[veltas]

My young children both love the lawn and I can tell they get a lot from interacting with it, playing on it, etc. It is a little bit of accessible greenery in my small back-garden and I don't need to water it, just mow it occasionally.

[philips]

I recently tore out my lawn and co-designed a native yard with my kids. We designed a map together with very narrow wood chip paths to play on and brought in soil to create berms for height variety. They love running around playing tag or hiding from each other. Once they get older I can imagine friends will enjoy capture the flag or foam dart wars in the space.

We had one small japanese maple tree that they designated as a reading / relaxation area and have been using that too.

I think the biggest thing was the berms + paths around and over them. The topographical variety added a lot of play opportunities.

All that said we kept a small patch of grass- but it just isn't the entire yard as it was when we got our place.

Edit: removed counter point as a phrase

[veltas]

I don't know how this is a counter-point, isn't it just a point? Can lawns co-exist with no lawns?

EDIT: parent has removed "counter-point".

[2000UltraDeluxe]

Indeed. Small lawn for sports and activites + large forest garden is a nice combo if it's an option.

[philips]

Sure, fair.

I read your comment can be read as a reconfirmation of the articles thesis that we love lawns because they are always great for people where I am offering a counter-point that kids also love non-lawn yards.

Not creating an argument- just offering a different point.

[snowe2010]

How is this a counter point? Do you know that their kids don’t like playing in the grass?