[WillAdams]

Only the rich can afford to own nothing/exert effort to have empty space without consequence.

Ordinary folks when presented with an object have to perform a mental calculation over the cost/inconvenience of storage vs. disposal and if wanted again, replacement.

[fcarraldo]

The rich also can afford to keep their minimalist modern spaces clean and clutter-free, through paying staff. These environments tend to look awful when not tended to continuously because a single out-of-place item is so clearly visible.

Cluttered old homes with lots of things all over the place make it a bit less jarring when there's a stack of work left out on a table.

[tpm]

> Cluttered old homes with lots of things all over the place make it a bit less jarring when there's a stack of work left out on a table.

that's wrong: my minimalist (in looks, not in equipment) all white kitchen looks completely fine even after a dinner party, because even then it doesn't look full, dirty or cluttered. The old one (and it wasn't that old, only there were more and darker colors and lines and objects) decidedly didn't. The art of designing modern spaces lies in the ability to make the space visually appealing (in my case minimal) while still able to function correctly. Too often the designers and their clients forget about the practical aspects.

[elf25]

Rich is a mindset. My kitchen has three spatulas. One i bought when i moved out, mom’s and grandma’s. I don’t NEED three but can’t afford to throw two away. Rich see two extra and toss two because it’s just a damn spatula and they KNOW that if they ever need two, they can afford to run out and buy one. Now expand that thought process to everything you own. Declutter becomes easier.

[tpm]

Or you can build enough cupboards to stash away three generations of cooking utensils and no clutter will be visible. But that too demands a bit of investment in terms of money and room space.

[ffaccount2]

I don't get it. Why did you buy a third spatula, if you consider it a significant expense (i.e you can't replace ones you have if they break), and you already have two.

[mghackerlady]

Perhaps they didn't have the other two already. From the phrasing, it seems they bought one when they moved out of their parents house and received/inherited the others

[kakacik]

They are awful to even look at, IHMO. Cold, sterile, tells something about people living in such fugly soulless places.

Which is fine to be honest, its nice to see clearly the type of person on the other side of the table, no need to dig through empty speech clutter for clues. But impressive it is not.

[snozolli]

Only the rich can afford to own nothing/exert effort to have empty space without consequence.

Reminds me of the reason that grass yards exist: to show the world that one can afford land for the sake of owning it, rather than for growing crops.

[pooploop64]

Lawns are for much more than just flexing. It's an outdoor part of your property which is flat and open enough to use for various activities and purposes. I don't know where people get such a cynical idea that this is THE reason anyone has lawns.

[jmbwell]

Yeah this is all very regional too. Row houses in London and brownstones in New York or whatever won’t have front lawns as a function of density, but may have back yards or gardens, which may or may not be a function of producing your own food, which is all tied up in different experiences of war, while certainly countryside estates are for form more than function, while post war housing in the midwestern US was in part a build-on-your-lot market with houses literally ordered from a Sears catalog…

There’s definitely more to the story and there are myriad factors.

[nly]

I live in a London terrace, originally built circa 1900.

There's plenty of evidence the rear gardens were used for growing food and drying laundry back then

Children would also play there where they could be seen from the kitchen (which was always in the rear), rather than playing in the road (as much)

Rear gardens also served as a space where you would converse with your neighbour. Typically fences between neighbours were low and wire (tall 6ft wooden fences came later)

The other thing is the only toilet in a 4 bedroom property would also be out there, as an outdoor WC, accessible from outside

I doubt much read space was reserved for lawn back then

[throw0101a]

> but may have back yards or gardens, which may or may not be a function of producing your own food, which is all tied up in different experiences of war

The neighbourhood of "Cabbagetown" in Toronto is so-named because yards were not used for 'ornamental' plants:

> Cabbagetown's name derives from the Irish immigrants who moved to the neighbourhood beginning in the late 1840s, said to have been so poor that they grew cabbage in their front yards.[2] Canadian writer Hugh Garner's novel, Cabbagetown, depicted life in the neighbourhood during the Great Depression.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabbagetown,_Toronto

[jyounker]

Sears stopped making homes in 1942. They were strictly pre-WWII.

[asdfasvea]

Wouldn't a non-grassy flat and open area serve the same purpose?

[blipvert]

Not sure that I’d want to lie down with a book on a slab of concrete.

[mghackerlady]

Doesn't have to be concrete. Could be clovers or something

[inigyou]

One set of my grandparents had an expansive, well-cared-for yard with a swing, arches with climbing plants, secret little gravel paths through the trees lined with mosaic tiles featuring the likenesses of their grandchildren, a picnic table, a patio with a barbecue, and so on. I think if you want to have a yard like that, it is a fine hobby. But most people do not. Most people just have a grass rectangle that is a liability. My father has lived in the same house for 15 years and has never used the back yard except as throughfare and has never used the front yard for anything. You can't even see it yard from outside because of an eight-foot-tall fence. All he does is mow it - what's the point of that? It's pure liability. And I think this is how most people's yards are. And that's silly.

I've lived in a few row houses with fully paved outdoor areas. I don't really see the point of that either, but at least it doesn't require regular maintenance so it only has to be occasionally useful to come out ahead.

[mghackerlady]

I think prev was talking about the origins of the grass lawn as we know it today and not the concept of having a lawn itself. The specific kind of lawn grass we have is directly a result of it being a pain in the ass to grow iirc

[cucumber3732842]

Lawns are for where you want to put a patio but can't because some boomers 30yr ago decided that was bad and needed punitive permitting to make it not worth it.

[throwaway7783]

A dirt yard is sufficient if it was to show off land. Grass is not required

[mhurron]

It wasn't just showing off land. It was showing off you had land that was completely unproductive and could even afford staff to maintain this completely useless plot. It's why they became increasingly large and ornate gardens.

It then took this association with rich and better and was used in the US to denote affluent and therefore segregated housing developments.

[cucumber3732842]

You see random farm houses and country estates with acres of field that get nothing but mowed they're essentially preserving resale value.

Generations ago those field would have been allowed to grow over because they could be cleared again on a whim.

These days you need six figured of engineering and permitting to clear acreage and ain't nobody gonna do that without a commercial use that can justify it.

[ordersofmag]

The grass is there to keep the dirt in place.

[WhyNotHugo]

The grass proves that it's actually fertile lands, and that there's resources for keeping it growing.

Historically, using land with such properties for grass instead of crops was as sign of wealth, especially for large estates.

[AlotOfReading]

Grass doesn't prove it's fertile before modern fertilizers. Natural grasslands are often resource-poor places that most other plants can't tolerate. We sometimes replace one for the other because our main crops (wheat, maize, rice, sorghum) are all grasses, but e.g. Versailles probably would have had more forests, lakes, or a vineyard if it didn't have the gardens and lawns.