I wonder if anyone has noticed that not a single match has been made on this thread between a person with extra dirt and a person who needs it who are both close to each other. Not surprising. I suggest using your local Craigslist, Facebook Marketplace, etc. or the matching sites linked in this thread.

Ginny, I agree very much. I'm sorry not to have been a contributor for a while -- I've been away on unexpected and extended 'medical leave' for about a year, but have recently begun to ease back into my former Gardenweb habits via the Landscape Design forum. I'love to see an active discussion here as well. Many will remember that there was quite a discussion, if not controversy, at the time this forum was created concerning what it should be called and what topics it should encompass. I don't want to necessarily rehearse that here, but my suggestion at this point would be to rename the forum "Garden History and Restoration." I think this would increase the number of visitors from people who search the internet for "garden history" links, while still leaving room to discuss the type of practical rejuvenation and restoration issues of interest to people who are dealing with old or overgrown gardens but may not be aiming for a historic restoration or not. A similar alternative would be "Garden History and Rejuvenation." As previous posts on this topic have suggested, there are a number of people interested in learning about garden history, but to have a good discussion, you need to draw in people with expertise and experience, in addition to we novices. I think adding "History" to the title stands a chance of doing this. As I recall, at one point, ginger_nh, the exuberant person who started this forum, contacted the former webmaster about a possible title change, but his view was to stick with the title that had been agreeed upon. In the interim, though, more time has passed, and Gardenweb has passed over to new management, who might be more amenable to such a request. But the important question is, what do others think? Any alternative proposals? Ginger, in particular, are you still out there? I'm willing to try to contact the mgmt folks if others support such a change. Best to all -- Kate

Tony, Your hypothesis is so far off the mark as regards Hollywood Junipers in California that it brought a smile to my face as I read it! It is fairly obvious that Juniperus chinensis 'Torulosa' is not soemthing that anyone would be familiar with back east, as they are not hardy there. The very large shrub does eventually get tree sized, and is known for the twisted form it assumes as it grows, and the deep emerald green color of the foliage. I happen to like using it,(but not as a foundation shrub in a narrow 2 foot planter), for its year round good looks, great deep green color and interesting form, not to mention the virtually no care required to grow it,(it is completely drought tolerant here once established). At no time was this ever a plant to be found in the woods locally(not native here in California), and there has always been a culture of local nurseries in all urban areas of the state of California. Digging wild plants up in the woods might have been a depression ear trend here in California, but certainly not in the post war years when almost the entire state was feeling flush, and southern California still had its golden paradise reputation. I think it was so commonly planted because when it was first introduced, it stood out as being different and more interesting color and texture wise than the typical Juniper variety. Architectural plants were also very big back in the late 1950's, look at all the Philodendron selloums which are also common from this period. I also think that most nurserymen selling this back in the 50's and 60's did not realize that it could become a 35 foot tall tree by 20 feet across. It was planted in the same way that the African Fern Pine(Podocarpus gracilior) still is in California, as a foundation shrub used as a shrub that in habitat becomes a towering forest tree. Junipers in particular were and still are very popular in southern California, and seemed to be deriguer for any 1950's/1960's Eichler home with hillside slopes to cover. Even if they seem rather boring now, they definitely are low water use and low maintenance plants; when given the space they need to grow. Unfortunately most all Junipers were,(and still are), usually planted way too closely together, little realizing the width and height they will grow to, and so require near constant trimming. No doubt this reflects the lack of patience to let things fill in over time, we want everything to look mature in the first two years... I must admit I am also guilty of this, but try not to do this with larger growing trees and shrubs, but smaller plants only,(easier to thin/rip out as they get too large.

At last I can join this thread (gave my talk, took some vacation days!). The experience I have had in historic garden work, and most of the historic places I am familiar with, are public gardens not because of the gardens themselves so much but because of the person who originally owned the house or estate that has then been turned into a museum. Therefore, the focus is to attempt to portray a certain significant time period in that person's lifetime, and the garden therefore is supposed to reflect that. So ideally, the landscape should be brought back to look like it did during that period of time the museum is emphasizing, even if the design was relatively new and not "mature." That's the ideal. The point of restoring the garden along with everything else is to allow visitors to feel like they have stepped back in time and are seeing the grounds in much the same condition as the important historic figure would have seen it. Not the way it looked fifty years later. This is rarely done, however. Mount Vernon prides itself on having completely redone their restoration to reflect George Washington's design for the flower and vegetable gardens. However, the trees he planted around the big lawn in front are way overgrown and too big to look anything like what Washington saw there during his lifetime. Gives completely the wrong picture. But no one's going to suggest we cut down the trees George Washington planted (except me)! So there is a conflict between authenticity of material (original trees) and authenticity of look (replant to get the right size for the time period). In the case of Hillwood, Mrs. Post intended early on that the house be made into a museum to house her vast collection of Russian and French art, furniture, and porcelain. She had the gardens redesigned for the purpose of entertain groups of people, and often led tours of the gardens herself during her lifetime. When deciding to do a massive restoration of the grounds, they were faced with lots and lots of huge trees which would have made it impossible to restore the vast collections of azaleas, rhodos, camellias, and other flowering trees and shrubs that were part of the original design but were languishing under all the towering evergreens and shade trees. So. What to do? Archival photos tell the story of what the grounds looked like, and so lots of the trees have come down and been replaced by the same but smaller, to get the same look as during Mrs. Post's time. It gets controversial from time to time, of course, but there's no other course of action if you want the garden she had. As an example, there are five immense arborvitaes that dominate some shrub beds on either side of the formal lawn. They're about 30 feet tall. However, in the mid 1960s, they were about 6 feet tall and meant to be kept that size by shearing (as were most of the evergreens). The rhodos actually tower over the little sheared arborvitae in the photos. So, we're yanking out the old ones and putting in new, shorter ones that will be kept in proper scale. Drastic, but necessary. There will be fights over replacing the huge American elms, but that will eventually be done as well. As for whether the garden was at its "prime" during the mid 1960s, which is what we are trying to portray, (the design dates from about 1957) it all depends and what you like, mature shade trees or blooming borders! A logical question to ask is, what happens when the new trees outgrow their allowed size? Obviously, we'll replace them again. If this doesn't get done, then you are back to losing the totality of the design for the sake of a few trees. Saving the mature trees at an old site can then lead to a "restoration" that can never be authentic because the right plants can't survive in the altered conditions. That in turn leads to problems if a historic site has an educational mission, as most claim to do. Add the complication of donated funds with many strings attached, making interpretations say what the donors want instead, and you have a real mess. I've been there, fought that fight, and lost. That's why I'm at Hillwood instead of one of the historic sites that are practically a stone's throw from my house. Sorry this is so long. I'm having a day off to plant some new perennial beds. So out I go for more soil prep. The plants arrived yesterday from Bluestone. Fran