• Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    169
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    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.

    • tamal3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      3 days ago

      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.

      • Sludgeyy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

        • EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 days ago

          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

          Because of jobs. Unless you are retired or able to work remotely, jobs are a leash that control where you can live.

          • Serinus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 days ago

            And even if you do work remotely, you can’t count on that lasting forever.

            One of the primary reasons I actively chose the suburbs was so that I’d be able to get another job if I lost my fully remote job. After ten years, exactly that happened, and I got a job with a commute to downtown.

            • EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              I’d be able to get another job if I lost my fully remote job

              Not having other job options is quite a risk. Small towns that rely on one main employer are usually devastated if that employer relocates or shuts down.

          • Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            Also big box stores are usually not too far away by design I’d wager. I’ve heard zoning laws caused most of the US to be a complete desert for shopping unless you have a car since everything is so centralized. Depending on the state a “secluded heaven” might very well be dozens of kilometers away from the market, right?

            I can’t even imagine this… no matter where I lived so far in Germany, let it be countryside, city or at the city border, there always were small shops, kiosks and/or bakeries nearby (<1km). I can’t fathom having to drive even if I’m just craving some candy while living in what’s supposed to be a proper neighborhood.

    • gigachad@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      3 days ago

      Don’t they also have these “neighborhood associations” that forbid them to do anything that falls out of line?

    • dingus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      So what I suspect happens is that in newer development communities, the people building them just seem to find it easier to level/bulldoze an entire plot of land to build a neighborhood. Then they just don’t feel like putting plants and trees back in after construction is complete out of pure cost and laziness.

      For older neighborhoods in the US, you’ll find a lot more foliage. I love it when I go to an older neighborhood that has large trees that canopy the area. They do exist here…it’s just that they have to be a bit older. My condo complex has some wonderful tall trees and plants everywhere. It’s not a new complex though and they seem to care more about plantife than some others do. They even randomly planted a massive tree last year for some reason lol. Seemed to require some pretty big machinery to haul it and put it in lol.

      Before I bought my current place, there was another complex I was looking at. The trees were even larger and provided even more of a canopy across the area. It was gorgeous. And again, the neighborhood was a bit older.

      • MoonMelon@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        3 days ago

        Yeah, it’s impossible to develop a greenfield site without scraping everything off. You have to create and get approval on water runoff management plan for any new development. That means grading everything and often these days it also means managing and impounding water on-site without dumping it all into the (overloaded) storm drain system. When there’s no grass you have to install silt fences to keep silt out of nearby streams while building. You can’t get final approval, and remove the silt fence, until there is some kind of ground cover and that basically means grass since it grows fast and is easy to apply. Even if you somehow left the trees there’s no way they’d survive the process.

        Fuck McMansion developers, and fuck lawns, don’t get me wrong. But it’s a reflection of an entire system of land-use policy and not just stupidity, or whatever.

    • Almonds@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      A lawn is generally easier to take care of than a collection of various plants and trees. First thing I do at any new home is plant a fuck ton of edible plants, and my neighbors always talk about not having the time or energy to do the same

    • RebekahWSD@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 days ago

      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!

        • RebekahWSD@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 days ago

          The only laws I’m sure the township has is lawn height. I don’t think it says anything about gardening things. I’m glad to not be in a hoa?

        • CallMeAnAI@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          22
          ·
          3 days ago

          OH FUCKING GOD, YOU MEAN I’VE CONSENSUALLY AGREED TO A COMMUNITY SET OF RULES? THE FUCKING HORROR OF THIS SHIT SHOW!!!

          • Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            23
            ·
            3 days ago

            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.

    • Quilotoa@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      My British friend says that Americans don’t have lawns. They have grassed in areas.