• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    401 year ago

    Trees are a luxury, growing something like that takes time. I hope they really have a good reason for doing what they did.

    • AshDene
      link
      fedilink
      261 year ago

      And a public good. They keep things cooler when it’s really hot out, keep things warmer when it’s really cool out, mildly improve air quality, reduces noise pollution, provide measurable mental health benefits, and so on.

      Around here removing big trees is illegal, on your property or not. I’m a fan.

      Open soil instead of pavement also helps reduce flooding during heavy rainfall since the ground absorbs water instead of just making it run off to somewhere else.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        At risk of doxxing yourself, can you expand on where you live? Just curious of the most general area. I love that law!

        • AshDene
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          Toronto, and the law I’m referring to is a city bylaw.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      151 year ago

      The reason is probably “raking is work.” I see this shit all the time in Florida, where we really need more shade trees.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        Do not understand people who rake. Do the trees in the forest need their leaves raked? Then why do it?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      71 year ago

      Considering they also took out the shrubs I’m betting not, though that tree closest to the house the roots may have been affecting the foundation I guess.

  • RandoMcGuvins
    link
    fedilink
    311 year ago

    Just steal the image and put the source in the body text. That way you’re not redirecting everyone to reddit. Sort of defeats the purpose of the protests.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    291 year ago

    It legit looks like half of the weed dispensaries in my city. Who tf would actually do that to their home tho

    • dismalnow
      link
      fedilink
      8
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I feel like the car in the picture is important context. I’m thinking that the home was turned into a business, and the pavement is for parking

        • dismalnow
          link
          fedilink
          3
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Look again.

          Here’s the property on Zoopla.

          Turns out I was wrong. It’s a residence.

          • flyingschnitzel
            link
            fedilink
            41 year ago

            Wow, it’s even worse than I imagined on the inside. Not one ounce of good taste.

            But yeah, none of that pavement is accessible to cars except for the ramp where the range is parked.

      • HawkMan
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        Except there’s not way to get a car up there.

      • BasicWhiteGirl
        link
        fedilink
        -11 year ago

        To the right of the bottom picture a sign(guessing the business) has been cropped out of view.

    • StrikerOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      141 year ago

      Capitalism has drained their soul. They don’t think artistically. They don’t think about nature. They don’t see beauty. Their art is corporate art.

      • Rayquetzalcoatl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        01 year ago

        Man I don’t know, that’s weird. Maybe they just prefer it this way? Some people don’t like the cottage/nature kind of aesthetic. I think their house is ugly as sin but it’s just a matter of personal taste.

        • justhach
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          Thats okay, but then why buy a cottag-y in nature house and then change it instead of buying something more fitting from the get go.

          Even if the house was a good bargain, I cannot imagine the added cost of tearing out all those trees, paving the front yard, and remodeling/updating the interior would be cheaper than just buying a house that was already like that.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    221 year ago

    It’s like they heard lawns were bad for the environment, but stopped listening at the part about replacing it with native plants.

    • Narrrz
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      Right? I feel like this warrants criminal charges

      • Turkey_Titty_city
        link
        fedilink
        71 year ago

        why? people have the right to do what they want with their property.

        if you don’t believe that, they join a HOA and setup their bullshit regulations that require your lawn to be perfect and green or you get fined hundreds of dollars.

        • nobodyspecial
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          HOAs can be absolutely awful, with power tripping board members and management companies that steal collected funds. But if you want to live in a manicured, upscale, gentrified suburb that’s the best way to get ahead of crappification, salvage grade cars on blocks in the yard, appliances on the porch and meth houses.

          Me, I’d rather a large buffer of land between me and my neighbors. I do realize those with commuter jobs can’t practically get tens of acres to live on, however.

          • Turkey_Titty_city
            link
            fedilink
            41 year ago

            personally i like seeing salvage cars in someones’ yard next to a home that is upscaled mcmansion.

            that’s why i live in the city. variety and no bullshit regulations about how your house has to look.

            i also feel i have no right to judge or condemn anyone else’s aesthetic choices with their property. personally i removed all my lawn bullshit and i put in low/zero maintenance flowers and shrubs and i let it grow wild. my neighbors fucking hate me, but they are miserable lawn worshiping types who make passive aggressive comments out of ‘neighborly concern’ because they think I’m a meth-head for not walking a manicured water-wasting soul-sucking lawn. I also drive a regular $10K car and not a $60,000 SUV, which also pisses them off.

  • MuchPineapples
    link
    fedilink
    English
    18
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Just before the previous owners of my house decided to put the house on the market they painted all wood inside (stairs, doors, door frames, window frames, skirting) pitch black.

    Yes thanks, I enjoy living in a cave. Removing, sanding and painting all that will take me 100s of hours.

    Oh, and it was done with the cheapest paint possible while painting over all hinges, locks and sometimes windows.

  • dotfiles
    link
    fedilink
    English
    181 year ago

    I would have left the trees alone, but removed the grass and covered it with small black and grey stones. That way the trees would still look nice, and the rain water can still pass through the rocks and prevent flooding, unlike this mess. This looks like a business now, it’s not a home anymore.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      pass through the rocks and prevent flooding

      Yah, that doesn’t work that way. Water needs to get pulled into plants or water channels created by dead plant root systems, or it just runs off. This is why deserts have flash floods.

  • leaskovski
    link
    fedilink
    131 year ago

    It should actually be an offence for someone to do this. That change from garden to hard standing will cause issues with any drains and probably cause flooding.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    131 year ago

    Never understood homes that pave/block out all the greenery; makes the home depressing af all for saving some 30min of upkeep per week.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        there’s a common misunderstanding in texas, as well, about cedar trees.

        a while back, a ranch owner with ALOT of land, who was considered a great steward of trees, was interviewed for an article and stated that new cedars used too much water and that he tears them all out of areas where he wants to maintain a forest of alternate trees (i.e. oak, elm, whatever, idk)

        everyone took that to mean tear out all cedar trees whether there was a forest of other trees or not, no matter how much land you have. they completely overlooked the qualifiers to practice this type of land management. (obviously owning cows are a different story, but almost none of these people own cows)

        a ridiculous amount of land in Central Texas (esp the hill country) now is barren save the 1 or 2 odd scraggly oak trees here and there. anytime someone buys land (even a couple of acres) the first thing they do is clear cut the damn place, causing unnecessary erosion, bringing in uneeded heat, and in general, killing the ecosystems that made that area special in the first place.

    • Patapon Enjoyer
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      Depending on the kind of concrete hellscape you’re in the leaves might clog a drain pipe, but that’s it.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    13
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The house was horrible enough to start with; a characterless inter-war bungalow with fake timbering and fake leaded glass. The conversion is just differently horrible.

    For me it’s the destruction of the garden that warrants it being here. I know it’s the UK so the sun isn’t always available (edit: just seen the Zoopla link, it’s Bolton, so change “always” to “ever”) , but losing shade and shelter like that is a tragedy in any climate.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    121 year ago

    I mean I hate lawns as much as the next person, but I don’t think the solution is to salt the earth and cover it in concrete.

      • valaramech
        link
        fedilink
        81 year ago

        I do. I’m not sure how much of an issue it is in other countries, but most (if not all) lawn grasses grown in the States are actually non-native (yes, even “Kentucky Bluegrass”, which is actually native to Europe). I wouldn’t really mind lawns as much if it was normal to use native ground cover.

      • Drusas
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        Lots of people, including myself. There are even “nolawn” communities here and on reddit. The reddit one is very active. Lawns, at least in the US, are practically an ecological wasteland. They use non-native grasses, typically lots of fertilizers and herbicides and pesticides which are terrible for the local pollinator populations (save the bees!), and removing trees and shrubbery in order to have a manicured lawn reduces habitat for birds, bats, and various, essential other species.

        It is much better to use native plants in your yard.