Is this the future?
#21
(09-02-2015, 07:22 PM)Cuzz Wrote: I would maintain landscaping serves more purposes then just eye wash. Though I don't think the visual impact should be completely discounted. It also provides a place for birds and insects to live and survive. It helps moderate temperatures. Not like an air conditioner, but think about standing in the middle of a park as opposed to a parking lot on a hot day. Landscaping doesn't have to take great amounts of water if the right type of plants are used. This whole idea seems to have come from a low imagination bureaucrat.

Very well spoken. There are numerous plants, especially natives, which when properly located, require minimal watering once established. Bark? God forbid.  A grounds with no plants is like a room with no pictures - depressing.
Reply
#22
(09-02-2015, 07:44 PM)tornado Wrote:
(09-02-2015, 07:22 PM)Cuzz Wrote: I would maintain landscaping serves more purposes then just eye wash. Though I don't think the visual impact should be completely discounted. It also provides a place for birds and insects to live and survive. It helps moderate temperatures. Not like an air conditioner, but think about standing in the middle of a park as opposed to a parking lot on a hot day. Landscaping doesn't have to take great amounts of water if the right type of plants are used. This whole idea seems to have come from a low imagination bureaucrat.

Very well spoken. There are numerous plants, especially natives, which when properly located, require minimal watering once established. Bark? God forbid.  A grounds with no plants is like a room with no pictures - depressing.

I just wonder if saving water is really at the bottom of this edict or if it's a convenient reason for just wanting to control the appearance of the property?
Reply
#23
(09-02-2015, 08:17 PM)Tiamat Wrote:
(09-02-2015, 07:44 PM)tornado Wrote:
(09-02-2015, 07:22 PM)Cuzz Wrote: I would maintain landscaping serves more purposes then just eye wash. Though I don't think the visual impact should be completely discounted. It also provides a place for birds and insects to live and survive. It helps moderate temperatures. Not like an air conditioner, but think about standing in the middle of a park as opposed to a parking lot on a hot day. Landscaping doesn't have to take great amounts of water if the right type of plants are used. This whole idea seems to have come from a low imagination bureaucrat.

Very well spoken. There are numerous plants, especially natives, which when properly located, require minimal watering once established. Bark? God forbid.  A grounds with no plants is like a room with no pictures - depressing.

I just wonder if saving water is really at the bottom of this edict or if it's a convenient reason for just wanting to control the appearance of the property?

If someone is concerned about the appearance of the property, this would be the exact wrong thing to do.
Reply
#24
(09-02-2015, 08:29 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(09-02-2015, 08:17 PM)Tiamat Wrote:
(09-02-2015, 07:44 PM)tornado Wrote:
(09-02-2015, 07:22 PM)Cuzz Wrote: I would maintain landscaping serves more purposes then just eye wash. Though I don't think the visual impact should be completely discounted. It also provides a place for birds and insects to live and survive. It helps moderate temperatures. Not like an air conditioner, but think about standing in the middle of a park as opposed to a parking lot on a hot day. Landscaping doesn't have to take great amounts of water if the right type of plants are used. This whole idea seems to have come from a low imagination bureaucrat.

Very well spoken. There are numerous plants, especially natives, which when properly located, require minimal watering once established. Bark? God forbid.  A grounds with no plants is like a room with no pictures - depressing.

I just wonder if saving water is really at the bottom of this edict or if it's a convenient reason for just wanting to control the appearance of the property?

If someone is concerned about the appearance of the property, this would be the exact wrong thing to do.

Well, if the gardens are unkempt or messy.  Some people are very finicky.  I like Cletus's nice, orderly garden. But I like TV's too. But I bet some people wouldn't.
Reply
#25
(09-02-2015, 08:31 PM)Tiamat Wrote:
(09-02-2015, 08:29 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(09-02-2015, 08:17 PM)Tiamat Wrote:
(09-02-2015, 07:44 PM)tornado Wrote:
(09-02-2015, 07:22 PM)Cuzz Wrote: I would maintain landscaping serves more purposes then just eye wash. Though I don't think the visual impact should be completely discounted. It also provides a place for birds and insects to live and survive. It helps moderate temperatures. Not like an air conditioner, but think about standing in the middle of a park as opposed to a parking lot on a hot day. Landscaping doesn't have to take great amounts of water if the right type of plants are used. This whole idea seems to have come from a low imagination bureaucrat.

Very well spoken. There are numerous plants, especially natives, which when properly located, require minimal watering once established. Bark? God forbid.  A grounds with no plants is like a room with no pictures - depressing.

I just wonder if saving water is really at the bottom of this edict or if it's a convenient reason for just wanting to control the appearance of the property?

If someone is concerned about the appearance of the property, this would be the exact wrong thing to do.

Well, if the gardens are unkempt or messy.  Some people are very finicky.  I like Cletus's nice, orderly garden. But I like TV's too. But I bet some people wouldn't.

You could be right. But, I wouldn't even know how to relate to people who don't like vegetation and would prefer dead bark instead. Personally even unkempt or messy gardens are preferable.
Reply
#26
(09-02-2015, 08:39 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(09-02-2015, 08:31 PM)Tiamat Wrote:
(09-02-2015, 08:29 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(09-02-2015, 08:17 PM)Tiamat Wrote:
(09-02-2015, 07:44 PM)tornado Wrote: Very well spoken. There are numerous plants, especially natives, which when properly located, require minimal watering once established. Bark? God forbid.  A grounds with no plants is like a room with no pictures - depressing.

I just wonder if saving water is really at the bottom of this edict or if it's a convenient reason for just wanting to control the appearance of the property?

If someone is concerned about the appearance of the property, this would be the exact wrong thing to do.

Well, if the gardens are unkempt or messy.  Some people are very finicky.  I like Cletus's nice, orderly garden. But I like TV's too. But I bet some people wouldn't.

You could be right. But, I wouldn't even know how to relate to people who don't like vegetation and would prefer dead bark instead. Personally even unkempt or messy gardens are preferable.

Some people  prefer sterile bark.  Yech!
Reply
#27
(09-02-2015, 08:17 PM)Tiamat Wrote:
(09-02-2015, 07:44 PM)tornado Wrote:
(09-02-2015, 07:22 PM)Cuzz Wrote: I would maintain landscaping serves more purposes then just eye wash. Though I don't think the visual impact should be completely discounted. It also provides a place for birds and insects to live and survive. It helps moderate temperatures. Not like an air conditioner, but think about standing in the m God does not control people iddle of a park as opposed to a parking lot on a hot day. Landscaping doesn't have to take great amounts of water if the right type of plants are used. This whole idea seems to have come from a low imagination bureaucrat.

Very well spoken. There are numerous plants, especially natives, which when properly located, require minimal watering once established. Bark? God forbid.  A grounds with no plants is like a room with no pictures - depressing.

I just wonder if saving water is really at the bottom of this edict or if it's a convenient reason for just wanting to control the appearance of the property?

Well the article didn't say how much money will be saved by refusing to allow people to use all that water. But I totally don't believe the motive is anything other than to save water/money$$$$$$$$.

Does anyone out there live in a city and water a lawn? I think it's fairly expensive.
 


And Cuzz, I consider myself to be an environmentalist but I can't see where this is a real significant benefit for birds and insects or for moderating temperatures.
Reply
#28
(09-03-2015, 11:20 AM)tvguy Wrote:
(09-02-2015, 08:17 PM)Tiamat Wrote:
(09-02-2015, 07:44 PM)tornado Wrote:
(09-02-2015, 07:22 PM)Cuzz Wrote: I would maintain landscaping serves more purposes then just eye wash. Though I don't think the visual impact should be completely discounted. It also provides a place for birds and insects to live and survive. It helps moderate temperatures. Not like an air conditioner, but think about standing in the m God does not control people iddle of a park as opposed to a parking lot on a hot day. Landscaping doesn't have to take great amounts of water if the right type of plants are used. This whole idea seems to have come from a low imagination bureaucrat.

Very well spoken. There are numerous plants, especially natives, which when properly located, require minimal watering once established. Bark? God forbid.  A grounds with no plants is like a room with no pictures - depressing.

I just wonder if saving water is really at the bottom of this edict or if it's a convenient reason for just wanting to control the appearance of the property?

Well the article didn't say how much money will be saved by refusing to allow people to use all that water. But I totally don't believe the motive is anything other than to save water/money$$$$$$$$.

Does anyone out there live in a city and water a lawn? I think it's fairly expensive.
 


And Cuzz, I consider myself to be an environmentalist but I can't see where this is a real significant benefit for birds and insects or for moderating temperatures.

No, of course. One property won't impact birds and insects, except on that property, maybe. The idea is the more properties that do this the greater the impact. It's incremental. As for temperatures, if there were two identical lots, side by side, one landscaped and one just bare dirt, the bare lot will feel hotter to lounge about in your hammock.  Surprised
Reply
#29
(09-03-2015, 11:20 AM)tvguy Wrote:
(09-02-2015, 08:17 PM)Tiamat Wrote:
(09-02-2015, 07:44 PM)tornado Wrote:
(09-02-2015, 07:22 PM)Cuzz Wrote: I would maintain landscaping serves more purposes then just eye wash. Though I don't think the visual impact should be completely discounted. It also provides a place for birds and insects to live and survive. It helps moderate temperatures. Not like an air conditioner, but think about standing in the m God does not control people iddle of a park as opposed to a parking lot on a hot day. Landscaping doesn't have to take great amounts of water if the right type of plants are used. This whole idea seems to have come from a low imagination bureaucrat.

Very well spoken. There are numerous plants, especially natives, which when properly located, require minimal watering once established. Bark? God forbid.  A grounds with no plants is like a room with no pictures - depressing.

I just wonder if saving water is really at the bottom of this edict or if it's a convenient reason for just wanting to control the appearance of the property?

Well the article didn't say how much money will be saved by refusing to allow people to use all that water. But I totally don't believe the motive is anything other than to save water/money$$$$$$$$.

Does anyone out there live in a city and water a lawn? I think it's fairly expensive.
 


And Cuzz, I consider myself to be an environmentalist but I can't see where this is a real significant benefit for birds and insects or for moderating temperatures.

Not so much.
Reply
#30
Maybe they would let them have waterless gardens. The $-store sells plastic flowers, they could let them plant those.

I bet if you shopped around, you could find plastic carrots and tomato plants.
Reply
#31
(09-03-2015, 09:03 PM)chuck white Wrote: Maybe they would let them have waterless gardens. The $-store sells plastic flowers, they could let them plant those.

Classy!
Reply
#32
(09-03-2015, 09:04 PM)Tiamat Wrote:
(09-03-2015, 09:03 PM)chuck white Wrote: Maybe they would let them have waterless gardens. The $-store sells plastic flowers, they could let them plant those.

Classy!

For those with brown thumbs?

http://thecuriouseye.blogspot.com/2009/0...arden.html
Reply
#33
(09-03-2015, 09:19 PM)Valuesize Wrote:
(09-03-2015, 09:04 PM)Tiamat Wrote:
(09-03-2015, 09:03 PM)chuck white Wrote: Maybe they would let them have waterless gardens. The $-store sells plastic flowers, they could let them plant those.

Classy!

For those with brown thumbs?

http://thecuriouseye.blogspot.com/2009/0...arden.html

Now, that's what I'm talking about.
Reply
#34
(09-03-2015, 09:36 PM)chuck white Wrote:
(09-03-2015, 09:19 PM)Valuesize Wrote:
(09-03-2015, 09:04 PM)Tiamat Wrote:
(09-03-2015, 09:03 PM)chuck white Wrote: Maybe they would let them have waterless gardens. The $-store sells plastic flowers, they could let them plant those.

Classy!

For those with brown thumbs?

http://thecuriouseye.blogspot.com/2009/0...arden.html

Now, that's what I'm talking about.

Duh, you can just go the the cemetery and steal plastic flowers.
Reply
#35
(09-03-2015, 09:40 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(09-03-2015, 09:36 PM)chuck white Wrote:
(09-03-2015, 09:19 PM)Valuesize Wrote:
(09-03-2015, 09:04 PM)Tiamat Wrote:
(09-03-2015, 09:03 PM)chuck white Wrote: Maybe they would let them have waterless gardens. The $-store sells plastic flowers, they could let them plant those.

Classy!

For those with brown thumbs?

http://thecuriouseye.blogspot.com/2009/0...arden.html

Now, that's what I'm talking about.

Duh, you can just go the the cemetery and steal plastic flowers.

I had a friend (Ya, a long time ago) who worked for a cemetery, mowed the lawn and maintenance etc.  One of his duties was to remove the flowers after a week or two. He would come by with a pick up truck full of plastic flowers. The girls would all go nuts.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)