The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:


Many of the opponents are posting from the west, where the rainfall
is also 44 inches, but without your high winter evaporation.

Huh!

There's a met. office weather station on the other side of Brodick bay
which measures 70 " pa. Our side of the bay is a bit drier (we often
watch it raining there while we're in sun; just a quirk of topography)
Considerably drier than our previous abode on the mainland, where we
were the ones always getting dumped on; 80" per year.

Fort William is even wetter.

Janet. (Arran)

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"

In article . 11,
Victoria Clare writes:
| (Nick Maclaren) wrote in
| :
|
| | If you expect your deck to last you 30 years, durability is an
| | issue. I am not sure how many people plan garden features to last
| | that long (urglers excepted perhaps!).
|
| If you expect it to last 30 MONTHS, it is an issue. Few untreated
| timbers will last that long in contact with damp soil.
|
| I have untreated hazel hurdles in my garden that has lasted that long (from
| green admittedly, but really thin bits)!

What soil? They last quite well on peat, and not too badly on a
few others. I should have said that I was referring to most of
the more fertile lowland soils.

I cut some pea sticks from a hazel bush one May or June, and they
had rotted to uselessness by the next spring - even those NOT in
contact with the soil!


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

The message . 11
from Victoria Clare contains these words:


If you mostly sit in your garden in the summer, slipperyness in December
may not be an issue. If you prefer to avoid the heat and spend a lot of
time outside in winter, it may be more of a problem.

Hm; I suspect decks in the UK are mostly popular with people who never
actually go out in their garden.

I was at a summer opening of a "weekend cottage" garden whose
immensely rich owners had constructed a pond with deck walk-ways and a
pier for feeding the fish, and a conservatory where they were serving
teas. Between the conservatory and the pond, was a wrap-around
smooth-plank deck big enough to hold a dance on.

Rain started, and within an instant the entire wooden deckways were
slippier than greased ice. The owner immediately ordered the visitors
off the decking for their own safety, and it was out of bounds for the
rest of the visit. He said it's completely unusable except when
bone-dry; and solidly constructed in tropical hardwood to last a
lifetime :~}

Janet.

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?

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"

(Nick Maclaren) wrote in
:

| If you expect your deck to last you 30 years, durability is an
| issue. I am not sure how many people plan garden features to last
| that long (urglers excepted perhaps!).

If you expect it to last 30 MONTHS, it is an issue. Few untreated
timbers will last that long in contact with damp soil.


I have untreated hazel hurdles in my garden that has lasted that long (from
green admittedly, but really thin bits)!

That wet untreated wood eventually rots isn't an argument that all timber
decking is inappropriate for the UK climate, (which seems to be what
Frogleg is asking).

Decking can be installed on top of paving slabs, concrete, gravel or with
just treated bearers contacting the soil. If the ground is sloping, there
may be very little direct ground contact at all, even for the bearers.

The deck itself can help protect the bearers from the damp, even if laid
directly on soil.

In steeply sloping locations, a deck can be the only option - paving is
simply not possible if your garden has a 1 in three slope. I think the
anti-decking thing has perhaps been a bit overstated in this group.

My neighbour has a deck, and it's gorgeous: one day I shall have one too.

Victoria
--
gardening on a north-facing hill
in South-East Cornwall
--

The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:


Many of the opponents are posting from the west, where the rainfall
is also 44 inches, but without your high winter evaporation.

Huh!

There's a met. office weather station on the other side of Brodick bay
which measures 70 " pa. Our side of the bay is a bit drier (we often
watch it raining there while we're in sun; just a quirk of topography)
Considerably drier than our previous abode on the mainland, where we
were the ones always getting dumped on; 80" per year.

Fort William is even wetter.

Janet. (Arran)

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"

In article . 11,
Victoria Clare writes:
| (Nick Maclaren) wrote in
| :
|
| | If you expect your deck to last you 30 years, durability is an
| | issue. I am not sure how many people plan garden features to last
| | that long (urglers excepted perhaps!).
|
| If you expect it to last 30 MONTHS, it is an issue. Few untreated
| timbers will last that long in contact with damp soil.
|
| I have untreated hazel hurdles in my garden that has lasted that long (from
| green admittedly, but really thin bits)!

What soil? They last quite well on peat, and not too badly on a
few others. I should have said that I was referring to most of
the more fertile lowland soils.

I cut some pea sticks from a hazel bush one May or June, and they
had rotted to uselessness by the next spring - even those NOT in
contact with the soil!


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

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?

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"

(Nick Maclaren) wrote in
:

| If you expect your deck to last you 30 years, durability is an
| issue. I am not sure how many people plan garden features to last
| that long (urglers excepted perhaps!).

If you expect it to last 30 MONTHS, it is an issue. Few untreated
timbers will last that long in contact with damp soil.


I have untreated hazel hurdles in my garden that has lasted that long (from
green admittedly, but really thin bits)!

That wet untreated wood eventually rots isn't an argument that all timber
decking is inappropriate for the UK climate, (which seems to be what
Frogleg is asking).

Decking can be installed on top of paving slabs, concrete, gravel or with
just treated bearers contacting the soil. If the ground is sloping, there
may be very little direct ground contact at all, even for the bearers.

The deck itself can help protect the bearers from the damp, even if laid
directly on soil.

In steeply sloping locations, a deck can be the only option - paving is
simply not possible if your garden has a 1 in three slope. I think the
anti-decking thing has perhaps been a bit overstated in this group.

My neighbour has a deck, and it's gorgeous: one day I shall have one too.

Victoria
--
gardening on a north-facing hill
in South-East Cornwall
--

The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:


Many of the opponents are posting from the west, where the rainfall
is also 44 inches, but without your high winter evaporation.

Huh!

There's a met. office weather station on the other side of Brodick bay
which measures 70 " pa. Our side of the bay is a bit drier (we often
watch it raining there while we're in sun; just a quirk of topography)
Considerably drier than our previous abode on the mainland, where we
were the ones always getting dumped on; 80" per year.

Fort William is even wetter.

Janet. (Arran)

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?