I see you have a subject. :)

The consensus on this forum, and probably among designers in general, has been that the "bones," hardscape, whatever it will be called, need(s) to come first if design is to prevail over chaos. Both from a practical and a design standpoint. Is this what you are asking?

But from my two years of gardening and from reading here, I say that will not be satisfactory for most home gardeners. Many people have expressed a desire for certain plants, and/or have favorite plants in place already. For them, a design will have to include these favorites to be a success.

And probably all home gardeners LOVE to find a new plant at the nursery and need to find a place for it.

Maybe it depends on whether a client wants a garden ready made, or wants to enjoy the gardening process.

Maro

That is partly it maro although I wasn't thinking about 'bones' so much as a garden as a place, or space to be in which may or may not be primarily to do with flowers.

Oh, to clarify, then, was your question meant to be: "Is it more practical to make the garden (yard) first and add the FLOWERS later?" As in, annuals and flowering perennials?

Either way, the answer SEEMS obvious to me, but I may not get the whole gist of your question. A designer may.

And I should have used the word "plan" instead of "bones," I think.

Maro

Recently I've started to describe flowers to clients using the example of an elaborate pastry. Flowers are like the ones on a beautiful cake...added last and appreciated first. It is, however, the taste of the cake that will last and what you will savor the longest. So, in my humble opinion, flowers are the icing on the cake...and anyone who disagrees, well, let them eat cake!

>Is it more practical to make the garden (yard) first and add the plants later? Would this create less problems than attempting to accomodate and arrange a list of our favourite plants in a coherent fashion?I have seen this advocated by other authors for years, and it does seem like that is what tends to be what is happening when a landscape design is drawn up before much shopping is done. Where the gardener is going to be collecting plants later (rather than having them all selected and indicated individually during the inital planning on paper) it would be the same as setting up shelving in a designated room of the house to display stuffed bears.

If the garden was being planned by a hired designer they could always specify zones for the client, such as "massed perennials" or "evergreen hedge" and thus organize it for them into a working whole but still leaving variety selection and specific placement in the area or grouping for the customer to enjoy.

Nice one susan, Marie Antoinette lives. Maro I think you might still be putting the flowers first in your suggestion rather than the 'garden'. I work with a lot of people who are not gardeners as such and have no intention of ever being one yet they live in a house surrounded by an area that is somehow designated 'garden'. What I think I am driving at is: is it limiting to assume that plants or flowers should drive the design of this space, in spite of how the space is to be used and by whom?

I believe that the first time that humans gazed upon a natural vista, such as a soaring mountain range, a breathtaking gorge filled with rainforest flora, or other such vast, living "hardscape" and "plantscape," the seeds were planted for human endeavor in landscaping.

We would spend millennia trying to emulate, on our much-smaller scale, what had "wowed" us in the natural world. In a sense, Judeo/Christian/Islamic belief reflects this in the imagery of a garden as the first human habitat and milieu. Recall that in the ancient scriptures, "The Garden" contained all manner of plants, including fruiting trees (inhabited, or not, by serpents). Flowers may have been part of the scene, but they are not dwelt upon as a main item - just part of an ensemble cast - in the ancient writings.

The fabled Hanging Gardens of Babylon (the product of a very wealthy king, of course) is a good example of people obsessed with hardscape as well as plants. It was added to over centuries by the top engineers of the place and day. :^)

But I also get the sense (backed up by the scholarship of archaeologists) that aesthetic gardens -- including flower gardens and other "beauty for beauty's sake" arrangements -- could exist in human society only after a civilization was producing enough food to fill its belly. That it would be the domain of an agricultural civilization (not hunter-gatherer) is another given.

Aesthetic sense is a product of leisure.

Once there were societies where at least some people could live in comfort, then they could turn their now-leisure lives to the pursuit of flowers that served no other purpose than to please the eyes and noses of their growers.

This scenario has repeated itself over time. Here in the former Salem Colony, early settlers grew herbs and flowers that served as food and medicinals; that the plants were pretty was incidental (and, I'm sure, appreciated). Life was tough here, though, and function had to be first and foremost out of necessity.

Frosting on the cake.

It would make sense to have a cake to frost rather than to have frosting and look for a cake, by my way of thinking. A way of thinking that was tuaght to me while I was kicking and screaming along with most of my classmates. ... until we got it.

Why do you have a cake? There is usually a reason other than to act as a landing space for your frosting. There is most likely a celebration of some type. Whatever the reason, there is usually a number of people, each of which an amount of cake must be designated for (size). There is also a good chance that the cake will be designed for a certain person or group even though others will participate in enjoying it. I love anologies. That person or persons may have preferences for certain flavors or reasons to avoid certain ingredients. Evenually the cake takes shape. After it takes shape, it is enhanced with frosting.

Form follows function whether you look for a cake to put frosting on, or if you thouroughly design a cake and finish it well with nice frosting. It is just that the function is much more limited in scope if you are only concerned with frosting.

If you bring a 9" cake with beautiful frosting to a wedding with 250 guests and ask "how's my cake?" you might get the same reaction that a new garden web poster gets when they ask for a critique of a garden that (s)he made. Then we could either support the cake decorator or sympathize with the wedding party. In either case, those that do the opposite will believe that you are hateful and mean spirited for not understanding the other.

If you want to frost cakes, be a cake decorator and not a baker.

"is it limiting to assume that plants or flowers should drive the design of this space" The answer is "yes," but I'm qualifying that with the belief that for most homeowners a designer will design for inclusion of at least some as-yet-unnamed plants if the client is to be a happy gardener.

As bboy said. And susan is right too, with flowers being the frosting, but there needs to be a place for frosting.

And laag is usually very clear, but he left me behind on this one. Especially "If you want to frost cakes, be a cake decorator and not a baker." Then, the cake decorator is the flower lover and the baker the designer? It's not either-or. The two are linked by the final product. the baker has provided a superior, or lumpy, cake and the designer has added his heart's desire, which is forever influenced by the cake.

Whew!

The book sounds very interesting, but it's $30+ shipping -that could buy a lot of bulbs and perennials:) I hope it shows up at a resale store or the library.

Isn't it possible that flowers weren't enclosed at the beginning of garden making simply because they were available outside the walls? Food and medicine plants are very specific ones, so they'd be kept enclosed and alive. For decoration, scent, and ceremonies like funerals, you could use all kinds of flowers - whatever blooms of shrubs, trees or wildflowers that grew in field or forest. Maybe the flowers moved inside when land usage meant they could no longer be found in abundance outside.

I'll bet that the love of flowers by human beings is way older than the garden - it was the enclosure of them that came later. I also think a complete garden has to have flowers at its heart, not added as incidentals.

Annie in Austin

"The two are linked by the final product. the baker has provided a superior, or lumpy, cake and the designer has added his heart's desire, which is forever influenced by the cake."

Yes, Maro, you have it. The implication is if you are a good cake decorator and do not consider much more that goes into the cake, you should only decorate the cake rather than both the cake and the frosting. There is no shame in being a cake decorator. There should be shame in making lousy cakes only to frost it.

Oddly enough, my wife is a professional cake decorator. ... she does not bake them. She decorates them.

We, in design, work in a very diverse field. None of us have to do all of it. Any of it is a legitimate skill set on its own. Working within our strengths and expanding our horizons when we can be effective is good. Working outside of our strengths is not good.

I am sure I agree that the icing limits the cake design. I might have a very ellaborate icing planned and to make it work I need a flat round cake. But the cake could be short or tall, white or chocolate.

Except for some basic structural issues like drainage, why can't the garden be designed around the flowers? I want to increase my clematis collection. To do that I need to have structures for them to climb up. So I need to add these to the garden. Some structures work better than others for clematis so I may be a bit limited in my selction of the structures, but most can be made to work. So I can add a pergola, or oboslisk or fence.

A flowr bed can be at ground level or be raised. I could make the selction based on cost, looks or difficutly of maintenance. Or if I want to grow alpines, raised works better - I make the choice based on the type of flowers I want to grow.

Both approaches can work. Design the garden, then pick plants. Pick plants and design a graden to show them off to advantage. In both approaches you need to take into account some basic functional items.

For some reason this discussion has made me hungry...I forgot what we were talking about so I will talk about a subject that has been keeping me busy lately...collecting seeds in prep for another season of wintersowing! In the past few years I have grown hundreds of perennials from seed...and I feel that this had helped my garden design.

Why? It is because I don't really have to think about perennials during the design phase, or at least not until the end. I can focus on the big picture items and when it comes time to add "the frosting" I grab a bunch of potted up plants or dig them out of my nursery bed and stick them in. Does it really matter if I stick in a coneflower or a rudbeckia or a daisy? Growing from seed also gives me the ability to plant in large masses...but that is another topic.

"there were 'gardens' before there were flowers in gardens"

Were these gardens full of trees, shrubs, herbs, vegetables and the such or are we talking about gardens that did not focus on plants?

- Brent

The chicken noo, wait  the egg  I think. O.k. I'm going to say  the  chicken. No, egg. That's my final answer. Maybe.

Apart from poultry, Ink's question got me thinking about Neanderthals. They were a side-line of erect, inteligent beings, who, it is now thought, overlapped homo sapiens by 10,000 to 15,000 years, raising all kinds of questions about co-mingling that may explain your Uncle Bob's thick hooded brows and penchant for chest-beating and monosyllabic conversation. The original Neanderthals were hunter-gatherers, best adapted to woolly mammoths and other large mammals. When their game disappeared, so did the Neanderthals. The thing that popped into my mind were the bouquets of wildflowers whose remnants have been found at their gravesites.

Who knows? Perhaps the Neanderthal line explains why Uncle Bob produces lovely embroidery. Perhaps it's the source of needlepoint, Ionic columns, and Mozart's sonatas. The homo sapiens, who were obviously far more successful and adaptive, figured out how to propogate vegetation, learning how to grow what they wanted, where they wanted it.

Which brings me to a personal pet peeve: polarities. Either this or that. Don't get me wrong, they generate wonderful discussions. German philosophy wouldn't exist without them. There are several in this thread: Humans-flowers or humans-gardens. Chicken or egg. Neanderthal or Homo sapiens. Icing or cake. I'm not really entirely satisfied with the Hegelian answer -- thesis, then anti-thesis leads to synthesis, but I do find myself struggling for an organic system. A "both/and" rather than an "either/or".

In my own humble existence I sometimes long for a designed garden, preferably not something spanking new, but something with a bit of intrinsic authenticity and beauty. I probably can't afford what I'm imaging, but it would become an experience, not a thing. What would bring it about is some sort of synthesis of time, design, materials (including plants that I most love to interact with and tend), and beauty. My own bouquet of flowers, if you will.

Wellspring

Very simply, many times your cake is already made either in reality or planned out before you get your plants. I don't think any of you randomly load plants into your vehicle with no thought to where they are going. Freedom to exactly place them within the area that you are working is normal. But I don't believe any of you buy a bunch of shade plants and get home only to find that you have only full sun to work with.

The garden came first whether it is in your mind, on paper, or in reality.

If you put enough thought and planning into it, you can go at making a garden from any direction. This is phrased as an either/or question, but the answer is simply 'yes'.

Annie in Austin, you might visit more gardens. My own [not open to the public, sorry ; )] has flowers as incidental additions, but the flowers are not without impact. It's just that the main focus is structural plants and foliage. I've been looking to Burle-Marx and Leland Miyano for inspiration, but working on a much smaller scale. It is true, a garden can be made primarily of flowers, but the intensity of labor required to maintain it does not appeal to me as my age slips over the hill.

In my case, as laag observes above, the layout was imposed, and the plants came later. In other gardens I know of, the layout was created specifically to accomodate the selected plants, with spectacular results.

laag, surely you know there are zillions of people who load up with pretty plants on impulse with no idea where they will fit in the garden, it happens every day. There should be a 12-step program for these afflicted people, but we only have more enabling here at GW, where there is a separate forum for every obsession...

So from my perspective, you can have your cake, decorate it, and eat it too, but don't complain about weight gain later.

From a personal perspective, I tend to agree with catkim - one can follow either route to achieve the same end, although following the "plants first" road is rocky one and often leads to chaos rather than a peaceful destination. FWIW, in my own garden, the plants come first and I struggle constantly to incorporate them into something that represents a meaningful and cohesive design. But that's MY choice and not one I advocate for clients who may not share my passion for every new or unfamiliar plant I encounter.

My approach professionally is vastly different and tends to follow the cake baking scenerio but it is a challenge to convince clients to forget about plants except in only the very most generic sense until the design process is nearly complete. To many, plants and flowers ARE garden design and to separate them from the design process is verging on heracy. As an example, we can look to virtually any of the "help me" posts that appear daily on this forum - their questions revolve almost entirely around what to plant where rather than the fundamentals of why and where.

"I also think a complete garden has to have flowers at its heart, not added as incidentals"

So I guess we have to define what a "complete garden" is...or maybe we have to step back and figure out what a "garden" is in the first place. Is it different than a "yard" or "landscape"? Can you have a garden without plants? The vision for my Complete Garden includes plants and flowers, but it also includes places for my kids to play, places for guests to gather, and shady places where I can relax. I would not classify flowers as the heart of my garden, but I would give them higher billing than incidental.

- Brent

OK. You buy the plants and bring them home. You still don't have a garden. Once you get them home you can play around with them and then plan, in anything from a rudimentary form to a detailed plan, what you are going to do with them. The plants don't walk to the places in which they will be planted. You think "this might look good over there". Guess what. That is a plan.

You should read the book annie. When you say "I'll bet that the love of flowers by human beings is way older than the garden - it was the enclosure of them that came later" is right on the money. The word 'garden' has its origins in the enclosure rather than what, specifically was being enclosed. The cultivation of flowers for the purpose you mention is ancient indeed, what is new is using them in the way we use them today. I can imagine a garden where birds (not chickens Wellspring) and not flowers are the main attraction or one with water playing among rocks at centre stage, what about another flowerless garden with minstrels and poets wandering amongst the topiary? A garden full of flowers would be more my cup of tea but I can see other possibilities.

I can see it now - a garden full of gnomes running around pink flamingos :)

One early use of specific plants that hasn't been mentioned as of yet is the religious usage, which has been documented in almost all ancient civilizations, be they old world or new world in origin. In many cases, individual trees or plants were thought to be portals to the god(s), and had religious significance in their own right.

I have been taught, as most american trained landscape archtitects are, that function and spatial design come first, and plants are to be plugged in later. This always rubbed me the wrong way, and I have never designed a garden anywhere without having a very clear idea of what plants I wanted to use first, in response to the local environment, to give context, or to give contrast. I don't believe that gardens are any less works of art to be enjoyed by people if the focus is equally applied to plants as it is the spatial and use components.

Most people who see my completed gardens have commented that the landscape design and spatial layout is as strong as the plantings, and I find it very hard to design even the smallest garden without at least a 100 different kinds of plants, and often there will be over 200 hundred different species. This may sound way over the top, but massing many plants of the same type and repeating them throughout the garden and combining them with similar forms and textures to repeat the feeling goes along way to making them all fit together.

I also believe in using flowering plants that really have an impact, and love the effect of a flowering Magnolia soulangeana simply covered in blooms, or the repeating nature of an Angel's Trumpet/Brugmansia with 100's of flowers all at the same time, and blooming repeatedly almost all year round. Long blooming and saturated colorful blooms are one of my stocks in trade that allow me to use flowers in ways equal in impact to foliage form and texture. I must admit to using very few flowers that only bloom once and last a week, even if beautiful.

"Once there were societies where at least some people could live in comfort, then they could turn their now-leisure lives to the pursuit of flowers that served no other purpose than to please the eyes and noses of their growers."

I know that many people perceive the above statement as being accurate. However, in truth, it historically misses the mark by a wide margin. As David so accurately notes above, religion played a determining role; often along side of science and intellectual pursuits. For the most part, (other than occasional and specific religious symbolism) when flowers were originally introduced into gardens it was typically for pursuit of a scientific endeavor an oddity, as it were, from a distant land to be observed. Gardens were primarily created as spaces conducive to intellectual thought, featuring objects of symbolism.

The flower-centric pursuit is a modern contrivance. However, having said that, I find myself mirroring David's comment, "...having a very clear idea of what plants I wanted to use first, in response to the local environment, to give context, or to give contrast."

IronBelly

In all of this my humble ovbservation is....I can see where knowing what plantings are wanted can determine the garden "bones" being made first. This allowingfor if at some point the HO wants to change the plantins....they still have their spatial layout in place. Re dress the body without changing the shape?

From my perspective, the answer would be "No" to your suggestion, Landman. To my way of thinking, creating garden spaces is much more than establishing a spatial layout. Certain plants are specifically chosen because they embue, establish and/or enhance the effect/mood that I am trying to create. While I might go along with a few alternative cultivars, substitution of species is probably going too far.

IronBelly

Reading Landman's and Ironbelly's above thoughts leads me to comment on designing a southern garden. Here we have three to four growing seasons in a year which allows for replanting annuals and perennials suitable for each growing season. Thus the 'bones' of the landscape should support these seasonal changes. Guess I have to be numbered among those who visualize an entire plan of permanent plantings and annual/perennial color at the same time. i.e. if I plan a grouping of variegated Osmanthus I am also thinking of complimentary temporary colors/light/shadows that will work with and accent the shrubs.

Probably the theory that the first gardens were developed for religious and medicinal reasons makes sense. We can also assume that there were searches for fragrant plants to mask the poor sanitation odors. And still the plant hunters comb this earth looking for plants with certain attributes.

This is another one of those threads that leaves me lost, shakin' my head. Books I ain't read, people I've never heard of, famous gardens I'll never see. I bet if I ran into this bunch at the art gallery, ya'll would be standing at some abstract painting talking about what you see. All I see is paint on a board. Over my head, I ain't got a clue.

OK, so I'm a redneck, don't know why I hang out here. I do have a strong sense of land form and space. I could do thousands of topo maps of the places I've been and get them oriented to north plus or minus about 10 degrees. My new layout changes a sloped lot to one with walls and flats dictated by function. Lots of hardscape.

On the other end, I've had a love of gardening for almost 50 years. Maybe gardening is the wrong word, horticulture would be better. More about soils and growing plants than what the whole looks like. It leads to color combos that would surely send this group running.

If I want corn and the only sunny bed open is in the front yard, well .... I like gaudy, and things that change. Got no room for all those neat evergreen shurbs. My yard has only things that bloom, things you can eat, or something you walk on. Ooops, forgot I have a house and some big oaks.

By design I have created small mico-climate areas. Ones that offer shelter from winter cold and others that stay cool in the summer heat. Bright sunny ones and shady ones, beds with high ph, others almost neutral. It lets me grow things seldom seen here.

So it's a little crazy and probably drives the neighbors mad. But it's what I want and it's my place. There are advantages to being redneck.

>OK, so I'm a redneck, don't know why I hang out here.I often just scroll through the pontifications myself. Pick out what, if anything you can use and ignore the rest. Judging from another site that records and posts usage thousands of people read these dialogs and never say a word.

There is no problem with skipping through posts and deciding you have nothing to add, but if you have nothing to add but add it anyway meanwhile calling the rest pontification I wonder what the name for that is bboy? In case you missed it BTW pls8xx was joking.

Inkognito's book recommendation still sounds pretty good to me, and it's on the 'look for it' list, although certain flowers will probably guide the formation of any garden I'll make in the future, just as in the past. Whenever we've moved we brought favorite heirloom flowers with us, chosen even before we knew where we would live, so they were at the heart of the garden for me.

But I must confess that the layout of our present back garden was dictated by something with a puny and inconpicuous flower. My husband's tomato garden was the starting point, getting the best spot, with everything else planned in the leftover space.

I've actually been to a fair number of gardens, Catkim, public, private, institutional, educational, on architectural tours, water gardens, Conservancy tours, sculpture gardens, etc., with locations along the East coast, in the South, Midwest, West coast, Hawaii, and a few in Canada. You could have the list, but none were in Europe or California, so you might not count them anyway. Although I'd like to visit yours, it's doubtful that just seeing more gardens could convert me to believe in 'incidental flowers' - after all I've seen a lot of republicans, too, and that only had the opposite effect:)

Annie in Austin

It ALL depends on what your definition of the word garden is ;)

I think that the garden should be about creating a space that has some significance to it. I usually try to accomplish this by connecting the garden to the bigger picture. There are infinite ways to do this I guess, but referencing its immediate context, history, natural systems, culture, or ecology, can be interesting ways to get started. Of course it has to all be done in an artful way that is pleasing to be in.

Plants can accomplish this connection to the bigger picture quite nicely, like design using native ecological communities, bio-restoration, bio-infiltration, permaculture, and educational landscapes like Alan Sonfist's Succession garden in NYC that shows the process of succession with plant placement (some good arboretums do similar things with their layouts).

But plants are also materials that are beautiful, not only working systems. Designs using their beauty through compositions of color, texture are important to have in the designed landscape, though not really showing the "essence of the material" beyond an aesthetic point of view (usually). I wonder if one day gardens that do not take anything but aesthetics into account will be looked down upon universally.

Anybody see the designer who made concrete or metal trees and shrubs? That was a little extreme of a statement, but I see his point about most designers just using plants as aesthetic material instead of functioning system.

'though not really showing the "essence of the material" beyond an aesthetic point of view'

That's complicated. Could we have examples? Do you mean as in 'architectural' plants, or using plants as design elements?

Maro

Sorry I got carried away there. I think I got the 'essence of the material' phrase from a woodworking book I read. Artful wood joinery is accomplished through understanding the grains and natural strengths of the wood, not just by nails and glue(although you need these too sometimes). Most good architectural detailing is accomplished through really understanding the material and how one material interplays with and joins another. For example, stone veneer on buildings is not true to the "essence of the material" some would say, because it is made to look structural but is not actually of any stuctural value.
Similarily alot of gardens look healthy but are actually ecological wastelands full of exotics or sterile clones with no wildlife value and arranged with no thought to the way communities would form naturally.

I am not saying I know exactly how to do this yet, but plants are more than just a material with aesthetic characteristics, they are lving things that occur in specific environmnts and combinations and have traits that we should be taking advantage of (like bio-restoration...etc.)

Basically, I think the primary focus of a grden should be as a system that meshes the ecological systems with the human systems, only after that should things like color and texture be considered.

A simple example is to start to plan your garden around somthing like drainage, a natural system. You could design a rain garden that would efectively hold some parking lot and roof water. Landscape it with native plants in compositions that are loosley based on naturally occuring communities. Some native grasses will 'suck up' heavy metals from parking lot runoff and can be burned and replanted......etc. This type of design can have any look you want it doesnt have to look "natural".

You mean like this?

{{gwi:49786}}

IronBelly

That COULD be what I am talking about...it looks like a rain garden, it looks like native species (I think), it looks colorful and pretty.

It does seem to be missing ( from this angle) the human element. What interests me is the idea that this type of design that is ecologically based could be meshed with the type of design that is more cultural, like traditional space making and symbolism.

Cant a garden be designed around the natural systems first- picking plants according to local ecosystems, preserving natural drainage, etc. Then secondly arranging all this 'ecology' to create spaces for people to inhabit that could look like anything? For example why do all rain gardens look "wild"? Wouldnt a rain garden that was designed to look man-made function as welll as one that was designed to look wild? Has anyone ever seen a "formal" rain garden, or a rain garden that meshes with a space designed for people in a creative way?

It just seems like gardens are either ecological or culural in purpose, why not always do both? This my not be practical but it is intersting to think about.

This topic has had me so deep in thought I have not had a chance to check out the rest of this board, looks like you guys have nice community here.

The human element isn't missing at all, you can see all around, behind the planting. The houses are what you end up looking at, after the explosion of plants first gets your attention. That's why the wildness of the planting is incongruous, it conflicts with the completely fabricated scene all around it. The solution is a taller backdrop that screens out the houses, makes the border the only part of the picture visible (keeps the eye focused).

I did not mean to hijack this thread with my ranting, but inkognito got me thinking about "design process" which always intriugues me, sorry

What I meant bboy is that in what looks like a very small yard there is no sign of any thing that is there for human interaction. i just think it may be missing out on something that could engage the viewer/ inhabitant more than just observation of a very beautiful arrangemnt of colors and textures. Ecological design does not have to look naturalistic, you can make it look like anything and work with any theme. I was just throwing it out there for discussion becasue I think people commonly think ecological design has to look like this picture above.

Do not get me wrong I like naturalstic design and like to see it in yards like this. I wish I knew what all of those plants are especially the taller dark purple, light pink, short green grass, and loose white flowers. I wonder if any are native to Virgnia?

If this were my house though I think outdoor space would be too precious to fill up like this, I would try to design a rain garden around some type of usable space for when there was no rain or if there is only enough room for the needed plants, then I think I would arrnage them into some type of compostion where the eye could focus on some plant or some object and then move around to different plants. That is just my personal opinion and style though. I thnk it is important for people to design places that look as if they are untouched by man, different designers styles are what make designed landscapes interesting. There is no right way. I enjoy seeing these type of yards especially in Suburban neighborhoods;) nice pic Ironbelly!

So... this is more like what you had in mind for a rain garden?

{{gwi:50876}}

IronBelly

I like this one more personally just because it seems to have more coherence and less craziness going on, plus it looks like you could sit on the rocks. Although I am not sure if an ecologist would approve just because of the very few number of plants. I see the other garden around the corner, is this your design Ironbelly? I really like the contrast between this and the other crazy garden.

My point was that if a rain garden is at a house, why not intertwine the space for ecological regeneration with the spaces for people to be in? Obviously all rain gardens should not be the same. That was my original complaint about the first one. All of the ones I have seen look wild and naturalistic and have no place for people to be IN them or do anything except look at it them.

All I am saying is that there is no right way for a rain garden to look and I see no reason why they should not take on LOTS of different forms to meet other design criteria besides making a rain garden that "looks natural".

I love the style of gardening in the first photo. But it lacks a place for me, a person, though that may only be true of the photo, not the landscape. And it does seem out of scale for a front yard. Any single feature that takes up the whole of a space doesn't feel right to me, be it lawn, flower bed, or asphalt parking.

The rock outcropping also needs a backdrop so it does not look as much like a volcanic eruption popping up improbably out of the middle of a tree lawn. If planted with shrubs and trees behind using a sufficient density and size of planting the impression could be given that there was a hillside behind. Same gimmick as with a waterfall made on a level site where one would never occur on its own.

The tree in front of the outcropping should also be removed, it's like having someone standing up in their seat at the theatre.

I disagree bboy. Keep in mind that plants will continue to gow over the rocks, you can see this has already happened in some places. This will help the rocks to not look out of place. I think a "backdrop" is the wrong way to go also, I think it is probably nice for your eyes to follow the lawn to this rock formation then up over it and beyond, coming back to focus on the space. It looks like there is already a hill there, so this design just emphasis that and creates a separation in the lawn. This is a good technique for creating a hierarchy of spaces. I see what you mean though, it may be nice to plant some larger shrubs behind maybe half of the formation just so it would have some sense of enclosure.

I think the reason I like this harks back to prehistoric tendencies. People have always liked to climb up on rocks and look out over the landscape, granted this is a small scale but still the same idea I think. Plus it looks like it could offer a little shelter. Thick planted areas I think disagree with people's natural tendencies to inhabit becasue there is a sense of danger where you cant see the ground.

I like the tree too, it adds interest. Is that a hickory? cant really see the leaves, the bark does not look right for hickory though. My only concern is that it may get too big and dominate this small scale space, but I really have no idea from this angle.

I am, of course, completely lost when we have show and tell. I guess I'm wondering if there's a way to loop this back to the source or process out of which design emerges.

Ironbelly, since the pictures are yours, could you say whether the approach began with the notion of a garden or the notion of plants to be in the garden, as Ink asked? Or, is the design process more systemic, as Jigsawearth proposes? From vague memories of what you've said before I'm thinking its more the systems thing

I'm into chaos theory, loopy thinking, systems approaches, rather than linear, hierarchical, black or white models that come out of an older classical scientific approach. Don't know how it plays out though, when it comes to design, although I suspect it might also include the "who" (other thread) and other complexities that influence the design process.

Could we ever prove whether the first human made a garden or found a plant and thought, "I want this near me. How could I do that?" It can't be proven. But it can be chosen, and that's a clue that we're in the realm of "fuzzy" thinking, systems thinking.

Wellspring

Brilliant. That last paragraph and the "but it can be chosen" cuts right to the core of my enquiry Wellspring. And right again in the suggestion that a connection with the source is a loop, "the egg or the hen"?

Ill response to some of the comments, as this thread has taken a bit of a wayward journey; (Sorry, Tony Ill try to eventually guide this a little closer to the original intent.) I relish that there are some who disagree with my approach. It is refreshing not to have this subject matter slide into the all too frequent, vapid drivel of the "Me too" threads.

I believe that we can safely abide by the historical fact that gardens of several centuries ago placed little to no importance on colorful flowers. I recently read Gardens of Illusion (recommended by someone on this forum) written by Sara Maitland and Peter Matthews. They briefly outline the history of gardens and gardening while attempting to place them into context, juxtaposed against our modern notions. They even make note of the copious writings of Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626), lavishly describing wonderful gardens. Some of his dissertations were quite lengthy, describing in exquisite detail, his favorite gardens from across Europe. Special note was made in Gardens of Illusion that rarely was a single flower mentioned in Bacons writings a clear inference that flowers were not a mainstay in gardens of the time.

That was then and this is now. Todays gardens of the western world are flush with a profusion of blooming color. However, it seems to me that in our frantic endeavor to pack in evermore flower color, as a society, we have largely abandoned practices of good design. Would I choose to return to gardens of old? I think it is clear in the photos I posted that color is important to me. However, I feel it is even more important not to abandon good design that has stood the test of time in our rush to grab a color wheel.

I chose to post those photos specifically because they represent the newest trend in gardening rain gardens. (And because Jigsawearth provided a great segue I couldnt pass up.) How does this cutting-edge garden compare to those of old? On the surface, it certainly contains more color! Admittedly, it is difficult to derive an accurate analysis deduced from only an image; which reveals almost no context.

The first photo is not a front yard but rather the side yard of a corner lot. Perhaps inclusion of a partial view of the garage and driveway subconsciously leads our modern minds to believe that this is the front of the house. I intentionally purchased a corner lot so that the driveway would NOT be located next to the front door proclaiming, "Welcome to my err ah garage!" In spite of an elegant front entrance with landscaping designed to create a welcoming look, it is amazing how many guests will slowly and admiringly drive past my front entrance LOOKING for the driveway so that they can enter my home. After they sit parked in the driveway for a while, they finally realize there is no pedestrian entrance on that side of the house. Eventually, they drive back around to the front. (I dont think Sir Francis Bacon had that problem.)

The first rain garden is comprised entirely of native plants with the exception of the bordering Purple Wave petunias, chosen specifically to cultivate a comforting social familiarity. It is interesting that Jigsawearth muses about "the idea that this type of design that is ecologically based could be meshed with the type of design that is more cultural" I agree with your lament. In fact, these "missing elements" were also a concern of mine when initially designing this project. Unseen in this photo, an entirely different look resides on the back side. A six foot wide bluegrass path lies between this area and a small shade garden nestled close to the north side of the house. The unseen back side of the rain garden also features orderly, monoculture drifts of short prairie grasses bordering the path in a grid work.

This rain garden features native plants indigenous to the Midwestern prairie in a continual progression of growth, blooms, wildlife and visual interest from early spring until snow blankets the ground. The look is different every week. However, as a whole, I think this is rarely the case. Quite frankly, the current state of rain garden design is typically abysmal. (I sensed you were saying this between the lines, Jigsawearth.) The typically offered "design plans" should more truthfully be called engineering plans design is totally absent. The engineering technicalities and plant section is scientifically solid. However, the horticultural advice is coming from people with a scholastic botany background in the open prairies where diversity is essential. From a visual perspective, society translates diversity in an urban setting to: that damn weed patch. The speech goes like this: "Native plants are beautiful. Randomly scatter the plants around to get maximum diversity. The plants will fight it out and nature will choose the plants best suited for the site. See what survives. And, oh yeah Native plants are beautiful They really are... Trust me They really are."

This is NOT design and it shows! One of my friends has called this nonsense: making a "WASP". (Wild And Scary Prairie)

The second rain garden was an experiment to address a number of design deficiencies that I am continue to be concerned about. Essentially, I was going for no maintenance. I constructed it to be functional and yet attractive for someone who either did not or could not garden. All of the stone is native to this area. This garden is at the corner of my front yard where my property abuts my neighbors lot. A small, grass swale acts as the dividing line of our properties. It conveys most of the rain water coming off of his house gutters and a small amount from my lot in a very heavy rain. This runoff used to empty into a storm drain in the street. It now is captured in this garden; entering from the before-mentioned swale on the left corner. I also dump some of the water (about 500 gallons per inch of rain) off a small roof area of my house into this rain garden via underground pipes.

Placement of each of these gardens was done after I decided how I was going to move about the property. Paths (unseen in photos) guide visitors around the property allowing the features of each area to independently reveal themselves. I decided upon the placement and technical details long before selecting any plants. However, I did know from the onset that these would be native plants. Let me also state that this is a young property three years old. This is only a one man show. I work a full-time job and take care of several rental properties. I use color wheels to light bonfires and eventually plant a few flowers.

I wish I could give Sir Francis Bacon a tour and discuss intellectual issues in a setting he would hopefully find conducive to that pursuit.

IronBelly

"rarely was a single flower mentioned in Bacon's writings a clear inference that flowers were not a mainstay in gardens of the time." I don't know where they got that idea IB this is an excerpt from the mans most famous essay "Of Gardens"
"And because the breath of flowers is far sweeter in the air (where it comes and goes, like the warbling of music), than in the hand, therefore nothing is more fit for that delight, than to know what be the flowers and plants that do best perfume the air. Roses, damask and red, are fastÕ flowers of their smells; so that you may walk by a whole row of them, and find nothing of their sweetness; yea, though it be in a morningÕs dew. Bays, likewise, yield no smell as they grow, Rosemary little, nor Sweet Marjoram; that which, above all others, yields the sweetest smell in the air, is the Violet, especially the white double Violet, which comes twice a year, about the middle of April, and about Bartholomew-tide. Next to that is the Musk-Rose; then the Strawberry leaves dying, with a most excellent cordial smell; then the flower of the Vines, it is a little dust like the dust of a Bent, which grows upon the cluster in the first coming forth; then Sweet-Briar, then Wallflowers, which are very delightful to be set under a Parlour or lower chamber window; then Pinks and Gillyflowers, specially the matted Pink and Clove Gillyflower; then the flowers of the Lime-tree; then the Honeysuckles, so they be somewhat afar off. Of Bean-flowers I speak not, because they are field-flowers; but those which perfume the air most delightfully, not passed by as the rest, but being trodden upon and crushed, are three; that is, Burnet, Wild Thyme, and Water-Mints; therefore you are to set whole alleys of them, to have the pleasure when you walk or tread."

I do not dispute that Bacon occasionally made reference to a few flowers. But now comes the question of why he felt it was necessary to implore the use of strongly fragrant plants in his essay. I suspect that it was specifically because these plants were rarely found in gardens of the time.

Gardens of Illusion also makes mention of an understudy of Bacons, Thomas Bushell, who served as personal secretary to Bacon. Quoting from the book, "Bushell was attending him with pen and ink horn to set down his present notions as Bacon wandered, meditating, through his own (Bacons) newly constructed gardens." Bushell later went on to create his own gardens which received two royal visits in the 1630s. Bushell went on to write descriptions of this garden. Again, quoting from the book, "There are several different descriptions of its delights but what is interesting in almost all the writing about it, is that there is virtually no mention of flowers. Apart from a reasonable assumption that the neat walkes and groves were planted with trees, we are forced to assume that either there were no flowers or that they were entirely incidental to the architectural and mechanical aspects of the plan."

I certainly dont pretend to be a garden history scholar and certainly no authority on Sir Francis Bacon. However, just considering the dire burden of transportation at the time and lack of commercial greenhouses, it remains implausible to assume bloom-intensive garden design during that era. Perhaps Bacon lamented those conditions. However, in that absence, I believe gardens of that era consciously and deliberately reflected the victory of civilization over nature. Garden design emphasis was placed upon the philosophical and scientific while accommodating intellectual and social intercourse.

IronBelly

"When we think systemically, we cannot understand one thing without the other. A and B are indivisible. Rather than thinking that A causes B, we see that A and B are mutual influences on one another. To think in terms of cause and effect is to think that things are influenced only in one direction. This is straight-line thinking. System theory teaches us to think of loops instead of lines. A and B are both influence and influenced. They are 'co-causal.' Every cause is an effect; every effect is a cause. We look, therefore, at how A and B mutually maintain their interaction, not for who causes what." Peter Steinke

I'm borrowing words from a systems theorist working with conflict management, but the systems approach is becoming the accepted one in terms of many fields, ranging from astro-physics to germ colonies. In my previous posts, I was interpreting "flower" metaphorically for "plant material". I assume that it is correct that the "flower power" now expressed in our yards and gardens can be pinned to an historical timeline some time after the long development of design. That doesn't prove which came first humans digging around in a cave, impacting their landscape for purposes of shelter and safety, and finding it handy to retrieve woody material for a cozy fire Or, playing the trump card of evolutionary theory and assuming the arrival first of simple plant organisms long before the arrival of the simple life forms that would produce the diversity of fish, fowl, and mammal. It's all co-causal. It's intertwined.

I guess I'm going on and on about this because one reason I find reading at this forum satisfying is that, whether we acknowledge it or not, landscape design is an in-your-face systemic process.

Consider planting one small flowering plant and you may find yourself dealing with environmental suitability, whether it might screen the neighbors obnoxious behaviors, whether the blind person will fall over it, and what is emotionally at stake for the person planting this plant, the person's spouse, and the person's great aunt Nellie. Will the plant attract too many or too few bugs and beasties? Will it perform the role it's expected to perform -- block, frame, make the gardener across the street envious? Not to mention aesthetic debate, what's culturally acceptable in the neighborhood, and whether the plant will be bought at a local nursery, a big box store, or is even available.

My guess is that much of the time there isn't much need to say, "Ah, yes, we'd better think systemically here." Yet, I'd also hazard a guess that the experienced LD's know how to think adeptly in a systems manner. The new thread on Rain Gardens suggests systemic thinking that can move both in functional and disfunctional ways.

Wellspring