Landscape Standard Symbols?
Michael
landscape materials (i.e.: trees, shrubs etc...). I know the basic
symbols but was wondering about specifics. Is there a particular symbol
for a day lily versus a rose bush? A birch tree versus an oak tree? I
guess I would like my plans to be more than 1 tree type and 1 plant type
repeated with different notes. I'm know there's probably a lot of
'right' was of showing plants but I was looking to do all my future
plans with similar symbols and was hoping someone could point me to a
good web site or book that would list this information.
Thanks,
Michael
PMDavis
design is an "art" in that regard. One philosophy is that generally a
symbol should reflect the character and visual quality of the plant. A fine
textured plant might be symbolized by a fine textured image. A course
branched plant might be best represented by a symbol that shows a branching
pattern, and so forth. Before CAD a designer's artisitic skill (and
generally length of experience) could be seen in their creative use of
symbols and also the lettering style on the plan. Part of a landscape
architect's university education involves developing an artistic sense that
shows not only in the design, but in how it is communicated.
Another philosphy used by the Sasaki office (a leading LA firm) was to use a
simple circle with a small plus sign in it for all proposed plants, a circle
with a donut in the center for existing plants to be retained, and a circle
with a minus sign for plants to be removed. This was convenient in that all
drafters in the office could easily follow the same standard and the plans
produced were consistant with the office philosophy of zen-like simplicity.
Michael wrote in message <39165263...@ix.netcom.com>...
Michael
Michael
Pam Sinclair
Michael wrote:
> Thanks for the reply. I guess it's off to the drawing board for me!
>
> Michael
You have already received an excellent reply, but just let me add this: plant
symbols on a rendering and plant symbols on a planting plan are two different
things. When I was in college, I was instructed that the plant symbols on a
rendering could and should be somewhat of an artistic interpretation - the
stylistic distinction of the designer. Plant symbols on a planting plan, however,
should be very clear and distinct for ease of the contractor's interpretation. My
training was that these should be a different symbol for each distinct plant type.
Obviously for a large and complicated design, this can be very time consuming, but
it helps to use simple geometric shapes, often in various combinations. BTW, I too
use the very simple circles described by the previous poster in doing preliminary
site plans.
BTW, there are a number of texts which delineate a variety of common symbols -
Landscape Graphics, by Grant Reid; Plan Graphics, by Walker and Davis; and
Residential Landscape Architecture, by Norman Booth and James Hiss are all helpful
texts I have in my own library.
Pam - gardengal
Michael
I will try to get a copy of these books today. I am a freelance drafter and I
recently was hired by a landscaper (not landscape architect or designer) to draw up
plans for his clients. Since he knows a ton more about landscaping then I ever will
the plan is really just to convey the design concept to the client. To make it more
convenient to the client I've been asked to keep the drawings to 8-1/2"x11" if
possible, but that means I'm doing them at a 1"=30' scale which makes the individual
plants really hard to see. I am trying to convince the landscaper that 11"x17" is a
nice size and would allow a little more detail. I was wondering what size sheet (what
scale) most of you do your plans at? The projects he has me doing are all new
construction with budgets in the $8,000-$12,000 range. What would you suggest I do
for a project of this scope? Besides a site plan should I provide planting details?
Retaining wall sections? I'm pretty naive with landscaping but, I'm good with
residential architecture, which is why I was hired. I just hate to be doing too much
or not enough considering that my work is more or less 'frosting on the cake' to help
the client understand the landscape design.
Sincerely,
Michael
PMDavis
Walker (?). Also both Ortho and Sunset have good basic planting design
books. Norman K. Booth's "Landscape Architecture" would be good to have,
also. Anything by Walker, Lin, or Booth.
Graphics go a long way in selling a contract. All the books mentioned have
good graphics that you can emulate.
I prepare plans for competitive bidding by outside contractors and for
contract documentation. I generally use 24x36 as the standard office sheet
size. One can put a 1/4 acre residential lot at 10 (or 1/8) scale (which
makes it pretty easy to read). Larger sites at 20 (or 1/16) scale read well
also. 30 scale is OK, but like you say a little hard to read. 40 scale is
too small. On the other hand, smaller scale is a little faster to draw. 8
1/2 x 11 might be easy to photocopy, if that's the issue. 11x 17 is a nice
size. Since you are working "in-house" you don't need to be so concerned
about confusion on the part of the crew... so if the boss feels strongly
about, I'd go with 30 scale on 8 1/2 x 11, with maybe some of the detail
areas (e.g., courtyards, entrances) blown up at 10 scale. Some projects
with larger sites or more detail might call for a larger sheet.
Residential usually has a little more detail than commercial, but since you
are primarily preparing a sales tool let the guys in the field worry over
the details, adjust quantities and spacing. It gives them a sense of
ownership and probably overall a better job. They can work off of an
itemized work order (rather than a plant list on the plan) if quantities are
the issue. Just let them know that they should make the appropriate
adjustments instead of complaining about sloppy plans. Landscape plans can
be a little looser than architectural drawings. You can reuse the same
standard planting detail for a shrub, a tree, and a wall section, etc. on 8
1/2 x 11 to show the client what he's getting.
Michael wrote in message <391829F7...@ix.netcom.com>...
Michael
Sincerely,
Michael
Pam Sinclair
background in architecture (B of Arch), not that it makes any difference. Some of my jobs
are full site designs, many are just partials. I prefer to work on larger size at 1/4 or
1/8 inch scale, because many of my designs have rather complicated planting plans. So I
typically work on 24x36 sheets. For presentation to clients, I often have them reduced to
11x17, which seems to be much easier for them to handle. Many of my clients are
do-it-yourselfers - they will get the larger sheets if appropriate, because the deatils
are easier to read.
As to what I prepare, it depends on the site and the job. Certainly it will include a
master plan and planting plan, plant list and specs. It may include sections and
construction details and lighting and irrigation layouts, if necessary. If the job is
contracted out, I will include info necessary for the contractor - usually a layout and
more detailed specs. For your purposes, I would think a master plan which delineates the
planting would be sufficient. Hope this helps.
Pam - gardengal
Michael wrote:
> Thank you Pam!
> I will try to get a copy of these books today. I am a freelance drafter and I
> recently was hired by a landscaper (not landscape architect or designer) to draw up
> plans for his clients. Since he knows a ton more about landscaping then I ever will
> the plan is really just to convey the design concept to the client. To make it more
> convenient to the client I've been asked to keep the drawings to 8-1/2"x11" if
> possible, but that means I'm doing them at a 1"=30' scale which makes the individual
> plants really hard to see. I am trying to convince the landscaper that 11"x17" is a
PMDavis
PMDavis wrote in message ...
>You might want to locate the book "Residential Landscape Architecture" by
>Walker (?). Also both Ortho and Sunset have good basic planting design
>books. Norman K. Booth's "Landscape Architecture" would be good to have,
>also. Anything by Walker, Lin, or Booth.
>
Correction... "Residential Landscape Architecture" is also by Booth.
>
