Lots of people grow prairie plants in suburban settings.

check out www.for-wild.org

They are easy to control. They do tend to grow larger in a garden bed than in the wild. More fertile soil and less competition can make them very large. The key is keep plantings mixed with grasses for support and competition.
the grasses tend to take over but can be controlled.

I do. The plantings in my front yard are about 80% native. Mostly forbs, but I'm working in grasses here and there now. Little Bluestem is so pretty in the fall. If you wish, contact me privately and I could e-mail you some pictures. April

This is a topic I find of particular concern. It is also a topic that I feel there is much good-intentioned misguidance from the very people who ardently promote using native prairie plants.

Let me first state that I love prairie plants and utilize many of them in my landscape. With a great deal of respect, I tip my hat to the pioneering work of the many "prairie nerds" who have struggled long and hard. However, I think there is a general failing on their part to recognize the different requirements demanded by an urban setting. Diversity is a well-recognized and deeply entrenched mainstay of prairie restorations. The benefits of diversity on the prairie and diversity in general are obvious. However, there are also pitfalls and many of these rear their ugly heads in an urban, residential setting.

One of the signature features of a high quality prairie environment is the open vastness. In fact, it is this singular quality that heightens the resonate beauty of place. In the typical residential setting, this quality is absent and in fact, impossible to achieve. Quite frankly, you are NEVER going to have a prairie on the average residential lot. However, this constraint does not preclude one from utilizing native plants featuring unique and highly desirable qualities found in no other grouping of plants.

Referring to a wise, old saw:
It matters not so much what you do in life as it does how you do it.
To translate this sage advice into our chosen topic; You can certainly use prairie plants in an urban residential setting but for maximum effect, you must use them differently than you would if planning a large prairie restoration project. The typical "shotgun method" of planting which promotes diversity fails miserably from an aesthetic and social point of view in the typical residential setting.

Yes, Yes  I know. There are some who are very fond of their (shall we say) "natural planting" that they self-righteously tout obligations to a higher soical responsibility and how they no longer need an evil lawn mower. I have no quarrel with these folks  if they like it; that is just fine by me. However, most people are not comfortable with wasps in their neighborhood. WASPS as in: Wild And Scary Prairie.

Of course, a whole litany of justifications can follow which really do nothing to create understanding and harmony. The battle lines are too often formed. However, it does not (and shouldnÂt) have to be this way. As stated earlier, you are NEVER going to have a prairie on the average residential lot. However, through thoughtful design, you can capture the all-important essence of the prairie.

To use an analogy: I grew up on the farm. I realized long ago that things are done a little differently out in the country than they are in town. I knew that typically, before I went into town, I had to clean-up a bit. It is essentially the same when you bring the prairie into town  you have to "clean it up a bit". You can use the same plants but to gain social acceptance, one needs to remove the impression of a tangled mess. The way that I accomplish this is by planting in drifts rather than "shot gunning" my plants all about. I have used the native plants but I have also injected a sense of order and have thereby gained social acceptance. I have embraced the prairie and am also creating neighborhood enthusiastic fascination for our beautiful native plants. Somehow, I feel that fostering fascination within my neighbors asking, "What is THAT?", is quite supportive of the goals of "the praire movement".

IronBelly

Thanks for the responses!

I totally agree with you, Ironbelly!!! I think what you wrote need to be said! Too many times native plantings get a bad reputation because a few people equate a native garden to no care garden. My feelings is that native plants still have to be cared for, pruned or cut back before they get out of control, watered in a drought situation, etc in order to conform with general orderliness of the suburban yard.

I'm not planning to create a prairie in my suburban patio home front yard. I was thinking of using say, little bluestem instead of the introduced purple fountain grass that is commonly used around here. Or using the rattlesnake master as an accent piece.

The reason I asked my question is because I once planted the blue mistflower (Eupatorium coelestinum(?)) in my flower bed and spent the next two springs pulling suckers out. I still like it, but now treat it the same way I treat mint.

I don't know, Ironbelly...mine looks a bit wild and wooly, and the neighbors seem to appreciate it to the point where they ask me for extra seeds and plants.

I'm certainly not doing it for a noble cause(that's the backyard), I'm doing it because I like how it looks, and I like prairie plants. I grow some rare local genotype prairie plants in my backyard as a hedge against extirpation.

Prairie plants do require some care, especially in their first year, like most perennials do. After that, they're pretty much low maintenance. I just pull up the ones that seed where I don't need them, and plant them somewhere else.

We had a severe drought here last summer. I watered the prairie stuff 4 times. I had to water the non-native stuff every week.

Planting things in drifts is standard landscaping practice, and it does look nice. If you want the look of a prairie, though, drifts is not the way to go. I don't do it in my front yard, because when I started, I couldn't afford drifts of anything. It's all in what you feel the neighborhood will tolerate, I guess. April

Thanks for joining the discussion, April. There is a lot of truth to your statement, "It's all in what you feel the neighborhood will tolerate..." However, let's set the neighborhood aside for a moment and fantasize about your ideal native plantings in a typical, small residential lot. How would you design it to be most aesthetically pleasing? Drifts or not?

IronBelly

In a small residential lot, for a more formal look...small drifts, like 3 or 5 of the same plant in one area. I feel it has to be to scale with the property.

If you want it to look more natural, you really can't go with drifts of anything, nature doesn't use the standard landscaping plan..it's one here, one there, another one over there. You kind of have to depend on the bunch grasses(Big Bluestem, Little Bluestem, Switch grass, Side Oats Grama, Indian Grass)to make your drifts in that situation. Then interplant with forbs, IMO. Or do it bass ackwards like I did, LOL! April

Au contraire, Ms. April! This is a trap that so many people striving for that natural look (whatever that is ???) fall into. Left to their own devices, plants in a natural, untampered setting do indeed often form monoculture drifts. Of course, in an expansive prairie setting, this often goes unnoticed. If we were to truly create more accurate restorative attempts, we should probably develop a series of mono-culture drifts that segue into each other. It is the noble tampering of man that has created this false idea of maximum diversity. All too often, we either read or hear the "expert advice" to plant a broad spectrum and then "see what survives". From an aesthetic design standpoint in an urban residential setting, this is pathetic.

Now I dont really expect the folks that I lovingly call "prairie nerds" to be well versed in landscape design. Certainly, the experts in landscape design are generally not well versed about native plants. And therein lays a great failing. It seems to me that in order for the general population to begin embracing the prairie, the two "sides" need to compliment each other. I have yet to see this done very well on a broad basis.

Yes, I have seen some of the work of "out-of-the-box experts". To my way of thinking, most of these efforts are merely a small, tangled slice of native plants juxtaposed in an alien environment. This "expert" keeps snobbishly imploring everyone to see the beauty whilst the crowd is whispering under their breath, "Looks like a weed patch to me." An example of this is below.

{{gwi:50613}}

This photo was taken at a site in Davenport, Iowa. It was designed by a distinguished Landscape Architecture firm from Chicago. The designer is recognized around the world as a native plant expert who specializes in prairie plants. Ummm Pardon me but I dont think he quite "gets it". Notice the signage that the city had to put up about a year after this expensive "design" was installed because of all the complaint calls to city hall.

My questions are these:
Is this the best that we can do?
Can we honestly expect Joe Average to become inspired with displays like this?
Cant we develop enough beauty in our designs so that we dont need a sign?

Prairie enthusiasts constantly espouse the beauty of the prairie. I join them in their observation. However, I am hard-pressed to find much beauty in the effort above; which sadly, remains pretty much the norm.

IronBelly

Its hard for me to comment here. I like the look of an wild diverse prairie area and the pic that Ironbelly posted is in my opinion a great pic.

However I also agree that there is a sense of scale. WE recently moved. In my older home we had a very large expansive lawn and IMHO it looked fine as a diverse wild praire managed a bit to control weeds, but generally it was left to morph into whatever it would become.

On the contrary in our new home, even though the lot itself is larger, the yard is smaller, more compact and most of the rear is woodland. I dont think the unorganized diverse praire plantings will look nice in this smaller compact front yard.

So as I am starting over with natives at the new place, I have used a bit of landscaping techniques and clumped like plants together. I have woodchip mulch between non-like plants. I have organized the plants in groupings rather than let them just go wherever, like we had done in the past. My natives seem odd in this type of configuration. I am not sure I like it. But the plantings are young and I am waiting to see what they look like when they mature.

I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And some people like a wild diverse look and some people prefer a more organized look. Are we pleasing ourselves with our landscapes or are we pleasing someone else. We cannot please all the people all the time.

IronBelly,

How many years has that planting been there? 1 year? Prairie plants generally don't mature in a year. It takes several. Seeds or plugs? Is it maintained? Since it's in an urban area, it's got to be maintained, or people will complain. I see lots of non-native grass(looks kinda like foxtail)down in front, which makes for a sloppy look. I also notice a lack of native grasses in the rest of the planting. Can't have nice forbs without grasses to help hold them up.

Joe Average thinks anything that is not Kentucky Bluegrass that doesn't have blooms is a weed. That tall plumy miscanthus and/or pampas grass excepted. So yes, to him, this plot is going to look weedy. It looks like a newer prairie planting to me.

What is "better"? Plants in drifts planted exactly 18" apart with metal nametags and that horrid neon red mulch around them? I fully believe if it's not a red lollypop geranium, stella d'oro daylillies, petunias or marigolds, Joe Average will think it's a weed, anyway, and that's not snobbishness. It's what's easiest to get, what the local nursery has or what's on sale at WalMart.

Annuals are an instant splash of colour, whereas waiting for perennials or a prairie to mature can take lots of time. Most people like instant gratification colour-wise in their landscaping, since they're paying high dollars. I know this from the Landscaping courses I've taken, and from clients I've actually had to pitch my designs to.

There is a protected virgin prairie remnant near my house I'll call the Cary Prairie... acres of it are carpeted with dodecatheon meadia in the spring. People come from neighboring states to see it, it's that good. It's still very diverse, but the only thing you see are the blooms of the dodecatheon. There's Hoary Puccoon, Prairie Smoke, Prairie Violet, Bird's foot violet, Junegrass, to name just a few.

Other than that, and with the additional exception of drifts of canada goldenrod and some types of asters in re-created prairies(like mine, dammit), I have never seen drifts of anything in a prairie remnant..I've never seen drifts of Baptisia Australis, or compass plant, or dock, or pale purple coneflower, for instance.

JPW,

I don't question the fact that you find beauty in the picture that I posted above. ... Truth be told; I do too. However, I believe that the vast majority of people visiting the GardenWeb Forums would not want this look in even a portion of their own yard. Quite frankly, I wouldn't either because I think it can easily be done much better with little effort.

It seems to me that if we are truly sincere in our desire to expand the use (and therefore the preservation) of native plants, they should be displayed at their best. Of course, "best" is subjective but without mandating it, I think "best" should generally be defined as having the greatest appeal to the greatest number of people.

The appeal that you find in the above photo says more about your level of native plant knowledge than it does about aesthetic values. (Studies have shown this.) Unfortunately, as proponents of native plants, we are cast into a role of educator by default. Certainly you have noticed a marked change in personal attitudes once you have had a chance to bring neophytes up to speed. Have you not?

I firmly believe that as prairie enthusiasts we have been ignoring the tremendous potential our cause is frittering away by steadfastly insisting that one shoe fits all. That "one shoe" is this entrenched idea that if you use native plants they must be randomly scattered about, striving for maximum diversity. While this might be good science on large sites, it collapses into a visual mess on small residential sites the very sites that can secure maximum public favor for our cause. Good science is not always good marketing. However, lets not fall into the trap of believing that either one precludes the other.

I believe as yet untapped opportunity lies in the combination of good science with good aesthetics in small urban environments. We need to start encouraging flexibility in the mindsets of native plant experts. We also need to groom the working knowledge of those who design. What we as individuals can do is set a good visual example to create additional interest and eliminate negative public opinion and opposition.

Specifically, I see the potential for tremendous strides to be made with the advent of recent storm water, federal mandates. This creates an enormous opportunity for native plants to be used in rain gardens an opportunity that we can either seize or fritter away by holding on to old habits applied in the wrong place. Quite frankly, the designs being proffered by "experts" in rain garden design meet the functional requirements but almost always fail miserably on the scale of visual, public endorsement. Below is an example that I feel fulfills both the functional and aesthetic goals. The native plants are essentially the same but the way that they are used is much different to accomplish a native planting with four-season interest.

{{gwi:1002185}}

Would I do this on a 20 acre restoration? No. But I feel the demands of the typical urban residential environment will embrace this treatment more readily than what we are used to seeing. Quite simply, on these small plots we are unable to display the merits of a vast prairie. However, we certainly can display the plants of the prairie. If we are limited to displaying the plants; why not display them at their best? I like to call it: "Capturing the essence of the prairie."

IronBelly

Ironbelly,

That is a very nice rain garden. I liked the other photo, too. And believe me, there are some neighborhoods where even that rain garden wouldn't pass muster. The lawn police would be all over it. "too wild, too unkempt, it will attract rats!" That's what some prairie nerds have had to deal with when hauled to court..."it will attract rats."

I agree with you that in an urban or suburban environment, you need a more formal planting schematic. I don't necessarily like it, though. I have seen landscapers try to pass off their 18 inches on center plantings as "authentic prairie." I wish I could include pictures of my front yard. It pleases me, my neighbors like it, and things are not evenly spaced. I move things around all the time.

Ironbelly,

That is a very nice rain garden. I liked the other photo, too. And believe me, there are some neighborhoods where even that rain garden wouldn't pass muster. The lawn police would be all over it. "too wild, too unkempt, it will attract rats!" That's what some prairie nerds have had to deal with when hauled to court..."it will attract rats."

I agree with you that in an urban or suburban environment, you need a more formal planting schematic. I don't necessarily like it, though. I have seen landscapers try to pass off their 18 inches on center plantings as "authentic prairie." I wish I could include pictures of my front yard. It pleases me, my neighbors like it, and things are not evenly spaced. I move things around all the time.

While I also shudder at the thought of "lawn police"; it remains a reality we should not ignore. In fact, I think we should take steps to avoid any confrontations with them at all not out of fear but rather because it just wastes too much time that could be better spent more productively. Once again, it doesn't matter so much what you do as it does how you do it.

As the old saying goes: Familiarity finds favor. Perhaps I should also show a photo of my rain garden from the street. Of course, most of us have already heard that it is imperative to have a mown strip around our native areas in order to designate that your native planting is intentional and not the result of neglect. Unfortunately, this widely disseminated advice is too often inadequate unfortunately so. As a further precautionary measure, I also bordered the front of this native planting with a drift of the ever-so-recognizable Wave Petunias (Familiarity finds favor.) Perhaps there will come a day when this is no longer required to gain social acceptability. However, I dont think as a society, we have quite reached that point.

{{gwi:1002184}}

Anyway, the mown strip AND the Wave Petunias seem to work and that was my goal. The traditionalists focus on the electric intensity of color from the drift of petunias and never notice the natives. The eyes of prairie nerds seem to quickly dispatch the petunias and soon begin to focus on the natives. This perimeter technique has been creating a win-win situation where both sides seem to be satisfied.

I think we have generally been too self-righteous in the promotion of our cause. We have too often blindly allowed ourselves to be cast in the role of fringe lunatics or environmental whackos. If we make a conscious effort in urban residential settings to present our avocation in a more palatable manner, it gives us a fighting chance to persuade others to embrace our efforts. As long as we keep hearing about rats and weeds, there remains much to do. Perhaps we can begin to do it better than we have thus far.

IronBelly

Ironbelly,

Your planting is very beautiful...but I refuse to do wave petunias, LOL! You have come up with a very nice compromise between that which is familiar and that which may not be. I do take my neighbors into consideration when I plant, but I'll only go so far...I don't complain about their yappy dogs, after all. They put up with me, I put up with them.

As far as the "it'll attract rats" argument....rats aren't attracted to prairies....they're attracted to food resources like garbage. I don't know anyone who dumps garbage into their prairie. Wood rats are another thing entirely, they're native wildlife.

April,

Yes, I am aware that the rat issue is a bunch of baloney. However, until we are able to completely dispel this silliness, I think it is preferable to avoid it all together. As any prairie nerds know, the best way to keep rats out of the prairie is to plant Wave Petunias all around the prairie! (That was a joke, folks.)

I am not saying that one has to do exactly as I have done. I can tell you that the technique seems to work. Of course, we all have to assess our own unique situation and strive for the best solution. I just wanted to throw some of these ideas out to stimulate a little thought. Be mindful that I have continued to stress doing these types of things in small, residential settings.

One the ways to generate public understanding and acceptance of native plants is through education. Using the examples of JPW and April, it is their knowledge base that makes the earlier posted photo of a bioswale appealing to them. To the less informed, the sign in the foreground is the required element of education. Since I can't depend upon only the informed viewing and because I would detest signage like that in my yard, I choose to "educate" the public that this planting is intentional via petunias -- You can use whatever you want. Ideally, our schools would be doing a better job of educating our people about the wonders of native plants and the value of the prairie. Sadly, that is not the case; nor do I expect it to be.

IronBelly

Ironbelly, I love your yard, even the wave petunias. I'm not at the stage of 100% or even 75% natives yet. I might eventually get there, but I like plants too much to not want an unusual or pretty plant even if it is an exotic. But all my plants need to be adaptable - grown without chemical pesticides and minimum of fertilizers other than some compost.

Actually I started getting into prairie plants because they are so very different from the plants that I have been seeing. Ironic isn't it that the "unusual" plants are the very one that have been here tens of thousands of years up until probably less than 100 years ago.

As far as rats are concerned, most complaints cite that as a reason against natural landscapes because there are no specific laws against a natural landscape style or growing native plants, but there are pages after pages of city ordinances against conditions that will breed rats. So if a neighbor does not like your yard, he can't complain to the city he does not like your choice of plants. But he can try to complain that your landscape breeds rats, whether that is factual or not.

Unfortunately the homeowners' associations are a different matter. Some of them have strict plant lists for the front yard and deviations from the lists are absolutely forbidden. Only way to "win" is to move. Or educate the homeowners association - an uphill battle.

But education is the way to go. There are a few schools in Houston that are installing wildscape or habitat gardens. Even though the numbers are very, very small, at least it is a start.

our local park district has a very successful prairie school project. The program was developed for teachers by teachers that incorporates prairie planting and management programs on school grounds. The prairie then becomes a working science and biology project for classes. The program is very detailed about how to fulfull education objectives for various projects and lesson plans.

http://www.peoriaparks.org/programs/prairie_school.html

I agree that the "rat thing" is just a thinly disguised ploy. However, that is kind of the point to my approach. If we keep falling into these traps constructed by the uninformed, we are wasting valuable resources. I dont want to win arguments I want to encourage people to explore exciting, new concepts as yet unexplored by them. You accomplish that goal by displaying leadership and inviting them to join you. We have been fighting the battles for far too long already. It is imperative that we begin creating a common ground upon which, together, ideas can be explored not argued.

As for homeowner association rules: I dont feel especially sorry for anyone who agreed to follow the rules and now wants to break them. If the rules are not to your liking; you shouldnt have signed the agreement.

Personally, I chose to live in a development with HOA rules. However, they were rules that I could live with and did not preclude my gardening pursuits. The nicest thing about it is that no outside pets are allowed. I dont have to endure somebody elses endlessly yapping dog. :-)
************

Thanks for the link, JPW. I'll check it out.

IronBelly

JPW,

That is an impressive link. I knew that, particularly in upstate regions of Illinois, there were some good things happening. The prairie activism in Illinois was briefly talked about during a Q&A session following a lecture at this year's Iowa Prairie Conference. It seems that there is a certain number of people required for a cause to attain "critical mass". In states with sparse populations (like Iowa), that seems be a tough hurdle. The city of Chicago has more people than the entire state of Iowa!

My congratulations for the leadership being shown with this educational project.

IronBelly

I used to have a small prairie in my 0.5+ acre suburban backyard. Wasn't a real prairie, but I liked it. I also had daffodils planted in it for some spring zing. All the neighbors came over for free black-eyed susan plants, even the ones that didn't like us or our prairie. Even in that small space the purple monarda formed drifts, which I also have here in a much more naturalized prairie situation on my current 5 acres. In front of the house I had more formal flower beds with a few prairie plants snuck in here and there.

I used to work at a multi-building AT&T complex in Naperville, IL, the ultimate yuppie suburb. I and my fellow environmentalists worked on them for YEARS to get some of the huge lawns turned into prairie, and to get them to recycle. Alas, the person in charge of building management was opposed to both. Finally the key person left and someone more openminded came along. Since we had been planning and making proposals for years, recycling and prairie areas went into effect fairly quickly after that.

AT&T claimed to be worried that people would think the prairie area was messy or complain about it. Instead there were unforeseen traffic problems. People kept parking on the side of the road and getting out to walk around and take pictures, or at the very least drove by VERY SLOWLY admiring the flowers. A wedding party even came to take photos there. AT&T also saved a HEAP of money by having many fewer acres to mow and water and spray crap on (and saved heaps on the recycling too.) So yes upstate IL is pretty keen on prairies, quite a few large businesses have them, although they vary in 'authenticity.' Regardless of what is planted, it saves on watering, runoff, use of chemicals, etc.

In fairness I should add that a friend in Naperville had his whole front yard in prairie, quite lovely, and he got a LOT of flack about it, including a neighbor who put up a fence/wall between their yards. I lived in Warrenville which isn't so formal and yuppie and Chemlawn-y and had enough sense to put my prairie in the back.

Marcia

Ironbelly,
I'm behind you 100%. I am sensitive to the very fine line we tread between enthusiasm and self-righteousness. It's very hard to be passionate about something without rubbing someone the wrong way. And we have to remeber that (at least for now) "traditional" landscape fans have as much right to their opinions as we do. I am currently converting part of my suburban lawn to natives, but hopefully in what will be considered a generally aesthic way. I have enough trouble convincing my husband to let me try "unconventional" gardening, let alone the neighbors!LOL. Wish me luck and the best to all of you.
Martha

In rereading this thread, I thought that perhaps I should clarify something I said so as not to mislead.

In my above discussion with April where I was recommending planting in drifts, I said:
"Left to their own devices, plants in a natural, untampered setting do indeed often form monoculture drifts." Technically speaking, this is not really true, as some of you tried to say. However, speaking in terms of "capturing the essence" of the prairie, it can be applied. While it is true that there is typically a mixture of plants growing, it is the appearance from a distance that I am pointing to. To the general public, areas often appear to be a monoculture.

An example of this is when April is talking about the Cary Prairie in springtime. Obviously we all know that there is a great diversity of plants growing there. However, if we were to try to capture the essence of the Cary Prairie in spring, we might do well to look to April's statement: "... acres of it are carpeted with dodecatheon meadia in the spring." Certainly to the general public, it gives the appearance of a monoculture, even though this is technically not true.

Of course, you would have a hard time selling the concept of a prairie if shooting stars were all that was planted. This is but a singular example and one would cerainly want a progression of later-maturing plants as well. I hope this offers some clarification.

IronBelly