Watched a bit of this Prog on BBC 4 last night.
That's a garden I wont be going back to.
I remember it in its early days, well the 50's when if you were visiting
by car you parked at the side f the road, you went in under the archway
and left your donation on the trestle table that also had some plants
for sale.
It was a very good domestic garden that was in the throws of developing,
I sure I remember the white garden being planted, the lime walk was one
of the features.
At the time we lived just outside Hastings so it was in our visiting range
Now it looks like a large commercial venture.
David @ the sunny side of Swansea (or is that the moon?)

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 22:16:03 +0000, David Hill
wrote:

Watched a bit of this Prog on BBC 4 last night.
That's a garden I wont be going back to.
I remember it in its early days, well the 50's when if you were visiting
by car you parked at the side f the road, you went in under the archway
and left your donation on the trestle table that also had some plants
for sale.
It was a very good domestic garden that was in the throws of developing,
I sure I remember the white garden being planted, the lime walk was one
of the features.
At the time we lived just outside Hastings so it was in our visiting range
Now it looks like a large commercial venture.
David @ the sunny side of Swansea (or is that the moon?)

One feeling I often have when it comes to National Trust gardens is
that the powers that be seem fixated with the ethos of preservation as
is. In the case of a building, they may have a point though if that
building was still lived in, and unfettered by the NT thinking, the
decor would change a bit, the furniture would change a bit and so on.
There is an element of "unreal", albeit countered by the preservation
of "history".

But gardens are different. They change, develop. Christopher Lloyd
regularly changed his garden, sometimes for the better, sometimes for
the worse. But it changed, it developed and that process goes on. New
plant varieties become available and we experiment with them. How many
of us can say that our garden today is almost exactly as it was 10
years ago?

The NT seems to apply its preservation thinking to gardens too and, I
think, this is a big mistake. I guess that in years to come, when
climate change dictates that we adapt our gardens to the climate or to
other factors, the NT will still be trying to maintain massive beds of
impatiens walleriana and ignoring the "disease" that kills them off.

Most NT gardens seem tired to me. Now they've taken over Dyffryn
Gardens, here in South Wales, I hope they won't call a halt to the
process of regeneration that's gone on over the last 10+ years. Whilst
some may say those gardens are "institutionalised" following years of
local authority rule, a lot has happened there and it would be a great
pity if they suddenly became frozen in time.

And I guess that Vita is turning in her grave, probably getting dizzy!

Cheers, Jake
=======================================
Urgling from the East End of Swansea Bay where sometimes
it's raining and sometimes it's not.

On 2013-02-14 23:26:43 +0000, The Original Jake said:

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 22:16:03 +0000, David Hill
wrote:

Watched a bit of this Prog on BBC 4 last night.
That's a garden I wont be going back to.
I remember it in its early days, well the 50's when if you were visiting
by car you parked at the side f the road, you went in under the archway
and left your donation on the trestle table that also had some plants
for sale.
It was a very good domestic garden that was in the throws of developing,
I sure I remember the white garden being planted, the lime walk was one
of the features.
At the time we lived just outside Hastings so it was in our visiting range
Now it looks like a large commercial venture.
David @ the sunny side of Swansea (or is that the moon?)

One feeling I often have when it comes to National Trust gardens is
that the powers that be seem fixated with the ethos of preservation as
is. In the case of a building, they may have a point though if that
building was still lived in, and unfettered by the NT thinking, the
decor would change a bit, the furniture would change a bit and so on.
There is an element of "unreal", albeit countered by the preservation
of "history".

But gardens are different. They change, develop. Christopher Lloyd
regularly changed his garden, sometimes for the better, sometimes for
the worse. But it changed, it developed and that process goes on. New
plant varieties become available and we experiment with them. How many
of us can say that our garden today is almost exactly as it was 10
years ago?

The NT seems to apply its preservation thinking to gardens too and, I
think, this is a big mistake. I guess that in years to come, when
climate change dictates that we adapt our gardens to the climate or to
other factors, the NT will still be trying to maintain massive beds of
impatiens walleriana and ignoring the "disease" that kills them off.

Most NT gardens seem tired to me. Now they've taken over Dyffryn
Gardens, here in South Wales, I hope they won't call a halt to the
process of regeneration that's gone on over the last 10+ years. Whilst
some may say those gardens are "institutionalised" following years of
local authority rule, a lot has happened there and it would be a great
pity if they suddenly became frozen in time.

And I guess that Vita is turning in her grave, probably getting dizzy!

Cheers, Jake
=======================================
Urgling from the East End of Swansea Bay where sometimes
it's raining and sometimes it's not.

The NT doesn't have gardens as its top priority, I suppose. The
buildings are their first concern. I've often wished the NT and RHS
could get together and help each other out, as well as those of us
who'd like to see great gardens at NT properties and buy RHS plants!
However, all too often NT gardeners are constrained by comparatively
small budgets, the man who's head gardener ends up doing masses of desk
work instead of gardening and 6 plants are trying to do the work of 12.
That said, the previous head gardener did a fabulous job at Coleton
Fishacre about 3 years ago, so we must go back and take another look at
that. And the NT is restoring the 5th Countess's garden at Osterley
Park, so it's obviously prepared to spend the money, if it's going to
complement the need to raise money to maintain the building. But as
far as I'm aware - and you may know better - they tend to take the view
that the property has to be maintained as it was at some fixed point in
its heyday. Iow, when a famous person lived there, some interesting
historical occurrence took place or something of that sort.
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 The Original Jake wrote:

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 22:16:03 +0000, David Hill
wrote:

Watched a bit of this Prog on BBC 4 last night.
That's a garden I wont be going back to.
I remember it in its early days, well the 50's when if you were visiting
by car you parked at the side f the road, you went in under the archway
and left your donation on the trestle table that also had some plants
for sale.
It was a very good domestic garden that was in the throws of developing,
I sure I remember the white garden being planted, the lime walk was one
of the features.
At the time we lived just outside Hastings so it was in our visiting range
Now it looks like a large commercial venture.
David @ the sunny side of Swansea (or is that the moon?)

One feeling I often have when it comes to National Trust gardens is
that the powers that be seem fixated with the ethos of preservation as
is. In the case of a building, they may have a point though if that
building was still lived in, and unfettered by the NT thinking, the
decor would change a bit, the furniture would change a bit and so on.
There is an element of "unreal", albeit countered by the preservation
of "history".

But isn't this what the public wants? Don't they want to see the very
chairs, tables, etc., that the famous actually sat in? In Jane Austen's
house, for instance, don't people want to see the actual table at which
Jane wrote?

Does anyone here remember Bernard Miles in the days when he did
monologues? Must have been back in the '40s - '50s. Most of them were
about a Buckinghamshire yokel who lived in "Oivin'hoe (noice little
village is Oivin'hoe"). But in one he took the mickey out of those who
wanted to see original furniture, etc. in historic houses, by doing it
as a lady of a certain age who was showing people around Shakespeare's
house and pointing out all the things which the bard would actually have
used.

But gardens are different. They change, develop. Christopher Lloyd
regularly changed his garden, sometimes for the better, sometimes for
the worse. But it changed, it developed and that process goes on. New
plant varieties become available and we experiment with them. How many
of us can say that our garden today is almost exactly as it was 10
years ago?

Tonight Monty Don is visiting Monet's garden at Giverney. That is famous
now only *because* it has been restored to how Monet laid it out. And I
guess that is what most people want to see.

David

--
David Rance writing from Caversham, Reading, UK

"David Rance" wrote

Tonight Monty Don is visiting Monet's garden at Giverney. That is famous
now only *because* it has been restored to how Monet laid it out. And I
guess that is what most people want to see.


Yes, I'm interested to see if he mentions Joseph Bory Latour-Marliac,
Monet's friend, tonight, without who there would be no paintings of hardy
coloured water lilies.
http://www.latour-marliac.com/newshi...php?idlangue=1
--
Regards. Bob Hobden.
Posted to this Newsgroup from the W of London, UK

"Bob Hobden" wrote in message
...
"David Rance" wrote

Tonight Monty Don is visiting Monet's garden at Giverney. That is famous
now only *because* it has been restored to how Monet laid it out. And I
guess that is what most people want to see.


Yes, I'm interested to see if he mentions Joseph Bory Latour-Marliac,
Monet's friend, tonight, without who there would be no paintings of hardy
coloured water lilies.
http://www.latour-marliac.com/newshi...php?idlangue=1
--
Regards. Bob Hobden.
Posted to this Newsgroup from the W of London, UK

We are interested to see who the first person is to take a poke at 'the
broadcaster/interviewer we all love to hate' and then to see who takes up
the spat.

Mike


--

....................................

I'm an Angel, honest ! The horns are there just to keep the halo straight.

....................................

On 2013-02-15 10:33:36 +0000, David Rance said:

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 The Original Jake wrote:

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 22:16:03 +0000, David Hill
wrote:

Watched a bit of this Prog on BBC 4 last night.
That's a garden I wont be going back to.
I remember it in its early days, well the 50's when if you were visiting
by car you parked at the side f the road, you went in under the archway
and left your donation on the trestle table that also had some plants
for sale.
It was a very good domestic garden that was in the throws of developing,
I sure I remember the white garden being planted, the lime walk was one
of the features.
At the time we lived just outside Hastings so it was in our visiting range
Now it looks like a large commercial venture.
David @ the sunny side of Swansea (or is that the moon?)

One feeling I often have when it comes to National Trust gardens is
that the powers that be seem fixated with the ethos of preservation as
is. In the case of a building, they may have a point though if that
building was still lived in, and unfettered by the NT thinking, the
decor would change a bit, the furniture would change a bit and so on.
There is an element of "unreal", albeit countered by the preservation
of "history".

But isn't this what the public wants? Don't they want to see the very
chairs, tables, etc., that the famous actually sat in? In Jane Austen's
house, for instance, don't people want to see the actual table at which
Jane wrote?

As long as that's what they really are seeing. I don't mean in the case
of Jane Austen's house, btw, because I have no idea. Many 'statelys'
are handed over with a lot of the furniture taken by the families who
have moved out into smaller, less unwieldy properties and kept the good
pieces to pass on down through the generation. One of my favourite NT
houses is Lanhydrock which is more than worth a visit. It gives the
impression the family has just popped out for a walk and will be back
any moment because it's so well-furnished and there are books, gloves,
hats etc. lying around. But a steward told me that almost nothing there
is the original furniture.

Does anyone here remember Bernard Miles in the days when he did
monologues? Must have been back in the '40s - '50s. Most of them were
about a Buckinghamshire yokel who lived in "Oivin'hoe (noice little
village is Oivin'hoe"). But in one he took the mickey out of those who
wanted to see original furniture, etc. in historic houses, by doing it
as a lady of a certain age who was showing people around Shakespeare's
house and pointing out all the things which the bard would actually
have used.

We saw Anne's second best bed! ;-)


But gardens are different. They change, develop. Christopher Lloyd
regularly changed his garden, sometimes for the better, sometimes for
the worse. But it changed, it developed and that process goes on. New
plant varieties become available and we experiment with them. How many
of us can say that our garden today is almost exactly as it was 10
years ago?

Tonight Monty Don is visiting Monet's garden at Giverney. That is famous
now only *because* it has been restored to how Monet laid it out. And I
guess that is what most people want to see.

David

We visited 4 or 5 years ago and couldn't enthuse about the planting
which was very sparse in several areas. Istr Tithonia 'Torche'
standing singly at about 4' intervals which looked a bit odd and I do
wonder if they're still there or if, indeed, Monet would have known
then. We liked the potager most. But I expect there's been a lot more
planting and changes since then! Of course, the focal point for most
visitors, is the pond and water lilies.
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On 2013-02-15 13:45:33 +0000, Martin said:

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:14:33 +0000, Sacha wrote:

On 2013-02-15 10:33:36 +0000, David Rance said:

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 The Original Jake wrote:

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 22:16:03 +0000, David Hill
wrote:

Watched a bit of this Prog on BBC 4 last night.
That's a garden I wont be going back to.
I remember it in its early days, well the 50's when if you were visiting
by car you parked at the side f the road, you went in under the archway
and left your donation on the trestle table that also had some plants
for sale.
It was a very good domestic garden that was in the throws of developing,
I sure I remember the white garden being planted, the lime walk was one
of the features.
At the time we lived just outside Hastings so it was in our visiting range
Now it looks like a large commercial venture.
David @ the sunny side of Swansea (or is that the moon?)

One feeling I often have when it comes to National Trust gardens is
that the powers that be seem fixated with the ethos of preservation as
is. In the case of a building, they may have a point though if that
building was still lived in, and unfettered by the NT thinking, the
decor would change a bit, the furniture would change a bit and so on.
There is an element of "unreal", albeit countered by the preservation
of "history".

But isn't this what the public wants? Don't they want to see the very
chairs, tables, etc., that the famous actually sat in? In Jane Austen's
house, for instance, don't people want to see the actual table at which
Jane wrote?

As long as that's what they really are seeing. I don't mean in the case
of Jane Austen's house, btw, because I have no idea. Many 'statelys'
are handed over with a lot of the furniture taken by the families who
have moved out into smaller, less unwieldy properties and kept the good
pieces to pass on down through the generation. One of my favourite NT
houses is Lanhydrock which is more than worth a visit. It gives the
impression the family has just popped out for a walk and will be back
any moment because it's so well-furnished and there are books, gloves,
hats etc. lying around. But a steward told me that almost nothing there
is the original furniture.

Fountains Hall was handed over to the NT fully furnished. The last
time we visited, the downstairs room was a visitors reception area and
the upstairs rooms were no longer accessible to the public because
they are used by the NT for storage.
Next door, Studley Royal Water Garden was returned to something like
the original design by felling and burning many mature trees. It looks
very nice now, but so did what was there before.
Once we drove 2 hours to Fountains Abbey & Studley Royal Water Garden
once only to find that when we got there both had shut early because
they had been rented for the evening for a private function. We find
that sort of thing unacceptable.
When Avebury Manor was taken over by the NT it and its gardens were
no longer open to the public. The tenant screamed at us to get out of
"her garden".

The issue of what to preserve and what to return to its former state is
always a thorny one when a 'committee' is involved. My husband knew
the estate manager at Cotehele some years ago and there was a wrangle
over a particular tree for years. I'm not sure if it was ever
resolveed. One faction wanted it cut down as it hid Mrs D'Oyly Carte's
favourite view and the other wanted it retained as it was Mrs D'Oyly
Carte's favourite tree! One of the more irritating facets of the NT's
planning is their closing days. On one occasion we hoped to see
Cotehele, only to find it was their closing day. Now, of course, we
could have checked before leaving home had we planned that as the sole
reason for the trip but we were in the area anyway and it was a spur of
the moment decision. There were no signs to tell us the house was
closed because the shop and café were open and they want you to visit
those! On two or three occasions I've asked stewards why the NT
doesn't have an "everything shuts on Tuesday" policy and each has
agreed it would be a very good idea but the powers-that-be won't do it,
or just don't pick up on the suggestions. I did once email the NT
about it but didn't even get a stock reply. I think they do great work
btw and admire the volunteers who give up so much of their time. But I
do think it's probably a bit top-heavy in the bureaucracy department.
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On 2013-02-15 15:46:27 +0000, Sacha said:

On 2013-02-15 13:45:33 +0000, Martin said:

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:14:33 +0000, Sacha wrote:

On 2013-02-15 10:33:36 +0000, David Rance said:

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 The Original Jake wrote:

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 22:16:03 +0000, David Hill
wrote:

Watched a bit of this Prog on BBC 4 last night.
That's a garden I wont be going back to.
I remember it in its early days, well the 50's when if you were visiting
by car you parked at the side f the road, you went in under the archway
and left your donation on the trestle table that also had some plants
for sale.
It was a very good domestic garden that was in the throws of developing,
I sure I remember the white garden being planted, the lime walk was one
of the features.
At the time we lived just outside Hastings so it was in our visiting range
Now it looks like a large commercial venture.
David @ the sunny side of Swansea (or is that the moon?)

One feeling I often have when it comes to National Trust gardens is
that the powers that be seem fixated with the ethos of preservation as
is. In the case of a building, they may have a point though if that
building was still lived in, and unfettered by the NT thinking, the
decor would change a bit, the furniture would change a bit and so on.
There is an element of "unreal", albeit countered by the preservation
of "history".

But isn't this what the public wants? Don't they want to see the very
chairs, tables, etc., that the famous actually sat in? In Jane Austen's
house, for instance, don't people want to see the actual table at which
Jane wrote?

As long as that's what they really are seeing. I don't mean in the case
of Jane Austen's house, btw, because I have no idea. Many 'statelys'
are handed over with a lot of the furniture taken by the families who
have moved out into smaller, less unwieldy properties and kept the good
pieces to pass on down through the generation. One of my favourite NT
houses is Lanhydrock which is more than worth a visit. It gives the
impression the family has just popped out for a walk and will be back
any moment because it's so well-furnished and there are books, gloves,
hats etc. lying around. But a steward told me that almost nothing there
is the original furniture.

Fountains Hall was handed over to the NT fully furnished. The last
time we visited, the downstairs room was a visitors reception area and
the upstairs rooms were no longer accessible to the public because
they are used by the NT for storage.
Next door, Studley Royal Water Garden was returned to something like
the original design by felling and burning many mature trees. It looks
very nice now, but so did what was there before.
Once we drove 2 hours to Fountains Abbey & Studley Royal Water Garden
once only to find that when we got there both had shut early because
they had been rented for the evening for a private function. We find
that sort of thing unacceptable.
When Avebury Manor was taken over by the NT it and its gardens were
no longer open to the public. The tenant screamed at us to get out of
"her garden".

The issue of what to preserve and what to return to its former state is
always a thorny one when a 'committee' is involved. My husband knew
the estate manager at Cotehele some years ago and there was a wrangle
over a particular tree for years. I'm not sure if it was ever
resolveed. One faction wanted it cut down as it hid Mrs D'Oyly Carte's
favourite view and the other wanted it retained as it was Mrs D'Oyly
Carte's favourite tree! One of the more irritating facets of the NT's
planning is their closing days. On one occasion we hoped to see
Cotehele, only to find it was their closing day. Now, of course, we
could have checked before leaving home had we planned that as the sole
reason for the trip but we were in the area anyway and it was a spur of
the moment decision. There were no signs to tell us the house was
closed because the shop and café were open and they want you to visit
those! On two or three occasions I've asked stewards why the NT
doesn't have an "everything shuts on Tuesday" policy and each has
agreed it would be a very good idea but the powers-that-be won't do it,
or just don't pick up on the suggestions. I did once email the NT
about it but didn't even get a stock reply. I think they do great work
btw and admire the volunteers who give up so much of their time. But I
do think it's probably a bit top-heavy in the bureaucracy department.

Splat! Not Cotehele - Coleton Fishacre. Sorry!
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On 2013-02-15 16:03:22 +0000, Martin said:

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 15:46:27 +0000, Sacha wrote:
snipOn two or three occasions I've asked stewards why the NT
doesn't have an "everything shuts on Tuesday" policy and each has
agreed it would be a very good idea but the powers-that-be won't do it,
or just don't pick up on the suggestions. I did once email the NT
about it but didn't even get a stock reply. I think they do great work
btw and admire the volunteers who give up so much of their time. But I
do think it's probably a bit top-heavy in the bureaucracy department.

We can cope with scheduled closings, but not closing for the afternoon
without warning, because of a booking for a private event in the
evening. Incidentally large parts of the NT Fountains Abbey website
are broken. I wonder if they know or care.

Again, this can sometimes be a problem the public aren't aware of. I do
know of an instance where the heirs of the former owners were
responsible for the maintenance of a bridge on land used by NT
customers. There was a minor dispute about it but the family paid for
it to be repaired and then gave it to the NT. Such things can be quite
protracted and the more expensive, the more so, I'd think.

I saw on the website that
members of English Heritage can get into Fountains Abbey free. Is
there a general reciprocal arrangement between English Heritage and
NT?

No idea I'm afraid.
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On 14/02/2013 23:26, The Original Jake wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 22:16:03 +0000, David Hill
wrote:

One feeling I often have when it comes to National Trust gardens is
that the powers that be seem fixated with the ethos of preservation as
is. In the case of a building, they may have a point though if that
building was still lived in, and unfettered by the NT thinking, the
decor would change a bit, the furniture would change a bit and so on.
There is an element of "unreal", albeit countered by the preservation
of "history".

But gardens are different. They change, develop. Christopher Lloyd
regularly changed his garden, sometimes for the better, sometimes for
the worse. But it changed, it developed and that process goes on. New
plant varieties become available and we experiment with them. How many
of us can say that our garden today is almost exactly as it was 10
years ago?

We aren't talking about "our" garden over a very recent period of a few
years. Nor of one by the current (or very recently dead) designer. We
are talking about a specific garden of 200 or 300 or even more years
ago, linked to the house at the time. As with the associated house, a
decision - or several decisions - may have to be made about what later
amendments to keep and what to remove, particularly if the Victorians
"improved" the design by updating it. If the building was originally
Elizabethan, but was changed in part to an early Georgian style, later
again changed to Regency and then to Late Victorian, you may decide to
take it all the way back, or leave it, for example, as Regency. You can
then decide to have the garden as it looked in Elizabethan, Georgian, or
Regency times. But not Late Victorian times, and not as a modern garden.

And if you want to change the garden where do you stop? Are you going
to "Uncapability" the landscape? Are you going to bulldoze the finest
landscape anywhere at Stourhead so that Piet Oudolf can make it the
biggest prairie around? Of course not.

There are good reasons for not being able to change the outside of a
Grade I listed building. Maybe we should be thinking about having Grade
I listed gardens, too, and restoring them to their original state - not
"improving" them.

--

Jeff

And if you want to change the garden where do you stop? Are you going
to "Uncapability" the landscape? Are you going to bulldoze the finest
landscape anywhere at Stourhead so that Piet Oudolf can make it the
biggest prairie around? Of course not.

There are good reasons for not being able to change the outside of a
Grade I listed building. Maybe we should be thinking about having Grade
I listed gardens, too, and restoring them to their original state - not
"improving" them.

MY point was that a very pleasant home garden has been changed to a
large commercial enterprise.
Like revisiting the corner shop of ones youth to find it's now a Tesco
superstore.

"David Hill" wrote
MY point was that a very pleasant home garden has been changed to a
large commercial enterprise.
Like revisiting the corner shop of ones youth to find it's now a Tesco
superstore.

Excellent analogy David.
--
Regards. Bob Hobden.
Posted to this Newsgroup from the W of London, UK

On 16/02/2013 10:30, Martin wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:22:40 +0000, Jeff Layman
wrote:


There are good reasons for not being able to change the outside of a
Grade I listed building. Maybe we should be thinking about having Grade
I listed gardens, too, and restoring them to their original state - not
"improving" them.

Which original state? The state after 1 year, 10 years, 50 years, 100
years or 250 years? At Studley Royal Water Gardens mature trees that
were planted when the garden were new were felled and burnt.

As in the example I gave, the original state would have been
Elizabethan. However, if the house had been so changed in the Regency
period that it was effectively no longer Elizabethan in design, but
Regency, then it would make sense to "restore" it to a Regency garden,
reflecting the main design of the house. Usually, though, the
modifications are not so clear-cut. Maybe a new wing would be added in
a new design. Maybe the front would change, but the back remain as the
original. So you might have an Elizabethan back with a Georgian front.
In that case, a garden at the back might be made of Elizabethan
design, while if there was one in the front, it should be Georgian.

With Studley, it would not be possible to immediately plant it with 20m+
mature trees. But that doesn't mean one shouldn't put smaller ones in
and let them grow. And, let's face it, that was the whole idea behind
the grand 18thC landscape gardens - not what you got *now* - but what
you would see in 50 years time. So with that example I'd be happy to
see anything from mid 18th to early 19thC if you were trying to restore
it, but not anything later.

--

Jeff

On 17/02/2013 09:50, Martin wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 13:27:29 +0000, Jeff Layman
wrote:

On 16/02/2013 10:30, Martin wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:22:40 +0000, Jeff Layman
wrote:


There are good reasons for not being able to change the outside of a
Grade I listed building. Maybe we should be thinking about having Grade
I listed gardens, too, and restoring them to their original state - not
"improving" them.

Which original state? The state after 1 year, 10 years, 50 years, 100
years or 250 years? At Studley Royal Water Gardens mature trees that
were planted when the garden were new were felled and burnt.

As in the example I gave, the original state would have been
Elizabethan. However, if the house had been so changed in the Regency
period that it was effectively no longer Elizabethan in design, but
Regency, then it would make sense to "restore" it to a Regency garden,
reflecting the main design of the house. Usually, though, the
modifications are not so clear-cut. Maybe a new wing would be added in
a new design. Maybe the front would change, but the back remain as the
original. So you might have an Elizabethan back with a Georgian front.
In that case, a garden at the back might be made of Elizabethan
design, while if there was one in the front, it should be Georgian.

With Studley, it would not be possible to immediately plant it with 20m+
mature trees. But that doesn't mean one shouldn't put smaller ones in
and let them grow. And, let's face it, that was the whole idea behind
the grand 18thC landscape gardens - not what you got *now* - but what
you would see in 50 years time. So with that example I'd be happy to
see anything from mid 18th to early 19thC if you were trying to restore
it, but not anything later.

To include trees that were planted, when the garden was created which
are now mature?

That's a difficult one to answer. On a small scale, most designers
don't think about the future to any great extent - they are creating a
"now" garden. But all shrubs and trees mature and grow, and could have
a marked impact on the original design. And it might not be a simple
change of shape with, perhaps, shrubs running into each other. It might
be, for instance, trees growing and over time shading out plants which
only grow well in full sun.

I suppose that if such a record or comment existed, you'd have to go
with what the designer intended the garden to look like, either at the
time it was created, or in the future. In the absence of such
information, I guess that you'd have to go with your own idea about what
you think the designers intentions were.

--

Jeff