We don't exactly live in the land of wide open spaces—and most of the teensy-tiny fraction of an acre that we (and our bank) own is taken up with the house, the pool, the garage and a wide swathe of concrete in the back. Which leaves us with two dinky patches of grass in the front, one narrow swath of "garden" (we're talking 1 foot by 15 feet) in the back, and a few plants and trees in the front. I've often wondered if we should go ahead and do what this guy suggests, and do away with mowing in favor of weeding and pruning...and perhaps, a strawberry plant or two among the wildness.
This kind of landscaping is really more suited to our abilities, as most of our "lawn" right now looks like it's actually crab grass...and we're too freaked out about putting chemicals on our grass to do anything about it.
The only thing that holds me back is the thought that as the girls get older, they may want to play games in the yard (tag and such), and the concrete patio in the back isn't exactly the right place for that. But my oldest seems to prefer indoor activities to outdoor, and my youngest seems a bit freaked out by walking on grass. (Maybe it's the crab grass that's freaking her out?) Of course, there is always the playground right across the street, which is where we go to run anyway...
I'm sure that this would garner even more ire from the senior neighbors on our block, who all look disdainfully at our needs-paint-or-new-siding house and our less-than-suburban-quality "wild" garden. (Hey, we fixed the crooked front light and crappy screen door this year...what more should they be asking for?)
What do you think? Should we go all the way with the all-natural look?
Comments