"Dutchman" wrote in message
...
Thanks John,
I ran across that site as part of the research. I have also checked out
the square-foot gardening
approach and have Mel's book.
It appears to me that most classic four-square designs have a conventional
approach to the plantings
in each of the squares, i.e. the vegetables are planted in rows within
each square with conventional
spacing between plants and rows. The picture of the four-square on the
web page you provided
illustrates that. The square-foot gardening approach, as do other
intensive planting schemas, has
raised beds and bed widths of only about 4 feet, much smaller than the
area of one of the squares in
a kitchen garden.
So am I correct in assuming that the classic four-square kitchen garden
doesn't really fit well with
the raised bed intensive gardening approach?
Herein lies my dilemma. I like the idea of raised beds because of soil
conditions on my property
and the ability to grow things in a more compact area. I also very much
like the aesthetics, the
historical flavor and the nostalgia, if you will, of the classic kitchen
garden. I fear if I try to
use raised beds, in the mold of square-foot gardening approach, I will
lose that and my garden will
resemble a lot of sandboxes (that what some raised beds look like to me).
BTW, I like your approach to bed design. Some plants can become nuisances
due to their invasive
nature. Your designs help reign them in.
Dutch
snippola all that stuffola
Met plezier gedaan!
snip
So am I correct in assuming that the classic four-square kitchen garden
doesn't really fit well with
the raised bed intensive gardening approach?
endsnip
Yes and no. While intensive (aka Belgian) close-spaced planting is 'de
rigeur', it is merely yet another gardening technique. Some swear by lasagna
layering, others like myself prefer to use vermiculture as the basis for
maintaining a balanced soil. With products like mine, space is limited and
bare soil does not help, so notably when growing edibles, rows of plants are
best avoided in favour of 'bunching' plants together. The classic 4sq design
was feasible when gardening space was available, in Dutch a 'hof' such as
the original Keukenhof gardens. Mooie moestuinen.This combined a semi-formal
'presence' with utility: growing edibles to provide nutrition. Then again,
the Dutch and English et.al. did not have a supermarket to drop by, you grew
it or you did without. The fact that these gardeners did take the time to
create a 'green zone' that served to please the eye as well as the cook
indicates that their values were sound or perhaps they had the means ie time
to devote to creating and maintaining a focal point like a four square. It
may have been status but I suspect that these folks simply desired and
enjoyed a beautiful albeit small 'natural retreat'.
Can this be transmogrified into today's 'values'? I dunno... Things have
changed and not for the better. The people I work with do such things for
reasons such as 'curb appeal' and 'equity building' more than to actually
touch, let alone understand the complexity of a soil. When someone asked
"how much dirt will it take" I cringe. But I digress....
You could compromise, of course. While 99% of the raised beds we shill are
limited to 4' width due to ergonomic considerations, we did once do a 8 wide
x 24 long perennial/herb bed. With that sort of soil space, a few
strategically placed concrete block 'stepping stones' sunk (small side up)
into about a foot of soil make for a permanent pathway, then simply connect
the stones with pieces of slate (flat stone) for a visually
pleasing-but-narrow meandering path. Good place for beneficials like toads
to hide! The boxy look can be softened by planting cascading ornamentals -
even nasturtiums will flow over and soften the hard edges of any structure.
Another aspect is actual depth of soil; a 2 foot rubble pad that has been fl
at compacted, then a 12-18 inch raised bed on top of that pad makes for a
reasonably elevated raised bed. Making that hump a 2 stage elevation, you
end up with that higher background for biannuals such as lovage, the lower
foreground would be used for rapidly growing leafy greens.
The square box look is a fact of material/cost economy yet nothing in Nature
is at 90 degrees, pouring a concrete 'flowing' wall would cost about as much
as lumber or recycled plastic but would allow for gradual curves. We did a
few field stone raised beds and I cannot understand why people do not take
the time/effort to use natural materials such as stones, it lasts and it
creates warm spots that notably strawberries appreciate. Using good quality
lumber, you could simply machine 'keyways' into a 4x4 post at 45 degrees and
then create a less rigid looking soil containing structure, say octagonal.
The l. x w. shape is limited indeed but few people wish to take the time to
truly create a long-term garden structure.
It has been said that you do not need a raised bed container as such. In
truth, much depends on climate conditions, few things are as annoying as
having to shovel soil back in place after a hard rain. In a hot and dry
climate, the obvious solution is a Sunken Bed whereby the soil surface is
slightly lower than the substrate, allowing for better moisture retention
notably if mulched heavily. In an arid climate, dessication by wind can be
partially controlled by sinking the growing surface below grade.
Sorry to carry on about all this. In a nutshell, I would approach your
design in 4 stages, do each stage to the point where you can 'see' the next
stage 'fitting in'. Use field stone if you can pick it up gratis, this is
how the ancients formed raised beds, from the Vikings to even further back
in history. Soil is everything, so take your time to create a living soil in
each compartment. A project like this may well take 3 years but the journey
is the destination!
Thanks for sharing your ideas! It sounds like a great project and even the
time invested in researching is time well spend!
John