Hi all! I am an older student of horticulture, and am laughing through my tears at this discussion. I once thought I wanted to draw landscape design plans, and recognized myself in IB's description of the first day in landscape design class, when the graph paper was pulled out. There I was, breaking out in a slight case of hives, with that sickening feeling starting in the pit of my stomach as my math phobia reared its ugly little head. Still, I hung in there. It did get better when we took actual measurements of a new home in a cookie-cutter subdivision and interviewed our clients, as there was a glimmer of practicality in these exercises. But forget choosing the right plants for the right place, this was a basic drafting & lettering class, one I have attempted twice without success. The only practical, useful "design principle" I was ever taught, was by a design professional I corresponded with online, who recommended a good book about the architectural forms of plants in the landscape. I see the value of landscape drawings, but I think they are only one small part of landscape design, at least as I understand it. The same way you would measure the room a couch is going into before you buy one, they are a necessary component of a design installation, but IMHO too much emphasis is placed on them in the beginning of the design process. I think it would be more useful, and interesting, using the dimensions of an area (taken from the property survey, why re-invent the wheel?), the orientation, soil and climate, as well as the intended purpose, and the client's style, to actually get to create a design. Using form as the basis, observing actual waterfalls if you're installing water features, etc. I could think of a thousand ways NOT to turn the switch off. Maybe I should stick to propagation and nursery management.

using the dimensions of an area (taken from the property survey, why re-invent the wheel?)

Well, for one reason not everyone has a property survey. In fact, my experience as a professional designer is that very few clients have anything even approaching a dimensioned site plan, let alone a prepared survey. Generally what I have to work with is a legal description fleshed out slightly with a very rudimentary plot plan from the appraisal, if they can even locate that. In very rare instances of brand new construction or a recent extensive remodel, they will have a dimensioned site plan and for in-city projects I can get a pretty detailed plot plan from the building department. But for more suburban clients - usually in unincorporated municipalities - even this is typically not available.

It's not a matter of reinventing the wheel but developing yet another tool, and a pretty essential one IMO, with which to proceed with one's project. As the proprietor of a design-only business, I consider scaled drawings an absolute necessity. There is no other accurate and efficient way to communicate the design intent or placement of the various elements to either the client (if they are DIY'ers) or to the landscape contractor(s). And for DIY homeowners, there is no better way to experience your site and know and understand what you are working with than taking the time to measure as accurately as possible your property and all its elements and convert this information into a scaled drawing. In my very biased opinion as both a designer and an instructor of landscape design, THIS is why preparing a scaled drawing is the first step in the design process. If you don't know what is, how can you effectively go about changing it?

Maybe I'm too 'old school', but why graph paper, pencil and a simple tape measure should present such an intimidating set of circumstances is a bit beyond my comprehension. It's far easier to work with these very basic implements than it is to guesstimate the placement of various landscape components or to freehand a design only to discover - usually in very short order - that the scale in your mind's eye has little basis in reality.

I'd agree that a simple planting plan often does not require a scaled drawing, especially if one is very familiar with the growth habits and sizes of the plants included, but I'd venture to say that for the vast majority of non-professionals and for those who are implementing the design intent of a second party, even a scaled drawing of this least techinical aspect of landscape design is better than flying blind (with appropriate apologies ahead of time to Wellspring/Charlotte :-))

The two most consistent things on messageboards are these.

1. Most people view what they do as being the right thing to do and anything else as either too much or too little. Those who do more or work for better clients than that person does are elitist snobs or over do their projects. Those that do less are unenlightened, amatuers, or lowballers. Their should be a competecy level that strives to cut out those with less experience or education than the person making the point, but not enough to exclude themselves from meeting the grade.

2. Whenever there is a discussion of one aspect of landscape design, a large segment of people will automatically assume that anyone who supports an understanding of that segment makes it the number one priority overiding every other aspect of design. If one person says that function is important, those people will say that all creativity and artistry is voided out and the designer is a sterile technocrat who believes in nothing but function.

Anyone who objectively reads this entire thread will see a lot of well rounded people making very clear points about effective planning. There is no one who has made any indication that everything must be put to paper. At the same time there are people who seem to be trying to make a point that some of us can not unfurl a roll of Charmin without making a plan of it first. The truth of the matter is that whatever you can do effectively without a plan does not require a plan and not one poster has said any different than that.

When someone is clearly in a situation that is unresolved it is incomplete planning whether it is a "head plan" or a paper plan. Using a thread of just such a circumstance to make the point that a paper plan is not an effective way to make that point is either foolish or a fraudulent way to start a discussion.

I find Prairiegirlz post a bit odd. How does one defend the point of a plan being of little use and then say use a scaled plot plan just don't draw it yourself. You are still using a scaled plan. It sounds a lot more like what I described as point #2 than it is serious reasoning. I hope I do not develop a stereotype of midwesterners as one might have for yankees.

Me too. I certainly didn't mean to imply that a scaled plan was unimportant to landscape design, on the contrary. I was just stating my own personal level of frustration at starting right in on the process of making a scaled drawing the Very First Day (we didn't have a "real" client yet, so it was a hypothetical exercise)without first discussing some basic design principles, as these aren't covered anywhere else in the curriculum. Might have been useful, certainly would've been a less intimidating ice-breaker, for ME. Or maybe, grabbing sketchbooks and heading outside to draw what is "seen" in the natural landscape.

It would have been fun to create a design using a plat of survey first (and, I do recognize the value of confirming any and all measurements in the "real world"), that's all I was saying. Incorporating all the fun stuff, the art and science of plants. Maybe that's what attracted some of you to the design field in the first place?

Don't worry laag, I have a thick skin. But I think what was/is missing for me on some level, could be a basic (mis)understanding of what landscape design is?

woodyoak says "Personally, I never use a scale drawing to plan/plant specific beds in the garden. But I do use a copy of the property survey to mark the general outlines of all the beds and paths. The survey is, of course, to scale; my drawing of the beds on it is not completely accurate but good enough so that I can look at the overall picture and see what is wrong/needs to change."

Okay, what am I missing?

If if isn't too far beneath you, I'm open to criticism.

I'm not above anyone.

I did not get the same message when I read your first post as your second. I don't think there is anything wrong with sketching in approximate areas in a plan like you described. It is planning and it is effective or it would not be working for you. You (or I) only need the accuracy and detail of planning on whatever media, that is necessary to communicate if you need to communicate,or prove to yourself or someone else that what you are planning actually physically works.

If you look at the front of a ranch house and have the vision and experience to envision a complete planting in a certain arrangement, there is no need to draw it up.

If you decide to make a patio to accommodate a table for six, three lounge chairs to tan on, a barbecue, and preserve the 100 year old maple 20' away from the back door, you might want to do some accurate measuring, drafting, and planning. Or you could start building it and post all over the internet looking for ways to fix the patio heaving from maple roots, or where you can get custom extra small lounge chairs, or an "L" shaped dining table, or how do I connect my tanning patio to my dining patio, .....

The way they teach may not make sense as you enter the curricullum of some design schools. But, speaking from my own experience from one degree program and some other courses, after it is all done it really makes a lot of sense that they set it up the way they do.

I guess the best analogy is to watch the "Karate Kid". I have no idea of how old you are (or how old the movie is for that matter), but the movie is about a young teen age boy who is taken under the wing of an elderly Japanese man who winds up training him in Karate. Hestarts the kid off by having him do chores. Not just to do them, but to do them in very strange ways.He has to wax the car collection bye applying the wax counterclockwise with one hand (wax on) and buff it clockwise with the other (wax off). There were other chores with these same strange twists and a command that went with each. The kid gets PO'd because he is suposed to learn Karate rather than being a slave to this guy. He confronts the Japanese guy complaining that he is not being taught. The guy then starts barking out the chore commands as he swings at the kid who finds that he has developed a number of Karate moves through this odd seemingly unrelated training. Then the kid suddenly realizes he has learned quite a lot.

I absolutely hated the idea that I had to take an introduction to GIS class using a computer program that only existed in that class. I thought it was more about supporting the professor than teaching students. It turned out to be the single best class I ever had. It was not because I learned the program or about GIS, although both were very good. The real point of the class was to teach analytic strategy that could be applied to about anything in landscape architecture. I really don't think it is any different when you take the drafting course or when you learn about color, texture, form, soils, psychology, botany, surveying, geology, sociology, urban theory, dendrology,....

... and therein lies the nut of this obvious dichotomy. You (and most other professionally trained individuals) tend to say, "I really don't think it is any different ..." IT IS DIFFERENT! However, the difference lies not in the information but rather in areas that typically remain far below the radar of most trained professionals.

Attention. Attention. Professor IronBellys class is about to begin.
(Laag You sit up front!)

Please take note of Prairiegirlz opening statement and realize that there are thousands of silent lurkers nodding their head in agreement. Although my treatise continues to confuse the pros, she (and thousands more) immediately identified with what I was saying.
"Hi all! I am an older student of horticulture, and am laughing through my tears at this discussion. I once thought I wanted to draw landscape design plans, and recognized myself in IB's description of the first day in landscape design class, when the graph paper was pulled out."

Adult education is a whole different bailiwick than the traditional institutional fare offered to 19 & 20 year-olds. While the factual information never changes, the effective delivery of that information does. In a very real sense, it forces the instructor to do a far better job of conveying the subject matter. While in the utopian environment we call college, professors can get away with prolonged mind games for an entire semester to teach but one point. Try that nonsense in an adult education class and you will quickly have a mutiny. The mutineers will clearly communicate to the instructor that he/she has failed to communicate. (Isnt effective communication of ideas the whole point?) The class will be a failure and nobody will sign up for that class the next time it is offered.

Adult education must not only be effective; adult education must also be efficient. Busy adults working full-time jobs and juggling family responsibilities mandate a different presentation of the material. Success is rarely gained by instructors who blindly believe that the methods by which they were forced to learn in late adolescence will work very well with mature adults.

We have a local, small university that "gets it". Their adult education class enrollment (and consequently, their traditional student enrollment) is soaring. This enrollment surge is happening not only in the non-credit classes but also for their degree programs leading to MBAs and such. Quite simply, they have realized there is a tremendous, latent thirst for higher education. They capitalized on this thirst simply by offering efficient and effective presentation of the same information every other college is offering. Quite simply: For the adults, they cut out the crap.

Lets face it: How stupid can an instructor be to think waving around a piece of graph paper in the first class of a six-week course is effective communication? Failure to simply read the faces of the adult students sitting before them is evidence of this disconnect. I dont claim to understand all of the underlying factors involved. I just recognize that they, in fact, do exist. I also recognize that they are very real.

One of lifes great lessons should be: It usually doesnt matter as much what you do as it does how you do it. In other words: Same information different presentation. Couple that with the fact that different people learn in different ways. Many of us are just wired differently. Expecting everybody else to learn things the same way that you did is naïve.

I am not justifying lower standards. What I am encouraging is an open mind. I would think pretty soon, a few more would realize "the message" just isnt getting through to a large segment of society. Whos fault is that? Is it a case of non-traditional students failing or is more accurately a case of failing to present the information in an understandable, albeit unconventional, manner?

IronBelly

Oh, so the whole point of this has nothing to do with if you need a plan, when you need a plan, what level of detail you need that plan to have, but to make a point about teaching techniques for different age groups.

Is the conclusion that the situation dictates the need for "plan or no plan"? Nope, it is whether your adult education community is enlightened or living in the dark ages of teaching methods.

This whole thing has been about your other interest in adult education? Great.

I think that you are making your own point about the gap between a lot of teachers and students. I think Prairiegirl backs that point up. That is that professors tend to live in "professor land". Thank you for that, Professor.

PS. I did not read this before replying to your email, Professor.

One point in IB/Dan's discussion, is that university level classes in landscape architecture skew much older than the alleged 19/20 year olds. When I was getting my degree back in the late 1970's, more than half the class were returning students who already had one professional degree in another field, had been working for some time, and had chosen landscape architecture as a career change. Most of these students were already in their 30's or 40's, and I felt like a youngster, being part of the 25% of the class that was straight out of high school.

It is abit odd that the real topic of this thread seems much more about alleged advantages of teaching methods for short term classes geared to homeowners and adults, and plans/no plans are simply a tangent. I would add that if the idea of mapping existing elements on plan before starting a landscape design is such a stumbling block for your typical students, thank your lucky stars you are teaching in a part of the country where it is relatively flat. Just imagine the difficulty in communicating how to do a proper grading plan that deals with real changes in topography.

The facts of life are that there are inherent levels of difficulty that need to be mastered to be proficient in most any profession. No doubt IB is correct that there may well be a disconnect between what a typical course aims to impart, and what the typical homeowner/student is wanting to learn. Rather than throw out the concept of mapping/creating accurate plans as a stumbling block, perhaps it would be better to address when it is useful versus absolutely necessary, with case examples.

I don't think age of the student has anything at all to do with the teaching method, once you are beyond high school. Better course descriptions may be called for, or realizing that adult students at a night school will not have the same level of energy and comprehension due to competing interests of kids, obligations, a day job, etc.

I might suggest that having the class create a to scale model is a much more graphic, comprehensible method to get your students beyond the panic of graph paper. They will still have to master the same concepts, but will have a physical result that should more easily reinforce the concepts. Try it, and see if it makes a difference. I'd also suggest that having your beginning students develop the skills to create accurate elevations/sections is another very useful skill, and get them to think spatially.

I don't quite understand how measuring and drawing to scale needs to be such a stumbling block in your adult education classes. Yes, I have read all your previous comments, but you have not convinced me to see your side, but instead seem to have picked your arguments to reflect your opinion, rather than rationally address them point by point.

I see a stumbling block that no one has addressed - I'd be experiencing flop sweat in landscape design classes on undergraduate, graduate, or adult levels simply because I cannot draw. And I mean not a straight line with a ruler. I understand scale and graph paper, but would be unable to translate any plan, brilliant or otherwise, into something comprehensive that someone else would see any merit in. So it strikes me that all of you in the field have been gifted with a skillset that no amount of classroom work could instill in someone not so gifted.

Obviously it's not my field - no confusion here between and desire and ability - but wouldn't this lack of artistic skill or knack for draftsmanship necessarily sink many a prospective student who grasps all the concepts but can't produce a beautiful rendering?

I'd venture to say that it requires no particular artistic skill to be able to generate a scaled drawing. It is simply drafting, a learned skill with no requirement for artistry. It is easy to distinguish between a skilled draftsman and one that is not, but that doesn't impede the preparation of a scaled plan, even less so with graph paper. Scale is a understanding of proportions and an ability to measure and translate measurements to paper.......a deficit in math skills or a math phobia is likely to be far more of a hindrance to preparing a scale drawing than a lack of drafting skills but even that should not be an overwhleming obstacle - the math involved is pretty darn elementary. And if using graph paper, even a ruler is not required; it's more of a case of connecting the dots, those being the points of measurement. It is important to note that a scaled drawing is not exactly the same as a rendering - the finished presentation plan may very well be carefully rendered and a far more artistic creation than the scaled drawing, which is a working drawing and essentially a map or blueprint of what currently exists or is proposed. And fully rendered presentation plans are most often used only by professionals to convey their design concepts/visions to their clients. They are not a document a DIY'er or home landscaper needs to worry about.

I can only assume this aversion of many to idea of constructing a scaled drawing/plan is more a case of the unknown or jumping into uncharted territory, if you will. And excuse me for saying so, but a skilled instructor of landscape design should have no difficulty in helping his/her students, regardless of age, overcome this initial reluctance and learn how to proceed with this most basic of steps.

I guess this whole discussion IS a tangential one, not about plans or drawings..yes or no? but about getting to that point where now you can begin to effect the changes you need to make. I saw Karate Kid, and I don't have time for inscrutable methods. What actually happens when the plan is in hand?

I have no skill in draftsmanship. While I know I will someday do a passable job of drafting and lettering a scaled drawing (if it kills me), I did not realize that was what "landscape design" was all about. I was expecting it to have something to do with landscaping.

nevermind.

I think I just had an AHA! moment...If the landscape drawing is a map, the landscape design is the journey.

On Ironbelly's topic:

There is a huge difference between knowing and understanding. With landscape design, there are things which can simply be known and there are things which must be understood. Spatial understanding is something which I regard as being imperative to design a good space; whether it is a planting bed, an residence, or a masterplan for a community. You can tell someone that spatial understanding is important. It is different to actually educate someone so that they understand space.

On Andrew's topic:

A scaled plan is a method to gain a better understanding of the space. It is not the only method, nor is it a guaranteed method. However, it provides an objective base off of which judgments can be made. Not having a scaled base plan will not necessarily impact the project negatively, but leaves the possibility for oversights or misunderstandings which could have been addressed or recognized with a scaled plan.

- Audric

I love Prairiegirlz5 roadmap / journey analogy. BINGO! I think we have one who is finally getting it. I also think that Audric possesses the ability to clearly see both sides of this coin because he is surely surrounded in his college studies by a group of fellow students also encountering this transition phase of enlightenment.

Duluthinbloomz4 pretty much summarizes the anxiety felt (but rarely expressed) by so many. For those of us not fortunate enough to have successfully completed a formal education in design, learning on an informal basis is darned tough. While I agree with Pam that: "a skilled instructor of landscape design should have no difficulty in helping his/her students, regardless of age, overcome this initial reluctance and learn how to proceed with this most basic of steps." This scenario is certainly the exception and not the rule.

I liken the predicament of amateur designers to the educational debacle of the early 60s Modern Math. Instead of teaching students how to do a calculaation, a brief discussion of the theory behind the problem was held. Then the student was magically expected to provide an answer to the problem. Never mind that they had never been exposed to the problem before in their lives. Never mind that they didnt really know what the actual problem was let alone how to go about solving it. Just do it! Well the fairy ran out of magic dust and this program was soon identified as the failure that it really was. However, most of the students forced to endure this non-sense never did recover from the inflicted damage. I know I was one of them. Thank God I had an uncle with only an eighth grade education. Had it not been for his common sense explanations after I got out of high school, my math skills would still be pathetic. It was through him that I experienced one of Prairiegirlzs "AHA! Moments."

While folks like Laag are accustomed to doing their ciphering in a blueprint format, that neednt be the case. There are many ways to skin the old cat. For me, the important aspect is thought. Take what you have learned and THINK about things from a number of perspectives. It is a good idea to eventually write things down in some manner (sketch, calculations, short notes, drawings, whatever) if for no other reason that to form a checklist so that you dont forget something. Admittedly, the pros like a scaled drawing because it is a concise package that documents almost everything in one neat little package.

I like the road map analogy.

IronBelly

"While folks like Laag are accustomed to doing their ciphering in a blueprint format, that neednt be the case. There are many ways to skin the old cat. For me, the important aspect is thought. Take what you have learned and THINK about things from a number of perspectives. It is a good idea to eventually write things down in some manner (sketch, calculations, short notes, drawings, whatever) if for no other reason that to form a checklist so that you dont forget something. Admittedly, the pros like a scaled drawing because it is a concise package that documents almost everything in one neat little package."

Don't you read? If you read my posts, you would clearly see that I do not believe you need a plan for everything. I have very clearlysaid that in this thread as well as others.

A second thing that some of you know and some of you don't is that I dropped out of landscape architecture in 1983 because I did not draft well enough to be viable in the profession back then when hand drafting was the standard. I went back in 1994 and got my degree in 1997 when cad was a viable method to draft. I had not turned on a computer until 1994, by the way. Don't think that I don't know what it is like to be learning these things both as a young student and an adult student. Don't think that I am gifted with drawing hands that make this easy.

I certainly can use graph paper, straight edges, circle templates, and techniques that were taught to me to make very passable landscape plans despite my lack of good hands. That was all taught to me and not a gift. They are good enough to be a designer, but not at a professional level as a landscape architect. I use cad for final plans for that reason.

I grew up landscaping using no plans at all working with my father and often in place of my father as he was teaching me. We built gardens and some patios and walks as part of those gardens. Plans were not necessary. They were not even necessary to communicate to the clients. They knew what we did in general and had enough concept and detail described to them through gesture and verbage on site. A great skill set to develop no matter how much you draw plans or not, by the way.

Don't paint a ficticious portrait of what I do and what I believe to support your point when I have clearly written to the contrary, IB.

I mentioned that I had to take these classes as a young person and quite a lot older. I will back up what someone else wrote about there being a lot of "non-traditional" (older) students in landscape architecture programs. The classes before and after mine had a majority that was over 40. My class was almost all in their early twenties except for me at 35 and a woman of 40. I will contradict IBs position that it is easier for younger students to swallow the concept of learning skills that will later merge. The older students accepted this much more easily than the younger ones did.

In general, we older students had a much broader vision of merging what we were learning than the younger ones did. We were also much more efficient in the use time and in not wasting time on unnecessary tangents.

Maybe in an adult ed class the problem could be that students are bypassing full curicullums and expecting to get everything instantly. A curricullum building toward a degree allows or really demands a thorough teaching. A short course that has to finish its teaching using short classes over just a few weeks can not expect to develop the same result. You just can not get the same thing done in eight one hour sessions as you can in twenty four two hour sessions.

So now you *do* like the roadmap analogy?

This thread has taken on some twists and turns that I'm not quite following. Maybe the more "serious" members understand each others' foibles enough to fill in the gaps, but I don't. So, IB, for the sake of clarification: give me your thesis statement, the point you're trying to make in all this. Because I'm stumped.

As to the idea that drawings are unnecessary in adult ed settings... if they're not giving a concrete representation of their design concept, how would you as an instructor evaluate their progress in the course?

Are we not making this into much more of an issue than the topic warrants? I think we all agree that there are many times when drafted plans or scale drawings are not necessary or required but equally as many instances (if not more) when they are of extreme benefit. Without considerable experience or blind luck, it is not often that a home landscaper/novice is able to develop a successful landscaping plan and execute it without a great many missteps and trial and error that a scaled drawing could prevent.

So why is there such reluctance in presenting the use of scaled drawings in an classroom setting, be it an adult education program or otherwise? This is just another tool to be learned and utilized - or not - in much the same manner as one would present the other tools helpful in working through the design process: evaluating the site and its conditions, understanding and applying basic design principles, recognizing and articulating design requirements or needs, plant selection, etc. All of these are learned skills although they may already be present in various degrees of refinement, depending on the individual and their experience and knowledge level.

I find this thread to be somewhat analogous to the one on color theory and the color wheel in that respect. To assist the layman or the design uninitiated into an understanding of the design process, presenting all the tools they may need to accomplish this task seems to me to be a pretty obvious requirement. The more information they are armed with, the better able they are to accomplish their mission. How they choose to utilize these tools and the information is ultimately up to them but it doesn't negate the value of learning these things. The well traveled driver may not need a roadmap or the experienced cook may no longer need a recipe to follow, but I'm willing to bet neither of them arrived at that point without these tools when first starting out.

A plan and a drawing are two completely separate items. You can have a plan without a drawing and you can have a paper graphic that fails as a plan. You may not need a drawing but you better have a plan.

A plan is most often evidenced by a paper drawing. But it is no less a plan where the medium is not paper but the ground itself. Stakes and string lines upon the ground are as much a plan as lines on paper, or pixels in a computer, or for that matter, dimensions retained in the mind. I have built $100,000.00+ projects without so much as a sketch. But I'm not going to build even a small project without a plan.

One of the surest ways of having a project unravel into a mess is to begin construction with a drawing that merely masquerades as a plan. You think you have a plan, but you don't. The most common example we see here is a photo mock-up. But make no mistake, the same can be said of some ACAD drawings. A scaled drawing tends to uncover conflicts in the horizontal, but the vertical also needs review. A building drawing may look fine, but in construction an air duct is positioned to run right through a structural beam. It's a problem. The engineer may have a nice drawing of a civil project with crossing sewer and storm drainage. It looks good until in construction you find that the grades run the sewer through the middle of the storm drain. With one already built there is no good solution. These are all examples of a picture that masquerades as a plan.

There are usually two processes to a project; design and construction. Where a project gets in trouble, there can arise a third process; salvage. As a redneck without benefit of a formal education, nothing advanced my career more than project salvage. Seems they don't teach salvage at college. I'm thankful for that and those architects, engineers, and landscape guys that put out drawings that are less than a comprehensive plan.

There are three parties to a project; the designer, the contractor, and the client. This leads to several possibilities; all three separate, the designer and contractor are one and the same, the designer and client are one, the contractor and client are the same, or all three are the same party.

In consideration of law, all endeavors that involve a substantial financial matter, should be evidenced by contract or written agreement. A basic principle of law holds that where a written agreement exists, there is a presumption that all terms have been reduced to writing and the writing represents the whole of the agreement between the parties. Moreover, where there is ambiguity, the interpretation of the agreement will favor the party merely signing the agreement and against the party who drafted the document.

Where a person is the designer, contractor, and also client, he might well dispense with a paper plan. But for all projects where a contract is appropriate, a paper plan is a necessity, less the contract be worthless. Moreover the plan should be comprehensive in nature without the ambiguities from a picture that masquerades as a plan.

Where a homeowner seeks to improve his backyard, stakes and string lines are often adequate. But where one seeks to design projects for others where there will be a contractual relationship between any of the parties, the skill to develop a comprehensive written plan is important.

Courses of instruction should suit the needs of those taking the course. Courses should be so described such that a prospective student can assess whether it will meet his needs.

Evaluation of student progress in an adult education, non-credit situation is largely left up to the student to decide for themselves. Personally, I think it is the instructor in this setting who should be subject to evaluation. In fact, most of those classes have an evaluation sheet for students to fill out at the completion of class. Sadly, there remains no shortage of qualified (on paper) instructors who fail to communicate. Dumb students or dumb methods?

My philosophy has always been than learning is an inherently enjoyable process which produces immense personal satisfaction. Notice that I did not say it was always an easy process. Quite simply, you get out of it what you put in to it. Small investment returns small reward. However, when the presentation of information is presented in a cogent, stimulating manner, student engrossment is virtually inevitable.

The empirical data seems to clearly indicate that instructors waving around a piece of graph paper while demanding production of a scaled drawing establish a huge mental block for many adult-ed students. Yet, instructors persist in doing this. Why? I can only assume because: "This is the way you are supposed to do it." Talk about failing to think!

I find that as amateur students progress with their learning, many of them unwittingly begin to share and communicate their thoughts to others on paper. Quite simply for most of us, a comfortable level of understanding comes first; to be followed by fleshing things out on paper.

IronBelly

I hope this doesn't spoil anything for anyone, and I almost didn't post this...but I don't attend "adult education" classes. I'm in regular college credit classes, twenty four two hour sessions is the minimum classroom time required for the program at my school, which consists of two classes, Landscape Plans and Landscape Layout and Design.

In the first course, graph paper was adopted the first day as a way to ease into drawing on huge sheets of blank paper. Two books were required, one just for lettering.

This is the course description given for Landscape Plans: "Principles of landscape design including an appreciation of various landscape theories and objectives, art in landscape design, and special landscape problems."

No where in this description is the mention of drafting scaled drawings & lettering them as the main objective of this course, and I was idiot enough to think it was some combination of gardening and art.

Incidentally, I did well in CAD, despite never using a computer before(when I got my bachelors in business, PCs weren't a common household item), but then I had clear expectations. And it eliminated the "can't draw a straight line with a ruler" dilemma.

I was writing while some important points were being made.

gardengal~sorry, I realize this is a bit off-topic, but seems to be of interest to some. I know I was confused, he he.

pls8XX~excellent point! My husband is a brick-layer, as one of the last or first (depending on construction methods) on the job, he often runs into the problem of interpreting not only the blueprint, but also the field adjustments made by other tradesmen. I really feel sorry for the guy who puts the windows in!

Over my life I have sometimes purchased post high school instruction. Often it was a waste of time and money. One course that comes to mind is a course given as part of the Master Gardener Program. When I saw the newspaper ad, having a lifelong love of gardening, I thought I should take the course. With a label like Master Gardening, I thought it would contain advanced concepts of botany and gardening. Wrong! It was gardening 101; the same information found in any "how to" book from the news rack. I could have given the course myself. I was tempted to ask for my money back.

Years ago the local bar association had a program call "Law For The Non-lawyer". One year the course was "Legal Research". It was conducted at the Arkansas Supreme Court Library by the chief librarian, six three hour sessions. Each session was divided into a lecture with concepts and methods, followed by a practical use as a lab assignment done in the library. There was a lot of extraneous material in the lectures that confused some of the students, but over all it was not a waste of my time.

Another course was a two session one on basic astronomical calculations. Not something you would find on a news rack. The two session time constraint of this complex subject eliminated all the extraneous junk. Pared down to pure knowledge without another source available, it was one of the best courses I ever paid for.

Relating to order of installation as mentioned by several posters, it is always last for the landscaping, and as such, you will be getting the majority of the field adjustments to contend with. You will often find that the revisions to construction as they occurred in the field interfere with the landscape design, or that they were not recorded. In the real world, it will become critical to be able to quickly process the information by being able to measure and plot the changes, so that you can revise the design to make it work. The question of elevations as it pertains to underground utilities, code regulations for fences, degrees of slopes, etc are all part of the real world landscape design issues that you will be forced to address.

Even hand drawing skills can be learned, it just takes practice and dedicating the time to learn how to do it. Certainly some people pick up drawing more quickly, but it is not something that is impossible to learn or get better at with practice. Now if we were to talk about what it takes to learn how to accurately draw and render perspectives, then I would agree that this is not for the faint of heart!

I would be rather suspect of a landscape design course that did not start out addressing the need and methods of mapping the existing conditions. I personally remain convinced that it is a very necessary starting point to designing a landscape, especially if it will require multiple tradesman to install, and will need permits and/or plan reviews to be approved for installation. IB must be thankful that he doesn't have a student like me taking his classes, as there would be a mutiny on his hands...

"The unexplained "need" for scale drawings." there does seem to be need for to scale drawings that has been explained above.So what are we talking about now? We are talking about a drawing of a design aren't we, and not the design itself, the drawing being a drawing of the design? When a homeowner takes a course in landscape design they are only interested in their own garden which they cannot bring into class with them. In this case it makes little sense to talk about gardens in general and it does make perfect sense to show how to use a drawing to extract quantities.How do you do this other than to bring the garden into the classroom by way of a visual representation? "So, today we will learn how to measure up your home garden: then go home and measure up just as I have taught you, next week we will draw this out on graph paper which will help to divide the space into equal squares." Can you think of a better way to make the design p0rcess specific?

Maybe we should start a new thread..."After the (scaled) drawing, what comes next?"

I realize that your comment is mostly tongue-in-cheek, PG. However, even in jest, I think it gives credence to a blindly accepted, flawed thinking process which places the cart before the horse. If we fall for this nonsense that a drawing must come first, logical questions that surely must follow that assertion are: What if there is no drawing? Is design now an impossibility? Or to personify this a bit; does lack of a drawing (which infers the use of ones eyes) also mean that someone blind, like Wellspring, would be incapable of adding anything substantive to this forum. I, for one, think that Charlotte has proven otherwise.

Instead of PGs default inference that the drawing is first, I believe it would prove more helpful for most readers of this forum to learn enough about landscape design to perhaps eventually arrive at the point where they feel a drawing would assist their efforts.

To spin an earlier quote of mine, It doesnt matter so much what you learn as it does how you learn it. I suggest that the information is the same but the best method to learn this information is not being employed.

IronBelly the tangential one.

Well, I hope you label that course Landscape Appreciation, not Landscape Design. I say that because, for the design of any spacial object, a model is inherent to the design process. Maybe the concept of a model doesn't have to start with a paper drawing, but it is the logical beginning of the design process. The course may be more palatable to many if you start somewhere else, but you only delay the inevitable, and cheat the serious student of a concise and logical presentation of the subject.

IB,

You are again making a statement as if it were a fact in order to lend credence to support your positions.

"it gives credence to a blindly accepted, flawed thinking process which places the cart before the horse. If we fall for this nonsense that a drawing must come first, ... "

I do not think that it is anywhere close to being a universal belief either in teaching or in practice that you need to start with a plan. There are certainly situations that make the mental process that comes to the conclusion that a drawing (or a documented plan of some sort, for plsxx)happens so quickly because it will obviously be helpful. No where in this thread has anyone infered that it is a foregone conclusion that a plan document is necessary from the outset.

We have had a busy thread that has come to the conclusion that sometimes a plan document is not necessary, sometimes it is helpful, and sometimes it is necessary. What a shock, and there were no government grants involved.

Now you are saying that Prairiegirl has infered that the drawing always comes first. I went back and can not find her infering that anywhere.

Another statement that you have made which is rediculous is "It doesnt matter so much what you learn as it does how you learn it". If the method in which you learned something results in a different knowledge then it would have had it been taught in another manner, than you have not learned the same thing. If the knowledge learned is the same it means the results were the same no matter the method by which it was gained.

Quite honestly, it frightens me to think that you are a teacher when you seem to currupt everything that is presented to you to support your positions and state your whims as facts.

Perhaps 'The Stubborn One' might fit you better IB.
You also seem to have a problem sticking to the point, your point, so perhaps 'the tangential one' also fits. Are we talking about teaching design to DIYers in a classroom situation, would be professionals at university or participants in this forum?

As I said above a DIYer is interested primarily in designing their own garden and with a class full of different people with different gardens I would think that some reference point would be essential. A, to scale drawing of the space that exists would provide that reference point so that when the more theoretical portion of the subject arises each person can relate it to the garden they are designing. This would apply equally to a blind person, although the reference point may not be a two dimensional drawing. We mustn't assume that either DIYer or blind equates with incapable. The drawing then becomes the blank canvas on which to design or try out different ideas thereby combining the artistic and the practical. It is far easier to move a stone wall that is made from pencil lead on paper than one made from stone, you may have to trust me on this IB. I don't think the DIYer will come away with a road map, more like a sea chart, that is something that has considered most of the problems, rather than strict lines to drive along and hopefully they will have enough confidence to change course should a tidal wave unexpectedly rise up.

So, in other words, we are left with the old chicken or the egg conundrum. Which came first -- the drawing or the design? To be honest, in some cases, it really does not matter. Also being honest, on more extensive projects it probably would matter.

Surely you pros are familiar with "as built" drawings. You know ... the ones that are drawn AFTER the project is completed to document what was actually done.

IronBelly

Sorry, IbWhat I wouldn't give to still be able to draw and use graph paper.

Many blind people (not all, nothing is universal) are very good at spatial understanding. Like bats we use other senses more effectively. The blind person, even those who use a working dog, are always the navigator in getting from point A to point B. We learn to "remember" or get a "feel" for distances. We do this in motion so it's actually a time / space sense. It's a "I've walked far enough to have come to my driveway, so I should start signalling my dog to turn". Yep, we can put the dog on auto-pilot, but it isn't recommended. That makes it confusing to the dog on the one day you decide to walk past your usual destination and take a new route.

ButBoy, can I get it wrong in the landscape! I know enough to be aware that there are sight lines that I may not be aware that I'm obstructing. I know enough to be aware that certain things I think will fit well in a space will turn out to be ridiculously miscalculated. Maybe the fact that I am an amateur, and I have a particular sense stripped away, puts me in a position where I can "see" the benefit of beginning design students with the rigid measurements of squared paper.

I can also understand why some people won't like it. That doesn't necessarily discount it's relevance.

Presumably, the professional will eventually have clients. S/he will visit a site and go away with some measurements. At that point there is a kind of connection with the blind person. The designer is no longer on the site; it's now just numbers and notes. Perhaps there are some inner pictures that the site has suggested. Somewhere in that designer's background I sure hope he or she has learned how to work with the measurements of things. I don't need a designer to "guess". I am presuming, even if the particular professional is at a point in his career where he doesn't need to graph it out, that what is proposed will work.

So, when and how should the skill of "the measurement of things" and their spatial inter-relationships be taught as a part of the design curriculum?

And, should there be a difference in approach when the students are adult learners and/or not pursuing a career track?

Maybe. Maybe you could teach with a little less graph paper. All I know is that I am currently struggling with a space that is 9' x 25'. It's sandwiched between the property line and our driveway. Mentally, I just want it to be wider than it isGive me 12' or 15'. But it isn't. Graph paper would discipline the exercise.

As the tangent that led down this road with no map that I must say I am a bit baffled by and to use pls8xx's analogy of the designer, client, builder with no drawn plan for a design, the tape measure, stakes, string and even the trench for a footing become drawn lines on a canvas, the earth and as such is a drawing. Placing potted plants in a bed formed by rolling out a hose for an outline and then rearranging the plants to taste is a drawing.

Must a drawing be on a paper product of some sort to be a drawing, a plan or even a design. It is still a drawing. So in case such as that which came first the drawing, the building or is the after the fact "as built" drawing presumed to hold more weight as "the drawing"?

How that may relate to adult education I'll leave for you to decipher.

amili

Sorry, Amili ... you may be a "bit baffled" but your last posting left me totally confused. I don't have a clue what you are trying to say. Could you restate the above a little more simply? Please.

IronBelly

Simply put. What is a drawing?

amili

Come on, Amili. I don't feel like pulling hen's teeth here.

IronBelly

Welcome to our world, IB!

God! I should have known that one was coming!

Maybe I should just crawl back into my hole.

IronBelly

Still stumped...

So if the argument is that things should be dumbed down to appeal to adult education students, I don't see why. A drawing is a tool, just like an acetylene torch. If you love sculpture but you're afraid of the torch, don't take a welding class. Take art history, or ceramics- you still have opportunities to explore your interests.

My wife is a professor at a four-year college, and a common complaint for her and her colleagues are students who think planting their butts in the seat for 60% of the class meetings should make them A-students AND masters of the course material. Conversely, it's been my experience that every time I'm in a classroom with a non-traditional student (or adult learner, or whatever the term you use is), that student SMOKES the kids in terms of drive and commitment, and therefore accomplishment. I would think that even the dabblers are taking landscape design classed to learn how to design.

I just think that a drawing is especially important in a design class, because what other metric is there for determining student acheivement? Multiple choice? So is your argument specific to classroom learning, or the world in general? If it's the world in general, I think that's been resolved and can be summed up in one word: "depends."

I have been following everyone's thoughts with interest. Just for the heck of it I searched "what is a landscape design plan", Amili. You should find the answer to your question there. Lot's of reading which some should find helpful.

I tend to side with Laag having grown up in the business, also. If I am drawing a plan to go out to bid with unknown contractors, then every detail is included. If it is a plan that my crew, which I have trained, would install, I can get by with quick sketches and on small jobs just draw lines in the dirt. And, every designer has favorite contractors with great artistic abilities to whom we can outline what is needed, the type of materials to be used and leave them to create. These are associations that develop mutual respect over the years and are the most fun projects.

Aside from the methods each designer uses the discussion turns to the DIY person planning his own yard project. It has been my observation over the years that very few have the ability to understand spatial concepts. They just do not see how this relates to that. It really cannot be taught as it is a natural gift. So, with graph paper and measuring tape the intimidating process of learning how to draw a plan begins. Those with spacial concept ability already have the plan in their heads and fill in the blanks while others flounder because they do not visualize the end result of the plan. This is the dilemma that a course instructor faces. I have no idea how one teaches the latter group.

Several times I have mentioned another planning method for which I have received thank you e-mails from those struggling to design. Wellspring, with a bit of help this would work for you, too. It requires a large, flat box filled with soil or sand, some styrofoam meat cartons and twigs. Now, begin to play with a concept plan not to scale. Cut the styrofoam into little squares for paths/patios. Cut narrow lengths of the styrofoam and outline beds, bending and pushing the pieces into soil. Glue together small pieces to simulate benches, water feature, fences, arbors. Twigs are shrubs/trees. Some have purchased greenery from railroad model stores to aid in planning. As you work with your bits of minutia you will develop a 3-D sense of how all inter-relates and flows. From there you should be able to move out into the yard, draw lines in the dirt and begin landscaping. Certainly not a high tech method but those with limited spatial abilities might find it helpful.

I side with laag as well.

In a way I was going back to the original question before it's loop into forms of teaching "The question of WHY you may or may not need detailed scale drawings is never explained."

I do not know what was so hard to comprehend about what I said earlier. "Placing potted plants in a bed formed by rolling out a hose for an outline and then rearranging the plants to taste is a drawing," much like your lines in the dirt Nandina. Then you answered why it was needed. For spatial comprehension.

Even if a drawing is not done on paper, a drawing in fact may get done in another form by the DIY. There is a need for a drawing.

amili

Nandina is seconding the suggestion of models as a useful tool to more fully visualize a design concept. I would tend to disagree about the starting point, however. I still firmly believe doing a model "to scale" is going to be more useful to develop that sense of spatial ability, then just playing at creating a model that is not to scale. The whole point of models is usually to more fully visualize how the design will play out spatially. These days there are also software computer programs that can render a three dimensional perspective from plotted plans and elevations, and these are much used by architects and interior designers in particular.

Just as an aside, it has been alleged that men have a quicker grasp of spatial design, as a result of the primitive hunting and gathering skills that helped develop these abilities. I remember that part of the initial interview/application to get into landscape architecture school was testing for spatial sense, as this was thought to be one of the key knowledge abilities critical to landscape design, (and how can it not be?).

I am surprised that the brief one liner about as-built drawings from IB wasn't jumped on quickly by other posters as substantiating the need for plotting things accurately. Instead Dan seems to infer that it makes his case for drawings being unimportant to the realized design, as the plans were deviated from in the construction process. Instead they more often result from the impossibility of building something as drawn, because the measurements were wrong, or landscape elements are in conflict, again most often because they were incorrectly plotted in plan or elevation, or weren't shown at all.

I wish that more people realized the utility of having "as-built" plans for landscapes, especially as they refer to underground elements/utilities that can't be seen or easily found again without a lot of exploratory digging. In my mind, these are especially important to plot irrigation lines and the entire irrigation system, as well as lighting conduit, wires, and other systems such as water lines and sanitary sewers and storm drain lines, etc. It makes it a hell of a lot easier to do future work without damaging the existing systems.

Perhaps it is time that I come clean on this thread. What I have actually done is take every reason that I have heard over the years to not use drawings and threw them out onto the forum for examination and debate. I intentionally played the role of proletariat; not for deception but rather for enlightenment. Every one of those given reasons were real-life examples; silent beliefs held by lots of folks that will never post their objections on this forum.

Lets not forget that we have a real mix of people visiting this forum. Of course, we have the trained, practicing professionals (of varying levels of ability, I might add) and we have a much larger amateur group that generally holds a divergent definition of what landscape design means.

There is a common bond between everyone who visits this forum: we all recognize that good design makes landscapes look better. Where we diverge is that a small group designs as a career and the majority mostly wants to understand design a little bit better than they currently do. I think that is just fine. The two groups run into conflict because of the shortcomings of language and a decided lack of prior exposure to one another rubbing elbows, as it were.

Pls8xx (James) really nailed the differences by implying that the non-credit adult education classes I was referring to should more accurately be called Landscape Appreciation rather than Landscape Design and that same line of thinking probably should be applied to this forum as well. Most amateurs come here not to learn how to open a landscape design firm but rather to gain a better understanding of design. Again, I think that is just fine.

On this thread, Prairiegirlz gave a great example of the giant chasm between the rudimentary expectations about the practice of design and the realities of landscape design. It is clearly not what most people think. I think it is high time this chasm began to narrow. I also believe this forum is a perfect vehicle to begin that process.

Over the years, it seems that two stumbling blocks (there are many) keep popping up. The importance of color theory is over-emphasized and the need for drawings is under-emphasized. By under-emphasized, I point to a prefacing statement of this thread: "The question of WHY you may or may not need detailed scale drawings is never explained." Set aside the condescension. Quite simply, if drawings are so damned important, you ought to be able to explain to me why. If you cant; then the odds are that you really dont understand all that well either.

Thanks to all who have shared in the effort to close the chasm. If you are miffed at me, I point to another thread begun by Frankie. He was quoting one of my earlier laments: Solve one design problem while creating another' Isnt avoiding that situation one of the major benefits of putting things to paper?

IronBelly

I think that many reasons why plans are necessary (when they are) have been clearly pointed out in a general sense as well as with some specifics in this thread and many others. ...if you read what is written and not what you expect or wish is written.

I don't recall a whole lot of threads on color theory other than the one started by you save for a few "what goes with my pink roses" or "'yellow and pink equals stink" comments.

I think IB's point is well made, although his path to achieving it was a bit circuitous :-) There IS a gap in the expectations of what is "landscape design" between those that practice it as a profession or a personal avocation and those that come here seeking assistance in developing what they most often term "landscaping". And I think exploring the reasons behind preparing scaled drawings, understanding color theory or any one of a dozen or so other elements that comprise the design process is valid in helping to bridge that gap. Of course there is no assurance that these discussions will necessarily have the desired impact on those who may be helped the most, but they can't hurt and they may help.

While I don't wish to be exclusive, this gap is very apparent in the adult education situation previously alluded to, perhaps even more so than it is in this forum. It's been my experience, as an instructor of landscape design in such a setting, that it is NOT landscape appreciation these students are after but the how-to's of landscape design. They want to be able to create their own designs for their own gardens. But because of a nearly total unfamiliarity with landscape design and the design process, they have widely varied expectations of what such a class is going to provide them. The classes I teach always start with an overview of the entire course - what will be addressed at each session and why - and invariably comments will arise about plant selection (addressed during the last session) at this very first meeting. To me, this is a clear indication that most laypeople/homeowners have a very limited understanding of landscape design and immediately want to jump to the finish line before even entering the race. And don't we most often see a very similar approach to home landscaping by like posters on this forum?

I think any discussion that explains the process/value of the race rather than just the endpoint or engenders additional understanding and attempts to close that gap is of benefit regardless of how it is presented.

The first two minutes of my course ...

Come on in, folks. this course should help you to find what you might do with your back yard. My name is James.

The other day I had a dream my wife called and told me she had a bare room at the new house and I should head to the store and buy stuff for it. The one thing I've learned in thirty years of marriage is to do what you're told and don't ask questions. I like to eat, so at the store I bought a dinning room table and chairs; then off to the new house.

On arriving I found out the table and chairs was for a bare room that was an oversized bathroom. Hmmmm. Maybe I should have known what the function of that space was before I headed to the store.

A room is an indoor space and a landscape is an outdoor space. Before you run off to the store you might want to study what the function of that space should be.

And sometimes people who go to buy stuff for a room do even a bit more, like measure the room's dimensions. That way you don't come home with a rug that's too big and has to be folded over on one side. If you make a crude sketch of the room to take with you, then you can evaluate how the furniture might fit in the room. It might also help if you show on the sketch where the doors and windows are.

Now you don't have to make that sketch. If the furniture doesn't fit or the door is in the wrong place, you can call a contractor to raze that part of the house and rebuild it to match the furniture. Most of us will be better to take stock of the things that are not easily changed and work from there.

The backyard space also has things that are too expensive to change. We are going to look at what those things might be and see if we can develop some kind of sketch to document what and where they are, just as you would the doors and windows in a room.

Another thing that this thread keeps bringing back to the surface of my memory is that as a student (both in my early 20s and again in my mid 30s) it was surprising how many concepts were really difficult to understand. Many of these were those that seemed like the teacher was wading in nonsense until finally something broke through after much of the semester passed and the "Aha moment" finally hit. That is after several weeks of the same subject for six hours a week with direct interaction with both teachers and other students while working on excercises directly designed to get you to that "aha moment".

That just points out the difficulty in teaching landscape design in short courses and especially in all in one comprehensive classes. You brush the surface of many subjects, but you can not expect to instill a great deal of knowledge in any of them.

Classes like botany, geology, dendrology, soils, sociology, psychology, biology, and such were all taught in the usuaul 1 hour lecture hall twice or thrice a week format with some classes having a two hour lab. Design studio was three hours long three times a week with on going projects that kept students busy well into the night for their sophomore,junior, and senior years. Plant design, drafting & graphics, grading & drainage, and site engineering all met six hours a week with on going projects.

There was a studio for each class year because we all had these on going projects that required the teaching and critiques to be done where we were working. This stuff was all taught through multiple projects that made us work through concepts and develop understanding. They were not taught in lecture halls because you could not get the same understanding from that format.

It is not rocket science and it is not a gift. But it is a lot more conceptual than informational. While classes like geology and soil science are largely based on information which you can absorb through reading and lectures, design is not that way. You never get THE answer because there is no single answer. There are so many ways to get to a suitable conclusion that it takes having to go through a whole lot of excercises in doing things the way that you would not do them based solely on your own instincts in order to learn new things or potential pitfalls that you would not learn from going with your own way. In the end, you've done so many things in so many different ways that you can't help but to have learned to recognise situations and have learned a number of ways to address them.

Those ways to address things are not off of a list, but based on experience and what you have developed as methods that you have become comfortable with and work well for you. It is still your own creativity and and style that drives everything, but you have more ways that you are comfortable with applying that creativity and more knowledge to go with it.

The problem that most self taught people have is that they work within their own comfort zone. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but it has a high limitation on it. That limitation is that there is very little outside influences in either recognizing unfamiliar situations or in getting comfortable with other ways of dealing with things.

One of my teachers, Professor Toru Otawa, would constantly say "you could do a master's thesis on that subject" when someone asked a question. Of course, he would answer the question, but we also could see what he meant by saying that.

Most of us stay within our comfort zone once we get out and do this after school and after interning. The difference is that we were forced into situations that made us develop a wider comfort zone.

I don't know how much sense this makes to a lot of people who have not gone through this. I expect that those who have will agree with this and those that have not will find a pile of reasons why this is not as good as the way they learned (I think that was standard rule #1 of messageboard posters that I mentioned very early in this thread).

"There IS a gap in the expectations of what is "landscape design" between those that practice it as a profession or a personal avocation and those that come here seeking assistance in developing what they most often term "landscaping". And I think exploring the reasons behind preparing scaled drawings, understanding color theory or any one of a dozen or so other elements that comprise the design process is valid in helping to bridge that gap."

As one of those people who had only a vague idea just a couple short years ago (how time funs when you're having flies!) of what landscape design really is, I would be most interested gardengal, if you wouldn't mind? please, post more about the dozen or so other elements that comprise the design process. Thanks!

:0)

prairiegirlz5, as laag's college professor might say "you could do a master's thesis on that subject"......or at the very least, a textbook :-) Seriously, most landscape design textbooks do outline all the elements that constitute the design process and will do a far better job presenting them than I could in the time and space available. There is a logical progression of steps involved that have evolved due to their practicality and this is what is most often presented in any course on landscape design. And any or maybe even all of them offer tangential issues that can be studied in much further depth to gain greater insight, much as laag has alluded to and what full college curriculums in landscape design or landscape architecture generally provide.

One of the better textbooks addressing landscape design and one that is widely utilizied is Booth and Hiss; Residential Landscape Architecture: Design Process for the Private Residence. In it, the design process is defined as "a sequence of problem-solving and creative steps used by the designer to develop an appropriate design solution for a given client and site". I think this is a critical concept - it is an organized, logical and sequential series of steps.

The point I was attempting to make in my statement you quoted is that most visitors to this forum are seldom armed with an understanding of this concept. Not to put words in your mouth, but it appears that from your experience with your first landscape design class meeting you were also unaware of this step-by-step process. If the majority of postings from forum visitors seeking design help is any indication, the concept of "landscape design" is largely limited to the selection and placement of plants. And while that is an important element, it is only one of the elements and very far down on the sequence at that - essentially the last step of the step-by-step process. Providing the understanding or the explanation that the subject - landscape design - is not a single focus - plants (or heaven forbid, flowers) - but a complex series of interrelated factors influenced by a huge range of variables, not the least of which is personal aesthetics, would hopefully be of benefit to anyone.

Thank you for your reply.

I have that book, it was one of the textbooks used in the class I dropped (twice). Glad I didn't sell it back to the bookstore, sounds like there's a good chance I'll get to use it again, LOL.

I also have this one, Grant W. Reid; "Landscape Graphics - Plan, Section, and Perspective Drawing of Landscape Spaces - Revised Edition" so if I ever decide to avail myself...

I for one think it is a much more difficult subject than most people who have never tried it can even imagine.

Some (most?) people (including me, once upon a time) think it's about what plants go where, which is basically what gardening is all about. It is actually more like architectural drafting, or blueprint making. Except you ALSO have to have a basic knowledge of horticulture, which is a broad subject itself. And a fair amount of expertise in art (lettering, perspective, rendering) and civil engineering. Oh, and history, including architectural history, and it really is better if you know how to lay tiles, or pavers, and how to install low-voltage lighting and irrigation.

So it should be easy.

I like the drawing because I like the organization. One good list of materials makes for less shopping trips. Having to run to the wholesaler for 4 more of something annoys me. Cuts into my profits and ruins my time management. (the wholesalers aren't that close).

The downside for me is:

A. Getting every last little measurement. Especially when dealing with the existing curves of a bed or the roots of a 100 year old maple. Getting every last, painstaking inch plotted and accounted for. I find it difficult. The drawing is a piece of cake.

B. Plant selection is dangerous. Even though the homeowner has no idea what a Hamamelis virginiana is, once you've put it on paper, that's the only plant they can ever imagine being in that space. So now you've drawn a great design during the month of January including a Hamamelis virginiana in a very prominent spot and the homeowner has waited until May to call you for the installation. Nothing you can suggest can ever replace that plant, even though you're the one who designed the plan!

C. The process of interviewing your client can be intimidating for them. Just trying to get a true understanding of how they will use the space. I want to design a living space that will get you outside, not just looking out your windows. It's a long line of questions, but certainly beats that moment when you present your plan and they say... "wow that's a lot of pink." I think the interview is more important then the design itself.

But then again, how many times have I been handed a drawing from an LA who puts a 30 foot tree in front of a view window? Or a rigid stone pathway cut right under that 100 year old maple? Or a sculpted hedge planted over and existing line of sprinkler heads? (and why is it you can never get them on the phone for questions?) At that point, a plan becomes only an outline. As the installer, you got to be creative to make it work.

I still vote for a scaled drawing. It doesn't fit in every example, but I still prefer it.