'Foundation' Planting... a good thing?
From time to time a comment is made that "foundation" plantings (as they are commonly thought of) may not be needed or desirable. When habits like "foundation" plantings develop, they seem to persist even when their original reason for coming about does not. In some cases houses are indiscriminately smothered on all sides with plants. Typically, foundations today are not the eyesores they were in the past so I don't see a need to engulf a foundation with plants as a routine treatment. I see no need to obscure a feature on a building or wall as long as it looks good and adds interest, but I cannot wrap my mind around a blanket notion of plantings backed up by wall (which might happen to be a foundation or contain that element) being unnecessary. To my thinking it is often plants that make the difference of a wall being attractive and interesting, or not. What I see as negatives are both blank voids on walls that are not addressed with plants, and visual obliteration of interesting architectural features by plants. How does one justify having no foundation plants as a routine treatment?