Text by FOA

The opposition between the rational and the organic that structures the history of landscape has also characterised the history of several disciplines, from philosophy to urbanism. The conflict between a rational, artificial, linear geometry and a picturesque reproduction of nature through less determined geometry has structured the history of landscape. It is through overcoming this opposition that we think the possibility of an emerging landscape, and city, and architecture may exist. The emerging landscape will be characterised by developments that are already happening in biotechnology, artificial intelligence, design and lifestyle, where the natural and the artificial have become virtually indistinguishable. The mutant, the hybrid, and the morphed are more likely to become the stereotypes of the next century than the machine or Frankenstein.
The first attempts to manipulate and artificially organise the land arose either from the need to physically and culturally exploit the land or to appropriate the land. Both the utilitarian patterns of farming, irrigation and land ownership, and the more cultural and symbolic patterns appearing in monuments and gardens bear extraordinary similarities across the globe. They are characterised by the deployment of linear, simple geometries, lines, circles, squares, and triangles, in stark opposition to “chaotic” natural organisations. (We prefer to say “complex” organisations, generated through negotiation of multiple orders: the geological, the biological, and climatic, in a morphogenetic process). These simple geometries are the outcome of primitive techniques of land measurement, and are similar across virtually all cultures, from China to Islam and Pre-Columbian America. These types of geometry prevailed basically until the 18th Century, with very few exceptions, when English gardeners began using “natural” complex geometries as a source of spatial effects and narratives. However, picturesque gardens generated their geometries through imitation rather than through construction, and in that sense, they only looked as if they were geometrically complex.
Olmsted invested natural geometry with function, but his geometrical techniques remained basically reproductive and picturesque rather than constructed. Burle Marx invested complex geometries with meaning… Modern parks returned to “natural” landscaped forms, but the discipline never developed a way of producing complexity out of imitation and never grew beyond the picturesque. The difficulty of designing complex form was too much of a disciplinary barrier. In ‘68 the modern world order collapsed and a general interest in artificial complexity arose. In architecture, “chaos” was modelled as a “collage”, a non-mediated relationship between elements and orders that interfere with each other without eroding their identity, but construct a new identity through opposition. Post-modernism and deconstruction explored the capacity of this contradictory juxtaposition as the generator of a new order. Simple, artificial orders, such as circles, lines, and grids were inconsistently deployed on a field, remaining unaffected, and un-mediated. The collage techniques that characterise the landscape of the late 20th Century were the inconsistent deployment of regular forms or regular programs deployed in contradiction with each other were The geometries of pure indeterminacy or pure linearity are a trace of the past, rather than a possibility for the future. The opportunity that lies ahead of us is to also overcome the disciplinary barrier that resorts to contradiction as a form of complexity (like in “Complexity and Contradiction”), and rather to exploit complexity through coherence and through consistency: to learn to produce forms and topographies that are entirely artificial and yet complex. To generate them through a mediated, integrated addition of rigorous orders.

The garden and landscape at Hadspen is the work of generations of serious gardeners.
Much remains of ambitious 17th, 18th and 19th century planting schemes, particularly in the parkland and the woodland associated with the house. Penelope Hobhouse, who lived at Hadspen until 1979, restored and enlarged the earlier garden and made her work there the subject of her first book, The Country Gardener. Recently she has returned to replant the Lower Garden and the parkland.

Since 1986 the Canadian gardeners, Sandra and Nori Pope, have continued this tradition, transforming the Upper Garden with entirely new planting schemes and a bold use of colour, incorporating the quarter of a mile of old brick walls. Hadspen has always been famous for new and rare plants - the hostas and hellebore collection was started by Eric Smith in the early 1970s - and the Popes have built on this by introducing both outstanding plants from abroad and many that they have cultivated themselves, among them Astrantia “Hadspen Blood” and Dicentra “Gold Heart”. In 1998 they published Colour by Design (Conran Octopus), a book about their theories on colour and planting, and the experience of gardening at Hadspen.

“The Popes have created one of the most exciting and loveliest gardens in Britain; not only a beautiful and peaceful garden to visit, but also a wonderful inspiration for any gardener who wants to learn about planting colour harmonies.” (Noel Kingsbury, Country Life, October 1995)

“Hadspen garden has been turned into an extraordinary promenade round a spectrum, a display of unfamiliar plants and an object lesson in cultivation and energy. We can all admire it, see the general picture and return home, having isolated particular plants and groupings which became a springboard for our own ideas.” (Robin Lane Fox, Financial Times, August 1998)

Hadspen Garden and Nursary current situation

1 GARDENS ‘An 18th-century walled kitchen garden with lively planting in colour themed borders.’ ( P.Taylor in Gardens of Britain)

Strengths

Hadspen is associated in the public mind with exceptional planting selections and associations. The Hadspen ‘brand’ is supported through positive associations with P.Hobhouse, E.Smith and the Popes. Plant cultivars with names which include ‘Hadspen’ provide free publicity and help to reinforce the ‘brand image’ of horticultural excellence.

The Gardens are stocked with an extensive range of perennials which are a valuable asset in their own right. ( An audit is desirable)

The Gardens are managed, stocked and insured through the joint nursery/garden operation. There are no direct costs to the owner at the current time.

Maintenance costs (excluding the Pope’s input) are approximately £9000 p.a.

The Gardens currently generate a gross income from admission charges of £30/35000 p.a.

Weaknesses

‘The one sorrow at Hadspen is that the garden visitor sees no connection with the house.’ (P.Taylor)

This opinion is reinforced by the Pope’s experience of a 10% drop in revenue since separate access to the Gardens was created. The standard of provision for teas and toilets is inadequate and does not meet current health and safety standards.

The Gardens have yet to address ‘Good Practice’ as outlined in policy documents relating to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The Gardens approach road and car park are uninspiring and of a poor standard.

Passing traffic is unlikely to be attracted into the Garden. The Gardens lack structure, having evolved in a piecemeal manner, the Popes in particular feeling unable to make any significant changes to the layout.

Opportunities

Foreign Office’s current commission will begin to address the issue of Garden structure starting with the ‘Walled D’. Their brief to ‘provide a platform on which successive plantsmen can perform’ will preserve the tradition of experimental horticulture at Hadspen. An inspiring new Garden design will provide an opportunity to raise public awareness of Hadspen, creating new customers and rejuvenating the ‘brand image’.

Garden revenue will increase as interest in the New Garden attracts new customers to Hadspen. The greater Estate offers the potential for linking a visit to the Gardens to country walks, exploring archaeology etc, extending the visitor experience.

The Popes withdrawal from active management marks another stage in the evolution of these Gardens. This could be seen as both an opportunity and a threat

Threats

The current design commission may not specifically address design issues relating to the Garden areas as a whole and their place within the Estate. Existing regular customers may be alienated if the Gardens character is radically altered without incorporating some of the ‘tradition’ of Hadspen under the Popes, P. Hobhouse etc.

New visitors may not be converted to regular customers because of perceived limited visitor experience and the lack of infrastructure. The link between nursery and garden may be severed if the new planting design is unrelated to nursery stock. This is a serious threat to both sides of the business as a significant proportion of repeat visitors will be motivated by plant purchasing.

Management of the Garden in the future could prove expensive and challenging if there is no direct link with the nursery, or, indeed, no nursery at all. Imposing a competition based planting scheme on a Gardens manager could prove unsustainable in the long run.

2 THE NURSERY

‘A nursery with good plants is still maintained, some of them cultivars bearing the Hadspen name.’ (P.Taylor 2003)

Strengths

It is a profitable business with plant sales grossing £60/65000 per annum.

It has an established name stretching beyond its current customer base.

Production costs are low due to a low tech infrastructure, and the large proportion of plants propagated on site from ’stock plants’ in the Garden.

Approximately £12000 is spent annually on buying in tissue culture plants, plugs, liners for growing on. This is a low percentage for a retail outlet, reflecting the Nurseries reputation for propagating good and relatively unusual plant selections.

Labour costs are also ‘artificially’ low as, for the Popes, the nursery is essentially a lifestyle choice’. PAYE labour costs for the nursery have been estimated at around £7000 p.a. The nursery benefits from association with plant selections which bear the Hadspen name.

Although the revenue from plant royalties is not included in the gross revenue for the nursery, customers seek out new introductions and are attracted to Hadspen for this reason.

Customers are attracted by the ‘Potting Shed’ image i.e. the antithesis of garden Centre blandness.

Weaknesses

The nursery propagation area is not equipped up for the efficient production of plants. It is unlikely that any future manager would wish to operate with these facilities. The propagation area will not provide a suitable background for the New Garden and will need to be relocated. The nursery is dependent on the Garden borders for stock plants/propagation material.

The nursery is dependent on a link between planting style in the Garden and plants retailing in the nursery. Customers are limited to those who can visit the nursery in person.

Although Hadspen has a national/international reputation the nursery in its present form cannot capitalise on this. The nostalgic image does not appeal to all sectors of the public.

3 OPPORTUNITIES

The propagation area needs to be moved and developed. This is an opportunity for a radical rethink. e.g. physically separating the sales and propagation areas. The potential customer base could be greatly expanded to include sales through the internet and mail order.

The public are already aware of the name but only a small proportion can visit in person. The market for plant sales is evolving as people’s lifestyles change.

‘Time poor, cash rich working couples ‘are replacing ‘ladies who lunch’ certainly in terms of retail spending. The new Garden is likely to attract this type of customer and the nursery could benefit greatly if it is ‘repositioned’ to meet their needs.

The Hadspen name could be used to sell an appropriate range of compatible products. Suggestions have included Estate produce and gardening tools. This would particularly suit mail order (It would be interesting to know the breakdown of Sarah Raven’s sales for instance) Acknowledging the importance of new plant introductions the nursery could refocus on breeding/ selecting plants to maintain public awareness and interest in the nursery.

A propagator such a Nori could work in partnership with the nursery to achieve this objective.

Threats

The proposed ‘planting stage’ within the Garden may be inadequate as a shop window for the nursery. The nurseries image and certainly its layout is incompatible with the cutting edge design underway in the Gardens.

The horticultural market is already accommodating the need for accessibility by moving towards mail order(internet) and away from retail nurseries. The range of plant material being sold in this way is constantly expanding.

You no longer need to go to a nursery like Hadspen to get an unusual plant. The nursery needs to grow and become more efficient to fund investment in infrastructure.

Providing a successor for the Popes will be challenging. The profile for this position requires careful consideration. To survive in changing times a more business orientated approach is probably required, with perhaps other employees providing the plantsman attributes.

4 THE FUTURE

To be considered;

OPTION (1)Retaining a retail nursery (production and sales adjacent to Gardens)

OPTION (2) Retaining a sales area adjacent to Garden & moving Production off-site

OPTION (3) Gardens to stand alone without nursery.

OPTION (1) The principal merit of this approach is that it is the path of least resistance/no change:

i) Minimum input is required from the Estate Office

ii) The Popes are able to sell their nursery as an ongoing business

iii) Garden ticket sales and maintenance are easily facilitated

iv) The nursery provides desirable added value to a repeat Garden visits.

v) The business can be managed by a plantsperson who combines gardening with propagation.

vi) A gross income of £100,000, net £70,000 based on the present expenditure/ staffing levels is achievable. We have already agreed however that change is necessary, and indeed desirable for the following reasons;

i) Propagation facilities must be moved as part of the Garden Redesign

ii) Investment is required to upgrade the infrastructure

iii) It can no longer be assumed that the Gardens will provide propagation material/stock plants for the nursery.

iv) The site is restricted in terms of area and shade. Production and sales will always be limited by these factors.

v) The market and customer profile is changing, Hadspen will need to adapt to survive, particularly with the loss of the Pope’s high profile. Summary Taking all these factors into consideration, the best fit strategy to follow, if Option One is adopted, would be to concentrate on developing an effective sales area with reduced propagation facilities. This strategy would require a substantial increase in the buying in of wholesale plants at all stages of growth.

Sourcing appropriate plant material, or having plants grown to contract would be an important task for the next nursery manager. It would be essential to maintain the range and quality of plants if the Hadspen’s existing reputation is to be sustained.

5 CONCENTRATING RESOURCES

on an upgraded reception area/building would be of benefit to both the gardens and nursery. It would need to retain some of the charm and individuality of the current ‘potting shed’, to avoid the garden centre image, yet perhaps be more contemporary in style to reflect the new landscape beyond.

Improvements to the plant sales area and reception would generate increased sales at the nursery. The principal limit to growth would be the lack of capacity to produce/package plants for internet or mail orders.

OPTION (2) Taking the main propagation facilities off-site is a bolder, but not necessarily more complex choice.

This option would only be realistic if a suitable site was available on the Estate. Duchy Nurseries in Cornwall follows this model very successfully, as people assume they are buying plants from the Estate, even though no production is visible in the retail nursery. Renaming the nursery ‘Hadspen Estate Nursery’ would perhaps be beneficial to the sale of Estate produce?

The principal arguments supporting this option are as follows;

i) It would allow the business to grow beyond current site restrictions

ii) A wider market could be targeted using internet and mail order sales as the nursery would have the space and capacity to achieve this. The nursery could then fully capitalise on the Hadspen brand

iii) Investment in propagation facilities could be lower as the appearance of structures would not be so critical.

iv) Obtaining planning permission would probably be more straightforward away from the historic heart of the Estate.

v) Existing stock plants in the Gardens could be transferred to open Ground facilities ahead of landscape construction work programmed for the winter of 2006

vi) Redevelopment at the old nursery site could focus on a visitor reception facilities and plant sales. There is no reason why a potting area could not be included to retain the atmosphere of a working nursery (and allow flexible working arrangements). This model works well at other comparable nurseries.

vii) There would be continuity of trading and a business to value and sell This option is, however, not without challenges and pitfalls, some of which are summarised below.

i) Split site working arrangements are more complicated logistically.

ii) Plant handling strategies would need to be devised and resourced.

iii) Garden maintenance could suffer as the focus of attention shifts elsewhere iv) A large commercial operation would require careful management, skilled marketing etc.

6 SUMMARY

Option (2) would be the most demanding in the short term but should produce a more sustainable nursery enterprise in the long-term. It avoids cluttering the inner Estate with structures for propagation.

The focus can then be centred on visitor access to both the Gardens and wider Estate .

An attractive plant sales area combined with better toilets and refreshment facilities is more important to visitors than the sight of polytunnels. Much of the success of the current nursery is due to the character and craftsmanship of Sandra and Nori Pope and their direct link with the Garden. This unique selling point cannot be reproduced as the gardens evolve and other horticulturalists, not connected with the nursery, have an input.

Option (2) may seem a dramatic departure from the current arrangement, lacking the personal touch the Popes provide. However, Niall Hobhouse has already indicated that something ‘exceptional’ is, once again, about to taking place in the Garden; why not in the nursery as well?

OPTION (3) As we await the new design for the ‘Walled D’ it is difficult to make firm judgements on the future relationship between Garden and Nursery.

Option (3) however, asks us to consider the future of the Gardens on their own. The following factors would be critical to the future of public access to the Gardens

i) We know that a Foreign Office design, furnished with competition winning planting, will draw in visitors to the Gardens. We can assume that visitor numbers will peak in the first few years and then plateau or decline depending on the quality of the ‘visitor experience’.

ii) A high quality visitor experience is as dependent on mundane facilities as it is on good design. Without the nursery, the capital costs of improving the infrastructure would need to be met from Garden entrance receipts. It would , therefore, be useful to know the proposed visitor capacity of the new landscape design.

iii) A Gardens manager would need to be appointed together with part-time gardeners and the use of contract labour. A plantsman would not necessarily be an asset, as he or she will not be expected to carry out any major design work.

iv) Maintenance costs, ticket sales,insurance etc would also need to be covered by Garden admissions.

v) Management of the Gardens and staff would be an additional area of responsibility for the Estate office.

7 SUMMARY

N.Hobhouse has indicated that he will not keep the garden open just because it is open now. Looking at the cost to the Estate in terms of management time and capital investment it would seem reasonable to suggest that opening the Gardens on their own would be unsustainable.
Perhaps the best strategy to take if Option (3) is adopted is to view the Gardens as a private landscape with occasional public access. This would certainly reduce the visiting public’s expectations of teas and toilets.

8 CONCLUSION

Hadspen is to be graced with a landmark garden that will provide a platform on which the evolution of planting style can continue to be explored. Maintaining a successful nursery adjacent to this garden will depend on a strong inter-relationship between the two; i.e. the nursery must be good enough to support the cutting edge design on display in the walled garden. If the nursery evolves to reflect the new garden, both enterprises will benefit.

The current nursery is already an established and successful business. The key to building on this stable foundation is to make the essential investment in infrastructure. Visitors should approach the garden through a reception that has at least the basic amenities and, ideally, continues to reflect some of the unique character of the garden beyond. A key decision in the redevelopment of the nursery is whether all the propagation should take place on site, or whether some or all of the production should be relocated elsewhere on the Estate.

At the very least, some open ground facilities for stock plants will be essential when the Walled D is cleared for construction works. Moving production would allow the current site to be transformed into an effective plant sales area, together with a reception area for visits to the garden and wider Estate. It would also provide a potential opportunity for production to expand and capitalise on wider markets than those currently targeted.

Excerpts from research document conducted by FOA

For full document please refer to ‘Downloads’ section

The walled garden was the former vegetable garden for the Hadspen Estate, which was established in the late 1600s. On the surrounding grounds are several small support facilities for the garden as well as a private library. The walled garden is located in a well-protected, topographic pocket that sits in the middle of walkable woodlands. To the south of the garden, the trees give way to sheep pastures.

Existing topographic survey

The shape of the walled garden is closely described by an ellipse which was perhaps designated as the form of the garden for its relationship to the sun’s path.

Topography: Object in the Landscape

The wooded hill to the east is one of the few places where an overview of the garden is afforded. Both from the inside and the exterior, the wall is a dynamic element following the topography. In contrast to the hard edge the “D” plan portrays on paper, the straight portion of the wall is nearly imperceptible in site. The bare outer surface of the wall displays its materiality and reveals the undulating topography.

Grid: Variations extrinsic

Preliminary pattern investigations sought to develop a system for organizing the garden with non-periodic repetition. Multidirectional tiling patterns were tested against the oval perimeter of the walled garden and at various scales of the modules. Programmatic diversity could be supported while adhering to a pervasive underlying order.

Preliminary grid variations adopted the maximum permissible slope of 1:20. Spacings were based on different criteria - formal evenness, water management strategies of subdividing as the slope descends, or parterre dimension.

To promote a continuous movement, a network of bifurcating paths reduces the number of choices inherent in a uniform grid where each node has multiple paths crossing. The geometry of the grid distorted to accommodate the topography allows for paths to diverge smoothly through the elimination of particular segments determined incidental to the main path and the perimeter path.

Grid: Bifurcation

Grid: Switches

The ‘switch’ is a means of closing paths which can allow the gardener to direct visitors along certain routes or to those areas with particular plants in prime. By closing a set of paths, the massing of the garden is altered. The garden is thereby able to create different types of experiences - whether by seasonal growth or by the gardeners’ design.

Please read this page, including the important Addendum below, in conjunction with the Competition Submissions page.

Exciting gardens reflect the struggle to make plants conform to a single and largely personal vision; no modern garden is ever better than its gardener. As professionals, landscape designers often work in a vacuum of knowledge about plants and plant systems; in contrast, plantsmen find it hard to use their knowledge to inform a disciplined approach to overall design.

The Parabola project at Hadspen represents a commitment to seeking out radical solutions to planting, and to exploring the links that gardening can make to other fields of creativity.

Over the next twelve months we want to find a gardener with a bold and untried approach to making a garden, and the energy and determination to put this into practice. The winning candidate will be offered an employment contract, a house close to the garden, and all logistical support.

Applicants are asked for a response to the new path layout, designed by Foreign Office Architects, for the original parabola-shaped walled vegetable garden at Hadspen. The scheme is intended to provide an empty theatre-stage of three quarters of an acre; the gardener is free to direct the plants to best effect, by adding the drama of poetry, surprise, and mystery.

The new paths try only to take maximum advantage of the specifics of the site - the walls and topography, climate, drainage, access, movement and maintenance. All existing plants, trees and paths that survive from the previous important gardens in the space will have been removed.

Beyond clarity and rigour of ideas, there are no rules to limit the gardener’s approach. Any plant type is fine, as long as it grows; any planting style or diversity is fine as long as the garden can be maintained through the year, more or less, by one person.

To attract the right applicants, and the most challenging judging process, the interview panel will itself be composed of experienced gardeners, but all of them with primary (and international) reputations in other fields :- writers, set-designers, architects, film directors, artists, musicians.

The Competition is open to all. Initial, anonymous, submissions will be requested for spring 2007.

Addendum 17.1.07

One important clarification and two changes of emphasis:

• In terms of any final design, the path layout should be regarded as provisional only, and not in any case as a prescription. The paths may have a value as a way of organising the Walled Garden spatially; they can be used at will by the competitors. This will be more relevant later in the process as we develop a shortlist of candidates. The initial competition submission asks for a response to the site, not a proposal.

• The Competition is no longer focused at all exclusively on just those with a gardening background. We are confident of being able to provide technical back-up in house.

• In the same way, it is not only plants that applicants can imagine with. Alternative materials that are whimsical or inappropriate can be winnowed out in the judging process

The impetus for all the above is well documented in the last few weeks of correspondence, and is worth reading. What we are now proposing is much more open.

Niall Hobhouse

Circa 1810

Likely date of construction, using local stone and locally fired brick

1810 – 1968

Used as a garden for the supply of vegetables and fruit to the Hadspen Estate. Occasionally, as a tree nursery.

1968 – 1979

Transformed into an ornamental garden by Penelope Hobhouse, with much reduced vegetable production.

First opened to the public, and with nursery sales of hostas, cultivated by Eric Smith.

1976

The Country Gardener, by Penelope Hobhouse, published -a record of her work restoring the garden at Hadspen.

1980-1988

This pattern continues under various managements.

1989-2005

Completely replanted by Nori and Sandra Pope. Nursery much enlarged.

Public visits exceed 20,000 annually.

1998

Colour by Design by Nori and Sandra Pope published, documenting their work transforming the garden, and as plant producers.

July 2005

Foreign Office Architects(FOA) begin extended research for re-landscaping of the Walled Garden.

Autumn 2005

Garden closes for relandscaping, following Nori and Sandra Pope’s retirement from active gardening at Hadspen.

January 2006

First draft of FOA project completed.

———-

August 2006

Website launched.

Late summer and Autumn 2006

Site clearance completed; FOA reassess details of project; judging panel finalized

Feb – April 2007

Shortlisting of candidates.

Spring 2007

New path layout executed, and the whole garden put to grass.

May - June 2007

Interviews and appointment of new gardener - minimum 3 year term.

———–

The date at which the garden may be reopened to the public, if at all, to be decided by the management team when in place.

It will be possible for serious gardeners and journalists to visit the garden throughout; large scale public opening in the future is a possibility only if it is felt that this does not compromise individual experience of the garden.

Your critique of the FOA Scheme is forcefully and elegantly made.

I’d only like to reiterate that the strongest single ‘driver’ of their path grid was to allow movement at all times on the gentlest possible gradients across a dramatically sloping site. This is in contrast to the original paths, one of which at least took the steepest available route down the hill.

I am not saying that either arrangement is wrong, just that FOA’s is apparently the more disciplined and consistent in its approach to the sloping terrain. Of course, discipline and consistency may be at odds with the drama and surprise required of a garden, but these could be generated by the new planting.

The old paths had a possible logic only as an organization of the interior space of the wall. The important point, on which I think we can agree, is that previous gardeners accepted them as a ‘given’ of the site. This done, there was no choice but to reinforce them with planting, and to the exclusion of arbitrary views beyond.

On garden history: this is, after all, a walled enclosure, even if it is not in the desert. I think we could all be forgiven for having thought of the internal space as an enclosed one. This especially since all previous gardeners, consciously or unconsciously, worked so hard to exclude from their garden everything beyond the wall.

I think we should give FOA a break. They came to the site in high summer, and much of the wider landscape was obscured by the Popes’ planting. Where it wasn’t – in the long curved border – the planting itself compelled attention to what was against the wall, not beyond it. Even the form of the wall itself was hard to read as a result.

There is time and opportunity enough for FOA to modify their proposal, and doing so would be a fine test of the structure and logic of their approach.

Besides, the competitors may yet come up with a better idea for the paths.

In response to your letter of endorsement for the FOA proposal, you have tackled the defence head-on with the usual incisive appreciation. However the lack of visceral response when seeing the proposal on the ground remains an issue, and I remain convinced that the scheme was generated, primarily, by the confines of the shape of the parabola on a level ground.. It is clear that the way the garden rests within the folds of the landscape remains the pre-eminent condition of the defined space, a condition which seems obvious now that the site is cleared. Indeed it is curious how many avid ‘gardeners’ who claim know the garden well, and over time, are unable to position the original avenue on plan when asked. This is because the condition has changed. It appears to be a puzzle and there is an eerie beauty to the curvature of the ground set within the confines of the wall. Although there is a notional sense of ‘fall’ within the proposed lattice of paths, it is not sufficiently realised. Alessandro admits this in his missive, and there is ample opportunity to develop the scheme further. I disagree that, ‘…the idea of relating the garden to the outside is something that defeats the traditional preconception of the garden as a delimited domain detached from nature and heavily crafted…’ Where has that been fixed in aspic? However I do agree that the ‘dynamic structure’ of the paths suggest movement and does not exclude ‘areas of tranquillity and seclusion.’

As you know, historically there are two models of the ur-garden; one spawned in the harshness of the desert, walled and disposed around a water source, an attempt to impose order on such abstraction, an attempt to find meaning beneath the indifference of the stars. The other model developed in a more clement climate, and responded to the bounty of the natural world, an attempt at authorship, an endorsement of our own individual response to elements beneath the bald eye of nature. It is borne of ease, and a static society secure enough to apportion merit. Both are site specific, and both work when executed with conviction. Throughout history both responses have been combined and melded with varying degrees of success. Usually this success relies upon the calibre of the designer.

Within the heat of the moment, there can be no consensus to an original idea. Critical distance is achieved over time. But the course of history reveals that the projects that remain valuable are those that are considered, those where the extent of the thought stuck over the parapet and remained there, either to be shot off or to survive ‘in the valley of its saying…’ (to quote Auden)

Despite the rare beauty of the shape on the land I disagree, strongly, that it should be left vacant. This would work on one level only, as a conceptual piece, an amusing one-liner over time. The business of life is far more complicated. Thank gawd for that…

I just got your package of stuff and saw these two e-mails. Did not have time to read the correspondence, but looked at your comments and flicked through the printed material and got a hint of the conversation.

I agree with you that the details of the path construction need to be developed further, but I believe this would be the purpose of a detail design phase, if you decide to move forward with this option. I think your reading of the project is very precise and interesting, and I am sure some of these readings may be embedded in the design development of the scheme.

In respect to the design, I still stand very much behind the project. I understand that professional designers will be hostile to the approach, because is probably the opposite of what a “picturesque” landscape designer would have done, and, with some exception, the profession of landscape designers is basically operating within the picturesque. I think what is confusing for everybody is the point where the design is left, being very restrictive in some respects and totally non-specific on other levels. That was what we decided to do from the beginning, and I still stand by it. It is a limitation that recognizes our lack of expertise in planting etc… as a possible advantage to produce a garden. This is something that interests me a big deal as a position: to “breed the project” rather than relying in the preconceptions of the conoisseurs. It is true, this is against the idea of the garden as an artifact, which may be one of the pillars of the traditional idea of a garden. The idea of relating the garden to the outside is also something that defeats the traditional preconception of the garden as a delimited domain detached from nature and heavily crafted… But maybe this is finally the point of the design that we thought did not exist… to challenge the conventional notions of a garden and to play with the ambiguity between nature and the garden.

I believe that the system is still incredibly flexible to allow gardeners to create whatever they want, except if they want to create “figures” with the plants (circles, columns, and other forms of figures enforced onto the natural material by traditional garden-making). Paradoxically, this only confirms the strength of the design despite our attempts to avoid designing… The zig-zag pattern will enable to produce gardens that are about texture, color material, rather than geometry or form, and we quite like the limitation that this will impose on the future gardeners, because we do not like gardens where there is an imposition of geometry onto the natural material. Somebody may say the grid is an imposition, but is the minimum imposition: it guarantees a minimum level of physical permeability through the field and a level of resolution of the drainage and irrigation systems. It is a grid that has grown determined by the shape of the envelope, the positions of the accesses and the slope of the terrain; I do not know if the connection is self evident, but there is certainly a very strong connection… And perhaps being less evident is a quality of the approach. If the grid is too limiting for some experiments, , you can erase sectors of the grid to allow for larger areas of planting… But the whole garden will not be able to be figurative… It will be about material and texture.

Maybe this relates to your last bold proposal of leaving the space as it is. Not sure it will work though, but we do work often with a Spanish landscape designer, Teresa Gali, who is fascinated by the idea of throwing seeds in a field with a certain technique, almost like painting a Pollock in nature. Unfortunately she is not a gardener, but a landscape designer… I am going to send her the link right now.