Mostly a #2 but with leanings toward #5.

I think flowering plants benefit from having occasional geometric anchors to stabilize them.

Rosefolly

#1. Except that there is no planning of any kind. The garden just happens as I acquire new plants that I fall in love with and decide I have to have. Then I get home and scramble around looking for a place to put them. Chaos reigns supreme!

Seil... LOL

Lynn

None of the above. I don't really have a "garden". My roses are planted mainly along fencelines all around the farm with some consideration to their size and preferred growing conditions but no real planning. I acquire a rose I admire and then find a spot for it. I try to group the oranges and yellows away from the reds, pinks and purples - sort of. The whites, of course, can fit in anywhere. The mislabeled roses keep things just that much more informal.

Yep, in the same camp as Seil - guided by obsessions. For example, a particular genus or family will catch my eye (geum, lathyrus, phlox, tulipa, umbelliferae, shrubby salvia.....to name a few of the most recent) and I will seek out as many seeds as possible to sow and plant (and will even buy a particular cultivar as a ready grown plant) - a bit like discovering an author then finding out there is a huge back catalogue - joy.....and then there will be a desperate scramble to either rearrange entire beds and borders. Nothing stays the same for more than a few years and there is no visible soil anywhere since if a space exists, a plant can be shoehorned in.....somewhere.
Or, a particular idea (Californian meadow, South African Karoo, Fenland prairie, scree beds, daisy garden, English cottage extravaganza) might arise from feverish brainstorms.....and the spades come out, plants are composted, seed lists consulted, new ones planted. A bit like a toddler with ADHD, my gardens are neither serene nor mature but an experimental mish-mash which will never win any prizes for harmony, design, taste, especially since all the detritus of a working garden (hoses, pots, tools, cloches, frames, nets, stakes) are permanently scattered at random, messing up every view I attempt to frame or crop.........and I barely even see the numerous weeds, just as extra green.

So.....none of the above, really.

Well, I'm afraid I'm in Camp's camp. I wish it was otherwise, though. Right now, I have five 288-plug seed flats on my kitchen counter tops under the fluorescent lights and five more such flats on my porch, all filled with my latest seed orders plus some from sweet Kim (Sidos House). Hubby is not thrilled. That doesn't consider over 40 potted roses to be put in the ground, and I'm dithering like Ingrid about where to put them. Part of the problem is my manure supply has dried up due to a barn fire, making my enrichment program a problem.

No. 2 is practically tailor-made for me, but I'm not an enemy of contrast and right now have yellow irises in a bed of mostly pink and white roses. I love purples and lavenders since they contrast with lighter shades without creating dissonance with my wild-hills background. I also like the contrast between the soft, billowy plants and the more geometric paved paths and squares in my garden, which gives some sense of order and reassuring control in an area where nature can be intractable and harsh.

Ingrid

Probably mostly #3--with occasional forays into #2 or #5. It's like when I first saw Munstead Wood and fell in love with it. I knew instantly where it belonged--over near golden Molineux. I could just see the dark red and golden shades dramatically playing off each in my mind months before I actually received the plant in a spring shipping.

It was only after I planted it that I realized on its other side, about 10 ft away, was a more subdued golden/buff Jeri Jennings (HM), somewhat repeating the same color contrast but in more muted shades. Worked out beautifully.

My main large bed features lots of red and white--roses, clematis, peonies, daisies, bulb lilies, hardy geranium, etc. There are a few pinks and yellow/golds thrown in for variety, but the main theme is obviously red-white. But the small narrow border north of it is pastel--shades of lighter pinks, with a few light yellows and white thrown in--much more harmonious.

Kate

Gosh, I don't know what to say. The categories are too simple to describe me and my approach to gardening. I live in something of a wilderness. My mind and my creative spirit are something of a wilderness too, very full and abundant, over the top at times. You can actually get lost in my garden. I love color harmonies and contrasts but i don't agonize about getting them perfect. I appreciate formality and have included some small bits of it here. I have far too many roses and other things planted and struggle to hold it all together. I appreciate order in other people's gardens but it doesn't exactly work here.

I'm like Seil!! :) I see it, like it, buy it, but if you need numbers- 1.3 and 4, with maybe acouple of perrinnials.

Alana7bsc,

No numbers required, I get it....I think:)

Lynn

This post was edited by desertgarden561 on Fri, Nov 29, 13 at 11:31

Not totally sure I fit in any of the categories, but that is how I like it.

Our garden is a work in progress, I pick the spot that I needs my attention currently and deal with it. Usually the overall plan for it comes to me in the shower (a good mental work zone) That plan will change and evolve as I work in the area. Working with a shoe string budget means usually things get done in phases as I have the funds.

On the other hand, I would like to have the garden have some general grouping of similar types. Like one zone that has mostly lavender HT, the back yard with the large green leafy look of the Austins, the front yard with the tree roses seen from the street-but on our side you see all the pink polyanthas that I plan to be able to share in the future. And the main garden with the old roses-fruit trees-veggies all living together happily (or so I plan)

And then there is the photographer in me that wants a variety to photograph, but also wants them to have colors that flow well in the bed.

Mostly #3, but the contrasts are mostly light vs. dark colors in a range which would be picked by #2.

:-)

~Christopher

This post was edited by AquaEyes on Fri, Nov 29, 13 at 14:17

In my head I'm a 3, where I try for harmony among the roses, other plants and colors, and I deliberately work in some contrasting colors to provide drama (particularly the dark reds). I follow this model when planning the roses at planting time, and I work toward integrating harmony among the various plantings with the annuals like salvia or impatiens.

In practice, of course, I'm a 1 and the main reason it works is that most colors in nature go together with enough neutral color between them as a buffer.

I like this topic and it's an interesting way to ponder ourselves as gardeners. Thanks for raising this thread!

Cynthia

I put the plants where I think they will grow best. This is the most important thing for me, that they be healthy. Next, the ones with the fragrance that I like best get a morning sun spot as well as the ones with delicate petals that fry in summer afternoon heat. After all that is settled, it remains to group the rest into pleasing color combinations if I can.

Out on the parkways I have formality. One strip is a long row of pink rosette. The other is a row of Johann Strauss and Clotile Soupert alternating with a clipped topiary at each end. I do like formality but this the only place I practice it. The next formal planting will be a red climber in front of the blue green Italian cypresses. I have been having a dilemma trying to choose between a white rose or a red one. I think I found a red that is both fragrant and elegant in shape that will be right for this bed.

In the back a natural harmony happened with my Bourbons and HPs. I like the same kinds of colors so that area looks harmonius. The few DAs I added in are in the same color ranges and the flower shapes are similar.

One of my smaller beds I like is made of Ambridge rose, Iceberg, Rita Sammons, and Perle d' Or with a row of Yantai across the front edge. I added in an Evelyn where I removed a Tamora that was always being shaded by taller and faster growing neighbors. Iceberg has an important job to do which is to shade my young camellia on the other side and still be open and airy enough to let light through so the camellia will make flower buds. If Ambridge gets too tall and shades Iceberg a little, Iceberg still keeps blooming. What a rose! I like the pink-peach-yellow theme of this bed.

I think its easier to make a smaller bed of roses than it is to do a larger one. I prefer a mixed color planting over placing all the reds in one bed and all the yellows in another, etc.

I try to create gardens that produce as many food crops as possible, that are appropriate for the architecture of my home, and are useful for wildlife. I live in extreme heat and light, so my colors are always very bright. I prefer bright blues, reds, yellows and oranges that won't fade in the sun. A lot of people in this city that garden under live oak canopies plant white flowers, which are beautiful in the shade.

Keeping formal gardens in the wet subtropics can be very difficult. I feel that if you don't have the time or money to keep up with boxwood and a lawn that grows an inch a day, it's best to leave that style alone. It ends up being nothing but a frustration.

My garden is modern in style to match my arts and crafts
cottage, not formal, but with strong geometry. I spend no less than one entire weekend a month cutting back overzealous tropicals. I own two machetes, so I can quickly swap when one gets dull. The grass must be cut every 5 days in the summer, from May through October. Southern gardens always seem a little shabby to me, which I think is beautiful, but they are not to everyone's tastes. When northern (ahem, north of I-10) folks move in to the neighborhood, I always consider buying them a chainsaw as a welcome gift, but I figure they would just think I'm crazy.

Number one fits me the closest, but is not correct in that I never "design" anything. I am lucky that my garden is rich in wonderful hardscape as a background - Victorian house, many arches built by DH, garden rooms, paths and what used to be formal brick lined beds left over from ancestors. They did a lot of designing also with large trees and bushes which bloom in sequence. Fast forward 50+ years, and I get the benefit of that.

My "style" is basically the more the merrier - plants I bought, volunteers that just show up every year, and roses fit in where ever I think they have a chance of surviving. Here is a picture of a typical bed - can you spot the roses? They are in there, although not blooming when this pic was taken.

Jackie

I aim for a combination of 2 and 5 salted with a bit of 1, that is, a framework of evergreen shrubs and trees infilled with blending shades of flowers and contrasting shapes of foliage. And then, of course, who can completely resist the impulse buy, a buy that might, possibly, introduce a previously unknown plant that might just strike the perfect note? But I never seem to get exactly what I am aiming at and the result is difficult to classify.

Cath

I am closer to #1 than any others. Since I only grow roses now that are under about 6 feet, and only grow antiques, they all fit. I am only careful with a rose that is especially small. i try to make sure that other roses do not dwarf a smaller one.

This is a nice subject for the winter when we our roses sleep. THanks.
Sammy

I try to employ meticulous planning , following the rules of:
1. Short rose is planted in front of taller rose.
2. Contrasting as well as harmonizing forms and colors are observed.
3. Ease of maintenance is paramount.
4. Don't forget white flowers. There cannot be enough white flowers. They cool down and harmonize any color scheme as well as convey elegant purity. They also can be seen, and enjoyed at night. This is a bonus for people who work during the day or for those who like to lounge around the garden in the evening/night.
(These are the top four rules I try to follow, but by no means all the rules I follow.)

Meticulous planning to create what could be called randomness, perhaps even the appearance of disorder to some people, doesn't make much sense at first hearing, but I've seen it work very successfully in many rose gardens.

All the planning I undertake is directed at creating the most natural looking rose garden possible, in the English Cottage Garden style tradition. I want to create the appearance that everything grew where it is situated, naturally. If I accomplish this I consider my efforts successful. This is not as easy to make happen as one would think.
To make a rose garden look as if all the roses grew where they are planted of their own accord, when in fact great efforts were undertaken to create this effect is my goal.
My entire rose garden is roses only. I passed through the perennial/annual/flowering-bush companion plant stage years ago. I do, however, greatly admire mixed gardens and the gardeners who designed and tend them.

One quirk of mine is that, contrary to the concept of negative space being as important as positive space in art, I fill every available space in the rose garden with rose bushes, trying not to crowd them. I rationalize: Why should I have bare spots of mulched soil where I can have a rose growing?

I buy roses that will survive in our area and I love to mix in small shrubs, perennials, bulbs, annuals, herbs...okay, just about anything. That being said, I do plant almost every bed in mirror reverse, with an invisible line down the middle. It's my small attempt at controlling the chaos. I also tend to keep the colors to purple, lavender, pink, blue/red, lots of white and some blue and soft yellow.

I guess that makes me #2, with a bit of #5 in overall design. I also can't resist black metal arches. I have them everywhere! LOL

Also have an entire garden filled with clearance plants. I can't imagine why someone would throw away a plant that just needs a little water and a good home. I seem to have the same problem with barn kitties. Every one in a five mile radius seems to end up at my house.... :)

I'm the "I get what I like type". I find a plant (mostly roses), I buy it, then put it in the most convenient location in my rooftop. I don't have garden per se, just potted plants in one sunlit place. The only kind of "design" I do is alternating tall plants with shorter ones. XD

I've often that I might not be a gardener at all, but rather a servant to the roses that grow in "my" gardens.

I'm strongly a #3, but with the "different plants" of #1 thrown in. I'd feel unfulfilled without non-roses also being a major part of my plantings.

I'm mostly #2 & #5 with my afternoon shade bed a mix of anything that really needs a little shade to keep from burning or loosing it's clean color. Example; Snuffy, Dark Night, Elizabeth Taylor, Remember Me, Royal Amethyst. In that order.

Intriguing question & one I've been mulling since early this year, in what's mushroomed into an ongoing major redo of an established bed 15'x30' between the front walk & porch. This is a country setting on a low bluff bordered by rolling mixed hardwood woodlands, where the scale of greens reaching high into the enormous bowl of sky dominate the landscape & the views change with the seasons. I've tried to create intimacy within this dramatic framework - a very different challenge than I've encountered before - by weaving shapes & colors along the land that balance the natural instinct to look up & out, that return the eye to earth so that one sees the whole. In some ways it's like living within an enormous snowglobe...

My former style - if it ever really rose to a style in contrast to a mishmosh - was more cottage than not, at least in variety & profusion, scent & form. Picking the old friends I love first & auditioning new acquaintances to see if they play well with their neighbors & become friends in turn (or not) is the start. I must have roses and phlox and lavender and and and. Vitality crucial with bountifulness next - settling in comfortably & happily joining the chorus - must work & play well with others, including birds, butterflies, moths, helpful bugs & me! Each must earn their keep, lift my spirits & contribute their unique personality to the mood.

So many of your responses echo in my heart - the carefully planned to appear self-sown approach, the mirror effect, the white is always right day & night, the casual structured by formal, the color palettes that make the heart sing. In this place, the saturated pastels please me most, with true pastels & blends, whites, silvers. The colors are deepest against the pale tan stucco & natural stone variations of the house & dim down as they recede into the landscape punctuated by brighter glimmers. Sort of a birthday cake icing look that fits the quality of light here. Succumbed this year to a Fragrant Cloud, an old friend from the past, in hopes its exclamation point brightness will be toned down somewhat close by the house behind less boisterous neighbors. The overall mood I keep trying to evoke is one of peaceful enchantment, refreshing in the heat & warming in the cool, mysteriously somewhere nonspecific in time, a dreamy quality. "Trying" being the keyword here, sometimes it materializes for a spell...

Garden fragrant with thaw today, lingered here longer than I meant. Seldom post, often read in spurts, as this lunchbreak today. Know your thoughtful contributions over the years have found fallow ground in my heart & imagination many times. With not even a handful of gardening friends nearby, much appreciate all of you!

Sue

I was thinking that Thornton was my twin with the meticulous planning in order to create a relaxed randomness in the garden. I too need harmonizing plant forms and harmonizing colors with plenty of white - for me the colors are in the cool family, and like Thornton, I need ease of maintenance - in my case because of creeping old age and RA. But when I got to paragraph 3, where the garden is only roses, Thornton and I parted ways.

I need a good amount of green (which relaxes me) and a variety of texture and shape. For this, I always include some large leafed plants such as canna, alocasia (upright elephant ear), stachys byzantina (lamb's ear), and (mostly pink-flowered) oxalis. I also use various hollies and ornamental grasses and such to give a respite from the sameness of the rose-foliage texture. The look I try for is relaxed variety with repeating rhythms.

I use mostly pinks with some whites and reds and occasional blue touches. The rose blooms are the icing on the cake, and the roses satisfy my need to grow something that holds my interest. There are so many areas of research and so much to learn!

It's been fun reading your thoughts on gardens and trying to picture what your garden looks like if I haven't seen pics of it.

Camp, my sister has Reynaud's so I know how a person can suffer from the cold. I'm so glad you found relief with your new footwear. Lou

Mostly 2 and 5 I think. I have some formality near the house with box edging and topiary while it gets wilder farther away with a piece of real wilderness to the west. An English visitor called it an English garden but it is rather an old fashioned Swedish garden. My husband and I have tried to combine two gardening traditions, one from his grandmother's stylish town garden in the far south of the country, and a more unstructured one from my northern woods where there used to be very little gardening except of potatoes, currants and rhubarb.

I think 2 is closest to me, but with bits of most of the rest. A lot of my gardening seems to me to be purely defensive or preparatory: plant trees to prevent slides (oaks are welcome almost ANYWHERE they'll sprout; the garden can be planned around them afterward), amend the ground so plants will grow. I have definite collectionist tendencies and want a great variety of plants, but still want to see them subordinated to a whole, or to a collection of wholes, as the garden is in three different places characterized by a range of different conditions. With as much ground as I have, I can buy a plant I like without having to worry about being able to fit it in: there's plenty of room,but fit in it must. I do want them to grow well in conditions that suit them, but I have few plants that grow to their potential. An ecologically healthy garden is important to me.
I don't understand the dichotomy harmony/contrast. If two colors look good together, they harmonize, even if the two colors are chromatically distant from each other, like purple and white. I think many people would find my gardens subdued in color, with all the old roses, varieties of green, and once-flowering plants. I like bright colors dotted, not massed...field poppies are a fine example.
I think my garden can boast a firm architecture, not of structures, but of massing of plants and alternation of plant groupings and open spaces (though a lot of it needs to grow). The shapes are irregular, however, not because I don't love regular geometrical forms--I adore them!--but because formal shapes wouldn't fit into the irregular natural landscape that my garden is set in. Strict symmetry doesn't work, circles and rectangles emphatically don't work, but I can still seek harmony: that works everywhere.
Melissa

When I was at horticulture college, we studied design as a dsicipline which had many rules - crossing of central axis points, use of perspective, focal points, colour wheels and so on. Gods, how I loathed it all. Pages and pages of perfectly manicured and arranged gardens.....even the casually informal somehow looked contrived and faffed over. In the end, I found it all utterly prescriptive, soul-destroying and hateful......apart from one simple rule which still forms the underlying principle around which I work (because I have been employed as a reluctant designer on many occasions).......which is to 'stay true to the vernacular.
Naturally, I always assumed this term meant something to do with architecture but on learning that it means 'the language', all fell into place. So yeah, while I may plant and grow with abandon, I never, ever try to attempt a cottage garden style in a 1960's urban semi. Nor would I impose formality or box parterres on a shambolic barn. The place, the setting and the plantings have a distinctive language which is my sole guide and has never let me down despite many colour mish-mash choices (for sure Melissa, there is a lot of drivel around bloody colour wheels and Gertrude Jekylls dogmatic demands for this and that colour, here and there...as far as I can see, it is generally tone rather than colour anyway, which cause harmonies or dissonance).

Melissa and Suzy, yours are superb posts. You both have this uncanny ability to get to the heart of the matter, each with such an individual voice that is totally gratifying, except of course that I'm disgruntled that I don't have the ability to say the exact same thing even remotely as well. That must be the reason no one has ever suggested that I write a book. But no matter, those of us who can't have the enjoyment of being part of the same group as those who can.

Ingrid

Melissa, I agree with your conclusion of "colors that look good together are harmonious". There are some who view placement of colors that are not close on the color wheel as lacking harmony. One definition of harmonious colors is those that are close on the color wheel. I believe it is a rule that nature can break "harmoniously":)

Lynn