The Golden State: Where & How to Live, Secure, Visit, Enjoy and Thrive in California

Landscape Gardening

Before beginning to point out the specific contrivances by which the perfection of the architectural style is sought, it will be best to consider its broader relations, conditions and limitations. The architectural garden is, in a very proper sense, an extension,—a development of the adjoining building or buildings. A dwelling house must have porches, promenades, pro-vision for the exercise, rest or enjoyment of its inhabitants in the open air, with more or less protection under foot and overhead. A public building must have its colonnades, pergolas, loggias and approaches. These may extend indefinitely away from the proper walls of the building and into the area of the garden. It is necessary only to keep up a close and obvious connection between the entrance steps, the walks of stone or marble nagging, the resting seats of hewn stone, the fountains, the statuary and the stone boundary walls, to see how completely the main edifice may extend quite to the boundary of the grounds.

Looking at it in this light it is manifest that the surrounding grounds, developed from the central building, are accessory and subordinate to it. They serve as an appropriate frame in which to exhibit the beauty of the building. They do not attempt to hide the main work of architecture, nor to draw attention away from it, but to point out and emphasize its beauties. It would be well if this point were borne in mind by landscape gardeners in general; for there are many cases in which the buildings are of supreme interest, and any gardening, which openly competes with them for public attention and admiration is intolerable. It is doubtful if any naturalistic effects should ever be attempted in such cases.

The principle of choice between the two great styles has already been pointed out. In situations where the buildings are necessarily predominant, the architectural style is more easy of application, while in those cases where the grounds are naturally of chief importance, they respond most readily and satisfactorily to the natural style of development. This rule may not be proof against exceptions, but it is safe.

One word more needs to be said. A compromise or combination of the two styles, the natural and the architectural, is impracticable and impossible.