Thank you so much for your comments; I’m so pleased that the meeting went well and look forward to any other ideas that emerge as you formulate them. I haven’t yet had a chance to look at the revisions to the proposal that you’ve made, but I’m delighted that the splines have reasserted themselves, particularly because I remember that they were something that Arabella Lennox Boyd was intrigued by.

The question, I think, is how to systematize the set of observations you made so that they become part of the logic of the design.

The point that he makes about micro-climate, historical precedent, and angles of view were all as expected and don’t, I think, so much undermine where we’ve got to, as make it clear that we need to go further with the other variables that are emerging.

When Stuart says that composting should be done off site, is he saying just outside the wall as we had planned, or right away from it? And what system is he proposing? In terms of any reconfiguration of the ground within the wall, do we have enough precise information about contour lines outside it to be able to infer accurately an original topography inside? I think Stuart doesn’t like the slightly bald convex hump inside the west door, and I know what he means. But I think that it’s quite important to rigorously apply the rule that we made that we were not going to doctor the ground within the wall.

I think we could play with it a bit, but only if we felt we were restoring it to the original role of the land, before the soil started to creep. If the hump turns out to be original I’d leave it, but flag it up as something to address (one way or the other) in the planting scheme.

What’s emerging, I think is the idea that the functional brief can be condensed into a single sentence:- “The project needs to maximize the range of potential visitor experience – between morning and evening, between winter and summer, between bright sunshine and rainfall, and between all the different styles and types of planting that we have been discussing. It should privilege the individual experience of going round the garden, either singly or in very small groups.

That is, if a tour needs to be guided it will have failed, and priority should be given to dissolving groups of people as quickly as possible into the plantings.”

I suggest that I let you and Alejandro absorb and respond to Stuart’s commentary.

After an intense and productive meeting with Stuart, there are certain directions that the project should take. He was spot on about a number of things.

Stuart brought up important ideas about experiences of the garden that we need to foreground. The primary topics were:

A. Macro-views of the garden. In his experienced eye, the interesting aspects of our proposal are begininning to be indicated by the diagrams of the linear gallery (which, of course, need to reflect the parallel viewing dynamic). Serial repetition in the lateral, detail still available in the orthagonal, and of particular interest the broad macro views that effectively make the jagged borders appear as frontal compositions. Our conversation brought back early suggestions which I had pitched about the dynamic spatial sensation inherent in the garden because of the topography and the plantings that cause the space to slip out. Remember the horizon spline drawings. I have reincluded those in the package, even before the meeting with Stuart, but realize now the value of utilizing them as a means of describing the macro relationship of the garden to the landscape beyond.

1. Contour interior of garden to reclaim original ‘amphitheater’ grading. It was suggested that we can work this to the advantage of the macro views. Slight local contouring of land at the foot paths to create subtle reading of large scale areas that are legible primarily in the winter. I agree fully, and will use our discussions about a primary circulation path through the center area of the site as a means of defining macro organizations.

B. It was keenly recommended that I downplay not only the statistical information, but also the microclimate as it is a flexible idea, not a firm issue to base arguements around. This is fair as the primary rationale for its inclusion is the justification of the dimension of the zone of the perimeter ‘gallery’ which we have also found sufficient visual recourse to make it viable in its own right.

C. On-site composting disadvised. Providing a place(s) for convenient storage of cuttings is suggested, but that Stuart’s expereince with maintenance issues recommends compost facilities off-site. Path to be minimum 1.5m to allow two persons walking side by side and motored mini-tractor access (primary paths only). Secondary paths of cut grass.

D. The inclusion of water in the garden was also considered a viable addition and that it could be coupled (as earlier suggested) with the footpath, perhaps as an open culvert that moves along the primary central path to the bottom of the garden where it can be channeled to the ‘lake.’ This link to the outside landscape a positive feature. I know there was more, and fortunately I have the discussion recorded. I will move on these points and return a package that reflects Stuart’s input. I sincerely believe the topics were all vital considerations that will make for a more solid proposal.

I write all this to let you know the content of our meeting and to articulate my understandings. You’re in the loop; what do you think?

Thank you both for the meeting on Tuesday, and for the work that went into it. Some things that have occurred to me.

1. I’m very keen to incorporate as soon as possible whatever you both agree about:

a) a hierarchy of path widths (if any)

b) a hierarchy of path materials

c) an expanse of water

d) the ‘feathering’ of the junctions

e) re-ordering of entrances and exits – particularly the ‘service’ entrance

f) anything else we discussed 1. I think it would actually be valuable at this stage to number the pages. I do want to change the current order in the presentation and it would be easier to do this if we all know what we are referring to.

2. On the subject of the written descriptions/arguments I believe that it is very important to get these right. That is, only by expressing the thinking with absolute precision will we be able to test the ideas behind it; this is true both for ourselves and for the (non technical) people that we present to. I’ve got an idea for who might help us with this.

3. I think that the most important thing for you both to discuss, and raise with Stuart (to whom I’ve copied this), is as follows: has the analysis so far uncovered the full complexity of the micro-climatic range within the Walled Garden? If it hasn’t, then we have not yet maximized the range of possible planting. For instance:

a) Does the fall of the ground in effect extend the micro-climatic effects of the western wall, and the rise the effect of the easterly one? I’m pretty sure it does.

b) What is the importance of diurnal differences in sunlight in parts of the garden? Does sun in the morning effect plants differently from sun in the afternoon? Does a wall which has had sun for most of the day radiate more heat than one that has had sun only for a brief part of the day?

c) Have we fully adjusted for the effect of the wind and the rain on their prevailing axes? Your diagram suggests that the garden is almost perfectly sheltered from the wind.

d) Seasonal variations in sunlight. Does winter shade (i.e. non-growing season) have a different effect on plants to summer shade?

4. Do we need also to examine more carefully the assumptions we have made about the planting in relation to the height of walls? Nori Pope’s simple rule was that planting widths should be equal to wall height may actually be more useful than historical precedent.

I think these rules assume more or less flat ground and, of course, walls of uniform height. I think perhaps your ideas about the linear gallery are too ‘horizontal’ in concept and that they should be made to accommodate the fact that everything will be viewed from a 20% slope, whether one’s going up or down.

If up, then the perceived width of the planting will be foreshortened, if down it will appear broader. One aspect of the current layout of borders that bothers me (and I think, perhaps, Alejandro) is the regularity of the zig zag path in the north east quadrant of the curve.

I think it could be a bit monotonous, and the questions above hopefully might make the layout parameters a little more complex and interesting.

Let me know what you think.