Appropriateness of materials , the genus loci ( the sense of place ) , the installation budget and dreams are all a part of delicate balancing act when approaching one's architectual and landscape architectural project.

I live in an area where the general population of people can make their dreams come true.

All one has to do is look at our unscripted neighborhoods and you will see a Tuscan styled villa next to a large sprawling Craftsman style home, next to a overblown Cape Cod mansion next to an American Southwest rammed earth adobe style home.

It's a veritable architectural petting zoo .

This creates a unique situation. One that many other areas of the country may not experience due to our benign climate , the Disneyland factor , lack of established historic architectural style, and of course finances come into play.

I thank Ironbelly for taking the time to write his post.
It was a welcome bit of perspective and a sobering thought as I prepare for my work week here in Northern California where I will visit a Tuscan Villa in Napa Valley that has all the bells and whistles that a Disneyland estate would ever want , a Green and Green style California Craftsman bungalow , albeit 5550 square feet , a psuedo wannabe Cape Cod manor and a giant plain jane plywood box that is trying it's hardest to morph into a Craftsmans style bungalow.

And they say diversity is a good thing.
..... after this building season I think I need a trip to Iowa.
: ~ )

well , at least one can say that we don't discriminate around here.
We're an Equal Opportunity Design and Build service.
viva la affirmative action for architecture !

Mich -

Iowa ?? IOWA ??!?

Just a rattle, what's wrong w/ Nebraska?? We have even less than Iowa should you really want to design down in your time from the diversity of life.

We gots less people, slower developments in housing and intellogunce. Tain't no one can farm in sand better than us'es in the sandhills.

Well Hellth! - we still ride horses and mules inta town to get flour and a bolt of gingham fer the Mrs.

We never have anyone go postal around here cuz there's only one worker in the post office.

Dullville at it's finest.

You'll keep those cards and letters com'in 'cause we sure enjoy fresh paper ta read and reuse.

Jake

Yes, interesting post IB. My development is one of the older in the area and it tended to attract a high percentage of lower middle class families. With housing prices that have tripled in the last 6 years there is now an interesting mix of incomes. I have noticed an increased number of people gardening and landscaping in the past few years.

With that said, pressure treated wood decks and concrete block raised beds are the norm and a driveway upgrade from asphalt to poured concrete looks almost too classy. A neighbor of mine recently installed a mortared flagstone walk to his front door, and a sunken patio out of flagstone and cut stone. It is really nice but "James' Patio" was the talk of the neighborhood for a while.

I would love to rip out my useless wooden deck and replace it with a nice patio. Since I am a masochist..errr...I like to take on the challenge of DIY projects, concrete pavers would be a likely choice and like IB, they would be pretty high scale for my hood.

- Brent

I'd think Spanish Colonial (or whatever it's called) would be an established architectural style in California.

Well, that depends IB. For a start you upbraid ideas and concepts in favour of an appreciation of appropriate material with your "I am talking about materials, not concepts or ideas' and then proceed to offer a concept viz. "approprietness". Furthermore you limit this appropriatness to the perceived market value of your house not its value to you or to your community. Suppose you linked this appropriatness not only to the place but to the time can you be sure that concrete pavers will still be appropriate in ten years from now? Not forgetting, of course that it may not be appropriate to build a house at all on the prairie let alone one surrounded by a totally inorganic material.
Consider the soil as your guide, you are planting in the soil you are working on conserving the moisture in that soil, which material is more appropriate to that situation, stone or coloured concrete imitating stone?

Ahh questions that can all be answered from a variety of perceptions. This is one aspect of design that I really enjoy the constant contradictions. You need continuity; yet you still need contrast. You want a continuous flow; yet you still want an occasional surprise. You need a focal point; yet too many focal points spoil the show. You need variety; yet too much variety makes things too busy. You want a look of sophistication; yet a bit of whimsy can serve to enhance the sophistication. Moist but well drained etc., etc. The everyday contradictions inherent in landscape design constantly challenge, frustrate and delight the designer. Good design is the distillation of a voodoo mixture of incongruities. Even after all of the experts have weighed in, a fair amount of subjectivity remains.

Will concrete pavers still be appropriate in ten years? In this setting, I think I can give you a comfortable, "Yes". I feel comfortable saying that because they will not be a featured element of the project. Many of Michelles examples are, in fact, a final destination for her clients guests. And why wouldnt they be? The shear elegance of these elements is something to savor. On the other hand, the intended concept of my patio is more of a proper staging area for garden exploration to view the botanical show. Much like a theater, the glitz belongs on the stage and the viewing area remains comfortable but tastefully demure. Actually, I want my landscape to draw you off of the patio as it blends into the ground level at least for a while until the burgers are ready and the first beer is gone.

The concept of capturing and conserving soil moisture should actually be enhanced when this home amenity is completed. I have one ostentatious downspout from my sunroom that I have been obsessing over. It discharges in a central area of my proposed patio a very real potential for ugly. Simply using single section of turfstone, like those already being used on the "surrender drains" to my rain gardens, should gently highlight that activity without negatively impacting the functionality of the patio itself. An underground drainage pipe will then carry this rainwater, unseen to another recently installed rain garden in my back yard, designed to feature wet/mesic native plants. I think (hope) that borrowing a few of the elements from other areas of my landscape will lend a bit of unity without creating a visual frenzy. Perhaps a strategically placed ceramic pot or two will be needed to soften the inevitable contrast.

As an accidental but welcomed side note: My home has become somewhat of an exhibit. The things that I am doing to the landscape are creating a lot of curiosity and local interest. I have had a number of environmental groups show up wanting a tour and explanation of "what, why and how". I am getting calls and emails from all over the region. I like to think that I am pushing the boundaries of convention without entering the world of the weird. All that I am doing is approaching environmental engineering projects with an application of typically ignored design principles. I am merely softening the institutional look and wringing a little beauty out of it.

Life may be simple out here but it does not have to be crude.

IronBelly

Well said, well written and a pleasure to read. Thanks IronBelly.

There is this image in my mind of the Iowa neighbors looking at the sunbathing, thong wearing new patio owner out on his imported Italian Marble walls and columns and Turkish Ceramic Tile patio and scratching their heads.

"Where did you say this guy was from Vern?"
or
"See I told you watching to much cable HGTV was bad. Look, Vern's done gone lost his mind."

I totally see your point about using appropriate materials for your house, neighborhood, region and culture. In some places the reach of what is appropriate may not extend beyond your own property line.

Here in Hawaii we have a blend of cultures, Asian from China all the way down to Indonesia, European, Portugese(yes I know that is in Europe too), Hawaiian and the rest of Polynesia and all that is reflected in the architecture. The climate goes from sea level to about 4500' elevation that is buildable. We have several types of volcanic stone but no useable timber. Five years ago we started getting Costco, Home Depot, Lowes, ect and a major influx of California refugees for whom upstaging is a cultural norm perhaps.

Gated communities tend toward what I call California Style McMansions, white stucco walls and tile roofs. Some make an attempt to mimic Hawaiian Plantation Style. Once you exit the gate it is a cultural mishmash that changes from house to house, block to block, and town to town.

Demolition of older houses has begun most notably on ocean front lots. You end up with a 10,000 sq.ft. walled mansion with cottage, seperate garage, pool and jacuzzi and tiny little strips of soil left to plant in. Their gates are imported carved teak or skulpted metal. Next door is a ranch style open air small home built in the late 40's and early 50's with large lawns and mature trees that you can see the ocean through as you pass by.

The neighborhood where I live is half acre owner built homes that go from 1972 to now and no two are alike, ghetto to millionaires. They only two that look really odd and out of place are red brick homes.

What is my genus loci?

ilima

The other recent threads on this forum dealing with what designers can/can't/will/won't/should do, and with what constitutes good design kind of coalesced for me when I put up my patio photos, in which I realized the degree to which personality determines what design is chosen. Obviously, without the services of a designer, owner personality has free run, possibly with outcomes that others might consider disastrous even when the owner is delighted with self.

Your question, IB, relates to yet another aspect of owner personality: how you wish to interact with your community and perhaps with your income peer group through what you express in your landscaping. There are middle class people who put their all into the flashiest car they can find to put in front of their ordinary house, and so it is with landscaping. Others try to stay on a par with the surroundings.

When you insert a hired hand into the design process, the professional's purpose is purported to be the fulfillment of the owner's dreams; to realize the owner's vision. But reactions of professionals to actual owner visions make it quite clear that the real agenda is to SUPPRESS some of the owner's personality in order to meet a certain objective standard of, as Michelle called it, "excellent craftsmanship and design responding appropriately to the architecture and region."

Take the raised bed thread, which has nothing to do with my patio. This OP has said pretty clearly that she's feeling pretty much over-stoned and wants to do something different. Yet there is a persistent stream of replies that says she should do stone.

What happens when a designer encounters a client who wants something that doesn't form a cohesive vision, or that doesn't go with their house? One of two things: either the designer functions as a draftsperson and contractor, sketching the owner's vision and hiring the relevant personnel, or the designer amends the vision to meet some of those objective standards. Or a third, refuses the job.

I think designers realize that they are engaged sometimes as much in the suppression of the owner's personality as much as in the realization of their vision, but hesitate to say so. Owners, as suggested by some posts here, realize it too, thus some are worried about being able to get certain needs met by a landscaper. In the execution of a contract this will generally be worked out, since both parties have a choice of whether to go or stay, but in the course of a discussion of DIY landscaping, as on this forum, the matter is more complicated. The landscaping professionals usually urge the use of, or judge an installation by, those aforementioned objective standards, and because of the standards tend to be turned off by flagrant expressions of personality. Owners try to learn and to use those objective standards, but don't have the same need to comply with them (aren't compiling a portfolio) and may even find professional designs LACKING in personality. It is, after all, because of those objective standards that many professionally done landscapes are rather predictable for the site and the income segment.

I think, for that reason, DIY projects, both before and after being done, need to be judged/advised differently than do installations being designed by a professional. I think it is entirely appropriate to point out how a DIY/personality-driven installation differs from the principles of "good" design (and I didn't mind having that done at all and think that actually some professional commentators on the forum take the rejection of their "principles" more personally than the owners take anything).

For a DIY design it seems me that the reflection of the owner is a plus even if it is from a design standpoint a minus, and even as the absence of any real personality from a professional design is not a flaw.

"So what" was one of my professor's line. Anything that we would introduce into a project would get this scrutiny. If you added another material , or a bench, or anything, you would have to defend it from the "So What?". In other words, you had to have a logical reasoning behind everything you did. He would not allow us to add something without having considered why we were adding it. This was not done to stifle creativity or whimsy, but to make us think about everything we were doing. (like I would think about not changing from "we" to "you" in mid paragraph if I were an English professor). You could have any reason as long as you demonstrated that you thought about it. Aesthetics, budget, and even whimsy can be reasons - as long as you did it for those reasons.

Laag,

As a society, I don't believe we ask ourselves these types of questions often enough. With few exceptions, the public school systems have pretty much beaten the inquisitiveness out of students by the time they graduate. *** "How dare you question me! Shut up because THIS is the way it is done! Get in line or you will be in big trouble." (Guess who was always in trouble with the teachers?)

So much of the time, we do really stupid stuff in our garden landscapes. If we just took a little more time to analyze things, the blinders will begin to fall off. Is it any wonder that the very best, in any kind of endeavor, are often their own harshest critic?

********************************

Just in case any of you are wondering ... Some take umbrage at some of the Inkster's pointed questions like those earlier in this thread. He likes to provide the questions just in case you have not been asking them yourself. In other words, he is encouraging us to think about our landscape decisions. He is also often trying to extract additional information by providing a format for a poster to elaborate.

What is your next question, Tony? ;-)

IronBelly

"Life may be simple out here but it does not have to be crude." is a powerful war cry and I like it. I also like the notion that functional areas of the garden should take a back seat " the glitz belongs on the stage" as the man says, but it for this reason I questioned the choices on the patio thread. Too many different materials is too much razzamataz.
Personalities that express themselves in their own garden either do it themselves or employ others to help them with the "put it there Mario" work. The best works come about in collaboration. No client of mine has a vision that I SUPRESS nor a personality that I try to shape and they are encouraged to offer me the same liberty.
Genius loci when correctly spelled refers not to bricks and mortar but to some kind of magic that you can connect with. There were two genies in the Roman mythology that gives us the concept and a balance kept them both happy. In other cultures we hear of Feng Shui.
In Iron Belly's world of appropriatness allowing for this magic is unmanly or equivelant to wearing ridiculous underwear and this is my next question. Why are there only fairies at the bottom of some gardens.

Karin, don't confuse personality with taste. My aunt wears red socks with her black Birks and teal Bendovers. To work. That's not personality...that's lack of awareness of the basic principles of design and quite frankly, taste.

And taste and design sense are qualities that must be developed. Few people were born with it. And the more good design you see, the better handle you have on it. (Which is why I'm all for arts in schools!!!) It's not some arbitrarily decided set of rules that someone in France said must be so. (That's called fashion.) True design must be intentional...I agree with Laag on that one.

Someone who plants a perfectly manicured landscape of horridly incongruous plantings...and is happy with it...is this due to personality or not knowing any better?

(My bottle tree, on the other hand, is pure personality, lol. Put one red bottle on it, and that's tacky.)

KarinL,
Reading your post reminded me of the John Waters film, Pecker. In it he pokes fun at the haughty elite New York art world. He uses his usual starting point, the lower middle class world of Baltimore where his main character a young photographer from that world catches the eye of the fussy art world elite.

The film really makes you ask what defines good art. Is it the often deliberately vague and obscure opinions of those at the top, money wise, who get all the PR or is art in the eye of the beholder? Does the individuals world view, background and as you say personality determine what is art to them? It is rather obvious to me that landscape design and its application in the finished product is a wholly subjective art form whose appreciation level is determined by the individual viewer.

The movie is hysterical and I recommend renting it. It is not for the prudish though, very gritty backdrop and I do not mean violence.

I will admit and I have already admitted it in the Inner Garden thread that yes I can and do suppress an owners personality in a design. I stated it as me trying to force my own inner garden on them but it amounts to the same thing. Sometimes it is necessary because what they want just will not work. Sometimes it is because I know how much work is involved maintaining something and I will discourage it no matter how much they may want it. I pretty much refuse to plant Bougainvillea and Areca Palms.

You also talked about landscapes that lack personality. I call them institutional landscapes. There are plenty of them out there for the folks who want to meet the neighborhood standards and can pay for it but do not want to leave their air conditioned house to do anything themselves. Good design or even creative and artistic design does not really enter the minds of these people. It is more of a bush by bush approach. Has it escaped its box or ball form? Does it have bugs? Is it blooming? Is it blocking my view?

A lot of the discussion in here may get got in the crossfire between landscape design as institutional and functional and landscape design as it transitions into art. Now it does become more important to determine how the questioner is approaching it and seeing it.

I am learning so much from the art side of this forum because I have been in the institutional rut for so long. But I am also learning in here that I may need to pay more attention to my clients artistic vision no matter what my opinion of it may be.

I have decided that my Genius Loci (better) is Fusion.

ilima

Well I have to say I do not recommend Googling the word "bendovers" but I must admit that the selection of sites provided me with the best laugh of the day. As with a film called "Pecker," one would not recommend this activity for the prudish.

Oh dear, more definitions to consider. I see that by showing my patio I have forever tanked any pretensions I might have to providing any value here, but I think I can put my finger on the difference between personality and taste. With personality, the item was considered and consciously chosen. When red socks and teal pants are in question, the selection was made without any conscious thought at all. I know this because for a fragment of my life I dressed like this, when it was a triumph getting out of the house dressed at all and without the baby, never mind me, being covered in puke. I actually admire people who can dress like your aunt, as I aspire to overcome vanity. The catch is I keep thinking there is a way to overcome it and still look good (insofar as I can be said to do so even when I think about it, not forgetting my patio), and I probably have to give up on that.

But about personality and landscaping... the other interesting thing about the patio thread and about Redhead's shed story was that there were two personalities vying for control of the decision-making. In ... was it madtripper's shed?... the result ends up being a compromise between what two personalities want. So it is with my patio. DH and I each had elements we WANTED in there, and we have learned that to flout the strong preferences of the other usually backfires one way or another. So we design around both our preferences. We have a nutso patio but we're still married. Is that art or what?

Again we come to the difference between how a professional makes decisions and how a homeowner makes them. I appreciate your apparently growing awareness that the client's vision can be given some status in the design, Ilima, and am indebted to Ink for the phrase "put it there Mario" for the succinct description of taking that to extremes.

The difference is illustrated by how the two parties regard laag's "so what" question. To whom are homeowners accountable for their landscaping decisions? The only answer a homeowner has to give to that question is: because I want it. The landscaper needs to be able to answer that question when it is put BY the homeowner, because the homeowner is going to pay for it, but the homeowner doesn't have to answer it at all. Plants require too much maintenance? Outcome reduces resale value? Hey, it's all out of the homeowner's own pocket.

All that said, the world is indebted to people who can make landscape art because seeing it serves to shape the personal preferences of homeowners toward an objectively attractive standard. In short, I don't envy landscapers the job of charting the best course between the homeowner, the principles of good design, the constraints of the job, and the landscaper's own vision.

I've heard somewhere that the most exquisite art is made when the constraints are tightest... or something to that effect. In that regard, the more fixated the homeowner is on controlling some aspect of the design, the better the design produced by the professional should be!

Karin raised issues I was pondering when I posted the question about differences between garden and landscape design. I wanted to learn how LD'ers think about the differences conceptually, but also to milk thoughts on how differences between goals of personality driven gardeners and designers inform input here.

In the mix of shake up outside the box--for those of us who are not professional designers--are ineffable ingredients like the above mentioned taste, eye-for-color, sense of play, experimentation and learning. When I started my garden five years ago, its initial function was to serve as a canvas on which to indulge my love of play with color. Elements of design I'd internalized over the years--such as they were--were intuitive. My goal was a garden of therapeutic joyful experimentation. When others enjoy the results of my play, it makes me happy. But that's not why I do it.

As years have gone by, my passion for floriferous complementary colors has been tempered by lessons of sweaty summer maintenance. Learning design principles here has aroused new creative juices and conundrums: how will next season's garden changes begin to reflect these principles? How much will I care if they do or don't?

Its been odd for me to study design here because my community environment is a cacaphony of landscapeless aged greenery surrounding a winding road, often concealing homes' gardens--if they exist at all--from public view. Sometimes the goal is to keep out deer, sometimes to be left alone, but folks in my 'hood follow their own muse and don't give much of a hoot about how others view their homes, gardens, clothes, or anything else. It's a "whatever floats your boat" kind of place, unless personal choice intrudes too much on the common sensibility. There's almost a prideful willingness to be inappropriate, to go against the grain of the expected, more energy focused on keeping developers and chain stores out of town than on the looks of one's front yard. The only homes in my community with something resembling a landscape are the new monsters here and there, tastelessly bloated to within a few feet of the lot boundary, intruding rudely in various ways on the lives of neighbors. In other parts of this county, however, the wealthy hire Michelle to design stunning outdoor rooms or arbors or landscapes--with definite interest in how others will behold the artful accomplishment.

For me, then, working with design principles becomes another playful activity for my creative muse and bears upon how changes in my needs and inclinations over time will affect the evolution of my garden. It wouldn't make much sense for me to hire a designer given the unruly nature of my property and my budgetary constraints. But if I did hire one, I'd long for a synergistic collaboration of mutual respect with someone willing to teach me to enhance my whimsy design-wise, or alternatively, to say "Sorry, but your whimsy lives too far outside my particular box of gifts for me to serve you well".

One last note: this discussion reminds me of the jazz pianist, Keith Jarrett, whose brilliant improvisations spring from mastery of the classics.

Semi-off topic - in regards to one of my all time favorite movies , "Pecker" :

You'll never have to worry about tea-bagging in the pelt room !

ok, back to cilvized art discussion.

ps, Karen, I have worked in Marin for over 17 years and have had only one job during that time in your town.

Karen, I have worked in Marin for over 17 years and have had only one job during that time in your town.

Righto! That was my point! I can't decide if I feel proud or disappointed. ;-) The environmental conditions I describe above are a profoundly mixed blessing.

I'm gonna rent Pecker!

"When others enjoy the results of my play, it makes me happy. But that's not why I do it."

Karen, that captures it perfectly. Your description of your community's mindset also rather brilliantly captures that of my community. Although I find it a little oppressive a lot of the time, it no doubt influences my rather cavalier dismissal of the type of decision-making made by designers of what Ilima called "institutional" landscapes - and the rules by which they are designed. Rule-following is actually frowned upon here. The actual rules are, however, pretty strict, only they have to be deduced. I was reading an article about Columbian guerillas and their child recruits today, and it described how they salute with their left hand and begin marching with their left foot. This is to be different from the regular army, which does both right-handed. Being different for the sake is being different is often about how the cookie crumbles around here, although the stakes are (I hope) lower.

One of the things I like about this forum is the quality of the writing - I have to say a lot of you regulars are very good at turning a phrase. "Mow Blow and Go" was another memorable one...

But for those who like tea...

A great deal of satisfaction can be derived from the adjustment and proper placement of the tea bag. There is the pleasure of wrapping the string around it or the pressing of the tea bag to squeeze the last bit of essence from it.

Those over at the pelt room have a very different idea about what constitutes beauty and the kinds of rituals they use to get their creative juices flowing.

This film even addresses INK's newly appreciated war cry. "Life may be simple out here but it does not have to be crude." Pecker's mom thinks that just because you are poor or homeless you should not be forced to give up fashion or your fashion sense. She has made it her life's mission to help the financially challenged keep their dignity with access to fashion.

ilima

Karin,

You point out the difference in thinking far better than you even realize. Your description sees the "so what" as what the designer has to address from the homeowner after the fact. The actual lesson was to teach the designer to ask himself "So what" before he acts. These are almost polar opposites.

Some see the designer as someone who should take everything the client says and make it happen. Some designers just see a place to imprint their own vision and virtually ignore the client.

Designing, in my opinion, is the process af assessment, understanding, and problem solving. The designer should address all of the clients wishes - not necessarily implement them. To reject an idea is to address it, if there is reasoning behind it. To alter a clients wish to something more practical is to address it. To implement it when it is reasonable is addressing it. To simply follow the wishes without regard to the hundreds of variables is not designing because it does not assess, understand, and solve the issues. It rejects process.

Depth of process is another issue. You could simply consider price, availabilty, and ease of installation when planning a patio. You could consider resale value, what is "in" with Martha Stewart, what is traditional for the house style, which handles the climate best, what is best for those spiked heeled ladies that tend to crash your parties, what will create the primieval forest look that I always wanted,...? It can be much shorter than that or much longer and it would not be wrong.

What you process and how much you process will define you as a designer. More or less does not make you better or worse, necessarilly. It just defines you, or you define yourself by what you do. That will be too much for some, too little for others, and just right for others still.

What makes you a good designer or a not so good designer is how well you assess, understand, and solve the issues you need to deal with no matter the scope.

Though I appreciate it being spelled out, laag, it was self-evident to me that the designer would go through that process internally in coming up with a design in the first place. That's a characteristic of a profession; you have an established decision-making process. I don't think "so what" is a very elegant way of expressing it, but it seems to have worked. A designer who does less is being perhaps a salesperson, not a designer.

And well said that addressing the wishes of a client does not mean complying with them all. After all, the first wish that the client has expressed is to HAVE a designer, and so obviously wants input and guidance at least, and probably much more.

I am referring to the kind of situation you might have when a client says "I have always dreamed of a rustic wooden wheelbarrow overflowing with colourful annuals and am determined to have one in front of the door" when the house is full-on modern.

If that person is designing their own environment, that wheelbarrow will be there, and has every right to be.

Put a designer in the picture, and it might not be. But the client could still end up happy, if the genius loci of that designer is something along the lines of empathetic, respectful communication seasoned with a little bit of flexibility.

The designer who can design a modern landscape that will accommodate that wheelbarrow, on the other hand, *IS* a frickin' genius.

I'm no fricken genius but I know when its time to bend to the wishes of your client after all avenues of education have been exhausted and intelligent discussion erodes to nothing more than vacuous banter. .

I deal with these types of compromises on a daily basis.
The outcome varies each time due to the different circumstances of each individual specific project.

Moments ago I yielded to my clients desire for an unappropriate tree choice , but only after spending many hours substantiating my reasoning behind my decision . ( Sort of what is happening with Judge John Roberts at this very moment in history ).
Fortunately there is no law that decries that you have to take the advice of your landscape designer , but there should be an ethical responsibility taken upon the designer to fully inform and educate your client as to why their choice is good , bad or ugly.

That's about as far as we can go in matters of aesthetics and in some areas of horticultural appropriateness.

Where the buck must stop though is in all matters of safety. With Safety there is no room for compromise.

IronBelly, reading your description of your future patio with it's rain water collection feature brought to my mind Gaudi's Parc Güell. He used the columns that support the market place to funnel the water collected from the market place to the underground reservoir from where the collected water was used for irrigating the otherwise try land.
I have added a link to pictures that I took when I visited it. There are little bit more info there as well.
The form, function and project approriate materials are great examples of what I think you are talking about...

How did this thread get so far from its original post? We were talking about appropriateness of the design and now we're back to the designer/client conflict again. I sense an anti-designer agenda running throughout most of this forum. That somehow what a designer comes up with just can't possibly be as good as what the homeowner could come up with because the designer will use some outlandish frou-frou design. This reminds me of the anti-intellectualism that people use when they don't want to think too deep.

Ginger, I don't think it's designer/client so much as the difference between homeowner design and designer design. As I read the original post, IB was saying that he is choosing what designers call an inferior material and asking whether that can really be called wrong: it is his place (do I have the gender right? the thong confused me) and he likes it.

We all judge landscape designs when we see them, and designers judge them perhaps more harshly than do other homeowners because they judge them relative to the box while the unwashed masses may judge them according to, as you said above, ambient culture and such. We all have a right to say I like that or I don't like that, and we can say what we would do differently, but designers can and do say "that is right" or "that is wrong."

On another thread Karen said "I'm coming at this as one who's always been told I have an artistic "good eye", working backwards into learning the box."

This dialogue is kind of like that, in that many people here have an instinct for an interesting question or issue, and the question is sort of framed better as the responses pile up.

It seems to me that IB has put a finger on one of the recurring themes on this forum: being unclear about the differing parameters that guide the work of professionals vs. those that guide the work of homeowners.

I'm actually staying in the aesthetic realm and not considering safety because there is a right and wrong there but the power to enforce compliance with "right" does not always exist (Trees forum has a thread about a big Cottonwood tree in the neighbour's yard). That gets complicated.

As long as homeowners seek to learn the box, as I think most homeowners are on this forum, there seems to be harmony. But as soon as a homeowner/DIY person announces they are making a conscious decision to step out of it, the designers seem to need to try to reinforce the box. That's not an abnormal response and it can be quite helpful because homeowners don't always understand the full implications of their decisions. But some do, and still choose to step out, and sparks fly. The question I find engaging is, what is causing the sparks, and that is what I think IB was getting at.

You're adding another interesting dimension in saying that stepping outside the box is "anti-designer." One could as easily say that designers who put down homeowner-designed landscapes are "anti-DIY." I don't think either is true.

I just think that DIY design and decision-making is a different beast from professional work. That might be why there is a separate forum for professionals on Garden Web though I haven't been there and don't know how it plays out.

GingerBlue, I'd like to better understand your comments above.

I thought we were discussing IB's point about "appropriateness" of design elements to their context. Some variables of context include community environment, the homeowner's style expressed via personality, and the designer's interaction with and thinking about these variables. Is that "anti-designer"? IB, did you hear discussion of those issues as anti-designer?

However, I do wonder sometimes if certain threads are begun by designers with a desire to hear primarily from other designers...and whether annoyance sets in when some of us amateurs chime in with what seems to the designers to be rather irrelevant.

One of the things I value most about this forum is its intellectual level, the capacity to discuss how intellectual design concepts meet the practical realm.

So, GB, can you flesh out your concerns?

Karen

Is "the box" a bad thing? I am thinking of the box as being a generally accepted set of rules for landscape design. The thing that inspires me to learn more about the box is that when I break down really great looking landscapes they typically follow the basic set of rules. At first a wonderful garden might look like just a collection of great plants and a riot of color, but looking further show structure, continuity, variety, texture and such do in fact exist, sometimes in unexpected forms. In my mind the truly gifted designers (professional and amateur alike) are the ones that can apply these rules in unusual ways to create wonderful and unique gardens.

- Brent

I thought Ginger's point was that IB's post did not frame the question in terms of designer opinions vs. non-designer opinions.

KarinL you seem to be missing the point, Iron Belly is an engaged gardener and does not start a thread titled "Well that depends" whilst meaning to establish what is right or wrong. There may even be an oxymoron here.
The rest of your post is confusing and it is not clear what you mean to say.
With a few exceptions the regulars here, of whatever stripe have a similar goal and we all know that IB's "Well that all depends' is fairly accurate and we offer our point of view on that assumption.

jake..your post about going postal made me laugh out loud! good one. donna

I am going back to IB's original post which I thought had to do with achieving a balance between cost and "looks" when doing something for your home, both for sensibility of resale values and for where you choose to sink your $$. I've tried to get some threads going on this theme before--what kinds of materials best lend themselves as substitutes for higher-end materials vs. look tacky, and why, and whether the great unwashed masses must go without decks or patios because they can't use high-end materials vs. trying to use a combination of design and materials to achieve a reasonable aesthetic goal for your price range. (See also Spunky's post on high-end raised bed-box.)Sometimes it might mean choosing a color that "works" best for the material, not necessarily what seems most like its wanna-be material; or it might be limiting the size of the project in order to use a better material; it might be being sure to use the right degree of formality, or lack thereof, in the design, to suit the material; it might be figuring out how to make it look like it's been there a long time; Or it might be that there is a different material AT THE SAME PRICE that looks higher-end when rendered in a particular usage. And knowing when the common-ness of something makes it stand out as "cheap" vs. when it makes it blend in and not really be noticed so who cares.

A related concept is folks buying McMansions and then not having similar wads of money to throw at their landscape and furnishings, but still trying to have lots of all, right away and not knowing any of these how-to-look classy-for-less secrets, and so adding a bunch of tackiness to their fine homes.(This is not just a taste issue, because often they later recognize "something doesn't look right" and then wonder how come they can't fix it,again for no $$ and right away and no maintenance).

And back to the opposite concept again, is that we all know there are landscapes/hardscapes which cost a fortune and still don't look right, whereas there are yards or homes full of common-material or very inexpensive things (perhaps truly inexpensive or perhaps ACQUIRED inexpensively--the patience to wait for sales, or brilliant estate shopping, or swapping, or good luck) that look great, charming. I think it is cool to try to figure out what makes them so.

I would say that many of the photos posted over time on this forum, which drew criticism, were not due to inexpensive materials per se, but were due to distinctly design problems (shape, site, balance)or next, to clashing colors, very poor installation, or other things which might have been avoided. Of course, if you have no DIY talent, no design skill, and no $$ AND you want it to look good, then...

So, I like to look at inexpensive/less expensive materials and things, either mass-produced or DIY or hand-crafted, and try to discern, what makes it work, or not? And look at very ritzy places and think, what part(s) of all that investment really achieved something worth having vs. the part that is just consumers on speed?

Yup, INK, I specialize in missing points. But it appears to me that no one is quite sure what the point is here anyway, and IB hasn't clarified.

I aplogize to IB in advance if I'm wrong, but here's what I think it is. IB posted on Sept. 12, and referred to other threads on appropriateness of materials. I figured that one thread in his reference file was "Material Choice for Patio" where - three days earlier - my pathetic little concrete blocks were unequivocally dumped upon by the tasteful elite (though they met with approval from a few people - whew!). OK, so I was a little engaged in the thread and might have been imagining the connection, but my guess is that IB, in the planning stages of his own concrete block patio, was a little taken aback, feeling himself (still not sure about the gender) to be a tasteful, natural-materials kind of a guy and all, and was looking to establish whether there was some way that his choice of materials could pass muster as tasteful by being right for the setting, and thus be acceptable to this high-octane forum.

In other words, the question sounded to me like: IS THIS OK??

At least, if I'd been in his seat, and having thought to date that I am a tasteful, natural-materials kind of gal (which I have), that's what I would have been thinking. So, even if I'm wrong, that's what I read in to IB's question.

This forum is very engaging on the subject of landscape design but there is conflict, and unfortunately that always rivets my attention. So what is going on in my brain while IB is trying to see whether there is a context in which concrete blocks can be considered tasteful is "he obviously knows what he wants so why does it matter what the forum thinks of his choice of patio material?" So that's the angle I explore.

So far, it seems to me that a DIY homeowner is a different fish, and works by different standards, than a homeowner who hires a designer. The relationship between a DIY homeowner and the professionals here on the forum is different from the relationship between a client and the same professional in the field. And yet somehow the same set of objective standards - like "stone is better, period" - is held up to everyone equally. This interests me. And so I poke it.

I may have missed IB's real point, INK, and you may indeed be privy to it, but I do have one of my own.

And, I should add, I think IB's garden sounds like it will be exactly what he hopes it will be - a magical space.

My personal preference for materials for hardscape and such is local materials used in a simple way. Homes in my neck of the woods range from places that look like they should be condemned by the health department to homes selling for $2 million, so you can see every level of craftsmanship from none to exquisite, and materials ranging from stuff scrounged to imported stone.

My favorites, and the ones that I think really say "New England", look like they were built some time ago by a skilled craftsman, using local natural materials, with function being the first consideration. Some of the things I see going in at the homes of the conspicuous consumption crowd around here are just a little too slick, IMO.

I also think that landscapes that look like they are *outdoors* rather than immaculately manicured are much more attractive. My neighbor with the scorched earth landscape actually vacuumed her entire driveway once (about 150 ft. long) with a shop vac.

My goodness! Well Karen, don't know if I'll make much sense. It's been a long day and I'm a little punchy. I was merely trying to say that IB's original post had to do with the fact that what is an appropriate material (or style or use or what-have-you) is not always the same for every situation. A well designed patio can be made out of absolutely any material...just depends on where and who you are.

For some reason this thread has evolved into a discussion of what's "right" or what's "wrong" with the idea that designers, money, or taste is determining the rights and wrongs.

What I meant about the anti-designer comment is that quite a few people seem to assume that design principles are arbitrary things that the "in" people come up with. They look at design principles as silly rules that squelch their own taste. Maybe I'm not seeing an anti-designer tone as much as an anti-design rules tone. Like when someone drives a Taurus and tells everyone how having a Lexus isn't any better. That you're paying a lot of money for an emblem.

Karin, I really think you did miss IB's point. There's nothing inherently wrong with your concrete blocks. You missed that point at the time and have spent a lot of time and energy defending yourself for a slight never given to you. The original question on the original patio post had to do with unity and too much contrast. You posted a pic of your patio...which *according to established design principles* has little unity and much contrast. No one said your patio was bad. Just that it showed how too many materials makes for little unity and too much contrast. It was said then...and I'm saying again...you have a nice patio!! IB is using concrete blocks not because he is cheap, poor, doesn't know any better, has no taste, or thinks they're the neatest thing since sliced bread. He's using concrete blocks because it's APPROPRIATE for his home, his region, his environment. And I'm glad he brought it up. Sometimes what's appropriate for Mich's clients just won't fly here, and that's a point that needed to be said.

I've enjoyed this thread a lot, inclusive of all its twists and turns.
It has awoken a new perspective for me, one that I used to have but haven't been tapping into for a long time.

I grew up in a struggling working class family primarily located in the poorer outskirts of Boston.
We didn't employ any kind of outside help, let alone hire a designer. ( now that I think about it, WE were the Help )

Somehow along my way from there to here I had / have lost touch with the regular pulse of normal everyday white picket fence America.

Through this thread I am seeing something that I rarely get to see in my everyday work life here in Marin , and I like it.
I like seeing and hearing about the Do it Yourself projects, complete with all their successes and not so successes.

I still cringe a little when I see concrete keystone type block walls , but I'm starting to get it .
I don't think I will ever use them, but I am starting to understand them.

There was some crossover of threads here but IronBelly's OP was quite clear to me.

Question: I am building a patio. What materials should I use?
Answer: Well....that Depends.

He then explained quite clearly the factors he considered to come to his choice for the appropriate material to use for his patio. My favorite was his desire that his native prairie garden be the star of the show and not the patio. I would be one of the people waiting in line to learn from his native prairie garden and not give a hoot about his patio.

If there was an implied question it was, What are the Well....that Depends factors for your area in choosing the appropriate materials?

KarenL maybe still smarting a little from being in the crossfire of an aesthetics of "materials combination" design issue poked in with Well...that Depends on whether the DIY/homeowner or a designer is choosing the appropriate material. That is a legitimate Well....that Depends factor.

I then stick a John Waters film in to try and say to KarenL, it's cool, your patio and material choices have value and beauty because you see them as art. It does not matter what the high-falutin opinion makers think. What you see is what matters. Art can be found anywhere and in anything when you look. That does not mean that the elite opinion makers(in general)have nothing to offer. They have a lot to offer.

I have a rather shocking? maybe, piece of art on my living room wall. It is the tail gate of a 1971 Datsun pick-up truck with one of the original New York, Paris, Tokyo, Paia bumber stickers from Maui. It was the first work truck of my business, much like the framed first dollar bill. Is this an appropriate material to be used for Art? What would The Art People In New York City think? Who cares! I love it and you can be sure that it gets a reaction out of people.

{{gwi:47131}}

ilima

This thread reminds me of the time I went to the summer home of a NY,NY woman and her husband (think Mr. & Mrs. Frank Costanza). She stood by the corner of her house, pointed to a spot on the ground and said "what playnt goes right heah?". Before for I can draw in the air for my response, he screams "can't we just have greeass? (grass with a Brooklyn accent)".

Some people think there is a right answer and everything else is wrong. Some people think the design is in response to a solidly defined unwavering issue. Design is a response to a dynamic set of infinite variables. The first step is to decide which of those variables you are going to respond to and how you are going to weight them. This is why I believe the question "that depends" is such an important concept to think about.

So many of us jump to define which variables are THE variables that go into design in this thread. These are the folks who have the most to gain from this thread.

This was NOT what I was searching for--still reading thru to find out how, exactly, it matched my search criteria--but I think it's a great thread that I much enjoyed reading.

Great thread-- thanks for resurrecting it.

Easter innit?

Resurrecting... Easter. Got it!

Anyhoo, good thread that should periodically be exhumed.

There was mention of another thread here - Inner Garden. Sounds interesting, could that be resurrected as well?

This might make another thread timbu. Wellspring and Nandina have lots to say on this subject and who knows you may even draw Nandina out of retirement and that would be a Good Thing. You could also put "Inner Garden" in the search area at the top of the page. But start a new thread why doncha?

The old Inner Gardens thread seems to be lost. I will start one, but I'll have to gather my thoughts first.

The "inner garden" thread happened a few months before I became a regular reader here. Aug 8 - 26, 2005, so no longer on the links at this forum. I've kept some of my favorite threads for easy reference and that's one that I went back to read after hearing about it a few times. I have it on my pc, if you're interested.

Used to think I was weird to save threads that should be accessible here. Now I feel a bit better.

I think you'd enjoy the old one, Timbu, and I'd be willing to email it as an attachment, but a new thread with your personal angle on the topic would be much appreciated.

Wellspring

May I add another path to this fractuous thread? There is a difference in what would be appropriate to the highly-visible front yard and the fenced-in, very private backyard.

For example, we want to be consistent with our neighbors in the front yard landscaping. Well, I should say the "range of consistent" since some neighbors do nothing more than the obligatory foundation generic shrub and stop there. I refuse to stop there!! We have a very large flower bed (120 square feet) lining the walkway to the door, but it is in the roses/azalea/lantana cottage style of the neighborhood. Very neat, very cottage.

But the hidden, private backyard is a complete departure from the neighborhood. It's the proverbial clearing in the tropical jungle. (Atleast that's what I'm aiming for!!)

I hope this adds to the discussion.

Wellspring, please do email it, to erikossu@earthlink.net

Wellspring...
Would you mind also forwarding the "Inner Garden" thread to me; I would very much like to read it.
Please and Thank You,
Miss Mary

mary5frances@yahoo.com

I saved the 'Inner Garden' and the 'Stage is Set' but wish I'd kept the one about Mood in the Garden. It seems to have rolled away.

Annie at the Transplantable Rose

wellspring, thanks!