In large-scale development and urban planning, turf grass is often the “default” for its low installation cost. But if we look at the lifecycle of a project, that green carpet quickly shifts from an asset to a significant operational liability.
Taking this long-term outlook often not only realizes an economic cost but practical and environmental ones as well. Increasingly landscape architects are finding better design solutions by looking no further than what already surrounds them.
In this blog we’ll dive into these hidden costs of turf grass and how native landscapes are creating lasting value in resilient communities.
What is Turf Grass?
The use of turf grass in landscape architecture involves the placement of sod to quickly implement a controlled aesthetic.
What are Native Landscapes?
Native landscapes are designed to match the natural surroundings of a given area. This approach involves native plantings from the region that respond and thrive within that climate and conditions.
The Financial Reality of Turf Grass: 10-Year Operational Costs
Long has turf grass been used in the landscape for its fast implementation and immediate finished appearance. It’s also cheaper, at least at first glance.
While sod is one of the least expensive groundcovers to install, it becomes the most expensive to maintain and one of the heaviest environmental burdens. The reality is that these savings evaporate quickly when looking at the lifecycle of the project.
There are some key ways the long-term costs of turf grass take shape.
Maintenance Scaling
Over a 10-year period, the cost of maintaining traditional turf grass can be up to 7x higher than native landscaping. For multifamily developers and homeowners’ associations, this directly impacts the Net Operating Income (NOI) and HOA dues, respectively.
Labor Inflation
Turf grass requires weekly human intervention. In a tightening labor market, reducing high-frequency maintenance tasks is a strategic move for municipal budgets and property management firms.
The Environmental Strain
In many urban areas, 30–60% of municipal fresh water is diverted to landscape irrigation. For city administrators, turf grass represents a massive strain on local water infrastructure.
Chemical Runoff
Large-scale turf grass management often involves 10 times more pesticides and fertilizers per acre than industrial farming. This creates significant nitrogen loading in local watersheds and drainage systems.
Desired Outcomes for Turf Grass
The choice between turf grass and native landscapes is almost always a balance between design control and practical accessibility. What is the desired aesthetic and what are the functional needs from a maintenance community use standpoint?
For areas that need to be easily accessible as well as those that serve a specific purpose, such as a sports field, the use of turf grass is clearly the best option.
The Growing Application of Native Landscapes: Long Term Benefits
With a better understanding of low impact design and appreciation for natural features, there is a growing shift in the application of native landscapes in landscape architecture across a variety of applications. Forward-thinking developers are moving away from the “lawn-only” model toward high-performance landscapes.
The Break-Even Point
While native meadows or drought-tolerant landscaping may require a higher upfront investment in design and planting, the ROI is typically realized within 4–7 years through the elimination of constant mowing, chemical treatments, and irrigation repairs.
Stormwater Management
Native plants have deep root systems that improve soil infiltration, reducing the need for costly grey infrastructure and drainage systems. They are often an integral part of green stormwater infrastructure.
Aesthetics
Modern tenants and residents value “wild” spaces and biodiversity over sterile lawns. Native landscapes provide a unique aesthetic that differentiates a property in a crowded market.
Sustainability Certification
Motivated by many things from marketability to resource efficiency, the pursuit of various sustainability certifications take into account a variety of project elements. Use of native landscaping can be a significant contributor towards reaching the necessary thresholds of those rating systems.
Carbon Footprint
Gas-powered commercial mowing equipment is a major local pollutant. Shifting to “no-mow” or native zones helps cities and developers meet aggressive carbon-neutral goals and ESG requirements.
Native landscapes are a valuable asset for a region’s biodiversity. Often involving native flowering plants, these areas can be an essential resource for pollinators that are becoming increasingly scarce. This is especially true in urban environments.
Desired Outcomes for Native Landscapes
Across the wide breadth of landscape architecture desired outcomes on projects, the vast majority present opportunities to utilize the flexibility of native landscapes. Each instance involves (and requires) consideration of species that do well in the region to realize the benefits, often allowing a degree of creativity and customization.
These applications can vary greatly in size, from a small green stormwater feature to larger natural areas. The aforementioned sustainability rating frameworks also present a natural opportunity, and compounding benefit, of adding native landscapes to designs.
The Bottom Line
Continuing to default to turf grass is a choice to commit to indefinite high-cost maintenance and environmental degradation. Whether managing a city’s park budget or a developer’s long-term portfolio, consideration of native landscapes prioritizes resilience while simultaneously avoiding the “low-cost” installation trap.
About 1st and Strand – Project of the Year (Transportation Category: $5 million – $25 million)
About the Springwater Wetlands Restoration – Project of the Year (Environmental Category: $5 million – $25 million)
