In, or in the yard of? We’re not talking about indoor houseplants, I assume.
If outside is what you mean, it goes back to the days of aristocracy. Having land you don’t use for food was a form of conspicuous consumption, and you had sports for the elite grow up around stretches of short grass as a result, like golf and polo. The former is still synonymous with the well-off, even.
Then you have to skip ahead to the 1950’s and 60’s in America, where the “mid-century modern” philosophy of urban planning gains prominence. The idea was to get people out of the crowded, Victorian-style slums, which we might find quaint in hindsight, but at the time were very stigmatised. This extended to a certain disdain for cities and buildings in general, even - more nature was better. So, where do you put people? In tiny little rural estates modeled on the ones popular with aristocrats, separated by zoning laws from the other sections of the city.
The vision was that people would get home from their 9-5 jobs in the commercial-only zones in their very own car, and would hang out outside enjoying their government-mandated leisure time. The urban planners of the time probably pictured a giant croquet course going up and down a residential street, and the all-white 3.5 kid families that live there sitting outside on lawn chairs, playing friendly games against each other. These “white picket fence” suburbs had lawns, then, because you couldn’t have semi-rural domestic bliss without them, according to some architects who graduated Harvard in 1920.
In practice, of course, none of that happened. Like so many other tidy ideas it failed to predict how the general public would interact with it. I’ve been around plenty of places like that. You know the names of your neighbor, but not much else about them, and the people a few doors down are suspect of being pedophiles or violent drug dealers. That fence line is sacred, each house becomes an island, and you’re frightfully dependent on driving to get anywhere you can do basic errands. And that’s not even getting into the racial issues that came out of it.
Now, in the 21st century, people assume houses have always had lawns, and messing with that formula irritates the local NIMBYs. New ideas become rigid tradition, and it falls to the next generation to question them. Hopefully we will, but it will take a moment.
I have to point out, Versailles did have quite a bit of lawn and certainly helped, but the concept of decorative short grass predates it, and even existed in the some of the American civilisations using a totally different plant IIRC. The Wikipedia article notes several medieval examples.
In, or in the yard of? We’re not talking about indoor houseplants, I assume.
If outside is what you mean, it goes back to the days of aristocracy. Having land you don’t use for food was a form of conspicuous consumption, and you had sports for the elite grow up around stretches of short grass as a result, like golf and polo. The former is still synonymous with the well-off, even.
Then you have to skip ahead to the 1950’s and 60’s in America, where the “mid-century modern” philosophy of urban planning gains prominence. The idea was to get people out of the crowded, Victorian-style slums, which we might find quaint in hindsight, but at the time were very stigmatised. This extended to a certain disdain for cities and buildings in general, even - more nature was better. So, where do you put people? In tiny little rural estates modeled on the ones popular with aristocrats, separated by zoning laws from the other sections of the city.
The vision was that people would get home from their 9-5 jobs in the commercial-only zones in their very own car, and would hang out outside enjoying their government-mandated leisure time. The urban planners of the time probably pictured a giant croquet course going up and down a residential street, and the all-white 3.5 kid families that live there sitting outside on lawn chairs, playing friendly games against each other. These “white picket fence” suburbs had lawns, then, because you couldn’t have semi-rural domestic bliss without them, according to some architects who graduated Harvard in 1920.
In practice, of course, none of that happened. Like so many other tidy ideas it failed to predict how the general public would interact with it. I’ve been around plenty of places like that. You know the names of your neighbor, but not much else about them, and the people a few doors down are suspect of being pedophiles or violent drug dealers. That fence line is sacred, each house becomes an island, and you’re frightfully dependent on driving to get anywhere you can do basic errands. And that’s not even getting into the racial issues that came out of it.
Now, in the 21st century, people assume houses have always had lawns, and messing with that formula irritates the local NIMBYs. New ideas become rigid tradition, and it falls to the next generation to question them. Hopefully we will, but it will take a moment.
Thanks, you explained better than I would have. I was going to go on a tangent about Louis XIV showing the other aristocrats his new “lawn” concept.
Thanks.
I have to point out, Versailles did have quite a bit of lawn and certainly helped, but the concept of decorative short grass predates it, and even existed in the some of the American civilisations using a totally different plant IIRC. The Wikipedia article notes several medieval examples.