Curvy or straight? The main point is to give beds depth. Rule of thumb for a border or foundation would be a minimum depth of 6 ft, but most look better if deeper than that. Narrow beds and borders, I think, are one of the things that leads some people to plant in the dreaded soldier rows. Also, although I sometimes think some people get a little anal about the "rule", it's kind of a common mantra in gardening books and on garden forums to hear that plant material should be planted in odd numbers. Three is the favorite number. For smaller plants, or for greater impact, try 5 or 7. If a plant has presence enough to be a specimen or accent on its own, then plant just one. Consider that most dwarf shrubs are about 2 ft at maturity. You need to keep an access space along the house, so you don't plant them write up against it. And, you just read this rule of 3 thing, so you have 3 little shrubs that you won't plant in a row. How much depth will your irregular planting of a trio of the same shrub or perennial need? Then you figure that ... hmmm ... a 2 ft shrub doesn't have a lot of presence by itself. What if it were to have a grouping of evergreens here ... and, say, here ... Oh, and the evergreens are something slow growing that will eventually reach 4 to 5 ft. Pretty soon you realize the border depth needs to be 8 ft to accommodate the shrub groupings. And, because I think it's how many of us think, I'm starting from smaller plants and working from there. Of course, the other common scenario is trying to plant something that matures at 6 to 10 ft with a similar spread into a bed that isn't deep enough. So, my recommendation would be that you get a working idea of the shape and especially the depth of the beds. Incorporate the raised bed idea if you like ... But for now, just play with the ideas on paper, keeping foremost in your mind the way these beds will enhance your home. Once you've got a paper plan that you like, you don't necessarily have to pull the whole thing off all at once. You have a plan. Execute it slowly. Given that you are trying to learn design and learn plants and "do" the garden all at once, give yourself permission to work at a reasonable pace. Maybe the shadier side first, and focus next year on the sunnier side. Give strong consideration to checking out if a local nursery provides design services. Often you can pay a reasonable fee (about $300) for a reasonable plan. If they seem to be going in a too cookie cutter direction, call them on it and indicate the preferences you are already developing. Mainly what you want is something to guide your process. And, there are designers out there who work specifically with clients who intend to put the plan in place themselves. Anyway, whether you sketch it out entirely yourself or get professional input, once you've got a plan, implement it in stages. Don't do what I've done ... rush out to look at all the pretty plants and come home with babies that need to go into the ground ... now! Give your future plantlings the courtesy of beautifully prepared beds with wonderfully prepped soil. You won't regret it. Focus on getting a particular section of the project done well. Maybe it won't look finished, but you have a plan and you know what you will be doing next to fulfill it. Hope that makes sense ... It's just often the case that we get an idea, and think we can execute it and then it turns out to be way more work than we realized when we were just playing with it on paper. Get the big picture on paper ... But, if you are doing the work, stage the execution in manageable phases.

I'm going to go back to Inkognito's comment, which (as per his usual) is certainly somewhat sarcastic and cryptic, but always worth thinking about. The way I would put it is this: why are you "landscaping?" This is a spectacular house, the oaks are fabulous, you don't want a lot of maintenance. As far as I can see, you have the perfect landscape for this house and for your stage of life. Why on earth would you mess this up? Before you write me off as not understanding the issue, let me assure you I am a total plant nut; I grow probably a thousand plants on a property the size of just your front yard. So believe me, if I thought plants were called for here, I would say so. Adding a whole lot of plants to this yard will mess up its clean lines visually, will create a maintenance nightmare due to the leaves alone not to mention the grooming the plants themselves need (and weeding), plants may not grow well due to the tree roots, and you will totally negate and possibly damage the magnificence of the trees, which you have come into ownership of at almost the perfect time in their lives. Trees spend most of their lifetimes being not quite big enough or too big; you are enjoying the period of their lives that was intended when they were planted. The trees are your landscaping. They are amazing; their trunks and root flares need no accessorizing and if you've had them pruned someone's done a nice job. Now, I'm not here to rob you of a gardening experience if that's what you want - it's your place, obviously. But if you are wanting to enhance the look of your property, I personally think that almost anything you add will take away from the appearance of what you now have. Plus, nothing is less work than grass, other than perhaps concrete. So if you want to garden AND have the the place look good, I would lay out and edge some beds where they do not impede the grace of what you have, and plant away with whatever you like. If it were me, given my plant collecting itch, I would actually probably lay out paths and beds on, and plant up, the hellstrip (next to the road) and leave the front yard itself alone. By all means freshen up the grass. And in another perhaps 20 or 30 years, or sooner, the trees will be too big and someone may take them down. I'm a big fan of doing that when the time is right. That will be the time for a new, busier, conventional, modern landscape. Likely with new trees, that will outlive their companion plants and then eventually stand alone, like sentries, in an otherwise serene front yard. My 2 cents, anyway :-) KarinL

I have learned many, many things about gardening with roses, some that are general to gardening itself and some specific to roses. Thus, some of my discoveries are general (and I still need to remind myself of them from time to time), and some are rose-related only, hopefully they'll help you too: I have two general rules- First, determine which style of gardener you are, and which type of garden you desire. How much time, energy, tolerance for chemical intervention, and area do you have to work with? (i.e. no HT's or spraying for me thank you!) Next, consider function (and this is where size does matter!) in addition to, and perhaps before, aesthetic concerns. What do you wish to achieve, screening out a bad view, the neighbors? Perhaps a canopy of shade and fragrance for a cool sitting spot in summer. Do you need visual excitement for a boring spot in the yard or a restful oasis after a long day at the office? Perhaps your only requirement is pure and simple delight, which is a noble function in itself. Your garden, your choice. And really only one related to roses (that actually translates to my general gardening philosophy)- Roses look best with contrasting texture, structure, and foliage color. Always plant roses with companions unless used as a specimen.(This rule I never forget.) Smaller, but important lessons I've learned specific to roses: Don't plant roses in double or more rows, unless you like to inflict bodily harm upon yourself, especially if you cannot access the garden from both sides. (Thank you for mentioning this Melissa!) Color coordination can be difficult when you have to base your assumptions on plant tags, internet or catalog photos or hearsay. Be prepared to move things around after they bloom in your own garden. Yes, hoovb - daylilies are probably the most difficult to get right. Luckily they are easy to move. Better them than the rose. Restraint can be a good thing! (She said after viewing her entire garden from a long distance vantage point that made it look like a bad acid trip.) Know when to just go with green. Having said all that, here are some examples from my garden taken just this week. Lots of perennials yet to bloom. A mixed border of contrasting colors and textures - my orange and purple garden, not unlike your "crayola" garden! (Note RdV in the foreground - gotta move, first year, lovely blooms, but WRONG color, not purple folks!)There are 6 roses in this bed Function - framing a view of the pergola (covered with Awakening) with Bubble Bath and KO on a fence Contrasting textures - Rotesmeer with miscanthus Coordinating colors - Autumn Sunset and honeysuckle More color harmonies - Carefree Delight with kniphofia Contrasting colors - Westerland, siberian iris and salvia Love this thread, let's hear more!

It is interesting that you make that remark about the doors. When I mentioned the arch matched the house I was just drawing it to your attention. You were already aware of it. If I owned this house I would choose the rectangle windows, for a different reason than you have. I think they are trendy. I stay away from trendy when I can. In fact, the door itself seems trendy to me. There was a person here not long ago with a house like yours. For some reason the home owner want to replace or cover the arch over the door with a straight board and change the column to a post. About the birch tree. You need a certified arborist to examine the tree. If the tree can be saved he will tell you. I have had them come give me an opinion for free. Sometimes I would get an estimate too. Like you, I would prefer to not see trees removed. dI hope Yaardvark will share his thoughts about the tree/retaining wall. He is a Landscape Architect. One other thing. If you do not take Yaardvark's advice on the Japanese Maple then I recommend removing that corner bed.