I think my favorite garden was the Tourism Malaysia exhibit; I really liked the clean sculptural lines of the architectural elements, with the repeating columns/arcade leading to the seating area within the water feature having some rich symoblism of Islamic/Persian/Moghul garden designs. I also appreciated the clean lines of the water walls dripping with plants and a subtle use of water rather than over the top impressive. I could well imagine myself enjoying such a garden as a retreat from worldly pressures and intrigues. It is a bit hard to really judge some of the other gardens with their super elaborate/complex plantings, but in photos so many come across as just too busy/not natural. I prefer my plantings more structured and obviously designed. Perhaps in person I'd react differently. Diarmuid Gavin's Pod Design struck me as the grand gesture, and I wonder how many people actually got to experience it from above. Apparently it only took 6 people at a time, and was inoperative if there was any wind. In my view, it was theater and high drama, but didn't move me in the same way that Malaysia's garden did. As to comparative costs, nothing compares to Chelsea, but grand display gardens at the San Francisco Show that also depend on lots of structure can also easily be more than a $100,000. The one display garden I worked on for the SF Bromeliad Society depended heavily on plants lent by members, and specimen background plants lent from local nurseries, and all the time to design/install/take-down was volunteered time as well. The really difficult part is that many of these shows have such a short window for installation, in SF's case, it is only 4 days for installation and 5 days of actual show.

I didn't see the show and don't know of any garden by the civic center; however not too far from there is the Hayes Valley Farm. They re-routed the on/off ramp from our central freeway about ten years ago and this left an empty square block where the old off ramp was. That basically sat there unused (except by the homeless et al.) for several years. A few years ago some group took it over and turned it into a little community farm. I've never been in there but it looks cool and is way nicer than it was before. Here is a link that might be useful: Hayes Valley Farm

As stage set design, the Undersea Garden is a highly creative effort that deserved to win. As a practical garden that could actually grow in the SF Bay Area, it would have to be edited to take out the plants that don't like our winters, and the client would need to be made aware that plants were chosen for effect, rather than ultimate size and adaptability. Susi added a link to an actual outdoor garden down in Encinitas that is a living garden, and reflects the real world concerns of pulling off these same effects in a garden built to last for more than 5 days. Thanks, Susi for posting this, I haven't had the chance to see this yet, but already know Bill Teague's own garden and the reputation of Solano Succulents. I also wonder that anyone would think that those chairs are actually usable! Another piece of stage design that isn't actually practical or even usable... From the comments on this thread, it sounds like the show this year managed to cover most of the bases, and had something for everybody to enjoy. As one of the garden designers myself, I wish I had had more of an opportunity to actually talk design with the public, as often happens with gardens on display for garden tours. The nature of the event doesn't really encourage discussion, but does provide an opportunity for people to get together in celebration of plants, gardens and design. I don't know if the average visitor realizes that none of the display garden designs would actually be practical in the real world, but instead are designed for a temporary display and to create the illusion of a mature garden. And like Cinderella at midnight, they will all start to be dismantled at the close of the show this evening, with only the recorded image left as testimony of their brief existence, until new gardens unfold next spring.

I hadn't meant to be abusive of Joe's points, just a counterpoint. Just a note about Urban Farmer's services, they are a full service irrigation store, and sell all the materials to install a conventional spray irrigation system as well. I would like to counter one of Joe's points, about drip irrigation being cheaper to install. I don't find that to be the case, in the systems I design and install, there is more hand labor involved to get emitter line to individual plants, so I'd say that the different systems are probably about on par or even slightly more expensive for a drip irrigation when using higher quality/more reliable fittings and materials. Also, as to the point about needing pressure regulators for drip systems, what is your point? The pressure regulator is not some expensive or elaborate device prone to failure, and even a conventional spray irrigation system will often require a pressure regulator at the valves if the house or street pressures are too high. Where drip irrigation excels is the benefits of using it on difficult to water steep slopes where spray irrigation would cause run-off at the higher application rates, and is not as good at giving deeper watering. You can also get away with using less valves with a larger area of coverage in a typical garden setting, because the water flows required are less volume and pressure. As to maintenance and repairs, I often find that clients with dogs and conventional spray irrigation systems may have more need of regular inspections to repair broken irrigation heads, especially if they conflict with a large dog running along an open metal fence at the street. As well, pop-up spray irrigation heads are equally prone to damage from autos driving over them or lawn mower blades clipping them, and when broken and set to run overnight, the wasted water will be far more wasteful than it would be with a lower flow/lower pressure drip system. I would not waste my time trying to convince someone who has their mind made up about their preferences in irrigation systems, but it is not as black and white as Joe would make it appear. Everyone should irrigate in a way that makes sense for their particular situation. I simply believe that drip irrigation in combination with micro-spray drip can create superb results while also using less water overall. Joe's contention that drip irrigation does not permit deep rooting of plants is only germane for those who don't run their systems long enough to wet the soil deeply. This is also very much a concern with spray systems as well, as most gardeners simply don't know how long it can take to deeply water a clay soil. Most spray systems will cause run-off in clay soils if watered for more than 10 to 15 minutes on a sloping site, and this won't wet the soil much beyond the first inch or two. Not to mention the water lost to wind/over throw spray, and evaporated water lost to the hot sun in combination with winds. In any case, both spray and drip irrigation design have their pros and cons, and the majority of residential homeowners are more likely to be timing their irrigation by schedules rather than plant needs, nor do most adjust their watering schedules more than once or twice a year to reflect the weather and seasons. In specifying which type of system makes more sense for an individual homeowner/client, it helps to weigh all the factors that should influence such a decision. While working as a landscape architect for a large firm doing subdivision homes for a developer, I had occasion to design a subsurface system using Netafim for lawns in this development. I can tell you that it drove the new home buyers crazy, as too many didn't trust that it was working properly, and would reset their individual home's irrigation controllers to vastly overwater the lawns, as they couldn't see it working. While it may make sense to use such a system for a commons area landscape that isn't subject to the whims of different homeowners, I wouldn't recommend it again for the average garden. The one place I would always recommend a spray system over a drip system would be for a client who can't control their dog's digging and chewing of things in the garden. A drip system will be much more vulnerable to damage in such a garden. I've also found that the most common animal damage to drip irrigation systems in my experience has been with squirrels chewing off the hard plastic mister heads I use in gardens which may have subtropicals such as bromeliads mounted on fences or trees. I've learned that the misters should never be mounted on the top of branches, but always on the bottom of a horizontal branch, to make it more difficult for the squirrels to do damage.