What's the dilemma?

You want to place artificial turf in the front yard, but part of the "front yard" is owned and maintained by others so you don't know if you can continue it in that (their) section? Contact the appropriate representative at "the district" and ask them what you options might be. If they say you cannot place art. turf in the area in question, create a mowing strip (flush embedded strip of masonry ... many people use bricks to create an 8" width strip) where you would divide the real from artificial turf. Or, change to live turf in order to coordinate with the "District." How are others in the neighborhood handling this if they face the same situation?

Try posting in a more regional forum for what will work in your climate.......I'd start with the Northwest Gardening forum. But the plan itself is very difficult to read with the markings on it and we get no real visual sense of the structure and how any plantings should relate to it. Can you provide us with any photos or is it still too early in the construction stage to be meaningful?

Have you considered hiring a designer to help you with this project? That is probably the most efficient way to address this situation........someone available for an onsite visit with the design skills and plant knowledge to know what to select and where to place.

Thanks. I was literally just asking for suggestions of things that could go at the front of the lot curbside. Yes we know we will need a designer for this, as we will for the entire project since it is a new build with extensive landscaping needs too. I was just attempting to get some ideas of my own going. Never mind.

We are not trying to be unhelpful. It is just that your question is so broad and without context as to be unanswerable at this stage. The North Van climate is almost identical to mine and that list of plants that would potentially work and remain relatively low maintenance is virtually endless.

Maybe visit a better local nursery/garden center or the UBC botanical garden and make note of the plants you like and that you think might work in preparation for the time when you actually meet up with a designer.

Alison, I actually dislike plants next to the curb. You say there is no sidewalk but there is an easement you must maintain although it belongs to the city. Is there a barrier in between? Here is a picture I borrowed from another thread.

Would you want a ground cover type plant?

Your request for plant favorites is so vague I don't think anyone knows how to answer it properly.

This is quite a bit off topic and Alison, I do not mean to hijack your post but the response to this (and also another thread asking about porch topiaries) has prompted me to do some thinking about landscape design overall. LOL! Always a dangerous pastime, that thinking thing :-))

The conclusion I have come to is that much of what is considered or accepted as 'good' or suitable design elements are very regional in nature. What is a common practice in one area of the country - or even in a different country entirely - may not be dealt with similarly elsewhere. There is a universal design concept known as genius loci - loosely translated as the character or spirit of a place - that is almost always ignored on this forum and that makes offering specific design advice almost irrelevant. If you are not there and cannot experience it firsthand, how can you possibly provide meaningful design input that fits that situation??

As an example - and emmarene, I do not mean to single you out - but creating front yard privacy or shielding your house and garden from public view is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I researched through some of my old landscape design textbooks and nowhere was this issue - hiding or shielding your house and garden from street view - discussed in detail nor is it even considered a design element. And conversely, neither is NOT shielding it or requiring the view from the street to the house be open. But how either of these approaches are handled design-wise will make a big difference in either case.

Being very familiar with NW landscape design and with the Vancouver area (my sister lived in North Van for 30 years and I visited often) I can relate pretty well with that genius loci and a wide open front garden is probably the exception rather than the rule. There is almost always some sort of visual and physical barrier separating the garden from the street. It may not be tall or obscure much of the garden but it IS present. Where the design elements come in is how this barrier is handled with respect to delineating clear access to the entry and overall "curb appeal" (geeze, I dislike that term.......what the heck does that really mean??)

More locally, properties in my area are often long and narrow with the house set well back from the street. And the properties are often heavily wooded and frequently on a slope. You simply cannot see the house from the street for various reasons. Does this necessarily mean these are all subject to poor landscape design?? Not at all.....because they are in tune with the genius loci. They are reflecting the character of the site and the location.

So I think we should all be a little cautious about superimposing our personal preferences and locational habits on these requests for design assistance. They are seldom valid and often have nothing at all to do with actual principles that govern "good" landscape design. Those have little to nothing to do with curb appeal, shielding one's property from public view or how one addresses street side plantings or the lack of them.

"curb appeal" .... what the heck does that really mean??" It means greeting the public dressed and washed, maybe even with made-up face and coiffed hair .. as opposed to looking like one just crawled out of bed after a bad hangover.

"If you are not there and cannot experience it firsthand, how can you possibly provide meaningful design input that fits that situation??" Gardengal, I have to disagree with you on this. There is a vast set of commonalities that apply across the country and to other countries where people live like we do in the US (not the countries where everyone is walled in.) There is face of the house that is intentionally meant to face the public, and other faces that are not. Most yards are accessed by a common street, have a driveway, a walk to the front door. In general, we know how people access the property and come and go. To claim otherwise sounds almost if I shouldn't be able to predict that cars in Canada and France also have 4 wheels! In addition to that, today it is possible via the miracle of Google for anyone to take a "road trip" to just about anywhere and see what houses and yards generally look like. I never take it that all principles can be equally applied anywhere, but certainly many will apply to most situations though details must be tailored. Too, in order to get to the point of making recommendations, we almost always have pictures of the subject of discussion. Even though I plead with people not to smother their house with foliage, I understand that there will be yards where the front yard is woods and cannot be seen from the street. But once you're in the yard, at some point you probably want to see the house! So a particular "street appeal" issue might be more complicated, but that doesn't eradicate the need or desire for things to look good .... from somewhere. It doesn't literally have to be from the street proper.

And Yard, I will have to continue to disagree with you :-) Where is it written that any face of a house has to face the street or be on view? And why does a house have to greet the public at all.........if it cannot be seen from the street, how exactly does "curb" appeal come into factor? I do agree that there are design commonalities but those are the design elements used to structure the design and they will be applied uniquely to each individual site. That a house needs to "greet the public" is not a notion I accept. Some do......many don't. And those that don't are often structured or designed intentionally to be private or sheltered/shielded from view. It is much more a factor of site conditions or a client's wishes than any sort of design 'requirement'.

And I would also argue that photos of the site or Google Earth views of the property do not at all provide sufficient information to determine the genius loci. You really DO need to be there in person to assess the entire neighborhood and surrounding locale to get a proper sense of the character of the place (not just the site - the place). Without that, you are really just offering design advice in a vacuum. Before I meet with a client for the first time I take extra time to drive around the neighborhood and look at all the other houses and gardens in the area: what plants they use, how are their gardens structured, are they all cookie cutter houses and gardens or are each distinct with their own personalities; and assess any natural features - geographical terrain, any views, what the natural or undeveloped areas look like - to determine a feeling for the area. Without this understanding of the character of the location in general, any design advice will be very superficial.

There is a very good reason why a thorough site evaluation is a very basic and essential first step in any landscape design. And I am sorry but that just cannot be successfully accomplished through photographs, no matter how many or how detailed they are.

Alison, it depends on what the OP is asking for :-)) Some do come here expecting walk away with a design for their property and that is going to produce usually less than stellar results. Others just need some suggestions about how to proceed and what the process is they should undertake. And still others have technical questions that can be easily addressed here. So there is value in visiting this site........it just depends on what one wants to get out of it.

If you look at the purpose statement under the forum title, it really doesn't say anything about coming here to get a functioning landscape design, which is what I think a lot of visitor expect this site to provide :-) But it does promote the discussion of design issues.....much like what we are doing here........and to get feedback about other landscape design topics: i.e. design software for home use, hardscaping choices, implementation of various landscape elements, what is a reasonable budget or expense for any given situation, how to find local professionals, etc., etc.

If you are intent on keeping maintenance easy, grass is pretty low-tech. You can mow-blow-go yourself or hire it out. Well maintained turf is easy on the eyes, and you live where it rains enough that water is not an issue. Later, if you find it's not exciting enough, you can add more shrubs.

This is what I mean about regionally specific issues that cannot be conveyed accurately by photos :-) We can all easily make assumptions based on what we believe may be appropriate but unless we are there or have some sort of actual firsthand familiarity with the location, they are just assumptions. And may have no basis in reality.

Misunderstandings about a PNW climate are very common. It is not nearly as wet as most assume it to be - we get much less annual rainfall than many parts of the country - and is considered a recurring summer drought location.

Alison, I'd encourage you to spend some time investigating this website - Great Plant Picks. This was developed here in the NW specifically for PNW gardeners by nurserypeople, landscapers, horticulturists and growers and is an extensive listing of plants that thrive in our climate and are suitable for a wide range of planting situations. The individual plant data will indicate if it is evergreen or not, drought or shade tolerant or not and how large it can be expected to grow here. Extremely regionally specific!! And the bonus is that the plants included are typically readily available at most better area garden centers and nurseries.

Remember that no plant is maintenance free.......all will require some attention. But a low maintenance landscape is one that will thrive without a lot of human intervention: no copious watering after establishment, no aggressive spreading or reseeding, no needing to treat heavily or routinely for any disease or insect issues and no need for frequent pruning attention.

"Where is it written that any face of a house has to face the street or be on view? It is NOT written anywhere! Nevertheless, that a particular (front entrance) face of the house faces the street is the stunningly overwhelming default tradition. It exists, probably to a factor greater than 99.99% in all places in the world where houses are not walled in. And it's not as if this is an idea being crammed down the public's throat. It is simply what the overwhelming majority of people WANT. Look at any plan book for homes ... none feature any other than the front of the house as their prime view for the plan. No one picks a home based on the side or back view first. There are no exceptions to this.

And why does a house have to greet the public at all.........if it cannot be seen from the street, how exactly does "curb" appeal come into factor? I think this is boiling down to semantics. Because the overwhelming number of customers want the front of a house to be the face that faces the street, and because this default condition has been that way -- for absolute freaking ever -- that the words, "curb" or "street," combined with "appeal," has simply been the term that was created for making-the-house-look-good-from-the-view-that-is-important-to-whoever-is-looking. As I mentioned earlier, some houses do not show from the street and where "street appeal" comes into play may not be until one travels down a mile-long wooded lane and the house comes into view. Then -- voila! -- street appeal for that house is secreted from the public, but still is an important part of the overall landscape. This same principal applies to those who screen their houses entirely from the street. At some point, the house is seen by whoever is arriving, be it the owner or a visitor. While often "curb" or "street" appeal is for the public (because that's how owners want it), in those cases where owners want the maximum privacy from the rest of the world, they want "street" appeal for themselves. Not to dwell on it but merely to mention, there are some people who could not give a flip about anything looking good ... their hair, clothes, car, house or yard. They are entirely irrelevant in the conversation. What they want, or don't, has no bearing on the fact that the vast majority of people crave beautiful things and are willing to expend effort on obtaining them.) Hate the term if you must, but it says -- eloquently and colorfully, I think (as people prefer it) -- that they want their house to look good when it is first seen by anyone. It is nothing other than wanting something to be pretty instead of not caring about it.

While the genus loci may have bearing on what someone does with their house and yard, depending on how important it is for one to "fit in," I think you may be overrating its importance as a design factor. I view it as an influence .... not a guaranty of design direction. If you were to visit my northern Illinois home town at the time I grew up, you would basically conclude that the genus loci (in terms of landscape) is basically CRAP. The only people who had decent yards were doctors and executives. There is not much point in trying to "fit in" where no imagination or importance has ever been ascribed to landscaping. I believe it is much more fitting (in tune with our whole profession) to give someone something special and let them be the trendsetter, with a specific goal of (possibly radically) altering the genus loci. I am not saying to cast off all observations of the locality. Find what is good and relevant and use it if you can. But don't be constrained by the surroundings if there is not much within them to feel passionate about. I think you might also under-appreciate the value of Google Street View. While it is not exactly like being there, it is able to communicate innumerable amounts of information about a neighborhood or town. Most people who come here to the forum looking for design advice are simply looking for an inexpensive, pleasing way to create a planting scheme, usually for the front yard. They are not looking for expensive, complex, highly involved and complicated schemes. I suspect we will always disagree on how much they are helped. I think it's quite a bit considering that many are given enough information that all they need to do in order to have a decent planting is pick out some plants. Alternatively, they would probably be employing the local copying scheme and buying some "on sale" plants and calling it a day.

Yard, we will just have to agree to disagree :-)

btw, I can think of all manner of situations where the street side face (however close or far away from the street that may be) is not the front of the house or the primary elevation. Or even offers up as an entry. There are ALWAYS exceptions!!

The point I was trying to make is that each individual site must be approached individually and that local characteristics and practices really should be part of the equation and that personal likes or dislikes really have little place in a design forum except as how they relate to the OP - their likes and dislikes or preferences are what should carry the weight.

But rather than furthering an argument, "agreeing to disagree" is a way of not creating an argument that supports one's position. I don't think that the exceptions (houses without front doors facing the street) are at the heart of the issue or worth considering. By definition they are exceptions and would need to be dealt with according to the factors that make sense in the given situation. What we're talking about here are the principles that apply to the general audience in the overwhelmingly vast number of cases.

But now, Gardengal, you've opened another can of worms -- one I've been avoiding for a long time though opportunities have presented themselves: whose "likes" and "preferences" matter in the context of good design. In that context, I think the OP/homeowner is just as likely to be an impediment to, and not the cause of good design. While a designer must take into account their opinions and desires because they are customers who pay the bills and must be pleased, it does not mean that the customer will lead the design to goodness or even an improved conclusion. Often, the customer does not care about so called "good" design. Sometimes they have no idea about what good design is (since they rarely are tasked with creating it) and may merely care about satisfying some of their ideas, no matter how bad those ideas are. The better client in my mind is the one who trusts that they are working with a competent designer and lets them go to work. What user goes to major outdoor landscape attraction -- be it Disney World, the Vietnam Memorial, World Trade Center Monument, Williamsburg, the grounds of any 5-star hotel, etc. -- and feels like it is less of place because they had no personal input? None! While personal input may make someone happy on account of them liking their own bad ideas, it does not mean that others will appreciate those ideas. I can see people shaking their heads in disgust of this seemingly arrogant attitude. But it is not arrogance. It is merely a statement of observing what is true. For one to like something is not in the least the measure of that thing's quality. It is merely a measure of one's own satisfaction with their own ideas. A general measure of quality is how much OTHER people like it. If a musician/vocalist cuts a track that no one wants to buy or listen to, a general statement of the track's lack of desirability can be made. It is those tracks which become HITS, appealing to a vast audience, can be said to be of high quality or general desirability. People making decisions about their own yards are sometimes not concerned with creating hits so much as they are about replicating an idea that impressed them in some way ... whether anyone else likes it, or not. In many instances I think people THINK they are creating hits. It's just that they don't have enough experience to see they are creating mistakes instead. Some will say that popularity is also not a measure of quality. But it fact, people parting with cash is the best general true measure of their belief that we have. People who will not put their money where their mouth is, often do not really believe what their own mouth is saying.

"Agree to disagree" is a polite way to move on from an argument where neither side can be persuaded. And it's less messy than pistols at dawn.

As a matter of fact I am persuadable! I'm not immune to changing my mind based on considering additional information, or with further thought if someone can show me how things are not like I think. But there's not a reason to adopt alternate ideas when no argument is made for them or the arguments are not compelling enough.

Yard, I really do agree with you on the likes/dislikes issue. I perhaps did not explain myself well in that context :-))

IME, clients' likes or dislikes generally weigh in on plant choices as opposed to placement or consideration of other design elements. As you have observed, they often do not know enough about the design process or the various design elements to have much of an opinion on them. In many cases, they DO know what they don't like and I have few issues with that as generally their gut feeling is leading them in the right direction.....many folks have an innate design sense to some degree. It has just not been developed or fine tuned by any education or training.

I always ask my clients about their preferences and likes and dislikes. It is after all their garden and they are footing the bill!! Landscape design is a service industry and designers walk a fine line between adhering to 'proper' or 'good' design and addressing customer satisfaction. A good designer will nail both. I will tell them if something they want or where they want it is going to cause problems and very often a mutually satisfactory compromise can be reached.

I guess my biggest issues with dealing with likes and dislikes.....maybe more so with dislikes....is when they are applied arbitrarily by someone outside the situation or for nothing more than personal taste; i.e. disliking curbside planting. Who cares?? I lump HOA's and CCR's in the same boat - most restrictions or requirements are completely arbitrary and have nothing to do with good design.....very often quite the opposite as they want everything uniform and boring.

As to arrogance........as my initial degree was in architecture and architects are arguably the most arrogant design professionals on the planet, I am very cautious about how i express my intentions to the client and try not override all their input based on my so-called "superior" training and experience. I cannot begin to count how many times I have heard folks complain about how brusquely they were treated and how their wishes were ignored by their architects or interior designers (and even some landscape designers) who were designing for their own egos rather than for the client. As I stated previously, this is a service industry and we should alway be cognizant of that.

GG, we're always more in agreement than not and I never worry for there being points of disagreement ... especially with you on account of your longstanding longing for passionate discussion about landscape issues.

We're certainly in agreement that it is sometimes a fine line to walk between pleasing the client and doing good design and in agreement that the customer always wins. I always tried my damndest to make my case (no surprise there!) but always let the bill-payer win the "battle." The good fortune, as I think you alluded to, is that while clients know they want things like "parking, privacy, a deck, etc.", a very large percentage of them admit they are without any ability create viable solutions and are happy to throw the ball entirely in the designer's court. Nothing could be better. However, if I was on the client end of the equation, I'd make damn sure that I understood generally the designer's problem solving capabilities before trusting his judgment, as there is a lot of crummy work out there.

"as there is a lot of crummy work out there."

No argument with that at all!!

And Alison, apologies for taking your discussion on another tangent entirely. Please keep us updated as to how you proceed.

Since you want privacy I got to thinking how it would look from inside the house. The windows I can see look at the same area, the pink lines. If you want the feeling of privacy more than actual prison wall type privacy I think a small grove of trees would be nice. I was thinking Birch.Of course, they would be bare in the winter.

I love Birch trees but they don't like the boron in the soil in my location.

It is going to be very hard to give much design advice before the house is in place. Maybe post this as a topic once the new house is at least at a stage where it has walls and a roofline? The architectural design and siting of the house will have a big influence on the landscape design. Even plant selection will be influenced by the house and the microclimates it creates in the yard.

Alison, it's a concept. You must adapt an idea to what exists in real life. Since we can't know what that is yet, we can only talk in hypotheticals. You must hash over ideas and figure out what you can extract from them.

For someone not familiar with exactly what landscape design is or the process in how it is achieved, it is easy to assume that a listing of plants that might work in a specific situation is an actual design question. It is not :-) Plant selection is the very last step in developing a landscape design...........the decorations on the icing of the design cake. This is very likely why you are receiving what you believe to be extraneous advice or being asked irrelevant questions. Responders are just trying to get though the various stages of the design process to give you what are asking for.

But even with those questions answered (which you have declined to do), you will seldom get specific suggestions. Plant selection is extremely regional in nature and there are literally dozens of possibilities for any given situation.

Early on, it was suggested you post your queries in a regionally appropriate forum. There at least you will receive suggestions for regionally appropriate plants. Another method is to tour through nearby neighborhoods and see what everyone else is growing and make note of what you like. If you don't know the plants in question, they can be readily identified on the Name That Plant forum. Or visit a local nursery/garden center to see what's on offer. Or visit someplace like UBC Botanical Garden for some inspiration.

If the OP had bothered to read the description of this forum: "Landscape Design", they would have realized the forum was for landscape design queries. It isn't the "list of plants for the PNW" forum or the "I want a specific list of the perfect plants for a house I haven't built yet" forum.

Alison, clearly you are not happy with any of the advice or suggestion you have received here......sorry you feel that way.

Here is a link to multiple listings of plants (by category or situation) that was developed specifically for Pacific Northwest gardens. I'm sure with a little effort you will find exactly what you need and without any extraneous comments or suggestions to cloud your vision :-)

Great Plant Picks