I am mid research on an essay about longevity of land art but it strikes me that, as a designer, I should be aiming for longevity in my garden design, although modern families move relatively regularly (in approx 5-10 year periods - source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Product.asp?vlnk=2639&More=Y 29/3/10) the number of years that equate to longevity might be a discussion point. So with this in mind should the aim be for a more relative longevity? one that is in relation to how long the client will reside in the house?
Of course under the OCGD philosophy the design anchors the house in it's environment so if this is successful, then the longevity might expect to be greater as new owners will enjoy the well designed gardens as much as the person moving. In theory!
Gardens Illustrated featured Timothy Mowl, Professor of History of Architecture and Designed Landscapes and Director of the MA in Garden History at Bristol University he is in the process of writing about the gardens of each county. A slow process by all accounts. So he is setting the scene of garden history before talking about the modern garden. The focus is apparently on gardens with potential longevity but that are falling in to disrepair. Is this because they are gardens and require constant attention? or simply that they are gardens and therefore not fixed entities but living breathing ever changing creations and is that not what makes them so appealing and compulsive?.
I am also surprised by the number of people following MPil and PhD's in and around garden design and I am inspired.
No comments:
Post a Comment