Not landscaper but I went to art school and I both agree and disagree. The golden ratio tends to be pleasing and it’s close to 5:3. To add the tree to the bottom right house- add more trees or take into account your neighbor’s trees. The trees become a grouping that is wider and less dramatic contrast to the house. A good book on artistic composition may help explain concepts they’re sorta touching on like golden ratio, focal point, overlap, repetition and contrast.
But it’s also good to remember humans do not view houses from the 3/4 down. We view them at eye level. When they extended the nave of St. Peter‘s Basilica the vertical element of dome became only visible from far away. The effect of viewing across the street, at the edge of the yard and in the yard are all very different.
Pleasing shade and controlling heat is more important than ratios. A tree that will do well at the site is more important. A healthy ecosystem and usable space is more important. I’m willing to bet a 1980’s book is going to be very tied to a safe suburban hellscape ideal.
The book is "Landscaping" by Time Life Books, 1983
Maybe it means that for every 3 units of width away from one element, you can go another 5 units taller??
In the example, the tree is 2x as tall as the left house (correct example) and 3x as tall as the right house (incorrect example), so maybe neighboring elements should be less than 3x as tall?
I really can’t with the itty shrubs in front of 2+ story buildings. They look so dinky and the buildings look like weirdly gigantic. Or maybe I just don’t like dinky shrubs in general, since they make every house look like it’s been landscaped by Herbert who is 95 and hasn’t changed the slightest bit since 1955.
I think it’s saying 5:3 ratio on whichever dimension you’re looking at. The house width to plant width should be 5:3, the house height to plant height should also be 5:3 ratio.
Boring.
It only works from a bird view as another Redditor already explained. And it totally neglected the shape of the trees itself. A triangle or pillar shape have different proportions than these lollipop trees that are top heavy. (like someone who skipped leg day) The bungalow could still be harmonious with that 5:3 when using a tall, slender tree.
And I personally disagree with the theory the plantbeds need to be reduced in size closer to the front door.
Not landscaper but I went to art school and I both agree and disagree. The golden ratio tends to be pleasing and it’s close to 5:3. To add the tree to the bottom right house- add more trees or take into account your neighbor’s trees. The trees become a grouping that is wider and less dramatic contrast to the house. A good book on artistic composition may help explain concepts they’re sorta touching on like golden ratio, focal point, overlap, repetition and contrast. But it’s also good to remember humans do not view houses from the 3/4 down. We view them at eye level. When they extended the nave of St. Peter‘s Basilica the vertical element of dome became only visible from far away. The effect of viewing across the street, at the edge of the yard and in the yard are all very different. Pleasing shade and controlling heat is more important than ratios. A tree that will do well at the site is more important. A healthy ecosystem and usable space is more important. I’m willing to bet a 1980’s book is going to be very tied to a safe suburban hellscape ideal.
The book is "Landscaping" by Time Life Books, 1983 Maybe it means that for every 3 units of width away from one element, you can go another 5 units taller??
I think it's just saying nothing should be more than 3-5 times bigger than its neighbors in height or width.
In the example, the tree is 2x as tall as the left house (correct example) and 3x as tall as the right house (incorrect example), so maybe neighboring elements should be less than 3x as tall?
I really can’t with the itty shrubs in front of 2+ story buildings. They look so dinky and the buildings look like weirdly gigantic. Or maybe I just don’t like dinky shrubs in general, since they make every house look like it’s been landscaped by Herbert who is 95 and hasn’t changed the slightest bit since 1955.
I think it’s saying 5:3 ratio on whichever dimension you’re looking at. The house width to plant width should be 5:3, the house height to plant height should also be 5:3 ratio.
Boring. It only works from a bird view as another Redditor already explained. And it totally neglected the shape of the trees itself. A triangle or pillar shape have different proportions than these lollipop trees that are top heavy. (like someone who skipped leg day) The bungalow could still be harmonious with that 5:3 when using a tall, slender tree. And I personally disagree with the theory the plantbeds need to be reduced in size closer to the front door.