After designing in both Connecticut and Melbourne, one thing became clear:
What we call "good design" isn't universal.
In Connecticut, there was a familiar design language.
Layered planting.
Seasonal interest.
Structured, composed landscapes drawing from well-established ornamental palettes.
There was a shared understanding of what a "finished" landscape looked like.
In Melbourne, that expectation shifts.
There's a stronger emphasis on:
- resilience
- performance over purely aesthetic composition
- native and adapted ecologies
- landscapes that evolve over time rather than peak at installation
At first, it felt like a stylistic difference.
But it's actually deeper than that.
It's a response to context.
Climate.
Water.
Plant behaviour.
Regulations.
All of it shapes what design becomes.
Style isn't just a personal choice. It's shaped — often heavily — by place.
And once you start seeing that, it's hard to unsee.
What looks "right" in one context can feel out of place in another.
And that's not a failure of design — it's a reminder that design is always situated.
Which leads to a bigger idea I keep coming back to:
If everything — from plants to water to material to style — is shaped by context, then is design ever truly universal?
For landscape architects and designers — how much does context shape the design style you deliver on a project?