Re: Habitability

I agree entirely.
Did the people you arranged the tours for feel the same way?
Like a book club, it would be fascinating to compare responses!

On Thursday, Jul 21, 2011, at 18:14 Europe/London, tanyagarden@gmail.com wrote:

I've been in charge of garden selection for a few garden tours (including native gardens), and gone on many garden tours. The ones I didn't want to leave almost always had the  susurration of a water feature in the background, a bench in  shade or part shade that faced something interesting and that was comfortable to sit on (with a back, not crowded by vegetation, with a quiet backdrop, a bit off the path so I could stretch my legs without blocking the path), and an indirect  route or winding path to get to the bench.





Sent from my iPod

On Jul 21, 2011, at 6:04 AM, Ben Armentrout-Wiswall <benjamin.r.aw@gmail.com> wrote:



Hi All, 
Increasingly one of the most important features in a garden for me is how habitable it is (for humans, that is).
Numerous gardens are designed to be visually beautiful, but often lack any invitation to actually be IN them: they are designed strictly for viewing.

I like a garden that invites me in to stay and be part of it.
Here in inland southern California, that means some degree of shade to protect from the sun's heat, also privacy and shelter from wind.  It also means some less practical, tangible qualities, like tranquillity and mood, and (of course) beauty.

I was just wondering about some other people's favorite gardens or garden spots, and what makes them favorites.  Are they formal or naturalistic? In sun or shade? With long views or close and intimate? Open or secluded?  Could the site be reproduced, or is it a unique feature?

Just wondering.
Best, Ben Armentrout-Wiswall
Simi Valley, inland southern California 
--


I have a new email address, please update your records:

gmail.com



Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index