I've shared your sense of the "irksome". But I tend to expect this occasional approach on the Landscape Design Forum where the accumulated wisdom of many of the frequent responders comes from a long practiced and/or studied background. I would not expect this on most of the other dedicated forums where participants are united, not so much by the intellectual side of their endeavors but rather by a love of plants; by agreement that anything that blooms is beautiful; that any room painted "Silver Sage" is to die for.

And taken on its face, what appears to be a dampening of some runaway exuberance with notions of balance, and scale, and appropriateness, and unity, and all the other design principles has real value for those of us lurking as well as for posters trying to view his/her domain as a whole "landscape" instead of a blank slate or series of disparate gardens. It's easy for some to respond with abstract ideas though - an attempt to instill thinking outside the box, to be able to imagine shapes and sizes without getting into plant specifics. But, if we could all do this without additional input, soliciting help wouldn't be necessary and there wouldn't be any of the Rube Goldberg responses - extreme complexity for accomplishing simple tasks.

All the literature suggests that having a plan is best; how can the efficacy of planning be disputed? But, even in thoughtful planning, are all requirements satisfied in every way? Is a good landscape design going to improve a house with flaws - or do we still have a flawed house with great landscaping? Does even the most experienced landscape designer follow the rules literally? Topography, yard size and shape, soil, exposure all come into play; so might a neighboring yard if it's interesting and might provide a vista not to be totally obscured. If low maintenance is desired, common sense dictates not planting more than can be cared for. I say, plant trees, shrubs and flowers that you like best if they contribute despite the fact someone else might think they've "been done to death" and that your yard has successfully reached the lowest common denominator. Maybe that slides in to the dreaded old eye of the beholder chestnut, but in landscape design - professional or amateur - there is a balancing act in determining needs to be satisfied and I don't think the intellectual has to snuff out the emotional.

I think that what makes this irksome is that a lot of us take the heart and soul as a given while the planning part is often less so. Then when we write about stuff, we leave the heart and soul stuff out of the discussion - not because it is not there, but because it is a given. When someone reads it, it sounds like the intellect displaces the heart and soul rather than to join with it it to enhance it.

Does that make sense?

I'm not sure how the notion that a real 'garden' is defined solely by its ability to produce flowers got so firmly implanted in our minds. Or that the lack of flowers/flower color is somehow an "intellectual" intrepretation rather than an emotional one. And I'm also not sure that the "heart and soul" of a garden is governed by this same attribute - a valid argument can be made that a Japanese or Asian-inspired garden is a very spirtual, soulful setting, yet its reliance on flowers is minimal. And how practical is this rather narrow definition in the large portion of the country that undergoes a long, cold winter period where flower presence and color is nonexistant for months on end? Does the "heart and soul" go south for the winter? Is the garden then void of any emotional attraction during this period?

That doesn't mean that an emphasis on plant selection without the primary consideration being flowering or flower color is purely an intellectual exercise. Plant passions take all forms and I can call to mind dozens of fellow gardeners who are moved and motivated by plants that offer no flowers to speak of, like conifer afficionados or those that collect Japanese maples or ornamental grasses. Because their preferences do not offer colorful flowers in the conventional sense, does that make their their gardens less heartfelt or soulful? Does that mean that any type of cottage garden is more so because of the preponderance of flowers this garden style tends to produce? The emotional pull a garden can generate has little to do with flowers per se, IMO, but a lot to do with the character of the garden overall - spatial layout, materials used, plant selection/combination and any accoutrements or accessories that may be incorporated.

And it may be necessary to reiterate that landscape/garden design is much, much more than just flowering plants or even just the choice of plantings. Too often those not comfortable or familiar with both the terminology or the process tend to limit "landscape design" to only the plantings. While they are a significant portion of the completed composition, plant selection - flowering or otherwise - is only a very tertiary element at best.

Fifteen or sixteen years ago I was given an exquisite unset gemstone. It's a nearly flawless aquamarine, which is my birthstone. I've never gotten around to having it set because I have not yet had, at the same time, the money and the artisan to do it justice.

The stone itself is just chemicals under the right pressure from nature generating a stone that has then been enhanced by the jeweler who cut it. It's got heart and soul to me because of the story of the gift and my relationship to the giver. Tears fill my eyes as I write.

Let's suppose that some of us respond similarly to flowers. Let's suppose that for some they are "the warm heart of the garden".

This is the landscape design forum. Let's skip past pros and cons of flowers, short bloom periods, etc. The problem is that many who appear to want flowers to be the "warm heart" of their gardens come with the preconception that the flowers alone can carry the design. To return to my aquamarine. It's lovely, but it isn't extraordinary. If I carry it around in my pocket and take it out to show people, they'd be underwhelmed. It won't show to its best advantage. So, maybe I could wrap necklace wire around it, put that on a hook, and hang it from a cheap necklace. For me the stone is still the one that has heart and soul, but now Ive actually denigrated its meaning by choosing a very poor design for its setting. Andooopsthe stone has come out of the slipshod method I came up with to hold it and the stone is lost.

I couldn't do that. It would hurt my own "soul".

I've sometimes wondered if my hesitance about getting this stone into a setting is because I'm afraid that I'll never come across a jeweler who will feel about it as I do. I'd also have to make design decisions. Ring or necklace? Simple, elaborate, unusual? What will give the stone its greatest clarity? What design considerations will come into play in terms of metal, proportion, link design or band width, etc.

It may not be apparent from my overly long and complicated example, but as I think about those other kinds of choices, I "feel" just how much heart and soul goes into them as well. The intellect does not put the heart to sleep. Thoughtful design doesn't castrate the soul.

And I don't think flowers are the "warm heart" of every garden. For me, it's the smell of earth after rain in autumn. It's the sound of a bee thrumming through his rounds in my lavander. It's my little friend Grace laughing next door, and an amazing riff improvised by the breeze in the wind chime, and the sun warming my face all in one moment in the garden, as I clip daylilies back for the winter.

And even though favorite things may differ, I still need design help to enhance the experiences.

Wellspring

Clearly I didn't express myself well. I'm NOT downplaying the importance of planning, the hardscape and other design issues that don't involve flowers. I'd just like to see a more accepting attitude expressed about the importance of flowering plants to many gardeners (including me obviously! :-) laag's comment captures what I think happens a lot - that what appears to be dismissing of flowers may just be a taking-for-granted as a given. I just spent the afternoon at the garden of a local longterm care facility. I have been their only 'gardener' for 5 years now and let me tell you flowers - as many as possible, as long as possible - is the the number one thing those residents want in their garden! There are lots of design issues that should have been addressed when the place was designed and built that there is now no money or interest by management to address. But most of the residents don't much care about those issues as long as there is color and scent for as many months as possible. Perhaps because we are in a part of the world where flowers are only really available in the garden from April to the end of this month, they are more precious because they are fleeting. Winter interest... that's another topic where my personal definition varies from the often repeated norm here - but that's a topic for another time....

The example of oriental - particularly Japanese - gardens as models of non-flowering beauty is a mixed one. Yes, there are certainly amazing examples of them where flowers play a minor supporting role at best. On the other hand, a few of the things that come to mind for me when I associate Japan - and China - and gardens are the cherry blossom time, to-die-for wisterias, tree and herbaceous peonies....

My point is that I know the best gardens are ones that marry the intellect to a sensitive use of plants to to come up with a beautiful, coherent garden. And those gardens frequently give flowers a more prominent role than one might think from reading many of the responses here. Sissinghurst is the classic one that comes to mind. All I'm asking is for greater explicit recognition in this forum that, yes, flowers have a role to play in the design of a garden and it's not an insignificant one for many people.

Wellspring--
I'd like to express my appreciation of your fine writing and thoughtful responses. I hope you find a setting for your stone soon.

Woodyoak--
As far as flowers go, I guess with most folks asking questions, the flowers are the least of their problems. When someone posts asking about specific flowers, and their photos show a well-stuctured garden, they get flower answers. But when a poster shows a shapeless garden full of annuals, they need more help, and it's a service and kindness to send them in the right direction.

I suspect that if you could wave a magic wand and remove every blossom from Sissinghurst's gardens (not the plants, just the blossoms) it would still be a fabulous garden because of the structure provided by the hedges, paths, evergreens and those priceless old stone castles and brick walls that set everything off so well. So well, in fact, that people attribute all the beauty to the flowers, which is more like the icing on the cake.

I think of flowers as a beginner's trap. When I was a new gardener, I got stuck on flowers for a long time before I understood what it took to make a garden, and I was so frustrated with my efforts because they usually disappointed. If I was successful, victory was brief. I lost a lot of gardening years that way. Why not help others skip ahead on the learning curve?

One more thing about flowers, they tend to be very region- and climate-specific. I can't advise anyone outside my zone about flowers, or other specific plants. Peonies? Maybe they seem universal to some people, but they don't grow everywhere. Questions about specific plants can often best be answered on the regional forums.

Oh yes, one more thing...

That "heart and soul vs. intellect" is a false dichotomy you've created in your mind. Dump it and surge forward.

catkim - Sissinghurst without its flowers would be the bones of a great garden. Sissinghurst with its flowers IS a great garden. I'm not sure what I can do or say to convince you, and others,that I'm not trying to devalue in any way the importance of structural etc. design issues or say that flowers are the be-all and end-all. But they are an important element (and one that people respond to in a more emotional way - the heart and soul analogy...) that tends to be treated dismissively here. I just can't understand the reason why there tends to be such animosity in the attitude to flowers that is expressed on this forum at times. On a different note... looking at where you are from, I hope you have not been badly affected by those horrendous fires!

I do understand your point better from your second post than from your first one. You are equating flowers with heart and soul, and all the other things - foliage, hardscape - as cold intellectually-selected elements. Your assignment of passion only to flowers is underlined by the residents of the care home, who share that view.

I suspect I am the author of the most recent posting that got you started on making this thread. As such, I would contextualize my comments and comments like them with the questions that precede them: when people post pictures of flower gardens and say they want to solve some of the inherent problems that flower gardens have, there is no answer other than to say that one should consider something other than flowers to be the driving force in the design. I am reminded of a couple of threads long ago that evolved into a bit of a war between the poster and the forum, where the poster showed a garden full of flowering plants and asked how to give it more structure, form, unity, whatever. Suggestions of evergreen plants, hardscape, or even any changes in the garden were rejected. She simply had a garden with all the plants she liked, and she wanted it to look different without changing the plants or format she had.

The other thing to point out is that many people feel the passion that you feel for (or from) flowers in different garden elements. Me, I melt for certain types of leaves, and rock arouses me, as it has many others, to exert themselves beyond the bounds of rationality to acquire, move, and place it. So my garden of rocks, ferns, and other foliage and structural elements may seem cold to you even as it expresses my heart and soul.

Similarly, visit the conifers forum and you will find people who melt for plants that do not flower at all, to the eye of someone with a classic floral aesthetic.

I went last week to hear a presentation by Graham Gough, a UK plantsman who runs Marchants together with his wife who is a textile artist. His presentation on plant combinations and their textile evocations included many grasses, seed heads, and other elements that you might disregard, but that obviously made his heart quicken and indeed were obviously appreciated by the audience.

Myself, I think you are working with a limited definition of heart and soul, although it is the mainstream one and one that I think most people here also subscribe to at least in part.

I think it was Maro, by the way, who posted that landsccape.

KarinL

I got interrupted while writing and didn't see Catkim's comments until after I'd posted. I didn't mean to basically repeat the same comments without acknowledging them :-)

KarinL

Karin, thanks for mentioning that thread. I searched and found it, and I'm just as impressed now as I was then. It was Ink who added some pictures of the garden with flowers. I have to say, I like the first picture more than the others because of the unique beauty of the colors and lines.

Maro

Here (at link below) is a thread that shows some pictures of some interesting non-flowering gardens, at both the beginning and further down in this thread.

I would like to add to my previous comments, woodyoak, that I do appreciate your view that a garden without flowers would be missing something, and that their importance may seem to be minimized here on the forum - by people like me, perhaps. And I do value and look forward to the flowers that my garden produces, when it does.

My own take on garden design is that people should be doing in their gardens whatever floats their boat, and not working toward some objective, clinical outcome that meets an externally imposed standard. I love to see yards in my area where the passion of the individual is evident. One of my favourites is a person who has exactly three plants - one japanese maple, always kept pruned to a perfect tabletop, one poodled juniper, and a rhododendron. In another yard, a person has seven alberta dwarf spruces (which I normally hate) that are quite mature and have grown into dwarves' hats - nothing else, just those shrubs (maybe there's a Snow White in there too - haven't looked!). Then there is the person with the huge multi-plant stand onto which the summer geraniums are placed. To me these people are emotionally invested in their yards for some reason that is not apparent to others, and that may not seem attractive to others. But it's theirs, and it meets their needs. That aspect of landscape choices fascinates me.

KarinL

Regarding the old thread showing a garden with and without its original roses:
"Both versions of the garden were beautiful but the one with the flowers was much warmer, softer and evoked a heart and soul response, not just an intellectual one. "

Take those same roses and plunk them down in an expanse of lawn. You'll have your heart and soul flowers, and a homeowner who is wondering how to make their landscape look pulled together. Without the support of the rest of that garden, it's just some plants from the nursery stuck in the ground. That's why this is called the landscape design forum.

"Ideally, responses should lead those of us who garden primarily from the heart in the direction of incorporating the intellectual aspects without making us feel like were unsophisticated rubes for not starting from that end in the first place!"

This is really what is really bothering you, and there have been many other posts about the tendency for discussions on this forum to be a little more to-the-point and honest than you will find on a lot of forums. It's not rocket science, but landscape design as a discipline happens to be a good bit more complex than most homeowners and DIYers realize at first. I'd feel pretty unsophisticated too, if I started asking questions on a forum with a fair number of professionals and experienced amateurs on a topic about which I knew little. Not much to be done about that, I think.

Any beginner who is passionate enough about what they are doing to stick around and learn, will soon get past that awkward stage and be glad they did.

karinl - I suspect we're not as far apart in approach as it might appear at times. You might even enjoy my garden if you saw it in person :-) I'm certainly 'emotionally invested' in it - and am surrounded by neighbours who have similar attitudes to their gardens. Gardening is sort of the competitive sport in this neighbouhood amongst this group of middle-aged, opinionated, eccentric women:-)

I can appreciate the passion, thought and care (lots of heart and soul) that went into the conifer garden near the bottom of that thread. It does not, however, 'float my boat' in terms of something I'd want for myself. (My garden is not without coniferous evergreens - two large white pines on our lot and several more surrounding us are an invaluable backdrop to the woodland backyard garden. White pines are my favorite trees. A large cedar clump - one trunk; 4 tops - anchor the main flowerbed in the front. Various less attractive, mostly past-their-prime spruce on neighbouring lots are also integral to the garden. The rest of the evergreens here are broadleafed types.)

Interesting coincidence - Marchants Hardy Plants (and Graham Gough) is the featured nursery in the Nurseries to Visit column in the issue of RHS's The Garden magazine that arrived in the mailbox this afternoon....

There is nothing wrong with desiring a garden where the beauty is driven by flowing plants. Nor is it wrong to contemplate the flowers in the finished garden. But it is very wrong to do the flowers first.

Some might think that to set aside the task of planting, to consider grade, hardscape, form, and scale, to equate with turning your back on art. Not so.

Give a paint brush to an amateur and ask for a painting of some subject. They almost always start painting the principle subject first. Make the same request of an artist and watch what happens. Though the artist may "see" the subject as it will be finished, he will start by painting the background first. The artist will have a painting, the amateur will have a mess.

If you want to study plant horticulture, plant something. If you want to have a nice landscape follow the forum advice and start at the beginning.

One of the other reasons that flower design discussion is not a common discussion is that once you get past the technical side (soils, light, maintenance, hardiness,...) it is largely up to personal taste.

I don't think that I am alone in feeling that it is not up to me to decide what someone's personal aesthetic should be. If we are not going to discuss that, it only leaves technical issues, doesn't it?

This forum is not really the one to discuss cultivation so much as design.

Like catkim I fail to see the dichotomy. Flowers are much the same as words. A book is full of words as a soulful garden may be full of colour and scent but the words alone do not tell the whole story any more than the flowers do; obviously some kind of arrangement is required. If a book is to tell the story in a coherent fashion then a writer needs to know what words mean and how best to present them, the alternative is chaos. I suggest that garden design is similar. A book will appeal to the emotions, it may make us sad or it may have the opposite effect, how to achieve this requires a certain amount of knowledge and experience, how to explain it to someone else may be what you are calling 'intellectual'.

For some reason, on Friday my browser was acting up, so I couldn't reply. But, my initial reaction was to say that I do often want to say something to the effect of, "But, I liiike flowers!!!"

I do appreciate a lot of different styles of gardens - but if it is going to be MY garden, it better have a significant amount of flowers, or I am going to be disappointed. Not a ton of them at all times - I realize that is unrealisitic - but flowers are definitely one of the goals. :)

No one is saying that flowers are bad, or have to be limited, or can not dominate your garden. Again, why is it that so many people think that anytime some other issue is raised it is t displace another. I just don'y get it.

Just to add a little fuel to the fire:

"flowers are a sign of failure in a garden".

Sir Roy Strong

(who later admits that he is finally getting the hang of planting a mixed border. So maybe it was a fit of pique because he couldn't design with flowers.)

I think Roy Strong's comment more correctly reads "(in modern gardens as they appear at Chelsea, its as if) flowers are a sign of failure in a garden." Which proves that even a knight can miss the point.

"There is nothing wrong with desiring a garden where the beauty is driven by flowing plants. Nor is it wrong to contemplate the flowers in the finished garden. But it is very wrong to do the flowers first."

Pls8xx, this is a nice way of putting it. And nice follow-up by Ink regarding words. I hate it when people come along and make the points I'm trying to get at in far fewer words and more elegantly! Oh well, we can't all be geniuses. Woodyoak, I'm sure I would enjoy your garden, and mine might pass your test too - oddly enough, I seem to have something blooming almost every day as these foliage plants have some funny blooming habits! Apropos Laag's point, we can all be right to at least some degree.

KarinL

"it is very wrong to do the flowers first" I wonder if were all talking the same thing but just miscommunicating endlessly. What exactly does doing the flowers first mean to all of you that object to it? Let me describe a scenario envision it as something a potential client presents to you:

Client says: I have a ¼ acre property with some existing mature and maturing trees, most of which I want to keep, with the exception of an ugly, overgrown white spruce smack-dab in the center of the front lawn and too close to the garage. Any previous herbaceous garden areas, and all foundation shrubs were erased in the process of doubling the size of the house with an addition and new front and back porches. There is an ugly garden shed that is rotting in place and needs to be replaced. The wooden fences and gates that provide access to the backyard are on their last legs as a result of age as well as being taken down and put back several times during the construction work. My objective is for the sunny front garden to have a friendly, colorful public face, with lots of flowers in a limited color palette of predominately cool colors. Flowers have a strong emotional, nostalgic connection for me and are a vital component of any garden for me. The objective for the shady backyard is to have a serene woodland garden that preserves and enhances the existing trees. I have specific accessibility issues that will impact/limit materials that are desirable to use. I wish to do most of the work myself over an extended number of years. I wish to start by addressing the ugliest, and most public area first i.e. remove the ugly spruce in front (but leave the attractive cedar clump) and start adding color (and scent) there. Ultimately I want a good balance of trees, shrubs, perennials and bulbs in all parts of the garden but recognize that it will take a while for new trees and shrubs to get big enough to have much presence. As I do not want to forego a good display of color (and scent) while the trees and shrubs are putting on substance, perennials and bulbs need to be planted early on. I recognize that herbaceous plantings and planting areas will likely change in composition, shape and size as the rest of the garden matures around them but I do not see that as a reason to delay their start.

Does this qualify as doing flowers first - and doing it wrong? This forum regularly advises people that it is desirable/acceptable to have a long-term plan that you can work towards a piece at a time as time, energy and funds permit. Isnt that what I have described here? Does the fact that the plan call for flowers in stage one somehow make it all wrong? If so, I dont understand why that should be the case.

While I have not been to Chelsea, if the pictures of the display gardens that get featured in The Garden magazine are representative, I understand Roy Strongs comment - even if hes a knight erring in Inks eyes :-)

Karinl some my flowering plants have a funny habit of having interesting foliage too If you are ever traveling east and find yourself in my neck of the woods, you are more than welcome to come check things out.

Laag You may be right that I have been overly sensitive about whether the issue/importance of flowers in the garden gets displaced in this forum. This thread (and the wording in the title) was probably not a good idea. I dont seem to have the knack of being able to initiate or enter into a debate here without generating heated discussion. For that, I apologize. I dont know whether I should just give up or keep trying. My garden is my full time hobby; I read anything and everything about gardens; I put myself to sleep at night building both houses and gardens. Gardens are my passion and I like to talk/debate/argue about them but perhaps Im not objective enough for polite company :-)

Heated exchange? Its a good thread with lots of ideas and interpretations. We all learn from these. I don't know that there is any real heat. In fact it seems to have been brought people together from what I'm reading. I sure feel like I understand where the "flower people" are coming from better than I had before. It seems like some of them are understanding what some of the others are talking about a little better as well. Its good stuff.

Maybe I should confess. I am a gardener in the sense that I grow plants, and have for almost 50 years. If you came to visit you might think I am at odds with my own advice "But it is very wrong to do the flowers first."

In fact, there are two things going on here, gardening and a long term landscape project. When I bought the property it had a slope of about 14% and I knew that I would be changing the grade on almost all of the lot. In short, everything there and everything I might plant would be taken out.

So what you won't find here is evergreen shrubs, roses, peonies, gardenias, camellias, or anything else that isn't easily moved. It would be a waste of time and money to do those before the final hardscape is complete.

The point is that I know what the final end will be. But I am in no hurry to get there. I grow plants. That's what I like to do and what I am going to do. The fact that my yard does not have a landscaped look does not bother me one bit. My gardening does not heed the rules of landscaping design; colors clash, scale and placement are ignored. You would have to look at the underlying long term landscape project to find design principles being used.

I intend to garden as long as I can. The landscape plan includes wheelchair accessibility to the whole lot, should I need it, and some raised beds could be worked from a wheelchair.

Some of my lot has the complete grade and soil amendment done. These areas could be converted to a conventional landscape look. But I choose not to, preferring to continue my hobby of gardening.

At some point I will have to scale back the gardening. Then the shrubs will be planted and all those things said to be important on this forum will, I hope, be achieved.

Yes there are flowers here. But the plan came first and the flowers are subject to that plan. Though the season may be one of plant chaos, the overall movement is one of order and principle.

I repeat ... If you want to study horticulture, plant something. If you want to have a nice landscape follow the forum advice and start at the beginning, and that is not doing the plants.

woodyoak, your "client" is asking for a landscape plan that addresses the whole, as it should. Accessibility, selection of appropriate materials (for practicality as well as aesthetic qualities), and layout are considered, as well as the clients wish for a colorful, flower-filled front, and a serene woodland in back. You have a plan that you can implement as time, energy, and funds permit. What order you plant them in matters little, unless you find you've planted something that blocks your access later when you need to plant something else or get equipment through.

Because trees and shrubs take longer to grow, they're usually planted early on, but you don't have to if you don't want to, but certainly do any hardscape or grading before planting anything permanent.

What is meant by not doing flowers first is when someone posts a photo of a bare landscape, with no plan on where they are going with it, and is looking for suggestions on what to plant in front of the house. Or next to the patio. Or even which shrub to plant next to the foundation. No plan, no overall picture of where they are going with the landscape as a whole, because they don't realize that there is more to it than choosing a perennial or shrub for a particular spot.

Thus, the exasperation you will sometimes read when people are advised to slow down, back up, and think about what they want from the design. Or a suggestion that they go to another forum for a plant suggestion. This is, after all, the DESIGN forum, and I think it's difficult to just say, yeah, I think the sedum is better, without pointing out that it could be so much more.

I also don't see this as a heated discussion, there have been some real doozies here in the past. This is just chatting, and very civilized chatting at that.
Jo

Everyone starts from some initial position of training, knowledge or experience when approaching a design. Also a motivational spark or inspiration is different for everyone. If yours is flowers, then go with it. But don't forget a body of knowledge exists about approaches that can be tapped into, which will make that inspiration all the more beautiful.

After mowing around plenty of tree-circles, all the well meaning of course, there is a way to next-level the garden.

I totally concur that this is an excellent thread. As happens so many times on this forum, the inadequacies of language and, in particular, divergent definitions of terminology, create confusion.

Although over-simplifying a bit, it would seem that Woodyoak (and probably a majority of the public-at-large) have been misconstruing the term, "design", for endeavors that are largely limited to "decoration" -- a part of design. This is not to denigrate decoration!

I contend that this misplaced notion held by much of the general public has unwittingly and subconsciously been cultivated by the glossy magazine world. They always provide color photos of the "finish line" but never any of the unglamorous preparation.

I recently heard a Chicago-based Landscape Architect take the definition of "design" even further away from decoration. In a lecture discussing sustainable landscapes for the Midwest, he said: "I never really understood landscape design until I understood water."

IronBelly

Years ago I read a phrase in a magazine that described me to a T: the author wrote "I am a plantsman, not a gardener." My yard was a disaster to all eyes but mine, I was happy as it had my plants in it. Through the design process, I am slowly making a yard that looks good and meets our functional needs, and has space for my plants. The design process is even slowly winning out over my plantsmanship, as I am actually slowly able to let go of some plants that do not meet my design objectives. Sounds like my progress is akin to Pls's, although I won't be able to access it in my wheelchair - but then I won't be able to access my house either, so this isn't where we'll be should such a time come.

I'm also able to let go of my plants, I'm finding, once I've gotten to know them. I've learned how they move through the seasons, how their leaves and flowers emerge and die, and how they respond to different conditions. I find I know plants especially well if I've bought them and killed them three or four times. Sigh. Anyway... all that to say what compels me about plants.

But the funny thing is, if I get a plant that won't bloom, I have a sense of failure until I do get it to bloom. Obviously I enjoy the flowers. But also, bloom means I've successfully grown the plant, it is the endpoint of my plant-investigation process. And for plants that don't bloom, there is something else I'm after - fall or spring colour, which may need enough sun, or the excitement of new shoots.

This process is now a metaphor for (a) the garden design process, as when I have a flower and feature-filled garden then all the plants will be placed where they can do best, and (b) for my gardening career, where in the end, with the building done, the plants placed, the ground covered enough to dissuade most weeds, I will have nothing left to do but sit back and enjoy the flowers. And yet, for all that, flowers aren't why I do it, while for others, the process goes the other way entirely. Vive la difference!

KarinL

Ironbelly I think, whether it is appropriate to separate design from decoration probably depends on ones point of view. As an analogy consider building a new home. To make sure youve got all the technical construction things right; that all the applicable building regulations have been addressed; that you have some greater assurance that the house will aesthetically pleasing as well as function safely and efficiently, one would be well advised to hire an architect to design it and a competent contractor to build it. (We did)

Yet, when the house construction is complete, however pleasing and functional it is, it is not yet a home until it has been decorated in a style, and with the personal treasures, that pleases those who will reside in it. It becomes a warm and welcoming home once design and decoration have come together happily. If there are too many flaws in either or both of the design or decoration, the house may never feel just right to its residents or guests.

Some architects clearly feel the need to control the decoration as well (lots of examples of that in Architectural Digest.) but for others their job ends either when the plans are turned over to the owner or when the construction is complete. Some owners are actively involved in all stages of design, construction and decoration of the house (I was!) but others are happy to buy a new or resale house and focus primarily on decorating it in a manner that makes the house their home. Some people do have a house or other building designed and built provide a suitable setting for particularly treasured possessions that will become a key part of the decoration of the structure.

I think it is often difficult to draw a line and say this is where design stops and this is solely/merely decoration. I think that line is an even fuzzier concept when you are talking gardens rather than houses. Most people would not undertake the greater expense of house design and construction without involving a professional but are willing to take the risk with the generally (except in the case of some of laags clients no doubt :-) lower financial cost/risk of a garden. I think some of the frustration with some of the decoration questions posted on this forum occurs because of a desire to separate a cradle-to-grave process into discrete chunks whereas I, and the confused posters I think, see it as a continuum .

Karinl - if I ever get to the unfortunate state of having nothing left to do but sit back and admire the flowers, it will be time to sell the place, buy a new blank slate and start all over again!

There is nothing 'wrong' in decorating your garden with flowers surely. The question though was, why does this desire meet with such intellectual disdain here on the landscape design forum, an assessment I don't agree with.
Linda Egstrom and Miss Rumphius have, in the past offered up the kind of questions a professional designer needs to consider as part of a process which is aimed at satisfying a clients needs. If there is an inconsistency between what someone wants and what a designer knows will or won't work it is the designers responsiblity to point this out. People here often get this type of advice but don't like it.

Your analogy falls short in that the design of a landscape includes a "floor" (hardscape, lawn, groundcover, beds), "walls" (hedges, fences, shrub borders, screening plantings, tree trunks), and "ceiling" (overhanging tree canopies, pergolas), as well as decoration. The decorators who post here want to go ahead before the structure is finished.

This has been an excellent discussion yet one I've felt little need to contribute to, as most of my thoughts have been very adequately and nicely addressed by others.

And while I think the design/decorating analogies have merit, I'd like share what one of my design instructors was inclined to press upon us in school. He likened the process of landscape design to baking a cake - you need a certain amount of raw materials and a recipe for combining them. It is the skill of the designer/creator/baker (professional or not) that mixes these assorted ingredients in various combinations according to specific tastes or preferences. If the ingredients are not combined in the right proportions and using the right techniques and and baked for the correct amount of time, the cake will be a failure. The flowering attributes of the garden are analogous to the icing on the cake - it/they can hide a multitude of sins and if well done, make the cake look great, but the cake must still stand on its own and taste good to be totally successful. Beautiful, delicious icing on a lousy cake is still a lousy cake :-))

I'm sure this same premise in various forms was impressed upon most of the other professional designers that frequent this forum. Or they discovered it on their own. Regardless, I think it is this premise that underlies the dichotomy between the flowers/heart and soul and the more "intellectual" approach of the designers that flowers are simply the icing on the cake and places their relative priority pretty low in the design program. And some cakes are pretty darn sensational and can be award winners without any icing at all!

Another thing that needs to be pointed out is that perfection is seldom in any design. Sometimes budget or other criteria limit us to make the best of a less than ideal situation.

I like to think of the whole process as enhancing the positives and mitigating the negatives. Different people will have different methods of accomplishing those. Surely there is nothing wrong with leaning more heavily on using flowers and color if that is what works for you.

However, the more ways that you can learn to deal with enhancement and/or mitigation, the better equiped you become in accomplishing these while staying on target with the overall goals and objectives of the project.

An example might be to address a grading and drainage problem directly and then finishing off the project with nice planting beds vs. masking the problem with plantings. But, if you do not have the means to directly address the grading/drainage problem, masking it with plantings may be the most effective solution under the circumstances as long as the problem is not causing a great deal of damage. Everything is a compromise to one extent or another.

I think the benefit of a discussion group like this is that we can learn to recognize some problems that we might not have before and learn ways of addressing them. Sometimes we can't use some of the solutions because we don't have the means (money for that purpose, physical ability, or some other limitation) or our balance of values places a higher value on something else. But, to listen and learn is not a bad thing even if you are not able to apply it at the time.

Everyone is probably tired of the analogy game by now and it's time to let this thread fade away but I did want to address the 'icing on the cake' comparison because it's a common one and one I find irritating. Gardengal - I think your instructor didn't do much baking :-) Yes, there are cakes that don't need icing but, for some, the icing is an integral part of the whole and the cake would be very unsatisfactory without it (think birthday cake, wedding cake, Yule log....) An ordinary cake can become a special cake with the application of good icing. Icing is not just decorative, it can protect the cake from drying out; it can enhance the flavor of the underlying cake. Of course the quality of icing varies (that stuff in a can - UGH!)and a good cake can be devalued by bad icing. In any case, when you start thinking of making a cake, you'd better decide upfront if it's one that needs icing or not and what kind of icing will best suit it. Otherwise you risk getting to the end and finding you don't have the right ingredients on hand and either have to serve the cake dry and plain or substitute something else (ice cream?) that might be an adequate substitute but is not the desired presentation. So I would argue that a good baker considers the whole presentation upfront and that includes making key decisions about icing before starting the assembly of the cake itself.

Irritating?? I'm not sure it should be or that most consider it so. It does serve to underline the contention that unless the foundation (the 'cake') is sound and well conceived, the icing does nothing more than present a pretty face. I can't count the number of dry, stodgy, flavorless birthday and wedding cakes I have tasted but looked gorgeous because all effort was made toward appearance rather than substance. No one is disagreeing that the entire presentation should not be well thought out initially and that the icing can certainly enhance and add interest and flavor but emphasis on the icing without the appropriate care and consideration given to what it's covering is just a sweet, sticky waste of calories.

A vast sticky waste of calories... that's what I passed out to the neighborhood kids last night for halloween. If I debated design-theory, then I would have really scared them ;)

If you don't like the cake analogy, then a building one will serve. The 3-D space filled out by a building creates an impression, and the exterior sheathing materials and roof materials do as well.

rhodium's building example is pretty much the point I've been trying to make - both the building and sheathing are a whole and you need to consider and value both parts together through the whole process to get the best result. Sometimes it seems like the sheathing - or particular types of sheathing - is not given the consideration I think it's due.

Yeah, buta house doesn't have to have flowers on top.

Actually, the house analogy doesn't work at all for me. I don't want a house without a roof, but I can't stand icing. Good thing, too, since I'm diabetic!

Wellspring

I have to say here that I don't think I remember seeing flowers or flowering shrubs "not given their due" on this forum, unless that is being inferred when responders suggest that there is more to be considered than just the flowers. You are admitting yourself that both the structure and the decoration are valid parts of a design, though the argument has been made (successfully, I think) that some designs have a strong enough structure to stand alone, without any added decoration, if that is the designer's wish.

Maybe we should wait for a specific post to come up and then revisit whether the flowers are being unduly dissed or whether there are just legitimate points being made that the OP might have considered along with the flowers.

Out of curiousity I did a search using the word 'hydrangea' to see how advice has been handed out. I found numerous examples of regulars recommending various flowering shrubs, as well as a few questioning the need.

It makes me think the debate is much ado about nothing. Do your own search and see what you think.

Here is one I remembered:

I think some of the disparagement of an emphasis on flowers comes from questions that just deal with which flowers to combine where, and often a complete lack of regard for spatial composition, which is the heart of any successful garden in my view. Whether the emphasis is on plants for form and texture or massive amounts of flowers for color and the emotional context they evoke, both can miss the point if the garden isn't a useful or comfortable space to be in. I love designing gardens with lots of year round color for clients who like this approach, but the design layout for arranging them is as important as the particular plants to be chosen.

I myself find my designs tend towards using massive blocks of flowering plants that will retain this quality over an extended season, and tend to search out plants that will perform this way in this region. Others may much prefer a more seasonal approach of things coming and going, or even actually seek out the fleeting ephemerals in bloom as a special gift. So many approaches to garden design, and they should all reflect the preferences or culture of the owner and/or designer, as well as representing a specific sense of place and usefulness and comfort to be in and/or around.

Too many gardens that have classic flowering plants in static designs that don't really have any design sense just leave me cold. I can appreciate that a garden full of floridbunda roses may give plenty of color and provide bountiful cut flowers; but it won't be beautiful to me, just a collection of coddled plants. It never hurts to have groups of blooming things that also play well with their neighbors; in that they have contributory qualities such as form, texture, seasonal interest, or play off other plant combinations. Being able to match/contrast flower colors with foliage/bark/fruits is as important visually as just flowers alone.

bahia - I suspect we could work well together.

Woodyoak,
I certainly always enjoy working with clients that like bold color in the garden, but have a hard time with those who also insist on roses! It is particularly easy to use color in the landscape here in California; as we have the bright light, year round growing climate, and the ability to use subtropicals, succulents, temperate plants, etc in unique combinations that are only possible as summer annuals or container plantings in more severe climates.

I do tend to find myself biased against some long time traditional plants used here in the northern California landscape, as they don't seem as well adapted to current conditions, or have developed diseases that tend to mar their beauty. In that respect, Camellia japonica is not one of my favorites, as the flowers are almost always disfigured by petal blight these days. Most Rhododendrons are also suspect in my view, too many get disfiguring thrips that mar the foliage, or look tortured from lack of ideal conditions, they don't gracefully accept our drier summers and lack of rains. Roses, except for a few, generally don't have the form to look good in a garden when out of bloom, and I hate getting pricked by them, moreso than any of the other various spiney things I do enjoy growing. Fall blooming Chrysanthemums are another pet peeve, with an all too short bloom season for the amount of space they take up and pinching they require to keep them in bounds. I've never understood why the fall blooming asters aren't equally popular,(I really do know why, they can be rather thuggish in a border), or less common but equally beautiful fall bloomers like Nerine bowdenii.

In general, I am most attracted to those flowering things outside of the spring season. I want to see flowers in the dead of winter, which would give me a reason to venture out into the cold and the wet to experience them. And if you can incidentally combine subtle or strong fragrance with late season bloom, this combination in particular gets to my own heart and soul...

Color in the landscape is something that speaks to me in its own language. While the deep greens of a lush northern forest or a japanese style garden can be beautiful, it is not a style I would seek to surround myself with. Give me the brilliant jewel tones of massively blooming bougainvillea against stucco walls and azure skies, the steely blue foliage of a Blue Hesper Palm, a sweep of deep blue Blue Chalk Sticks/Senecio mandraliscae set against the deep purple black foliage of Aeonium 'Schartzkop', or the equally intense nearly black foliage of the Purple Smoke bush, etc, etc. Vivid color in plants and trees is all around us, and there to be exploited visually in gardens in any climate. In fact, in some of the most severe climates, massive displays of color seem to outdo themselves; such as the west coast deserts(Namaqualand) of South Africa or the Sonoran deserts of southern Arizona in early spring bloom, or the alpine meadows of the Sierra Nevada or Rocky's in June/July after snow melt. I also enjoy seeing strangely incongruent color combinations such as hillsides full of Euphorbia dendroides in red leaf in May in Crete, ready to go dormant for the dry season and giving an early taste of fall color to the landscape. This is a plant that is found growing across much of the mediterranean, but never seems to have made it into gardens looking for compatible plantings below the Olive trees, but they belong together.

In the same way, some of the most vividly blooming subtropical trees also bloom when they are naked of leaves, and are much more dramatic as a result. Tabebuias, Jacarandas, Chorisias all come to mind as examples of this phenomenon, or our more typical spring blooming stone fruits or California natives such as our Aesculus californicus.

If you are really attracted to bold use of color in the landscape, it is worth getting more familiar with the Brazilian landscape architect Roberto Burle Marx's work. At his best, he was a master of using plantings much as paints to create modernist gardens full of swirling and contrasting colors. Certainly he has influenced current american landscape architects such as Oehmes and Van Sweden as well, who design plantings in similar large blocks, but with temperate plant materials.

It does seem as if many landscape designers and architects are not familiar enough with the planting possibilities to effectively use flowers and color to their maximum impact. Or could it also be that the use of color other than greens does not call out to them in the same way as it does to those who crave color? Don't apologize about your preferences, get out there and design something that makes people take note of the other possibilities, establish your own style and see whether you influence anyone to your point of view!

bahia - that was very poetic and an enjoyable read! I fear you'd find the color in my garden very anemic though... I choose a cool color palette. I think it better suits the quality of light in a northern area. The light further south seems to demand stronger colors. Years ago, on work stints in Barbados, I was largely disappointed in the lack of color in the general landscape (too much green sugar cane!) when I expected lots of bold, tropical color. Even the botanical garden there didn't have enough color for me. I think if I lived somewhere south, my garden would look totally different than what I have now. I particularly like big, bold foliage and use as much of it as I can in hardy plants but the choices are somewhat limited in my zone compared to yours! I share your general aversion to most roses - too water and fertilizer hungry; too disease and pest prone; too painful for someone who has a balance problem! But I have found a few that suit me and have absolutely fallen in love with Rosa chinensis minima that I grow from seed - they are just starting their bright red hip stage now that carries their interest into winter until they disappear under the snow. They are a thorn hazard though so caution is required!

I'm still working on refining my garden style and design. Trees and shrubs have been frustratingly slow to bulk up enough to start balancing the perennials but there has been encouraging signs of progress this year. I intend to be working on refining and improving this garden for the rest of my life so I'm in no rush to reach a completed state :-)

What I have noticed is that many posts are asking a question that is accompanied by a whole host of sub-plot questions that seem to be "hidden" to the poster, but not to others who read it. If one probes a bit further one learns that, well, we want flowers but we don't want bareness in winter, or we want this but dog-proof, or that but no maintenance, or this for Finally, re: "old chestnuts," I agree that it is possible to be too snobby if one advises things that are not going to be suitable for the site, just to be "different" but for no other reason, whereas some of the reasons for old chestnuts is you can't kill 'em, which is just what some people, and some garden microclimates, need the most. HOWEVER, a hidden subplot is that as people become more knowledgeable about gardening and design, they become more dissatisfied with a design, or plants, that looks cookie-cutter. So, it could make sense sometimes, if one could paste in boilerplate answers over and over, to say, "a good way to start out with a bang, if that is what you want to do, is with bullet-proof shrubs and perennials (or whatever) that you see doing well around town under similar conditions, but realize that you may over time wish to explore different species, so think whether you want to research these things a bit first, in case you will regret paying for them and then wanting to rip them out, or whether you are okay diving in and learning by experience and lost $$" (which most people end up doing some of, anyway).

Since I do like to read about and look at plant combinations and garden design as well as landscape design, I like to find examples of gardens using practically the same plants as the cookie-cutter homes, but combined in ways that are much more pleasing--that is, many installed "designs" use horrible juxtapositions that do nothing to showcase the best features of a shrub or plant or to use it in the right spot or with the right companions.

I am not sure if my comments are on-point anymore for this thread, but, here they are!