what is your design style?

[Marzena]

hi!
what kind of style do you prefer in gardening? Minimal, land art, formal, modern or new romantic style?

[mohd fidzrin]

hi,
for me,im prefer combination of modern and formal style of designing..it is because, in my country the profession of LA is still in development because it quite new.so people still don’t see the relevant in having the LA in their environment. any projects,architect comes first and it become a challenge to LA. so,the mentality of the public cannot accept the radical design.perhaps in future,public mentality can accept the important of having LA in their environment.

[Trace One]

I like functional first – I like the garden/park to function, to be based on circulation. I dislike ornamental plantings. I think color and texture in a garden can usually be almost completely ignored – they change with the seasons..I dislike gardens that think too much about plant color and texture..And I like the late 19th century garden detailing (Olmsted) along with Frank Lloyd Wright style – beautiful simple classical detailing.. But most important, the garden has to have a functioning, sensible circulation plan, and go from there..
I think the detailing in the incredibly popular High Line in Manhattan look like they will not last – skinny tapering edges, too-stylistic uncomfortable benches.. French wrought iron detailing is pretty low on my list – don’t like metal that much..It has to have purpose, and has to ‘fit’..

[Marzena]

So… in LA is the same situation like all over the world… People just ignore landscape architects.
“Trace One”- are you talking about natural style? FLW was an architect who hasn’t changed the landscape, he just included buildings to natural area.

[Trace One]

He actually has designed some incredibly lovely gardens/pools right up close to the house – plus his steps in the landscape – no, he has altered the landscape around his houses..I am thinking of one in particular, a gorgeous rendering of a pool with steps in the crook of a gorgeous house – big flat planter pots gracing the steps of the pool space – I think it is a drawing of a house in chicago..so look again..He’s got some real ideas about gardens, as you might imagine – fromthe way he controlled his interior decorating!
🙂

[nca]

I wouldn’t say I subscribe to a particular style, though I think the contemporary style collectively exhibits too much influence of the mid-centruy modern-minimalist style.

I think minimalism has it’s place such as in memorials and scultpure parks, but it seems like every public space nowadays is reduced to the lowest common denominator even when it can afford to be more. I like a lot of MVVA’s work because I think they tend to focus on user experience and detailing to the users benefit, whereas the influence and use of modern materials in contemporary gardens like brushed aluminum, steel, and other synthetic products tend to leave something to be desired.

My reaction to some contemporary gardens is that they seem ‘gadgety’ as if they’re trying to be something they’re not, whether for functional or aesthetic purposes. I think there are such places made fro designers and then there are places for everyone else. Sometimes I think what we see awarded in magazines tends to fall into the former category- places designed to look like they were designed, not to be lived in.

[Roland Beinert]

I prefer a naturalistic style, but I think any style can look good in the right situation. It all depends on the context.
I agree with Trace about function. Aesthetics is just the icing on the cake.

[Elizabeth A. Przygoda-Montgomery]

I really love each one, as long as the are with the right architecture, when all or one is designed to perfection , how can you not love each ?

[Trace One]

true, Andrew, functionality does not define style, completely, – it is still most important for me, in considering whether a design is good or not.
Lets see – the style to my highway landscapes..hee hee..definitely not decorative – I go for complete seventies xeriscape, with early seventies concrete modern detailing..
hows that?
but I do like to continue to look at other landscapes and think about design..

[nca]

It sort of feels awkward to say I work in a particular ‘style’.

I’d say there’s a Colorado Front Range vernacular, as well as styles more specific to each region of the state, associated culture, and context.

I’ve worked a lot in the ‘naturalistic’ style with single family homes and larger public sites alike. I can see the slight variations in this style from one site to another. One example may be the dominance of the circulation pattern on a university campus but with a similar planting palette and style as a more intimate site which may be more garden focused. In Colorado it’s typical to see a lot of metaphor for the natural environment (especially with regard to the use of water and it’s cycle) embedded in some component of nearly any given project.

[Roland Beinert]

I don’t think functional has to mean minimum standards. I’m tempted to post a bunch of pictures now.
What I meant by “functional” is that I think form should follow function rather than the demands of any particular style. At the first place I worked, all the LA’s tended to recommend dry streambeds. But the descision to use them wasn’t based on the desire to make it look like there was stream in the client’s yard. It was really more to handle stormwater run-off.
I think it’s possible to make any element of a design aesthetically pleasing, so functionality comes first to me. Functionality takes more planning and thought. Any landscape contractor or gardener can shrub things up to look good.

[Anton Comrie]

Delete the word style and the world be a much better place…..I prefer design in verbs i.e. innovate, anticipate, generate, elevate, fold, shift, repond, integrated, include, refine etc etc.

[Author]

Posts