The group now spans all continents and many countries. In the past four weeks (21-24) photos of the parks and gardens shown on this map have been added.

Click on the image to open the map and zoom in. The map opens in new page or tab.

For maps containing all gardens that are featured on Historical Gardens, please click here.
A big thank you to all contributors who make this selection possible and up to date.

Corten steel.
In Chelsea corten steel (also known as weathering – or COR-TEN steel) was also used for sculptures, but the material has been around for a while in gardens -with a different use. Many parterres de broderie have in recent years been (re)created within the curves of narrow strips of corten steel, dividing the planted areas from the ones containing gravel. Plant box hedges within the boundaries, pour gravel in the remaining areas and hey presto: we can still see the steel.

• Box at Het Loo in Apeldoorn in 2007.

  http://www.historicalgardensblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/P9220326.jpg

  The corten steel strips are almost invisible.

  

• Box and corten steel strips at Het Loo in Apeldoorn.

  http://www.historicalgardensblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/P9220325.jpg

  The steel fits tightly around the hedges (2007).

  

• Dutch garden in Het Park in Rotterdam.

  http://www.historicalgardensblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/P5150385.jpg

  Restored in 2009, the steel is prominent.

  

• Corten steel and box in Het Park in Rotterdam.

  http://www.historicalgardensblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/P5150386.jpg

  This can not have been the intended result.

  

All photos by HvdE.

The fact that the steel strips are often clearly visible irritates me, because it is ugly and unnecessary. The only funcions of the steel in these layouts are: divide the areas and contain materials. Skilled gardeners should be able to mask the divider by keeping it hidden, just under ground level. And thus create the illusion that what we see is the result of meticulous maintenance.
I do not need to be shown how the parterre was created, I just want to see and enjoy the combined materials this garden element is supposed to be made of: plants and gravel.

The parterres at Het Loo show that it is possible to use corten steel and achieve an aesthetically acceptable picture -although they probably could clip the hedges a bit less harsh. The high edges of steel that are clearly visible in the parterres of the ‘Dutch Garden’ in Het Park in Rotterdam (created in 1960, restored in 2009) again show how bad execution can ruin a good idea.

The trees on the smallest island have all been chopped away, but no replanting has taken place here. The result is an eery blob, sticking out of the pond like an outgrown pimple.

• Broekhuizen after the restoration.

  http://www.historicalgardensblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/After_restoration.jpg
  

• Broekhuizen during the restoration in 2008.

  http://www.historicalgardensblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/during_restoration.jpg
  

• The islands in 2008.

  http://www.historicalgardensblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/The-islands-in-2008.jpg
  

• The small island in 2010.

  http://www.historicalgardensblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/The-small-island-in-2010.jpg

  Clean cut and shaven.

  

• The new plants on the bigger island.

  http://www.historicalgardensblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/The-new-plants-on-the-bigger-island.jpg

  Too much and too linear, if you ask me.

  

All photos by HvdE.

The bigger island is even worse, although here not all trees have been cut and replanting has taken place. The choice to plant Rhododendron here is good, both islands needed some lower plants and colour. It won’t win the landscape architects Bleeker and Nauta a designer’s originality prize, but it works.
What does not work and what constitutes the gruesome part of this bigger island is the way the new shrubs have been planted: in strict alignment and in MASSIVE amounts. I do not know who is ultimately responsible for this, so I’ll resort to two personal remarks:

1. They could have easily done with 2/3 of the plants used here (so they would have had enough material left to replant the smaller island with -if that was at all the plan). I cannot see a reason to plant so closely together on a location where people cannot come: they are not likely to make short cuts through a more loosely planted section, are they?
2. The absense of creativity is exemplified by the placement of the Rhododendrons. It is almost as if indicating altitude lines on the steep slopes of the island was part of the assignment.

The immense density of plants, forced into a grid-like planting scheme, is evocative of how Staatsbosbeheer used to ruin forests and ‘nature’ in The Netherlands till far into the 1980s. Since then the organisation has been re-evaluating and adapting that practise. If responsible for the execution, it has somehow forgotten about that in this project. But looking at the planting scheme the density is a blessing: within a few years nobody will notice anymore.

1. Adding this footnote because I stumbled upon the website of the last private owner of Broekhuizen. He has a lot of pre-restoration photos and photos of the interior that are usually not easy to find. According to the sales brochure, the interior has remained relatively intact, so this way we can see what the interested parties will see tomorrow, Thursday May 27th. [back]

In weeks 17 to 20 pictures of the following gardens have been added:

• Australia:

Royal Botanic Gardens (Sydney).

• Belgium:

Kasteel Gaasbeek (Gaasbeek).

• China:

Canglan Pavilion Garden (Great Wave Pavilion) (Sozhou).
Couple’s Retreat Garden (Ŏu Yuán) (Sozhou).
Guo’s Villa (Guo Zhuang) (Hangzhou).
Lion Grove Garden (Shi Zi Lin) (Sozhou).
Master of the Nets Garden (Wang Shi Yuan) (Sozhou).
The Humble Administrator’s Garden (Zhou Zheng Yuan) (Sozhou).
Tiger Balm Garden (Hong Kong).
Yuyuan (Shanghai).
Zhan Yuan Garden (Chan Yuan) (Nanjing).

• England:

Barber-Surgeons’ garden (London).
Bridge End Gardens (Saffron Walden).
Coughton Court (Coughton).
Eltham Palace (Greenwich).
Mount Edgcumbe (Torpoint).
New Hall (Walmley).
Royal Botanic Gardens (Kew Gardens) (Kew).
St Olave Hartstreet (London).
Stourhead (Stourton).
Tatton Park (Knutsford).
Windsor Great Park (Windsor).
Winterbourne Botanical Garden (Birmingham).

• France:

Château de Dampierre (Dampierre-en-Ivelines).
Château de Marquessac (Vézac).
Château de Roche-Courbon (Saint-Porchaire).
Château Hautefort (Hautefort).
Jardins de Eyrignac (Salignac-Eyvigues).
Jardins des Faïenciers (Sarreguemines).

• Germany:

Eremitage (Bayreuth).
Schloß Rosenau (Coburg).
Wilhelma (Stuttgart).

• Hungary:

Schloss Fertöd (Esterházy) (Fertöd).

• Italy:

Giardino Buanaccorsi (Potenza Picena).
Villa Aldobrandini (Frascati).
Villa d’Este (Tivoli).
Villa Lante (Bagnaia).
Sacro Bosco / Villa Orsini (Bomarzo).

• Ireland:

Powerscourt Gardens (Enniskerry).

• Japan:

Kenrokuen (Kanazawa).
Korakuen (Okayama).

• Morocco:

Andalusian garden (Kasbah des Oudaïa) (Rabat).
Jardin Majorelle (Marrakech).

• Netherlands:

Clingendael (Den Haag / The Hague).
De Duno (Oosterbeek).
Gooilust (‘s-Graveland).
Klooster Ter Apel (Ter Apel).
Schoonoord (Rotterdam).

• Portugal:

Palácio de Monserrate (Sintra).
Quinta da Regaleira (Sintra).

• Scotland:

Glasgow Botanic Garden (Glasgow).

• South Africa:

Kirstenbosch National Botanical Garden (Cape Town).

• Spain:

Casa Alegre de Sagrera (Terrassa).
Jardines de la Galera (Badajoz).
Jardins Artigas (Castellar de n’Hug).
La Granja de San Ildefonso (Segovia).

• USA:

Airlie Gardens (Wilmington).
Golden Gate Park (San Francisco).
Hakone Gardens (Saratoga).
Sutro Heights Park (San Francisco).
Tryon Palace (New Bern).

• Wales:

Powis Castle (Welshpool).

A big thank you for everyone sharing their photos.

• Wegdam through branches.

  http://www.historicalgardensblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Wegdam_elevation.jpg

  A direct view at Wegdam from the top of an elevation in the woods.

  

• Wegdam with added central axis.

  http://www.historicalgardensblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Wegdam_GE_centralaxis2.jpg

  The elevation lies exactly in Wegdam's central axis.

  

• Wegdam survey 1832.

  http://www.historicalgardensblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Wegdam1832_slideshow.jpg

  No indication of a garden layout near the elevation.

  

• Wegdam in 1889 with park layout.

  http://www.historicalgardensblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Wegdam1889_slideshow.jpg

  Garden paths lie near the elevation, and a small road leads up to it.

  

• Wegdam in 1929.

  http://www.historicalgardensblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Wegdam1929_slideshow.jpg

  The small road leading to the elevation is now identified as water.

  

• Wegdam 2010 ditch and elevation.

  http://www.historicalgardensblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/4520363476_2f488757e8.jpg

  The water now reflects the trees on the small hill.

  

Photos by HvdE. Maps from watwaswaar.nl, with adaptations by HvdE. The layout of Wegdam was right on the edge of many older maps, that is the reason why some of the maps above show only part of that layout.

My recent visit taught me why: a visual relation between hill and house is only possible when the trees have no leaves. Trees were just budding in the beginning of April, and I could now spot Wegdam‘s front door from the top of the hill (see my badly focussed photo).

The difficult part in linking both was that the landscape garden at Wegdam has a visual axis that slightly bends to the right. I took a photo from in front of the house and completely mistook the visual axis for the central axis, although I tried to compensate. The elevation is hidden in the woods to the left of this visual axis. But it appears to be exactly at the end of the central axis starting from the front door. This view is supported by careful examination of the maps, although they have not shown this feature until very recently.¹
Having established that Wegdam and the elavation belong to each other, the questions “what was it for?” and “how old is it?” immediately popped up. Without exhaustive research the answer to both questions must be: not certain, but I’ll give it a shot.

Use.
The elevation must have been visible from the main house, but would certainly have been more noticeable with an eye-catcher placed on it. Far from the house, seen from the Oude Needseweg, the hill (and anything adorning it) is reflected in the still water surface of a rectangular ditch or pond.² The hill must have had some kind of pavilion on it from which the surrounding landscape could be seen. It could have served as a resting place as well: halfway a walk over the winding paths in the park a short climb opened a vista towards the house where the walk had begun. A belvedere is the most logical use this feature could have had.

Age.
If we take the maps at face value, the hill must have been created between 1846 and 1889, together with the layout of the winding paths on what in 1832 was heathland alongside the Oude Needseweg. The ditch / pond between that road and the hill probably dates from the same period, although it was initially drawn as a road. During this period the small circular pond in the central axis near the house was also created.³
A change in ownership -albeit by marriage of the last heiress- might have inspired a new layout. Wegdam had been in hands of the Van Coeverden family for centuries, but was owned by members of the Amsterdam family Meyjes between 1849 and 1897. It is possible they decided to make a more elaborate layout around what up till then seems to have been a luxury farm.

This small hill and pond seem to be the only relics of the layout in the woods. The paths have disappeared under a thick layer of leaves. But it would be great to find out more about this place. If only because creating such a belvedere and mirror pond seems rather old fashioned for the period…
To be continued, I am sure.

1. The (1 : 25.000) topographical map of 1989 is the first map I have seen on which the small elevation is indicated. [back]
2. If common practise is followed here, the elevation was made with the soil dug out to create the pond. [back]
3. These ‘waterworks’ were probably necessary to improve the soil of the heathland, and make a garden layout possible. [back]

In week 16 pictures of the following gardens have been added:

• China:

Couple’s Retreat Garden (Ŏu Yuán) (Sozhou).
Lion Grove Garden (Shi Zi Lin) (Sozhou).
Master of the Nets Garden (Wang Shi Yuan) (Sozhou).
Yuyuan (Shanghai).
Zhan Yuan Garden (Chan Yuan) (Nanjing).

• England:

Cleary Garden (London).
Waddesdon Manor (Aylesbury).

• Netherlands:

De Tempel (Rotterdam).
Kasteeltuin Hemmen (Hemmen).
Wilhelminapark (Sneek).

• Spain:

Parque de El Capricho (Madrid).

• Tasmania:

Brickendon Estate (Longford).

• USA:

Grey Towers (Milford).

A big thank you for everyone sharing their photos.

The underpass in Stadspark Schoonhoven (photo HvdE).

So we’re talking about a deliberate design decision by Springer. And a successful one at that: this bridge alone makes it worthwhile to make a circular walk through the rectilinear and narrow Stadspark. It is no secret that Springer did not invent this feature. The most famous example in The Netherlands is the 18th century large Swiss bridge at Elswout, but there are more.

Reason for this post is that a less known example must have directly influenced Springer, even before his long career took off. It is not mentioned in the booklet that was published on the occasion of the reopening of the renovated Stadspark.¹ I’m talking about a bridge in the garden of Frankendael, in Springer’s hometown Amsterdam.

Between 1867 and 1882 Frankendael was in use as a horticultural school, lead by the Koninklijke Nederlandsche Tuinbouw Maatschappij “Linnaeus”. Leonard Springer attended this school between 1871 and 1874. In 1886 – Springer had already established himself as a successful beginning landscape architect and the school had ceased to exist – Springer drew a map of the garden based on measurements done by students in 1873.
On that map (image detail courtesy of Wageningen UR, location indicated by the red circle -HvdE) the bridge can be seen passing over the water and a path running alongside each other. To my knowledge no illustrations of this feature exist, so we’ll need the example from Elswout below as reference.

Springer lived with and around this bridge and underpass for a few years, so it is no surprise that it pops up in his oeuvre in a later stage. But even then he adapted the theme to local circumstances (no waterway under the bridge) and combined it with a rock garden – which was very fashionable at the time.

Thus the classic underpass in the hands of Springer underwent a small scale metamorphosis, making it suitable for both location and taste-of-the-day.
Glad to see the work of a true artist in a lovingly renovated form again.

1. WErkgroep SPringerpark, Het Stadspark in Schoonhoven (Schoonhoven 2008). Constance Moes briefly mentions the existence of this that bridge in the monography of Springer, but does not make the connection with later occurances of such underpasses in his later work; in: Constance D.H. Moes, L.A. Springer, Tuinarchitect, Dendroloog (1855-1940) (Rotterdam 2002), p94, note 25: “In de tuin waren elementen van de landschappelijke aanleg uit het begin van de negentiende eeuw intact, zoals de vijver met eiland en de hoge Zwitserse brug.” [back]

But Wingfield hardly mentions the plants he used. Almost at the end of his description of the terraces he writes:

The pleasure grounds are filled wih many kinds of rare plants and shrubs, many of which would not be hardy in England, but which thrive in the temperate climate of the Green Isle. Rare conifers as well as deciduous trees are scattered through the grounds, and those which I have myself planted are now growing to a considerable size, Wellingtonias, araucarias, and others having reached a height of fifty and sixty feet, and even more, (…).¹

He then goes on to talk about a few specific plants and species, but I would like to zoom in on the araucarias he mentioned. A few pages earlier he writes about the terrace walk, which he extended to a lentgh of 800 yards (730 meters), running outside the garden at the (south)western end ‘as far as the level ground permitted, to the edge of the slope at the oak-wood called “The Dead Man’s Bank”‘. He placed a statue of Ajax at that end and

(…) planted an avenue of araucarias and abies Douglasii from the part where the garden terminates to this statue.²

I know Wingfield was proud of the variety of plants that thrived in his garden. But combining Araucaria araucana and Pseudotsuga menziesii (‘abies Douglasii’ is a synonym) seems like stretching things to their limit. I would at least never have thought of this combination if I were asked to plant an avenue of mixed evergreens in a period garden, and know of no other examples.

1. Mervyn E. Wingfield, A Description and History of Powerscourt, London (1903), p95. The araucarias he planted himself were in a grove further from the house, near Bahana and Onagh Bridge (op. cit. p107). He planted 100 of them, ‘thinking that in future times his would make a remarkable feature of the place’. [back]
2. op. cit., p90. [back]

The tale has now officially become one of a litter – or a nest – of lions.

Last year, someone casually mentioned the existence of workshops producing (garden) statues in bulk during the 19th century. I knew about that, but had my doubts about these statues, mainly because of the distinct differences in ‘finish’ the lions at De Paauw and Drottningholm had: very smooth for the Dutch examples, where the Swedish lions have a more rugged exterior. The ones in Ireland seem to have a slightly different finish as well, but they unmistakably derive from the same model.
Sometimes the simple explanation (workshops and mass production) really is the right one. But does it answer all questions?

The lions at Powerscourt were placed there between 1850 and 1867, when Mervyn E. Wingfield (1836-1904; 7th Viscount of Powerscourt) transformed the terraced garden into what it is now. That coincides with the periods in which the lions were installed at De Paauw, and probably at Drottningholm.
We know from De Paauw that the lions allegedly were a gift from Tsar Alexander to the Dutch Prince Frederik in the 1850′s. I have assumed the Drottningholm lions could have been a wedding gift to Carl V Carl XV and Prince Frederik’s daughter Louise of Orange Nassau (they are placed behind the theatre that had been out of use for a long time, but was reused by the young pair during the 1860s). The almost simultanuous appearance suggests the statues at all three gardens must have come from the same workshop. But that does not seem to be the case.

The story of the lions at Powerscourt tells us what the original model was, but not where the bulk of these statues was produced. At the end of his life, Mervyn E. Wingfield wrote a description of Powerscourt, in which he meticulously mentions the plans and concepts used to create the garden; the ideas that have been thrown out the window and the materials used to create what was carried out; as well as the provenance of his statues and gates. It is not often that we have access to such a rich account of the creation – maybe ‘assembly’ is a better word – of a garden by the creator himself. The result is a wonderful source of information, which also tells us something about the ‘parents’ of the nest. Wingfield says in his description:

“On each  side of the steps are four couchant lions, designed after those at the foot of the steps of the ascent to the Capitol at Rome (…).”¹

The lion on the left is one of these Roman examples. It is indeed similar to the ones in Wassenaar and Stockholm, although the finish is slightly different to them: the Powerscourt lions seem to be the most litteral copies of the Roman examples, including the line around the shoulder.
But looks deceive. Alterations have been made in the production of the Irish copies, as is clarified when Wingfield continues his sentence:

“(…) , also designed by Mr. Penrose, of a smaller size than the originals.”

The lions at Powerscourt are thus adapted and custom-made by a local person closely involved with the creation of the garden. It would be great to find out whether the lions at De Paauw and at Drottningholm are really similar in size and scale to their Roman examples. If so, not only a common source, but also a common workshop could be found.
A tape measure, anyone in Sweden and in Rome? I’ll do the ones in Wassenaar…

(edited for spelling and a mistake)

1. Mervyn E. Wingfield, A Description and History of Powerscourt, London (1903), p88. [back]

And then a story in which ironically the creation of a park is involved, makes you realize that things could be much, much worse. The city of Moscow is evicting people from their homes in the Rechnik area, claiming the homes have been built there illegally. Their homes were initially destroyed immediately, but a few days later the residents were given time to move out.

Mr. Luzhkov, the Moscow mayor, is determined to have the homes cleared, insisting that the land will be turned into a park and nothing else. Opponents claim that the area will be used by property developers. The park, they say, is just an excuse to clear the current dwellers from the area.

Rechnik started out in the 1950s, when gardening plots were given to workers on a nearby canal. Whether they were given the land temporarily or not seems to be unclear, but many workers built small homes there and consequently stayed. The problem now, according to the city, is that these workers sold these plots of land since. The new owners sometimes joined several plots and built grand houses there.  Some of the owners seem to have contracts proving they own the land.

The disturbing thing is that events like this could swing any way ‘government’ wants. Governing bodies can condone property developments until they decide not to do that anymore. Or decide to lift protecting measurements when ‘better’ opportunities arise. Sometimes the result is a park and many homeless people; sometimes the result is that a park is destroyed and some lucky people own a home in a beautiful environment (like the Ostafievo estate, where the garden is apparently used to build heavily guarded villas; and to focus on other regions: Marinehospitaalterrein, Overveen).

Brrr…

[via]