I can't say that practicality is a universal, but it's good food for thought and discussion. What others may consider impractical might be simply because it wouldn't suit them for one reason or another. Stonework above grade level, however, seems more in the realm of taking the easy way out - the installers' surprise might have been that you called them on it.

That being said, for me, what is practical is that which doesn't kill me or cause great bodily harm. With RA and not as sure footed as I once was, I don't want any stonework with tripable edges, no raised borders to fall over. No walking under trees dodging bird feeders and wind chimes, no impediments tarting up my garden spaces. Those are the things, though they might possess a certain charm, are dangerous for me.

For those of us who might be considered clueless, except for the experience of having gardened/landscaped properties we might have owned; being unable to live with our mistakes, and not necessarily seeking some kind of validation from others, will often become the mother of solution finding. The ring of round rocks that needs to be weed whacked might become a trench edged bed; disparate dot plantings might be fleshed out. On the other hand, we might look at what we've done and shrug because it's more practical to leave it alone.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we all possessed a sense of the appropriate; a sensitivity to the features of our terrain; the set of our house and hardscape; the purpose for our "garden rooms"; intimate understanding of size, texture, form, and color. On a practical level, these are things that can be learned if we want to take the time.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that in design there is a right way - and then there's the reality of the way people do things. It's your neighbor's yard so naturally everything's wrong with it. And your neighbor is looking into your yard thinking the very same thing.

There is a full range of what people consider in designing. Some think not much beyond the plants and aesthetics while some delve more deeply into who the users might be, maintenance, safety, security, .... That is why I always say that design is assessment followed by problem solving. Whenever I post something to that affect, the folks who don't get what that means poo-poo the notion and focus on the "artsy" part of design as though it is a higher level.

Thorough design including the artistic and the practical (yes, it is not an either/or) is a higher level than ignoring one aspect or another because they either weaken the designer's limited goals or they weigh the value of some aspects (maybe aesthetics) over other values such as maintenance or having to regrade an area that they had not realized would not match up.

Your designer and/or your contractor should have known there would be an elevation difference (exactly what it would be) next to the walk before it was built. Then the solution to that problem should have been addressed (problem solving) that would make it both aesthetically nice and safe and practical from a maintenance stand point.

That is often a limitation that self taught people are stuck with. They do not get introduced to things that need to be addressed unless they realize them on their own.

This is where the question comes in "What is the purpose?" If someone likes grassy steps, has an appropriate location for them in the garden, and has the time/inclination to trim them or the means to pay someone else to do it, then grassy steps are "practical" for that person, and appropriate, because their purpose is to create a particular aesthetic quality. They will be wildly inappropriate for someone else whose purpose is to get from the walk to the front door in an area where snow is going to fall and who has to trim the grass with scissors weekly.

A trained and experienced designer should have the skills to balance a homeowner's needs/desires for a particular style or feeling with the practical need to live with and maintain the installed landscape.

I guess your contractor did not discuss the relationship of the paving to the grade beforehand. Was this on a level area with no grade change at all? How high was the paving in relation to the lawn before you stopped him? Just curious.

Alas for civilization, design has come to mean decorating to most people. Design is first and foremost creating an object or space to work, to be functional, to do the job that needs to be done. Automobile engines are designed. Space shuttles are designed. To work, there must be good design.

The professions of architecture and landscape design and landscape architecture add the element of aesthetic value. But they must begin with the element of performing the work to be done. Steps must be safe. Water must be guided away from structures. Path materials must not chip expensive lawnmowers.

The failure of most consumers to understand the full meaning of design is probably the greatest hurdle facing those in the professions of landscape design, landscape architecture and architecture.

In my own garden, there are all sorts of attempts at dramatic or romantic effects that I've tried to add - if they somehow please me I'll live with the impracticality.

But for those who want an impractical design without being the actual gardeners, maybe something else is a factor. A recent article said that more than half the households in the US had yard work done by a service [I didn't see statistics for Canada, Madtripper, sorry.]

Perhaps when one pays another person to carry the gas-powered edger to cut around the round edging stones in 90º heat, one doesn't care if the design is a pain to maintain?

Annie at the Transplantable Rose

Saypoint - grassy steps are never practical - but I agree some people might consider them appropriate and worth the extra work.

The ground was flat, until they added the stone and sub base.

One thing I can't really tell is what the majority of "good" landscape designers-installers might be doing, vs. what I see represented in any number of national magazines. I'd be interested to know whether the "duhsigners" think many or even most magazines represent their ideas and plans, or is there a big Hollywood-esque disconnect. As in, maybe specifically some of the best stuff may not photograph or impress as well in that format, since you can't experience the actual being in the garden, you can't experience the delights of low or reasonable maintenance--instead there will be certain colors, textures, combinations that photograph best. Of course, some will be better than others.And the disconnect is also true, but maybe a little less so, of books on gardening.

But, as I've gotten a bit more savvy via personal trial and error in creating and maintaining stuff--many non-successes there--I've become much more critical of photo spreads of "wonderful" gardens.

I still find Fine Gardening to address more real design issues than some others--but magazines and books are kind of the most visible public face of gardening and landscape design, but don't seem to try very hard to "tell it like it is."

So is this just part of the ever-present marketing strategy-sexy sells, not good long-term planning? I mean, I could not otherwise explain the profusion of gardens designed around "pea gravel paths," (which can look very tidy and contrast so nicely with plants, but have so many drawbacks), and big displays of lush perennials without evergreens, and frequent absence of big shade trees that you would expect are highly desirable, but with real leaves that fall all over everything in real life; or the hundreds of terra cotta pots displayed in gardens in zones that freeze, so that all have the lovely mossy patina that you don't get with imitation and plastic, but who waters them and then empties them out in the winter?

One thing that is fun, though, is to learn to discern how to get close to the bang of the impractical while still being practical. So, in the same vein as, how to get instant age in the garden, a question can be, how to evoke the appeal of that higher-maintenance look while being more practical? (Not always lower cost.)

I did a gorgeous set of grass steps this spring for a job, we needed to get from a courtyard down to lawn. Silly me, assumed that a six figure install would be well cared for; homeowner ignores anything he can't get from the seat of his ZTR. In fact, I had to add a plant bed in front of his gorgeous brick retaining wall; he can't be bothered to mow with the discharge chute AWAY from the wall. White brick, to match the house. Of course.

I'm a huge "form follows function" proponent. My designs are planned to a ridiculous degree of precision. But then you turn it over to the end user, and there's that damn human element. Needless to say, I'll throw a string trimmer in the truck when I go out for portfolio pictures :)

Dave

What is thought to be practicality is held up against attractiveness as more sensible, beauty being an indulgence that produces headaches. Designers are often at odds with installers. Polar positions are not necessary, everything can be both good-looking and comfortable.

I think what happens is that a lot of people see something they like or have done something nice before, then they try to tr-use it to the point where they will force it rather than adjust to a new circumstance.

Good looking can be comfortable, just like Bboy said. You just have to assess and adjust to the circumstance.