Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin' deck
On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 17:40:22 +0100, "Brian Watson"
wrote: "martin" wrote "Flippin' deck http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...231770,00.html Jane Perrone delights in the demise of a certain garden fad, and has some advice on putting right its inherent wrongs Nonsense. Used appropriately it is fine. I needed a safe all-weather path system in my garden, so I used decking that I treated with varnish-type stuff into which sand had been stirred to improve the grip in wet or icy weather. I was surprised by the extreme negative article and comments. Decking is certainly an improvement over mud and boggy spots, making a useful seating (or walking, as above) area where garden plants are either difficult to grow or not wanted. Many of the Ground Force projects involved making a pleasant platform where people could enjoy looking at the rest of the garden. On level 'ground' where chairs and a table might be comfortably placed, as well as attractive plants in pots. It's not as if they were paving over the entire garden. Also, while the UK probably has the highest proportion of passionate gardeners of any population on earth, there must be some people who would prefer tidy, reasonably attractive, low-maintenance landscaping rather than a wilderness of weeds or scruffy grass and overgrown bushes. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin' deck
In article , Frogleg
writes was surprised by the extreme negative article and comments. Decking is certainly an improvement over mud and boggy spots, making a useful seating (or walking, as above) area where garden plants are either difficult to grow or not wanted. It's also lethally slippery over a large part of the year. Remember we're a lot wetter than you are! It's a good solution in a drier climate, but a lot of us remain to be convinced that it's anything other than an impractical fashion fad over here. -- Kay "Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river" |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin' deck
Frogleg wrote:
I was surprised by the extreme negative article and comments. Decking is certainly an improvement over mud and boggy spots, making a useful seating (or walking, as above) area where garden plants are either difficult to grow or not wanted. Many of the Ground Force projects involved making a pleasant platform where people could enjoy looking at the rest of the garden. On level 'ground' where chairs and a table might be comfortably placed, as well as attractive plants in pots. It's not as if they were paving over the entire garden. I did see one TV show where they actually did deck the entire garden (one of those long narrow ones you get with Victorian terraces), with the occasional small hole for tree or shrub. The end result was a barren wooden expanse, and neighbours who were furious about the constant clomp-clomp boots-on-wood noise as wells as being overlooked by people whose heads were now well above fence height! Bob |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin' deck
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:01:20 +0100, Kay
wrote: Frogleg writes was surprised by the extreme negative article and comments. Decking is certainly an improvement over mud and boggy spots, making a useful seating (or walking, as above) area where garden plants are either difficult to grow or not wanted. It's also lethally slippery over a large part of the year. You left out what I quoted mentioning paint with sand specifically designed to ensure a non-slippery surface. No one is arguing that all gardens should be replaced by decking. I was just puzzled by the totally negative tone about the whole concept. Gardening certainly allows a wide variety of styles. Cottage and topiary and rock gardens are all reasonable choices. Why not a bit of decking? |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin' deck
In article , Frogleg
writes On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:01:20 +0100, Kay wrote: Frogleg writes was surprised by the extreme negative article and comments. Decking is certainly an improvement over mud and boggy spots, making a useful seating (or walking, as above) area where garden plants are either difficult to grow or not wanted. It's also lethally slippery over a large part of the year. You left out what I quoted mentioning paint with sand specifically designed to ensure a non-slippery surface. I did indeed. I wasn't trying to argue against decking in this circumstance, I was trying to answer your comment that you were surprised by the negativity, and, knowing that you are american and may not be familiar with our climate, explain to you where this negativity comes from. No one is arguing that all gardens should be replaced by decking. I was just puzzled by the totally negative tone about the whole concept. That is precisely what I was trying to explain. Gardening certainly allows a wide variety of styles. Cottage and topiary and rock gardens are all reasonable choices. Why not a bit of decking? For the reasons I said. Look - I try to explain something, to cater for your possible unfamiliarity, and you jump down my throat. IS that how you would like your attempts to be helpful treated? -- Kay "Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river" |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin' deck
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:01:20 +0100, Kay
wrote: Frogleg writes was surprised by the extreme negative article and comments. Decking is certainly an improvement over mud and boggy spots, making a useful seating (or walking, as above) area where garden plants are either difficult to grow or not wanted. It's also lethally slippery over a large part of the year. You left out what I quoted mentioning paint with sand specifically designed to ensure a non-slippery surface. No one is arguing that all gardens should be replaced by decking. I was just puzzled by the totally negative tone about the whole concept. Gardening certainly allows a wide variety of styles. Cottage and topiary and rock gardens are all reasonable choices. Why not a bit of decking? |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin' deck
In article , Frogleg
writes On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:01:20 +0100, Kay wrote: Frogleg writes was surprised by the extreme negative article and comments. Decking is certainly an improvement over mud and boggy spots, making a useful seating (or walking, as above) area where garden plants are either difficult to grow or not wanted. It's also lethally slippery over a large part of the year. You left out what I quoted mentioning paint with sand specifically designed to ensure a non-slippery surface. I did indeed. I wasn't trying to argue against decking in this circumstance, I was trying to answer your comment that you were surprised by the negativity, and, knowing that you are american and may not be familiar with our climate, explain to you where this negativity comes from. No one is arguing that all gardens should be replaced by decking. I was just puzzled by the totally negative tone about the whole concept. That is precisely what I was trying to explain. Gardening certainly allows a wide variety of styles. Cottage and topiary and rock gardens are all reasonable choices. Why not a bit of decking? For the reasons I said. Look - I try to explain something, to cater for your possible unfamiliarity, and you jump down my throat. IS that how you would like your attempts to be helpful treated? -- Kay "Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river" |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin' deck
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:01:20 +0100, Kay
wrote: Frogleg writes was surprised by the extreme negative article and comments. Decking is certainly an improvement over mud and boggy spots, making a useful seating (or walking, as above) area where garden plants are either difficult to grow or not wanted. It's also lethally slippery over a large part of the year. You left out what I quoted mentioning paint with sand specifically designed to ensure a non-slippery surface. No one is arguing that all gardens should be replaced by decking. I was just puzzled by the totally negative tone about the whole concept. Gardening certainly allows a wide variety of styles. Cottage and topiary and rock gardens are all reasonable choices. Why not a bit of decking? |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin' deck
In article , Frogleg
writes On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:01:20 +0100, Kay wrote: Frogleg writes was surprised by the extreme negative article and comments. Decking is certainly an improvement over mud and boggy spots, making a useful seating (or walking, as above) area where garden plants are either difficult to grow or not wanted. It's also lethally slippery over a large part of the year. You left out what I quoted mentioning paint with sand specifically designed to ensure a non-slippery surface. I did indeed. I wasn't trying to argue against decking in this circumstance, I was trying to answer your comment that you were surprised by the negativity, and, knowing that you are american and may not be familiar with our climate, explain to you where this negativity comes from. No one is arguing that all gardens should be replaced by decking. I was just puzzled by the totally negative tone about the whole concept. That is precisely what I was trying to explain. Gardening certainly allows a wide variety of styles. Cottage and topiary and rock gardens are all reasonable choices. Why not a bit of decking? For the reasons I said. Look - I try to explain something, to cater for your possible unfamiliarity, and you jump down my throat. IS that how you would like your attempts to be helpful treated? -- Kay "Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river" |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin' deck
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin' deck
In article , Frogleg
writes On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 13:21:39 +0100, Kay wrote: Frogleg writes I'm familiar with (some of) your climate. Interestingly enough, I looked up average annual rainfall figures for Norfolk, VA and Norfolk, UK. Virginia: 44inches. UK: 23 inches. Of course that doesn't tell the whole story, but believe me, I've experience with mildew, moss, and mud. :-) I'm not familiar with Norfolk VA. Norfolk UK is on the drier and sunnier east of the country. I gather from the thread that the objections are based on decking being 'trendy' and non-traditional, popularized by one or more TV shows, and over-adopted by too many people. Over adopted in the context of a country where for many months of the year any fallen rain does not evaporate for a considerable time. If we had heavy rain which dried quickly in hot sun, decking would be admirable. Decking is not suitable where you have periods of drizzle interrupted by periods of cloud. Yes, you can apply anti-slip methods, but many people don't even think of that. Given that decking is being brought into prominence by many TV garden make-over shows which are designed for people with no experience of outdoor design, it is well worth putting the opposite view, and suggesting that they should think of the practicalities. Suppose in the southern US you were being deluged by TV shows suggesting instant makeovers involving laying nice green turf, and you had a steady stream of people wandering into rec.gardening asking where to get the cheapest turf, wouldn't you feel inclined to probe the reasons for their choice and mention words like 'watering'? I don't think the objections stem from it being 'non-traditional'. UK gardening has never been afraid to adopt new ideas, as can be seen by the diversity of gardens across the country, and we do, of course, have a long history of gardening characterised by repeated sweeping of new fashions, for example as popularised by Capability Brown or Gertrude Jekyll. -- Kay "Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river" |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin' deck
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:01:20 +0100, Kay
wrote: Frogleg writes was surprised by the extreme negative article and comments. Decking is certainly an improvement over mud and boggy spots, making a useful seating (or walking, as above) area where garden plants are either difficult to grow or not wanted. It's also lethally slippery over a large part of the year. You left out what I quoted mentioning paint with sand specifically designed to ensure a non-slippery surface. No one is arguing that all gardens should be replaced by decking. I was just puzzled by the totally negative tone about the whole concept. Gardening certainly allows a wide variety of styles. Cottage and topiary and rock gardens are all reasonable choices. Why not a bit of decking? |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin' deck
In article , Frogleg
writes On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:01:20 +0100, Kay wrote: Frogleg writes was surprised by the extreme negative article and comments. Decking is certainly an improvement over mud and boggy spots, making a useful seating (or walking, as above) area where garden plants are either difficult to grow or not wanted. It's also lethally slippery over a large part of the year. You left out what I quoted mentioning paint with sand specifically designed to ensure a non-slippery surface. I did indeed. I wasn't trying to argue against decking in this circumstance, I was trying to answer your comment that you were surprised by the negativity, and, knowing that you are american and may not be familiar with our climate, explain to you where this negativity comes from. No one is arguing that all gardens should be replaced by decking. I was just puzzled by the totally negative tone about the whole concept. That is precisely what I was trying to explain. Gardening certainly allows a wide variety of styles. Cottage and topiary and rock gardens are all reasonable choices. Why not a bit of decking? For the reasons I said. Look - I try to explain something, to cater for your possible unfamiliarity, and you jump down my throat. IS that how you would like your attempts to be helpful treated? -- Kay "Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river" |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin' deck
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Restore colour to wooden deck | Australia | |||
Raised bed planter on a deck? | Gardening | |||
JD LT160 mower deck problem | Lawns | |||
42" vs 50" deck: can't decide | Lawns | |||
Anyone tried the mower deck Wash Port? | Lawns |