I have no idea if there is a correct answer or not, but here is my first stab at an answer. ;) The arch should be on the planting side, so climbers going over the arch relate to the other plantings. So, it would depend on where the plantings are.

What do the experts say?

Looking thru the photos in a reproduction of "Beautifying the Home Grounds" originally published in 1926 by the Southern Pine Associaton, The arch was on the inside and the fence was flush with the sidewalk.

But some folks leave a planting strip between the sidewalk and the fence, so the arch could be on the outside.

Sometimes there is a practical reason for doing it one way over the next. Sometimes it could be aesthetically better one way over another. Sometimes it is totally on a whim.

A practical example of recessing a gate would be a pool gate that must open outward by building code. When it would swing out into the line of pedestrian or vehicular traffic it would create a hazard. In that case you, as a responsible and liable designer, would recess the gate in the arbor so it would not open out in front of a pedestrian or vehicle.

A recessed gate can be more subtle and less noticable. Sometimes that makes sense. Other times, you may have good reason to make sure that the gate is very noticable. A business access or emergency access or escape should be very noticable.

In an urban setting or a high crime area, you might not want to provide for an ambush area where a creep can be concealed and wait for his victim.

I generally prefer the look of the gate from the side that it appears recessed from. The next question is from which side do I feel that there is a greater value to that aesthetic. Sometimes the sense of arrival is more important than how it looks from the inside out. Other times it is not.

There is no standard right answer, only the right answer for the situation.

Is this like inees and outees for bellybuttons?

Wellspring

So, there is no wrong way to do it as long as it looks pleasing and isn't a traffic hazard. That makes sense. Still, there were homes right next to each other that had the arch/gate thing set up differently, so you couldn't help but wonder "which one is right"?. All the woodwork was nicely done; decent sized timbers used in the construction so they "fit" with the good sized homes in the neighborhood.

This particular neighborhood had what I would call a double wide sidewalk right up against the curb (it was very practical, easy for people to walk side by side), and the fences were set back maybe 2 feet from that. I didn't see anything planted on the outside of the fences; that might be because it's all new, but I noticed they had lain sod, so maybe they don't think there's enough room?

Where the arch jutted out toward the street, it came within inches of the sidewalk, and the two that had gates had them on the inside (yard side) level with the fence. I can't imagine planting anything on them unless it was something thin and wispy because otherwise it would seriously overhang the sidewalk.

There were several with the arch inside the fence, and the gate on the outside, so that with the gate closed, it looked like a wall with an arch MOL stuck in the middle. They made me think of an old log Army Fort.

There were at least three that put the arch halfway in and halfway out, and had the gate in the middle. Maybe they looked around the neighborhood and decided on a compromise? I thought that was a neat idea, but would have looked better with a longer arch, rather than less than a foot on each side. Then again, you didn't miss the gate, so in that sense it worked.

I liked the ones with the arch inside the fence, with the gate at the inside of the arch, making an alcove to stand in before you entered the yard. If you made the arch over the gate wide enough, you could add a built in bench or even two on either side of the gate. Seems like it would be a handy place to put things down so you can open the gate for people who enter the yard through the front gate rather than at the driveway. It could even be someplace to sit and wait while the homeowners return. I have to admit, the thought of giving a bad guy a place to hide never occured to me, but it was a new neighborhood, and none of these archways were "deeper" than a couple of feet.

I think most people agree that the "alcove" is the more attractive side. You have done all of your analysis as a person outside of the property looking in. My second to last line in my post above makes this point - which side of the fence do you place a higher aesthetic value on?

I would venture that some of the folks on that street cared more of how they viewed their gate from the inside out, others cared more about how they presented it to the public, others compromised, still others just put it up without any thought at all.

Form follows function. Sometimes function is purely aesthetic and is defined much more by the values of the people you are working for than on a generalized perception of "which is right". If your client values the outward presentation of the property to the arriving guests or passer-bys greater than how something looks as he is looking out his window or exiting the property, you have to draw that understanding out of him before you design. Then you have to apply those values through your design. This is the kind of thing that fits into the category of the other 2/3 of the knowledge you need to fully function as a designer.

Unlike a belly button (hi charlotte) here we have a choice. I don't think the great lord of political correctness applied herself to this question. What is the arched gateway for? It is only decorative isn't it? So the question is how does it best serve? It is possible that the model is a lych gate, that is a place at the entrance to a church's graveyard a stop between life and death, where the body could be inspected before burial. What they were looking for is best left to the imagination. So the answer to the riddle is further queered by what 'welcome to my garden' means. I could make it even more complicated by asking you to consider what a tori gate in the Japanese tradition indicates but you probably don't want to go there. What ever the correct placement might be this is a marker between one place and another.

I'm not sure if the arched gate in the west would trace back to the lychgate. The roof of a lychgate was there for convenience. You wouldn't want to have to stand around very long in bad weather while the Priest has his say, especially if you're burying someone wrapped in a shroud. It served the same function as the tent erected by modern funeral directors over a gravesite.

I think perhaps the "arch" over a gate began simply as a practical matter. Tying two tall gate posts together at the top keeps them from being pulled out of place spreading out into a "V". (which would allow the gate to sag) Over the years, the plain brace over the gate was embellished. It became gabled or rounded. It was made deeper and wider and had things planted nearby to grow up on it. People just prettied it up.

OTOH, the Tori gate is all about symbolism; on this side we have the finite world, on the other, the infinite. Artistically, I think the closest thing to a Tori gate would be a garden arch standing alone across a path. No supporting fence or row of hedges, simply the arch itself that defines one space from another. I would not even try to guess if the people who do that are making a religious statement, or just want to frame the view.

I have hedges enclosing my side garden, with an arch inside the hedge, so the outside line is clean. But after 3 years of this I am moving it OUTSIDE the hedge. (fortunately mine is a metalwork arch, fully movable.

Two reasons for moving it. Having it outside will make more of a statement of "here's the entry", and all the flowering clematis will be more visible from the outside. But mostly, I've noticed that having it inside the garden seems to break up the interior space too much, almost to be in the way, and make the plantings on either side somewhat hidden. It's hard to describe, but it interrupts the flow of the interior planting to have this arch competing for attention. By having the arch OUTSIDE, it can get all the attention for itself, and then the inside will be more open and flow better.

I do not have to worry about space restrictions and it is not in the front. The gate is really only for me :-) but it does serve an architectural focus and sign for where to enter.

Gottagarden is clearly showing that she has considered a number of values and has weighted them according to what makes sense to her on a number of levels. How can one go wrong doing that?

Now it just may be that some will put much more weight on the things that they have read by others or of what they understand to be "correct". But, that is still the same thing - making decisions based upon emphasizing some values over others.

One person may be aware of all of the same considerations that Gottagarden is, yet because (s)he has latched onto some feng shui or maybe some Sweedish lore about gates, would rather place more value on following those traditions than the clematis or the visibility of the gate.

Different strokes for different folks does not mean that one is less focussed than the other. It just might mean a different set of values.

Now as a designer transitioning to a professional designer, this can be a very tough obstacle to overcome. It is reading your client for his/her set of value balances and applying them instead of stubbornly holding to ridgid values that you have. Or, did you get hired because the client wants to adopt your values? Lots to ponder.

I guess my response to the "correctness" of the placement would be to broaden the question as to how appropriate these arches are to the specific properties and their gardens themselves.

My immediate thought on reading the post was how odd that so many of these brand new homes in an upscale development should be applying such a similar detail........is it part of the overall theme of the architecture of the development (if so, seems placement would be uniform)? Or is it a case of one application being applied in a copycat manner by a bunch of others? In which case, the question begs to be asked: do the arches/gates, regardless of placement, even make sense in the context of the design?

I'm not sure placement is even really the issue here.........

I like the reasoning behind gotta garden's decision to move the arch, and without actually seeing the area, I can understand what s/he is talking about. When we get around to replacing the bracing that ties the gate posts together at front entry, I too would like some kind of "arch", which is what got me looking at them in the first place. I have no aspirations to become a professional designer, other than in the sense that whatever design decisions I make for my own home are (at minimum) going to cost me money, and I would like to see my time, effort, and resources spent wisely.

I'd done some reading about the lychgate Ink mentioned while researching a different subject, gravehouses. I especially loved the idea of building the gate wide enough to have one or even two benches inside to rest on while somewhat protected from the elements. I also take note of any of the old "bus stop huts" I happen to see because I'm drawn to the idea of having a little shelter apart from the main house. I'm not sure that I can come up with a design that would compliment(*), rather than overpower the simple style of our home, but we aren't ready to replace the gate yet, so I have time to think about it.

There is a cemetary out back where a traditional lychgate with the charming steep roof might be considered appropriate, but that is the hallowed ground of the previous owners; it is not my place to do anything other than keep the vegetation trimmed, and the fence in good repair without their express permission. I've spoken to the family about doing some general repairs, and would like to start work on those in the spring, but I don't think I'll be adding a lychgate. :^)

(*)Now, does that make me guilty of following traditions at the expense of beauty?

gardengal, it's a tough call.

I'd have to say the overall "theme" of the development is, um, that big, traditional/quasi-modern/3 car garage, and the builder has spared no expense dolling them up. Lots of palladian windows, dormers, top of the line roofing, and shutters. (bolted to the house) They all had some variation of the combination brick, rock & siding look that is so popular. I know the rockwork is expensive; it's real stone, and very well done. Wandering through the open houses on display, there is a lavish use of well made built-ins featuring layers of molding and trimwork. Based on price alone, the neighborhood is one I would consider upscale, but there are some wonderful details about the homes themselves that anyone could appreciate.

The arches are in the already "established" part of the development, and no, there really wasn't any congruity of style. I just figured the homeowners were expressing their indivuiality, but because the set up varied so much, I wondered if there is a correct way to actually place the arch and gate in relation to the sidewalk/fence/each other. Now I know the answer is "it depends".

Anyway, think Victorian/traditional/modern/bungalow only made with 4 by 4's instead of the usual dainty, mass produced arches sold at the local big box store. I'm sorry, that's a terrible description. I'm pretty sure it's illegal to post pictures of other people's homes without their permission (it's certainly not very nice), or I'd just plan on going back sometime with a camera. I'll look online and post links if I see anything similar. Some of the arches/gateways I saw looked like they could outlast the house(*) and were a real tribute to the craftsman. I didn't notice anything identical, but there were a few styles that did repeat.

(*)Come to think of it, considering the construction technique used to put up the new homes, that might just be true, but that's a post for another forum. ;^)