[agla]

I'm working on the fourth phase of a renovation landscape for a 1970's condo complex. It got me thinking as I draft in all of the locations of every tree, walkway, and everything else, about how intimate you become with the site after measuring each of these and then drafting them to scale.

I have been following a couple of threads on some other message boards about using google earth and other online available plans and images for the purpose of doing estimates and design. I'm really into the idea that this is a diverse industry and the varying level of service, competency, and complication of projects is good for everyone, but I sometimes wonder if some people don't look too hard to try and use technology just to use it rather than because it is helpful. It just strikes me how easily we can become disconnected from our work. I use Google earth, state and local GIS maps and images for reference or base plan from time to time. It has its purpose and many uses, don't get me wrong.

I think about how well I know this part of the site that I'm currently working on after only four or five visits for an hour or two each. This is a pretty big site with 10 buildings holding four units in each. I did not have to measure everything to do this plan since I started with a CAD drawing from the town GIS and no one is going to take a scale and compare my locations of trees to the actual distances on the ground. So, why do I do it?

Part of the reason is to try to have an accurate plan to be as professional as possible, but that is not the most important thing. The most important thing is that I had to go over every inch of that site in order to measure it. I had to measure each building, touch every tree and measure back to corners of the buildings (thank God for the laser tape). After that, I have to draft it all over again measuring off of each corner of the buildings to place every one of those things in the drawing. By the time I'm done with the existing conditions of this or any other site, I am so familiar with it that moving forward with a very site specific design is much easier than it would be otherwise.

There are many options for people nowadays when it comes to landscape design. Well, there were always many options, but there are a few more now due to technology. Any of them can be quite adequate for jobs that they suit. The point is that just because something can be done easily, or fast, or remotely, it does not necessarily mean that it should be or should not be.

My overall point is that the more involved you get with the site, the more you understand it. Sometimes that will make a huge difference in the outcome of the project. I think this is especially true in rehabilitating existing landscapes. Any of us can take a base plan and slap in plant symbols in twenty minutes and call it done. But it takes more than that to account for all the nuances of the site that you can either enhance or mitigate.

It all becomes a balance of values between the work that you want to do, the effort you want to put into it, the commitment of your client, and just how complicated the site is.

I just thought I'd throw out these thoughts while I was having them for other people to think about. An additional thing to consider is that the people who I'm doing this for could have hired any one of the hundreds (look in our yellow pages) of people out there who would have done the quickie plan for a fraction of what they need to pay for what I'm putting into it, but they did not (and this is the fourth phase all under separate contracts). They have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars implementing these designs which are pretty much only plantings and removals.

Offering more design service does limit your customer base, but it also keeps you in a higher end market. If you are doing everything that everyone else is doing, you are letting everyone else compete with you. That is true in design, or construction, or maintenance. Something to think about.

[papercutter]

Well said.

[VoodooChile]

It's always hard to argue with anything agla says, but you could make the argument that more recent technologies like Google Earth and g.p.s. can help to eliminate the drudgery of locating exactly every tree and bush, freeing up more time to appreciate the nuances of the site.

For example, if instead of all that manual measuring-- even with the laser tape-- you were spending that time determining exposure, doing spot soil tests for drainage and composition, ascertaining prevailing winds, judging/guessing at pollution and salt drift, your final plan would be just as accurate and potentially more tailored to the nuances of the site. Not to say that what you came up with isn't....

My other thought is this. When we do design for commercial properties or condos, we work off of a very short list of only the toughest plant material. While this makes for monotony, it also insures success on sites where plant health care is spotty at best. To us, it becomes a question of preserving our own time, instead of giving it away on a design that in all likelihood won't be appreciated by the prospective client. Of course, our business is different than agla's, in that the design is not an end in itself, but merely a tool to sell the installation.

As always a thought provoking post...

[jwholden]

I agree with AGLA. By the time I finish measuring the site I have the plan pretty much set in my mind based on the conditions I have found. I could not imagine trying to come up with a complete plan before measuring the site. Correction, I could do it but there would be more fudging of the design as it was installed. I would just pray my client wasn't of the engineer or architect mentality.

Is your avitar the island garden you designed with the specimen evergreens? If it isn't could you post that picture somehwhere else, it looks like a nice shot.

[Stonehenge]

An interesting discussion. I had to check because I haven't used Google Earth in awhile - they've added some nice features, and in rare cases you can zoom in to see the contents of a bucket held by a person at a tribal community well in the middle of Borneo, but you can't see anything of any value in our area. Even Microsoft's mapping setup, the most detailed for our area, doesn't provide nearly enough resolution to be able to create or even verify a plan from.

But I would love to be able to place a tool like that in my arsenal for verifying large tree locations or just the general layout - it doesn't happen often, but every once in awhile on a residential plan we'll get to installing and I'll realize my notes were incorrect, with a tree being 10' to the right of a certain point, not the left, which forces me to change the design on the fly. I can do it, but it always makes me a bit uncomfortable.

More often than not we're starting from either a blank canvas or one with only a few shapes painted on, so detailing the exact location of every plant is either very easy or relatively unimportant.

More valuable to me would be a topographical map via Google Earth.

[papercutter]

I think if all you're doing are conceptual plans, then Google Earth and stuff like that will be fine. But I despise innacuracy and surprises in the field- garbage in, garbage out, and all that. We have the tools to be incredibly accurate in our drawings, thanks to AutoCAD and similar products- why not use them? I've found that the best way to be profitable and service the customer is to start with great measurements, design accurately (if a paver is 6.5" x 12.25", then draw it that way), and use the tools at your disposal to create accurate estimates.

[Inspired]

I guess I need to buy a laser tape.

A lot of what we do is residential remodels. Most of my design experience is in that type of work. I find the time I spend on the site is never wasted. It always helps me put together a good and workable concept and of course, an accurate final plan. If I can, I'll drag the customer out into the yard as well and get them talking and showing me what they are thinking. You'll never find those little "sweet spots" out in the yard if you don't walk it.

[agla]

I think it is all good when you use it appropriately to your site, your client's budget and attitude, and scope of your work. I've done many landscape plans for houses that were not even under construction, so the luxury of getting really familiar with the site was not there. I'm certainly not saying that the way I am doing that condo redo is "the" way to do design work. I was just reflecting on how much you really get to know a place when you have to analyze it that closely.

When I was learning trees and shrubs in dendrology class in winter in Maine, the teacher told us that the more complicated we made learning the plants, the more permanent they would be in our minds. We sketched them, we made riddles to remember how to spell their names, and all kinds of stupid things to remember them. Now, twenty five years later, I'll see a plant that I have not seen since and the botanical name comes right up even when I'm not sure what I'm looking at. This actually happened on this particular job. I don't even know where I learned this tree (Zelkova). I don't even recall lerning it or ever seeing it, but the name popped into my head while I'm telling myself I don't know what it is. It is really true that the more complicated the input, the more imprinted it becomes.

Sometimes that kind of excercise is helpful, but sometimes it is a waste of time. Part of doing this kind of stuff is to develop a sense to know what is appropriate and when. After all, it is a diverse industry, isn't it?

[VoodooChile]

I find it hard to believe that you can both simultaneously plot a commercial site's major and minor landmarks and at the same time evaluate the site's soil, drainage, wind, pollution and exposure conditions...accurately at least.

Drainage and soil composition will impact a good design's success as much as whether the existing Arbs are located to within a 2% margin of error.

If
Goggle Earth (or some of the other technologies that agla listed) provide enough data to get "close enough",

then
wouldn't that time -- 3-4 hours in this case-- be better spent taking soil samples, noting exposure, inventorying existing vegetation, and getting a handle on drainage patterns?

[agla]

Our soils situations are very easy to decifer without sticking a shovel in the ground as far as texture goes. It is not a big place and much of the soil conditions can be read by topography, general location, and what is growing. It helps to work in an office that does perc tests all over as well. The whole of Cape Cod was created by glacial deposits. Some areas are outwash plains which are generally large grainy sand soils. Some areas have heavy clay soils, but these are very well known. There are a few areas that actually have rocks and none that have bedrock. It is not a time consuming subject in this area. Soil is always ammended here except in some native plantings.

Solar orientation is less an issue than in some other regions. We can plant broadleaf evergreens in full sun and have them thrive. It becomes a simple understanding of how much sun there is and for roughly how long. It is not rocket science for this type of planting. It is not an annual/perennial garden, but removal and supplementation of shrubs and ornamental trees.

Wind is critical here especially with the proximity of salt water. This happens to be a heavily treed area with dense construction of large buildings and reasonably well protected.

Surface drainage is well established as this is over 30 years old. Soil drainage on this site would be described as "excessively well drained".



I honestly don't know what good this image would do to get a plan going. It does not get any better zoomed in or zoomed out. If you can design a landscape with that, you are a better man than I am. Granted, there are some better images in some areas. I am not sure that someone could decifer how many buildings are i that photo and certainly not how many trees or where they are. Walkways? Parking spaces? I'm not buying it.

Most of the shrubs on this particular building will be yanked, but you can't very well lay out a planting between existing trees and shrubs anywhere close to accurately without measuring. Others have to bid on this and lay it out according to plan. I'd look pretty stupid putting things on a plan that do not fit. There could be huge gaps in some areas and dense planting in others. Extra plants or not enough plants will mean unnecessary or unexpected expense. That is not a great way to survive in the design business.

[agla]

Here is an earlier phase. I think that if the text is readable, the importance of locating the plants that remained was very important because the new plantings were all grouped. The groupings would not work if they were interupted by the existing plants.

The aerial does not show much, but I believe that the ripping out of the existing was in progress when this photo was shot. The work was done in April '05. I believe the dump truck shows up in the lower right and the loader is in the road to the left.


This is the before picture. Some material had already been removed. The photo is taken from where the loader is in the aerial.


This page of the plan shows the plants to be preserved and those to be planted. It also shows proposed lawn as a hatch pattern


The area flattened out with lawn added also had to be figured into this. The plan was followed without changes.

[Mac]

I have nothing to add to the design commentary but I want to commend AGLA on the after photo directly above - it looks most excellent.

[VoodooChile]

Yup! Those Goggle Earth images look worthless. Are the guys who inspired this thread really using those to design? or is there some upgraded version that gives higher resolution?

And ditto Mac. That's another beautiful looking plan and installation agla, not the first of yours I've seen. Clearly you did your homework!

[Inspired]

Agla: That privacy berm / blind / median or whatever is beautiful. Thanks for sharing.

Voodoo: I'd be curious to hear a little more about your process. I love to hear how others do this. I’ve felt a bit like a mushroom for years.

I spend a lot of time on the site in the beginning. I sort of "feel" my way around. I take a ton of pictures. Often I will sketch some ideas for myself, nothing the client will ever see, just to get it on paper.

As far as soils and such, most of what I do is remodel design, existing plant health pretty much tells me what I need to know. If there are problems with the plants, I'll ask the homeowner or maintenance person about it. Drainage, exposure, wind, utility lines, etc. all are evident with a good site walk.

I do all this before and during the measuring process. It takes a lot of time, but I personally don't know any other way to do a proper job of it. I've never seen anything accessible on-line that I can use except property lines, set backs, and the building footprint. However, I’m admittedly a little behind tech wise. I'm all ears if there is a better way.

[agla]

I'm not sure what the guys on the other board are getting for images. I will tell you that the base cad plan that I started with was from town gis. It was a good beginning point, but I found parts of buildings that were missed by about 20' because the person digitizing missed a piece or it was obscured. Digitizing is tedious work and sometimes people get sloppy, or can't see everthing, or just plain tired. You also get an a distortion frm the angle of the plane to the ground (when from a plane). It tends to make the roof lines a few feet off from the footprint of the building.

There were lots of differences in the buildings. Since I use the buildings for reference when I measure (shooting laser at corners of buildings from my subject), I have to make sure I measure the building. It sure beats starting from scratch.

Most of the time I start with a cad plan from an actual survey. That is right on the money and there are elevation shots on everything and contour lines. That makes calculating retaining walls, driveways, and drainage pretty easy. Often times the septic perc test data is in the file as well which will give soil info. They seldom locate every tree, so I still have to measure in the details.

Again, it all depends on the type of job it is that determines how important any of this stuff is and how well committed the client is.