Reply To: edible landscaping

[Roland Beinert]

All good points. Some of my responses:
1. I agree that landscape architecture is about far more than shrubbing things up. However, this discussion is specifically about edible plants. There’s nothing about discussing plants that means any of the posters think we deal only with plants. I’m a bit worried that I took a confrontational approach with the original post, and so the whole discussion has devolved into people venting about their pet peeves. Let’s stick to discussing edible plants and example projects, and stop accusing each other. For the second time, I apologize for being confrontational in the original post.
Can you point out what is was that made you think this?

2. I also agree that different landscapes require a different approach, and that liability is always an issue with anything we do. I think edible plants belong in places where people are likely to eat what the plants produce. There are plenty of places where they would likely be ignored or where the fallen fruit could be a nuisance (then again non-edible fruit can be a nuisance, too). But I think they could be included in places where they are traditionally ignored, and people might actually be very open to the idea.
In your Burger King example, I’d say the designer would need to make it clear what was edible and not edible by the placement of the plants and maybe with informative signs. In a residentail setting it’s easier to mix edible and non-edible plants, since the client is more likely to request certain plants and know where things are. I’d also say that poisonous plants are a liability even if they are not used next to food plants.
I completely agree that we are creating habitat with our landscapes, and I think sometimes we over-emphasize reacreation and aesthetics. I’m not saying those things aren’t important. What I’m saying is that by including food growing areas we reinforce the importance of landscapes. It’s not quite as easy to trash the environment when you know your food comes from it.

3. I understand that we all have to limit our plant pallettes. However, I think it’s a good idea to have plant pallettes for different situations, if your clients are diverse enough. If you only do commercial and institutional landscapes, maybe food plants aren’t as important. If you do a little bit of everything, maybe it’s important to have a pallette of traditional landscape plants, plus one of natives, plus one of food plants, etc. At the first place I worked we had a list of plants divided up based on type, size and water requirements and origin (native vs. not). I’m sure my boss had to put a lot of effort into making that list, but it sure made things easier.

4. I think it is easy to lose sight of the big picture when projects have to be rushed (which they usually do). I guess all you can do is have a diverse set of principles that allows you to respond to different situations in a way you think is appropriate.

5. The idea of edible plants in the landscape isn’t being driven by landscape architects. It’s being driven by an increased awareness of where our food comes from and worries about health and food costs. If you take advantage of that, it doesn’t mean you are forcing your values. The lesson I learned from my first work place is that if you portray yourself as someone who knows about food plants or sustainable design or whatever, you will get clients who request it. Not every client will, but you take what you can. For clients who don’t request it, you can suggest using food plants once without making making them mad, if you can support your suggestion.
Having your own values is not the same thing as forcing them on clients. We all have them, anyway.