The Winning Designs 
garden. Few people living in such a house would be 
content to give such a large portion of the ground to 
flowers at the expense of early and home-grown 
vegetables and salads. 
The third-prize design for this site allots about 
one-third of the total area to kitchen garden, and that 
is probably what would happen in nine out of ten cases. 
Beyond the concentraticn of the flower garden within 
the greater length of the area at his disposal, and the 
seclusion of the kitchen garden therefrom, it does not 
depart far from the elementary lines provided by the 
plan of the ground, and therefore the design may be 
said to lack imagination. This design also received 
notice in The Garden in the following words : 
“‘In the case of Site No. 2 the third prize was won 
by Mr. Hugh Dixon. The design is simple and 
straightforward, and its chief defect is that the treat- 
ment of the lawn bears no very direct relation to the 
house. In a garden of this size, moreover, it is very 
desirable that the area to be treated should be sub- 
divided somewhat by walls, trellises, or hedges, so that 
the eye may not take in the whole scheme at one sweep. 
There is no more valuable quality in garden designing 
than a touch of surprise. The visitor should be led 
from one point to another with a sense of expectancy, 
but that feeling would not be aroused in the garden 
which Mr. Dixon has designed. Criticism may also be 
directed to the position of the pergola. This feature 
has achieved an immense popularity in English gar- 
dens, but its purpose and character are not always well 
conceived. It should ideally be used as a connecting- 
link between two or more definite points in house or 
54 
