Audric - I can't respond without thinking so will have to wait 'til tomorrow. It takes me a while to think. :)

First - to answer kathexis,

"Patterns on the ground are a basic element of landscape design."

That quote is taken from a quote in Incognito's post in the "What says 'modern' to you?" thread. I looked up Robert Roysten and went from there.

Please read that post for a beginning.

Maro

I just read your post, Pam. Obviously my understanding of the term is very limited as might be expected. But the idea of it makes me want to take another look at any plan views I have made or will make with "pattern" in mind - even if it's just because it would be fun. I actually didn't read ALL of your post so I'd better.

I have to go away for an hour or so. I'll be back to think. LOL

Looking up Roysten quickly, it seems he was thinking in terms of swirling patterns made by (mostly) concrete hardscapes in his public parks. In the interview I read, he didn't consider himself much of a plants person/expert (more interested in hardscapes).
Maybe the little bit of research I did didn't reveal the whole picture.
That said, I didn't really like his landscapes shown in pictures I found--although that may just illustrate my stunning lack of planar sophistication, or something.

I'm not sure this relates as I'm not sure what, specifically is being talked about here but Grant/Grant, GARDEN DESIGN ILLUSTRATED advocated using existing topographic contours to design gardens (as opposed to cutting across slopes with terraces and walls) when possible, so as to produce a restful effect.

The one article linked here on Bob Royston's work doesn't really do him justice, nor adequately place his contributions to landscape architecture here in the San Francisco Bay Area. I had the opportunity to work in his office as my first job out of school, and the office at that time was largely focused on large scale parks, preservation of open space, zoo designs, and large scale master planning for such obscure landscape design issues as designing for nuclear facilities such as Hanford and Lawrence Livermore Lab.

For me, one of the designs that holds up best in the modernist tradition is the Santa Clara Civic Center in the town of Santa Clara, and has similarities with Roberto Burle Marx's work.

Patterns and abstract lines, angles and landscape forms as visualized in plan view were very much in vogue in the late 1940's, 50's and into the 1960's, with Thomas Church's work and Garret Eckbo's work also illustrating this. These designs sometimes work very well, and have become classics, such as Thomas Church's O'Donnel Garden with its abstract free form pool and contrasting angular deck and undulating forms of the Coast Live Oaks and views to the curving bay sloughs beyond. One of the reasons I think this particular design is a classic is that it relates so well to the surrounding natural forms. Photographs of Tommy Church's own garden do not look as timeless by comparison, as the forms, plantings and spatial layout look abit contrived when viewed from this era.

Patterns as imposed from above would seem to make the most sense when they are actually meant to be seen from above, and are an excellent solution for an urban garden that might primarily be appreciated more visually from 3 stories above, rather than enjoyed spatially while in the garden. Roberto Burle Marx's urban street landscape in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, which streches for miles from downtown Rio to the end of Copacabana beach is also a classic example of this style of design, with block long sweeps of mosaic stone paving, tree massing and different colored masses of shrubs and ground covers meant to be seen from high rise buildings, while at ground level they may seem not that inviting at a human scale.

In my opinion, a master designer such as Luis Barragan was the most successful at using patterns in combination with visualizing spacial relationships at the human scale, incorporating light and shadow, volumes and voids to create spaces both practical and poetic, and a body of work that seldom missed in being fine art, but this may just be one person's opinion.

I don't want to deny that all the landscape architects mentioned here have played a role in advancing the profession, but Barragan for me comes the closest to genius, while Burle Marx was the master of using plants to paint landscapes, but not always as good at creating enjoyable spaces to spend time in. Tommy Church certainly popularized landscape design for a mass market, and really got people to think about gardens as outdoor living space, while Garret Eckbo's landscape designs reflect his concerns for addressing social and economic issues facing the lower and middle classes of the post WW2 economy, and Royston's legacy will be the 100's of public parks, and particularly children's playgrounds and equipment designed to really engage kids, and the regional open space planning studies done by his office that are a continuation of Olmstead's parks works when the profession of Landscape Architecture was first formulated in the USA.

As an aside, Robert Royston is still around,(although no longer practicing), and one of the few of his generation still with us, and his office has spun off many other well known landscape architects here in the SF Bay Area. Lawrence Halprin is another seminal Bay Area Landscape Architect of this same generation, who is still practicing, and is worth googling to see examples of his work, for those who don't know of him. Excellent examples of his work can be seen in Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., to name a few...

Thank you for that David, an excellent piece of writing. I don't agree with the view from above assessment but "Tommy Church certainly popularized landscape design for a mass market, and really got people to think about gardens as outdoor living space, while Garret Eckbo's landscape designs reflect his concerns for addressing social and economic issues facing the lower and middle classes of the post WW2 economy" Didn't Church and Royston work with Eichler? The social aspect is often overlooked and why Tunnard couldn't find an audience at home. Back to the question at hand: The elements of design, any design, are the same in the same way that all motor cars have wheels. "Patterns on the ground" is an interpretation perhaps particular to modernism. When you see line, and form as a pattern and texture as an emphasis in that pattern there is a shift in perception. There is a link below to an exercise using the work of an artist favoured by modernists (Mondrian) if it is possible to see the result as the ground plane of our garden it may then be possible to see how it could be used to organize the 3 dimensional space. Have a look maro and then I will link to Luis Barragan to show a similarity.

What fun plying with the Mondrian site.
re the "ground plan pattern" Looks best on paper and not in the garden if done by a novice like me. I have come up with some wonderful looking stuff on paper but standing in the garden and visualizing it 3 D I realized I didn't have the artistic skill to make it work. But it would look good from the attic window.

Bboy, I just found it interesting that I had never seen the term "ground plane patterns" or anything like it in any of the numerous lists of elements of garden or landscape design that I have read.

The term must be relevant or Ink wouldnt have chosen this quote: "Patterns on the ground are a basic element of landscape design . . . Robert Royston made good and original use of the ground plane pattern to define and enliven spaces."

This is used in a discussion of modernism but I dont see this concept as having to be only modern.

Pam, even after reading here, I dont agree that "ground plane pattern" is another term for "repetition" although I could understand that repetition may be used in a pattern.

That you say, "I believe it to be a practice that many designers utilize often, if not always." just increases my wonder that we dont see it more often in those lists of principles or elements along with other nouns like balance, for example.

One thing you said importantto me right now is, ". . . the fact the patterning exists contributes to the overall cohesion of the design" because it puts in words my thoughts which werent formed yet!

I dont think of this as limited to modernistic designs nor, as Bahia suggested, limited to designs seen from overhead. I would like to think the concept is broader, and when executed with plants and paths and such, makes parts of a garden connected for a satisfying whole, or at least contributes to cohesion.

Colloway, I looked at other examples of Robert Roysten and they seemed dated when Id prefer gardens that seem more timeless.

Ink, I just saw your post. The Mondrian exercise looks interesting and Ill look more pretty soon. I dont know if you recall, but I became captivated with Luis Barragáns work a while ago and spent a lot of time looking up pictures.

Thank you,

Maro

Ink, I tried the exercise and think I can see how this could be used. I want to try this with the plan view of my yard and maybe some difficulties will become apparent as well as, as you said, a shift in perception. I would do this for the exercise, as my areas have a lot arranged already. It will be interesting to see how it might change things.

Jill, take yourself to the link below to see how the blocks of colour you made in that exercise might look in three dimensional space.

Is tibs Jill?

Anyway, yes, I can see that. Who knows where this will lead?

As an aside, Bahia once took the time to tell me how I might incorporate something that looks like Barragan into my garden. I'm still thinking about this, although no one here would recognize Barragan in it, it's just a regular home garden. Even if it's just blocks of color somewhere, something should come of it. That wasnt about ground planes, though.

I am never sure how far people want to go with stuff like this as I have been left swinging in the wind so many times. But maro: if you see the Mondrian blocks of colour as the planar element "patterns on the ground" perhaps you can extend that to a volumetric element that is also blocks of colour. It is possible to design in this way by concentrating on forms initially and rounding out the details later.

Hm-m-m. Well, it would be fun to play around with the Mondrian design. Maybe it would look kind of like a city block with different building heights, and a rectangular park.

But what I pictured doing was taking one of my own plan drawings, which are just simple CAD drawings, and move the lines around a bit so they look like like a pattern for its own sake. Then see what happens.

My back yard is done with a professional design that I don't want to mess with, but there might be things to do in a few places. For example, the shed had to be designed around. It's a VOLUMETRIC ELEMENT [I love that] that's a big block of grey stuck in a prominent place. I could use that in my plan view as a big rectangle that is part of a pattern. This sounds like an interesting experiment on a small scale.

I hope this is the kind of thing you mean. We get into definitions again with pattern.

Audric, I had written a response that I see didn't get included. Anyway, I enjoyed my foray into Wikipedia. I can see a connection between SOURCE AMNESIA and my reporter syndrome, but really I think its just a matter of not doing their own research. :)

Barragon is very cool. Would like to experience the spaces shown.

Barragan IS very cool.

Ink, was I way off base? I certainly didn't mean to leave you swinging.

Having examined the Mondrian exercise, I have my front yard plan in front of me ready to experiment. Thx for a new perspective.

I find it rather serendipitous that the current issue (February 2007) of Fine Gardening contains an article, "What Makes A Garden Great?," written by Jennifer Benner. The article is formatted as an interview with author Valerie Easton who has written a book to be released in February of 2007. The book is titled, A Pattern Garden.

I have to admit that I am now, more than ever, confused by the term, "pattern". If one compares this thread, the Fine Gardening article and conventional uses of the term, there appears to be little in common. I trust that Ms. Easton can do justice to her unique definition of the term in her new book. I have not read her unreleased book but I find it curious that she refers to "elements such as arbors, containers, fountains and fences" as patterns. Hmmm I realize that this is taken out of (an absent) context. However, I refuse to prejudge this book negatively because Timber Press is well know for offering books of high caliber.

A few years ago, we had a discussion of Christopher Alexanders now classic architectural book, A Pattern Language. In fact, Ms. Easton refers to his book as "my inspiration for thinking about gardens in this way" While I was able to follow Alexanders premise and use of the word, "pattern", Eastons use of the term (at least for now) only creates confusion. I really wish she had coined a new word.

IronBelly

Ironbelly, I hadn't read that article yet, but now I have.
With that and other things I've been looking at, I can truly say, as you have, 'I have to admit that I am now, more than ever, confused by the term, "pattern".'

Frankly, in that article, the word element was (I thought) used interchangeably with pattern to the extent that I suspect (unkindly) that Ms. Easton is basically using pattern to look like a new concept, when it is really just element after all. You said this more kindly.

First, the only place I found the term "ground plane pattern" was in writings about Robert Roysten, namely the piece quoted by Ink in the Modern thread. So Im guessing maybe this term originated and died, for the purpose of this discussion, with that article by JC Miller. If that is so, there would be no reason for my original question, would there?

He referred to the use of common and irregular geometric shapes, and I remember looking at some of Roberto Burle Marks beautiful layouts. From that I just assumed we were talking about well a plan view design (pattern).

But Inks quote has another clue that I overlooked. It mentions dappled shade and pavement stripes. Duh! Those are both patterns on the ground. These flat patterns arent mentioned often, if ever, in garden design writing. More contemplation.

Now I understand Pams response much better.

Speaking of Pam, in that very same February Fine Gardening is an article written by her. Its the Northwest section of the Plants I Didnt Think I Could Grow article. Very exciting! Maybe that should be mentioned in a new post, as most of you have probably stopped reading before this!

I think there are probably eight different dictionary definitions for the word 'pattern' I doubt that 'element' is offered as a synonym, although a pattern could be seen as a rule or formula in the way that design 'principles' are. A pattern on the ground plane would be an outline formed by the element 'line' much like the Mondrian exercise, although not necessarily straight lines. Any plant or feature arising from the ground plane would be the element 'form'. Any 'pattern' (ie decoration, such as dappled shade)would be the element 'texture, the blocks of colour used in the exercise are (surprise) the element 'colour'. Look at the work of Royston or Burle Marx and you can see how important this pattern on the ground plane is to their designs. You could also look up 'parterre' (which literally means on the ground) to see how important this was in another era, although there you will see that there is nothing other than the pattern on the ground. When Alexander uses the word he means something like a recognizable arrangement of objects that we feel comfortable in. A facile example would be a room with windows in it compared to a room with none. It gets a bit more complicated than that and and he suggests that certain arrangements (patterns) of window room view etc.are more favourable than others. You can read what Valerie Easton considers the 14 archetypal patterns at the link below. I think she might be a bit confused what about you?

Ink, As I said above, "I suspect . . . that Ms. Easton is basically using [the word] pattern to look like a new concept, when it is really just [what we've been referring to in recent threads as] element after all."

Your last post rounds out everything nicely for me.

Thanks

Inkognito, I replied to your email, but I have no idea if a reply can reach you. Please let me know.

Maro

To me, "ground pattern" is what William Nelson describes in his book "Landscaping Your Home". He shows a plan view of the existing elements, and draws crosshatched lines, either diagonally or parallel to the lot lines/house lines, then uses those lines to lay out walks, patios, beds, etc. He also uses an all-over squiggly scribbled pattern to lay out curved elements.

I think the idea is that once the lines are all over the landscape drawing, a plan will emerge from those lines that is pleasing.

The other day I was enjoying an outing without the kids at the local Border where I perused the latest issue of "Fine Gardening" while enjoying a latte from the in-house Seattle's Best station. I could not understand what Valerie Easton was talking about. If she had not mentioned the book "A Pattern Language" then I would be sure that she just used the term "pattern" in a different way. Christopher Alexander describes a pattern as:

"Each pattern describes a problem that occurs over and over again in our environment, and then describes the core of the solution to that problem, in such a way that you can use this solution a million times over, without ever doing it the same way twice."

Anyway...that use of "pattern" does not fit into the "patterns on the ground" theme of this thread.

Also...while I am rambling...I thought that it was a pretty weak issue of "Fine Gardening". Besides the Valerie Easton article, the "Math 101" article seemed more like "Math for 2nd Graders" and the article on Euphorbias did not excite me too much. The article by Birgit Piskor titled "Growing Up" had some decent ideas but her garden seems to be a bit too crammed full of plants. Maybe those in warmer climates than myself can get excited about Pam's plant list (no discredit to her because it was a PNW regional page).

- Brent

LOL!! Brent, the comment about the Math 101 article hit my funny bone. Believe it or not, "Math for 2nd Graders" is precisely what is needed for a large percentage of our population. I have no idea what they are teaching in schools these days - my high school-aged daughter's curriculum and classwork mystifies me and I worry she will be totally unprepared to deal with the basics once she graduates - but obviously it is not a thorough understanding of basic math or if it is, 99% of the populace has forgotten it. In my encounters both at my nursery and doing design work and consultations, I have found most folks don't have a clue how to calculate square footage or volumes, percentage discounts for sales and can't even tell the difference between a gallon (6") container and a 3.5" pot, let alone be able to determine how much soil or mulch they need, fertilizer calibrations or how many groundcovers to buy to cover a specific area.

Seriously, I worry this country is becoming uniformly dumbed down. If the Internet is any way to judge, few can even spell correctly, let alone utilize proper grammer or punctuation and I was amazed to read that "texting" - that abbreviated shorthand common to cell phone usage, as well as the 'net - is now an acceptable form of writing/spelling in some school districts! It gives one pause that articles such as the math one are even considered necessary.

Brent, yes. If Ms. Easton is trying to apply Christopher Alexander's pattern concepts to garden design, she's missing the boat. As Ink said, she seems a bit confused. To me, she was simply using 'pattern' in place of 'element,' and now we have a new picture book with nothing new in it. But wait as IB said, we havent seen the whole book yet, and it COULD be that the articles author has missed the boat instead, and misinterpreted what Easton said.

WHAT WAS THIS THREAD, AGAIN? Its gone in several directions, but I thank everyone for responding and clearing things up for me. Saypoint, havent seen you for a while.

Ink, I dont know where you wanted this to go if not where it did go. It certainly caught my interest, my knowledge was expanded, and I put it to good use as a mental exercise to this point, could be used in my garden, this spring, energy permitting. As with anything, real understanding comes in the doing. If theres more that you had in mind, Im interested.

Maro

When discussing 'patterns' on the groundplane, I'm surprised that no one has mentioned John Brookes, the British designer and author of many of the best landscape design books around. For years he has taught designers how to create abstract patterns on the ground through the logic of creating shapes within an overlaid grid system. The grid is taken from lines radiating from the house or other existing structures on the property, thus giving a sense of proportion and meaning to the basic pattern.

I've been teaching this system for years to students of landscape design. It's a great way to get ideas flowing that wouldn't normally be tried. His 'The Book of Garden Design' is just one of many that explain this process in detail. A few points: The simplest patterns often have the most impact: the character of the pattern is influenced by the nature of the materials used- hard, soft, smooth, rough....; the patterns can be interpreted in many ways, depending on whether the shapes are raised, sunken or flat. It's a marvelous game!

Maro,
Yes, you should check out the books by John Brookes. I have been racking my brain trying to think of his name as it has been awhile since I read them.

Suggestion that might help you develop patterns. It is one I have used often when working up concepts. This is not done to scale. Using a full sheet of newspaper cut it to approximate the lot size. Now, using colored construction papers; black for structures, green for grass, grey for paths/walks, brown for gardens, etc. cut out patterns and lay them on the newspaper. Pieces of paper can be quickly held in place with a glue stick. You can sketch in borders and plantings. When all is to your liking you can then work up your design to scale. I find that 'playing' with the bold colored papers frees the mind to create patterns and establish focal points easily. Try it.

Lindae and Nandina, it's done. I found a couple of Brookes' books at the library, and actually found 'The Book of Garden Design' on Amazon, in the used books.

"the patterns can be interpreted in many ways, depending on whether the shapes are raised, sunken or flat. It's a marvelous game!" ---

I'm sure that's what Ink was saying.

I'm going to try the colored papers, too -- I still have a couple of paths and things to incorporate.

Sounds like a great way to spend some afternoons.

Lindae, I enjoyed your classy website. The gardens look "real."

I've just come back from a 3 day design workshop on this exact subject. The premise is that by using pattern analysis in the form of circles and squares, infinate variations of overlapping patterns can be created on the ground plane and then others can be 'pulled' up to create verticals and overhead planes.

This type of pattern anyalsis makes for very fast conceptualization of garden space. It doesn't mean a space will be rigid or 'cold'--in fact just the opposite. The rapid visualization and conceptualiztion of spatial planes allows designs to be come more fluid and free.

If you are familiar with the grid system of landscape design popularized by John Brookes, then this takes it a step further. The beauty of the circular concept is that construction radii are easy to communicate and curvilinear design motifs will transfer easily from the plan view to the ground.

This system of design makes it simple to relate architecture to its surroundings and visually links them together with ease.

Miss R, this is really interesting.

Did your workshop have published materials?

I'm waiting for my 'Brookes books' to arrive, so I haven't actually read anything yet, and only know what I've learned here.

Do you think the method used by Gordon Hayward in his book "Your House, Your Garden" can be called a simplified grid system? (As he uses house wall proportions on the ground to lay out the gardens.)

If you think about the house as further geometric shapes, you will have your answer about Hayward. Your house is probably made up of a series of rectangles--windows, doors, walls, etc. By using the same shapes and overlapping and relating them to the footprint of the house on the ground plane, your garden space and architectural space will be linked to each other. The key is making the shapes relate to one another by how they are overlapped. You can't just stick a square anywhere--it has to relate to the adjacent shapes.

Miss R: I am curious about your workshop. Did they focus more on making planting beds a defined shape or making the lawn area a defined shape?

- Brent

Brent--It focused on design of landscape space in three dimensions. Plants weren't mentioned except as incidentals They are the icing on the cake--not the focus of the design. Every shape is defined in a designed landscape--lawn is a shape, planting beds are a shape, deck is a shape, pergola is a shape. They all must work together to create the whole, to consider one as a separate issue defeats the purpose. Without being negative towards horticulturally based design, pattern development will create a space that can then be planted rather than the opposite.

I tend to design this way anyway. I consider the plants last and choose plants to fit the space rather than to design the space to fit the plants.

Re: the Fine Gardening February 2007 issue, I also found the article on patterns by Valerie Easton rather strange, and thought it was in need of a good editor or complete rewrite. It would seem that lots of Garden Web people got some of their work into this issue, and their was also a regional writeup on pushing the zones that I submitted in this issue. Probably not all that applicable for 90% of the people here, as few are gardening in zone 9/10 conditions...

!!! It is very nice that people who write for a magazine of that caliber take the the time to participate in this forum. Thanks for telling us, David, and if you had signed your article "bahia" I might have recognized it! :) Was there anyone else we missed?

I'm surprised this info didn't show up in the Garden Writers' Forum.

I am not convinced that 'patterns on the ground' and working to a grid are the same animal. In the book by Marc Treib and Dorothee Imbert called 'Garrett Eckbo: Modern landscapes for living' there are a lot of illustrations that show patterns on the ground as I understood the original quotation meant it. There is another web site that shows the work of Steve Martino (just punch his name into Google) that might be of interest as it shows a kind of Barragan style in miniature. There is some interesting reading there too.

Flogging a dead horse here but just in case: Lawrence Halprin said that a problem with patterns on the ground was that they became a separation from what else was happening in the landscape and were therefore two dimensional ornamentation. He said that someone like Burle Marx could pull this off but in 'lesser' hands.... If you think about this maro you may get an understanding of what 'patterns on the ground' are and how one might get into trouble when relating this to the space a garden occupies. Much like your earlier concerns.

I am not too sure what this thread is about because I have gone through the postings a couple of times and I didn't see the word "parterre".

I can understand how fountains, vases, fences and maybe even arbors can be included in a book about pattern gardens. The two larges pools before the garden facade at the palace of Versailles are classified as a water parterre. The sculptures and vases along the edges of the pool are very much a part of the pattern, as are the fountains. Trelliswork fences played a very important role in early Renaissance gardens. It was normal for square and rectangle plots to be divided by walks and each plot was enclosed by a low fence. A garden would usually have at least four of these fenced plots. A number of early Renaissance gardens featured pergolas and long tunnels of pleached trees (arbors), they formed an important part of the garden's pattern.

Parterres have played such a minor role in modern garden design that a book devoted to the subject would almost have to include earlier gardens.

'Patterns on the ground are a basic element of landscape design.'

Pure BS. Follow my reasoning.

When people look up at clouds, some see nothing. One might see a bunny while another might see a shark. There really isn't any bunny or shark in the clouds, the perception of such springs from the mind of the viewer.

On the other hand when people look at an autosterogram (see link below), some will see nothing but a random pattern of dots. Others will see a real object. In the one linked it's a shark. It's not a case of one person seeing a shark where another sees a bunny. If you see anything, it will be a shark, the same shark. The shark really does exist in the autosterogram and is not a product of the viewer's mind.

Returning to the title statement, I ask "Did all who saw something here see the same thing?' I think not. Any meaning derived from same came from the readers mind. The statement itself is just BS.

Well, thank you for that display of ignorance pls*xx a post that I find insulting. Maro asks a question regarding a quote from another thread that she would like clarification on and several people, including myself offer possible explanations. You come along with a suggestion that we are deluded and our answers are all pie (or bunny) in the sky. Either you have no idea what question is being asked or you have spent too much time with spots before your eyes.

Wow - lighten up people - let us refocus - can we get back to the original question? In effect it really isn't a question but sort of a challenge - to LAs and otherwise great designers - to decide if "patterns" -specifically "ground patterns" are relevant to design.

My take . . .

I LOVE Modernism - Dan Kiley any one???

BUT . . . take the time into consideration.

Design is all about the TIME.

"Maro asks a question regarding a quote from another thread that she would like clarification on and several people, including myself offer possible explanations."

Was a link to that discussion posted in this thread?

Oregoncoast, the thread was not actually linked, but I did identify it early on here in about the fifth post.

Ink, I was thinking about that. Two different "patterns." Both interesting. I'm trying to see the Eckbo book without buying it. Id like to see the illustrations. Ill try a bookstore. The library doesn't even have either of the authors! Amazon shows book by Eckbo called 'Landscape for Living' as well as the one you mentioned, 'Garrett Eckbo: Modern Landscapes for Living,' by Treib/Imbert. Gets confusing! . . . . As you implied, it seems time to move on to other subjects.

Thanks, all.

Ink, I'm sorry my post has offended you. To your charge of ignorance, I plead guilty. But you may have misunderstood the point I tried to make. My comments were directed, and totally on, one thing, the thread title.

This has been a good thread. I found the answers and comments to be interesting, thoughtful, and made with insight of the subject, yours included. But I credit that value to the intellect and knowledge of those participating, and reject any premise that those comments were a restatement of some concept contained in the words of the thread title. Maybe thats why I see my time spend reading this forum as better used than reading the books of people who say things like 'Patterns on the ground are a basic element of landscape design.'

Is there a real and important meaning to those words? Supose we convert that statement to a another subject, say art. It might read "Paterns on the canvass are a basic element of art." True, but what does it mean? You should look at the painted side, the other side goes to the wall? Duh.

You may disagree and take the position that the thread title does contain a new and important concept to landscaping. If so, I hope you will enlighten us all by defining it such that there is a consensus. A chorus will go up "Ah. Now I see it!" You will be seen as mr. smarty-pants, and I as the dumb redneck.

But you need a logical and real arguement. My ignorance, though real, isn't relevent

Rather than defend the statement set out as the title of this thread, something I have never tried to do BTW, let me re-post the entire quote that maro referred to (see below). I think I know what Miller was saying but I do NOT necessarily agree with it, in fact the quote from Halprin above parallels my thoughts about patterns on the ground. If you look at the drawings of Eckbo's designs that appear in the book I mentioned earlier you will see that there is no doubt that what was set out on the ground was influenced by Modernist painters such as Kandindsky and Miro and further no doubt that these figures were an element in the modernist garden. It is when the word 'pattern' is mentioned that the spit hits the fan. I think it would be more acceptable to say that in a Modernist garden two dimensional forms laid out on the ground plane are an important element. "Patterns on the ground are a basic element of landscape design. The means of achieving and the scale of ground plane patterns span a broad spectrum: dappled shade on an expanse of lawn is one end of that spectrum and the pavement stripes that define a pedestrian crossing at a busy intersection are the other. In his design work, Robert Royston made good and original use of the ground plane pattern to define and enliven spaces. The strong character of his post war gardens is frequently based on this design element. While many of these early gardens were organized around rectilinear patterns, the use of free form, biomorphic shapes and irregular geometry is also common. Royston's approach to ground plane patterns clearly bears some similarities to the contemporary work of Thomas Church, his early mentor. Where Royston's work differs from Church is in terms of the regularity and combination of patterns." It is not my intention to show myself as a smart arse only to discuss matters of landscape design that interest me in an adult fashion.

Interesting disucssion. When I read the word pattern, I don't tend to think of what I believe to be Christopher Alexander's meaning of the word: a time-tested and infinitely variable solution to a problem of design that when applied, enriches the experience of a space through means such as scale, context, familiarity, etc. No, being pretty ignorant, when I hear the word pattern I tend to think of a grid of lines. Or maybe Butterick. (High School home ec. class has scarred me for life).

But when I hear about pattern in terms of design I think of Frank Lloyd Wright. Almost all of his buildings (and the immediate spaces around them were created from a grid, or pattern of lines that ranged from square, rectangular, tartan, hexogonal, spiral, you name it. The beauty of these patterns was that when he applied them in three dimensions he created a richness of experience in which the voids (think of voids as not just empty space in rooms but also spaces between rooms and spaces within rooms) are integral to the work and hold just as much value as walls and structural supports. Without much stretching of the imagination, I could certainly see this as an interesting concept to apply in a landscape design.

In addition, Wright frequently based the size and scale of his grid on that of the materials he was using in the design. This had the effect of making sure individual elements were intergrated into the whole as well as making the design cheaper to install since custom sizes and cutting and fitting of materials was kept to a minimum. I could see this concept being potentially important in landscape design as well.

And yet Wright is considered one of the founders and principalists of the "organic school" of architecture. Where do you suppose he got the inspiration for those patterns, hmmmm? Sometimes the development of patterns, ground plane or otherwise, is stimulated by observations, experiences or phenomena that is not obviously patterned to a less discerning eye.

Wasn't Wright strongly influenced by traditional Japanese architecture? There are patterns in traditional Japanese gardens - steppingstone paths and patterns in raked gravel, but did those patterns influence the landscapes that surrounded Wright's architecture? He seems to have admired the way that traditional Japanese architecture related to nature - if a slightly tamed nature.

I have been thinking about the statement 'Patterns on the ground are a basic element of landscape design.'

My first thought was that this wasn't accurate when talking about modern gardens. This is because, while I can think of some French modernist gardens that were created during the 1930s, it was really only after Thomas Church published "Gardens are for People" that modernist gardens became popular.

I became interested in garden design in the late 70s and many of the books that I was reading were published between 1955 and 1975. They featured suburban gardens with few trees and flowers. Lawns were very important, but many of these gardens featured squares of concrete alternating with squares of turf or cobblestones. The gardens would often be surrounded by walls of concrete blocks. The walls were important because these gardens often had a swimming pool as the focal point. By the late 70s, these very spare gardens already looked dated. This design approach has continued in an unbroken tradition, but it tends to be softened by lush plantings.

These gardens weren't usually connected with buildings by the most important architects. There seemed to be an attitude that gardens were too frivolous for serious architecture.

I think that subjects like this get convoluted when they go from learning concept to application.

While it is true that some have applied these principles in more literal forms as noted several times in this thread, it is more about developing a sense of a space for the most of us. It is when a landscape is being converted to a sculpture or art object as its primary use that the more literal application of these concepts are used. Few of us work in that circumstance.

Most of us gain by studying these concepts along with every other design concept. We gain an undestanding of them and do most of the application through more of a subconscious process rather than directly and literally calculating. Whether it is use of color,rythm (I hate that word, I have to look up the spelling each time I use it), form, texture, or whatever, we seldom rationally calculate it once we have it well studied.

Most of us gently blend in these things that we learned about from direct study in what becomes something that feels intuitive rather than calculated. We would not have as much of that ability without the direct study of concepts like this. What I am saying is that it is imortant to study these concepts, but once understood, there is seldom reason to go through these excercises in each design you work on. You use information and excercises to gain knowledge, but you do not necessarilly reverse the process to apply the knowledge.

Projects have a set of values that are born with them. We can generally bend the balance of those values in various directions, but seldom are we put in the position to have carte blanche to use a piece of real estate with someone else's money as a canvas to express concepts. Most of the time we are blending multiple elements of design theory through an intuition that was built from studying concepts some time earlier.

I am always concerned about people reacting to the book of the day or trying to literally apply every concept that they read about. I am of the opinion that it is best to learn these theories in isolation to understand each one deeply. This can be from reading and doing little excercises until you get it burnt into your brain as knowledge. Your brain should become a well stocked refridgerator or kitchen. You don't need to drag out every ingredient in the house to make lunch. You more of less know what you have, what feels right at the moment, you reach in knowing where these things are stored, put together a nice meal, maybe add a little spice here or there to enhance it, and lunch hits the spot. Or maybe you break out the diet chart and let it dictate your meal, I don't know.

My belief is that the theories should be learned and understood to a point where you are not conciously trying to figure out how you are going to apply each or any on a given project before taking on the project. You will apply them through your knowledge and in a more intuitive way.

Remember that the statement in question was one persons opinion. If a garden is treated as if it were art and critiqued on that level then it is correct to compare it to other works of art and other important periods. Eckbo, and Royston did see what they were designing as art, art in the modern style. Christopher Tunnard on the other hand said that "The right style for the twentieth century was no style at all, but a new conception of planning the human environment." and that "a humanized landscape is now the aim of all serious and progressive designers." I do not take this to mean that it is either one or the other; art or place to be in. I praise maro for asking this question because it is easy to take a statement like this as gospel without ever challenging what it might mean. One principle of a 'garden for people' as opposed to one that is made to be like a picture is that it should be open in the middle, to one lecturer I suffered this meant an area of lawn placed centrally, I was not his favourite student! Another tenet of the modern way was to work with form more than with masses of plants leading to the misunderstanding of sparse planting mentioned above. Buildings in the International style seemed to turn their backs on their surroundings and ignore their occupants too FLW did not do this, which was something he may have learned from the Japanese. Wright also had the ability to see the space that he was working with as something to work with (sculpt if you like) rather than to be filled with stuff.