JUDGES COMMENTS

The panel (Stephen White MSGD, Mike Gerard MSGD and Caroline Davey MSGD), felt that it may be of interest to members to see some of the general comments that came out of our deliberations:

Positive aspects appearing in some designs:

• Some excellent interpretation of the client’s brief
• Good attention to the design and use of space related to its function
• Simple and bold ideas put forward to process the desired effects
• Good co-ordination, to each other, of differing garden elements
• Good implementation of design principles
• Interesting and appropriate planting choices
• High level of graphic representation in 3D views
• Appropriate use of CAD where utilised
• Good attention to contemporary styling where appropriate and to the sustainability of the design
• High level of design detailing making the interpretation of the design straightforward and easy for the client / contractor to understand

Some aspects requiring attention in some designs:

• Over ambitious designs going well beyond the stated client’s brief
• Concept presented was not really related to the client’s brief
• Unclear Key to elements making interpretation of the plan difficult
• Changes of level (through excavations) with insufficient detail of, or even no attention to, suitable retaining structures
• Over-complexity of design for the size of the space involved
• Poor co-ordination of different garden elements / spaces
• Poor implementation of drawn or CAD lines of differing widths to show differentiation of elements / construction detailing to allow ease of interpretation and a successful future build
• More attention needed to design principles implementation – particularly: scale, proportion, unity, balance, rhythm, movement and above all, simplicity
• CAD 3D views not really illustrating what appears on the plan leading to potentially wrong conclusions about the designer’s intentions by clients
• Many of the planting plans were difficult to read, with overly complex codes and lack of a north point for reference.
• Some problems in relating the planting plans to their position on the master plan and some plant choices appeared inappropriate – perhaps chosen from a reference book rather than from personal experience?

The panel very much hopes that these comments will be of value to tutors and students and looks forward to continued entries from the colleges in future competitions.

Stephen White
Education & Colleges