>>1862068>recreationNobody uses lawns for recreation as far as I can tell. They use their patio, or their stone bonfire pit. And if they do, they only use the one in back, so there's no excuse for the one out front.
>soil retentionIs there a plant with roots that doesn't do this? Moreover, prairie grass has deeper roots.
>it won't fall on your house,The only kind of basic bitch suburban landscaping that doesn't have trees is the kind that was planted last week. This is not a design goal of lawns, every lawn includes trees that will fall on your house eventually. Trees are part of the English Garden design, same as ponds.
>it doesn't harbor termites like mulch can, it is generally inhospitable to rodents and pests when maintained,This is again not something that has ever happened in any suburban home with a lawn I've lived in. You get moles, you get squirrels in your attic and mice in your kitchen, you get raccoons digging through your trash. If lawns are supposed to keep you from getting pests, they don't work.
>it establishes quickly after the soil is disturbedSure, but that's a very short-term concern.
I'm not trying to be a dick about it, but the main fact is that we defend lawns because lawns have inertia, not because lawns are a good idea. Lawns come from the English Gardens of the English nobility, and they are maintained because we all associate them with "good resale value." The lawn is not supported by rational design, it is separate from rational design.
