Forum

Replies

• 

  Benedict Green April 28, 2012 at 1:47pm

  Just had a look on iPlayer. I was interested in seeing his garden last week when it was open with the NGS, but couldn't make it.

  I particularly wanted to go to this one as I designed a garden about 10 houses away on the same street. I can't show you the design as I was freelancing for another designer, but it couldn't be more different to Charles's garden. The one I designed was very linear with light coloured limestone, rendered walls, outdoor kitchen, rectangular lawn and tiered hedging. Still plenty of flowers, but much more open and spacious.

  I think his garden is very much a personal garden that has evolved over the years and may be very different to how he designs for clients. Many designers are like this, you can take your time with your own garden whereas for a client you normally have a deadline and a plant plan to be implemented in one go. Maintenance is often an issue with clients gardens, so you design with this in mind whereas you can be more relaxed in your own space and try things out. A case of do as I say, not as I do, maybe? 

  I don't buy the idea that hard landscaping would have highlighted the tightness of the space, I'd say the opposite and I always try to put in a generous path of at least 1.2m wide, even in narrow gardens.

  www.greengardendesign.com
• PRO Supplier

  Helen Gazeley April 28, 2012 at 3:42pm

  I loved it. Having seen loads of designs by the SGD members displayed at one of the RHS meetings last year, I expected to see lots of linear hard surfaces, monoblock planting, the eye drawn to the landscaping not the planting, and what he's got is the sort of garden that I and, I suspect, a lot of people want, which is why this sort of garden so often gets the public vote at big shows.

  It sounds a bit, Phil, as if you think he might too have arrived at the design "by accident", when accident is actually an accumulation of experimentation and growing experience. This is surely what people often want - the benefit of someone's understanding of plants, which takes the individual many years to acquire.  Do you remember the article that John Brookes wrote in The Telegraph in 2011?  In it he said:

  A designer’s principal concern is spatial organisation in a garden of whatever size. That is, getting the voids and masses right for both the situation and the client’s needs. The next concern is the architecture of the garden – the paving, walling and boundaries. And the last concern (but not the least) is the plants that make up those masses, and – it goes without saying, I hope – their maintenance.

  The public, I believe, are not too concerned with the construction work. What seems to interest everyone far more is the flowers and the growing side of things...

   I think it's interesting that Benedict describes it as "a personal garden that...may be very different to how he designs for clients". Do we expect designed gardens to look a certain way? Sometimes I think so, as so many have a very similar feel.

  I think Charles Rutherfoord's arrival is exciting, as I foresee a heavier emphasis on designing with plants, rather than hard surfaces, and a bit more tolerance within the design community of the type of gardens that it would seem the majority of people who want a garden, rather than a low-maintenance outside space, would like to have help creating.
• PRO

  Stuart @ Eco Garden Maintenance April 29, 2012 at 9:33am

  Ha ha, brilliant
  
  John www.acegardenservices.co.uk said:

   Crazes and new fads run riot on TV, regardless of whether they are good or not,

  just as long as they are different from the previous year. Which creates a major 

  problem with the garden designs that take years to mature, hence the modern instant

  designs - That's it folks, don't expect it to change or evolve....  What you see is all it will be !!!

  But don't fret, next year it can be dug up and changed while the kitchen is being redone.

   And the skip will come in so useful. :)     
  
  Helen Gazeley said:

  I loved it. Having seen loads of designs by the SGD members displayed at one of the RHS meetings last year, I expected to see lots of linear hard surfaces, monoblock planting, the eye drawn to the landscaping not the planting, and what he's got is the sort of garden that I and, I suspect, a lot of people want, which is why this sort of garden so often gets the public vote at big shows.

  It sounds a bit, Phil, as if you think he might too have arrived at the design "by accident", when accident is actually an accumulation of experimentation and growing experience. This is surely what people often want - the benefit of someone's understanding of plants, which takes the individual many years to acquire.  Do you remember the article that John Brookes wrote in The Telegraph in 2011?  In it he said:

  A designer’s principal concern is spatial organisation in a garden of whatever size. That is, getting the voids and masses right for both the situation and the client’s needs. The next concern is the architecture of the garden – the paving, walling and boundaries. And the last concern (but not the least) is the plants that make up those masses, and – it goes without saying, I hope – their maintenance.

  The public, I believe, are not too concerned with the construction work. What seems to interest everyone far more is the flowers and the growing side of things...

   I think it's interesting that Benedict describes it as "a personal garden that...may be very different to how he designs for clients". Do we expect designed gardens to look a certain way? Sometimes I think so, as so many have a very similar feel.

  I think Charles Rutherfoord's arrival is exciting, as I foresee a heavier emphasis on designing with plants, rather than hard surfaces, and a bit more tolerance within the design community of the type of gardens that it would seem the majority of people who want a garden, rather than a low-maintenance outside space, would like to have help creating.
• 

  Justin Hemming April 29, 2012 at 11:28am

  I liked his garden.  As it is his own garden it has probably evolved over many years according to his tastes, rather than been planned all at once.  It's in urban London so is a nice oasis of plants and he also uses sculpture and different levels (by planting on mounds of earth) to good effect.

  Justin

  www.durhamgardener.co.uk
• 

  Roger Webster April 29, 2012 at 2:15pm

  If it makes him happy then it's a good garden, though not to my taste  from what I could see. The programme gives very little sense of  space - I wonder if it really is such a jumble as it appears? Most gardens have to do much more than indulge the horticultural passions of one person - there is car parking to consider, dustbins, laundry lines, adult socialising, kids play, football, swings, a welcome resurgence of interest in vegetable growing and in encouraging birds and beasties; all of this to be fitted into a space often rather smaller than Charles has to play with, oh and it also has to look pleasant and tidy all year round, make people smile and be reasonably easy to look after by those with  limited time and modest gardening skills. Paeonies and paving slabs both have a part to play.
• 

  Tracy Rich April 30, 2012 at 2:01pm

  Charles' garden seems to be getting a lot of press at the moment (TV, magazines) and, even though it's obvious he loves it and it's a very personal space, I don't think it's a very good advert for the Garden Design profession or SGD. It's not really a designed garden, more a collection of plants. Yes, you can create structure with plants - Piet Oudolf is obviously great at doing this - but I don't think Charles' garden has good plant structure either. Oh dear, I desperately want to love this garden but it maybe it should stay private?!
• PRO Supplier

  Helen Gazeley April 30, 2012 at 4:19pm

  That's interesting. What constitutes a "designed" garden? I think his garden is an excellent advert, as it shows something very different from the type of garden one usually sees from designers. It implies that garden designers can provide for every taste, not just people who want that particular "designed" look.  If one wanted a "woodsy" garden, would garden designers refuse to design it?
• 

  Benedict Green April 30, 2012 at 5:57pm

  I don't think a designed garden should have any particular look, a Gertrude Jekyll cottage garden was just as carefully thought out as a Luciano Giubbilei city garden is. There should however be some overall premeditated scheme that unifies the garden and makes it work for the wants and needs of the client, what ever they may be. An ad hoc continually evolving space is what most gardens end up being and what a designer should help a client avoid. Charles's garden just seems a bit random, which is fine, but I don't think that is what clients hire a designer for. 

  
  Helen Gazeley said:

  That's interesting. What constitutes a "designed" garden? I think his garden is an excellent advert, as it shows something very different from the type of garden one usually sees from designers. It implies that garden designers can provide for every taste, not just people who want that particular "designed" look.  If one wanted a "woodsy" garden, would garden designers refuse to design it?
• 

  Sally Bishton April 30, 2012 at 6:23pm

  Most garden designers experiment with planting in their own gardens and Charles' garden is just an extreme example as he’s had the garden for many years. He is obviously a keen plantsman and probably enjoys pottering in his city garden which must seem like an oasis of planting compared to the urban environment that surrounds it. I think he was quite brave opening the garden up for scrutiny, but he did make it clear that it wasn’t the sort of garden he would design for a client, although if that is the type of garden they want, why not?
• PRO

  Phil Voice April 30, 2012 at 6:26pm

  "It sounds a bit, Phil, as if you think he might too have arrived at the design "by accident", when accident is actually an accumulation of experimentation and growing experience. This is surely what people often want "

  Yes Helen...I do feel the garden (or at least it appears to me) has evolved by accident - it's not for me to say whether, in Rutherfoord's case, accident is defined as an experiment or mistake.

  I personally very much believe in evolution and sometimes it's not in the client's interest to stick with a rigid plan. If Charles Rutherfoord prefers to garden this way it is entirely up to him but (and other's appear to support this view) as he has been elected to represent the SGD and its members' interests then it's unwise to be so steadfast or resolute in his professional  opinion.

  Having said that I think what's evolved - especially with this discussion and the original one on Landscape Juice http://www.landscapejuice.com/2012/03/sgd-chair-charles-rutherfoord... - by way of argument is one of the most exciting and stimulating in all the years I've been following the SGD. Rutherfoord has really gotten me thinking:)

  "A designer’s principal concern is spatial organisation in a garden of whatever size. That is, getting the voids and masses right for both the situation and the client’s needs. The next concern is the architecture of the garden – the paving, walling and boundaries. And the last concern (but not the least) is the plants that make up those masses, and – it goes without saying, I hope – their maintenance."

  I don't agree with this (and in Rutherfoord's case I didn't feel that spatial organisation had been achieved). To me the architecture, whether that's hard or soft in its nature, has to be part of the primary thought process.

  Helen Gazeley said:

  I loved it. Having seen loads of designs by the SGD members displayed at one of the RHS meetings last year, I expected to see lots of linear hard surfaces, monoblock planting, the eye drawn to the landscaping not the planting, and what he's got is the sort of garden that I and, I suspect, a lot of people want, which is why this sort of garden so often gets the public vote at big shows.

  It sounds a bit, Phil, as if you think he might too have arrived at the design "by accident", when accident is actually an accumulation of experimentation and growing experience. This is surely what people often want - the benefit of someone's understanding of plants, which takes the individual many years to acquire.  Do you remember the article that John Brookes wrote in The Telegraph in 2011?  In it he said:

  A designer’s principal concern is spatial organisation in a garden of whatever size. That is, getting the voids and masses right for both the situation and the client’s needs. The next concern is the architecture of the garden – the paving, walling and boundaries. And the last concern (but not the least) is the plants that make up those masses, and – it goes without saying, I hope – their maintenance.

  The public, I believe, are not too concerned with the construction work. What seems to interest everyone far more is the flowers and the growing side of things...

   I think it's interesting that Benedict describes it as "a personal garden that...may be very different to how he designs for clients". Do we expect designed gardens to look a certain way? Sometimes I think so, as so many have a very similar feel.

  I think Charles Rutherfoord's arrival is exciting, as I foresee a heavier emphasis on designing with plants, rather than hard surfaces, and a bit more tolerance within the design community of the type of gardens that it would seem the majority of people who want a garden, rather than a low-maintenance outside space, would like to have help creating.