Frankie has discerned an endemic undercurrent that has long been a factor on this forum. This dichotomy is not a bad thing but rather something to be reckoned with and, hopefully, smithed into an asset. Whenever you have a blending of widely disparate levels of experience, it becomes inherent that thought processes will occasionally run tangentially. All of us, in whatever service endeavor we excel at, are faced with the familiar conundrum of: Should I provide what is asked for? Or, should I provide what is really needed?Â

As most any reasonable person can readily detect, this situation is fraught with potential for confrontation. More importantly, it is also brimming with the opportunity of enlightenment. Especially, this is a delight when both parties receive enlightenment from perspectives never before considered  as is often the case on this forum.

Perhaps tunnel vision is an exemplary trait of a novice. In other words, only one aspect is taken into consideration; to the exclusion of all else. This is to be expected from an apprentice. However, tunnel vision becomes a curse when it is actively practiced by those with enough experience to know better. No better (worse?) example of this would be the oft-heard, self-righteous pronouncement: As long as I like it, that is all that matters! It is this type of vapid, closed mindedness that will quickly cast intellectual discussion and exploration into the landfill of life.

It continues to puzzle me why basic concepts of landscape design remain so firmly entrenched in elusiveness. Despite repeated failures, perhaps a majority of laypersons cling to a misguided belief of: ÂIf only If only I could get the right color combinations  If only I could find the right plant  If only (fill in the blank.) Foolishness, by definition, is the act of repeating the same failing actions over and over but still hoping for different results.

The road to knowledge may be bumpy but is worth spending some time to travel it.

IronBelly

Should I provide what is asked for? Or, should I provide what is really needed?

From a business point of view to provide the scope of work is all that is needed to fulfill the requirements to get paid. But to get more business and to obtain a better reputation for service providing what is needed or providing consulting (i.e Wisdom) is what sets apart the extra-ordinary from the average.

How that wisdom is rendered is always fraught with peril. Some think you are trying to expand the scope of work (well maybe... for a reason!) or don't want you to be thinking for them.

In the context of this forum, any reply to an OP is free advice offered willingly, but it doesn't have to be acted upon.

One of the driving forces behind my original comment was the natural human tendency for owners to be the poorest judge of ones own landscape. Since you live there every day, your minds eye soon becomes blind to problems that fresh eyes will spot immediately. We even find this the case with some of our most capable designers on this forum who can quickly distill anothers posted problem but yet, become effectively helpless when considering their own. It is a problem that I also struggle with and take measures to combat this foible. My biggest weapon is the camera because it (sometimes painfully) provides details with a clarity unimpeded by emotion.

Time and time again, we will see photos concerning a single issue, fixated upon by a poster. Almost without exception there are items strewn about the landscape, trash cans, grills and no shortage of deferred maintenance and they want to know what single plant they should purchase to create curb appeal and a stunning focal point. In reality, a heck of a lot more impact would be imparted by simply spending 20 minutes putting things in the garage where they belong. Perhaps the next best thing would be to simply edge the sidewalks. It constantly amazes me the amount of impact this simple (albeit laborsome) task imparts to a property. Could this be why every real estate agent worth their salt will also recommend this task to their listed seller? You bet your bippy!

When I give presentations on design, one of the first admonishments I give to my audience addresses another human tendency. Our default belief is that something is missing when, often, just the opposite is true. Something (perhaps several things) needs to be removed.

I encourage my audiences to begin their design process by first concentrating their labors toward eliminating problems. A prioritized checklist does wonders for this initial effort and subconsciously helps one to focus. Another benefit of this approach is that it causes one to become intimately familiar with the landscape. Hopefully, one will begin to notice small details, nuances and microclimates as they perform the more mundane tasks.

Above all, this approach provides a fair amount of positive impact while squarely addressing the ubiquitous problem of: We dont have much money

IronBelly

Holy Toledo Batman, I haven't heard "you bet your bippy" in a coon's age - though my recollection goes "you bet your sweet bippy" but then maybe not all bippies, whatever they were, were sweet.

IB I couldn't agree more with your initial comment in the last post, but find that the very critique of homeowner design in those terms neglects the aspect of homeowner design that sometimes makes it most special, that is, its freedom to express personality.

Good professional design expresses principles but also the personality of the designer. Homeowner design, if it slavishly follows design principles, can become devoid of personality, while homeowner design done without regard for principles might express homeowner personality but to a bad end effect.

To me there is a risk of discarding baby with bathwater when we categorically denounce homeowner preference, that is to say, we get a sadly sterile and anonymous landscape that perfectly adheres to design principles.

As for maintenance... I keep telling my husband I'm waiting till all the designing and building is done! When I'm too rickety to move boulders, I'll have nothing to do but edge and deadhead...

KarinL

Hmmm there seems to be a lot of babies taking baths lately. ;-)

Im glad you brought up the aspect of a homeowners unique ability to add those most special touches of personality. Perhaps it is this singular quality that substantively allows a home landscape to become endearing. However, it is also a quality that will never be found in a formulaic approach.

I like to think that good landscape design is 95% common sense. It is when we become sidetracked by so many of the popular misconceptions that we begin to flounder. Yes, there is a basic core of design knowledge that is most helpful in guiding one towards attainment of landscaping goals. The major obstacle facing most of us is simply discerning the wheat from the chaff. The second major obstacle is properly prioritizing what we do find to be true.

As an excellent example of a homeowner effort, I would encourage everyone to check out an article titled "Photo Finish" in the current (December, January 2008) issue of Horticulture Magazine. Although I would have done a few things differently, I cant help but be struck by the simplicity and effective use of negative space. It seems quite apparent that this landscape is the product of extended cerebral effort. It succeeds largely by what was not included as well as what was thoughtfully chosen to be included.

IronBelly

Freedom to express personality is never displaced. This is the single most frustrating wrong thought that seems must be endured while participating in these forums.

Fixing a drainage problem does not mean you can't have a family of garden gnomes. Mitigating a bad view does not mean you can't have your favorite companion plants.

The whole process is problem solving. You'll never solve every problem. Sometimes the choice has to be made to defer one problem in order to solve some others that are more attainable. Those are done by weighing values based on your own value system. These can be aesthetic, economic, environmental, political, social, or even to keep others happy.

Every person that looks at a posted project is going to apply some set of values. Some of these won't relate at all to the values of the person posting. BUT, "this forum is provided for the discussion of the technical and aesthetic issues involved in landscape and garden design". It is not the garden help hotline. Although, helping people out is a great way to drive discussion. These posters have to understand that sometimes the discussion has a much broader purpose than helping the OP.

When you do landscape design for a living, you have the opportunity and responsibility of assessing your clients values. Then you assess the site based on your own understanding, knowledge, and experience that should be much broader than your clients. After that, you not only do you apply those values, but you use creativity and artistic expression to enhance as much of it in as many ways as you can within the reality of the site.

The site assessment part is an extremely important thing that is automatic for people who do this for a living. It also follows that you develop an ability to notice things that are issues (or you need another line of work) that might be completely overlooked by someone else.

You also tend to work from macro to micro and from technical to aesthetic. You just learn that it is the most effective way not to make big mistakes.

Someone who just bought their first house and has seen three episodes on HGTV learn about finishing touches and aesthetics. That is all they are exposed to, so they simply don't see or understand the big picture or the technical aspects of their site. Then they post to get that last little detail resolved that is going to finish off their entire vision and someone points out that that the whole thing is going to wash away the first time it rains or the patio is going to be shattered rubble after the first frost of the year. It is like having the icecream fall off the cone and land in the grit of the parking lot. Of course you'd be upset.

The good parent who cares tells his child to be careful not to drop the icecream because the parent cares. It is not to be a pain in the neck.

How can you see a bus coming and not tell someone to watch out and then feel good about yourself? Why ruin their day, if they don't see it coming?

The Chinese pictograph that would be translated as "crisis" in English is formed from the symbols for "danger" and "opportunity". A few years ago this was the favorite illustration used in problem-solving seminars.

A teacher that my husband had put it another way: "Never waste a good crisis."

I think what I'm trying to say is that the problems can become the basis for the unique individuality and beauty of the particular Landscape, or they can become the source for its failure.

One of the best things that happened to me as a result of participating in this forum was letting go of the notion that somehow the beds, borders, lines of the existing landscape needed to be kept. I remember, for example, thinking that if I replaced the horrible edging material on the front island bed with something classier, it would be "fixed". It took a while to ask, "Is that island bed working in this landscape?" It's almost as though at first I looked on my landscape as a child considers a coloring book. The form is already imprinted on the page and all I had to do was color in the lines or remove stuff that had gone over the edges. I think that some of the "blank slate" posters are trying to imprint a pre-fabricated "coloring book" form on their landscapes. The thing that I am still getting a handle on is that the picture can't be drawn until the problems are identified and solutions resolved.

The cool thing is that the homeowner has the opportunity to do far more than color within the lines. I'm nnot sure that the expression "blank slate" is really helpful, because the page we start with--or the slate--is never really blank. It's site specific. It has a compass orientation to the style of the home. And then there are those wonderful, persnickety, and opportune crises to be addressed and resolved. Slope, grading, drainage issues become the opportunity for gorgeous terracing. A need to corral kids becomes an opportunity for enclosure and privacy. It doesn't even have to be that expensive. I remember IB discussing the "rouge and lipstick specials". These were homes that weren't selling--that's the crisis-- and what they needed was dog turds picked up, holes filled in, shrubs pruned, exterior paint updated from the sixties--that was the opportunity.

Of course, in our own homes we can take things slowly. I'm going outside in a bit to see if I can handle the cold and get a few neglected chores done. The old coloring-book imprint is still there. The picture in my head is much different. It's just that I haven't been able to accomplish ityet.

Wellspring

Laag,

Perhaps I could have crafted my words a bit better. In re-reading, it does seem to infer that only a homeowner has the ability to express personality. As you pointed out, this is patently untrue.

***********************

What I am really attempting to do broaden the thought process and displace entrenched, singular beliefs. This forum offers exciting, never before possible opportunity for all of us to openly expose, examine and ameliorate misconceptions and personal prejudices about an expansive subject matter.

Although there has yet to be any feedback on my suggested reading from Horticulture Magazine, I threw that example out there because this guy is not a landscape professional he is a professional photographer. His knowledge of landscape design was not formally obtained but rather a process of osmosis.

As someone who makes a living depending upon a trained eye, I found some of his stated observations quite insightful:

"The key is to have good structure, big ideas and effects and a bold scale, even in a small garden."

"Attention to detail, in design and construction, is really important."

"So many gardens are ruined by ugly and badly made details, especially tables and chairs."

The mention of tables and chairs threw me a bit; although I firmly agree with the central premise. I cant say that I frequently notice this flaw, other than in large, upscale landscapes. Then I will occasionally notice lonesome tables and chairs plopped into a setting which is certainly not conducive to lingering. The placement looks too cutesy and it seems obvious that nobody ever uses them. (Purely conjecture on my part.) I pretty much ascribe to the notion that there is an implicit requirement that utilitarian objects must fulfill their word-root and actually be utilized. If not, they generally dont belong or remain, at best, a poor choice.

IronBelly

As Laag says..."The whole process is problem solving." To which I add the following question. When does the process of problem solving begin? You would think that a prospective house buyer would spend some time studying the yard looking for problems, perhaps costly ones, before making a purchase offer. Steep hills to mow? Lawn in bad shape? Erosion? Exterior of house poorly designed. Retaining walls cracking? So many times I will open up a question on this forum, look at the provided pictures and wonder why in heck the questioner purchased the property in the first place and then turns to this Forum requesting cheap fixes. These types of questions are very difficult to answer without physically standing on the site and evaluating the entire situation.

So many of the questioners refuse to pay for a consultation with a designer. It is money well spent to analyze problems and get ideas which can be slowly implemented by DIY's. A designer can help to pull the whole picture together with words and drawing lines in the dirt. Many times this is all that is needed by a homeowner to begin the problem solving/landscape process.

..."The whole process is problem solving."
Unfortunately, Laag is correct but he shouldnt be. Ideally, landscape design should not be an exercise in Humpty Dumpty. Routinely trying to salvage a mess after the damage is done is not the ideal way to pursue ones (anyones) craft. Prevention and pre-planning is a luxury rarely able to be taken advantage of by those involved in landscape design. Sadly, this is almost always the case; even with "custom built" homes. Far too many of those posting here are dealing with ghastly situations that could have, and should have, been prevented. Simply, the best way not to get burned by a 'hot potato' is never to pick it up. There is no conceivable way that I would have bought some of the homes and their accompanying problems that we see posted. A rouge and lipstick special is one thing 100 long concrete retaining walls 4 high is quite another!

" When does the process of problem solving begin?
For my new home, it began long before the basement hole was even dug. The house was arranged and constructed to allow incorporation of landscape details that I wanted. Even at that, I was still dealing with a few unexpected curveballs created by a quickly constructed spec-home contractor, cutting every corner in the book, who built next to my lot. I never have accepted the premise that the building and the landscape are two separate entities. As I see it, to wind up with a home (not a just a house) that truly functions well, the total package should be designed as a unit.

It drives me nuts driving past houses that completely blew wonderful potential that would now be much too expensive (Humpty Dumpty again!) to exercise. In my neighborhood, there is currently a new home being built on a corner lot a perfect opportunity to separate the driveway from the front door by merely swinging it to the side. But no here we have another homeowner saying, "Welcome to my garage!" It would not have cost a dime more to build the home this way. In fact, a small amount of money spent on a consultation fee up front would have paid off handsomely. However, at this stage of the game, the opportunity has already been squandered.

IronBelly

Unfortunately it is problem solving?

Again, I think I'm hearing problem solving being isolated to non-aesthetic issues. Deciding what shade of pink rose goes best with your groundcover is problem solving. The fun part of landscape design is also problem solving.

Any decision is problem solving. Some of that problem solving is the artistic part. Some is also the horticultural part. Problem solving is not limited to problematic issues.

I think I can say that for another four or five years and it still will be denied.

If it makes you feel any better, Andrew, I've been hearing you say it, and I know exactly what you mean. Maybe calling them "design challenges" instead of "problems", in order to prevent aesthetic issues from being mentally excluded, would help.

I think I can safely say that many of us come from a place where the idea of hiring a designer to plan our yards would have seemed as extravagant as having a housekeeper or hired cook, or chauffeur to drive us around. Things have changed, and families are now likely to have two wage-earners and a greater interest in improving their homes and landscapes than our parents had. Landscape designers are more numerous and probably much more affordable than they would have been way back when. When I was a kid, I didn't know anyone who had a professionally designed landscape. In fact, I didn't know there was such a thing. Things have changed.

What hasn't changed is the mindset of many people that having a professional design done is an extravagance. If you consider what it costs for a vacation, home electronics, high-end clothes and cars and other grown-up toys, the cost of a professional landscape design doesn't seem so high. Especially if you consider how much money you can waste making poor choices at the nursery or having a poorly-thought out patio installed and having problems later.

What's that saying? Experience is something you get right after you need it.

Hmmm ... I was hoping the concept of problem PREVENTION would be coming through. Many of the issues dealt with are predictable and best addressed before they become problematic.

IronBelly

You'll get no argument from me, laag :-) And that's why even those "rouge and lipstick specials" can inevitably be helped with some careful landscape design. While preplanning is always desireable, it is often not possible. Few of us have the luxury of custom designed homes, a few more more are able to exercise some influence on a builder designed home, but the vast majority acquire done deals - an existing home with an existing landcape, for better or worse. Can a sow's ear landscape be turned into a silk purse?? As KarinL might put it, you bet your sweet bippy it can! I've yet to encounter any property that couldn't be enhanced by a well thought out landscape design, but with a price in commitment and dollars attached.

As I see it, IB's query why homeowners would even consider some of the properties we see posted here has a couple of simple answers. One (and a biggie) is financial considerations - it is what they can afford where they need to be. The second is that few homeowners buy with an eye to future landscape potential. I'm sure some do, but I think the majority, not being landscape design oriented or even serious gardeners, look to the attributes of the house first. That's where the big investment is and that's where they focus their efforts and energies. Location as well plays a large role - proximity to schools, work, neighborhood conveniences, etc. Landscaping generally plays second or third fiddle at best, if it's even considered as part of the orchestra. Obvious existing landscaping problems are not recognized as such, or if they are recognized, there is not a clear understanding of how to mitigate them and the complexity and expense that may be involved doing so.

And herein lies the dilemma. Landscaping and the landscaping process is not a priority consideration nor is it a known or understood concept to most homeowners. That's why the forum receives endless requests for "what to plant where" and "how to create curb appeal" when in fact they are almost always facing much broader issues that should/must be addressed first. All too frequently these broader issues are overlooked, ignored or thought to be inconsequential when they are really the root of the issue and the foundation of the problem solving process. And in the same vein, many of the these broader concerns come with a not insignificant price tag attached - while many homeowners are willing to fork over thousands of dollars to upgrade the exterior or interior of the house, they would never consider investing a similar significant expenditure to upgrade the landscape. The concept is just not in their sensibilities. Because in their mind the landscaping is only flowers or attractive plantings, it should happen fast and it should happen cheap.

And we wonder why conflicts arise on this forum between the new to the property homeowners who now want to spruce up the outside and those who practice landscape design professionally or those who understand it well yet apply it only in a personal context. It is a case of apples and oranges - we are addressing two different issues and with two different vocabularies. Do we supply simply what the homeowner poster wants or do we enlighten them to look beyond the trees to see the forest? Do they even care about the forest?

I don't have any easy answers to those questions and based on the discussions this forum generates, I'm not sure anyone else does, either. But the designer and educator in me will continue to try and broaden the way these posters look at their property and expand their approach in creating their own landscape to address those issues they by intent or ignorance (and I don't mean that in any sort of derogatory manner) choose to ignore. Sometimes we achieve a modicum of success, othertimes, not. I believe it is still worth the effort to try.

Planning is prevention! It is problem solving before building.

One of the "problems" is that many houses are sited with very little site planning. Mostly because of lack of priority followed by lack of awareness and lack of knowledge. Typically, all you need to get a building permit is to show a plan view that proves the house meets the zoning requirements - setbacks from property lines, lot coverage, building height. The project is driven by a developer, an architect or a builder who is primarily interested in the building and getting it built. In either case, their knowledge is rather general when it comes to site planning. These people tend to believe that any site problem can be easily solved on site after the fact through grading and landscaping. However, any of these problems can be addressed prior to construction if a detailed site plan with topography is done. It will prove out on paper.

Sometimes little adjustments take care of huge problems. None more than the elevation of the top of foundation especially with walkout basements.

Site planning is an investment that prevents most of the situations outside of aesthetics that we see posted here. Unexpected retaining walls will cancel out the cost of a site plan ten fold.

I'd like to know where, if not in the site planning stage, PREVENTION takes place. I hope that IB and everyone else understands that we are talking about DESIGN. The problem solving is being done in the design process. THAT is PREVENTION!

Do most landscape designers address all of these things in a site plan prior to construction of the building? No, but some do have the education, training, knowledge, and experience to do this. Most do not. More LDs are brought in with the starting point beieng a house nearing completion and a fixed canvas. Perhaps, that is why IB is screaming for prevention.

I have been in the position (for oth better and worse) to have designed complete landscapes for many, many, properties prior to the start of contruction. It makes a huge difference when you can find problems with how the building is being proposed and get them altered to meet the needs of the landscape.

Most recently, I was able to get the architects to change the design of the foundation to an office building in order to have HP Accessibility without a great big ADA ramp with rails. They did not think that any change would be necessary until I proved it out on paper. It was driven by the close proximity of the parking lot to the door, minimum required amount of parking spaces, elevation of the existing pavement that the lot was being accessed from, the size and shape of the lot, the required planting buffer around the parking, and ADA requirements. No one is going to put that all together in his head and know that prior to building. If there were no site plan, their very beautiful building would have a set of big rails leading up to the front door at best, or a long retaining wall along the edge of the parking lot.

Prevention is out there, but it starts with the investing in people with the knowledge, skills, and abilities to PLAN ahead rather than to react afterwards. The assumption that drives most people is that it is a straight forward project that does not need any "special planning".

Most problems are to do with elevation and grading. These can be measured and calculated quantitatively, but are more often measured and decided qualitatively using a lot of assumption. A lot of time it works fine. Sometimes it does not.

... and I certainly can't argue with either of you. Perhaps not well stated enough to make it apparent, but I have been in agreement all along.

The reason I even broached this subject matter is a mirror of Pam's comment:
"But the designer and educator in me will continue to try and broaden the way these posters look at their property and expand their approach in creating their own landscape to address those issues they by intent or ignorance (and I don't mean that in any sort of derogatory manner) choose to ignore..."

Perhaps I am rooted in a paradigm far removed from normal. As a young boy on the farm, I was constantly being regaled with admonitions to consider the down line consequences of your actions. It was especially driven home by my father to give consideration to placement of things like building siting and fenestration.

At an early age it was pointed out to me which direction the prevailing wind (especially winter wind) blew and to give it a prime consideration. Shingles and siding were to be lapped so that they would not catch this wind. Building openings were placed to minimize the impact of weather. Trees were planted in locations to take maximum advantage of summer shade, yet not create snow drifting problems and/or provide shelter from blizzard winds. Even the corn rows were planted in certain directions to minimize wind damage. In many ways, my father taught me early-on to avoid the classic, old conundrum of painting oneself into a corner.

One of the potential benefits of this forum is that a few people will hopefully begin considering a few things beyond a shiny-new, brass kick plate on the front door of the home they are considering for purchase. My hope is also that a few more folks start to realize that it is their money on the line and that entitles them to be more demanding. For the most part (at least within reason), the builders don't really care (and it costs no more) where you decide to place things as long as they know about it beforehand. However, if you totally abdicate all decisions to them; well ... I guess they show about as much concern as you do. Unfortunately, you are the one who gets to pay for their dumb decisions!

Landscape design involves more than flowers. As but one minor example: The placement of my garage was crucial in my planning stage; long before any dirt was turned. Firstly, I was adamant that I was not going to live in a home that said, "Welcome to my garage!" It quickly became apparent that was going to require me to purchase a corner lot; and there are not a lot of those. Secondly, I was adamant that my garage was going to be on the north and west side of the home to blunt the prevailing winter wind in order to conserve heating requirements of the home. Along the same energy conservation theme, I moved the setback of the home 4-feet to the south; which correspondingly made the garage stick out 4-feet to the north. This gave me a protected 4-foot nook to not only conceal my A/C unit but also create an area that was always in full shade; which bolsters cooling efficiency. I also made the garage 6-feet deeper than standard (very cheap to do at this stage) in order to accommodate an additional stairwell that went directly into the basement. Another change that I made from the conventional garage plan was to move the garage service door to the rear. This accommodated direct entry onto the rear patio for things like barbeque grills; which could now be conveniently stored out of sight in the garage. As a side benefit to moving the service door to the rear, it forces people to enter my home from the front doorway entrance; the way that I designed the home to be entered.

I chose to be involved in all of these decisions. Invariably, most of these choices cost no additional funds. In fact, in many cases it saved me money. The largest investment was time spent in thought. However, the real benefit is that these active choices made my home (not just house) so much more livable.

As Laag has repeatedly maintained, "Most problems are to do with elevation and grading." Even with all of the pre-planning, I was unexpectedly forced to deal with a cheapo-contractor that quickly slapped up what he called, "a luxury spec-house". He realized that digging a shallow hole for a basement costs less than a full depth hole. This placed that house a full two feet higher than any other home in the development. No problem! The eventual first-time home buyers never even noticed because they were concentrating on the shiny-new, brass kick plate on the front door. However, this forced me to adjust the previously intended grade levels of my garage floor, house foundation, basement egress window well and eventual patio. Grrrr...

Anyway, I am just throwing a few of these real-life considerations out there for novices to see. There is no sense in making everyone "test the electric fence".

IronBelly

Has anyone considered that some people are poor? Or just middle class? And landscape designers or architects will probably notice and value landscapes more than someone who is not one. For an example, I am a specialist in neonatal nursing and infant feeding, and I have a bias for breastfeeding, which many people don't. When you have knowledge of, and a passion for, a particular subject, you will have that subject more in your world view. I appreciate that this is the landscape design forum, and that ideally every homeowner, or even renter, would thoughtfully evaluate and execute the ideal (to whom?) landscape.....but I would also appreciate a little less snobbery and judgement in some of the posts.

Lou,

If you read my posts very carefully, you will see many references to people having different sets of values based on economics as well as other things. And that these different people will need to prioritize based on those values.

However, inventory and analysis needs to be done to know what is there and the benefits or consequences of how they are addressed. Then you have the information to apply those values ito the best decisions you can make under the circumstaces.

In some cases those values will determine that as much as they know it is a good idea to bring someone in with expertise in site planning, the money just is not there and they chose to move forward on faith. I can't argue with that. .... unless it is because you have your budget committed to expensive details and don't want to pay for the preparation which is often the case.

Lou,

Thanks for weighing in with your opinion. I was wondering when this point of view would come up. I'm glad it finally did so that it can be addressed.

You are well within bounds to point out the far ranging personal and economic conditions of the myriad of folks reading this forum. One of this forum's major stumbling blocks has nothing to do with either of those conditions it is one of context and a perspective tempered from past postings. I wish you could have read a long-ago thread entitled "Well that depends." (See link below.)

Where I really see blind butchering of design is in the small additions to and/or remodel of an existing house. I am currently driving past a front porch & garage remodel that has "wet basement" and "water problems" written all over it. I fit solidly within the blue collar, working middle class. From here, I see little relationship between making intelligent choices and economic condition. Quite simply, money doesnt make you any smarter it certainly hasnt bolstered Paris or Brittanys IQs!

Your observation about life stages, however, holds quite true. All that this guy who cleans his finger nails with a pocket knife can tell you is that the definition of luck is preparation meeting opportunity. Yes, it is true that some of the things may seem of little to no value at present. On the other hand, if you just stow a few of these nuggets in the back recesses of your mind, they can be drawn upon when the time is right. Many of the lessons that I talked about learning from my father took me over 40 years to finally be in a situation to utilize. Quite simply; things change.

On the other hand, some things, like uncontrolled water being a structures worst enemy, never change. Nobody has to (or possibly could) know everything. Im sure that even in your line of work, you see a lot of dumb stuff being said and done that could have easily been avoided by simply asking. Do economics play a role here?

I realize that I take an inherent risk of being misinterpreted when I share some of my experience and hard-won knowledge on this forum we all do. It is the intelligent, responding posters, like you, who share observations and ask pertinent questions that refine the rough edges of my attempts.

Thanks for participating.
IronBelly

I think there are so many parallels between what is experienced on this forum and in many other choices, and especially purchases. Home, yard, car, kitchen, you name it. There is some final distillation of desire, focus/priority, experience, $$ and even image that leads to to the choice, and no one will see it the same way. But, in each instance, experience is a big part, especially if, lacking personal experience, the person is not able to see what could be substituted for personal experience (advice, reading)--see, you even have to have some kind of experience(s) to know when you need experience!

Take a chair (please!). Ten different people try out the same chair and 4 say, this is great, another, not comfortable enough, another, the cat hair will show terribly on this fabric, another, feels great now but remember we got one just like it before and it started to sag in one year, another will actually see a nearly perfect chair but the wrong color, and so on. Plus, amazingly "we" are sometimes blown away by what someone else does not consider a priority in his choices.

I have a lot of sympathy for the person about whom it might be said, why on earth did you buy that property in the first place, because of how much experience it takes to understand what you can and can't do, not absolutely always, but for reasonable time/skill/$$. I mean, I have the same reaction to the photos ( you mean, you bought that....), but I can see how they might have got there.

I think one of the types of advice that might be given more often to some gardeners is, "move!". Or, consider moving, at least. Same with some house issues. Meaning, it's just one of the possibilities, to be assessed objectively as to what may be gained or lost.

I might ask--do you think it is easier to change your house or your landscape? Of course, it depends! But would depend on the issues. Recall the thread in which a poster was urged not to worrry whether he would have any trees of any size before he was old and bent--just enjoy watching them grow! So to get a certain amount of true age in the landscape, one might buy the landscape and remodel the house. Yet, quite a degree of appearance of age (with the exception of 100 ft-tall trees) can be achieved with clever design, that of course, one might have to pay for, not knowing exactly how to achieve it oneself. But, if one insisted on an authentically vintage home without any additions, no matter how clever, or a precise location in town, then one buys that house and remodels the landscape.

If one wants both a great yard and landscape and a very updated/upgraded home, I had about decided it is "easier" to remodel the house (meaning, the aims can technically be accomplished, because you can create the home or parts thereof in a shorter time and have more control over materials and finishes)--but again, others can disagree because, every house would also have its various constraints--footprint, setbacks--and one can argue that landscape constraints are as often financial as technical...for the right amount of $$ one could move mountains....

Everything we do is predicated on something else: trial and error, prior knowledge, advice, ability to accomplish within whatever constraints exist. And I think the reminder in louisianagal's posting was a good one. Constructive criticism should never be regarded as negative. And with a modicum of diplomacy and tact as part of the critical skillset, taking something off the table should necessitate replacing that something with an alternate consideration - even if that alternate is dismissed out of hand.

To get some additional perspective on how different we are and what we do with what we have, make a brief departure from Landscape Design and take a spin through the Home Decorating Forum on the other side of the GardenWeb. Endless diversity from Goodwill shabby chic to Carlton Varney interiors with everything in between and nothing is off the ooh and aah charts. There are guiding design principles involved there, too, in getting that sofa planted in the most appropriate spot. But I digress.

Had planned on spending the winter going back through the old threads here because I believe I'm starting to get it. My enthusiasm for outdoor projects does not suffer in being tempered by more realistic or appropriate ideas. Wellspring's metaphore of "coloring within the lines" hit home, and from upstairs windows the perspective is totally different from ground level observation - patterns stemming from because it seemed right or having always done it this way become much more apparent.

Though in some of the posts, it might be obvious that a change of paint, roof color, moving the porch or deck, jacking up the house and digging a new foundation at a more pleasing angle, cutting new window openings, etc., might enhance the total package, it still comes back to something green and growing to mitigate a multuitude of sins... or to make that which is without sin even more drop dead gorgeous. And truth be told there should probably be some myth dispelling: expensive = good, inexpensive = bad. Maybe that green and growing thing can come from a big box sale - they have been known to live long and prosper with proper planting and follow up attention.

A lot can be accomplished on a shoe string budget. Recycled and scavenged materials, plant divisions from local plant swaps and gardening friends, end of season shrub and tree sales, and plant propagation combined with patience and some time can furnish a lot of the materials needed.

The library and web are good sources of information on landscape design, and they're free. Planning ahead doesn't cost anything, but there is a learning curve that you can eliminate by hiring a talented desiger for help. You don't even have to have a full plan, you can pay for an hour or two to pick their brain, as long as they know ahead of time this is what you want, and are in agreement. Be ready to sketch their ideas and make notes while they talk and ask lots of questions.

As far as thinking about the lot, drainage, slopes, tree problems, etc., armed with some knowledge ahead of time, you can probably head off some of the more costly and awkward situations when shopping for a home. Being a gardener, I look at the potential of the yard as much as the house. It doesn't have to be expensive.

Amen to that, Jo! Careful planning and a well thought out design transcends any sort of income level. You don't have to be rich to read, research and plan :-) And few landscaping projects are above the ability of most homeowners to accomplish and those that are (extensive grading, forming and pouring concrete, tall extended retaining walls, etc.) should be planned and budgeted for in the same manner that one plans and budgets for any sort of interior remodel.

What I've come to realize with many of the posts on this forum is that planning is not in the play book. For some reason, all the frequent suggestions to read, research and plan before embarking on a landscape upgrade tend to get dismissed as unnecessary or overly complicating the process. Planning IS the process and just taking the time to do so carefully will eliminate countless errors that in themselves are unnecessary expenses.

But it seems like the majority want quick fixes and rapid results without understanding the difficulties these may impose down the line. I am constantly amazed, both in my capacity as a designer and as a nurseryperson, how many folks enter into landscaping activity or plant purchasing without the slightest bit of knowledge or preparation. I can't think of many other activities that attracts consumers that are so ill-prepared or that is entered into without even the barest bit of homework done first.

And they wonder why it doesn't come together as intended.

I really do believe that the landscape is the area of design that has the most variables and most limitations due to those variables over any of the other home improvement subjects. It is also viewed by many to be largely an aesthetic endeavor. Aesthetic finishes are the final touch and, if all the other issues are well addressed, the only part that really gets noticed.

People often complain about "cookie cutter" or "same old - same old", but fail to realize that these are often done that way to be the most functional and reasonably aesthetic within the constraints of budget, use, and other site issues that are not noticed because they were taken care of. Then others want to use their budget to be "edgey" or add more zest. Then they do not place a value on addressing problems that interfere with that zest either physically or by eating up budget. Then they post and don't want to hear about their misplaced priorities.

How many posts have you read about lawns being a 20th century suburban introduction or that foundation plantings are from developers.

When they eradicated certain parasites people no longer felt there was a reason to cook meat to certain temperatures. When the practice of undercooking became more widespread, we all found out the consequences all over again when they came back. It is the same with a lot of these basic landscape practices. If you want to be different, you have to accept the consequences, if there are any.

There is a thread about a clay patio going on. It is cheap and easy, but no one is doing it. The assumption is that it is because Martha Stewart does not like it. People had wooden chimneys in the 1800s, those who had nothing else and needed heat. I'm not going to put a wooden chimney on my house.

All those variables is what I was getting at,too, laag.
Sure it ALL depends--you can't build certain houses on certain sites--but at some level, once you have a foundation, you can, say, gut the kitchen and adjoining rooms and produce any number of kitchens. I guess I think of building materials and construction as being more controllable (though not less scary). And it is true that without thinking about it, I, as do most folks, am likely using relative cost-value judgements, such as, hmmm $50k kitchen, okay, but $50k landscape, no way--when for $50k, you could solve a lotta landscape problems!