Asklemmy

The 50s happened.

We do. Obviously not everyone can But I wager the number of Americans growing something edible on their space is decent. Usually it's easy stuff to grow, or someone's favorites.

Thinking about it and counting in my head I actually know dozens of people that grow tomatoes personally. They grow easily in large quantities in relatively small space and all taste better than store bought.

Citrus has been pretty plentiful my entire life too. Lemon trees especially.

It’s a stupid reason. Historically, if you were a peasant and had been granted access to land, you grew food or herbs. If however you were a lord, you got your food from your peasants. You had no need to grow your own food. So they could afford to grow lawns as a sign of wealth.

This has transferred across into the modern psyche. Lawns are a way of saying “i’m so rich, i don’t have to worry about sustenance. In fact i’ll throw money at it to maintain this slab of green rather than have it provide food, or shade.”

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-modern-brain/202002/the-strange-psychology-the-american-lawn

As someone who lives in an ex-industrial city (Birmingham Alabama), I’ve always been worried about air pollution and tainted soil (there are superfund sites nearby). I feel like every thing would have to be above ground and covered. That seems like a lot of work. Should I be worried?

Why aren't people everywhere?

We have grass in the front and a backyard with fruits and veggies.

Some do. Grass just got into the pop culture as the "proper" look for a residential property. But having fruit trees is amazing, especially in spring when they are all in bloom with flowers.

Bugs, pests, and animals, at least where I live. Unless you build a green house, clear the yard of all other foliage, or somehow fortify your garden, only produce with natural defenses like peppers will make it to harvest. However, I am jealous of my friends on the west coast, who don't really have to worry about bugs or other critters eating from their fruit trees just passively growing in their yard.

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 eventually become rigid tradition, and as always it falls to the next generation to question the way things are done. Hopefully we will, but it will take a moment.

You’re talking about a country that has no universal healthcare, record gun violence, divisive civil political unrest, low education and health compared to other developed countries, record wealth inequality, lies and propaganda coming from their federal government, policies that attack allies and work with dictatorships… and people are wondering why they can’t plant trees instead of grass?

HOAs say “ew no that’s for the poors” and good luck finding a house that’s not in an HOA within a reasonable commute to your job

Growing crops is quite a bit of cost and effort and time. I have a little garden, but it's not like you just plant some seeds and you're all done.

Because this is illegal in most of America. You would be fined and the city would probably send a crew out to rip it all up and give you the invoice if you defied it and left it that way.

Can speak for everyone, but we do

I’m tryin’, man. Fruit bearing plants take a lot of work compared to the manicured suburban steriscape. They’re not super easy to grow (depending on where you live), require pruning and fertilizer, soil amendment, and unfortunately pesticides or fencing if you don’t want insects or deer destroying your hard work.

That’s way more effort than most people want to expend. HOAs or even local ordinances may also restrict what can be grown.

We do? Some ppl dont, we have sugarcane, oranges, lemons, eggplants, peppers, and I forget the rest, my dad/grandpa are more into gardening. Its just not realistic to do a lot, cheaper and a lot faster to go the grocery storec more variety, hoemgrown stuff is ususlly more of an addon.

I know exactly what you mean, I lived in a small town in Eastern Europe and the streets are literally lined with fruit trees and everyone has a walnut tree in their yard, it’s literally free food. The cherries were the best.

I've lived in 9 states and in every neighborhood many people have food producing plants. It's one of the healthiest hobbies you can have.

I love gardening and have a small orchard and have other food plants all around my house, but I still maintain a lawn because it gets my kids outside playing sports, it's a very multifunctional space, and because covering every square inch of my property in food bearing plants would be way more work and time than we have to give. In every home (except Arizona) I've kept at least some portion of the property as grass lawn.

Some people latch on to your idea but then a few years later end up with an unmaintained berry bramble of a yard full of invasive food plants that is totally unusable. Moderation and common sense in all things.

The answer is they were a wealthy European concept brought to the colonies as a status symbol. They are still associated with wealthier people which raises property values, so are enshrined in local ordinances and HOA rules.

My landlord would get a fine from the city and it would be tacked on to my rent.

We do, though? I have mulberries and gooseberries instead of decorative plants, along with various edible cabbages and herbs, and clover for bees.

And that's not unusual for my neighborhood. We're always swapping for mint and zucchini and squash and eggs with our neighbors, and one time even maple syrup!

Most people have both. A lawn is good to play on.