Color
There seems to be a lot of irritation about the Rose Garden. I share it, not least because I hate that cold colorless dull aesthetic.
So they are – I mean were – crabapples.
Again, to be fair, tulips are spring flowers, but there are plenty of August flowers that could be there instead of the Big Empty.
Ooof. That is ugleee.
From what I can tell from the photos; she took out hyacinths, azaleas, petunias and the tulips. As well as the 70? year old perfectly healthy trees.
Whoever planted the colourful garden beds was extremely clever and imaginative, all the colours working together. Big pops of colour but harmonious at the same time.
The parterre looks great in the aerial shot, but the colourful garden was the great one to be in.
Very strange decision.
The added concrete borders are also of questionable aesthetic value. Sod is not heel friendly after all…
Upon closer inspection, it seems to be some kind of tile pavement. Either way, meh. Institutional at best.
I prefer the colorful garden — and am appalled that the beautiful old trees were removed — but I’d be interested to get a better look at the new Rose Garden. Aerial shots vs. artistically-framed closeups don’t compare very well. And only one photo of the old garden shows roses.
I suppose it’s possible that Melania splurged on rare and ancient varieties of roses, which would be nice. Though it’s probably just Christmas decorations from an upscale department store all over again.
Much like her marriage, perhaps? Has anyone looked at the arrangement of the planting for coded messages?
“HELP I”VE SIGNED AN NDA AND I CAN”T GET OUT!”
I’ve always preferred a partially wild look in gardens, orderly but not too orderly, and I’m not keen on tame beds of flowers. That said, and given that both versions are too orderly for my liking… the new incarnation is in desperate need of additional colour. I’d suggest a bottlebrush at each corner, minimum.
I don’t have a link handy at the moment, but one reporter noted that:
1) the trees are being replanted elsewhere on the grounds;
2) some of the changes — mainly, I suppose, that pathway you see — were done to make the White House ADA-compliant.
Neither of which diminishes the overall critique of these changes. I think the monochromatic look is appropriate in some contexts, but a flower garden really ought to be an explosion of color.
Re #7, that is quite helpful. I was wondering if there was more context to these changes.
Re the “explosion of color”, perhaps they were wary of having any kinds of explosions near the White House.
The shots of the new garden are bad. If you zoom in, you can see that there are, in fact, colorful flowers in there. What makes it work poorly is that the plants are young, but even more, their colors are light-to-pastel. The first row of flowers on each side alternates between white and violet/lavender/whatever-I’m-not-good-with-colors. The second row clearly introduces pinks, but the photography is so bad I can’t make out much more than that.
So the apparent lack of color may be primarily a function of bad photography and non-photogenic color choices.
The loss of the trees, though. That’s craptacular.