And a public good. They keep things cooler when it's really hot out, keep things warmer when it's really cool out, mildly improve air quality, reduces noise pollution, provide measurable mental health benefits, and so on.
Around here removing big trees is illegal, on your property or not. I'm a fan.
Open soil instead of pavement also helps reduce flooding during heavy rainfall since the ground absorbs water instead of just making it run off to somewhere else.
Considering they also took out the shrubs I’m betting not, though that tree closest to the house the roots may have been affecting the foundation I guess.
If I can walk two minutes and get to a park, I wouldn't mind not having a lawn. I imagine such a situation is unthinkable for people who are reacting strongly here. I personally live seconds away from a green space.
Just steal the image and put the source in the body text. That way you're not redirecting everyone to reddit. Sort of defeats the purpose of the protests.
Man I don't know, that's weird. Maybe they just prefer it this way? Some people don't like the cottage/nature kind of aesthetic. I think their house is ugly as sin but it's just a matter of personal taste.
Just before the previous owners of my house decided to put the house on the market they painted all wood inside (stairs, doors, door frames, window frames, skirting) pitch black.
Yes thanks, I enjoy living in a cave. Removing, sanding and painting all that will take me 100s of hours.
Oh, and it was done with the cheapest paint possible while painting over all hinges, locks and sometimes windows.
I would have left the trees alone, but removed the grass and covered it with small black and grey stones. That way the trees would still look nice, and the rain water can still pass through the rocks and prevent flooding, unlike this mess.
This looks like a business now, it’s not a home anymore.
Yah, that doesn't work that way. Water needs to get pulled into plants or water channels created by dead plant root systems, or it just runs off. This is why deserts have flash floods.
It should actually be an offence for someone to do this. That change from garden to hard standing will cause issues with any drains and probably cause flooding.
People are focusing on the house in the middle, but if you look at he whole picture, it isn't that one house. It's every single house on both streets. It's not just this specific owner. If this were the US, I'd suspect a HOA at work.
Not sure if joking, but councils are in charge of the municipal borough - usually a big town/city and the area around it.
Some people rent their houses from the council - council houses. This tends to mainly be people on low income, as the rates are low.
Because these are rented, the council can make sure you are not doing anything to harm the value of the house. When the houses need maintenance (new windows, new roofs), the council will perform it at no cost to the tenants - usually an entire estate at once, which is why they look alike.
Obviously the council has no say over houses it doesn't own. Unless you are breaking the law in some way (e.g. causing a health concern), you're allowed to do what you want.
The house was horrible enough to start with; a characterless inter-war bungalow with fake timbering and fake leaded glass. The conversion is just differently horrible.
For me it's the destruction of the garden that warrants it being here. I know it's the UK so the sun isn't always available (edit: just seen the Zoopla link, it's Bolton, so change "always" to "ever") , but losing shade and shelter like that is a tragedy in any climate.
I do. I'm not sure how much of an issue it is in other countries, but most (if not all) lawn grasses grown in the States are actually non-native (yes, even "Kentucky Bluegrass", which is actually native to Europe). I wouldn't really mind lawns as much if it was normal to use native ground cover.
Lots of people, including myself. There are even "nolawn" communities here and on reddit. The reddit one is very active. Lawns, at least in the US, are practically an ecological wasteland. They use non-native grasses, typically lots of fertilizers and herbicides and pesticides which are terrible for the local pollinator populations (save the bees!), and removing trees and shrubbery in order to have a manicured lawn reduces habitat for birds, bats, and various, essential other species.
It is much better to use native plants in your yard.
I personally don't like it, but I respect their right to do whatever the fuck they want with their property. If they want a fugly house, then that's their right.
Honestly, no. At least where I live, they're finally starting to do something against gravel gardens. They are illegal here (have been for decades but no-one did anything against it) and they're absolutely terrible for the environment and destroying green space (additionally to them being very bad for bees and further sealing the floor which is awful when any flood happens). Luckily people shouldn't be able to do absolutely everything they want if it hurts everyone so much.
Gravel gardens seal the ground? I thought it was just gravel on top of dirt.
I would prefer housing authorities don't require manicured grass lawns. They are so expensive to keep up and repair, especially since many don't use native grass species so they need watering in the summer if you don't want them to go brown.
I think it depends on where the yard is. A luscious green garden of non-native plants is a waste of water in desert areas. With the kinds of droughts that are becoming more common, replacing yards with rocks and low-water native plants is beneficial. And to be honest, even in areas that aren't in a drought, manicured lawns don't do much for the environment because they get loaded with pesticides and fertilizers to keep them as green and homogenous as possible. No flowers, no weeds, no bugs, no seeds, no diversity.
100% agree this is a terrible looking house- I think the function of the raised platform must be because it's on a dangerous corner or intersection, so it acts as a safety structure from vehicles. They would've gotten special planning permission to do something like that.
I suspect that the shrubs and tree to the left of the picture had started destroying the retaining wall. You can see that there are wall-coloured encroachments onto the pavement on that side.
The house isn't at a corner, as such - the street to the side is bollarded off.
So, given that the trees and retaining wall needed replacing, I'm guessing they took the opportunity to build the wall higher and level the whole garden. I probably would try to level it if I was rebuilding the wall too.
I wonder if not backfilling the wall with soil means it no longer counts as a retaining wall, and thus circumvents some planning / structural issues.
I found a real estate listing for the house (yes, you could own this beauty), but I don't know if posting it would count as doxxing per community rules, so I won't. In any case, this is not a business.
They want £300k+. Based on what was written, the whole idea was minimal maintenance and maximum room for parking. The back yard/back "garden" is the same as the front: just a bunch of tile. The interior is less offensive, but just what you'd expect: very modern, lots of black and white and bold shapes.
That's an architect's house right there. Guaranteed. Stark feel, contrasting colors, even geometric lines, minimal but very intentional organic elements ("plants" in the windows - probably fake). I'm in the business and have worked on architect's houses. They are generally split 80/20 between ridiculous modern art and warm, inviting, immensely functional spaces. There is no in between.
There are alternatives to having a lawn. The great people over at [email protected] can help you.
Personally, I've replaced large areas with native plants. They take care of themselves.