It goes back to the origin stated here. It was desirable because they could afford to effectively waste a lot of acreage on a crop that had no benefit. Simply for show.
Comment on Problem solved ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
kilgore_trout@feddit.it 4 weeks agoWhat I don’t get is what’s the point of a garden with only 2cm-long grass in it?
jawa21@lemmy.sdf.org 4 weeks ago
CommissarVulpin@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
That is the point. You’re basically trying to say “Look how rich I am, I can afford to have all this land dedicated to looking pretty and not being useful for anything else”
Jumuta@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
it’s easier to walk in than a garden with only 100cm-long grass in it
also looks nicer than a barren garden with no grass
SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
The point from from old England’s perspective is that keeping the grass at 2 cm requires a whole bunch of resources and people, so only the rich could afford it. Even today, any neighborhood with weeds growing instead of a 2cm lawn is instantly classified as lower class. There often is no practical use or sometimes use for games or walking is when forbidden because it’s a status symbol only.
It’s like asking what’s the point of owning a Bugatti Chiron that can go 400 kph when you’re stuck in the same traffic jam anyway.