I'm just curious about something. Perhaps some of you guys who are into landscaping can answer my question. Why is it that the architects of the landscaping on newly developed property do so with apparently no consideration for ease of maintenance? I'm sure this isn't universal, but the town I mow in had a tornado 2 years ago, which devastated the downtown area. Because of that, many businesses have been relocated and are completely new from the ground up. What caught my attention is the new post office. Beautiful structure, beautiful landscaping, just completed so next year will be the first for mowing. I'm thinking of bidding, but don't know if it is worth the trouble. The site itself is in a dug out area, with a substantial slope to the adjoining property ground level on three sides. A retaining wall has been built along some of the steepest areas. Individual trees and signs seem to have been placed at the worst possible places, making a goodly portion of the turf impossible to mow with anything larger than a 21, and although I haven't walked the site, I am pretty sure there are several areas where one will be forced to use a trimmer, as even a 21 won't go between plantings and signs and the retaining wall or curbing. A ZTR is out of the question on probably 90% of the area. A walk-behind would likely mow most of it, except for those close quarter areas. A new medical building just down the street is the same way. The parking lot has lots of indentations and curves, and on each one of the peninsulas formed from this, they planted a tree! Looks nice, but makes it impossible to mow with a Z. I'm just wondering if the folks that design these projects (architects?) ever take into consideration the additional expense required for maintenance of commercial properties, or just do whatever they think looks the nicest with no thought of the future?