And is it really the problem you think? As a frequent visitor to Socal who has also done landscape designs for that area, xeric or water conserving gardens seem to me to be the norm and the 'lawn fanatics' are becoming less and less of a presence. You might tactfully point out that insisting on or having a lawn could be considered "different" under the current circumstances and that your choice of plantings reflect not only a personal style but environmentally appropriate selections that suit the location and leave a much smaller footprint on dwindling natural resources.

In most cases, especially with larger residences on smaller lot sizes and given recurrent droughts and stressed conditions on all natural resources, lawns are an outdated convention whose need in many situations no longer serves any reasonable purpose. Their history dates from 18th and 19th century European landowners who asserted their wealth by the amount of park-like land they could flaunt. How inappropriate is repeating that need when your front garden is only 20 feet deep and maybe 60 feet wide?

And just so you know that I am not a total anti-lawn fanatic, I do appreciate a small patch of green grass in the backyard where kids play or the pets romp and where you can set up a lawn chair or two and enjoy your privacy. But to consider lawn - especially a front lawn - a requirement of some sort to have a "proper" landscape is just simply out of date and out of touch with the times.

In neighborhoods where lawns are the default landscape, there may be a lot of resistance to something that doesn't have any lawn at all. On the other hand, if the garden is beautiful to look at and has color, form and texture that are pleasing to look at in all seasons, I've found that neighbors usually come around to appreciate the design as it grows in. Then again, here on the eastern side of the San Francisco Bay, especially in Berkeley and Oakland, lawnless gardens are very popular, and there is very little commentary from people about "Where's the lawn?".

People form their personalities as children. That's why the same garb and haircuts may be worn for decades after they are in style, making some look rooted in the past. Ideas about garden style may be subject to similar occurrences.

The concept of the history of lawn keeping I've encountered is that is started in feudal times, when livestock became scarce. Lords had legions of surfs hand cut the grass around their castles so visiting nobles would think they had large herds of domestic (or perhaps even wild, I suppose) animals on the estate somewhere.

A labor intensive indulgence undertaken for display, right from the start.

Grass is built in work. It has to be mowed weekly for most of the year. It needs watering if it is to stay green through the summer. It requires fertilizer and eventually thatching, not to mention weeding.

Save water and work by planting only the smallest area of grass that you think you need. For many people, that is none at all. For those who need a sweep of neat, low greenery, there are many groundcovers that will work

I think the key to dealing productively with these people is to exhibit exactly the behaviour that you expect of them: to respect their right to like something other than the landscape you have. And as Gardengal points out above, there is a time and a place for a lawn, and maybe these people have it.

Your only objective in these conversations needs be to express satisfaction with what you have. Maybe something like "We really enjoy it, thanks" or if they really state their disapproval, "I hope you enjoy your yard as much as I enjoy mine."

"To each his own" also works!

KarinL

When we came to Las Vegas twenty years ago lawns were a standard feature in most yards and desert landscapes not all that common but that has really changed over the years as the reality of the limited amount of water available and the increasing demand for it became an inescapable reality. Sometimes when you are used to seeing things a certain way anything else looks odd but as you get used to new things you can see thier beauty. I think that happens with landscapes and lawnless landscapes are so common here that they not only look "normal" but when well done are as aesthetically pleasing as any lawn driven design.

I think your neighbors may just be in the process of learning to like a look that they will hopefully be seeing more of as different communities in the west see the need to have landscapes more suited to thier natural environments.

Maria

Why does anyone need advice on how to deal with people who have a different set of values in a landscape? The decision was made to go lawnless because YOU wanted to, presumably.

This seems to be a setup post of some sort. My assumption is that it is trying to make some kind of statement that people are under pressure by an uncaring society that wants to waste water.

I'm waiting for the link to the group who is going to lead the charge to 'educate' the masses.

Either enjoy the landscape and its environmental benefits, or surrender to the army of neighbors with torches and pitchforks who want to seed your property.

... I don't believe that the neighbors are lining up to complain that there is no lawn. If I had neighbors like that, I'd move.

laag...I believe it. I've been in neighborhoods like that. One of the reasons we DIDN'T buy in those neighborhoods. ;)

I don't know about SoCal, but there are certainly parts of NC where people will tell you ALL about what you are doing wrong in your yard, "bless your heart."

I think The Big Orange Splot should be required reading..."My house is me, and I am it. My house is where I like to be and it looks like all my dreams."

Then this strange post comes along.

I think its someone's political statement - I don't know....

1) Show photos
2) Don't try to preach to neighbors

Good comments above!

You may be looking too hard for opposition both here and in your neighborhood.

By making this comment I offer myself up as a decoy. Before everyone jumps all over me, let me say . . . I am not suggesting that these few LD posters aren't knowledgeable, or don't give great advice (when they aren't arguing with each other).

Welcome to the Landscape Design forum!

Going out on a limb I make the following suggestion. What is perhaps missing in the design is "warm and fuzzy" or the need for a space that the "eye can rest on" as said by Bahia. This could easily be accomplished with three (or more) large pots of graduated height grouped together and planted with year round color placed at a strategic point in the design. Maybe yes. Maybe no. Some pictures would really help to us to understand your situation.

For those who are unfamiliar with HO's, many REQUIRE lawns, even in CA areas where it makes little if no sense. Most of CA is high desert country, and extremely arid. Green lawns are a restful sight, but even in the SF Bay Area they are unecological (providing no natural habitat) water-wasters.

As to whether lawns have any place in a California residential landscape, it certainly is possible to have a lawn that uses far less water, and I don't mean the hybrid Tall Fescue Blends that are so heavily promoted by the sod industry as being more ecological/water conserving.

In my admittedly cooler summer, coastal influenced northern California neighborhood, I have neighbors with green lawns that never get irrigated at all. At a glance, I would suggest that the Kikuyu grass sod/Pennisetum clandestinum is certainly fully capable of looking really good with just once a month watering under our conditions. I have also planted lawns with Berkeley Sedge/Carex divulsa, which stays perfectly green all year round and is also fully capable of doing well with only once a month irrigation. Other lawn substitutes might include Dymondia margaratae, Carex pansa or C. praegacilis, etc, etc.

Any of these lawn substitutes use water within the range of what are considered drought tolerant climate appropriate plantings,(unless you are part of that southwest/California subset of gardeners who doesn't believe in any summer irrigation, or any non-native to the area plantings), so lawn doesn't have to be a dirty word...

It would be interesting to see some photos of the OP's garden to see if the landscape architect made any attempts to have it fit into the neighborhood context, or whether it perhaps was an "In your face, look at me" type of garden design that was intentionally designed to call attention to itself. No judgements here on my part, simply an explanation that there are multiple ways to design any garden, and even one completely different to the neighborhood can still be designed to blend in rather than stand out, if that is one of the premises of the design intent.

First, I would like to say that your site is one of my all-time favorites. It's great to read what professionals say about design. Design with a capital D, not 'what color should I blah, blah, blah...', etc. Some concepts are described so succinctly that they give me an immediate visual of what I think they're describing. It's spine-tingling when that happens. While that may be the norm for educated and experienced designers, for folks like me it's amazing. So, thank you all very much for the time you spend discussing philosophies and concepts; and other fancy things! Doubtless, your raison d'etre for posting is certainly not approval of lurkers, but I'm just saying. You are the b*o*m*b*s!

TO THE OP: OK, here's my experience with going lawnless. It was the 90s. The mid-90s. The location was Seattle, or as I like to refer to it as La-La-Lawn-Land. It was a Saturday morning. Almost everyone was outside worshipping, er, mowing their lawns. Not us. Nope. The DH and I were ripping out our sprawling lawn. It took two and a half years. We did one 'area' at a time. We improved the drainage, amended the soil, bought lots of plants and planted. It's probably what you would expect for an unknowledgeable person set loose in a yard with no particular skills and no advice. Oh well. It made me happy for a long time. There were a lot of stunning vignettes with some truly gorgeous specimens. It just didn't go together nicely, as a total picture, to my eye. Oh well. Another project for another lifetime.

During and after the Great Lawn Removal of 1995-1997 the neighbors did talk. They talked to us and they talked about us.
What they said TO US was (no kidding!):
--your yard looks great
--where did the lawn go?
--what you should do is...
--i'm a master gardener
--oh this is so pretty
--where'd you get the fence
--what you should do is...
--wow no lawn!!
--where'd you get the plants? if you have any extras i'll take them and i'll show you where to plant them are you going to use that tree i want that purple bamboo
--i'd really like to have some of those flowers
--no lawn to water, my husband likes that
--what you should do is...
--are you going to have any concrete left over because i want it and i want it put at my house around the corner on the side yard by the fence did i tell you i'm a master gardener and oh when can you bring that concrete over?
--did you do this yourself?
--your yard is nice!
--what you should do is...
--your husband helped you do this are you kidding me? he really helped you do this?
--it looks really cool in there with all the plants
--your husband has a job where he works all day it's not his job to come home and work at home
--we really like your house we call your house the garden house
[Wheee!]
--my mom steals your flowers all the time
[I knew that.]
--wow that's a lotta work
--it looks good but you will have to water it every day
[Nope and not any more. Not for a long time.]
--i can't believe you did that yourselves!
--wow no lawn to water or mow!

For what it's worth that's my input. Nobody cared about lawns or any lack thereof, from any perspective that was longer than their nose. Nobody had any concerns other than how it might directly effect them. After more than ten years quite a few homeowners on our street have taken out some lawn and put in a bed or two. Whatever their motivation, it's sure nice to see more plants!

.... and Seattle is not a place where lawn dies if you don't water it (unless it is close cropped bent grass), so one would expect it to be more controversial to go lawnless.

Ignore them. In SoCal it's socially irresponsible to have a lawn in your front yard: wasting water on something no one plays in is stupid.

Post a pic of your front yard, it sounds great.

The dominant appearance of lawns here in summer is "brown". Most properties are not watered or watered enough to maintain green turf. Those that are kept green have automatic irrigation systems or are tended by individuals who water them regularly by hand.

This has been the normal situation here forever. And to date we have broken 7 record highs this year, with 103 degrees F. occurring in July (a month when there is often less than 1" of rain). So there does not seem to be a trend toward greener (unwatered) lawns.

The lawn-and-little-else neighbors behind me have taken their point-of-view to the extent of reaching over the fence and cutting my shrubs, without prior discussion. I found black bamboo cut off at fence height and thrown down onto our side. Pointing out the property line marker and airing my displeasure resulted in much additional damage to a rhododendron planting probably in the 1960s - which now looks like a palm tree.

The offense committed by the bamboo warranting decapitation without trial was that is was sprinkling their bark mulch with dead leaves.

Fences and Hedges Make Good Neighbors, my problem being my fence is not high enough. Making your yard look like the rest of the neighborhood is a continuation of the status quo, something that is not desirable when the tradition is mini pastoral landscapes dominated by turf. Neighborhood Spectacles need to lead the way, not knuckle under.

One thing we've all skipped over about the OP's garden is the fact that mature specimens were planted. I'd suggest that that has something to do with the neighbours' reactions. If you plant small then things are not so imposing and you get used to them as they grow in. If you have produced a mature landscape overnight (and I don't really know if this is a good idea - will all need replacement soon, no? - or lots of water to settle in, yes?) that will enhance the startle factor.

So the consensus seems to be that you should post a photo so that we can better explain your neighbours' reactions :-) But hey, have you thought of asking them why the landscape makes them feel that way?

KarinL

While an immediate landscape may strike some people as an extravagance, it is probably more the norm than not in locations such as Malibu, Palos Verdes, Santa Monica, etc. I don't see why this should influence the neighbor's reactions in a negative way, unless jealousy around the issue of landscape budgets is a factor.

As a professional landscape designer myself, I am accustomed to designing to fit the client's budget, and have no problems using specimens or only small starter plants, but prefer to mix it up. The design intent is usually much stronger visually if there is a mix of initial sizes, especially if there are specimens of slower growing things that can save much time if sourced at more mature sizes.

I suspect that the OP's neighbor is possibly rather conservative and traditional, and the "no lawn' landscape and contemporary/minimalist design may be more the issue than the lack of a lawn. We'll probably never know without being able to actually see the landscape for ourselves, but reading between the lines, I suspect this is the case.

Often times the most vocal pro-lawn person may be a disgruntled spouse that may like a garden but would prefer the traditional lawn.

Selecting blends or mixes that do not require extra resources is a good place to start.

Areas throughout the world which have an annual rainfall of between 10" and 25" of precipitation are naturally grasslands, if I'm not mistaken. They are not golf courses, but they are grassland. They are not shrub lands or tree lands nor are they deserts - they are grasslands because that is what is naturally sustainable.

While there are some subtropical grasses that can tolerate these conditions and even remain halfway green in more moderate coastal influenced California locals, there are very few cool season grasses that will grow under these conditions with no supplemental water. For those people who prefer lawns, and are looking to reduce water use but not abandon irrigation completely, there are alternatives that can survive on once or twice a month irrigation regimens, especially nearer the coast where it isn't 90 or 100f for days on end.

Some of the best performing grasses or grass substitutes that need the least water would be Kikuyu grass/Pennisetum clandestinum, Buffalo Grass, Carex divulsa and Carex pansa, or walk on ground covers such as Dymondia margaratae. Obviously none of these are appropriate for the rest of the country outside of parts of the Southwest which don't freeze, so would receive little press on the national level as lower water use lawn substitutes.

I have also seen some of our native evergreen bunch grass species used successfully as low water meadow cover, but they don't lend themselves to being mown as for lawns, or in the case of creeping Red Fescues or Native Bent Grasses, they aren't really all that drought tolerant, and still need at least weekly irrigation to stay somewhat green. The grasses most specified as low water use by the turf grass industry, such as the hybrid Tall Fescue blends or Hybrid Bermuda grass, are in my personal opinion not low water use at all, and only look green in summer if watered at least 2 to 3 times a week in summer.

I would hope that the future of wall to wall lawns in California is a dying trend, as they just don't make sense to use for office parks, front yards that never get used for play, and street medians, etc. Unfortunately it will take much higher water rates to push these uses into extinction, as lawn continues to be easier and cheaper to maintain, as well as more immediate for instant landscaping, than the alternatives. Weeding and pruning shrubs/ground covers is more labor intensive as well as requiring more skilled labor to do successfully.

We have become so acculturated to seeing lawns everywhere, and especially green lawns all summer here in California, and assume that gardens need to have an automatic irrigation system as the default design, that the idea of gardens without all this life support systems is really a foreign concept here. It would also seem that this idea has spread throughout other summer dry areas that in the past did not use lawns as the predominant public landscape. Travelling through southern Europe or the Middle East these days, you might often think you were in southern California, even though it is no more sustainable over there than it is here...

The reality is that water is a precious limited resource that has higher value than being used to keep lawns green. This reality sunk in for me as I was leaving a job in Saudi Arabia back in 2000, and flying out of the country overflew all the farms surrounding Riyadh which had center pivot irrigation and had once been used to grow alfalfa for the largest dairy industry in the Middle East, using 10,000 year old aquifer water pumped from 1000's of feet below the desert. More than half were no longer being farmed, after the Saudi government stopped subsidizing the alfalfa growers, and it was no longer economical to grow. I see the same ultimate future here in California/the Southwest for widespread use of lawns in gardens, and the future of the alfalfa, cotton and rice farmers here in the state may also be questionable long term.

Bahia, my contention that mature specimens are more likely to need replacement sooner stems from my constrained environment, a property that is 25 feet by 122 feet, house included, and where trees outgrow their spaces sooner rather than later. The biggest challenge for a plant enthusiast here is keeping things to manageable size. To buy mature specimens would be to lose ten or more years of enjoyment.

I keep checking back in here to see if a picture has been posted, but no luck so far. You'd think that someone who can afford mature specimens and a "large" home could afford a digital camera :-)

KarinL

I can't see the point of ignoring ultimate size and ripping out and replacing plants to accomodate a desire to grow a particular plant, but to each their own... If I have to have such a plant/tree, I would be inclined to keep it in a pot, treat it as a bonsai and regularly root prune it to keep it indefinitely in a container, and if I wanted it to appear as a tree, grow it in a container that is large enough to let it reach some semblance of a tree, yet still restrain its ultimate size.

We as gardeners probably all face the challenge of wanting to grow more plants than we actually have room for in our gardens; I feel fortunate as a landscape designer that I can accomodate this plant lust by using the plants I want to grow in client's gardens, and visit them at will. Plant lust and lack of space is actually even more difficult in a climate that allows for growing tropicals and subtropicals and has a year round growing season, it is too easy to overplant and create a jungle of growth in gardens only a few years old, if not careful or without restraint.

I don't think the OP has any intention of satisfying anyone else's curiousity about their garden, which is their right of course, but I can't say I wouldn't like to see it as well... Not a question of "affording a digital camera", but more likely one of privacy issues.

If anyone wanted to talk about saving water by removing their lawn or making it a requirement to leave the water for drinking not watering lawns with it, it would still be acceptable.

I've seen a huge rock garden over someone's yard in Clarksville, Tennessee. We did have restricted gardens the year before, but not this year and not 9 years ago when I saw their lawn. Mowing is expensive if you have to pay someone else to do it for you. The equipment is expensive.

My theory might be totally inaccurate, but ground cover saves water evaporation. That is what I'm practicing in my garden, when I weed something, it dies because the ground gets too hot. Nutrients can't pass into hard dirt and the ground becomes depleted.

In California where you are drinking borrowed water from another state, I don't blame you for getting rid of the lawn, and it is the most responsible thing to do. At least your trees or flowers are giving you something in return, but your grass doesn't do much.

I would think the topic would be hopping in such a terrible drought. There should be more topics like this.

KarinL

There are a few comments that suggest that there might be other reasons people in the neighborhood are making negative comments about the landscape, but none slamming going lawnless.

My comment about "not buying it" was not slamming going lawnless. It just does not seem believable that in this environmentally correct philosophical climate people would not only understand but would respect this decision in an area where these issues are very real. The fact that Sean is reading the same thing within this thread makes me believe that it may be more a trigger to get a passionate discussion going than a reality.

So far, there does not seem to be a "lawn fanatic" participating in this thread that is against what Sean did.

But in general terms, the anti-lawn movement does seem to be setting up a straw man. Much of the environmental movement does so... but I admit that every time I think they are railing about a dinosaur long since extinct, one appears on my radar. It is not so long ago that I read about a lawn owner in... Iowa maybe? - actually shooting to death a teenager who cut across his perfect lawn.

But there again, the lawn fanatic is so about his own lawn, not so much about other people's. The anti-lawners have more of a tendency to be evangelicizing, either directly or obliquely.

Photos would help make this a design discussion rather than a political one! GOOD alternative design is the most likely to be emulated, in the event that one IS promoting a point of view.

KarinL

Theirs are crossings of suburban lot lines clearly identified with metal markers and fences, not large rural properties with obscuring woods and brush.

I had the offending awful messy bamboo dug out so there would not be any additional basis for misbehavior coming from that source. I was thanked for doing so and then asked if I would turn our security floodlight down to point at a lower angle. I was of course now more visible to them - probably at least 100' away - because the screening previously provided by the bamboo was now gone.

I saw this as extending the intrusion all the way to our house, wondered if I should ask if they would like us to paint it a different color or maybe re-do the roof into a different kind of material.

I suggested that if their was something disagreeable visible on our property they plant or erect something on theirs to screen it out.

Which returns me to the original post: it is not up to anyone to modify their own garden to suit someone else - as long as the garden owner is not doing something that produces a health or safety hazard or constitutes a public nuisance.

We don't have a big water availability problem in my area either to due with lack of rainfall or depleted aquifer. The more common environmental vs. aesthetic issue is with required plantings of native species in wetland buffers. The more aesthetic these are, the more more people are open to converting non-native plantings to native. Sometimes those in the positions to approve projects seem to go out of their way to make sure that there is not a greater aesthetic than just being native.

People like to do the right thing, but they also want want other things as well. If they have to give something up, they are less likely to do it. Whenever they see that they can have their cake and eat it too, they are all over it. This is why it is important to make and show good examples in order to motivate others to follow.

Perhaps Sean's landscape is a good example of both. I could understand a negative reaction by neighbors due to discomfoft by their lack of responsibility. I could also understand it being due to aesthetic reasons.

The best thing to me is that neighbors are out there talking to each other. I've been in my neighborhood for 5 years and only interact with my immediate abutters. New England is funny like that.

I have a huge lawn, in New England. Never water, never fertilize - do you have a problem with that? I doubt it, because no one here is expressing extreme views about either having a lawn or not having a lawn. I do both types of designs for people; with lawns and without. My opinion would be that new landscape clients are trending towards no lawns. But even here in NE, the land of the lawn, no one has a problem with the clients who do not have lawns. The key is that the design is cohesive with the neighborhood, meets the clients objectives and is aesthetically pleasing.

The other question I have is, without a lawn and with all the varieties of plant material you named, did the landscaper come up or discuss ongoing maintenance with you , sean? Maintaining a large landscape is a high maintenance undertaking which a responsible landscaper would address with a client. Most homeowners can figure out lawn care, but weeding, pruning, deadheading etc is beyond the abilities of most people. Do you have a landscape maintenance company too?

I have been re-reading seansmith's posts because there's 'something' about them that I couldn't put my finger on, an elusive 'something'. Possible subtexts, etc. but nothing really made sense of the whole thing.

Then it came to me that these posts may very well have been written by a non-native English speaker. Maybe educated in Europe? Especially the first post. The other posts, also, although much less so. I definitely do not mean any disrespect, they are well written.

If that is the case, it then sounds as if seansmith may be a very happy homeowner, looking for some validation for what was doubtless a costly installation.

Two major reasons why it is valid are as follows. The homeowner placed a value on protecting water resources and did so. The homeowner is happy with the aesthetic.

Unless the homeowner places a very high value on pleasing the entire neighborhood or is subject to an HOA covenence, to heck with the neighbors.

You did good, Sean.

I still don't believe that people are attacking going lawnless. I do believe that people get very angry when others push for them to conform to values which they do not feel as strongly about. I have seen reduction of lawn pushed both by activists and by regulation. I have only seen lawns pushed when the alternative is large unvegetated areas (must have plants, or lawn - no mulch only areas).

I also don't understand this obsession some of us have with requiring the need for photos to illustrate every post. They are certainly helpful when discussing design solutions but in a situation like this, whether or not photos are provided by the OP is entirely a matter of their personal choice and to insist they provide them strikes me as presumptuous and even rude, especially when phrased in the loud, demanding tone as above.

Chill, folks!

Or to its apparent water usage (even if its actual usage is minimal).

KarinL

You did a responsible thing in your landscape. Who cares what we think or your neighbors think? You do, since you posted the thread. Nothing is wrong with that except that there is a very obvious pattern that goes back a long time on this forum which is what Treelover eluded to. When someone posts and that post seems to have no other reason than just to have everyone tell them how wonderful they are or their garden is, people tend to react negatively because they feel used. That is human nature just as looking for praise is.

Clearly, the whole point of the thread was to get a pat on the back. I'll give you that, for what its worth. You did a responsible thing.

I do also find that some people are quick to interject objections in person also. I call it "buzz-wording", wherein any and all words, phrases or complete statements they find questionable or objectionable simply must be commented on as soon as they are made.

Just about every time.

You can find water evaporators all over the internet to build, just flat beds slightly tilted to catch more sunlight, with salt water laying on the bottom and cups to catch directed evaporated water in.

http://www.motherearthnews.com/Renewable-Energy/1974-09-01/How-To-Build-and-Use-A-Solar-Still.aspx

http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8411

A black fountain attracts heat, so maybe a light green one might be better, but probably wouldn't make a better decoration for the yard.

If you have any websites with similar designs you might have seen, it would be nice to see. I live in Tennessee and if our lawn was ripped out it would appall the neighbors and the entire county. They would laugh hysterically at me in the grocery store. They are not as modern or as accepting of new ideas as most would like to think they are.

I'm glad you got the nerve to rip out such a traditional decoration and try something new.

My neighbor just recently moved from his house and I talked with is wife just before he left. The first thing I said was "I know he's going to miss his pretty yard. He practically manicures it. I wonder if he's going to miss it." She replied the first thing he did when he found his new home in Texas was jump for joy at the sight of the tractor his son owned because he'd never have to mow the lawn again. You would have never known he hated the chore. He was out there every week weed eating, cutting grass, sweeping, etc, etc. I'm sure you were liberated the minute it was pulled up.

It was a nice choice. Good luck with your new landscape.

I live on the "coast" of Lake Superior, but - like virtually everyone else here - lack the pioneer spirit to haul it away by the gallon jug full just to get free water for my landscape.

I applaud the OP for what he has done to his plot of land, for making choices that really don't need defending. That's as far as I'm going to go since what anyone does is often dictated by conditions, resources, what can be tended to, and what is thought to be appealing. And as for the possibilty of needing validation for a fait accompli, who can say?

Here's some of the pictures of a grassless garden.

http://bp3.blogger.com/_REjQQ5OAUrM/SGbjXiC9N1I/AAAAAAAABWs/CmfFE8iS5i4/s1600-h/101_3490.JPG

There's a few more at:

http://gardenhistorygirl.blogspot.com/2008/06/chinese-gardens-floors.html

Not a bad alternative! I think they are very pretty and add to the beauty, but look very expensive.

The photo formula isn't working today. So you will have to search them up for yourselves.

Cynthia

I'm all for lawn-less solutions. I just wanted to see the pictures of what I expected to be a beautiful landscape. And darn it, I went and scared Scott away with my red letters. :-( Sorry, Scott.

As for the neighbors, if everyone in the neighborhood has a gardner or landscape maintenance company, then they're a different kind of people than I know. For me, the joy of gardening is doing it myself. Or at least, as much as I can. I'm also of the opinion, perhaps erroneous, that people in fancy neighborhoods and gated communities have some very rigid expectations of how things are to be.

Funny, too; I've lived in neighborhoods with scattered Indian reservation land. At least half the gripes between the whites and the Indians was about lawns; specifically, why don't the Indians have nice lawns like "we" do? Frankly, I saw the lawns as the eyesore.

Just my 2 cents. And not in red.

Rain2Fall

I don't use pesticides or herbicides on my grass, but I will synthetic fertilizers. I do have a reel mower, which I love mainly because it's so quiet! My grass has the usual grub damage, but that pales in comparison to the salt burns from the canine unit. It's not golf course quality grass by any means, but its passable.

Sorry he/she feels this way. I much enjoy the Design forum, BUT it makes me think of my neighborhood which has lots of nice, helpful, caring people and a small number of weirdos/dissidents, who, IMO, sour the mix. I'm able to ignore them, and try to do the same when reading here.

My 2 cents,
Rosie, Sugar Hill, GA

So SeanSmith, you did the right thing. You hired a "well known, licensed landscape architect recognized for his minimalist designs", and installed a drought tolerant garden.
Kudos to you.
Fantastic.
Fabulous.
Wonderful.
You're da bomb !
Cling , Cling.. - that's champagne glasses toasting to you.
Invite your neighbors over for a glass of champagne to celebrate your garden.
Woopee.

Seansmith has posted questions all over gardenweb about his new landscaping. Every question with the exception of this one got one or two responses, provoked no discussion and was generally uninformative. I am not sure this discussion is informative...but it is at the very least thought provoking and interesting.

I really like the design forum, because if the weirdos and deviants here like your question, there will certainly be an interesting response. I rarely find any of it offensive- I think some people are just looking to get angry. There is another thread about a landscape plan right now in which the OP is getting an unbelievable amount of free professional landscape advice - there aren't any other forums where that would happen.

He got plenty of direct advice on the topic (i.e be self confident in your decision), so it was informative. Maybe some advice he could have been given while he was here was still here was some stats on herbicide/pesticides in run-off and the how emmissions from lawn equipment are not regulated yet.

In my own town of Berkeley, it is so full of examples of different garden styles that don't have any lawn, that we tend to take it for granted that one is free to do their own thing garden wise. It would sound ridiculous to hear someone say they felt criticized for not having a lawn, but instead would sound more like the OP was inclined to want to hear complements about their wisdom in their choices.

People who tend to spend a lot of money on their landscaping around here usually try to be less conspicuous about it, and tend to keep things more private and less visible from the street. It may be a function of our smaller lot sizes here, and the need to create private areas both front and back to accomodate everything; big front yards of lawn open to the street for public view, with interconnecting lawns across property lines are not the norm here, and a complete waste of space for most modern families. Since we also have a strong latin/spanish influence on garden design here for historical and climatic reasons, walled gardens at the street actually make a lot of sense here, and at least here in Berkeley, are perfectly acceptable both socially and environmentally. And what goes on behind closed doors/tall walls needn't be concerned with the neighbor's feelings...

Sean had a suspect motive but touched a nerve for which it was not necessary to attack him personally because this may be the way to stimulate an otherwise turgid forum. It brought out articulate responses from plant experts (David) and "what do you want to do here" experts (Andrew) we even aroused the dead diva so it can't be all bad.

Do designers like the three I have mentioned above think beyond lawn with flowering cherry in the middle?

I friggin' hope so . (in red, LARGE)

There were lots of references to "spirited debates" that are completely missing from the thread. There are references to the opposing point of view which also seems to be missing from the thread.

The thread is called "lawn fanatics on the attack" then the OP writes "None of our neighbors are assaulting us or arriving on our doorstep with torches".

Then several people act like the OP was abused? Maybe I live in a different hardiness zone or something, but I don't get it. I re-read the thread over and over and I don't see any of it.

I think the title was a pun because of so many bitter obsessively normal types, but the original poster said he didn't have that as of yet. It sounded to me like he was surprised.

Instead of arguing what you may have thought he said and scaring the poor man off for good, why not make normal conversation about lawnless landscaping?

I would have loved to seen the ideas!

Rain2Fall

This thread had not really interested me because to have a lawn or not is, to me, just a personal choice. But I do think that rain2fall's idea of starting a new thread with options for those that wish to do so is a good one.

Thanks for sharing, Botann. Has anyone else 'gone lawnless'?

I also went lawnless this summer. It was a personal choice. I am now using a lot of drought tolerant plants and succulents like tree aloes, some agaves, furcraea, beschorneria... Since most of the plants were planted in May and June, they are not at their mature size.

I've been torn between wanting to share and not sharing for fear of criticism. Anyway, here goes nothing:

This is a general view of the south end of the yard. The patio was pre-existing, as were the queen palm and some trees on the far left.

This is what the same area use to look like in May 2008

Thse are some succulents. I really like the color combination of the blue agave gypsophila & the Euphorbia Tirucalli. Some of the Aloes here will eventually grow into small trees (Aloe Pluridens and Aloe Alooides)

This is the view as you stand on the patio and look towards the awkward 45 degree angled corner.

There you go! Have at it, but be gentle please.

Anyone else feel like the before picture is drawing you to be interested in what is beyond the wall (in a negative way) and the after picture makes you content to "stay" in within the yard?

Definitely an improvement.

One issue with the anti-lawn people is that it's black or white issue to them. Synthetic fertilizers, herbicides, excessive watering, and pesticides are viewed as evil and a source of runoff pollution of watersheds and exposure, so that the way to stop that is to stop the lawn.

Also, lawn is a stress on resources in some regions and where, when, and for what purposes it should be used for. It is not such a stress in other regions such as ours.

Central Cali, your landscape is much improved. So colorful! So interesting! I could sit on your patio and look at the plants for hours. Congratulations.

I agree with Rhodium as well. We thought we would need a lawn at the time we installed it. We would always have friends and family over, and we love to have a good barbeque, so we figured a lawn would be the best option. It turns out, we opted for eating indoors a majority of the time because it was either too hot or too cold outside! lol (our summer temperatures can easily reach 115F and more). Even if we ended up eating outside, we would stay under the ramada (to the right of the pictures above). It's been about 4 years since that. It was always such a hassle to mow the lawn, fertilize it, water dry spots... all for looks, since we hardly gave it its intended use. This summer was the last straw for me. The pressing drought issues along with what i've already mentioned made me take the lawn out. It was a rather slow process since I took out pieces as I had the money to replant the bare spots. Plus, I added some mounds here and there to give my aloes good drainage. Like laag mentioned, it makes you content to stay in the garden. And we use the area even more now that the lawn is gone!

The before pic makes the patio look like a helicopter landing pad.

At the present rate of planting, non-grass species will totally replace our lawn sometime around 2097, though I may not be around to see this outcome.

From the OP:

"Our garden was designed by a well known, licensed landscape architect recognized for his minimalist designs. Our problem is not with our garden or its design, it is with our neighbors and those who pass by. "

Obviously the best solution here is to take out the present garden and replace it with a square of lawn. The homeowners achieve a true minimalist design and the neighbors are happy.

It is nice to see postings from the LD forum crew after all this time.

"Weirdos, deviants and dissidents"

Oh my! :)