buy Pregabalin online usa I spent Saturday at the Cloisters, and achieved one of my goals of measuring the cloistered gardens there. I was informed by the guard that the reconstructed gardens do not represent the original dimensions, but that was really no concern to me: what impressed me is that each one of the cloisters works as a garden space, and so its proportions are better than merely original, they are satisfying in themselves.
http://ramblingfisherman.com/420825_10150611028494518_254296389517_8862621_420063530_n/ The covered walkways around the gardens all ranged from eight to eleven feet, and the eleven-foot ambulatory seemed cavernous. Eight feet is quite satisfactory. I’ve laid out twelve feet of space for my own garden, allowing me up to four feet of wall space, if I ever built in stone; the typical wall-enclosure in all the Cloisters’ gardens was two feet thick, which is perfect for sitting on. If I never build in stone, I can fold the extra space into more garden.
The main thing that I learned is that the gardens are not really square: 42 (? I did get distracted while measuring this one; maybe 36) x 31, 59 x 48 (the most beautiful of them, the Cuxa Cloister), and 27 x 21 (there is also a square one which is not enclosed, 56 x 56). Though I have been there several times, I never registered the elongation. This makes me think that my own arrangement may be a bit too square (I’ve laid out a 72′ square, with 24′ of walkways and a 48′ square garden). My answer might be to permit irregularities if they arise: it’s impressive how they certainly do not detract, and may even help, in architecture.
The Cloisters has a blog for its gardens, which is lovely and civilized.
It surprises me, in general, that this form – the cloistered garden – which is so satisfying to the senses, is now so rarely found in new buildings. In the Catskills its return would be tremendously useful, because it provides outdoor space (which is what you want in a summer home) and protects plants against wild animals.
Post a Comment