.
The idea that cut grass was a good thing came out of the evolution of English country estates. They had well-trimmed grass because livestock on-site (typically sheep, cattle were too hard to control) would periodically be released onto the grounds to mow down the grass to near its roots. When lawns jumped to smaller private residences, people initially would rent sheep from neighboring farms for this service, until mechanical (and later electric) lawnmowers became feasible. But the idea is ultimately to recreate the look of pastureland.
Lawns do absorb CO2, and given grass is faster growing than trees, I would expect that they absorb it more rapidly than trees do. But every time you cut the grass and dispose of the trimmings, you're basically releasing the CO2 back into the air. Trees, in contrast, bind up more of it in the long run, since they use it to grow wood which will stay intact for centuries.
Oh, you're not the only one. It's been a recurring theme on this forum.
I could find nothing that said that cutting grass released CO2 into the air. The lawnmower does, however.
Katiana's referring to me, because I once said I think street trees are pushed as a universally positive amenity when there are some places where too many is a bad idea. Specifically, that on narrow streets with minimal building setback (e.g., many old rowhouse neighborhoods), they tend to obscure the buildings too much.
Yea, I remember that. While I do see the obscuring as a bit of a downside, it's not really a big deal IMO. It's more of a personal esthetic preference and I don't think many (or any others) minded or care about. You can still see homes on foot easily, and half the year it's no obscured — when the need for shade is gone. A neighborhood like gets hot from begin mostly concrete and building. I stayed over at the top floor of a brownstone in Brooklyn whose owners had no A/C. It was tolerable on a hot summer night (low around 76°F) and NYC has one of the more extreme heat islands of a developed world city. It would have baked without trees. And it's nice to look out the window and see thick cover of green mixed in with all the brick/stone buildings. For a long-term resident, I would think the variety is appreciated.
However, for certain downtown districts, like Soho I think it's best without any trees. Doesn't fit with the ambience
Quote:
The idea that cut grass was a good thing came out of the evolution of English country estates. They had well-trimmed grass because livestock on-site (typically sheep, cattle were too hard to control) would periodically be released onto the grounds to mow down the grass to near its roots. When lawns jumped to smaller private residences, people initially would rent sheep from neighboring farms for this service, until mechanical (and later electric) lawnmowers became feasible. But the idea is ultimately to recreate the look of pastureland.
The de-forested landscape of England bugged me a lot. Much of it is really an ecological disaster. The fact some British cities lack greenery in their old parts is a trivial compared to that. But in Europe, lawns are not limited to Britain. They're common in France, more typical suburban street here. Yards are small and bushes make it appear less open. Or in Scandinivia.
Quote:
Lawns do absorb CO2, and given grass is faster growing than trees, I would expect that they absorb it more rapidly than trees do. But every time you cut the grass and dispose of the trimmings, you're basically releasing the CO2 back into the air. Trees, in contrast, bind up more of it in the long run, since they use it to grow wood which will stay intact for centuries.
Good point. I like that in New England, big lot homes usually let a lot of their land stay wooded. Even in my neighborhood with small yards, some is less untouched.
I could find nothing that said that cutting grass released CO2 into the air. The lawnmower does, however.
Any organic material will release CO2 when it decays. Cut grass will basically release 100% of the CO2 contained within it. If grass is consumed by a grazing animal a percentage of the available carbon will be used for metabolism, which will keep it trapped in biomass longer. But the only way to sequester it is burying it deep underground, eventually forming coal deposits.
The de-forested landscape of England bugged me a lot. Much of it is really an ecological disaster. The fact some British cities lack greenery in their old parts is a trivial compared to that. But in Europe, lawns are not limited to Britain. They're common in France, more typical suburban street here. Yards are small and bushes make it appear less open. Or in Scandinivia.
I never said they were only a British thing, but the cultural antecedents of the U.S. lawn originated in the English country manor. Other countries probably had parallel developments, since they were also used to estates having pastureland surrounding them, and thus flat expanses of grass around grand houses were considered to be desirable.
Of course, there's also the savanna hypothesis, which claims there are inborn genetic reasons humans across all cultures tend to prefer open grassland with scattered trees (at least in childhood - as adults preferences shift somewhat to whatever the local norm is).
Well, you social engineers may want to make it hard to park, but businesses want to make money. If their customers want parking, they should be allowed to put it in. Most pharmacies have their own parking lots, even in Denver. Lots of pharmacy customers are sick, aged, infirm, etc. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wa...8e34fb!6m1!1e1
(Click on the little man)
I like a happy medium, stores that are easy to walk to from the street and easy to park.
better than purposely trying to make it h3ll for people to park.
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.
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.
What poster's views stated on prior threads have to do with anything? If the lawn increases the developed area, which here, would have been forest otherwise, which absorbs more CO2 and is more environmentally positive.
You keep relying on this false idea and you keep suggesting this even though it isn't true. This "urbanist" actually loves trees and think they are important to have lining streets. There should be trees lining every street.
