My first question is, have you drawn this to scale, and verified the mature sizes of everything you want to plant? Because, I'm having a hard time figuring this out - is this actually a side-entrance driveway? It doesn't seem like you have enough space to pull out of the garage! Not to mention, it seems like you have spaced some of the trees awfully close together.

I think you will find it to be a bit of a hodge podge. There is a lot of variety with no unifying influence. I would suggest looking into ways to get some unity going. There are lots of ways to get unity. You don't have to use any particular method. You could use one or you could use a combination of more than one. That is up to you.

Some unifying methods are repetition of form, or color, or texture (usually a combination of these), repetition of the same plants, repetition of similar groupings of plants, symetry, massing, adding a visually powerful material such as stone (something which is so strongly unified that the mix of plants can not overcome it), containment (beds and/or borders), isolation (setting beds surrounded by grass or another material that visually holds the planting together), land form (such as bermed plantings rising from flat lawn areas),... There are all kings of ways to build unity.

I strongly urge you to consider building some unity, even if it is subtle.

If I remember correctly you don't have that much space alongside the house on the right line so those tulips will get pretty big. Obviously you don't like evergreen shrubs and it looks like the plants were shot out of a gun. It would be more pleasing if you grouped say the red twigs together. It will be very harsh on the eye even though you have reds together and you did do a redbud near the corner, so not all is lost. Impact not helter skelter with perennials maybe but not with wooody's.

Here is a link that might be useful: Propagating Perennials

I would think you'd need at least 30 feet between, say, a spruce and an elm or a spruce and a tulip poplar. Also, don't alternate them--it will look like a polka dot.

When I look at the plan, yes, I see there are spacing/placement issues with the trees but I'm not sure that it's as scatter-gun/lacking in unity. When I try to visualize it in three dimensions, through the seasons, I see it as having a strong red-purple theme in flowers and foliage, with a secondary yellow/gold theme in spring and late summer, and some white highlights. And there is certainly repetition in the trees, although the arragement of them might not be the best. The color theme is not one I'd choose but I assume the OP likes red-purples.

It seems to me that the OP put a lot of thought into the plan and is trying to address the unity, repetition etc. I think it's very difficult for us amateurs to do a plan drawing (is the scale right in this one?) and make it look like what you visualize in four dimensions (time being the fourth dimension...) I think the OP should give most thought to the tree placement issues and not be too discouraged by the comments.

For some reason, my response last night did not come through, or I might just forgot to submit it.

Anyway, first off I'd like to thank you for all your input. Secondly, to respond your what you wrote. Most of the responses here are about unity issue. However, i am a little bit confused about it. What I was trying to do here was to use several same plants and scatter them all around the yard but with different groupings to create "unity" and "variation." Perhaps, I have not learned the right way to perceive it, but I thought that scattering the same plants in each bed would tie all the beds together as one unit. I guess that I was having the wrong concept.

To emphasize this issue, i would like more input on it. Obviously, this is a big problem in my plan. How should I change it? Let'say, should I just plant the same plants with the same color in just one bed, then repeats the same method for other beds but with different plants and colors? Or should I keep the varieties to a minimum and just keep about 3 colors, forms, and textures in each bed? The reason why I said that I was confused, because in gardening, aren't we supposed to group the same type of plants together with one color and surround them by CONTRASTING colors. It creates the visual interest with the combinations of different colors. That was what I was trying to do here. However, I must miss something; because everybody who responded this post addressed on the similar issue.

One the issue of the trees too close, I have to say that I had no idea how wide I should plant those trees. My garden in the backyard looks so scarce; the plants don't look close enough. The spaces between plants or trees did not welcome to me. That's why I thought 13-15 ft apart would make the trees look close without gap. Now I learn that I should actually plant them at least 30ft apart. Then, I can eliminate some of the spruce and elm.

I measures the front yard, and I think the scale and proportion are not too bad, but I had to admit that I did make the driving space in front of th garage too small. I looked the yard again, after reading your responses. The main yard should be a little wider to the left, so it pushes the driveway to the left a little.

I do like evergreens, which make me feel uplifting especially in winter, when dedicious trees look so naked. However, Most of the evergreens have the same pyramid shape. I don't know how to incorporate them with other plants in the beds. Thus, I could only push them to the sides as order. Any suggestion on that?

I like all colors. Normally we see most yards having reds and greens most of time, so I just want something different and keep more VARIETIES. That's why I threw in more purple in it. However, if the entire landscape would look strange to any of you because of too much purple, I can definitely change it. Actually, I would LOVE to have DIFFERENT COLORS of plants, yet I am keeping what's available locally in mind. I don't want to get something looking very good, yet I cannot get it easily.

Please advice me more, especially on the plant arrangement and grouping and "unity." I do want to make it, if not right, at least close enough and making sense a little. Thank you

>DIFFERENT COLORS

:D

Here's a nifty color wheel:
{{gwi:31985}}

Grouping colors together that form a geometric shape around the center of the wheel seems to attract more human eyes.

Then again, I'm assuming it's just for yours lol

LOL You ARE FUNNY! If I did that, I am sure that my yard would be on HGTV

The assumption is that the plan is posted because the OP is looking for other people's opinions rather than to make an announcement. Critique is not meant to discourage. In fact, it is to encourage, empower, and enable. It is feedback of thoughts and ideas to ponder - not necessarily something to follow, but ideas to think about. Some can be dismissed very quickly, but should be considered at least briefly. Sometimes they should be considered longer.

There is a long list of ways to get unity. The simpler a composition is, the more powerful any element is within it. If you have only three plants and they are all the same, you have solid unity. If you keep adding a little of this and a little of that you start to water that down unless you continue to build unity as you add the plants.

The right side of that driveway has about 20 distinctly different varieties in about 40 plants. There is barely a beginning to any unity even if you removed 20 plants and left the 20 most unifying plants in there.

Purple flowers mixed with purple foliage goes well together but does not equal unity.

Chueh,

I think your concept is good - having a base of unity in order to be able to have a lot of fun with variety. I just don't think you have built ENOUGH unity YET to overcome the variations - or more accurately, the variations in that plan will overcome the unity.

I think that you will either have to ease up on the variations or build stronger unity to hold it together. The third option is to be content with a loose composition. That is not a sin, but most people will see it as a hodge-podge or a loose collection of plants. Many people are focused enough on individual plants that it does matter and, like I said, that is not a sin.

If you do want something that is more unified start by simplifying your plan by starting with a clean slate. Build it with some pieces focusing on unity. Perhaps (and this is only one example) start by grouping at least three of the same shrubs together and repeat that group three or four times along the driveway. They culd be in the background, the middle ground or the foreground , but be consistent. Maybe work in sme rythym by positioning another set of shrubs in a consistent relationship to the other groupings. That will give you some unity that would allow you get loose throughout the area to a certain degree. The more unity you start out with, the more variety you can get away with around it.

At some point you can break down any unity by going overboard. But, you can always look to build more unity to allow going more overboard.

Move from general toward specific - big picture to detail. Start with unity, then add the variety.

Does that make sense?

Try different ways to build unity on paper until you find what works for you.

Euonymous is a groundcover and fortunei have different varieties and its evergreen. Why not some rhodys, they are not pyramid shaped? Since snow is scarce in GA your beds will be in the spotlight in winter. Textures also play a role in the landscape. Envision 3 rhodys surrounded by 3 red twig on one side and 5 barberry in front and 3 forsythia on the opposite side and 3 contoneaster behind the rhodys facing the house.

I have a little trouble deciphering this plan. To me, there seems to be very little hierarchy. This dovetails with what Laag mentions about moving from big to small - what is important? What should stand out? What really defines this planting?

Working with a scaled drawing will help enormously. With equivalent spacings of roses to black eyed susans and elms to spruces, I am uncertain how representative this plan would be of the actual design manifested. Also ensure that you understand how large the intended plants can get. A huge source of frustration for homeowners are shortsighted plant placements. With a mature height of 80 feet and spread of 50 feet, I'm not sure if tulip trees are the best choice to be planted along the side.

In addition to what Laag has suggested, I would throw in the suggestion to work from big to small - literally. Place the largest trees first, like the elms, spruces, tulip trees, then the medium, then the small. Then move onto large shrubs, smaller shrubs, then perennials, etc. This will help organize the plantings based on their visual impact and create a little more priority.

I hope this helps somewhat,

- Audric

Oh, yes, all of your comments and thoughts have helped me A LOT. Now, I start realizing what you were all talking about. I really really appreciate all of them. I can envision bullthistle's idea of planting, and laag's "start with unity then variety" and bonsai's "what should stand out; what's important" make a lot of sense.

Although all of your comments have empowered me to continuously working on my plan to make it more sensible, I have one more question, though. Bonsai, so what's important? What do I define it within the plants? Is the biggest tree the most important, in term of size? I understand what you said about largest trees, then medium, then small, and then large shrub, smaller shrubs, and then perennials...but is the largest tree being the most important?

Thanks

One more question: I tried planning to plant one tree in each bed, so each bed has a focal point, so to speak. Is it a good idea? Or should I limit the "focal point to a minimum," by just planting one big tree? If I should just plant one big tree, where should it go? Thanks

Is a tree a focal point?

A focal point is something that is more visually significant than that which is around it. A tree often is often more visually significant than that which is around it. However, if there are a lot of trees, the individual tree becomes less significant and is no longer a focal point. Also, if any other thing is more visually significant, than obviously the tree is no longer the focal point.

As to what makes something more visually significant than something else, that is a Master's Thesis waiting to happen or a book waiting to be written. It can be simple or it can be complex, but it IS.

Just like unity, a focal point can be overpowered by something else.

Hello cheuh,

You determine what is important. A plant is more or less the same from one landscape to the other, but the role they play and the inherent characteristics which are emphasized change. A camellia could be a stunning accent in one garden and a ho-hum hedge in another. In one case, it is being employed for its flowers, in the other, its massing.

"Importance" is a tricky word, as it implies an intrinsic value. Allow me to recall that, and substitute it with "emphasis". What is intended to grab the attention? What do you want noticed? It is something that you can manipulate with a huge variety of techniques and to which there is no known universal equation.

I gave the example of using size to give order to the design according to spatial impact. Yes, the largest trees, having the largest bulk, create a larger effect on the space. That doesn't mean the largest trees should or do garner the most emphasis; the trees which structure the space could simply be a background to which other plants or elements play. Or not.

Laag gives one example of manipulating emphasis. Perhaps one way of thinking of significance/importance/emphasis is in terms of portions. A greater number of portions means each one is individually smaller. Having fewer portions also allows for having larger portions, too. Sometimes this isn't true, though. Placement, alignment, contrast (in forms, colours, texture, movement, size), repetition - all of the "how a plant is used" - have an impact too.

It would be impossible to cover all the ways in which something is manipulated to become more important, more emphasized, or more significant. One of the best ways to figure out which manner you wish to manipulate them is by example; find what appeals to you, and analyze it until the cows come how. Exposure to different designs will help with this. (It is also handy if they have both plans and photos of the design, instead of just one or the other, since both can be deceiving to their alternate form).

- Audric

Good thread!

Thanks, chueh, for putting your plan on the screen and your questions in front of us.

When Audric used the term "importance", I went in a different direction. I thought, "what is the most important goal that Chueh wants to achieve in this part of the landscape?"

It might be

1. A large shade tree or two, providing lower cooling costs, shading the house and the exterior space.

2. Choosing something beautiful to be the emphasis, in the manner Audric described.

3. Planning an entrance that functions and looks great, welcoming and guiding visitors to the home.

Right now I'm not clear if my idea of "importance" is helpful, but I'm also not clear what needs you'd most like to meet. Because you've chosen some trees that can get very large, we're assuming you want large trees. It might be that that isn't a high, or important, priority for you. One goal that does seem very important to you is to actually achieve a wonderful and pleasing composition. Is that what is most important? Are there any other important goals you would like to achieve?

Hope my muddled musings aren't too far off track.

Wellspring

Wellspring, that actually was quite helpful.

I realized that when I made the switch from "importance" to "emphasis", I made the assumption that the basis of the design was for the aesthetic impact. You made the important distinction between the overall goal or intention of the site, and then its distinct manifestation.

- Audric

Oh, no, wellspring, what you thought is not off track at all. In fact, you point out something very IMPORTANT. It's sort of like a "what do I use this landscape for." Your 3 points are exactly what goals are. Although the first one is not quite for creating shades, rather use larger trees as company for the house ( a house without larger trees seems lonely. Also the silhouette of trees softens the hard edge of the straight constructural lines ). Second, I want to make the front yard looks "warm" with plants, instead of the flat lawn only. Right now, the driveway seems so long, and the house seems so far away without much going on, except the center island floating there. I would like my guests to have a feeling of being welcome to our house by looking at the very beginning of the lot, and eagerly looking forward to drive closer to the house. That way, the long driveway would seem disappearing. Along the driveway and the walking path, our guests can look at the beautiful plants until they get to the entrance door.

It is just not so easy to put my idea into a substantial reality, as you can tell by looking at my plan now. However, after I read EACH RESPONSE, my idea seems to be clearer even to myself. The more I read your response, the more I realize what to achieve. It is a great learning experience.

I have to say, this is one of the best threads, ever. I wonder what cheuh ended up with?