@ Karin... 10-4 on that. @ Bahia...The question posed in the thread translates roughly to: are foundation plantings always a bad idea, and why? A second question was, is the terminology valid? When Ink states "'Foundation Planting' is the answer to a specific question and not The Answer to every question regarding 'landscaping a yard'." he is introducing subjects OTHER than the one proffered as the subject of the thread. Nevertheless, his statement is the beginning of my thread being hi-jacked and becomes the subject and question that people begin answering. Then he makes a separate thread vaguely connected to the subject of foundation planting, that even though his purpose is not exactly clear, it begins to generate snobbish, derogatory remarks about me and this thread! (I'm sure you saw Deviant's remark that is nothing but a clear cut attempt to smear, which she seems ever gleefully persistent in doing.) Attempting to re-focus this thread to the questions originally asked brings comments such as 'I hear only what I want to hear.' But it seems to me to be the other way around. No one is answering the questions originally posed! But the TONE of the thread does not degenerate until you yourself, Bahia, make comments that could easily be seen as insulting: saying I am deaf to the words of others (even though they are ignoring the questions of the thread)... suggestion that my second question not be talked at all...that I'm looking ONLY for simple agreement... (when actually, I'm looking for VALID opposition)... that my thinking isn't thinking at all, but "compulsion"! These are all derogatory statements. My dignity is not threatened at all that you (or anyone) disagree with me... but that you can't disagree without habitually including a range of insults. Now you're claiming that I'm being disingenuous simply because I've tried to get the thread back to the original question... which I can see is hopeless. The answers that are coming here are not answers to questions of the thread but about anything and everything that is recognized as characteristic of design ideas I support--as if the title of the thread was, "Why Yardvaark's ideas are crap"--none of which I mind addressing, but they're not germane to this thread. This thread is essentially saying, give me VALID ideas of why foundation plantings should NOT be considered and I'll adjust my thinking accordingly. But I'm hardly likely to adjust my thinking based on comments about others perceptions of my personality... or that because some people have previously rejected foundation plantings, that such plantings lack validity in other places and times... or that 'we prefer other plantings instead'... and so on. While a few VALID ideas have been put forth: fire safety, critters, maintenance, water vs. structure issues, I don't know if they alone don't rise to the level of justifying a complete ban on foundation plantings. Presuming a reason of such magnitude isn't added to justify a total ban under any and all circumstances, the ideas put forth would logically invite the creation of another thread as to HOW these ideas might best be incorporated into actual work. But it doesn't look like we'd ever be able to get to that point because, as a rule, people do not stick to the subject. Bahia, you might not believe this, but the truth is that what I know about your design and your philosophy of design, certain aspects of it I find undesirable. I could call some of the things you do "obsessions." You're obsessed with a certain level of clutter. In some instances your work produces a sense of claustrophobia and chaos. Some of your work seems to allow horticultural elements to rampage over design considerations. But in all cases except here and now, I prefer to say nothing about it and allow you to be you, knowing that there are those people who appreciate that style of work. I don't see my role here to be one of making sure you get some help. On the other hand there are aspects of your work that I appreciate and would even consider emulating (to a small degree.) So the ongoing negative comments about "foundation" plantings--as if the concept of it belongs exclusively to me--I find utterly pointless. There is a world of people who like, want and see purpose in using them. Unless you could justify--by valid argument... that's what I'm asking for... a REAL reason to never have them--it's pointless to harangue about various personal preferences and argue on about unrelated subjects. Insofar as the question regarding the term, 'foundation' planting, the thread is inquiring if it is accurate. That no one thinks it's worth discussing I can accept (but wonder about.) But that the first response to the subject I introduce refers to my "beating a dead horse" because I make several attempts to invite discussion is nothing other than an attempt to inject a hostile tone into the discussion. If you or anyone doesn't want to discuss an issue, why would you involve yourself in that part of the discussion when you're free to abstain? Coming here to gripe about the SUBJECT OF THE THREAD itself--just because you disagree with it--seems perverse. If one were to review the entire thread (or the entire forum) they would be hard-pressed to cite a quote of mine that belittles or insults anyone. But between this and the errant, quasi-related other thread, there are quite a few comments that make a concerted effort to denigrate or mischaracterize not my ideas, but me. So let's not try to create a new truth that I am the CAUSE of the negative tone in the discussion. There is no more blatant example than that of drtygrl; she's proud of her ability to make a cutting remark that is for no purpose OTHER than to be nasty. Neither has any bystander objected to it which inclines a tone for them. So be truthful about what initiates the negative tone in any of the discussions.

You might want to check out growing cacti commercially in israel. Their water situation is similar to ours and they're producing tons of fruit in the desert there, prickly pear and cereus peruvianus (sp?). The cereus looks like ones I see all over my neighborhood loaded with fruit that isn't used and that's a shame if it's as good as touted. http://www.localharvest.org/cereus-peruvianus-kubo-apple-cactus-C11497 http://video.answers.com/commercial-cultivation-of-the-cactus-plant-506875420 Here is a link that might be useful: Local Harvest

I'm not trying to give bad news or be mean but here it goes: Saguaros are notoriously slow growers and the higher cost for good-sized specimens is a function of that. The cardon (pachycereus pringlei) from Baja/Sonora is a more massive plant but grows much faster if you wouldn't mind a substitute. Trichocereus/Echinopsis Terschekii has the cardon form (lower branching) but much smaller(from Argentina) and grows faster than our native saguaro. That is, if you are looking for a 'faster' substitute. Keep in mind these are cacti from arid areas and they aren't 'rocket' growers necessarily anyway. I have a large cactus/succulent collection and have a good idea of what grows fast and what doesn't. More water in the summer helps to get faster growth rates on some cacti. I know several nurseries with big specimens but you will pay dearly for them if you want our true local saguaro. I have several and they are slow to grow. Actually, larger specimens don't transplant all that well (AZ Sonora Desert Museum) which is something for you to consider. It may take several years for decline to show but it will. http://www.desert-tropicals.com/Plants/Cactaceae/Echinopsis_terscheckii.html http://www.desert-tropicals.com/Plants/Cactaceae/Pachycereus_pringlei.html Transplant article: http://www.azstarnet.com/foothills/3-4.html So, it you don't want to pony up big bucks, just plant a small one, enjoy it, and be patient or use a substitute. I can list some sources for big ones but 'reasonable' needs to be defined in $$. It wouldn't be unusal to spend a minimum $500-$2,500 for larger ones. Good luck.

Unfortunately, truth be told, there really aren't any for a closed terr. This question comes up every so often -- not surprising as there are some neat cacti and succulents out there. That being the case, rather than simply omit any reference to desert terr, it seemed wise to address this issue. Cacti as a whole do not make good terr inhabitants. The main problem is moisture. Most cacti and many succulents come from extremely arid environments. The terrarium is just the opposite - the whole idea is to maintain humidity. Faced with the higher humidity & stagnant air, cacti and many succulents do very poorly and soon suffer from fungal/bacterial problems. Light is another problem. Most require very high light levels. But in the close confines of a terr, this results in high temps that would "cook" them. Now an open terrarium would be a different situation. It would likely be very challenging but might be possible. As people experiment with plants for such a terr, I hope they will let me know as to their successes and failures. Some possible candidate plants to experiemnt with if one does decide to attempt an open terr/desertarium might be: sago palms (while they are small, of course) Peperomias Jade plants