49
SPRING 2016
them; flowers, fragrance, clipped and manicured;
as opposed to the more public ‘landscapes’ and the
ideas of robustness and hardiness.
We work with the same professionals, including
architects, engineers, planners, surveyors and get
involved with all the drama which goes with the
consultation and design development period. Where
things may differ is with the client. We tend to work
with individual owners, not conglomerates of people with a variety of requirements for the landscape.
Whether that is easier, or not, is debatable.
When I think about all the facets of a landscape
design there is very little to differentiate between
public and private work. We all work with levels,
retaining, hard surfaces, drainage, lighting, and
the rest. What we can do, and are often requested
today, is create the private realm - achieved through
enclosing a space. This relates back to the earliest
courtyard gardens of the Middle East which sought
to create a paradise within an enclosed space. The
earliest Chinese gardens used enclosure to block out
the patterns of humanity – particularly in an urban
situation, much as our clients seek to do now.
The enclosure of public spaces is often more
difficult to achieve given the requirements for visual
permeability and requirements such as CPTED.
Where public work is largely all public, residential
work often provides the opportunity for public and
private spaces - front yard and back yard essentially.
The use of water is something which differentiates
between the public and private landscapes. With
residential work we can use water for enjoyment,
in the form of swimming pools and water features,
whereas the public realm tends to be more aesthetic,
water features, or functional, raingardens etc. A large
percentage of our work involves swimming pools
which presents an interesting range of issues. The
functionality of garden with a swimming pool is very
similar to resolving a public landscape. We are driven
by a similar range of issues such as connectivity, visibility, safety, practicality and functionality. Swimming
pools pose possibly our greatest challenge, particularly with small, sloping urban sites.
There are a few sweeping generalisations in my
assessment of differences and similarities. We work
very much in the highly manicured and controlled
environment of the formal garden. In the end we
fundamentally work with the same palette of materials, perhaps it’s the plants which create the differentiation. The private world is the realm of the
gardenia, the camellia, buxus and ficus and we use
lomandra.
Does it come down to scale of a space which marks
the difference? I don’t believe so, we have some very
large private sites, particularly in the rural environment, and there are some very small public spaces.
Is it just terminology? Gardens versus landscapes, or
are they fundamentally the same things?
(I should note: I have worked in the public realm and
we do get involved in public work at Shafer Design.)
ABOVE:
Vitium comnisi aut
faccata tissum eatur, simusa cullaut
apelita tquibusam