I support wholeheartedly Emily Green's efforts to educate us (see her website chanceofrain.com) about the consequences of continued wasteful use of water and of the benefits of using native, low-water use plants in our landscapes, many of which are quite beautiful.
In this case, though, I think she's wrong.
First, this is a public space that is enjoyed by downtown residents who have very little other green space to enjoy. For many of us, this green space is our "yard" where we can take our dogs for exercise, or simply go and enjoy a green leafy area close to home that doesn't require getting in the car to go to Griffith Park, for example. While there is grass at the new Police Administration building across the street, the downtown population is great enough to "need" more public lawn. As downtown residents living in lofts and condos, with no garden space at all, we are certainly low water users.
Secondly, I would argue that anything other than grass would look incongruous with the magnificent fig trees and with the architecture of City Hall. A dry garden would be out of place. Emily mentions Austin's successful efforts with their native gardens (in Texas, they refer to it as xeriscape). The city of Austin should be commended and we should follow their lead, but not at City Hall. Austin built a new City Hall. It's built on the edge of downtown, near Lake Lady Bird (formally Town Lake) and is constructed with materials local to the area. A native garden makes complete sense for the space and it ties in nicely with the architecture of the building.
I do think that the city could take this opportunity to add more border gardens to the grounds, planted with flora that make sense for our environment. The majority, however, should be replanted with grass.
The Civic Park, now under construction, is a wonderful opportunity for us to create a beautiful park designed for native plants and gardens.
At City Hall, leave the grass.
Russell Hill
deasy/penner&partners
213.321.5040
