Yes Laura,

I have suggestions. Post your zone. Post the exposure of the area you are interested in. Most of all, do some research on "craftsman", "colonial desIGN".

The folks on this site are very well educated, pummelled for cheap design ideas, patient and impatient at various times.

Be respectful and do a little research in advance.

Yours, ML

Hey guys!! I have this CRAZY idea!!! If you don't like somebody's question....how about you ignore it! Yeah, just think...if you're annoyed by something, just don't answer! Just move along and find another interesting thread that's worthy of your precious time and brain energy. I mean, I know it's going to be hard at first, but it might just work. Then, people who are in the mood to offer advice can do so, and if you don't feel like it, then you don't have to.

Wow. I am AMAZED by the ideas I come up with sometimes!!

No,

Not offended by OP's posting. Just vague enuf for him/her not to get an answer. Site needs a few details. Why you pickin on me?

Me thinks I have stumbled into an old "debate"?

I wasn't asking for a landscape plan. I have done many of those myself. I just wanted to know, conceptually, if I should design the yard in the same period as the house. Could be as simple as "yes you should", "no you don't have to".

For those of you willing to advise, I live in Oregon, zone 8a. 11,000sqft lot. But again, I'm not asking for a plan.

Thank you for your interest!

Laura

No you don't have to. :)

"I have tried to stay within the conforms of the period as far as colors, trim work, fixtures, etc. I have thrown a few out-of-period touches here and there for interest."

It sounds to me like you know what you are doing and will be able to blend the elements you like to look good with the house and to please yourself. I think with a reproduction house, this mix works better than limiting yourself strictly to the period you were inspired by.

No, you don't have to. While I wouldn't put something in that is glaringly out-of-place, as long as you keep basic design principles in mind, whatever pleases you most and functions well is fine.

When I think of colonial, I think of boxwood lined rectangles, knot gardens, and a simplicity in plant selection. When I think craftsman, I think of Gertrude Jekyll's lush, overflowing borders and mixed plantings with lot of variety.

I'd be interested to know what elements others think of as essential to the two styles.

Yes, you've stumbled in, and welcome! We get a lot of the "here's my yard, give me a design" and "what should I plant in this completely empty acre" posts, with nary a "please" or "thank you" and so few details that it couldn't be done even if someone had 10 or 20 hours to spend on the poster's question. Needless to say, there's never a dull moment, which I think is a good thing.

We actually have a theme song now, thanks to Inkognito. You'll find it in a recent post by charliedawg if you care to learn it and sing along.

After its description of "Colonial architecture" Wikipedia has this to say "The term colonial architecture also includes vernacular structures of less refined design" and here may be a similarity with the Craftsman. In short: I would say that provided there is an obvious link between the house your garden and its surroundings you don't have to stick with one style or period or the other.

Being in Oregon, you aren't going to have the problem of your reproduction Colonial sitting next to the real thing. So in that sense, location does matter.

Something else to keep in mind is that in this country, as much as in England, the fancy new landscaping school of Capability Brown and Humphry Repton destroyed practically everything that preceeded it. I think the old formality survived longer in the South, but at this point I don't think even there exist any original examples. Places like Monticello are 20th century reproductions based on archaological and written evidence. Even deliberate recreations of colonial era gardens are few and far between. In this area, which is practically swarming with house museums, the typical garden restoration target date is between the two world wars. The logic behind this is that this was the last time frame when major work was done on the estates. Economic changes after WWII, led to their decline, which kind of ended when they fell into public or quasi-public hands. This is true regardless of the original construction date of the house. Two of the biggest 1930's style gardens in the area are connected to houses with original construction dates before 1800. (Clermont and Montgomery Place)

That's a pretty wild statement about Brown and Repton MG. Remember we are talking about 'Colonial Revival' here (something I have just picked up on) this being a 19/early 20 century American nostalgic style and so Browns work on English country estates in the 18th century would have little relevance. Apart from that what you say is not true anyway.

Well, I guess one question here is, if you were being completely faithful, would you be being faithful to "Colonial" or to "Colonial Revival"? I don't know enough about historical landscapes to give any true advice on either of those, tbh, but I think that's part of the question. I believe Colonial Revival spans a pretty long time period, so there wouldn't be a single landscape style associated with it - tho this is completely conjecture on my part. I also don't know a whole lot about residential architecture in Oregon, but I would tend to think there would be a lot of Arts & Crafts influence, as you have suggested. Probably more so than true Colonial Revival, I'm assuming?

It does sound like you aren't necessarily trying to be a complete purist in your building architecture, so I wouldn't be too concerned about being completely purist in the landscape. Otoh, I wouldn't go completely Greene & Greene pure Arts & Crafts, either, iykwim. One approach might be to use some of the Arts & Crafts / West Coast ideas of using the outdoors blending with the indoors, but using details that tend to coordinate with the rest of the house.

Oh, and ML - I do tend to think you were a bit overly critical, as well as not necessarily asking the right questions. If the OP had simply answered with the zone and orientation of the house, we would still have had no idea whatsoever of the context of the house. For once, we had a philosophical question, rather than a planting question!

Irene, I wasn't trying to be critical--just came off that way. But you are right that I shot from the hip and you are right she asked a good question. Everybody errs at times. Apologies to Homeschoolmom.

Ink, that's an interesting point. Is the OP interested in 'Colonial' or 'Colonial Revival', and given that this is the 21st century, what is the difference?

As for the non-existence of colonial-era survivals, I almost put in a parentheses asking if anybody knew of any. The oldest surviving original landscaping I'm aware of in English North America is around 1820 (Andre Parmentier) There is a lot that is really Colonial Revival, but those are best guesses.

Another assumption of course, that your remark about not meeting the real thing in Oregon suggested, is that we are not talking about Spanish Colonial. I think the difference between 'Colonial' and 'Colonial Revival' is that the former was probably built by craftsmen from the colonizing country in a style they were familiar with and probably material brought from there. The latter being built in that style but with indigenous labour and material. I don't think this changes with the centuries so I am not sure what you mean by "given that this is the 21st century, what is the difference?"

Here is a link that might be useful: a colonial revival garden

Good point, Ink, about making sure which colonists we are talking about here! I will say that from an architectural standpoint, Colonial architecture refers to buildings built by the European colonists back when the US was British Colonies. It's been a while since history class, so forgive me if I leave out dates - and I'm also fairly sure there are overlaps as far as architectural style names vs historical periods. But, anyhow, Colonial Revival architecture refers to buildings built much later, but in a similar style to the original buildings, with varying degrees of actual similarity.

Btw, I'm fairly certain that the colonists weren't bringing lumber over on boats. There were plenty of old growth forests to cut down, which is why so many Colonial buildings were made out of wood.

Of course, living in the Midwest, I don't have any true Colonial buildings nearby to compare to the vast numbers of Colonial Revival tract homes...

WOW Lots of great info. Thanks a lot. And I did get the answer I was hoping for.

I am speaking more about the design of a colonial revival, rather than an historic colonial. As some of you mentioned, those original gardens are few and far between. The Webb House is similar to what comes to my mind when I think revival. Boxwood hedges, perennial beds, roses, knot gardens.

I am planning on a low Japanese boxwood lining some informal beds, but more evergreens, broadleaf and conifers, rather than perennials.

Here in the Willamette Valley we definitely have a strong Arts and Crafts/Asian influence inside and out. Lots of stone, conifers, azaleas, water features, grasses. Very few perennial beds except in the old neighborhoods.

Thank you for the discussion, it has been helpful.

Laura