that’s sooooo 1970s

A house down the street has had a contractor’s truck parked out­side of it for a while now. The owner said she’s remod­el­ing the kitchen and bath. Not any time too soon, accord­ing to John, who dur­ing our last time in the house noticed that those rooms oozed the stuff that 1975 was made of: fab­u­lous 70s mod­ern appli­ances, wood­grained formica, beige tile floors. There’s noth­ing wrong with any of these mate­ri­als, but the rooms looked like they were sealed in a time cap­sule, an easy thing to hap­pen to rooms that are so expen­sive to remodel.

Some gar­dens around town seem to have the same aura about them. You sense that the gar­den was planted all at once–probably by a pickup truck landscaper–from what was avail­able and fash­ion­able and con­sid­ered reli­able at the time. Decades later the plant­i­ngs will look untouched–the same plants in the same places (often planted too close together or too near a house). Things might be pruned a lit­tle, or there might be a mature row of some­thing with a miss­ing plant. But oth­er­wise untouched.

so-1970s-ez-lube

I tend to think of gar­dens as evo­lu­tion­ary projects, espe­cially when they’re in the hands of curi­ous gar­den­ers. It’s always a bit of a shock to see one of these botan­i­cal time cap­sules. Com­mer­cial plant­i­ngs seem to be the worst offend­ers. Here, to the right, is a lovely pair­ing of melaleu­cas with ice­plant at the local EZ-Lube that seems pick­led in about 1983.

So which plants shout that they’re from a cer­tain decade? I tried to sort that out based on what you see in South­ern Cal­i­for­nia. (Other cli­mates will have their own char­ac­ter­is­tic plants.)

This is just a quick and impres­sion­is­tic draft that’s based on when plants were cheaply avail­able and most pop­u­lar, not nec­es­sar­ily when they were intro­duced. Many of them are still com­monly avail­able today and are hardy, worth­while choices for the gar­den. Oth­ers have turned out to be inva­sive dis­as­ters that have prompted nurs­eries to stop car­ry­ing them.

I’m sure I’ve mis­placed a few plants by a decade or two. You must have addi­tions of your own!

1960s
so-1970s-junipers

  • Hol­ly­wood Twisted Juniper (Junipe­rus chi­nen­sis ‘Toru­losa’). “Hol­ly­wood” and “twisted” some­how seen to go together nicely… My mother cov­eted them, and I still think they’re pretty wild and crazy plants. Of course in the 1960s and 1970s, the junipers were a lot smaller than this.
  • Ital­ian Cypress (Cupres­sus sem­per­virens). The house my par­ents pur­chased in 1968 had two lit­tle plants of these flank­ing a win­dow. When we moved out of that house they weren’t so little…
  • Arborvi­tae (Thuja sp.)
  • Japan­ese Pit­tospo­rum, Japan­ese Mock Orange (Pit­tospo­rum tobira)
  • Japan­ese Gray-bark Elm, Japan­ese Zelkova (Zelkova ser­rata). These go back years, but there were lots of street plant­i­ngs in 1950s and 1960s suburbs.


so-1970s-zelkova

And speak­ing of zelko­vas, my neigh­bor­hood had hun­dreds of them as street plant­i­ngs. Even­tu­ally they began lift­ing the side­walks, and then grew up into the power lines. One by one the own­ers took out the trees. Then, the city took out the power lines and put them under­ground, about the same time they repaired the side­walks. We have a few of the trees left.

so-1970s-oleander

1970s

  • Ole­an­der (Ner­ium ole­an­der), shown here in a free­way plant­ing down the hill from me. They’re hardly ever planted any­more. Although drought-tolerant, they can get bad scale infes­ta­tions. The nail in the cof­fin for this plant, though, was the fact that they’re poi­so­nous if ingested or burned.
  • Natal Plum (Carissa macro­carpa)
  • Ice­plant (var­i­ous species), some are con­sid­ered inva­sive in South­ern California
  • Var­ie­gated Japan­ese Euony­mus (Euony­mus japon­i­cus ‘Aureo-marginatus’)
  • Melaleuca, Paper­bark Tree (Melaleuca quin­quen­ervia), now on the fed­eral inva­sive plant list and the scourge of many states


so-1970s-bank

Here’s a tran­si­tional 1960s-1970s plant­ing at the bank down the street. More twisted junipers, paired here with natal plum.

1980s

Invasive fountain grass

  • Foun­tain Grass, Green Foun­tain Grass (Pen­nise­tum setaceum), the Cal­i­for­nia Inva­sive Plants Coun­cil lists these as “Invasive–Do Not Plant–Invasive” (hmmm, they might be inva­sive…) on their web­site.

    Photo by Car­olyn Mar­tus from the Cal-IPC site [ source ]

  • Red Foun­tain Grass, Pur­ple Foun­tain Grass (Pen­nise­tum setaceum ‘Rubrum’)–I still have three in the front yard and love them. Unlike the above, they’re ster­ile and don’t sow them­selves every­where. [ Edit June 11, 2010: The red foun­tain grasses are def­i­nitely not ster­ile, though they still are far less inva­sive than the green ver­sions of the species. It’s best not to plant these any­where where thye might escape. ]
  • Aga­pan­thus
  • Euge­nia, Aus­tralian Brush Cherry (Syzy­gium pan­ic­u­la­tum). These make tidy, fine-leaved clipped hedges. But when the euge­nia psyl­lid hit in 1988 plant­i­ngs every­where started to look awful. They dis­ap­peared from the trade.
  • Indian Hawthorn (Rhaphi­olepis indica)
  • New Zealand Flax (Phormium sp. and hybrids)


so-1970s-nassella

1990s

  • Mex­i­can Feather Grass (Stipa or Nas­sella tenuis­sima), now quickly mov­ing onto many people’s lists of obnox­ious if not inva­sive plants. I started with two and now have half a dozen. I’d have thou­sands if I didn’t pull out a cou­ple dozen seedlings every week! This is the park­ing strip of a neigh­bor a few blocks away who prob­a­bly put in one or two plants herself.
  • Laven­ders (Laven­dula sp.)–I still have one of these.
  • Blue Fes­cue (Fes­tuca ovina glauca)–and sev­eral of these…
  • Kan­ga­roo Paw (Anigozan­thus sp.)


so-1970s-cordyline

2000s

  • ???????

    What plants will the future decide define the Bush decade? What sturdy plants are the nurs­eries offer­ing that will run their course as peo­ple get tired of them or the plant’s inva­sive poten­tial are revealed? For one, I’m see­ing a lot of Cordy­line aus­tralis. I like these a lot, but they sud­denly seem to be planted every­where, many in loca­tions where they look good as two-foot ado­les­cents but will quickly out­grow their spots. And there are cheap queen palms (Sya­grus roman­zof­fi­ana) going into the ground everywhere.

    I’m sure there are dozens more.


February 19 2009 06:06 am | Categories: gardeninglandscape design | Tags:

15 Responses to “that’s sooooo 1970s”

  1. susan (garden-chick) on 19 Feb 2009 at 8:20 am #

    James, I’ve been plan­ning a post on the same topic! I love your take on dated design. I’ll have to wait a while to post on the same topic (for­tun­tely, we blog­gers have short atten­tion spans, so it’ll seem like a whole new idea by the time I get around to it).

  2. tina on 19 Feb 2009 at 10:58 am #

    I can’t really think of a spe­cific plant that I iden­tify with a decade, like I can with music. I do like foun­tain grass though, I guess that is old.

  3. lostlandscape on 19 Feb 2009 at 11:44 am #

    Susan, ah..great minds think­ing alike… I’m sure you’ll put a cool spin on the topic!

    Tina, I guess there are rea­sons some plants get planted a lot. I put in foun­tain grass when it was still fairly new, but I still enjoy it so much there’s no way I’ll be rip­ping it out.

  4. Lynn on 20 Feb 2009 at 9:38 am #

    Uhhhh this is such a great topic and offers such rantable mate­r­ial! I grew up in the 70s sur­round by the fear­ful ole­an­der, so it’s amaz­ing I like plants at all!
    In Austin in the 90s it was mon­key grass clumped around every tree that got old FAST. Stun­ningly bor­ing. In Vegas in the 2000s I’d say nearly every type of non-native palm, espe­cially the bloated Canary Island Date, and then the poor Mex­i­can Fans trimmed to within an inch of their lives. And am I the only one who hates mis­cant­hus, plunked in everywhere?

  5. lostlandscape on 20 Feb 2009 at 7:27 pm #

    Lynn, I’m glad you got over the ole­an­der issues grow­ing up! I was pretty taken with the mon­key grass when I first saw it but never got around to plant­ing any. The Mex­i­can fans here are local inva­sive weeds. If your neigh­bor has one, you’ll be pulling up lit­tle palm trees. Weeds, I tell ya. I think it’d be an inter­est­ing chal­lenge to make some­thing new and inter­est­ing out of over­ex­posed plants and noth­ing else. But then there are so many inter­est­ing new plants com­ing around…

  6. Jan on 21 Feb 2009 at 3:35 am #

    This was an inter­est­ing post. I am really both­ered by the over­grown plants from decades ago. I live in an older neigh­bor­hood, and would love to tell peo­ple to cut back or take out those huge plants next to their houses.

    Jan
    Always Growing

  7. Greenfingers on 21 Feb 2009 at 4:38 am #

    That is a great time­line! It really expresses the real sit­u­a­tion of the nature and I’m on with it. Looks cool with the pic­tures and I appre­ci­ate that you’ve posted it. Thanks for shar­ing and I hope you could pro­vide more pics in the future. God Bless!

  8. Greg on 22 Feb 2009 at 9:59 pm #

    This really is a pretty fas­ci­nat­ing sub­ject. I’ll be pay­ing atten­tion with fresh eyes on the sub­ject now.

    And I totally need a twisted juniper or two!

  9. lostlandscape on 24 Feb 2009 at 7:50 pm #

    Jan–It’s so com­mon to see plants planted too closely together or too close to a house, isn’t it? I guess we’re all a lit­tle impa­tient to see plants reach their even­tual size.

    Greg–Why am I not sur­prised you want a twisted juniper? Cool, aren’t they? They used to sell them every­where around here, and now it’s really tought to find any–I guess that’s the down-side of a plant not being so pop­u­lar anymore.

  10. Jean on 25 Feb 2009 at 9:55 am #

    1980’s — those small lit­tle bed­ding bego­nias.
    1990’s — lorapetalums, tons of them planted by con­trac­tors in Austin. And lan­tanas.
    2000’s — orna­men­tal grasses every­where. And crape myr­tles (not just in the south).
    And for sev­eral decades — pho­tinias, argh! Oh and asi­atic jas­mine as a ground cover.

    Great post. :-)

  11. lostlandscape on 28 Feb 2009 at 8:31 am #

    Thanks, Jean. I guess my area is a lit­tle behind the times in get­ting lots of loropetalums, though we’ve def­i­nitely been hit by waves of lan­tanas. The loropetalums actu­ally don’t sseem to do so well here as they do in the South, but the lan­tanas are pretty well adapted and indestructible…

  12. Steve on 28 Feb 2009 at 12:42 pm #

    My brother always called California’s Ole­an­ders, so ubiq­ui­tously planted on free­way boule­vards, “Smog Eaters”, lol. In the North­west, there was your stan­dard aver­age Pho­tinia craze for a while, dat­ing from the mid-’70’s. Prior to that, it was Rhodo­den­dron time — of course, much of that is still main­tained owing to Van­cou­ver (for exam­ple) and its utterly benign rhodie cli­mate. But junipers have had their com­ings and goings, fash­ion­ably speak­ing, lead­ing to what any more are the lower and slower-growing vari­eties and the bluer color possibilites.

    neat post and lots of fun. I have also con­sid­ered the dat­ing of species as pop­u­lar. I do know that nurs­eries had an awful lot to do with the pop­u­lar­ity of plant­i­ngs, too. They would buy thou­sands of some­thing and announce the species had sud­denly mor­phed into this season’s must-have!

  13. Philip on 01 Mar 2009 at 7:10 am #

    What a thought pro­vok­ing post :Botan­i­cal time cap­sules. That is so insight­ful. It is inter­est­ing to see neigh­bor­hoods which have been untouched. 1930’s neigh­bor­hoods of mock Span­ish and Tudor bun­ga­lows have lawn and shrubs very highly clipped. There are Plants clipped in the Japan­ese man­ner with clound of green­ery on branches. This is effec­tive where it snows, but dec­o­ra­tive only in Cal­i­for­nia. I used to think this was very old fash­ioned, but now when this is main­tained it does have a look: con­crete painted red, striped awnings in brown, red and cream.
    I thought your list was bril­liant and lots of fun. Ok, when I am trav­el­ing about my eyes are opened.
    I enjoyed this post!
    Regards,
    Philip

  14. lostlandscape on 01 Mar 2009 at 11:16 am #

    Steve, I think you’ve nailed it as to this being largely a nursery-driven phe­nom­e­non. And now that many peo­ple are get­ting more of their plants from big box stores, I can see the diver­sity shrink­ing even fur­ther. Rhodies are one plant that won’t ever look dated here in South­ern Cal­i­for­nia. Any­one who can pull it off, even with the low-chill vari­eties, has some­thing unusual.

    Philip, I agree that many of these plant­i­ngs have a dis­tinct look, and it’s some­thing peo­ple need to con­sider in rela­tion to their house. Do peo­ple want to empha­size a “period” look for their home or not? I saw a movie last night which was sup­posed to take place in the 1950s, but all the plants were too mod­ern and wrong. Of course, if a film crew came to my house to try to cap­ture the 1950s, I’d be per­turbed if they were to take out all my mod­ern plants!

  15. out of doors on 04 Mar 2009 at 8:50 am #

    what about 50’s-style L.A. glam­our? bird of par­adise, bougainvil­lea, and berge­nia; or cup-of-gold vine and pep­per trees for spanish-style houses. and i think cordy­line can be pretty 70’s-alicious, espe­cially planted by funky cin­derblock apart­ment houses.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply