No, but if the idiots who put up our original retaining wall had done it correctly I wouldn't have my yard all torn up--footers wer inadequate, no weep holes, and the mortar was disintigrating...looks like they worked when it was too cold (and it froze)--or just mis-mixed the mortar to start with. All comes down to the same thing--AND the same frustration--do it right, or don't do it...and there reallyisnt ANY reason NOT to do it RIGHT!

grrrrrr

feeling your pain...somewhat! But it'll keep you in a job!
melanie

Fran, when they had the records and the $, why didn't they do it right? Just wondering.

Let's call a spade a spade. Are we talking about a misunderstanding of what authenticity means or what period in a "garden areas's" history demands restoring or are we talking about deliberately cheating for monetary gain?
Often historical accuracy amounts to a purely academic endeavour and consequently of minimal interest to the general public. Could it be that those who got it wrong, in your view, picked out the most romantic bits and glossed over what would be difficult?

Gosh, Ginny, why wouldn't they do it right if they had all that information? Well, to cite one example, that of the weeping cutleaf Japanese maple that is a very prominent specimen. The original plans specify the cultivar 'Ornatum.' Photos in spring, summer, and fall from the period they were restoring to (1962-64ish) show foliage that is first purple, then fading to green for the summer, and turning orange with red hints in the fall. ZEN Associates seemed to ignore all but the springtime photos and insisted that an all-red all-the-time cultivar was correct. They also ignored eyewitness accounts from long-time staff members who remember the original maple from before it died. So in went 'Ever Red.' It's coming out tomorrow to make room for a tree that is unnamed, but answers the seasonal description perfectly and should be a good match for the original (which may not have been 'Ornatum' in the first place). Many substitutions of original plants were made, ostensibly because they were so rare or out-of-fashion as to be unavailable. A few minutes with a decent search engine disproved that. So I will be ordering in those plants and replacing. I already did that with the Japanese iris that turned out to be Siberians! Two cherry trees, a Chinese fringe tree, a mugo pine, and some hemlocks were planted so deeply, and with the burlap still tight around the trunks, that they will all most likely be dead in a few years. The topsoil that was brought in is some of the foulest, slimiest grey clay I have ever had to deal with, with a pH of over 7, which the azaleas and other acid lovers quite resent. 'Globosa' blue spruce turned out to be 'Montgomery' with the central leader hacked off. Dwarf Leucothoe fontansiana were planted instead of L. populifolia and Abelia grandiflora. Junipers were substituted for jasmines. How did it all happen? I don't think it was an intent to defraud as much as it was laziness, incompetence, willful blindness, and arrogance. As for misunderstanding authenticity, I think many of the substitutions were because they wanted large plants in quickly, with the public grand opening being a deadline. That's why I have three honking big foster hollies instead of the authentic Ilex ciliospinosa that we have been growing from cuttings, but were judged to be too small to use. Clueless planting subcontrators are probably responsible for installing 'Manhattan' euonymus instead of 'Gold Spot.' Still, it all could have gone right if the person hired specially to oversee the whole restoration, who had been the head horticulturist at Gunston Hall, had seen fit to actually supervise, including making sure the plants were correct and installed properly. Magically, he is not to blame, and neither is ZEN.
On a more positive note, all the changes I've suggested based on my reading of the source materials is being approved. And there is one basic change from history: commitment to specialized maintenance. The original gardeners in the 1950s-70s did not have the skills necessary to shape and train the plants the way the Japanese landscape architect wanted. So the garden started to deteriorate rapidly withing ten years or so. Instead, I was hired to be a specialist in Japanese garden maintenance, and that will be almost my only responsibility after the extra gardener is hired. I'll probably take on the re-restoration of another small area, the pet cemetary, which may turn out to be the same kind of problem on a much smaller scale. But that will be easy by comparison!

Fran, that is a fascinating and detailed account. They are lucky to have you. There is more to say but it will have to wait for later. Thank you for this inside look at landscape restoration/preservation. I hope someday you will write all of this up for publication.

A substitution is often necessary when a particular variety is unavailable due to disease or something but; juniper for jasmine?
I think you have highlighted the problem with any high falutin design or restoration and that is how to keep it that way or at least keep it close to the original intention. When the Nitobe garden in Vancouver was constructed one of the Japanese crew stayed behind, his care is what makes it different from other Japanese gardens I have seen.

A number of trees "were planted so deeply, and with the burlap still tight around the trunks that they will all most likely be dead "?!? Planted by professionals? The mind boggles.
And, do let me know if you find you need more "of the foulest, slimiest grey clay I have ever had to deal with, with a pH of over 7" - my native 'soil'.
Seiously, they are fortunate to have you, you are blessed that they are _listening_ to you and approving your suggestions, and what a move in the right direction to commit to your on-going specialized maintenance!
Tess

I will keep everyone posted about further developments. Publication would be out of the question, of course, since nobody's to blame officially. Wait til I get started on the pet cemetary! It will be a much smaller endeavor, but it has its fun points. For instance, a comparison of one of the original plans with archival images seems to show that the design was rotated 45 degrees when installed. Why? Inability to read plans? Problems with the site that made the intended orientation impossible? Can't wait to get started!
As for why trees and shrubs would be improperly installed by professionals, it's simple. That sort of work is considered to be unskilled labor, with low pay, and that includes the folks directly supervising the grunts.

Tales of this general type sound all too familiar. Sadly though, the blame is rarely place upon the right individual. Were the real truth to be known and/or told; the real culprit is probably some SOB at the top trying to polish their own crown. Often the driving force is these cases is a huge ego wanting bragging rights that he/she (due to their "superior" management ability) was able to get the project completed "ahead of schedule and under budget". Of course later, the inevitable deficiencies are always blamed on "incompetent" subordinates when the real truth is those people were not given the required time, information and/or assets to do the proper job they really wanted to do.

Think about it... How many people do you know that actually set out to do a bad job? All too often I encounter skilled trades people complaining about not being allowed to do things properly -- and they hate it. Almost always, the real root of the problems are hidden and the poor slobs stuck with implementing bad decisions get the blame.

Even in your postings, Fran, you seem a little surprised that "the powers at be" seem so tolerant. "I probably won't be fired anytime soon despite my attitude." Politics is a smelly kettle of fish and I suspect it played an ugly, unseen role here as well.

IronBelly

Actually, IronBelly, I get more flak about my attitude than my male coworkers do for theirs. I guess I seem to be a softer target for criticism.
I agree, no one sets out to do a bad job, but from what I saw of the restoration, all of the actual workers on site were unskilled laborers, so they were probably blissfully ignorant that they were doing things badly. As unbelievable as it may seem, virtually all commercial landscape installers that I see are still planting trees and shrubs in deep narrow holes, with burlap and string tight around the trunks, baskets in place, incorrectly (and sometimes needlessly) staked, with tons of poor-quality shredded hardwood mulch heaped up like volcanoes around the bases of the trees.

Fran, what a story--discouraging news regarding the original restoration plan, encouraging news regarding institutional support for correcting past mistakes.

The 'authenticity' problems that I've encountered in the past have usually related to lack of historic documentation--it is eye-opening to think that the restoration of a garden this modern and this well-documented would nonetheless still be plagued by such issues.

Some of the instances you cite above -- e.g. selection of a substitute cultivar -- are essentially judgment calls and I would imagine that, if confronted, the consultants would defend them as such. One can argue that they exercised poor judgment, but in the end I think such arguments wind up getting written off by the powers-that-be as a "difference of opinion."

However, if I were hiring consultants for a restoration project like this, what I would expect--and what I would have put in the contract--would be that they provide a thorough and transparent report for each plant/group of plants/aspect of the design, etc. concerning _exactly_ what sources were consulted, and _why_ particular decisions were made. E.g. "Original plan indicates japanese maple x located in center courtyard. However, photos dating to ___ show a japanese maple with leaf structure and color more similar to cultivar y. Cultivar y is presently not available in the U.S. except in small seedling form; thus, cultivar z of similar color and structure has been substituted at this time. Sources: xxxxxxxx." Instead, it seems from your description that you are only uncovering all of these discrepancies based on your own post-project research. As a common-sense matter, that to me is unacceptable, and that is where one should strive to hold the consultants accountable. (As a legal matter, of course, it is impossible to know the exact nature of their obligations without seeing the contract).

In other words, where absolute authenticity is impossible to achieve, at the very least one should expect such a restoration process to produce a roadmap of research done and decisions made so that the long-term custodians of the property (i.e. the staff) both now and into the future can have the ongoing benefit of the consultants' work -- which includes the benefit of being able to review and question their judgment.

Just my two cents from the peanut gallery -- it sounds as if you are fighting the good fight and doing it well, brava!

Urbangardener, maybe you should have been charge of supervising the restoration instead of the pretty boy from Gunston Hall! The documentation for restoration decisions exists, but is the property of the company who did it all and they have not seen fit to give us a copy of it! I figure on just retracing their steps, since I think their logic was faulty in more than a few instances. First the big woody plants will be dealt with, then on to the herbaceous things, except for the siberian iris substituted for Japanese iris, which I corrected immediately. That was a matter of a subcontractor providing the wrong plants. No matter--what we were able to find were all antique varieties, rather than the latest, which is more appropriate. I look upon all this as a way of demonstrating that the previous director of horticulture made a serious mistake in not hiring me at the beginning of the project to supervise it.

Most landscape contractors have charge accounts at a couple wholesale nurseries. if those nurseries are out of stock on a particular plant and cannot order it in within a reasonable time then the contractor will not go elsewhere to locate the specified plant material. they will instead make an alternate choice based on availabilty and price... and totally disregard the original intent of the design. often the alternate selection is reasonably close but i have seen some god awful substitutions in the designs i have farmed out to landscaping contractors for apartment complexes etc... and i wasnt even aware of the substitutions untill the nursery truck arrived loaded with plants and we had several workers ready to roll. i even have it printed right on my design blueprints
'NO SUBSTITUTIONS PERMITTED WITHOUT GILLESPIE GARDENS PRIOR APPROVAL' HAH! i might as well have been speaking swahili or ancient greek. gggrrrrrrrrrr tall grasses were replaced with dwarfs and leather leaf mahonia with ilex meserve cultivars ... same story as above.... my point is that its not so much that the plant material is unavailable... its just that its unavailable at a convenient place where they have a charge account and access to good wholesale prices where they can make a quick profit. the almighty dollar speaks.

For the above garden designers/historians/etc., here is a recommendation and "the other side of the story":

Source your plants for your installers. You will then find how long it takes and how reasonable (or not) your requests are. I think you will be surprised. You will also be assured of an accurate planting. Too, you will have an idea of how much the plants will truly cost as often they cannot be found at wholesalers and must be purchased at retail prices. Adjust your cost estimate accordingly. Nothing like experiencing what the other guy(s)go through in the many processes and parts of bringing a project to completion.

Many an installation becomes a time-consuming, money-losing scavenger hunt. Been there, done that.

Ginger

I have seen a lot of vituperative comments aimed at landscape architects and contractors, and clearly they could have done better, but ultimately the responsibility of a good or "authentic" restoration rests with the property owner.

Urbangardener correctly pointed out that a detailed agreement of what is expected should have been issued. A company experienced with contemporary Japanese gardens was hired to do a restoration - how much experience did they have in garden restorations before this project? A horticulturist was hired to be project manager - being a plantsman from an historic site does not mean they know how to research or have sensitivity to historical issues (I've worked with plenty of gardeners at historic sites - some understand where they are, some don't - most just know they are there to make the plants grow well). Assembling a team of landscape architects, horticulturists AND historians is important.

If contractual work is not satisfactory who at Hillwood approved it? Did the staff horticulturist approve the work done by contractors? If the project manager was a staff member, the quality of work ultimately rests with his supervisors and the director. Why wasn't the historical research turned over to the owners? If it wasn't part of the contract - whose fault on staff is that? If it was, then final payment should be withheld until all obligations are met.

It is very easy to point fingers at outside contractors and they are hired to bring in expertise usually not present, but in the end the owners decide if the quality of work is acceptable before final payment. If the owners place all blame with contractors and fail to recognize their own mistakes the next project will most likely not succeed either.

All valid points, PucPuggy. Actually, we aren't satisfied with the work of one of the subcontractors and are withholding final payment, but that isn't getting them to budge. The director of horticulture left to take the top spot at Callaway just before the project was to start, so she hired the former horticulturist at Gunston Hall (who seemed to be a friend of hers) to oversee the project, plus a gardener to do regular maintenance on that and adjoining areas (I had applied for the job but she disliked me enough to not want to hire me even though she was leaving and would not have to deal with me). There has been a conscious decision to "not point the finger of blame on any particular person," which seems to be the trend everywhere. In fairness, I must concede what was done well: a very complex arrangement of rocks, stone, and boulders was taken apart and put back together with all the stone in exactly the same places as before. As an example, there was a 'Kingsville' boxwood next to a small stone lantern, which over the course of 50 years had grown a bit over the top of the lantern in a very striking manner. That all went back together after the restoration so that you can't even tell it was moved. In our archives, I sometimes have a bit of trouble telling the difference between images from the 1960s and ones from last year.

In any case, it will be all put right eventually, such as the Japanese maple that was I hope delivered and installed this past Wednesday.

"Were the real truth to be known and/or told; the real culprit is probably some SOB at the top trying to polish their own crown. Often the driving force is these cases is a huge ego..."

Bingo!

IronBelly

Right on target, IronBelly!