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?

This entry was posted on Sunday, November 27th, 2005 at 4:04 pm and is filed under Correspondence. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.