Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Rhododendron & Azaleas - why not?
We are in the process of soliciting bids/designs to replace the
builder supplied landscaping in our house with something a bit nicer. Our house is about a year old and resides in Northern Virginia. Our current landscaping consists of a row of Uwanamous (not sure how this is supposed to be spelled) plants against the house, with azaleas in front, and some junipers around our light post. Also a couple of holly's are thrown in. The builder also strategicaly placed a cherry tree so in ten years it will block the front of our house. So far all the bids that we have received thus far recommend that we remove the Azaleas that the builder installed (along with everything else). I'm not sure what type they are, but they have red flowers that are currently in bloom. None of the bids call for using Rhododendrons (which many of our neighbors have used to replaced the uwanamous plants.) So, my wife, being a fan of Azaleas, wants to know why none of the landscapers want to keep them, and why absolutely none of the three designs we have received thus far call for using any type of azalea or rhododendron (which she also likes). What do I tell her? ----- "Enlighten Your Mind - So Says Plato" http://ibeplato.blogspot.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Rhododendron & Azaleas - why not?
Plato wrote: We are in the process of soliciting bids/designs to replace the builder supplied landscaping in our house with something a bit nicer. Our house is about a year old and resides in Northern Virginia. Our current landscaping consists of a row of Uwanamous (not sure how this is supposed to be spelled) plants against the house, with azaleas in front, and some junipers around our light post. Also a couple of holly's are thrown in. The builder also strategicaly placed a cherry tree so in ten years it will block the front of our house. So far all the bids that we have received thus far recommend that we remove the Azaleas that the builder installed (along with everything else). I'm not sure what type they are, but they have red flowers that are currently in bloom. None of the bids call for using Rhododendrons (which many of our neighbors have used to replaced the uwanamous plants.) So, my wife, being a fan of Azaleas, wants to know why none of the landscapers want to keep them, and why absolutely none of the three designs we have received thus far call for using any type of azalea or rhododendron (which she also likes). What do I tell her? Did you ask the designers? Where I live, rhodies and azaleas are so ubiquitous as to be boring in the extreme. They offer an extremely short bloom season, then sit as dull green lumps for the other 11+ months of the year. In your climate zone, there should be scores of other shrubs and other plants which could offer a more extended period of interest. Ideally, a good designer should incorporate plants you prefer along with others they may be aware of to provide a long season of color and year round interest. Personally, if the plants are in good health and suitable to the location, I tend not to suggest wholesale removal, but perhaps relocation into a more attractive grouping incorporating additional new plant material. It is expensive and often unnecessary to remove everything and start over, unless you as the homeowner truly dislike the plants. I'd look for another designer who will work with you to incorporate the plants you like and wish to keep into the design as well as offering additional plant suggestions to add other seasonal interest. This process should be a partnership - speak up! BTW, the correct spelling is "euonymus", but you certainly nailed it phonetically :-) pam - gardengal |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Rhododendron & Azaleas - why not?
On Mon, 12 May 2003 10:51:13 -0400, Plato wrote:
snip What do I tell her? I agree with Pam. Why don't you and your wife come up with a list of plants you'd like to see, and then sit down with your designer and figger out what will and won't work with your zone, soil, light, etc., colors, scents (or not), and placements. ~Lilly "She was crazed. She bit me." ~Rain |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Rhododendron & Azaleas - why not?
"Plato" wrote in message ... We are in the process of soliciting bids/designs to replace the builder supplied landscaping in our house with something a bit nicer. Our house is about a year old and resides in Northern Virginia. Our current landscaping consists of a row of Uwanamous (not sure how this is supposed to be spelled) plants against the house, with azaleas in front, and some junipers around our light post. Also a couple of holly's are thrown in. The builder also strategicaly placed a cherry tree so in ten years it will block the front of our house. So far all the bids that we have received thus far recommend that we remove the Azaleas that the builder installed (along with everything else). I'm not sure what type they are, but they have red flowers that are currently in bloom. None of the bids call for using Rhododendrons (which many of our neighbors have used to replaced the uwanamous plants.) So, my wife, being a fan of Azaleas, wants to know why none of the landscapers want to keep them, and why absolutely none of the three designs we have received thus far call for using any type of azalea or rhododendron (which she also likes). What do I tell her? When we hired a landscape designer we were presented with a very long questionnaire to fill out. We were asked to list pants we liked and disliked, color preferences, the degree of formality desired, intended functions of the space and so on. There were a couple of site visits and then a presentation. It sounds like you are getting a landscape designed purely based on the likes of the designer. On one hand you can't expect the designer to read your mind, but then one also has to ask why your input was not solicited. It would be interesting to hear what the designers suggested. If it makes you feel better, my landscapers installed a dozen azaleas. I took out half of them after 4 years, and this year only one of the remaining azaleas looks healthy. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Rhododendron & Azaleas - why not?
Where I live, rhodies and azaleas are so
ubiquitous as to be boring in the extreme. They offer an extremely short bloom season, then sit as dull green lumps for the other 11+ months of the year. With a bit of study you can come up with a rhodo based garden that starts in January and ends in August! But you are correct - if you just stick in whatever is usually available at the garden centre, you will have a pretty narrow bloom time, and unless the foliage on the rhodos you choose is pretty interesting (some are), you better interplant with things that spread the blooms later in the year. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Rhododendron & Azaleas - why not?
On Mon, 12 May 2003 08:36:33 -0700, Lilly wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2003 10:51:13 -0400, Plato wrote: snip What do I tell her? I agree with Pam. Why don't you and your wife come up with a list of plants you'd like to see, and then sit down with your designer and figger out what will and won't work with your zone, soil, light, etc., colors, scents (or not), and placements. ~Lilly "She was crazed. She bit me." ~Rain thanks for the quick response - i guess our trouble is that we don't know enough about different varieties to know what we like. We're going to move the azaleas to other locations around the house. ----- "Enlighten Your Mind - So Says Plato" http://ibeplato.blogspot.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Rhododendron & Azaleas - why not?
"David J. Bockman" wrote:
Did you mention to the designers how much you like azalea? If they are a terribly common variety, it could be that the designers want to put something in a bit more special. I love azaleas, there are literally thousands of evergreen and deciduous varieties that work very well in our Zone. The Glen Dale Hybrids are especially suited to our zone, but also Exbury, Girard, Kurume, Robin Hill, Satsuki, and our very lovely native species love it here. Speaking as a designer, I'm somewhat mystified why none of the designers bothered to ask you what you liked (if anything) about your plantings, or solicited endorsements for any trees or shrubs you guys are fond of. I, too, love azaleas and rhodos. I know that their display is a short one but wow is it ever sweet. We do tend to plant other items of interest in the beds that are shared with both - for example, our azaleas live with the dogwoods and crape myrtles - we get the dogwoods first, then an incredible display of azaleas, followed by a lengthy show by the crape myrtles. People are always stopping by the house to see what's happening with that bed. Regards, Callen in Central VA David J. Bockman, Fairfax, VA (USDA Hardiness Zone 7) Bunabayashi Bonsai On The World Wide Web: http://www.bunabayashi.com email: "Plato" wrote in message ... We are in the process of soliciting bids/designs to replace the builder supplied landscaping in our house with something a bit nicer. Our house is about a year old and resides in Northern Virginia. Our current landscaping consists of a row of Uwanamous (not sure how this is supposed to be spelled) plants against the house, with azaleas in front, and some junipers around our light post. Also a couple of holly's are thrown in. The builder also strategicaly placed a cherry tree so in ten years it will block the front of our house. So far all the bids that we have received thus far recommend that we remove the Azaleas that the builder installed (along with everything else). I'm not sure what type they are, but they have red flowers that are currently in bloom. None of the bids call for using Rhododendrons (which many of our neighbors have used to replaced the uwanamous plants.) So, my wife, being a fan of Azaleas, wants to know why none of the landscapers want to keep them, and why absolutely none of the three designs we have received thus far call for using any type of azalea or rhododendron (which she also likes). What do I tell her? ----- "Enlighten Your Mind - So Says Plato" http://ibeplato.blogspot.com |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Rhododendron & Azaleas - why not?
From: Callen Molenda
I, too, love azaleas and rhodos. I know that their display is a short one but wow is it ever sweet. We do tend to plant other items of interest in the beds that are shared with both - for example, our azaleas live with the dogwoods and crape myrtles - we get the dogwoods first, then an incredible display of azaleas, followed by a lengthy show by the crape myrtles. I am not the biggest azalea fan, but they are absolutely lovely when part of a shrub or mixed border as you describe above. A few strategically placed azaleas will really shine this time of year. It is only when I see sheared, boxy rows of azaleas (blechh!) that my disdain for them creeps up. Bianca Long Island Zone 6-7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Rhododendron & Azaleas - why not?
On Mon, 12 May 2003 16:10:51 GMT, "Vox Humana"
wrote: "Plato" wrote in message .. . We are in the process of soliciting bids/designs to replace the builder supplied landscaping in our house with something a bit nicer. Our house is about a year old and resides in Northern Virginia. Our current landscaping consists of a row of Uwanamous (not sure how this is supposed to be spelled) plants against the house, with azaleas in front, and some junipers around our light post. Also a couple of holly's are thrown in. The builder also strategicaly placed a cherry tree so in ten years it will block the front of our house. So far all the bids that we have received thus far recommend that we remove the Azaleas that the builder installed (along with everything else). I'm not sure what type they are, but they have red flowers that are currently in bloom. None of the bids call for using Rhododendrons (which many of our neighbors have used to replaced the uwanamous plants.) So, my wife, being a fan of Azaleas, wants to know why none of the landscapers want to keep them, and why absolutely none of the three designs we have received thus far call for using any type of azalea or rhododendron (which she also likes). What do I tell her? When we hired a landscape designer we were presented with a very long questionnaire to fill out. We were asked to list pants we liked and disliked, color preferences, the degree of formality desired, intended functions of the space and so on. There were a couple of site visits and then a presentation. It sounds like you are getting a landscape designed purely based on the likes of the designer. On one hand you can't expect the designer to read your mind, but then one also has to ask why your input was not solicited. It would be interesting to hear what the designers suggested. If it makes you feel better, my landscapers installed a dozen azaleas. I took out half of them after 4 years, and this year only one of the remaining azaleas looks healthy. thanks for your note - we were interviewed, but to be honest, neither one of us knew really what we wanted, or knew much about what was available. We gave general feedback about what we were looking for in terms of an overal design, maintenance, colors, etc., but didn't give any specific plant types. It was only after looking around the neighborhood a bit that my wife commented how none of the designs included azaleas (which happen to be in bloom right now and look very nice, at least the ones that weren't crushed by the 3 feet of snow we got in February) ----- "Enlighten Your Mind - So Says Plato" http://ibeplato.blogspot.com |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Rhododendron & Azaleas - why not?
In article , Pam wrote:
Plato wrote: We are in the process of soliciting bids/designs to replace the builder supplied landscaping in our house with something a bit nicer. Our house is about a year old and resides in Northern Virginia. Our current landscaping consists of a row of Uwanamous (not sure how this is supposed to be spelled) plants against the house, with azaleas in front, and some junipers around our light post. Also a couple of holly's are thrown in. The builder also strategicaly placed a cherry tree so in ten years it will block the front of our house. So far all the bids that we have received thus far recommend that we remove the Azaleas that the builder installed (along with everything else). I'm not sure what type they are, but they have red flowers that are currently in bloom. None of the bids call for using Rhododendrons (which many of our neighbors have used to replace the uwanamous plants.) So, my wife, being a fan of Azaleas, wants to know why none of the landscapers want to keep them, and why absolutely none of the three designs we have received thus far call for using any type of azalea or rhododendron (which she also likes). There is a huge re-market for rhodies & azaleas. They transplant easily, & are greatly in demand. Sleezy landscapers want to take with them any plants they can easily dig up without injury (rhodies have shallow root systems easy to dig up without harming), & easy to sell quickly for a damned good profit. If they're giving you the impression they think these should go to the city compost, they're scamming you so they can make a noticeable side-profit while swapping you shrubs for shrubs. There is also the possibility of an honest motivation. SOME ironclad rhodies & a few azaleas are so bloody common, a good landscaper might personally be bored with them, & want to go for something a bit rare. But not many landscapers do this frankly; they don't go for rarities at all, which is why the whole new neighborhood ended up so many euonymous initially. An honest landscaper might personally be bored with common ironclads, it is true; these are the oldest basic rhodies, very nice shrubs really, but most of them bloom May/June & look too similar the rest of the year, & housing developments like to use them because they're hard to kill & they're available without a long search. I could see perhaps removing a couple ironcalds if they're all too similar, but not all of them, & not to the exclusion of any more varied types of azaleas or rhodies. Since the removed rhodies will go to another market, you could sell them yourself rather than have a landscape abscond with them pretending they were worthless. And what such a landscaper (if honest) should be open to (even if disinterested in using common ironclads) is an array of less common rhodies -- types that can be staggered to bloom through a minimum of four months of the year, that have different kinds of leaves & don't all look the same when not blooming, & perhaps break up this array with deciduous azaleas or other types of shrubs altogether. Sadly, if you do not aggressively participate in landscaping choices you'll end up with whatever the landscaper can get cheaply & charge dearly to install. Some landscapers are sick of the preferences of mere plebians (which do tend toward ironclads) but if they can't work with ironclads constructively, they're not worth their salt, & if they demean your preferences, they already hate you too much to do a good job. Plus, a PROPER and VARIED array of rhodies & azaleas WOULD include at least a couple of the tried & true ironclads, just would not be limited to them. As your wife likes azaleas & rhodies, then any decent landscaper will take that into consideration & work them into a layout & design. If knowing these are the already-installed items you like, they insist on getting rid of them, then there IS a sinister motive. Either they despise you for your taste; or figure they can rob you of popular plants they'll be able to sell in a trice; or they are such crappy landscapers they only have one general design in mind & just have to remove everything to start over, & have no SKILLED capacity to look at what is actually there that can be increased in character without having to begin from scratch. I'd like to see a list of plants they wanted to install instead -- chances are they're no less common than the rhodies they want to haul away, it's just that ONLY the rhodies have an instant re-sell (other big shrubs not transplanting as reliably). If they know you like these shrubs & respond by saying they're going to remove them, it's the same telling an architect you want vaulted ceilings & they insist that claustrophic ceilings are better for your heat bill & so your wishes stink & they won't do it that way, & all three floors of your house end up feeling like low-ceilinged basements. Their real reason was that they could dash together a clapboard more easily than provide the vaulted ceilings! And landscapers who eradicate everything to start over, &don't care about your preferences, likewise don't want to have to think & individualize properly. What do I tell her? That you're having trouble finding an honest or skillful landscape designer? Just respect her wishes -- not the overbearing insistancies of landscapers who sound second rate & calculating at the very least. Did you ask the designers? Where I live, rhodies and azaleas are so ubiquitous as to be boring in the extreme. They offer an extremely short bloom season, then sit as dull green lumps for the other 11+ months of the year. This odd attitude I hear now & then, from people who plant comparatively vastly more boring shrubs such as boxes & japanese hollies & photinias & about half the hebes on the market & privet honeysuckle.....shrubs that either don't bloom much or have tiny barely seen flowers that last two or three weeks. My sundry counter-arguments would include: 1) Well, for deciduous azaleas, none of the above applies at all. They go through the most antic & marvelous seasonal changes. There is type of shrub in the world that is more exciting than a large Exbury intensely flowering in spring, with gorgeously crinkly summer greens, with intense autumn colors equal to the impact of spring bloom, & a winter limb strucuture with buds swelling that can't be beat. I bought my "White Throad" azalea years ago in the middle of winter because the upright twig structure was shockingly beautiful! But I'm going to assume for the rest that by "rhodies & azaleas" you meant only the evergreens, though if these varied & often dynamic/changing leaves are "dull green lumps" I hate to think how dull that must make the average conifer. 2) First the issue of short bloom season. I have rhodies blooming from March to July. Only very bad planning results in a rush of blooms in one month then nothing the rest of the year. 3) This is the main thing: Rhody leaves are spectacular & antic. Even the types that may superficially seem like they ought to be "static" green leaves actually drop their leaves in two year cycles & go through a number of slower changes. And at WORST those would only be as "bad" or boring as conifers or boxes that change even less, have more ordinary leaves to start with, or don't even have flowers worthy of being called flowers. But so many evergreen rhodies in fact have extreme seasonal interest to the leaves, in a multiude of shapes & varieties & colors. Examples of seasonal antics: 3a) Those of the Williamsoni type (I have two, "Brickdust" & "Whispering Rose"), toward the end of their bloom cycle, develop bright yellow-green leaves folded into the shapes of arrowheads pointing stright up, like an army, & slowly unfold to round convex leaves & harden to green. These leaves are like a second bloom extending one months of bloom into six. "Brickdust" also has brightly colored buds, so if one counts two weeks of bright buds, four of big trusses of flowers, & two or three of yellow arrow-heads, it is "blooming" for over 8 weeks. 3b) Many of these shrubs such as the PJMs, Oceanlake, & many Gerard varieties, though fully evergreen, turn a gorgeous mahagony for autumn & winter. Stewartsownia turns a bright & shiny red in autumn then loses about half the leaves. In winter the underside of the leaves of "Starry Night" turn purple-red, as do many other varieties. 3c) Others such as "Mood Indigo" toward end of their bloom period develop such bright yellow new leaves that the purple flowers seem to have been slowly displaced by bright yellow flowers, which take two weeks to harden to green. "Hill's Bright Red" not only has five or six weeks of enormous red pillow-buds that open into trusses of the deepest red flowers, but when it is finished blooming it continues to produce slender upright leaves that are themselves so brilliantly red many mistake them flor flowers until they begin to broaden & darken into regular green lances. 3d) Still ohers such as the species shrub R. pachytrichum but also several fancy hybrids, the first leaves of spring look like the horns of antelope, long & slender with a sabor-curve. When after two or three weeks these strange leaf-buds begin to open, they are spider-like multiple-leaves developing off just one of these horns. Absolutely fascinating! 3e) Some leaves though less antic are colorful year round, such as species & varieties with bright yellow or orange furry undersides. 3f) There are a few rhodies with variegated leaves, such as one strain of "Alison Johnstone" with yellow in the green leaves. 4) A few rhodies in ideal conditions bloom twice a year. Not many admittedly, but my "Lee's Purple" & a Korean species azalea rebloom in autumn. 5) Many types of rhodies have brightly colored buds which appear two to four weeks before flowering; this means a shrub in full bloom for four weeks is in bright bud-then-bloom for six to eight weeks. 6) The leaf forms are extremely varied. The spider azalea to many people wouldn't even be recognized as an azalea it is so strange with its speghetti-thin leaves. The speghetti-thin rose-pink blossoms look just like the leaves, plus it blooms a full 8 weeks OR LONGER. Many lepidote dwarf evergreen rhodies have leaves no bigger than a pinky's fingernail, while large-leafed varieties go all the way to the size of one's forearm. Leaf shape ranges from filament-thin to perfectly round. 7) Some rhodies are densely leafed year round, but others lose half their leaves in winter, & others are naturally loosely leafed all year. These are only as beautiful as the limb structure. I've a "Milestone" that looks like a bonzai genius spent thirty years shaping it, though I've seen other Milestones that just looked like a twiggy branch. Even a common ironclad like "Catawba Album," it can be EITHER a dense wide mound of leaves OR a thinly leafed shrub with amazing zigzagging thick barky limbs totally visible. If rhodododrens had no blooms, they would still be high-end items for gardens because of the showy amazing & highly varied leaf forms & colors. To me, what a shrub looks like & behaves like when NOT in bloom that matters greatly, & I've chosen many of my rhodies when not in bloom for their woody structure & leaves, with the assumption that when they look that great not in bloom, the flowers are just bonuses. When I see people buying box shrubs hand over fist, I have to restrain myself from telling them to put them back, & get either a lepidote rhody that'll have the same small-leaf shrubby impact PLUS lilac flowers in spring, or a vaccinium which'll have berries the rest of the year. But then, I do also also like "boring" hebes & for all intent & purploses bloomless box honeysuckle & japanese holly despite that on the bloom scales & seasonal change scale they don't rate much & rhodies vastly outmeasure them. And I'm terribly fond of deciduous native shrubs which are perfect for breaking up what might otherwise be a veritable hedge of large evergreen rhodies & small evergreen azaleas. Some people don't even recognize which of all these shrubs are rhodies. If they think they stop at Ironclads & Kurume azaleas, then tiny-leaf dwarf lepidotes catch their eye as something completely novel. Groundcover rhodies that don't get more than four inches to a foot high, some so densely leafed you can't see the structure (like "Yaku Fairy"), others very loose & reaching with pompoms of leaves on long arms, as is the form of many R. nakahare sunny rockery rhodies (& helping to extend the general rhody bloom season to July). I wouldn't personally want ALL rhodies & azaleas because without native deciduous shrubs dispersed through my garden, it would not delight me quite so much. But Azalea Way at the Arboretum suggests the all-rhododendron-species approach isn't necessarily bad. If a gardener avoids too many young "producty" rhodies that bloom May & have no individual character to their structure, then there will never be anything boring about a garden with lots of rhodies. They are apt to be the most important focal points & "anchors" of a well laid out garden, in or out of flower. To some extent the prejudice that says "they only bloom a month, then nothin'" has developed out of the fact that they are SO extravagant when in bloom that by comparison people fail to see the obvious: that no other group of shrubs is so varied & fascinating for the leaves alone. In your climate zone, there should be scores of other shrubs and other plants which could offer a more extended period of interest. Ideally, a good designer should incorporate plants you prefer along with others they may be aware of to provide a long season of color and year round interest. Personally, if the plants are in good health and suitable to the location, I tend not to suggest wholesale removal, but perhaps relocation into a more attractive grouping incorporating additional new plant material. It is expensive and often unnecessary to remove everything and start over, unless you as the homeowner truly dislike the plants. That struck me as good advice. I would be suspcious of a landscaper who insisted in completely eradicating everything to start over. I'd look for another designer who will work with you to incorporate the plants you like and wish to keep into the design as well as offering additional plant suggestions to add other seasonal interest. This process should be a partnership - speak up! The best advice yet. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/ |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Rhododendron & Azaleas - why not?
In article ,
(Bill Spohn) wrote: Where I live, rhodies and azaleas are so ubiquitous as to be boring in the extreme. They offer an extremely short bloom season, then sit as dull green lumps for the other 11+ months of the year. With a bit of study you can come up with a rhodo based garden that starts in January and ends in August! Mine go from March to July. What might be choice August bloomers in zone 8, if I may enquire? -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Rhododendron & Azaleas - why not?
Mine go from March to July. What might be choice August bloomers in zone
8, if I may enquire? R. diaprepes (and it's hybrid), Polar Bear can bloom that late, but for the most part it is to the native species azaleas you look for really late blooming - prunifolium, viscosum, maybe an auriculatum or two. The humble R. ponticum can extend past the end of July in some places, but usually peaks in June. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Rhododendron & Azaleas - why not?
Bill Spohn wrote: Where I live, rhodies and azaleas are so ubiquitous as to be boring in the extreme. They offer an extremely short bloom season, then sit as dull green lumps for the other 11+ months of the year. With a bit of study you can come up with a rhodo based garden that starts in January and ends in August! But unless you are a rhody collector, why would you want to? Why limit yourself to one plant family when there are scores of others that will offer a much more expanded range of interest - foliage color and texture, other flower forms, winter berries or stem color, midsummer or late winter fragrance, fall foliage color, wildlife attraction, etc., etc., etc. And even though one can indeed find species of rhodies that will offer blooms outside of the normal April-May-June period, they too have a short bloom period, leaving only the green (mostly) foliage to remain for the rest of the year. But you are correct - if you just stick in whatever is usually available at the garden centre, you will have a pretty narrow bloom time, and unless the foliage on the rhodos you choose is pretty interesting (some are), you better interplant with things that spread the blooms later in the year. Indeed. But some "landscaping" outfits (and I say that very generously) suffer from an acute lack of imagination and/or miserly pocketbook and opt out for the limited, ordinary, cheap and boring. pam - gardengal |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Rhododendron & Azaleas - why not?
Bill Spohn wrote: Mine go from March to July. What might be choice August bloomers in zone 8, if I may enquire? R. diaprepes (and it's hybrid), Polar Bear can bloom that late, but for the most part it is to the native species azaleas you look for really late blooming - prunifolium, viscosum, maybe an auriculatum or two. The humble R. ponticum can extend past the end of July in some places, but usually peaks in June. Interesting. My viscosums are blooming now and tradtionally always have at this time of year. What's up with that? Wouldn't mind if they bloomed as late as August - there is always a lull in blooming shrubs at that time of year, compared to spring. pam - gardengal |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Why ? Why ? Why? | United Kingdom | |||
new growth does not show any buds..yet..Azaleas | Gardening | |||
Banned Herbicides &&&& Pesticides | United Kingdom | |||
why human civilization is based on the staples of wheat, rice, potatoes? Why not oak acorns? | Plant Science | |||
why human civilization is based on the staples of wheat, rice, potatoes? Why not oak acorns? | Plant Science |