Objections to the 2/2008 Proposed
The new 2008 landscape design for Boathouse Circle proposed by the Grounds Manager is unsuitable, just as his first design proved to be several years ago.
The current condition of Boathouse Circle
It should be redesigned to be more in line with the original landscaping of Pelican Cove, using plants outlined by
A majority of the residents concurred with
Because the Grounds Manager seems to have no interest in the resident’s desires, and because his design skills are limited, he has again produced a design that fails to meet the unique needs of
Simply put, what we want and desire is a green, lush landscaping in the parking islands identical to the original lush landscaping in the back of the same homes.
The original lush landscaping of Pelican Cove
Boathouse Circle, because of its high parking garage density and lack of green area, needs large/ green, flowing plants typified by the original landscaping.
What we don’t want is the mechanical landscape design using small, colored, hedge-like plants that typify the Grounds Managers rudimentary designs.
How
The proposed new landscaping for Boathouse Circle
There is no reason why the landscaping in front of the Grove Houses on Boathouse Circle can't be as lush and green and semi-tropical as this (photos above taken from the back of the same houses on Boathouse Circle)..
Other problems with the Design
.
1.Lack of a clear plan for tree removal.
We still see no clear, documented plan for the removal of the aging trees on
This led to a meeting that resulted in a new plan for removal of the trees, which stated removing the most damaged now, and the remainder later.
The problem is no time scale has been set for the second removal. It is unclear if it will take place in a year, 2 years etc.
We believe trees tagged as aging should be removed only when they are visibly old, never sooner. Once the canopy is lost, it will take 25-50 years to restore it.
In addition, the colored ribbons indicating which trees would be removed when were removed shortly after the February Grounds Committee meeting. We have many questions about some of the Yellow ribbon trees (to be cut down for Grounds Managers convenience) as well as some of the others The ribbons should be left up until a firm plan is adopted and ratified by the residents of
2.The proposed island cut back (1 ½ -2 feet) of the existing islands between garages will not allow the plants on the tips to combat the boxy rectangular garage frames. The plants will be hidden by cars. See picture below. The entire enlarged planter area would be lost:
Again, beauty is sacrificed for over-neatness. The plants on tips of islands are critical in drawing the eye away from the boxy, dense garages.
Also see how ferns are far superior to the boxy Ixora Nora Grant in attracting the eye away from the ugly garage frames.
3. The bare lot on
Finally no provision has been made for placing ground cover in the bare lot opposite over half the units on Boathouse Circle. This is an eyesore and contributes to the depressing look of Boathouse Circle.
It should have been done years ago rather than the plum tree replacement and bird sanctuary replacements which serve no purpose.
The bare lot facing half the houses on Boathouse Circle is a disgrace. any talented landscape designer would have planted groundcover as part of the Boathouse Circle landscaping.
The bare lot facing half the houses on
The Wedelia Groundcover behind Wilbanks
Wedelia does well in the shade and would make an excellent groundcover for the bare lot and is used in similar areas of PC ( See picture above of wedelia behind Wilbanks in similar shady area.) It is cheap and durable.
A close up of dense ground cover possible with wedelia
4. Suitability and unsuitability of proposed plantings
What follows in a detailed list of plants proposed by Grounds manager for
- NOT SUITABLE . Ixora 'Nora Grant' is a bad choice for tips of parking islands. It is a boxy hedge that does nothing to offset the dense garages. Something flowing and luxuriant like ferns are required. Also it is not suitable for the shady
Gold mound
3. SUITABLE. Beautyberry is a good choice because it does well in shade is large, and it is a flowing green plant with small flowers and red berries.
Beautyberry plant
Variegated Arbicola.
5. NOT SUITABLE. Small viburnum, Walter's viburnum
This is not a good plant. It is again a small, boxy plant that will not do well in a shady area. In addition, its small, white blossoms are sketchy and not attractive. Again need large flowing plants with flowers that are attractive like the Mexican petunia, which does well in shade.
Appendix A at the end of this report contains pictures of many suitable ferns, which do extremely well in the shade. The Grounds Manager objects to ferns which is why they are not included in his landscaping for
Possible replacements for unsuitable plantings.
Here are some plants that are excellent replacements for the plants found unsuitable. All are shade tolerant and will do well in the shady
Tall grasses
Mexican petunia
APPENDIX A
What follows is A CONDENSATION OF MY ORIGINAL LONG LETTER and extensive photo documentaion of June 5, 2008 to GM Kevin Richards about the inability of the Grounds Manager to recognize that Boathouse Circle had special requirements because of its dense parking.
THE FULL UNCONDENSED LETTER CAN BE SEEN AT END OF THIS REPORT.
NOTE: My original idea as to how to improve Boathouse Circle started in October 2007 when I met with the Board, who approved my idea.
As of today, March 4, 2009, a satisfactory LANDSCAPING plan has not been presented to the residents of Boathouse Circle.
MY LETTER TO KEVIN
June 5, 2008
Dear Kevin
I’m sorry this letter is so long, and I regret having to write it, but it appears that what started out as a simple gardening task has evolved into something that only management can solve.
HERE IS SOME BACKGROUND:
I appeared before the board last year on October 2007 and outlined a quick, extremely low-cost plan that would relieve
I believe the Circle’s haggard appearance lowers the property value of owners on
I told the board that the appearance of
1) The density and number of parking garages is 200% higher than any other section in Pelican Cove.
2) The width of the islands separating the garages is much smaller (average 2-3 feet) than the islands in any other section of Pelican Cove, thereby preventing the establishment of large green areas between garages.
3) The Low Growth/Low Water (LG/LW) plants that were put on the islands four years are shriveled and stunted due to the extreme shadiness of the islands. They dot no do well in the shade and do absolutely nothing to offset the dominant visual images of the rectangular parking garages.
My plan recognized all these problems and accepted them as a fait accompli. We will have to live with the density that Bob Morris designed. As a gardener and artist, however, I did see a way in which the eye could be attracted away from the rectangular eyesores of the garages, and that was by planting very attractive, lush plants on the tips of the 13 parking islands.
I ‘m sorry I had to go through these issues at such length, but I had to go through all of them with Mike and it wasn’t easy. When the smoke cleared, what his objections really boiled down to were the following two problems.
1. Mike is totally committed to LG/LM plants to the exclusion of all others.
2. Mike doesn’t (or can’t) see that
Thus what we really have is a problem that only management can solve. All I can do is point it out, because it will require a change in current Grounds policy insofar as
I hate writing this letter because I like Mike and the work he has done.
But I also like where I live and don’t want to see it continue to go downhill along with my pocketbook.
With all that said, I will also say I am not very confident in his eye. It is not as good as it could be.. I don’t mean that in a derogatory way, simply as a statement of what I’ve observed. If he had a good landscaper’s eye, he would have immediately seen the problem and co-operated in finding a solution in a positive manner. Perhaps he would have suggested something other than macho ferns.
But I never once got any cooperative, positive suggestions from Mike as to other ways of accomplishing the creative landscaping outside of his offhand suggestion of a homely two foot LG/LM shrub.
The density of
Mike’s inability to see that
But I can assure you it is very practical in every sense of the word. And cheap. And easy.
In short, management has to convince Mike that there is a problem that can be solved in something like the manner I have suggested because I’ve gone as far as I can.
Here is what management has to understand:
When you look at
Finally, if I have to, I am ready to speak before the board in September on these issues and continue to press for a real solution unless this landscaping issue can be resolved.
I hope we can come to a reasonable, valid solution to this impasse before that time, not the off-hand vague promises I have been given. I do not enjoy having to go through all this and I’m sure you and Mike feel the same way. I am a working, unsalaried artist who wants to get back to his art. And I might add it has taken me the better part of four days to prepare this documentation. I believe it is an accurate representation of the situation and how it can be resolved.
If I am in error on any point, I stand ready to be corrected. What I hope will happen is that the mass of photos and facts will help management in finding a reasonable solution.
What I think would be a reasonable solution would be a written, documented agreement as to what islands would be planted, how they would be planted (transplant or new plants), the actual plants to be planted, and a schedule as to when it would be done.
If this seems excessive to you, I can only say that 4 years ago when my signed petitions for a re-planting of the Circle moved it to top priority, I asked Mike to include some ferns. He disagreed and said he had something else in mind. He was new and I decided to trust his judgment and eye. The result has been what the Circle looks like today. The LG/LM plants have refused to grow in the shady islands along the streets and are so string and stumpy as to amount to no improvement at all. (See figs. 1-3, 11-13, 16-18)
This time, I want to see what we’re getting before we get it.
It would be good for all of this to operate this way.
I wait to hear from you.
Photographs of BOATHOUSE CIRCLE
Figures 1-3. the dense parking lot appearance of Boathouse Circle. Note the small almost imperceptible ground plantings.
Figures 5-8 Alternatives to Macho Ferns. Note yardstick. all are slightly less than 36” when mature. All are hardy survivors in shade.
Fig.7 Tall Grass
Fig 8. Bayonet Cactus
Less than 36”height. Note yardstick
Fig 10. A recent tree removal on the East side of the property on 41. Note the almost surgical precision leaving surrounding plants intact even after stump has been pulverized for fill
Fig 10. A recent tree removal on the East side of the property on 41.
Note the almost surgical precision leaving surrounding plants intact even after stump has been pulverized for fill
Figures 11-13. Examples of the small, scraggly vegetation on Boathouse Circle Parking Islands. These were planted 4 years ago.
Figures 11-13. Examples of the small, scraggly vegetation on Boathouse Circle Parking Islands. These were planted 4 years ago.
Fig 14. the 1 foot macho ferns planted on one island
Fig 14. the 1 foot macho ferns planted on one island
Fig 15. the opposite island w LG/LM plants and no macho ferns
Figures 16-18. Examples of the LG/LM plants used throughout PC. The are yellowish and red/orange in appearance, grow
to less than 2 feet unless engineered to grow taller. They don’t grow in shade at all.
Figures 16-18. Examples of the LG/LM plants used throughout PC. The are yellowish and red/orange in appearance, grow
to less than 2 feet unless engineered to grow taller. They don’t grow in shade at all.
Fig. 20n Macho Fern, Giant Sword Fern Description
Nephrolepis biserrata 'Macho'
Family: Polypodiaceae
Genus: Nephrolepis (nef-roh-LEP-iss)
Species: biserrata
Cultivar: Macho
Category
Ferns
Height
18-24 in. (45-60 cm)
24-36 in. (60-90 cm)
36-48 in. (90-120 cm)
Spacing
24-36 in. (60-90 cm)
Hardiness
USDA Zone 9b: to -3.8 °C (25 °F)
USDA Zone 10a: to -1.1 °C (30 °F)
USDA Zone 10b: to 1.7 °C (35 °F)
USDA Zone 11: above 4.5 °C (40 °F)
Sun Exposure
Sun to Partial Shade
Danger
N/A
Bloom Color
Inconspicuous/none
Bloom Time
N/A
Foliage
Grown for foliage
Other details
Average Water Needs; Water regularly; do not overwater
Provides winter interest
Soil pH requirements
6.1 to 6.5 (mildly acidic)
Propagation Methods
By dividing the rootball
By dividing rhizomes, tubers, corms or bulbs (including offsets)
Figure 20. macho fern specifications. Important items outlined with shade.
MY COMPLETE LETTER TO KEVIN
June 5, 2008
Dear Kevin
I’m sorry this letter is so long, and I regret having to write it, but it appears that what started out as a simple gardening task has evolved into something that only management can solve.
HERE IS SOME BACKGROUND:
I appeared before the board last year on October 2007 and outlined a quick, extremely low-cost plan that would relieve
I believe the Circle’s haggard appearance lowers the property value of owners on
I told the board that the appearance of
1) The density and number of parking garages is 200% higher than any other section in Pelican Cove.
2) The width of the islands separating the garages is much smaller (average 2-3 feet) than the islands in any other section of Pelican Cove, thereby preventing the establishment of large green areas between garages.
3) The Low Growth/Low Water (LG/LW) plants that were put on the islands four years are shriveled and stunted due to the extreme shadiness of the islands. They dot no do well in the shade and do absolutely nothing to offset the dominant visual images of the rectangular parking garages.
My plan recognized all these problems and accepted them as a fait accompli. We will have to live with the density that Bob Morris designed. As a gardener and artist, however, I did see a way in which the eye could be attracted away from the rectangular eyesores of the garages, and that was by planting very attractive, lush plants on the tips of the 13 parking islands.
Every woman knows this trick: if you have an undesirable feature (say the hips) you can attract the eye away from them by emphasizing a feature that is attractive (say the eyes) with cosmetics like mascara and eye shadow, etc.
Every artist, photographer and landscape architect knows this trick as well. In the case of
As I told the board, I am a devoted gardener and was well aware of kind of effort it would take, which I saw as minimal. (I estimated 9 of the 13 islands could be easily and totally transplanted by 2 gardeners in 3 days. The other 4 islands, which have trees at the tips, would requite shoring up with additional earth around and behind the trees, and would take an additional 2-3 days.
I based these estimates on my experience in transplanting (with one part-time Mexican gardener) an entire garden (twice the size of the Pavilion) in arid desert soil at my winter home in
At any rate, the idea was so obvious that you and the board endorsed it, quickly seeing its value and asked me to get together with Mike. Mike offered no objections to the idea at the time.
My plan, which I discussed with Mike twice to make sure he was clear, and to which he offered no objections, was to test-transplant the tips of 2 of the 13 islands with macho ferns, and if all went well and the “look” was what we expected, then we’d transplant the remaining 11 islands over the next 1-2 years whenever labor was available.
Unfortunately, despite my continual prodding of Mike over the next 8 months absolutely nothing was done. Finally, at the end of the eighth month, one island of small macho ferns appeared. (See Fig. 14.) An entire island was planted, not just the tip as we had agreed, which was unnecessary, as those additional ferns could have been used to plant the tip of another island.
THE MID PART OF THIS LETTER, WHICH IS MOSTLY DETAIL, HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE END OF THIS REPORT.
The ferns, moreover, were new plants and not transplanted ones and were thus only a 1 foot in height. If they had been transplanted at full height (3 feet) and on 2 islands as we had agreed, it would have been clear to almost anyone that the idea was a good one. Right now, it takes some imagination.
There was no reason why a second island wasn’t planted with ferns . On the island right across from the newly planted macho ferns (See Fig. 15) Mike had recently planted Low Growth/Low Water (LG/LW) shrubs, which are part of the problem, thereby completely ignoring our agreement to do 2 test islands.
Thus I began a series of 4 detailed conversations with Mike as to why the second island wasn’t done and what was going to happen from here.
Mike over the course of those conversations told me the following:
1.He didn’t transplant anything. It was too time consuming
What we swap here is plant cost vs. labor cost of digging up the ferns. What is given up is the advantage of getting immediate fern height and density, which is crucial. In the shady conditions it will take 5 years for new ferns to reach 36”.
I base this on my experience with the four year old macho ferns outside my unit. (See Figure 9). Transplanting them is not the delicate operation Mike indicates it is. Proper water for a few days is all that is required. These ferns are animals. It would take a flame-thrower to kill them.. See figure 20 for a technical description of macho ferns their growth and watering/light needs.
2. The only island suitable for ferns was the one (1) island where he planted, and that macho ferns were unsuitable for the remaining 12 islands because:
a) they were a traffic menace
b) they required additional water
c) they required trimming
d) they interfered with tree removal
These objections are wildly overstated. I’m not saying Mike made them up. I’m saying they don’t hold for
Here’s why :
1.Boathouse Circle is extremely shady, thereby limiting fern growth over a 5 year period to less that 36”. (See Fig.9.) (In sunny areas with lots of water some species can grow to 55”. But this is not the case in the shady Circle.
In addition the ferns, if purchased, come in three ultimate heights (one is 36”), thereby limiting their height no matter what sun and time factors are involved (See Fig. 20).
2.The shade also eliminates the need for more water than the LG/LM plants. I base this on the 33” macho ferns outside my condo. (See Fig.9). These were planted 4 years ago and get the same water as the LG/LM plants that surround them. (See Figs.16-18.) Thus, even with transplanting existing macho ferns, the water and trimming issues simply don’t apply to very shady islands of
3.The traffic menace objection is related to the trimming issue. Very short drivers sometimes object to the ferns blocking their view from the garage and demand they be trimmed. This won’t happen when ferns are in a shady area as their height is less than 36”and thus there is no need to trim them. (If the driver’s eyes are less than 40” from the ground, then the driver can’t see over the dashboard and shouldn’t be driving). For the normal driver like myself at 5’10’’, whose eyes are 47” off the ground in my car, the macho ferns even at 4’ are not a problem. At worst, some of the macho ferns may have to be trimmed every eight years. A small price to pay for beauty
4. The tree removal is surgical and has no effect upon existing plants. (See Fig. 10). The ferns could be planted (even behind a tree on the tip of an island.) without being effected by eventual tree removal, which could be 3-8 years away. If some of the ferns had to be temporarily lifted to make room for new water pipes, it could be easily done. These are not orchids. They are aggressive, extremely hardy plants.
The only exception that I would make to immediately planting ferns would be on the four islands that do contain 4 trees in desperate shape. If these trees aren’t scheduled for removal within a year they should be. If these 4 sick trees are scheduled for actual, not planned, removal, it would make sense to delay the planting of the ferns. Anything more than 1 year, I consider future fog, because the removal of those trees will always be subject to delays and rescheduling for a variety of reasons.
I am with the brilliant mathematician and economist John Maynard Keynes when it comes to short run vs. future fog solutions. In the twenties, when Parliament objected to his practical plans for immediately jumpstarting the desperate British Economy, telling him they preferred to wait and do nothing, because in the long run things would self correct. Keynes famous reply was, “Gentlemen, in the long run, we’re all dead.” Parliament passed his measures a few days later.
I ‘m sorry I had to go through these issues at such length, but I had to go through all of them with Mike and it wasn’t easy. When the smoke cleared, what his objections really boiled down to were the following two problems.
1. Mike is totally committed to LG/LM plants to the exclusion of all others.
2. Mike doesn’t (or can’t) see that
Thus what we really have is a problem that only management can solve. All I can do is point it out, because it will require a change in current Grounds policy insofar as
I hate writing this letter because I like Mike and the work he has done.
But I also like where I live and don’t want to see it continue to go downhill along with my pocketbook.
On the positive side, Mike is to be commended for his diligence and husbandry. He is the first Grounds manager we have had who has realized that LG/LM plants can drastically reduce maintenance costs. I have seen my maintenance grow over the past 30 years from $60/month to almost $400. Undoubted it would be even higher if LG/LM plants weren’t introduced by Mike. I have seen the hordes of gardeners we used to have trickle to a handful, and I am grateful for that reduction.
Also, Mike is the first Grounds Manager to realize that trees have to be replaced. They don’t live forever. In
With all that said, I will also say I am not very confident in his eye. It is not as good as it could be.. I don’t mean that in a derogatory way, simply as a statement of what I’ve observed. If he had a good landscaper’s eye, he would have immediately seen the problem and co-operated in finding a solution in a positive manner. Perhaps he would have suggested something other than macho ferns.
But I never once got any cooperative, positive suggestions from Mike as to other ways of accomplishing the creative landscaping outside of his offhand suggestion of a homely two foot LG/LM shrub.
Yet there are many other good solutions and they are all present right here in Pelican Cove. Yet Mike never brought them up. I don’t think any of these other plants have the macho fern’s combination of beauty, tropical lushness, size/density, and low cost, but some come close. (Figs.5-9 show some of these alternatives).
Unfortunately, all I got were objections to the macho ferns. But macho ferns aren’t the problem, the real problem is Mike’s inability to see that
The density of
Mike’s inability to see that
But I can assure you it is very practical in every sense of the word. And cheap. And easy.
In short, management has to convince Mike that there is a problem that can be solved in something like the manner I have suggested because I’ve gone as far as I can.
When we began our meetings Mike said to me that
That is the real problem, and for that we need a new kind of landscaping. Even new garages won’t solve it because they will attract the eye even more than now.
When we finally ended our meetings a few days ago, Mike finally admitted to me, “Ok, it has some problems, I know what you want, you want some flowery plants at the tips but you’re not going to get them on every island.”
If Mike could show me a LG/LM plant that competed favorably with the macho fern in that it had the proper height, mass, and lush flowing look, I’d buy it immediately.
Let me say one last thing, about Mike’s last statement that he wasn’t going to plant “on every island”. This again indicates a lack of eye. It would be like the imaginary woman I used as an example at the beginning of this letter only using mascara and shadow on the top on one eye. It won’t work. Similarly, partial planting won’t work. We’ll simply have a bigger mess.
Here is what management has to understand:
When you look at
One last thing: the water piping (and replanting of the 2 center islands in Boathouse Circle with macho ferns would go along way towards solving the entire landscaping problem) as they would DRAW THE EYE COMPETELY AWAY from the garages. I had left these center islands out of my initial proposal because they had no water.
Finally, if I have to, I am ready to speak before the board in September on these issues and continue to press for a real solution unless this landscaping issue can be resolved.
If it isn’t, and I have to raise a petition signed by the owners on
I hope we can come to a reasonable, valid solution to this impasse before that time, not the off-hand vague promises I have been given. I do not enjoy having to go through all this and I’m sure you and Mike feel the same way. I am a working, unsalaried artist who wants to get back to his art. And I might add it has taken me the better part of four days to prepare this documentation. I believe it is an accurate representation of the situation and how it can be resolved.
If I am in error on any point, I stand ready to be corrected. What I hope will happen is that the mass of photos and facts will help management in finding a reasonable solution.
What I think would be a reasonable solution would be a written, documented agreement as to what islands would be planted, how they would be planted (transplant or new plants), the actual plants to be planted, and a schedule as to when it would be done.
If this seems excessive to you, I can only say that 4 years ago when my signed petitions for a re-planting of the Circle moved it to top priority, I asked Mike to include some ferns. He disagreed and said he had something else in mind. He was new and I decided to trust his judgment and eye. The result has been what the Circle looks like today. The LG/LM plants have refused to grow in the shady islands along the streets and are so string and stumpy as to amount to no improvement at all. (See figs. 1-3, 11-13, 16-18)
This time, I want to see what we’re getting before we get it.
It would be good for all of this to operate this way.
I wait to hear from you.
js201gss1@c, ss1
