RE: Getty landscape

Interesting feedback.

Bad plants:  1
Good plants:  0
What plants:  1

I loved the cactus symmetry although as it grows, it's getting alien looking.  I
liked the sky hedge at the bottom of the tram but not the one up top.  The
bottom hedge had the solid backdrop of the hill to define it.  The creek path is
very tight and narrow and too fast - I felt 'pushed' down the hill.  The whole
garden gave me the impression of speed and jumble and no time to sit and enjoy.
Except the cactus.

Cheers,
Bracey


-----Original Message-----
From: Cheryl Renshaw [c*@wr-architect.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 11:55 AM
To: Medit-Plants
Subject: Re: Getty landscape

Hi all,

snip

In general, I was far more aware of the architecture and hardscape at the
Getty than the plants. I LOVED, absolutely LOVED the buildings, the
fountains, the zigzag path down to the bowl garden. But I found I completely
ignored the plants. I get the feeling that the landscape design was done by
someone who doesn't know plants well enough to predict how they'd react to
the environment in which he put them.

There was one set of plants I liked (we didn't get close enough to the
cactus garden to really admire it). One of the courtyards had a collection
of containers with Pelargonium sidoides, two cultivars of Helichrysum
petiolare, and several other plants that combined very well. But nearly
everything at that site would have had close to the same impact *without*
the plants.

Cheryl

------
Cheryl Renshaw
Santa Clara, CA (Silicon Valley)
design@wr-architect.com

ps. the symposium at Strybing and the MGS meeting were GREAT! I hope to see
some of you in a couple of years for the next symposium, and maybe one of
these days I'll get to another MGS annual meeting.
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index