Small gardens are often the hardest to do. It's all about attention to detail.
I have a new project that I'm just starting. It's not even the whole garden, just a 100 sq metre area to one side of the house that needs brightening up.
The client is apparently a big fan of the UK garden design programmes on TV. She doesn't want the 'grassy style' plants that are so prevalent in WA (we're talking the 'trendy monocots' again!). She is looking for something more lush without being a drain on water resources. Flower colours to be pink and white.
It's been three years since I designed such a small garden, but I like a challenge !
The project will be a DIY build and I'll up date the blog and Facebook with pics as the garden is built....though I'm not sure when that will be.
Expect to see the design in the website 'Portfolio' by the end of next month.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Gardens....by design ?
I had an update from the contractor regarding the planting at the Secret Harbour project.
It appears that lack of supply of plants was the major problem and so the contractor gave the clients some suggestions as to alternative plants and the clients chose what they wanted.
Let me deal with the first point. Lack of supply and lack of variety is a major problem here in WA. Lack of supply can be put down largely to the booming economy and plants being snapped up by developers by the truck load, leaving little for the lowly designer to work with. Added to the problem is that the choice of plants is quite poor and the designer ends up with a very limited palette with which to design. Coming from the UK, where pretty much any plant is available, somewhere, having to start a planting plan with a small list of plants that are available, is something of a culture shock. We are not designing with the plants we want, we are designing with what we can get.
I have also found this to be a problem with the City Beach project, where half the plants available in April (when the planting plan was drafted) are now no longer in stock. Many that are, are of poor size and quality. Part of the reason for this is due to seasonal fluctuations in stock. Whilst mid-winter is one of the better times of year to plant (less heat and drought stress) it is not a good time of year for nursery stock. Things will undoubtedly pick up in the spring.
As a consequence, the clients for Secret Harbour were shown a variety of alternative plants by the contractor and chose those that they liked the most. They are happy and I guess that I should be happy too.
The trouble is, I’m not. And the reason? Well, I don’t think that the clients have received the best advice when it came to plant choice and any design element. They ended up with regimented row upon row of small, spiky plants, pretty much the same as any ‘developers’ garden’ that you can see the length and breadth of the Perth metro area. I had created something unique and they got something generic.
Which is absolutely fine, if that is what you want, if having something different doesn’t appeal to you. It certainly makes my job as a garden designer far easier. Having only 5 or 6 different plants in the whole garden, I can do in only 5 minutes (OK, make that 15!), rather than spending a day or more working out a well thought out planting plan. Less time for me means less cost for the clients, so they will save money too.
I am told that this is the ‘Perth-style’ of garden, one that has evolved over many years. The question I would ask, though, is “who evolved it?” Certainly not landscape or garden designers. Until 3 years ago, there were no qualified designers in Perth, except for a precious few who trained elsewhere (UK) and would have had little general influence in WA. I suggest that these gardens were “evolved” by landscape contractors (and builders) who knew nothing about design and, often, little about horticulture. They could lay patios and timber decking, but couldn’t actually design a garden (see my first blog – Jan 2010). Moreover, the plants where often an afterthought. ‘Just mass plant a few yuccas and cordylines and dianellas and that’ll be good enough.’ Let’s face it, contractors are blokes. Plants are generally a ‘woman thing’ and are not really of much interest to chaps. Consequently, you end up with planting that has little style and, worse still, plants in places where they shouldn’t be.
An example of how a builder plants is my own ‘builder constructed’ garden. I have yuccas against a south facing wall, when they should be in full sun. After only two years, these are already starting to fail. They have lost their lower leaves and are losing foliage colour. They are also far too close to walls and the leaves are looking tatty as a consequence. I have liriope muscari in full sun, when it is a shade plant. It looks frazzled. I have lawn in an area that has no direct sun at all between April and October. It is full of patches where it has died off. But the builder/contractor didn't care about that when the garden was planted; the garden looked good when the house was sold. Why should they worry what it looks like 2 years down the line because it’s no longer their problem.
Personally, I’d like to rip the whole lot out and do it properly. Unfortunately, I don’t own the house!
As someone who has actually trained in the profession, I appreciate that mass planting in rows and rows of any one plant actually looks pretty boring. It reminds me of a vegetable patch. Garden designers are trained to mix colours of foliage and flowers – colours that complement each other and their surroundings; to take into account the times of the year that a plant will flower; the size the plant will grow to and the foliage texture and to mix and match accordingly. It’d be a shame to waste that training by planting a 'design' that ignored that knowledge.
"An attractive garden is composed of layers consisting of low, mid and upper level plants. Include at least three levels in your design."
This is not from a book on UK gardens. It is from Marcelle Nankervis's - Plants for Australian Dry Gardens.
I would suggest that planting a large area with the same plant is not attractive at all. You end up with a very flat design.
“I face a constant struggle with builders who fail to grasp the concept of ‘design’. Their attitude seems to be ‘we have always done things this way, so why should we do it any differently?’”
This is a word for word quote….not from myself, but from an interior designer I met last month. An immigrant to WA, she has a definite feeling that she is banging her head against a brick wall when it comes to educating some builders about her profession. They simply do not understand that a designer does something for a reason, not just the hell of it.
I recently spoke to a garden designer who has been in Perth for over fifteen years (one of the precious few) and who has faced the same uphill struggle with builders and contractors throughout that period. I don’t envy her. She for one agreed with me that Perth planting design needs to move on and be open to new ideas. Otherwise it could end up ‘evolving’ into a dead end, which I fear may be where it may be heading now.
There are new landscape designers graduating from TAFE Murdoch every year now including, thankfully, some contractors discovering design for the first time.
However, even here, I do worry that some of what is being taught may just be making matters worse. Part of the plants course is about “Trendy monocots”. These are plants that include yuccas, cordylines, dietes, dianellas etc. It's the word 'trendy' that bothers me. By calling these plants ‘trendy’ implies that they are fashionable plants to use in garden design. Shouldn’t we be moving beyond following fashion and actually be trend setters, coming up with new ideas rather than simply doing what everyone else does?
There have been 3 years of graduates from TAFE Murdoch so far. As these graduates mix with the contracting and building community, they should bring new ideas with them. Let’s hope that these new ideas are accepted by the wider landscaping community.
Design is about innovation and change. Without these factors, it will not progress, it will stagnate.
I, for one, hope that that doesn’t happen.
While we are talking about builders, (and at the risk of alienating most builders out there, having probably alienated a few contractors) another interesting point arose in my chat with the interior designer. Not only do many builders not understand design, they also hugely overcharge for their services. As designers (both interior and exterior) we are concerned to get the best deal for our clients. The best product for the budget. Building companies, on the other hand, are out to make money from their clients. That’s why they employ salesmen.
A case in point was a kitchen about to be installed in a house, when the interior designer got involved. The kitchen was to have cost $75,000. For that, the builder would have supplied a basic (and not very expensive) kitchen with no style or design to it at all (actual cost $40,000). When the designer got involved, she persuaded the client that for $75,000 they could have a stunning kitchen that would be designed by her and built with top quality materials by top quality craftsmen that she, the designer, would recommend.
The client was delighted with the result; the builder was not pleased! They had lost over $35,000 of profit but, and it’s a BIG but, the client got an awesome and unique kitchen and (more importantly) one that will add serious value to the property.
And it’s the same with gardens. A designed garden will add value to the property, especially if it stands out from all the others.
I have had this clash of interest with the Dalkeith garden that is not featured in this blog (see my Facebook page and Portfolio). Here the client was stretched with the budget for the garden. However, he was being charged by the builder for a basic 2 metre wide path around the whole property, using cheap paving slabs.
Cost? $40,000! That's a staggering $182 per square metre! For cheap paving.....
I advised the client to do away with that cost and add it to the garden budget. That way instead of a few cheap pavers, he could now afford stunning silver travertine limestone paving at the rear of the property and an exposed aggregate driveway. The client was pleased. The builder was not. He had lost maybe $30-35,000 of profit on a simple path that was simply overpriced. But the client would have had a fantastic garden.
I say “would have had”, because the builder then persuaded the client to do away with the gazebo in the design, as it ‘didn’t look right with the house’. (It did, but that’s the line the salesman took.) He then persuaded the client to have a pavilion instead! I dread to think what that cost, but I’m guessing way more than the original $10,000 for the gazebo; a cost that the client was already baulking at. Consequently, the garden budget is blown again and my design can no longer be built. I am intrigued as to what will be left of my original design. It should be finished before Christmas. I’ll let you know.
It’s all the ‘extras’ that the builder adds on that pushes the eventual price up. Start with a house build budget of $500,000 and end up paying $750,000. It happens all too often, as many, many people have told me.
So the bottom line is, if you don’t want to spend a fortune on what is often an inferior product, get a designer in and end up with a product that not only looks better but is much better value for money.
Now there’s an incentive to employ a designer.
You get a better product and it’ll save you money!
It appears that lack of supply of plants was the major problem and so the contractor gave the clients some suggestions as to alternative plants and the clients chose what they wanted.
Let me deal with the first point. Lack of supply and lack of variety is a major problem here in WA. Lack of supply can be put down largely to the booming economy and plants being snapped up by developers by the truck load, leaving little for the lowly designer to work with. Added to the problem is that the choice of plants is quite poor and the designer ends up with a very limited palette with which to design. Coming from the UK, where pretty much any plant is available, somewhere, having to start a planting plan with a small list of plants that are available, is something of a culture shock. We are not designing with the plants we want, we are designing with what we can get.
I have also found this to be a problem with the City Beach project, where half the plants available in April (when the planting plan was drafted) are now no longer in stock. Many that are, are of poor size and quality. Part of the reason for this is due to seasonal fluctuations in stock. Whilst mid-winter is one of the better times of year to plant (less heat and drought stress) it is not a good time of year for nursery stock. Things will undoubtedly pick up in the spring.
As a consequence, the clients for Secret Harbour were shown a variety of alternative plants by the contractor and chose those that they liked the most. They are happy and I guess that I should be happy too.
The trouble is, I’m not. And the reason? Well, I don’t think that the clients have received the best advice when it came to plant choice and any design element. They ended up with regimented row upon row of small, spiky plants, pretty much the same as any ‘developers’ garden’ that you can see the length and breadth of the Perth metro area. I had created something unique and they got something generic.
Which is absolutely fine, if that is what you want, if having something different doesn’t appeal to you. It certainly makes my job as a garden designer far easier. Having only 5 or 6 different plants in the whole garden, I can do in only 5 minutes (OK, make that 15!), rather than spending a day or more working out a well thought out planting plan. Less time for me means less cost for the clients, so they will save money too.
I am told that this is the ‘Perth-style’ of garden, one that has evolved over many years. The question I would ask, though, is “who evolved it?” Certainly not landscape or garden designers. Until 3 years ago, there were no qualified designers in Perth, except for a precious few who trained elsewhere (UK) and would have had little general influence in WA. I suggest that these gardens were “evolved” by landscape contractors (and builders) who knew nothing about design and, often, little about horticulture. They could lay patios and timber decking, but couldn’t actually design a garden (see my first blog – Jan 2010). Moreover, the plants where often an afterthought. ‘Just mass plant a few yuccas and cordylines and dianellas and that’ll be good enough.’ Let’s face it, contractors are blokes. Plants are generally a ‘woman thing’ and are not really of much interest to chaps. Consequently, you end up with planting that has little style and, worse still, plants in places where they shouldn’t be.
An example of how a builder plants is my own ‘builder constructed’ garden. I have yuccas against a south facing wall, when they should be in full sun. After only two years, these are already starting to fail. They have lost their lower leaves and are losing foliage colour. They are also far too close to walls and the leaves are looking tatty as a consequence. I have liriope muscari in full sun, when it is a shade plant. It looks frazzled. I have lawn in an area that has no direct sun at all between April and October. It is full of patches where it has died off. But the builder/contractor didn't care about that when the garden was planted; the garden looked good when the house was sold. Why should they worry what it looks like 2 years down the line because it’s no longer their problem.
Personally, I’d like to rip the whole lot out and do it properly. Unfortunately, I don’t own the house!
As someone who has actually trained in the profession, I appreciate that mass planting in rows and rows of any one plant actually looks pretty boring. It reminds me of a vegetable patch. Garden designers are trained to mix colours of foliage and flowers – colours that complement each other and their surroundings; to take into account the times of the year that a plant will flower; the size the plant will grow to and the foliage texture and to mix and match accordingly. It’d be a shame to waste that training by planting a 'design' that ignored that knowledge.
"An attractive garden is composed of layers consisting of low, mid and upper level plants. Include at least three levels in your design."
This is not from a book on UK gardens. It is from Marcelle Nankervis's - Plants for Australian Dry Gardens.
I would suggest that planting a large area with the same plant is not attractive at all. You end up with a very flat design.
“I face a constant struggle with builders who fail to grasp the concept of ‘design’. Their attitude seems to be ‘we have always done things this way, so why should we do it any differently?’”
This is a word for word quote….not from myself, but from an interior designer I met last month. An immigrant to WA, she has a definite feeling that she is banging her head against a brick wall when it comes to educating some builders about her profession. They simply do not understand that a designer does something for a reason, not just the hell of it.
I recently spoke to a garden designer who has been in Perth for over fifteen years (one of the precious few) and who has faced the same uphill struggle with builders and contractors throughout that period. I don’t envy her. She for one agreed with me that Perth planting design needs to move on and be open to new ideas. Otherwise it could end up ‘evolving’ into a dead end, which I fear may be where it may be heading now.
There are new landscape designers graduating from TAFE Murdoch every year now including, thankfully, some contractors discovering design for the first time.
However, even here, I do worry that some of what is being taught may just be making matters worse. Part of the plants course is about “Trendy monocots”. These are plants that include yuccas, cordylines, dietes, dianellas etc. It's the word 'trendy' that bothers me. By calling these plants ‘trendy’ implies that they are fashionable plants to use in garden design. Shouldn’t we be moving beyond following fashion and actually be trend setters, coming up with new ideas rather than simply doing what everyone else does?
There have been 3 years of graduates from TAFE Murdoch so far. As these graduates mix with the contracting and building community, they should bring new ideas with them. Let’s hope that these new ideas are accepted by the wider landscaping community.
Design is about innovation and change. Without these factors, it will not progress, it will stagnate.
I, for one, hope that that doesn’t happen.
While we are talking about builders, (and at the risk of alienating most builders out there, having probably alienated a few contractors) another interesting point arose in my chat with the interior designer. Not only do many builders not understand design, they also hugely overcharge for their services. As designers (both interior and exterior) we are concerned to get the best deal for our clients. The best product for the budget. Building companies, on the other hand, are out to make money from their clients. That’s why they employ salesmen.
A case in point was a kitchen about to be installed in a house, when the interior designer got involved. The kitchen was to have cost $75,000. For that, the builder would have supplied a basic (and not very expensive) kitchen with no style or design to it at all (actual cost $40,000). When the designer got involved, she persuaded the client that for $75,000 they could have a stunning kitchen that would be designed by her and built with top quality materials by top quality craftsmen that she, the designer, would recommend.
The client was delighted with the result; the builder was not pleased! They had lost over $35,000 of profit but, and it’s a BIG but, the client got an awesome and unique kitchen and (more importantly) one that will add serious value to the property.
And it’s the same with gardens. A designed garden will add value to the property, especially if it stands out from all the others.
I have had this clash of interest with the Dalkeith garden that is not featured in this blog (see my Facebook page and Portfolio). Here the client was stretched with the budget for the garden. However, he was being charged by the builder for a basic 2 metre wide path around the whole property, using cheap paving slabs.
Cost? $40,000! That's a staggering $182 per square metre! For cheap paving.....
I advised the client to do away with that cost and add it to the garden budget. That way instead of a few cheap pavers, he could now afford stunning silver travertine limestone paving at the rear of the property and an exposed aggregate driveway. The client was pleased. The builder was not. He had lost maybe $30-35,000 of profit on a simple path that was simply overpriced. But the client would have had a fantastic garden.
I say “would have had”, because the builder then persuaded the client to do away with the gazebo in the design, as it ‘didn’t look right with the house’. (It did, but that’s the line the salesman took.) He then persuaded the client to have a pavilion instead! I dread to think what that cost, but I’m guessing way more than the original $10,000 for the gazebo; a cost that the client was already baulking at. Consequently, the garden budget is blown again and my design can no longer be built. I am intrigued as to what will be left of my original design. It should be finished before Christmas. I’ll let you know.
It’s all the ‘extras’ that the builder adds on that pushes the eventual price up. Start with a house build budget of $500,000 and end up paying $750,000. It happens all too often, as many, many people have told me.
So the bottom line is, if you don’t want to spend a fortune on what is often an inferior product, get a designer in and end up with a product that not only looks better but is much better value for money.
Now there’s an incentive to employ a designer.
You get a better product and it’ll save you money!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)