All those comments saying they preferred the former: This is a small backyard, in an urban area, not an open pasture where your horses can roam free. If you have a yard this size, you want to utilize it a bit. If it's all covered in a messy mix of shrubs, it's great for wildlife (birds, insects, rodents), which may sound great for the animals, but not great to your home and to your neighbors.

Regarding the topic of lawns - yes, large lawns that require extreme amounts of water are unsustainable and just pure evil. This, however, is a small patch of grass which seems natural and I don't suppose it needs more than an occasional rain and some mowing. That's what I'd give it myself, anyway.

Regarding the reduced diversity of the flora - I'm not an expert but can we talk about a substantial impact on the local biodiversity when someone clears an area of 30m2 (320sqft) in an urban area? It's not like they destroyed the habitat of an endemic species. Moreover, you can see there is a dedicated strip of soil lining the fence, which can't be anything other than the future home of new plants. Everyone wants plants in their garden, just not simply everywhere.

On a more personal note, I feel like these comments come either from trolls who like to oppose OP's work, or from people who cannot appreciate the value of a small backyard/garden. Yes, it would be great for all of us to have land to spare for wildlife, but when you have this little, leaving it for wildlife serves little purpose and only puts you at a disadvantage. You've done a good job, OP.