Brent,

I think the "welcome to my garage" lament that we hear so often at this forum is way overdone. I'm not saying that garage doors looming up front and center stage are attractive, but in many neighborhoods, large, prominent 2-3 car garage doors are so common that your average passerby comes to expect them and is not bothered by them at all. In my town, for example, EVERY single family home has a 2-3 car garage (cannot think of a single exception), and at least 99% of them are prominently placed near the street on the front side of the house. No one tries to hide them. Why would they? People expect them there. Even professionally landscaped homes, of which there are many in my town, do not seem to try to hide or camouflage the garage doors.

In suburbia where side yards are only 10 feet wide for million dollar (plus) homes, there is no room for a garage with a side entry. On rare occasions when there is a side entry, the garage is still in front of the house and half of the front yard is a paved driveway that is needed for cars to do the 90 degree reverse turn out of their garages.

My own home has a 3 car garage that sits forward from the rest of the house similar to the way yours is situated. Frankly, it just doesn't bother me at all.

What is being done is analysis based on criteria that may or may not have been in place at the time of the design. It is application of our own individual values at this time. There is a difference between bad design and bad results.

Low maintenance is not a given criterion, but a large segment of garden designers seem to think that it is. Designing for perpetuity is another one that seems to be an assumed standard with a lot of people. Some landscapes are designed with a shelf life. Some gardens are designed for active gardeners in their active years (and then they get old).

My first thought about bad design was that which was described to me last week. A developer chose to modify a site plan which consisted of a house, driveway, grading and drainage, utilities, etc,.. . He moved the house and added a pool without the benefit of pointy headed folks with pocket protectors. The pool was filled with mud and its decking was under a foot or two of water last week when the entire subdivision drained into it during a 5" rain storm. There is no outlet for the water in the bowl shaped yard. That is bad design.

I find that bad design is fairly easy to pick out and usually it is fairly easy to tell why I do not like the design. I also find that good design is fairly easy to pick out, but I have a much harder time trying to figure out why I like it. I think that part of the reason is that good design seems so natural, so obvious...of course I would have picked out a pot that shape, color and size for that location...it just fits.

Yes Andrew, that is bad design on a much higher level.

- Brent

Laag, that sounds like (very) bad engineering, or bad site planning, not necessarily bad landscape design...no?

"What is being done is analysis based on criteria that may or may not have been in place at the time of the design. It is application of our own individual values at this time." I appreciate this point, but it makes me wonder if you are saying that "bad design" versus "good design" is subjective. That can't be what you mean...is it?

Patty

I call it Garage with a House Built on the Back. Lots of other sights with similar characteristics that we are all "used to" do not make this house design a better idea. I could see how in cold climates an attached garage would be valued for making it possible to duck into the garage and from there right into the house. However, automobile exhaust also comes in the house with you.

Congested Seattle is now requiring new houses to have offstreet parking. What I am seeing on small city lots is the parking going under the house. The drive eats up half or more of the front yard but at least the house is not partly hidden by the garage.

I'm not saying that bad design vs. good design is subjective. I'm saying that a lot of people use subjective criteria to conclude whether something is designed well or not. Sometimes that subjective criteria is purely based on personal likes and dislikes or observations of situations that were not present at the time of the design which has nothing to do with whether the design was good or not.

A lot of people see the word "design" as an aesthetic state rather than a response that meets a set of goals and objectives.

To think that something is "bad design" because you don't like a planting style is rediculous unless pleasing your aesthetic taste is one of the criteria the designer was supposed to satisfy. If it is your home it should be a huge priority.

Design is not just a mix of plant arrangement and a maintenance schedule. Sometimes there are other very important things that have to be considered and sometimes they are quite unique. Sometimes very good solutions to problems mitigate the problem so well that we as observers do not see the problem and don't understand why something was done a certain way.

If you look at Brent's photo, the most out of place item aesthetically is the Japanese Maple. The style does not blow my kilt up and I'd love to know the story behind the story on the hedge in front of the porch. It could be that there are headlights that shine into these windows, I don't know. Again, it is not a style that I particularly like, but it has a great deal of unity, it gives the house a strong sense of repose, and does not create a big problem.

Design is design whether it is engineering, landscape design, or garden design. Landscape design fits in between the other two in reality just as in the sentence above. If you do a pretty arrangement of plants with a perfect self sustaining maintenance criterion, but the car can't turn around in the driveway because of it, is it good design. I think half of you would say it is.

Aha! A little light goes on over Patty's head. Thank you Andrew.

So, perhaps those bushes planted in front of the window in my little example above are MEANT to block the windows at some point...from ongoing lights or for privacy.

I don't know why this hadn't occured to me since my son loves to feel enclosed, even entombed, and therefore I allow the bushes in front of his window to grow a bit taller than I would normally prefer. Another design element (although so small not to be noticed) is that he loves wonderful smells so I have underplanted those same bushes with lily of the valley.

If I understand correctly, what you are saying is that in considering the landscape design there are 1.)site planning and engineering issues 2.) aesthetic issues 3.)client and site specific (subjective) criteria. Yes?

Still, no matter how you slice it, some things constitute bad design, in my opinion. Lumpy, dumpy dwarf alberta spruces flanking a front door. Icky. (Or maybe that's just bad plant selection.)

Patty

I tend to agree with Laag, good design is more than the green stuff. There is a commercial development that I will not frequent because of bad design. The shrubs have filled in beautifully, but you cannot see around them to gauge traffic. The really expensive oaks (6 inch caliper) were planted UNDER the power lines, so now ten years later, they look like plates on sticks because they have been topped. Paths have been beaten thru the bushes because it is a more direct route to the shopping than going around the planted berm. Rats are a huge problem because of too much cover.
I am sure this all looked great on paper or CAD, but in this world, it is a disaster. Bad design.
Brent, what you have is so-so design, it isn't too bad, I too would like to know the story of the Japanese maples, take them out, and the whole look changes. Just don't pitch them, when you pull them up, if you pull them up, move them to a raised spot so you can appreciate them sort-of from underneath. They could be gorgeous focal points in the right spot. Or you could sell them.
NN

This is my home with 2 car garage in the back accessed through a paved alley. I was looking for a home for a few years and all the homes looked the same with 2-3 car garages smack dab up front (hiding the home) and then this new urbanism development started in my city and this was totally different and unique (at least in my city) The landscaping is ok but I need help. This is my home 3 years ago as it was just completed. Things have grown some what and that little evergreen tree upfront is gone and the privet hedge is coming in around the front, slowly but surely. I will post more pics to get ideas on what to do in the back and other area because I am totally clueless. Simple works for me though.

Here is a link that might be useful: my home (pdf format)

Wish I dared to share my picture gallery of 'red neck landscaping'. There is always a wonderful example to photograph around every corner here in the south. I have already posted about my favorite NC. example; the house front sidewalk painted brilliant red with tall orange marigolds planted on either side. Many examples of front yard landscaping which consists of just kudzu growing luxuriantly. And a house I pass every day with no front yard plantings. Very prominent is a large mulched bed with every type of concrete fairy statue ever made clustered about. Takes your breath away!

Another favorite is a rural southern house front yard filled with old kitchen appliances lined up in neat rows. Must not forget the unique design of a country home consisting of large, round hay bales piled one on top of the other with a large American flag flying from them. We never travel without a camera. So much fun to travel the southern back roads!

OK, so we can qualify the "do's" and "don'ts" with "unless there is a good reason to do otherwise".

I was hoping for a thread more along the lines of what inkognito mentioned: bad DESIGN, as opposed to what someone feels is in bad TASTE.

Although I can identify when I feel a design is good -- it flows, it feels harmonious, it's appropriate to its surroundings -- I sometimes struggle to identify just *what* about the design components are accomplishing this. Saypoint did a marvelous job of beginning the discussion I was interested in (I swear, I'm going to assemble a three-ring binder containing nothing but posts from Saypoint to use as a reference book!)

I hope that the thread doesn't de-evolve into a series of "look at these wooden cutouts my neighbor has in her yard, isn't it tacky?" posts.

"Although I can identify when I feel a design is good -- it flows, it feels harmonious, it's appropriate to its surroundings -- I sometimes struggle to identify just *what* about the design components are accomplishing this."

I suspect the most important criteria is "scale" that serves its "purpose".

For example, a neighbor behind me has an atrocious tree that is eating his house (literally). I shudder to think of the siding rot this tree has caused him. This tree could be seen in the movie "Snow Falling On Cedars". But it is crammed right against the side of his house, with probably a 10 foot width between the house and the neighbor's fence.

Very bad design.

Except we can't stand the neighbor.....he's an ogre....and thus the tree becomes the perfect separator from our perspective.

Brent--

I don't envy you the hollies--but I LUST for that Crimson Queen JM. You have GOT to think about replacing whatever that yellow-flowered ground-cover is with a bed of Heuchera "Lime Ricky". Or Heucherella "Stop Light". Yeah, it'll be expensive--but if you want "wow factor"...

;~)

melanie

As usual, laag has a way of making me think about things a bit differently.

In our mostly DIY household, I guess I am fortunate that DH has more of the "design" qualities, while I have more of the "make it pretty" qualities. An example - we planted some new trees a couple of weeks ago. We had a general area in mind for them, so I went out and plopped three of them in what I felt was the most visually appealing arrangement. DH then showed up, in his truck, and said (very nicely given that he knew I would get upset) "we can't put them there because if we do I won't have a way to get the truck to the shed. We have to move them out a bit". OK, I saw his point, and he was right, but I must admit that I was disappointed.

So, someone might look at the yard and say "why are those trees in that spot when they would look better in this spot?" But there is a good valid reason.

And they actually look just fine in the spot they ended up in.

To continue from the function perspective, rather than a taste perspective, here are a few more:

Outdoor dining area located too far from the kitchen, making getting food to and fro inconvenient.

Patio or other outdoor living area in exposed, afternoon sun location where you will roast like a turkey if you try to use it.

Trees selected and placed so that their size and location makes them fill the gutters on the house and garage several times a year.

Water source located too far from where you need it (flower or veggie garden) to be convenient. Ditto electrical outlets.

Lighting that glares in your face, but doesn't light the path where you need to see where you're stepping.

Main entry to house not clear to visitors when they arrive. It should be obvious where you want them to go. They shouldn't have to cut across a lawn or creep through bushes looking for a way in.

Walls or hedges directly adjacent to a driveway that make it difficult to open car doors freely. Ditto a driveway so narrow that when you get out of your car, you have to walk on the adjacent lawn or mulched area to get past the car.

Shrubs, trees, or other tall plants located at the end of the driveway so that you can't see oncoming traffic when you want to get out.

Lawn shapes laid out so that they require a lot of extra trimming to get into awkward corners.

A porch or steps that is so small that the door knocks you off into the foundation planting when you open it.

Plantings along driveways and walks that are in the way of snow removal, whether a plow needs to push it somewhere, or you need to throw it with a shovel.

Uneven or tippy paving stones that cause a safety hazard. Ditto walks so narrow that people have to walk single file. This can be important if you have to take Aunt Edith's elbow to help her up the walk when she comes for Thanksgiving.

...unless there is a good reason to do so.

That's just off the top of my head.

Aunt Edith is coming for Thanksgiving!? Oh great.

Seriously, I have a patio that has southern exposure with no protection and it is like a griddle out there. No one wants to use it between May and October. It's a shame because it's beautiful, with a beautiful view of gardens and lawn. I've struggled for years trying to shield it somehow...umbrellas and so forth. I finally decided this year that we need to make some form of pergola over it. Now, just to tell my DH. *gulp*

It's funny, but until this moment I never thought of it as bad landscape design, but that is exactly what it is. Interesting.

Patty

The tight low hedges in the one picture could be seen as forming a nice contrast to the softness of the maple. A similar technique is planting perennial borders in front of clipped hedges or walls, so that it doesn't look like a weed patch. And laceleaf maples are so unnatural looking that they really need their own setting to not look out of place anyway. Maybe just a somewhat different arrangement of hedging, maybe also taller at the back is all that is called for to make this scene work. At the moment it does look a bit like a logjam.

There was a recent post on the pro forum where a couple had put in a garden for someone. It seemed to be a planting mixture without too much consideration for the bigger picture that might be considered design. The couple were happy with the result because their client was happy. I got some stick over there, and will probably get some here, but in my opinion this is an attitude guaranteed to lead to 'bad design'. Of course I am assuming that 'good design' is the aim and not "give them what they want and take the money". As it happens there was very little money in the job I mention: but the client was happy!! 'good design' needs an objective criterion, if everyone can get in and out of their triple garage without too much trouble or over hanging tree scaping the paintwork, well whoopee, if it looks like a second ww bunker and the garden like a sad attempt to disguise the fact, this is bad design. When I was younger and more troublesome I planted katsura along a path knowing that it would make the client duck under and walk around them. They see it know but it took a while, the trees grew and so did they, it slowed them down. I consider this 'good design' precisely because of that.

You used to be more troublesome? Badda-bump-pah! At least you didn't put in hidden water jets that squirted passers-by.

So we see that good design serves to further the "experience" we wish to create in a landscape. A curving or turning path and plants that whack you in the forehead cause you to slow down and see your surroundings, as does a stepping stone path which requires you to step more carefully. A straight line path suggests you should hurry up and get where you're going, or directs your view to the intended focal point.

Now we're getting to the finer points of design. So I'll add that a bad (or poorly thought-out) design is one that puts a focal point or other distraction too close to a good view, whether off-site or on-site, that should be emphasized with framing or a line that leads to it, not downplayed.

What else?

"Planting beds filled with small annuals that are way to teensy to make any impact."

As a followup (referring to a workplace "design"), spacing infant ageratums two and a half feet apart in rows induces unpleasant gastrointestinal symptoms.

And if you're doing a mixed bed, it's great to have large oakleaf hydrangeas in full flower. Looks kind of silly to toss in at widely spaced random intervals (in addition to the ageratum) other assorted baby annuals and perennials, not to mention minute ornamental grasses that are clearly dead. Not some form of brown Carex, but dead ((Monty Python) "This is a deceased plant. A former herbaceous specimen. Not just resting. Not pining for the fjords. Dead."(/mp)

Uh, Patty...

Why haven't you considered an awning for your patio?! It's true, pergolas/arbors with vines are really cool, but nothing screams "summer" to me more than awnings/canopies. Low tech. and gloriously "Victorian". They can be rendered chicly "minimalist" or you can festoon them to indulge your aesthetic.

Our southwesterly oriented, second floor deck was the embodiment of "bad design", lack of thought for practicalities. Sunlight kept the mosquitos at bay, but when Ol' Sol retired the Mosquitos moved right in... we never used the damned thing. Until I decided to cover it.

I finally wised up that maybe (just maybe!) I should use my skill to make our living space more comfortable/useful (what a concept). Results follow...

(look for them on your way to your destination tomorrow. Look to your left... have a good time, too!)

Here is a link that might be useful: Sun protection

Chelone, I have considered an awning, but I like yours better..it's more like a screened room. The spot is slightly tricky because it is the back of our ranch house, but it looks like a two story in the back. Our finished basement has full sized windows and a regular door that leads out to the flagstone patio. It's flanked on one side by a lovely stone retaining wall and flower bed, on the other side by the L of the house. Tricky actually. I need to spend some time thinking about how it would work. Did you DIY? Did you use a kit? Do have any recommended resources? Do you have suggestions on how to get DH to crack open his wallet? :)

And by the way Eric, the carex has lovely plummage, although I'm sure the plummage doesn't enter into it.

Patty (In a few hours, I'm off to the paradise that lucky dog Chelone calls home.)

Yes, I made it myself (it's what I do for a living).

And we do it for people "just like you" all the time! You need to spend some time looking at your site and really "burning some brain cells" thinking about how you want the space to work for you. Took me the better part of 2 years to work through the low soffit and need for a "gable" roof. It is completely screened, a necessity here at "mosquito experimental station #530".

Call a couple of awning companies. Have them come to your site, and give them your ideas. Listen to them, but if they don't listen to YOU... cross them off your list. You will be nicely placed to capitalize on "off season" discounts and while you may not get one this season, there is no reason why you couldn't have one for next season...

The best part about this sort of thing is that most towns don't require permits (but check first!), it's considered a "temporary structure"...

Saypoint touched on most of my design pet peeves. In fact, the one concerning too-narrow paths is an issue I'm dealing with at a client's property at this time. He and his wife "tight-rope walk" along a narrow row of flagstones between a steep pitch to the drive, and a foundation bed. I'm afraid they'll end up taking a header one of these days on a wet or icy patch. Thank goodness they're letting me widen the path for them, but it wasn't without some gentle prodding from me. They were content to do the balancing act!

Another big peeve of mine is the use of cheap imitation materials - and what's worse, cheap imitation materials poorly installed. If a person is on a tight budget, it's better to splurge on good materials and focus on a small, prominent area in which to use them. For instance, using real granite cobbles properly trenched and set as bed edging, instead of cheapo, flimsy stamped "looks like stone" plastic edging that invariably flops over under the pressure from burgeoning perennials.

Go for the classy stuff, which doesn't have to be expensive if you have access to natural stone on your property, driftwood, "re-purposed" building materials and vintage items that a creative eye and hand can fashion into attractive hardscape and accoutrements.

I'd rather see someone splurge on a genuine, gorgeous cast stone bird bath and surround it with inexpensive annuals and/or perennias from the Big Box, than see a cheapo plastic birdbath amid more expensive plantings.

To stretch my point, have a look at the "newly completed landscape" thread and tell me if this is good design or bad design, the OP is obviously happy with it so the contractor probably got paid which makes it 'good' by some standards. Does it speak to the 'genius of the place'? Does it reak of too much money and no taste, is 'good design' independant of these issues? If you are designing for a non gardener
or a blind person should your design be driven by that limited view (excuse) or some other criterion? Should that persons limitations (one there to have a go at) be taken into account, ignored or allowed to dictate the whole process? If someone has the money and knows what they want then any competant landscape contractor will be pleased to do it with no design input at all. If, on the other hand you want the input from a designer you have entered a different area and a competant designer will listen to what you want and turn this into a good design. It may be of interest to note that talk about specific plants is something a designer will listen to but may not follow as a dictat. Have you ever seen one rock and one ornamental grass that looked just right? Was this good design? Was this expensive?

What the heck, you-all know I'm no designer and am probably missing the point once again, but here goes:

Michigan is a place I know pretty well, as the home of ancestors and cousins, the site of numerous vacations since back in the nineteen fifties, and I lived in South Carolina for several years. That's not biography, just to note I've spent time in the places referred to in that post.

Ink, I've looked at that thread a dozen times, trying to mentally add age and see if the landscape would get any better. My remark that the result was not 'Southern' was neither precise nor articulate, and I still don't know why viewing that landscape is like fingernails on a blackboard for me, but it does.

The poster said the house was designed by a couple who weres studying architecture in the South, and that he designed it himself, not using a professional designer, with a landscaping company as his enabler. Would you have tried to change his mind, or am I misunderstanding that you also think there is something wrong with it?

The color clashes make my teeth hurt, but that's personal, not design. The poster's opening comment referring to the plain, simple original landscaping as 'nasty' was irritating for some reason, as was his comment "Mowing? (dunno - not my problem) =)". I don't object to a Michigan guy wanting to have Southern dreams, but if this is a Southern mansion, it was built by a carpetbagger.

Even when the place gets some 'age' on it, the house will still look like a hotel. Even after the shrubs turn into a box hedge, there will be no mystery or romance because there aren't any real trees planted in there - how can something look 'southern' without sheltering trees? Even though it has a wonderful outlook, that fountain thing intrudes on the view, jarring the eye instead of softly leading from house to water. Wouldn't the relationship of home to water be the main reason for the existence of either this house or the Plantation River house he is referencing? I might like it better if one could at least walk up to the fountain and sit on the edge in the moonlight, but you can't even get up to it because there is stuff planted around it.

Annie

My son just looked over my shoulder and said "they've got a good start on a miniature golf course there"... to be authentic, I will note that in some parts of the South, that would be carpet golf.

Annie

Starting with a bland smile and an "it looks very nice..." I think the issue with the yard in the above mentioned, recent landcaping thread, is that it shows a technical mastery, the techniques a all excellently done, without regard to a vision of the whole. In my world, we would call it all technique and no talent. It has no spark, or flair. All the elements are installed beautifully, but they don't create an emotional response. If function dictates form here, the walk barely works and the rest is expensive distraction. Composition and emotion are not there, it provides for a few, soon to be nice, angles to photograph the house, but it lacks an overview. Just my thoughts...but a critique can be critical!
NN

Annie: the landscape we are talking about has a number of mistakes in its design, if it had just happened then, so what but if we are to critique a plan then it is from this standpoint we must judge. There is an area under the stairs that is part of the swooping line, but nothing will grow there, BTW the line is as contrived and as formal as any I have seen. Replacing the line of bricks with hosta above with natural stone does nothing and looks equally as incongruous which suggests that one material was replaced with another without thinking about what it was for or how it would effect the bigger picture. karin will remember how I feel about so many different materials in a design but none of the materials seem to belong to one another or the surroundings. For sure you could argue that a garden is, by definition, separate from its surroundings but with surroundings like a lake and woods it doesn't make much sense. This is an example of bad design because function was not fully considered, neither was sustainability and neither were the simple guidelines that would prevent such a stilted layout of plants.

There is no genius locus enabled in that mis-cast structure and landscape. Nothing about the house and its grounds fits into the rustic untamed setting. Not the color, nor the styling, nor the materials. It's as though Rourke transported his Fantasy Island set to the backwoods. This is a prime case of an owner wanting what he wants, where he wants it regardless of whether it is "right" for the setting.

I wouldn't necessarily call it bad design, though. (Well, except for that vast blank wall over the garage.) It's just the wrong development in the wrong place. How about moving the whole kit and kaboodle to that pre-fab "town" developed by Disney? Or one of those gated luxury McMansionvilles where it would work within a setting of similar contrivances.

Ink,
A few comments re your comments on the 'southern style' landscape. I have thought long and hard since pictures were first posted as to how I would have handled this design. The first mistake, in my opinion, lies with the architect. The stairway from the porch should have been designed as a typical southern 'open arms' style stairway. This would have anchored house to ground and given width to both house and landscape. Also, here in the south that stairway would proably be brick due to termites.

The shadowed area under the stairs which you noted is typical southern in areas prone to storm tidal flooding and usually planted with deep shade lovers such as Fatsia japonica. Or, it is quite common to find an old rough hewn table and chairs set up in that spot for shaded dining.

As a designer the first question to myself would have been, what present elements exist on the property that I can use to make it a 'southern' design yet preserving a water view? In this case, almost nothing. The land was basically clear cut, not by the present owners.

Do brick walkways 'make' a southern garden...or a garden 'southern'? I can take you to numerous plantations with minimal walkways, just grass and live oaks. Walkways will be found between cookhouse and plantation house, to the outhouse and placed for strolling through azalea and camellia gardens. The charm of these old brick walks is the handmade quality, some bricks show burn marks during firing and all this is impossible to replicate today.

That design, as it sits today will somewhat mature and age. Yes, I would have done a different design. I see the mistakes. The basic design question now is how do you improve what is presently on site in the way of hardscape using plants for a northern, windy location? I have my thoughts. How would you handle the present situation to minimize the mistakes, Ink?

How to make a silk purse from a pigs ear do you mean Nandina? In the pictures that were used as inspiration and shown on that thread there is one site with a similar aspect, the others are enclosed and have a formal pond. I think the pond in this garden should either be four times bigger with a geyser type fountain or it should go. If it goes then this opens up the lake as the focal point and an axis running from house to it should be installed, it can be winding. If the nursery would take the plants back I would start again, but this won't happen so they need to be rearranged more boldly and some larger specimens as structure added. I get requests for an 'English' garden all the time and often it boils down to that same question "Do brick walkways 'make' a southern garden...or a garden 'southern'?" What 'Southern' means to the owner would be the first item I would need to clarify, it obviously doesn't mean the same thing to those from the South who posted over there. If it means clay bricks as pavers then a designers job is to suggest using something else to create the same 'Southern' feeling in an area that has sub zero temperatures in the winter. Same goes for the metal edging that frost will push out of the ground.

Excellent Design: The designer is offered an optimal site and achieves optimal results, accomplishing all functions desired by the client as well as any perceived to be fitting or necessary to the landscape in order to fulfill the integrated plan for the property. The aesthetic quality of the whole and its parts is exquisite, unique, and well-executed, meeting the specified needs of the client while standing on its own as a superlative presentation and experience. Materials are fitting and of the highest quality, subtly adding depth, texture, and context to the "story" of the setting.

Does this definition work? No  not really. Even as I wrote it, bits of what I wanted to capture kept slipping out the sides. What about the "excellent design" that happens in spite of the site? Yet the site itself, and the home, do contribute something, don't they? In other words, I found my mind distracted by how the original site plays its part. Excellent design could still mitigate flaws, but what if the flaw hadn't been there to begin with? Yeah, I know, every site has its problems  and the better designer is actually the one who can work best around the flaws.

Then, too, my attempt doesn't get around to the idea of "story" until I tacked it on to the end with the materials. The term "story" may not be the best way to put it, but some of the discussion here and with the "Recent Landscaping" thread seems to point to the need for a landscape to put forward an authentic expression  a story? This is where mood, emotion, connection comes in, or fails to come in. Do we like the flashy presentation or is it soulless, Disneyland? So  good design somehow gets at this subjective area with a higher degree of competence than bad design.

These were just a couple of my problems as I tried my attempt at defining excellent, or good design. How would you define it?

Wellspring

Wellspring,
I like your definition of the ideal of excellent design. It's what all good designers would like to do all the time, and it leaves flexibility for matters of "taste." Yet designers, even the best of the best, don't always have the greatest location/structure/client to work with (which you are well aware of, as is everyone else on this forum). I don't usually post much here, but this has been an interesting thread.

My unprofessional, untrained definition of excellent design: It makes the best presentation possible of the structure(s) built on a site, showing them off to advantage and minimizing their faults. It makes the best of the location of the structure, enabling the structure and its surrounding landscape to have a definite sense of place, genius locus, while ameliorating or solving the unique challenges of the site. It allows the structure and landscape to be used as the client intends with a minimum of hassle (for lack of a better term - I'm having trouble articulating this one). The design is internally consistent and harmonious, not jumping between widely divergent styles in a small area. The plantings of the design don't outgrow their allotted space as they mature over 10 or more years - it's not "disposable," and meant to be replaced after a comparatively short period of time. (No "planned obsolescence," which is not the same as "managed growth" and the selective pruning or removal of certain specimens to accomodate the mature size of trees and shrubs necessary to the design as envisioned by the designer.) The materials (plant and hardscape) used are of the best quality the client is willing/able to pay for, and are used to the best effect possible within the design.

This is strictly my layman's perspective on good landscape design. I am very interested in what the trained professionals and gifted laypeople have discussed on this topic, because it's so hard to define, let alone implement in real life sometimes. Thank you all for giving me some food for thought.

Laurel

Good design is good problem solving. The first thing that most of you think right off is that this is sterile nonartistic techno designing. Not so, if you figure into it that aesthetics and presentation are usually a primary issue to be resolved. Someone else's aesthetics or taste is often one of the problems to be solved whether they are your tastes or not. Someone else's house design is a given that you can not frequently change. Someone else's lifestyle will dominate the layout of the design as the physical needs that have to be built are defined (or at least limited)by what they want to do, what they own, who they do things with, ... . Then you have to deal with laws, homeowners associations, and other regulations that you can not change. You have to deal with climate, solar aspect, existing views, surrounding realities, existing site conditions, availability of materials, budget, and a whole lot of other things that exist.

You are left to sort out what should occur on the site, what experiences should occur for each of these, the physical needs of each of these things, the ideal relationships between all that occur on the site, the limitations of the site that force you to change from an ideal layout of all of these things to one that best works on this site, what can be done to enhance the desired experiences on the site, what can be done to mitigate negative impacts to these experiences, and how to make this all fit within the taste and budget of the client.

That is problem solving.

... oh, yea, it needs to be beautiful to every peering eye's owner's aesthetic whether they understand any of the problems that the designer had to resolve and they had better not have used any plants that I don't like.

It seems everybody has their own definition of design, which makes it difficult to agree on what then is good, okay, or just bad design.

In past postings, by other presenters and topics, the analogy between fine art and landscaping has been made. To paraphrase and inject my understanding, gardening is like artistic technique (brush strokes, technical skill) and composition is like landscape design. The combination of technique and composition makes art. Mastery of brush strokes and a good composition will make art, but it's not guaranteed to be great art without some totally undefineable "it" factor. After all if "it" was known art would be a science, which could be executed by engineers simply following equations and rules. In fine art, the final product of artistic technique, composition, and an elusive "it" factor is a painting,statue, picture.

So, slightly stepping out of the analogy, it appears IMO that two definitions are recurring landscape design as landscape composition and landscape design used as a
synonym for landscape as art.

I once went on a garden tour in Palo ALto, CA - think $$$. One fancy place had a huge lot, especially by CA standards. A long path led to a gazebo in the back and was flanked by roses on each side. Sound nice?? In theory.

In reality the path was about 2 feet wide, definitely single file, and there was plenty of room to have made it wider. The roses were planted about one foot from the path. So in 2 years time, the path would be impassible because the roses and their thorns would completely block the path.

The professional landscaper that they hired had prominently displayed a sign claiming responsibility. If it had been the homeowners design I would have understood this mistake of not realizing that roses actually grow. But being Palo Alto, I'm sure they paid big bucks for very bad design. Just because you're "professional" doesn't mean you are good.

Responses to color clashes aren't just personal, that's why they are called color clashes--the feeling they generate is universal. Many other design elements produce commonly felt perceptions, that is a big part of the idea of good design and bad design. What varies is how individuals react to being tweaked by seeing particular things. Some what soothing pastels, others warring juxtapositions.

Just because you're "professional" doesn't mean you are good.

Amen. There are plenty of professionals who are mediocre or worse. Even Ivy League schools turn out duds (the "Gentleman's 'C' grade) who don't shower the world with brilliance and light.

Every discipline has its genius, gifted, proficient, mediocre and inferior representatives. Why would we expect members of the landscape design, architecture and horticultural fields to be any different than those of any other profession?

My late FIL was a perfect example. Thoroughly schooled and teutonically adept at solving drainage issues, ensuring the correctness of driveway bases/finished elevations, and the "graciousness" of the yard yet to be revealed, he stumbled when asked about recommended plantings. Plants weren't his forte. But his legacy has allowed us the luxury of trying this and that... achieving success some times and falling flat at other times.

We were fortunate to start with good basics. Like a pre-teen experimenting with make-up we've gone too far... other times our hesitancy has revealed a beauty we never suspected.

Good design is based on a solid foundation... the stuff that occurs when the bulldozers/front end loaders are on site. All the stuff that is "boring" when you're thinking about moving in, getting settled, and "feathering your nest". It's that solid base that allows you to stride off in whatever direction you desire.

Ballroom dancing begins the same way... a basic box step and the basic "travel". It is from that predictable (boring?) base that the lively character of the dance evolves...

I don't paint. ;)

Okay, lemme throw a curveball into the analysis --

It's been pretty much agreed here that good design is one that serves its purpose (walkways of an appropriate width, the patio placed so it's not in the hot south sun, etc.) But... what if the purpose of the garden/landscaping is only to look pretty?

No site restrictions, no view to block, no pathways necessary, just... sit there and grow and look pretty? How do "good design" principles factor in here? What components offer that sometimes-hard-to-define sense of appropriateness when there's no function other than being attractive?

"Looking pretty" is fine. It's what most of us want!

"Looking pretty" is an illusion in reality. The first thing people notice when they enter a garden are the annuals in planters (this is EASY to achieve), then they see the furniture (easy to achieve). Then they "notice" the paved terrace (big bucks/planning), the walls (that support the planters with the annuals) and the graceful steps that beckon you down to the gracious lawn... (more money!). Rarely do they ever consider the mature ornamental trees or the lush perennial borders at the base of the steps or the edge of the lawn.

Sorry, I'm sticking with the basic, boring necessity of fundamentals as the basis of "good design". Any dope can make good fundamentals/hardcape "look pretty". The brilliance of design BEGINS with fundamentals.

Making a landscape look pretty, for pretty's sake is good, but not neccesarily realistic. You have to think in 3+ dimensions, not just two dimensions like a painting. Yes, the landscape looks great from the curb, but what about from the parking area where visitors will enter your yard? How about from inside the house, is that great tree blocking the only window to a dark room? The composition will change as you walk around it, granting better views or glaring problems. Now lets add yet another dimension, time. What happens in three years when all this grows in? What about next season? Will it look pretty for two weeks in summer when everything is blooming, then awful the rest of the year? Are there "bones" to sustain the pretty through the winter? It is a tricky thing. This is where the "art" comes in, as well as the knowledge. Where do you want to put the "pretty?" And when?

There comes a point when you whittle it down so fine there is nothing left. It's not possible for every composition to be In the Round, looking good from all angles.

It's true that not every composition is going to look good from all angles; many compositions are planned to be viewed specifically from a particular angle or angles, but not from all around.

However, there is a basic formula for designing for that all-around view, and it one follows it, it's entirely possible to make reasonably good appearance from whatever point the viewer sees it.

This is a case in point in floral arranging, where such a formula is used often for displays placed as table centerpieces. Why would a garden be any different, when intended as a centerpiece? It's just on a larger scale, and attention must be paid to the growth rates and habits of permanent planting.

Wait...there's a basic formula for designing for an all-round view? Where was I when this was discussed? Even if it's only applicable to floral design I'd love to hear what it is. I just thought you balanced the composition by eye (and lots of wandering round in circles), but what do I know.

Does it involve trigonometry?
Patty

You might be able to see for yourself in your own area. Look for an appealing "good neighbor" planting between two properties, visible also from the street and from the sides (each neighbor's perspective), and perhaps from the backyards or "behind" on both properties as well.

Such plantings are classic dividers between abutting properties, both in backyards and in entry driveways, and - at their best - feature a balance of shrubs and/or small ornamental trees, perennials and grasses, depending on the conditions and climate.

What might you see? Look for the highest-growing plants (the ornamental trees/shrubs at the center of the layout, surrounded by successively lower-growinig layers of plantings ranging from medium and lower shrubs to perennials and grasses, and then to the groundcover perennials. The plantings on one side of the planting don't even have to be the same species or variety as those on the other - they just should be comparable in size/spread, habit, texture and form as their mirror counterparts on the "other sides" of the design.

No formal trig, just intuitive layering.

If you circumambulate (okay, "walk around" lol) the planting, you should see an attractive view no matter where you are.

I'll see if I can find any examples on the Web and post the links.

Floral arrangements meant for a centerpiece are planned and laid out the same way, so that no flower gets blocked by a taller or fuller specimen.

This is the basic formula. There are variations, and in fact, there are rule-breakings galore once you get used to the fundamentals. I've seen landscapes that successfully broke the rules, but there were very special circumstances that made it work.

Hehe. Maybe we can use this website to refine our design efforts:

http://www.redesigme.com

Here is a link that might be useful: RedesignMe!