Fabulous place, completely foreign environment to my eye. Can barely think of a thing to say in terms of ideas. Except (in response to the photos you posted of the tropical storm) I think you may mostly be best off to get used to the wind/waterswept look. If you can get anything to grow that will tolerate that wind and salt, I suppose some more trees would be a good thing, but not too close to the house. I would also want that deck under the house to have a nice open feel, not be hemmed in by bushes or bamboo when you're under there.

One of the things that designers usually do is observe a person's taste through the design of their house, if they had it built, their decorations, their way of dressing, their lifestyle, etc,...

I would first duduce that you are not the earthy crunchy granola type. That eliminates quite a bit, or more likely adds a lot more options for better or worse. I can't say that I have any experience in that style of architecture, although I haved worked with houses lifted above coastal storm flowage elevations.

Are you the architect?

I read both your posts to my husband. He asked, "What is an earthy crunchy granola type?" This is a new term for both of us - can you clarify?

Our lifestyle is very casual. We live in a rural community that is a well-known sailing area for 8 months or so. We have a couple of small sailboats, a kayak, windsurfers. The weather is usually mild so we live in shorts and sandals most of the time.

No, I'm not the architect. My husband's father was an architect who designed many contemporary houses in Washington, DC. He used lots of glass to bring the outside inside. This house is an updated version of the house where my husband grew up that was designed by his father.

Wind and waves are huge issues, far more than we expected. We have a variety of native grasses, bayberries, hollies, pines, and native magnolias on the property. The grasses were flattened by the storm but will probably look fine as the weather warms up.

The land behind the house is a little higher so is less subject to flooding.

A landscape designer suggested a Tolleson's Weeping Juniper by the steps that go from the deck to the beach. It's a beautiful tree but I don't think it would be happy in the wind - I'm afraid the branches would get tangled up.

I appreciate your thoughts. I am still trying to think this through and don't have many models.

Thank you,
Pam

The Florida Gardener's Book of Lists says that these trees are highly tolerant of salt and wind: cabbage palm, live oak, eastern red cedar, southern magnolia, Japanese black pine, youpon holly, black or red mangrove, & Jerusalem thorn. Shrubs for the beach include oleander, pittosporum, wax myrtle, Indian hawthorn, saw palmetto, yucca. Groundcovers include asparagus fern, sea oxeye daisy, dwarf natal plum, Carolina yellow jessamine, creeping fig, golden creeper, blanket flower (gaillardia), blue daze, star jasmine, trailing lantana, liriope, purple heart. Perennials include daylily, sea purslane, society garlic, lily of the Nile, dusty miller, beach sunflower, artemesia, fernleaf yarrow, and crinums. Grasses include muhly grass, sea oats, beach grass, cordgrass. Annuals include verbena, phlox, portulaca, geranium, alyssum, mina lobata, cypress vine, gazania, wax begonia, agertun, calendula, orn. cabbage.

To get that open airy feel and low maintenance, I personally would choose oleander, yucca, saw palmetto and cabbage palm, throw in a few grasses and few spots of color with lantana and purple heart.

Hope this helps.

Since you asked. Earthy crunchy granola is a slang term that I should really not use, for people who put a high priority on the environment. These would be people far more extreme than simply concerned about building in environmentally sensitive areas, introducing non-native plants to those areas, and degrading scenic beauty with oversized unattractive houses for seasonal occupation.

I'm not an earthy crunchy granola type either by the way, but I am for once to the left of others, you, your husband, and your father in law on these issues and would be of no useful service to you because of it. On the other hand, it is an opportunity to affect a more positive outcome both aesthetically and environmentally that maybe should not be disregarded.

This site screams for a complete circle of the largest Easter Red Cedars that money can buy. But that is one person's opinion.

And why don't you say what you really feel, Andrew? I don't know if Pam is ready for the broadside attacks she'll probably get with this posting. It is obvious that this isn't the only house located so impossibly close to the water and so clearly subject to flooding. I don't know the specifics of Cheasapeake Bay, but would wonder if this site isn't equally at risk as is most low lying coastal property along the east coast for potential complete destruction in severe storms?

I would have thought that at the very least flood and storm insurance rates would have gone so sky high as to make this sort of new development at the owner's own risk. I'm sure the views and lifestyle from inside the new home are inviting, but the house itself does not seem at all sympathetic to the site, and it would have seemed prudent to locate it further inland if it sits on 5 acres of land.

I'd echoe the others on planting choices, that given the conditions it would only make sense to use the local native plants that seem able to take the conditions. If it were possible, the house sure would look less stark if it had the framing conifers as does the older looking residence in the background.

I am almost certain that such a project would not have gotten past design review along the coast here in California, although there are certainly houses built just as dangerously right along the high tide line in places such as Malibu, and equally subject to storm surge, if not tropical storms and hurricanes.

Rates have gone sky high here on homes that are out of the flood zones in order to pay for the ones in the flood zones. Several home insurance companies have doubled their rates in my area while the biggest one pulled completely out of Cape Cod. This is partly because of regulations in Massachusetts forcing them to cover things that they would otherwise list as options with higher premiums and partly because the houses in harms way are just like the subject in this thread - very large, very expensive, with lots of ammenities and valuable things inside, not occupied all year, .... making them a high risk venture. Well, insurance is the business of taking risk and dispersing it over a broader area to offset the eventual loss. In these areas, they do it by doing their best to make the arguement that everybody else's house is in just as much risk and charge them high premiums to offset the eventual loss and/or damage of houses like this one.

Then when the storm wipes them out the news networks will find a few truly sad characters and dramatize the whole situation so that we have to fill change jars on the counters of every store we go into to help out these poor victims who chose to build in front of a speeding train with an extra million that they had laying around the yacht.

Meanwhile, it will cost the rest of the folks in the community $15 to park thir cars to go to the beech and three grand to insure their starter home on 12,000 square feet of ground. So, yes, I am bitter.

I have nothing against McMansions and waterfront homes. I make my living off of them. But that thing in that environment really bothers me because it costs everybody else in money and in what it takes away scenically, environmentally, and in accessibility to nice areas.

PS. What kind of septic system is used here?

Poster said on lot sewage was a mound system. Which is above the ground, a mound. I wouldn't plant anything around the house, but let the native stuff surround it. It is a piece of sculpture, let it stand out. Doesn't sound like the poster is a maniac gardner like some of us (me, for one) who can't leave well enough alone but always has to be tinkering with the landscaping.

Hi guys:

laag, bahia and tibs: Thanks for being frank. Bahia, I'm fine with a discussion that is likely to heat up. Thanks for encouraging laag to be honest about his perceptions.

Tibs, thanks for the comment about the house being a piece of sculpture. I'm sorry I don't have photos of the house now (after we moved in, the contractor's stuff was removed, and I started landscaping).

I'll remedy this when I get back home.
The discussion about insurance and expensive houses on the coast piqued my interest. It also made me realize that you may have some misconceptions about the house and its owners. To clarify these issues, I'd like your honest answers to a few questions.

laag, you described the house as "very large, very expensive, with lots of ammenities and valuable things inside, not occupied all year."

My Questions:
* How large do you think the house is? (roughly)
* You said the house has lots of amenities and valuable things? What amenities and valuable things?
* You see this as a luxury house that is not occupied all year. What caused you to form this opinion?
* You referred to the house as a McMansion that cost millions to build. What led you to this conclusion?

Some of your responses did surprise me. Since I requested advice, it is my responsibility to ensure that my questions are clear. I may need to provide more nformation about me/us and the house before you can offer advice. I am asking questions because I'm trying to understand what you see and how you percieve it.

Tibs, I need to fess up. I AM a passionate (maniac) gardener. You need to take my word for this. My husbnd will be happy to vouch for me.

My goal for this land (blank slate) is to create a garden, a demonstraton garden, so our neighbors can see that they can create wonderful gardens with native plants (perhaps supplemented by non-natives, depending on the person),

I hope this iinformation is helpful and that my questions are not intrusive. If they are, please ignore them.

I think the link to photos of the house under construction and TS Ernesto disappeared so here is the link:

http://www.harborhouselaw.com/photos/Site/house3.html

Many thanks,
Pam

It doesn't sound like insurance deductibles for hurricane and flood damage have reached the stratosphere on your coast, as they have for earthquake damage deductibles here in California. The out of pocket expenses before reimbursement are so high, that short of catastrophic damages, a typical homeowner might logically expect that damages would be below the amount at which an insurance payout would kick in. Most people have instead decided that it makes far more sense to do preventative structural earthquake reinforcement instead, and go blind for earthquake coverage.

On the other hand, there is still an absurd amount of new construction and development in low lying lands subject to flooding in the nearby Sacramento/San Joaquin delta area just inland from San Francisco Bay. What was once reclaimed marsh, turned into diked farmland, is now being turned into new houses with supposedly secure taller dikes. On the face of it, it seems ridiculous to even be building in these locations, so it certainly happens here too. Not to mention the amount of schools, hospitals and freeways that are built directly over known earthquake faults throughout the west coast. It would seem that humans are very good at denial of any personal responsibility for building in the face of natural disasters.

It does seem that we need a national discussion of how to insure for disasters, and whether we should even be insuring properties that we all know are going to be wiped out sooner or later. No doubt disasters are also a matter of perspective, and I know I am much more comfortable on a personal level with earthquakes than hurricanes and flooding.

It just doesn't seem as if it should be possible to build new construction in such vulnerable locations, especially when the hazards are so regular. To answer the questions, I would also have assumed that this house cost at least a million to construct, the land would have cost another million, and the house is a second home with at least 3000 square feet of floor space. As to the value of the furnishings inside, who can say, but I would expect that it does have all the modern conveniences, all new stainless steel appliances, flat screen television, etc.

For me, the house would have served as a more sensitive model of landscape siting and potential sensitive landscape plantings if it had been set back further from the shore amongst the existing trees, at a minimum. I am sure that even back several 100's of yards it would still be at equal risk in an hurricane, but it would not have the brutal visual impact on the shoreline if it weren't so visible along the shore.

I am sure that even master architectural works such as Frank Lloyd Wright's Falling Water was criticised initially by most for insensitive siting, as it was built over the water fall rather than opposite the falls to better view it, as most architects would probably have sited Falling Water. I don't think that this house will ever be seen as astute siting, and instead overwhelms that cute little sandy swimming cove so invitingly nearby.

Pam,

I should not apply what is the norm on this type of home to you and yours. I just vented a bit.

However, you did say say that you live in that house for eight months which leaves one to conclude that you live somewhere else for the other four.

I know that water front land is rarely inexpensive, permitting those houses is expensive (at least up here), that type of construction is most likely more expensive than conventional, and when someone is willing to spend that kind of money for something in a very risky situation it does not follow that they would have dormatory furniture and old movie posters for art work. I may not be true in your case, but it is the norm.

I think the approach that would be right for this type of house would have been, and maybe it is not too late, to give it a look more in keeping with a more historic beach shanty look. Something less like a suburban contemporary pulled of its foundation and put on poles.

A shanty look, maybe color could get you closer to it, would allow you to drape heavy netting from it (if allowed) to skirt it informally without interupting the flooding (easily taken up prior to storms). I just don't think that would fit this neat and clean house,though.

I'd have to agree with those that believe that the most natural landscape is the best for this setting, especially under the circumtances of the flooding. I think almost anything that you introduce for landscaping would look more out of place than as an adornment. I think that I would stick to window boxes, planters on the decks and attached to the structure would be great.

You must love the natural scenery there, or you would not put yourself there. Why not try to be more a part of it than a spot on it? Landscaping it with japanese maples or the things we like to do in more suburban areas is neither going to add beauty to the house or to the surrounding landscape.

Go context, go natural and/or what the subconscience recognizes as right for that place.

As someone that has worked on bay restoration, I don't think this structure nor it's ineffective (from a nitrogen loading perspective) treatment system ought to have been permitted so close to the shore, but since you've asked for landscaping design ideas, I hope the links help with landscaping your home in a manner responsible to its setting:

http://www.acb-online.org/pubs/projects/deliverables-85-8-2003.PDF
http://www.alliancechesbay.org/pubs/projects/deliverables-85-6-2003.pdf
http://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/bayscapes.htm
http://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/BayScapes/bshowto/bs-howbasics.htm

Just as an aside, my wife, who is an architect, wanted me to point out that this house is definitely NOT a McMansion. Personal taste in architectural styles aside, that house was clearly designed and not just built. The term McMansion is generally used to describe the huge (~5000 sqft), essentially identical, and cheaply built suburban houses that spring up on tiny lots all up and down the eastern seaboard. They are usually not designed by an architect.

McMansions

Personally I think it is important to disseminate this term correctly because it identifies a building style that is clearly not sustainable environmentally or economically, and should have a negative connotation. You can think what you want about the above house and the environmental implications of it site location, but it does not fit the McMansion criteria.

But this is more an argument for an architectural forum...

Pam, I answered your question on the second thread you started, as you know. Between lurkers and several who are posting there may be at least five east coast pro's with vast experience in seaside planting looking on.

Passionate about gardening has very little to do with your question. Understanding native plant growth in this situation is. Your land is subject to periodic salt water flooding. The native plants surviving there did not grow overnight. Seedlings sprouted, sent down a tap root looking for the fresh water trapped beneath the sand and if found began the slow struggle towards maturity. Over the years sands shifted, covering growth and each native plant, roots firmly fixed in fresh water below, recovered and grew out new top foliage. Sometimes this process was slowed by salt water flooding damaging growth. Any type of native habitat such as yours is to be revered and left as undististurbed as possible during construction. But, that is not possible as there is a need for septic tanks and driveways. And so it is quickly assumed that such damage can be repaired using native plants.

You are about to begin a long trial and error process about which very little has been put to print re growing on low lying coastal land subject to flooding, except how to prevent erosion in such situations. Much as been written about wind and salt air damage. It will be years of ocean ebb and flo before you will be able to stand back and say "I did it". The makings of a book, perhaps.

Well, as an architect, I agree that I wouldn't characterize it as a McMansion. I actually kind of like it - don't throw tomatoes at me!!! It is more of a sculpture than the sort of house that should nestle into its setting, imo. I do think the timber posts will work with the house better once they have faded to gray, and blend more with the other colors of the house.

Naturally, since I'm in the Midwest, I don't have any practical experience with ocean-front property - I am merely talking about the aesthetics. Personally, I don't think I'd risk building that close to the ocean, however, and I am not dismissing any of the environmental concerns raised above.

Hi Guys:

First, I want to thank you for answering my questions. As I suspected, I did not provide enough information in my original question which caused misunderstandings. I tried to make my original question short because I am a newcomer to this forum, and was hesitant to post a long question.

Nandina, thank you for your advice. I do think you are right about the trial and error process (and maybe the book too). My husband and I write books on a completely different subject (special education law and advocacy) so that's a possiblity, if I learn enough and live long enough. : > )

First, I'd like to provide more information in response to your comments. Then, I'll post a portion of an article about the house that was just published in our weekly newspaper. The newspaper publishes a "Home and Garden" issue in the spring - one feature is "unusual houses." Our house was an "unusual house" this year.

In "Earth friendly house," the reporter describes the house better than I can. In summary, we built the house to withstand winds of 130 mph (category 3 hurricane). Because of decisions made in the beginning, like building WAY above the flood plain, our insurance costs are very low.

laag, I'm sorry I was not clear about our status. We live here full time. This is our only house. We lived in a small cottage (675 sq feet) for 10 years while we looked for a house or a fairly small lot (about an acre) that faced south on which to build. This is a popular sailing area for about 8 months, from April to November. However, because we write books and do training programs, we are away from home about 100 days a year.

Re: costs: The house is about 3,000 square feet and cost $100/sq foot to build. This does not include appliances (purchased from Sears), the well, or the engineered septic system (Clearstream @ 13K) which we purchased separately, so the final cost was a little over $100/sq foot.

Re; kurtg's comments about the septic system, the Clearstream system is located about 500 feet from the house. We decided to use an engineered system, not a traditional septic system, to ensure that nitrogen loading was not a problem.

The 5 acres of land cost just over $300K because there was a bald eagle nest on the property. Anyone who wanted to build had to to negotiate with FWS for a permit. This is a difficult process that did not end until Hurricane Isabel blew the nest out of the tree. (The eagles rebuilt nearby)

In the 1950s, the land was zoned into dozens of small (50 x 150 lots). We had the land resubdivided into 4 lots, one for our house and 3 additional lots. We do not plan to sell the lots, but if we have a financial emergency or become disabled, we have this option.

We sited the house to take advantage of the sun to warm the house in winter and summer breezes to cool it in summer. Our electric bills are low. We just built a rainwater catchment system. We can store 2200 gallons and can add more storage tanks if needed. We have a propane generator. As a result, we can live "off the grid" for weeks.

Re: comments about amenities and valuable stuff. This is a beach house. Because we were financially strapped after building the house, we used lawn furniture inside. It looked fine and no one worries about spilling stuff - everything is washable.
Here is a description of the house from the article, "Earth friendly house captures the sun, the wind and the rain" by Tom Chillemi, Southside Sentinel.

Pete and Pam Wright designed their home at Stingray Point in Deltaville to bring the outside inside ... Banks of windows face south and west to absorb the winter sun, warming the whole house. In summer, when the sun is at a higher angle, its rays bounce off the treated windows so heat gain is not a problem.

Doors and windows on the second floor are open on warm days to let the hot air out and let in the cool Bay breezes.

The Wrights have lived in Deltaville full-time for 12 years. Before that, they visited the area for decades.

The Wrights built their house near the end of Route 33 on the Bay. Here, the Bay is almost 40 miles wide, so there is a lot of open water or "fetch" for wind to gain strength across the open water.

So the Wrights engineered structural solutions to make the house stand up to the wind and water. First, the house is raised well above the flood zone on pilings driven 30 feet deep. But that makes the two-story house three stories high. Also because of it's "L" shape "it's like a huge sail so it catches the wind."

To reinforce the house, eight steel beams were placed under the siding. The interior walls are "shear walls," which means vertical studs are braced with horizontal 2 x 4s every 4 inches. These studs are covered with plywood on both sides to prevent any twisting action of the house due to wind loading. All studs are secured with hurricane straps.

The glass is rated to withstand winds of 130 mph. The glass doors latch and close in four places so water cannot be driven around the edges. The exterior is Hardy plank, a cement-fiber siding that resembles wood. The Wrights used flat roofs and gutters to create a rainwater collection system (see related story).

For those folks who have read to the end, that's the story (or most of it).

Take care,
Pam

I and my husband built our first house in a similar environment, the Delaware seashore and I tried many landscape and plant treatments over the 15 years we owned it. It is a very difficult environment to grow in and hard to find commercial sources for plants. Native plants are almost the only ones that will make it in the long run.
Here are ones that worked: black pines, cedars, junipers, holly trees (for the birds), bayberry, rugosa rose (not native but tough), dune grass, sea oats, corepsis, daylilies.
I can't think of anything that will ever get tall enough to soften the vertical angles but if there is a sheltered area perhaps behind the house away from the prevailing wind you might try a native oak which in time (a long time, true) become magnificent.
I think the challenge will be to find the other natives. Perhaps there are more nurseries today that have them than when I was looking for them.
The funniest thing I saw one of our neighbors do when they built their new house was put in a sod lawn. (Don't do this).

Pam, if your house withstands gusts as well as you have taken the buffeting from this forum, then you are well fixed for a Category 3.

I'll refrain from calling anyone a blowhard, not only because the pun is too obvious but also because I fit right in here as being opinionated and judgemental, having a bit of donor fatigue on the forum, and needing to vent sometimes and using a convenient target. I differ only in that I have no professional expertise to compensate for it. Personally, I love the forum's bite, and so am posting not to denounce it, but to admire your response.

What baffles me is that the many people who post here for advice on properties carved out of farmland don't get equal abuse. Indeed, where I live was no doubt once also a delicate ecosystem. Love the discussion on our local Gulf Islands at the moment by existing residents about how additional development should be restricted. Sure, it's all gotta stop... but not until we get there?

I don't think that anyone has linked yet to the other thread on this subject, so I've done so below, for the record.

Here is a link that might be useful: Pam's second thread

Pam, you do have the grace of a Saint. I hope you get the landscape you want and enjoy your home. Its just not my type of project.

Your house might have a lot of earth friendy mitigation going on, but they are only necessary because the initial decision to build in an environmentally sensitive area. I would contend that ...

"Two Wrights do not make a wrong a right by making it less wrong"

(Brent in NoVa, am I getting closer?)

You guys are funny!

karini, Thanks for your comments and for the link to the other thread. I looked for it, couldn't find it, thought it had been removed.

Nandina: many thanks for your suggestions and advice on the other thread. I will follow up on your ideas. I hadn't thought of training rugosas up the pillars, nor about combining rosa rugosa, pyracantha and bayberry. We have native persimmons growing in the sand. I've been looking for a source of beach plums, plants or seeds.

Joepyeweed, I will follow your advice re: the Virginia Native Plant Society. I think they may have a chapter in this area.

karini, after reading the first few responses to my question, I realized I was going to have to take some lumps. I was a stranger and needed to provide more information before people who had expertise would be willing to answer my questions.

I've been active on forums for years and am familiar with forum culture. Most forums have a core of active members (often with strong opinions) and lurkers. Because forums are anonymous (you aren't having a face-to-face discussion with another person), people tend to express themselves more strongly and without the usual social conventions. Once you understand this, you can enjoy "the bite" and learn a great deal.

naplesgardener - Thank you for the advice about specific plants to use. You lived here and have firsthand knowledge about the challenges and what works. You are right about native plants. Actually, I prefer them. As you know, this region has lovely, diverse native plants.

Nandina, I'll see what I can find out about cedars. What about junipers? The eastern red juniper is native. It's hardy and adapts to these conditions. I'd like to find a pendulous or weeping tree, if possible. Juniperus scopulorum 'Candelabra'? If I start with a fairly small tree and provide it with support, it may have time to settle in before the next storm hits. I should mention that we don't have terrible storms that often (but they are something when they hit).

I thought about a bald cypress or pond cypress but they lose their needles in the winter. I have plenty of room for them near a cove.

Re: lawns, we aren't "lawn people." At all. The local wetlands expert suggested "weeping love grass" to use near the shore. I haven't seen weeping love grass yet but found a couple of sources for seed.

I love oaks. We had a huge tupelo tree at the old cottage - it was spectacular in the fall. As you say, these trees take time to make their presence known. On the other hand, we plan to live here for the rest of our lives. I also like the idea of planting trees that will come into their own after we are gone.

laag, I have to confess, I don't understand your comment "Two wrights do not make a wrong a right by making it less wrong." Is it safe to say that you don't like the fact that we built the house so close to the Bay (although our state allows it), regardless of the insurance implications (or lack of same)?

I enjoy challenges and learning new things. When we bought this land, it had been clearcut a few years before. The owner / destroyer didn't put up silt fences so you know what happened to the water - silted in. Bad.

Three months after we bought the land, Hurricane Isabel hit and took out the remaining trees. The trees that weren't down were damaged and leaning. We are nearly treeless today. I'd like to replant /reforest but I know I have a lot to learn about that process. (Tree forum? Conifer forum? I'll search) We work for ourselves and are on the road at least 10 days a month. Time and $$ limits what I can do for now.

I'd like to mention one thing. Ninety-five percent of the time, the southern part of the Chesapeake Bay is a lovely, gentle place in which to live. We have an incredible variety of wildlife and the Bay is a flyway for migrating birds in spring and fall. We could fish 12 months a year, except we are wimps about the cold.

You have given me some excellent advice. I appreciate it, saved it, and will use it. Keep the "bite." I hope I will have enough knowledge to help newcomers in the future.

Pete and I have been on the road for 9 days and I'm homesick. We get home tonight. Thank goodness.

Take care,
Pam

Beach Plum is available in a potted, one gallon container for 12.00 or as a much smaller (and much cheaper to ship) "tube" size for $8.95 from Forest Farm. FF offers a HUGE selection of unusual plants, absolutely outstanding customer service, and they could probably help with a list of other species that might work for you. The only possible downside is they're in Oregon, so shipping can get pricey.

Here's a link to a list of mainly east coast growers from Cornell; the University's Department of Horticulture is working on a project to study the commercial production of beach plum.

Here is a link that might be useful: Growers' List compliments of Cornell

littledog - thank you for the beach plum sources. I have the FF catalog. When I read it, my brain goes into overdrive and I start thinking about other projects, many many projects, that are not on this year's priority list. I read their catalog in bed when I should be asleep. The only thing that keeps me under control are the shipping costs.

The Cornell list of resources looks very promising. I appreciate your sending it. I'd like to plant beach plums this spring, before the weather gets much warmer. After the wicked storms last fall, we seem to have more native persimmons (still dormant) on the shore.

Thanks again and take care,
Pam