[blackjack_]

I have 2/3rd of an acre, but most of it is a 45 degree hill, so it's more like a full acre equivalent of flat ground (except drastically more of a pain). Pulling weeds up several hundred feet of steep hillside that grow back constantly is a punishment worthy of Sisyphus.

It hadn't been done for about 5 years when we moved in, so one of the neighbors spent 200 hours cleaning it up for us. Not joking, 200 hours of labor. Scotch Broom is a literal nightmare.

[chongli]

Why not get rid of most of the grass (especially on the hill) and put in a perennial garden of hardy (for your zone) shrubs and trees?

[bell-cot]

> Why not get rid of...

Soil erosion.

[alistairSH]

There are other ground covers and plant options that don’t require weekly mowing. Creeping junipers and native bunch grasses come to mind.

[bell-cot]

True. But on a large and very steep hillside - "2/3rd of an acre, but most of it is a 45 degree hill" - it can be extremely difficult to replace the plants holding onto the soil, without experiencing horrible erosion during the transition.

[alistairSH]

Yep. Depending on the property layout, and how close that slope is to the house, it might be something to contract out and have hardscaping and drainage done.

My last house didn't have anywhere near as much land, but there was a fairly steep hill on the back of the house. We ended up having part of the slope dug out and a "seat-height" retaining wall installed, with drainage installed as part of the build, and lots of low-maintenance plantings. Reduced the work from weekly mowing on a slope to occasional weeding and trimming. But, it wasn't cheap to do properly.

[eudamoniac]

Weeds are pioneers, helping the soil, when nothing else can grow (or is allowed to). First of all why do you need to get rid of those weeds? Second of all, if you improve the soil and go through successive plantings of larger things, the weeds will be outcompeted.