I’ll never understand why US suburbs like to utterly nuke any kind of nature around their houses and replace it with “lawns”.
Like, I’d rip that stuff out and at least plant some potats and shit immediately.
I heard of that, I think it was some propaganda piece. Like “look at those poor sovjets, have to grow their own food because the state can’t provide. Meanwhile we’re so civilized and advanced”. (Interesting sidenote: The culture of huge lawns came from the UK I think, rich people in the 1800 and 1900 displayed their wealth that way).
Not saying it wasn’t like that in some places, just that it’s so unfathomably stupid. And now there are US Tiktokers talking about “lifehacks” of growing your own food, with other US Tiktokers calling people who do that libtard commies and whatnot. US culture is a disaster on life support.
I just can’t fathom why seemingly a whole class of US citizens apparently aren’t able to use their damn heads and still do this nonsense.
Coming from the UK is correct, it was literally an artistocratic flex at having literally useless land. I read a dissertation a few years back that also linked this to a Baudrillard style simulationist desire for the upper class not to see land with any practical value immediately besides their homes because they were resistant to accept that their wealth was exercised from any real action, and instead they’d pretend it was just a truth. But beyond the lawns were forests and fields, because they had to exist.
When lawns were adopted by the bourgeoisie, who only had half an acre of property, it was already trendy to have the surrounding acres of the house be only lawn. The bourgeoisie simulation was to have the house surrounded by lawns as if it were to then give way to fields and forests, which of course did not exist, just your neighbours equally ugly plot of land.
What I never understood about all of this though, is that gardens are equally cosmetic vanity. I have fond memories of the garden of my grandmother, which has a small greenhouse and two raised vegetable beds at the back, but everything else was flower beds, a pond, a summer pavillion, a small lawn, a shed and a scattering of trees and bushes. Other than the small sections for growing vegetables, it was all entirely for vanity. But it was beautiful. Hell, the small lawn was even pretty functional as the primary place to set up chairs in the sun and play ball games.
I am British, and once this island was forest and mountains from shore to shore, with meadows and plains being rare. The lawn never made sense here, and caught on less in in the Soviet Bloc as plains become more common in nature. America is a land with far more natural plains, and the lawn is further removed from it’s original status. It’s imitating an imitation of a denial of reality, Baudrillard would have a field day.
But I did mention, in my grandmother’s garden, playing ball games on the lawn. American sport is largely built on the suburban madness that is lawns. I’m not talking about sport born in urban centers like basketball, or sports from true rural areas, which I can only assume is rednecks drink driving, if watching US shows has told me anything, but Baseball, American Football and even golf are sports made for lawns. It’s hard to detangle lawns from middle class America without stopping middle class kids play sports in their gardens.
One day they’ll add vegetable gardening to the Olympics and America will be saved, and Joseph McCarthy will be stuck in hell on his fucking lawn.
It’s hard to detangle lawns from middle class America without stopping middle class kids play sports in their gardens.
They still play on the lawn? Thought by now they’re kept mostly indoors (or in cars) for helicopter-parent-reasons, safety or sth.
At least that’s what I heard. A german news moderator for the US also mentioned it once, some Karens in the neighborhood thought of child neglect because the kids were playing in the front yard or going to the playground alone (gasp!).
Not really getting the point though. Most lawns are huge, there’s enough space for playtime and some nice flowers or vegetables. Most houses even have a front and back lawn…
If you have to agree to it to buy something as basic as a home then it isn’t truly consensual. Hell, it isn’t even truly consensual for less necessary stuff like cars (you “agree” to surveillance - arguably a necessity in less developed places), digital goods (same - also more or less necessity), games (you agree to not own dogshit) and other things. Hell, you keep “agreeing” to workplace rules supposedly “freely”, but we all know it isn’t.
There are certain basic rules everyone has to agree to (laws) to uphold society, but other than that any agreement like HOAs have to be truly optional if your argument is supposed to work. And no, just “going elsewhere” isn’t a fucking option in the current disastruous market. Especially since that nonsense appears to be so common in the US.
It’s just that much easier for developers to raze all plants to the ground before grading and running other heavy equipment. These are new construction and so those developers aren’t accountable to anyone, and I’m sure the local jurisdiction doesn’t care. That’s not a justification, for what it’s worth, just an explanation.
What I’ve never been sure of is why people don’t eventually realize how much nicer everything would be if they just replanted trees (or left them in the first place) but they seem to be used to suburban hell. If you drive everywhere it’s less of an issue that your environment is shit.
You’re assuming people who are forced to buy into the suburban hell have a choice.
If a person had a choice between a 100k house in a suburban hell or a 100k house in secluded heaven. That they pick the suburban hell.
Have you seen the housing market in the US?
It’s also funny how “Suburban” meaning has changed. It’s supposed to be non-urban.
But with these “suburban” neighborhoods in cities. It has basically became a word for a neighborhood with houses built next to each other and less about where it’s located.
Suburbs use to be an inexpensive option as opposed to urban living.
But why don’t they plant trees?? And I don’t mean the little weeping cherry that will top out at 15’ or those goddamned arborvitaes that cast no shade. Plant an oak, a maple, a willow, a sycamore.
I’ll never understand why US suburbs like to utterly nuke any kind of nature around their houses and replace it with “lawns”. Like, I’d rip that stuff out and at least plant some potats and shit immediately.
It is actually a anticommunist thing
Care to elaborate?
I heard of that, I think it was some propaganda piece. Like “look at those poor sovjets, have to grow their own food because the state can’t provide. Meanwhile we’re so civilized and advanced”. (Interesting sidenote: The culture of huge lawns came from the UK I think, rich people in the 1800 and 1900 displayed their wealth that way).
Not saying it wasn’t like that in some places, just that it’s so unfathomably stupid. And now there are US Tiktokers talking about “lifehacks” of growing your own food, with other US Tiktokers calling people who do that libtard commies and whatnot. US culture is a disaster on life support.
I just can’t fathom why seemingly a whole class of US citizens apparently aren’t able to use their damn heads and still do this nonsense.
Coming from the UK is correct, it was literally an artistocratic flex at having literally useless land. I read a dissertation a few years back that also linked this to a Baudrillard style simulationist desire for the upper class not to see land with any practical value immediately besides their homes because they were resistant to accept that their wealth was exercised from any real action, and instead they’d pretend it was just a truth. But beyond the lawns were forests and fields, because they had to exist.
When lawns were adopted by the bourgeoisie, who only had half an acre of property, it was already trendy to have the surrounding acres of the house be only lawn. The bourgeoisie simulation was to have the house surrounded by lawns as if it were to then give way to fields and forests, which of course did not exist, just your neighbours equally ugly plot of land.
What I never understood about all of this though, is that gardens are equally cosmetic vanity. I have fond memories of the garden of my grandmother, which has a small greenhouse and two raised vegetable beds at the back, but everything else was flower beds, a pond, a summer pavillion, a small lawn, a shed and a scattering of trees and bushes. Other than the small sections for growing vegetables, it was all entirely for vanity. But it was beautiful. Hell, the small lawn was even pretty functional as the primary place to set up chairs in the sun and play ball games.
I am British, and once this island was forest and mountains from shore to shore, with meadows and plains being rare. The lawn never made sense here, and caught on less in in the Soviet Bloc as plains become more common in nature. America is a land with far more natural plains, and the lawn is further removed from it’s original status. It’s imitating an imitation of a denial of reality, Baudrillard would have a field day.
But I did mention, in my grandmother’s garden, playing ball games on the lawn. American sport is largely built on the suburban madness that is lawns. I’m not talking about sport born in urban centers like basketball, or sports from true rural areas, which I can only assume is rednecks drink driving, if watching US shows has told me anything, but Baseball, American Football and even golf are sports made for lawns. It’s hard to detangle lawns from middle class America without stopping middle class kids play sports in their gardens.
One day they’ll add vegetable gardening to the Olympics and America will be saved, and Joseph McCarthy will be stuck in hell on his fucking lawn.
They still play on the lawn? Thought by now they’re kept mostly indoors (or in cars) for helicopter-parent-reasons, safety or sth. At least that’s what I heard. A german news moderator for the US also mentioned it once, some Karens in the neighborhood thought of child neglect because the kids were playing in the front yard or going to the playground alone (gasp!).
Not really getting the point though. Most lawns are huge, there’s enough space for playtime and some nice flowers or vegetables. Most houses even have a front and back lawn…
We also hunt deer, go fishing, and throw bean bags into a wooden box called a “corn hole”.
You know how europeans think that yellow school busses must be a movie trope, but they really are everywhere all the time in America?
Same concept
I’m unsure if I’m allowed to have tomatoes growing but so far no one has said anything so places without hoa care a lot less!
Imagine not being able to decide what you grow in your own yard. Wild.
OH FUCKING GOD, YOU MEAN I’VE CONSENSUALLY AGREED TO A COMMUNITY SET OF RULES? THE FUCKING HORROR OF THIS SHIT SHOW!!!
Beep.
Boop
No wait — boop.
If you have to agree to it to buy something as basic as a home then it isn’t truly consensual. Hell, it isn’t even truly consensual for less necessary stuff like cars (you “agree” to surveillance - arguably a necessity in less developed places), digital goods (same - also more or less necessity), games (you agree to not own dogshit) and other things. Hell, you keep “agreeing” to workplace rules supposedly “freely”, but we all know it isn’t.
There are certain basic rules everyone has to agree to (laws) to uphold society, but other than that any agreement like HOAs have to be truly optional if your argument is supposed to work. And no, just “going elsewhere” isn’t a fucking option in the current disastruous market. Especially since that nonsense appears to be so common in the US.
🙄👌 whatever you need to tell yourself
It’s just that much easier for developers to raze all plants to the ground before grading and running other heavy equipment. These are new construction and so those developers aren’t accountable to anyone, and I’m sure the local jurisdiction doesn’t care. That’s not a justification, for what it’s worth, just an explanation.
What I’ve never been sure of is why people don’t eventually realize how much nicer everything would be if they just replanted trees (or left them in the first place) but they seem to be used to suburban hell. If you drive everywhere it’s less of an issue that your environment is shit.
You’re assuming people who are forced to buy into the suburban hell have a choice.
If a person had a choice between a 100k house in a suburban hell or a 100k house in secluded heaven. That they pick the suburban hell.
Have you seen the housing market in the US?
It’s also funny how “Suburban” meaning has changed. It’s supposed to be non-urban.
But with these “suburban” neighborhoods in cities. It has basically became a word for a neighborhood with houses built next to each other and less about where it’s located.
Suburbs use to be an inexpensive option as opposed to urban living.
But why don’t they plant trees?? And I don’t mean the little weeping cherry that will top out at 15’ or those goddamned arborvitaes that cast no shade. Plant an oak, a maple, a willow, a sycamore.
Can confirm. I am trapped in suburbia for at least three more years.
I can’t wait to head for the hills.