Landscaping and Horticulture for Lauren Schwartz’s Memorial Greenhouse

Interior & Exterior Landscaping and Horticulture for
Lauren Schwartz’s Memorial Greenhouse: Semester Report

Mike Aronov
Ini Li
Kevin Luke
Eugene Yao
Jason Eckstein

Team Leader: Ini Li
Team Advisor: Emily Persson

Submission Date: December 11, 2006

Mike Aronov, Ini Li, Kevin Luke, Eugene Yao, Jason Eckstein
Team 6: Interior & Exterior Landscaping and Horticulture
Advisor: Emily Persson
Final Design Report
December 11, 2006

Table of Contents

SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................... 3

SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................... 4

DESCRIPTION OF GATEWAY COURSE AND SERVICE-LEARNING PROGRAM .............................. 4
DESCRIPTION OF TEAM’S ORGANIZATION ................................................................................... 4
DESCRIPTION OF COMMUNITY PARTNER ..................................................................................... 5
DESCRIPTION OF PRESENTED PROBLEM ...................................................................................... 6
FORMAL PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................................................................... 7
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND CONSTRAINTS.................... 8
DESCRIPTION OF EVOLUTION OF DESIGN .................................................................................... 9
DEFINING THE PROBLEM.................................................................................................................. 9
FORMULATING SOLUTIONS .............................................................................................................. 9
DEVELOPING MODELS/PROTOTYPES ............................................................................................. 10
IMPLEMENTING, TESTING, MODIFYING, AND PRESENTING THE FINAL DESIGN ............................ 10

SECTION 3: TRANSITION PLAN AND PROJECT DOCUMENTATION........................ 12

CONNECTION TO PRIOR WORK AND EXPANSION OF SOLUTION ............................................... 12
DOCUMENTATION FOR DUPLICATION OF PROCESS ................................................................... 12
DOCUMENTATION FOR USE AND MAINTENANCE OF SOLUTION ............................................... 13
PICTURES, DIAGRAMS, TECHNICAL DRAWINGS, ETC… ................................................................ 14

SECTION 4: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................. 15

SECTION 5: APPENDICES....................................................................................................... 16

APPENDIX A: PRODUCT DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS ..................................................................... 16
APPENDIX B: GANTT CHART ....................................................................................................... 20
APPENDIX C: TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (MAYA)................................................................. 21
APPENDIX DA: BUDGET INFORMATION AND LIST OF MATERIALS ........................................... 23
APPENDIX DB: ALPHABETIZED LIST OF ALL PLANTS ............................................................... 25
APPENDIX DC: PLANT DESCRIPTIONS FOR HIGHLY RECOMMENDED PLANTS ....................... 26
APPENDIX DD: NOTES ON OTHER PLANTS ................................................................................. 30
APPENDIX E: PHOTOGRAPHS ILLUSTRATING THE TEAM EXPERIENCE ................................... 35
APPENDIX FA: IDEAS FOR HORTICULTURE ACTIVITIES FOR STUDENTS ................................. 36
APPENDIX FB: PLANTING DETAILS FOR SOME VEGETABLES ................................................... 39
APPENDIX FC: DETAILS FOR STARTING AN AVACADO TREE .................................................... 40
APPENDIX FD: GUIDELINES FOR CARE OF PLANTS ................................................................... 42
APPENDIX FG: SEASONAL ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................... 53
APPENDIX G: REFERENCES CONSULTED FOR PROJECT............................................................ 54
APPENDIX H: COPY OF POWERPOINT SLIDES............................................................................ 55

-2-

Final Design Report
December 11, 2006

Section 1: Executive Summary
As students in the Fu Foundation of Engineering and Applied Science at Columbia
University, we participate in service learning projects through the Gateway Lab course.
Our team worked among seven other teams all devoted to different aspects of designing a
greenhouse for the community partner PS79M, a public school for physically and
mentally handicapped students in Harlem. The parents of Lauren Schwartz, a former
student of PS79M, have provided funding to build the greenhouse that will commemorate
their daughter and provide the students of the school with the same opportunities that
Lauren enjoyed during her life. Unlike most of the other students at the school, Lauren
had regular therapy, both at the Rusk institute and at her own home; however, the
majority of the parents of the PS79M students neither have the time nor the money to
provide this for their children. In school, therapy is only available twice a week, which is
adequate but nowhere near ideal. Our task, therefore, is to improve the students’ quality
of life within the school by creating an environment that provides therapy and builds
prevocational skills that will be invaluable to the students upon graduation. Our group
provides in this report computer models of plants, cost estimates, activities lists, and
purchasing schedules. We have collaborated with the school’s therapists, the parents of
Lauren Schwartz, members of the Rusk Institute, and the other teams to produce a
comprehensive list of plants and activities that meets the physical, therapeutic, and
educational needs of every student and is easy to implement and maintain for the school.

The greenhouse must be an active and usable educational and therapeutic environment,
so we chose potted plants, which are robust in their ability to survive and the variety of
activities that they provide. One main aspect of the design is our use of pots rather than
plant beds to allow students to bring the plant of their choice to a central table to work on
activities in groups ranging from transplanting and pruning to drying leaves. That way,
the greenhouse can also foster a social environment. The main varieties of potted plants
we have recommended are common houseplants and flowers that have attractive and
varied foliage, have health benefits such as filtering the air, and have the ability to thrive
under the care of the children and provide rewarding gardening experiences which are
therapeutic in their own right. Such plants include Begonias, Dracaenas, Chinese
Evergreens, Norfolk Island pines, and Snapdragons. We will also provide a potted herb
garden with some vegetables for more varies activities involving sensory stimulation that
cater to students with more limited abilities to physically handle plants. For the aesthetics
of the greenhouse, we recommend the use of hanging plants, which can also be used for
hydroponic growth activities for students who cannot work with soil. Ficus trees can be
placed in large pots on ground level to provide natural barriers to different areas of the
greenhouse. Such trees are easy to maintain and can be moved when necessary. This
design is extremely realistic and can meet the needs of the students and the school while
providing a model from which other schools attempting similar projects can draw.

-3-

Final Design Report
December 11, 2006

Section 2: Project Description
Description of Gateway Course and Service-Learning Program
The Gateway Lab course was created by Professor McGourty to teach first year students
the value of being an engineer, while providing members of the community with services
that they would otherwise be unable to afford. Before the creation of this course,
engineering students had to wait until their junior or senior years to receive real design
experience characteristic of the engineering profession. Gateway not only provides
lessons on engineering, the design process, Maya, and MALAB, but also provides
students with a real project to work on. Each semester, a new set of students tackle the
community project that is given to them. Sometimes, they are handed a partially
completed project or a completely new project. The projects are always aimed at helping
community partners of Columbia University and, as a result, the students receive
feedback and must work hard to meet the needs of the clients. The course provides a
realistic experience because the clients really rely on the work of the students and the
final design must meet the client’s needs well. The Gateway Lab class section 3 in the
fall of 2006 was given a project started over the summer. This class was given the task of
completing a therapeutic greenhouse for the school PS79M. The Gateway course has
provided these students with design lessons and the necessary background knowledge to
complete the task for the client.

Description of Team’s Organization
The class was broken down into teams that covered separate parts of the greenhouse.
Certain major tasks for the greenhouse were given to more than one team. For example,
the Interior Design team has their own license to provide a design, but they must make
their own design fit with the water irrigation team’s. Our team was assigned the task of
complete the design for the Interior and Exterior Landscaping, and Horticulture.

Once our group was assigned, we divided the team roles. Ini volunteered for the role of
primary facilitator. She understands the time, effort, and commitment it takes for this role
and has agreed to provide it. She sends e-mails after every meeting to remind the group
of the objectives and what needs to be prepared for meetings, in addition to setting the
deadlines for work to be submitted to her for revision. She has set doable standards, and
makes sure every team member does his or her job, and she has been a key person
ensuring that all the work our team submits is revised and complete.

Eugene has agreed to take on the role of secondary facilitator. His previous experiences
in leadership provide him the skills to help Ini keep the group focused on the task at hand.
He understands that his job is to help Ini with her responsibilities, keep the group focused
at meetings, and help set the agenda for meetings.

-4-

Final Design Report
December 11, 2006

Kevin was chosen as conflict manager because of his natural tendency to listen and think
carefully before acting. The team felt that these skills were essential to a conflict manager
because in the event of conflict, rash action can exacerbate rather than ameliorate the
situation. However, by listening carefully, a conflict manager can discover the true root
of the conflict, and then act carefully to eliminate the foundation of the conflict, rather
than merely cover up a conflict.

Mike agreed to take on the role of being the group’s process observer. His role is to sit
back at times and watch how each individual interacts with each other. Since he has to
observe the member’s interactions, he also acts as the group scribe. By jotting down what
each individual says, he can also focus on his or her behavior. In addition to watching
individuals, he also has to watch the group as a whole to make sure all members stay
professional and efficient.

Jason volunteered for the position of time keeper. He plans on making sure the group
does not stay in meetings for longer than an hour and thirty minutes. The group has set
this amount of time as a limit because the group has decided that passed that time we will
no longer be efficient. If our time working with the group in one sitting exceeds this, each
individual’s willingness to stay on task will be greatly decreased, and it will be more
difficult for the group as a whole to work together efficiently and cooperatively. The
Time Keeper will work with the Secondary Facilitator, in addition to the Process
Observer, to keep the group on task and to make sure the group is using the time
efficiently.

Description of Community Partner
PS 79 is a separate public facility for students with mental and physical disabilities. They
provide all the therapy they can afford to give. The students here are watched during the
day and taught certain basic skills. The school continues to teach the children until they
are 21 years of age. According to the assistant principal of the school, the students are
split up into two types of disabilities: those who can function normally physically, but are
disabled cognitively, and those who have severe physical impairments that require the
use of a wheelchair.

After their daughter passed way, the parents of Lauren Schwartz proposed the idea to
build the greenhouse. Lauren Schwartz attended daily physical therapy at the Rusk
Institute. Her parents saw firsthand the positive influences horticulture therapy had on
handicapped children. The Rusk Institute, part of New York University, is “the largest
university-affiliated center devoted entirely to inpatient/outpatient care, research and
training in rehabilitative medicine.” The therapists there use horticulture as part of their
physical therapy. After Lauren passed away, her parents wished to create a memorial for
her in the form of a greenhouse. They wished for the students at Lauren’s school to
benefit from horticulture therapy as she did.

-5-

Final Design Report
December 11, 2006

There was a team who worked on our project in the summer although they were
responsible for interior design as well which has been delegated to a separate team this
term. These students were high school students who attended a shortened version of the
Gateway Lab course. They completed preliminary research and had just moved on to
product design. They provided recommendations that were based primarily on the
therapeutic nature of plants but not on the functional needs of the greenhouse. They also
did not provide written explanations for how they arrived at their conclusions or why they
chose the particular plants they did. As a result, many of the recommendations in their
report are not plausible to implement or easy to understand.

Description of Presented Problem
Our preliminary understanding of the problem stemmed from research we conducted in
preparation for speaking to the school and parents of Lauren Schwartz. Around the end of
the 18th century, therapeutic horticulture treatment was started. Dr. Benjamin Rush,
professor at the Institute of Medicine and Clinical Practice in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
announced in 1798 that field labor on a farm helped people with mental illnesses. From
there on, various forms of horticulture sprang up. No major strides were made in
horticulture therapy as a treatment until 1879; Friends Hospital installed the first
greenhouse solely for therapeutic purposes. However, the biggest growth of interest and
research began during WWII when injured soldiers were given horticulture treatment.
Since horticulture therapy can improve the quality of the life for the students at PS 79M,
it is important to understand its benefits and how it works. Unfortunately there is no
definite answer as to why horticulture therapy works. There is the theory that it soothes
students in a relaxing environment because any environment surrounded by plants is
guaranteed to be less stimulating than our modern environment. In other words, standing
in the middle of a park causes far less visual and auditory stress than standing in the
middle of the city. Another theory is that since we evolved with plants we have an
unlearned habit of relieving the stress in our body around them. In any case, either theory
(although there are many more than just 2, the point is the same) allows for any kind of
plant to be used in horticulture therapy.

In light of this brief information to horticulture therapy, we can understand better how the
greenhouse should function. The students of PS 79 are mentally and physically
handicapped. The amount of stress this places on the student is unimaginable. We hope,
based on research that students who work with the plants will have less stress. In order
for the greenhouse to be effective, outside distractions will need to be minimized. Sounds,
smells, even sight needs to be shut out. The greenhouse should act as a shelter for peace.
The plants selected will give the students the feeling that they have accomplished
something and at the same time give their minds a peaceful activity on which to dwell.

After the first community partner meeting, we gained a clearer understanding of our
client’s problem and began formulating possible solutions. We found that the basic
purpose of the greenhouse is to provide a therapeutic space, which the students would
enter during a particular class period. The students, however, should be active

-6-

Final Design Report
December 11, 2006

participants in the operation of the greenhouse, which means that the plants must be able
to be cultivated by the students. Our understanding of the problem had changed from the
summer team idea of focusing primarily on plants that would provide sensory therapy to
a focus on usable and durable plants. Due to the nature of the disabilities of the students,
however, the plants and therapeutic activities need have to be varied. According to the
assistant principal of the school, the students are split up into two types of disabilities:
those who can function normally physically, but are disabled cognitively, and those who
have severe physical impairments that require the use of a wheelchair. One of the largest
problems that would arise from this stark contrast of disabilities is need to cater to all of
the different kinds of students in one class period without alienating some of them.
Though one student could, for instance, maintain a more complex and fragile plant,
another student could only be able to handle a very sturdy and robust plant. For the more
physically advanced student, dealing with more robust plants could be rather dull or
unchallenging. It would be difficult to challenge those with a larger range of motor
abilities and to also allow those with impaired motor abilities to do the same or similar
activities. Another problem that our Horticulture team realized needed to be considered
after the client meeting was the wide variety of allergies the students may have. Because
of their physical condition, the students are more prone to such environmental factors,
and having a certain type of plant in the greenhouse that they are allergic to could be
devastating to the condition of their health.

We gained further insight into the problem by speaking to the Rusk institute to gain
insight into how they organize plants in their greenhouse and conducted activities. We
learned that the problem also involved building a social environment and prevocational
skills such as working in groups and following sets of instructions. Rusk solved this
problem by keeping plants in pots that can be easily transported to central work areas.
That way, students can pick the plants they want to handle and easily move them to an
area with other people. After speaking to the parents of Lauren Schwartz, we saw that
they approved of our main design decisions. Taking into account these new areas of the
problem that involved having functional plants and a setup that allowed students to work
together easily, we developed the final problem statement, which can be found below.

Formal Problem Statement
The parents of Lauren Schwartz have provided funding for the school PS79M to build a
greenhouse that will commemorate their daughter and provide the students of the school
with the same opportunities that she had. Lauren, unlike most of the other students at the
school, had regular therapy, both at the Rusk institute and at her own home; however, the
majority of the parents of the PS79M students have neither the time nor the money to
provide this to their children. In school, therapy is only available twice a week, which is
adequate but nowhere near ideal. Our task, therefore, is to improve the students’ quality
of life within the school by creating an environment that provides therapy and builds
prevocational skills that will be invaluable to the students upon graduation. The
particular problem our group must tackle is to choose which plants we want to place in
the greenhouse in order to address the wide range of specific disabilities of the students,

-7-

Final Design Report
December 11, 2006

while providing a social, therapeutic, and educational environment.

Our solution must provide a list of plants, which are easy to maintain by the students and
faculty. In addition, these plants must also be used in activities that bring students with a
wide range of physical and mental disabilities together in a social environment. These
activities can also be group-oriented. These activities must also develop prevocational
skills so the students can be more viable candidates for the job market upon graduation.
Plants must therefore be robust enough to withstand daily handling by the students and
grow successfully to give the students a rewarding experience. We must also provide
some plants that provide olfactory, tactile, and/or visual stimulation for students who
have limited to no ability to actively cultivate plants due to physical handicaps.

Narrative Description of Functional Requirements and Constraints
The Product Design Specifications begins with establishing the needs that our design
must fulfill, including daily therapy; a social environment; and a place to develop
prevocational skills. Plants must not only be varied enough to allow participation from
students with vastly different physical and mental abilities, but the activities must also
bring those students together and cultivate teamwork as well as the ability to work in
groups. These needs provide a base criterion on which later requirements can be judged.

Most of the PDS outlines the functional requirements of the plants and activities using the
following criteria: Functional Performance, Safety, Quality, Manufacturing, Timing,
Economic, Ergonomic, Ecological, Aesthetic, and Life Cycle. The functional
performance of the plants must include year-round therapeutic activity that may also
build gardening skills, which can be used by students upon graduation. The plants must
be distributed to allow all students to participate in those activities and robust enough to
provide an easily maintainable population that survives in static room temperature
environment. Plants with varying life cycles such as blooming and planting cycles will
provide a dynamic year-round calendar of student activity. Since students have
unpredictable allergies that change from year to year, plants cannot be commonly allergic
or poisonous. Even though there is no set cost limit to the project, in order to make the
design easily maintainable for the school and accessible to others who may wish to
duplicate the design, our choice of plants will be common, low maintenance, low cost,
houseplants, which are visually attractive and meet the functional needs of the students.
Large pots with Ficus trees on ground level can provide aesthetics that are easily
maintained and mobile.

The last section of the PDS deals with Corporate Constraints. We know that the school
would like to start construction in the summer of 2007, so we need to provide a design
with plants that can be acquired in large quantities by then and fully grown. We feel that
building a relationship with a supplier is very important for the PS79M, so we will make
several recommendations and suggest that one is chosen and used throughout the year.
An alternative solution could be to use one supplier for each period of purchasing. This
solution could be desirable if there is particular advantage to purchasing seasonal plants

-8-

Final Design Report
December 11, 2006

from one supplier at a particular time. We must make sure that our design conforms to
all ADA and public school requirements. We do not feel that any of our ideas warrant
consideration for a patent since one of the strengths of our design is the use of
conventional and realistic ideas based on the given the high level of development and
success in the world of greenhouses and horticulture therapy.

Description of Evolution of Design
Defining the Problem
PS 79 is primarily for students of handicapped nature. They provide all the therapy they
can afford to give. The students here are watched during the day and taught some basic
skills. The school takes the children up to when they are 21 of age. According to the
assistant principal of the school, the students are split up into two types of disabilities:
those who can function normally physically, but are disabled cognitively, and those who
have severe physical impairments that require the use of a wheelchair.

The parents of Lauren Schwartz have decided to fund the building of a greenhouse for the
students at PS79M. Their vision of the greenhouse is not only to commemorate their
daughter, but also to provide the students of PS79M, the school she attended, with the
same opportunities that she had. Lauren, unlike most of the other students at the school,
had regular therapy, both at the Rusk institute and at her own home. However, the
majority of the parents of the PS79M students have neither the time nor the money to
provide this to their children. In school, therapy is only available twice a week, which is
adequate but nowhere near ideal. The goal, therefore, is to improve the students’ quality
of life within the school by creating an environment that provides therapy through
horticulture and aesthetics. The particular problem our group must tackle is to choose
which plants we want to place in the greenhouse in order to address the wide range of
specific disabilities of the students, while providing a social and therapeutic environment.

Horticulture offers a great way for the kids to receive the therapy they need. The students,
however, are so varied in the types and severity of the disabilities they have, that one of
the largest problems we must address is the need to cater to all of the different kinds of
students in an inclusive way. Another issue that our team considered was the wide
variety of allergies the students may have. Because of their physical condition, the
students are more prone to such environmental factors, and having a certain type of plant
in the greenhouse that they are allergic to could be devastating to the condition of their
health. Our solution must actively address and attempt to solve these problems.

Formulating Solutions
Initially, our team analyzed the work of the summer horticultural team. The summer
team’s solution was to maximize the therapeutic properties of each plant by grouping
them into the following therapy categories: visual, olfactory, tactile, and taste. In the

-9-

Final Design Report
December 11, 2006

greenhouse, the summer team planned to group plants of the same therapeutic property in
the same area in order to create several sensory stimulation stations. These stations
would consist of plant beds, where students could work with the plants. Our team
initially felt that the summer team had a very good plan, and our early efforts focused on
expanding this plan and working out the intricate details.

However, our team began to doubt the effectiveness of the summer team’s plan when one
our team members, while researching disability therapy, discovered that disabled students
received much more therapy from working together in a group than from actual sensory
stimulation. Our doubts were verified when we met with therapists from The Rusk
Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine. The therapists strongly emphasized the importance
of learning how to work in groups, since this would be an essential life lesson that the
students would take with them after leaving the school. On the contrary, when our team
mentioned purely aesthetic plants, the Rusk therapists felt that hardy plants that the
students could directly work with would better replace such plants.

These findings drastically changed our plans. Our team completely abandoned the idea
of therapeutic stations and plant beds. Instead, we decided a central work area would be
the most functional plan. With a central workstation, several students would be grouped
together. Since they would not always be able to directly ask a teacher or aid across the
table, students would be forced to ask each other for help, developing group work
abilities in the process. In addition, instead of placing plants in plant beds, our team
decided to place most functional plants in pots. This would allow students to choose a
plant to work on, and then bring the plant to the central work area. Finally, in terms of
plant selection, we decided to choose robust plants that would be able to handle a variety
of conditions, including minor mistreatment. Our finalized plan allowed students to gain
the most therapy by developing group work abilities through interaction with other
students. Aesthetic concerns could be met with hardy hanging plants and large pots on
ground level with Ficus trees which are again easy to maintain and visually pleasing.

Developing Models/Prototypes

We learned from our Maya instructor, Jose, how to incorporate plants into Maya. We
collaborated our design with the interior design team and created a preliminary 3-
Dimensional design of what the final greenhouse will look like. The distribution of the
plants is not extremely important because the plants are in pots and not plant beds, so
each individual plant is mobile and can be placed in any arrangement.

Implementing, Testing, Modifying, and Presenting the Final Design
We realized throughout the semester that in order to implement our design, the school
would need more information than just details on buying and maintaining plants. Initially,
we felt that the school would only need a list of plants and materials to order and a
supplier in order to implement our design. However, as our research became more

-10-

Final Design Report
December 11, 2006

detailed, we realized that the problem was much more complex. Providing a plant list
was not a very simple task. In order to develop a methodology for choosing plants, we
needed to choose plant attributes that would be most beneficial for the client. This was
rather difficult because there were several plant attributes that tended to the clients’ needs,
such as light, soil, durability, and sensory therapeutic value. Therefore, our team needed
to develop a method to prioritize these qualities. Ultimately, we realized that it was more
important for the greenhouse to be an active, usable place with plants that could be
successfully cultivated by the students than a traditionally therapeutic space with
expensive, exotic plants that could not be actively used by the students. Although
providing a plant list was difficult, we realized that we could not simply produce a
plant/material list and a vendor for the client. In order for the client to select among the
plants from the plant list, we would need to provide recommendations for each plant.
This involved much more detailed research and analysis. Finally, our team realized that
the school would need an idea of what to do with the plants they have, so we decided to
include a list of plant activities.

Although we did not need to test our design, we did need to modify it greatly. A
description of the evolution of our modifications is in the Formulating Solutions part of
this report. In terms of presenting our design, we changed our presentation format for the
final presentation. During the midterm presentation, we went into excessive detail of the
problem and the restrictions on our solution. This took a large portion of the midterm
presentation, which left only a little time to present our solution. However, for the final
presentation, we decided to define the problem statement and our restrictions, and then
use most of the time to explain our solution. In this part of the presentation, we would
discuss our plant list, activities list, and a quick cost analysis. In addition, we decided to
enhance our presentation by including a few live samples of recommended plants and a
demonstration of a recommended activity. Our final presentation would give the client
the most applicable information of our detailed design.

-11-

Final Design Report
December 11, 2006

Section 3: Transition Plan and Project Documentation
Connection to Prior Work and Expansion of Solution
Our work was linked to the work of the summer team, who were the first group to
contribute to this project. They seemed to focus on a large variety of plants, with several
groups for stimulation of each of the senses. A list of specific plants was also included,
each with a brief description. While this was informative, a major flaw of the summer
group is that their choices were not explained; though it was logical to provide sensory
stimulation, our team soon realized that this was not necessarily the most critical issue.
And while the list of plants was well compiled, it completely failed to address any
problems that could arise from the students being disabled, such as allergies, and while
oversensitivity and under sensitivity were mentioned, the plant choices did not reflect an
understanding and taking into account of these disabilities. Also, the summer team’s
work did not offer any explanations as to why particular plants were chosen: all that was
given were various categories that explained which of the five senses the plant was
geared towards.

Future teams should focus on plant activities that would benefit students and more
investigation into plant vendors. While places like Rusk institute use large plant vendors
with huge varieties like Angel plants, this may not necessarily be the best solution for the
school’s greenhouse. Our team has recommended Angel plants, but we also discovered
that smaller plant vendors, and perhaps even farmer’s markets, offer enough variety and
expertise to be acceptable. The school may find these local, small vendors more
convenient to restock their supply of plants.

Documentation for Duplication of Process
Our team gained much insight from speaking to experts who deal with similar problems
and horticulture on a daily basis, so duplicating and continuing our process would require
continued communication with those people. At this point in the design phase, it is
important to consider activities for the students above the plant types. After talking to
Rusk institute as well as independent therapists, we discovered that students with
disabilities such as those in PS 79 would gain more from group activities with generic,
hardy plants, rather that focusing on various types of sensory stimulations that can be
gained from certain plant types. Also, we urge any continuing teams to look more into
different plant vendors. As stated in the upper section, the Rusk institute use large plant
vendors, but this may not necessarily be the best solution for the greenhouse. We found
the BBC gardening website particularly useful in filtering types of plants based on
characteristics such as hardiness, light value, aesthetics, and soil pH. That site could be
used to check on plant suggestions from smaller vendors if they do not have the same
plants that we have recommended in the appendices.

-12-

Final Design Report
December 11, 2006

Documentation for Use and Maintenance of Solution
To maintain the greenhouse, some basic knowledge of gardening is needed beyond
simply watering the plants. Soil must be prepared. The indoor soils can be made from 1/3
top soil, 1/3 sand, 1/3 leaf compost. Do not use outdoors soil unless it has been
pasteurized. Also, avoid the prepackaged potting soils that can be bought. If buying
prepackaged soil is a must, then check the ingredients. Use peat moss, perlite, vermiculite,
or sand to make the soil more suitable. Peat moss gives the soil more organic content,
keeping the soil loose around the roots and also keeps the moisture in the soil. Perlite
makes the soil more porous letting the air get in and breath, keeping the soil fresh.
Vermiculite also retains moisture. Sand lets the water circulate freely.

There are also some synthetic mixes that are available now in stores. They offer
advantages such as uniformity, lightness, no weeks or organisms, easy to buy, and simple
to store. However the disadvantages are the plants become top heavy sometimes since the
soil is so light, a regular fertilizing program must be held since the soil is not natural.
These problems can be solved with a few simple solutions: weighing down the soil with
water and using an all purpose and slow releasing fertilizers.

Water is very precious to the plants. The plants use the water to absorb the nutrients. Just
enough water will create a solution with the nutrients so the plant can take up its “veins”
and store the food. Too much water will push the oxygen out of the plant. See Appendix
Fd for basic guidelines to watering.

Fertilizers are needed to supplement the nutrients that the plant needs. It contains
elements such as nitrogen that renew the soil. Fertilizers come in either organic or non-
organic states. When it is cold, inorganic fertilizers must be used because organic
fertilizers require a temperature over 60 degrees F. General organic fertilizers are animal
manures or wood ashes.

Light is the most important factor in the growing process and the one that is least likely to
be controlled. Light is the source for growth. It provides energy for the photosynthesis
that takes place in the plant. There are three categories of plants, ones that require longer
daylight, shorter daylights, and those that are indifferent. See appendix for guidelines.

Another factor is the temperature. Like the light, plants can be grouped into three
categories: Warm, Temperate and Cool; however, almost every plant we have
recommended will thrive under the temperate conditions of the greenhouse. Warm is 80-
85, temperate is 65-70, and cool is 55-60. See Appendix Fd for temperature guidelines.

For further information on the care of the plants, see Appendix Fd. The recommended
plant arrangement in the Greenhouse can be found in Maya sketches throughout the
report and in Appendix C. Many of those details are only relevant for trees since pots can
be easily moved. Information regarding how often plants should be watered and when
they need soil replacement can be found in Appendix Fd. Activities can be found in

-13-

Final Design Report
December 11, 2006

Appendix Fa. Weeds should immediately be removed if noticed, although this is unlikely
because the plants are grown in pots. It may also be necessary to cut branches of any trees
if they grow out too far, as well as trim any hanging plants if they grow down too low.
For additional instruction on particular plants, contact a preferred Vendor such as Angel
Plants. All information pertaining to how many plants should be purchased can also be
found in Appendix D along with materials list and cost estimations based on
recommendations.

Pictures, Diagrams, Technical Drawings, etc…
All necessary pictures, diagrams, and technical drawings can be found in Appendix C.

-14-

Final Design Report
December 11, 2006

Section 4: Conclusions and Recommendations
The greenhouse must be an active and usable educational and therapeutic environment,
so we chose potted plants, which are robust in their ability to survive and the variety of
activities that they provide. One main aspect of the design is our use of pots rather than
plant beds to allow students to bring the plant of their choice to a central table to work on
activities in groups ranging from transplanting and pruning to drying leaves. That way,
the greenhouse can also foster a social environment. The main varieties of potted plants
we have recommended are Begonias, Dracaenas, Chinese Evergreens, and Norfolk Island
pines. These plants are common houseplants that have attractive, varied foliage, have
health benefits such as filtering the air, and will thrive under the care of the children and
provide rewarding gardening experiences which are therapeutic in their own right.

We will also provide a potted herb and vegetable garden as well as several varieties of
flowers for aesthetics and activities involving sensory stimulation that cater to students
with more limited abilities to physically handle plants. Appendix F contains a list of
various activities and the plants they involve ranging from drying leaves to seasonal
decorations that we recommend for the school. The flowers we have chosen are fairly
low maintenance and low cost, but still aesthetically pleasing and can provide visual and
aroma therapy. Some of the varieties are Snapdragons, Peonies, and Marigolds. We
recommend the use of Pothos and spider plants to hang in pots above the storage and
work areas for aesthetic decoration but also because they can be used in hydroponic
growth activities for students who cannot work with soil. We also recommend the use
Ficus trees in large pots placed on ground level to provide natural barriers to different
areas of the greenhouse as opposed to having expensive permanent hedges. Such trees
are easy to maintain and can be moved when necessary.

Our estimated total cost ranges from $3233.48 for a barebones solution to $7746.82 for a
dream solution.. It is derived from the interior design specifications for counter space,
and our recommendations for supplies and tools. We have assumed room for
approximately 250 total plants with a total plant cost ranging from $2650.00 to $6280.00.
The wide range in these costs is due to the large difference in price between sizes of
plants and some differences among materials costs. The estimated recommended cost is
$5346.35. Our recommended vendor is Angel Plants on long island due to their vast
supply and convenience. Their inventory can be found in Appendix Fe. Many of the
plants we have chosen do not require soil replacement or fertilizer on a regular basis, so
the costs we have provided are for the initial purchase. Replacement costs will depend on
price of each bag of soil and the annual plants that the school will need to replace, but
they must be ordered based on the needs of the school as they see throughout the year.

Due to the simple and conventional nature of our design, PS79 can easily follow our
recommendations and provide an environment that meets their needs and the needs of the
students while providing a model from which other schools attempting similar projects
can draw.

-15-

Final Design Report
December 11, 2006

Section 5: Appendices
Appendix A: Product Design Specifications

Product Title
Horticulture and interior landscaping for PS 79M greenhouse
Purpose
To provide a therapeutic, aesthetic, and educational environment with plants that can be
cultivated by the students at PS 79M.
Special Features
• Potting benches that will be wheelchair accessible.
• Activities for students with limited or no ability to use their hands.
Need for Product
• Many parents cannot afford to provide daily therapy for their children, so the
greenhouse would provide free supplementary therapy.
• Having the opportunity to work in a new environment with plants on a daily basis
will reduce stress and provide a more pleasant school environment.
• Many students rely on school to provide their only social interaction with other
students. The greenhouse will aid in developing that social environment by
allowing students to work in groups.
• Many of the students will have difficulty obtaining employment after graduation;
through group projects in the greenhouse, students will develop the ability to
work in groups, follow a specific set of instructions, and produce a final product
• All of these prevocational skills will make the students more viable job candidates.
• Some students will benefit specifically by gaining horticulture skills in the
greenhouse which may be immediately used in the gardening industry upon
graduation
Functional Performance
• The greenhouse will be the location of daily classes throughout the year, so at all
times of the year plants must be available for cultivation and other handling.
• Plant distribution must be limited to the space designated by the interior design
team and be organized in such a way as to allow all of the students present during
a given class period to be occupied. From their numbers we estimate
approximately 300 potted plants and three to five large pots for trees.
• Plants will be used frequently and possibly handled roughly, so plants must be
robust enough to withstand abuse.
• The plants chosen must provide therapy through sensory stimulation and hands-on
activity.
Safety
• No poisonous or commonly allergic plants can be present given that students will
be handling the plants daily and may attempt to ingest them.
• Plants should be labeled properly if they have dangerous thorns or needles.

-16-

Final Design Report
December 11, 2006

Quality
• We will provide plant descriptions to the safety and signage team so that they can
provide educational material and fulfill an important requirement for the
greenhouse.
• Plants must be resistant to disease to minimize maintenance difficulties for the
school.
• There must be a base population of plants that germinate easily and require
minimal maintenance to prevent deterioration of the greenhouse environment
during times when the school may not be able to provide proper maintenance.
The reasons for this situation could be insufficient funding or a learning period
when the students are still developing proper maintenance skills.
Manufacturing
• Reliable suppliers must be chosen so that the school can replenish their supply of
plants and soil as needed.
• If the school builds a relationship with a particular supplier, they may be able to
have discounts in future purchases.
• Angel Plants, Rusk Institute’s current supplier, is a possible supplier for PS 79M,
since it has experience with therapeutic plants and is based in Long Island.
Timing
• Due to the time and space requirements of the greenhouse, most of the plants
cannot start as seeds but rather as seedlings.
• The school must balance future purchases of seeds and bulbs vs. seedlings to meet
the financial needs of the school, the functional needs of the school, and the
therapeutic needs of the students.
• We will provide a calendar of seasonal plant activities which is linked with a
purchasing schedule with the appropriate types and quantity of plants to purchase.
Economic
• Fertilizer can be bought, developed from compost, or a combination of the two.
Although compost would save fertilizer cost, there will be greater initial costs for
the compost method
• Because the greenhouse is meant for long-term use, compost is recommended
because it would save money in the future and would provide an additional
activity for the students.
• High quality gloves and pots could be bought at a higher cost, but they will need a
storage place and must be replaced if lost. Disposable gloves and cheap pots
would cost much less, but they would need to be replaced yearly.
• Disposable gloves are recommended because they will not need to be stored or
cleaned. More durable pots are recommended because they will be used
constantly for planting, so they must be able to withstand several uses.
• Choosing plants that require multiple soil pH levels would necessitate the
purchase of three different types of soil by the school. That cost could be avoided
if all of the plants can grow in neutral soil.

-17-

Final Design Report
December 11, 2006

• Plants themselves should be as low cost as possible while still providing the
functional needs of the greenhouse so that the design is more accessible to others
and the students learn more practical skills involving common houseplants.
• Estimated Total Cost Range: $3233.48 - $7746.82
• Recommended Cost of Plants: $4460
Ergonomic
• The plants must serve the wide range of physical and mental abilities of the
students and provide therapeutic aesthetics and sensory stimulation.
• Some students have developed tactile skills and will be able to cultivate plants in
pots and on ground level, whereas other students are confined to wheel chairs and
may only be able to touch and smell the plants in a specific position. We must
have plants that can be grown in pots and on ground level with varying degrees of
robustness to allow students with varying degrees of physical ability to have
experience nurturing the plants.
• The greenhouse must also contain plants that serve the needs of students who
have limited or no ability to cultivate the plants such as flowers or herbs with
therapeutic aromas and textures.
• Bulbs and seeds must be purchased at the appropriate seasonal time, so students
can plant them and see them successfully grow.
• A population of plants must be available for transplanting and arranging at all
times, so merely having a supply of seeds will be inadequate.
• Since the students have allergies that change with the population of the student
body, no commonly allergic plants will be placed in the greenhouse.
• Since some students may be allergic to soil, plants must be available which can be
propagated and grown hydroponically.
• Some activities must reflect those that occur in the gardening and landscaping
industry so that when the students graduate, they can apply the skills they have
learned immediately in the work environment.
• No plants can be poisonous because students will be working with them
constantly.
Ecological
• Plants should all be able to survive at room temperature and the humidity of the
greenhouse that is decided by the ventilation team. The temperature will not vary
with seasons because the Greenhouse must always be a comfortable environment
for the students.
• In addition to survival, plants must be chosen which bloom and live through
normal lifecycles at that static temperature and humidity.
Aesthetic
• The school has requested that aesthetic plants be placed on the security fence so it
is less conspicuous. We will meet that need with varieties of Ivy which can be
found in Appendix Dc.

-18-

Final Design Report
December 11, 2006

• We will use varieties of Ficus tree in large pots on the ground to provide aesthetic
barriers between different parts of the greenhouse as partitioned by the interior
design and accessibility team
• A variety of robust hanging plants will be recommended to provide the students
with an atmosphere surrounded by plants, which can also be taken down by
faculty and used in transplanting and hydroponic activities.
• Other aesthetic plants such as highly ornamental flowers which require high
levels of maintenance and are expensive are not recommended since it violates the
primary practical and economic needs of the school. It also would make the
design inaccessible to future schools that would like to use this design as a model
for their own.
• Most of the general potted plants will have foliage that is attractive enough to
provide a strikingly different environment than that to which the students are
accustomed.
Life Cycle
• There should be a mixture of plants that grow year round and those that require
seasonal planting. That will allow for a plant population that provides a static
environment that can be maintained with low costs and another population which
changes seasonally to provide changing aesthetics and activities for the students.
• The plants must have staggered blooming/cultivation schedules to provide
seasonally varying activities for the students.
• A compost heap may be desirable to recycle plants which die seasonally. This
would decrease maintenance costs of both dead plants and newly growing plants.
• We will refrain from placing plants outside except robust ones that may grow on
the security fence due to the inconvenience associated with maintenance and the
inability of plants to survive year round in the NYC climate
Corporate Constraints
• The project timeline has a completion goal within 2007, so any plants chosen
would have to be available in large enough quantities by that time.
• Since the greenhouse must be functional by that time, it must contain some full
grown plants and not just seedlings or seeds.
• The school should choose one supplier and build a reliable relationship with them
even for convenience even if other suppliers may temporarily have better prices.
Social, Political, and Legal Considerations
o All of our designs must comply with the ADA regulations
o All of our designs must comply with public school regulations

-19-

Appendix B: Gantt Chart
Project Schedule for Greenhouse-Horticulture & Exterior and Interior Landscaping
Work Duration September October November December
Project Schedule for Greenhouse 90 hrs 61 Days
Initiating (Week 1) 2 hrs 6 days
Preliminary Project Initiation (Week 1) 2 hrs 6 days
Determine Team Roles 0.5 hrs 6 days
Determine Future Meetings 0.5 hrs 6 days
Determine Set Meeting Place 0.5 hrs 6 days
Obtain Contact Information from members 0.5 hrs 6 days
Planning/Background Information (Week 2-5) 24 hrs 17 days
Basic Project Understanding (Week 2-3) 8.5 hrs 6 days
Research Previous Greenhouses 2 hrs 6 days
Research Indoor and Outdoor Plants 2 hrs 6 days
Determine Size of Land and Greenhouse 1 hr 6 days
Design Potential Exterior Landscaping 3 hrs 6 days
Consider Previous Designs by summer Gateway group .5 hrs 6 days
Define Project in-depth (Week 3-5) 15.5 hrs 11 days
Meet with clients (teachers and students of school) 3 hrs 11 days
Narrow Down Possibilities of Types of Plants 3 hrs 11 days
Consider Types of Nutrients and Soils Required 3 hrs 11 days
Decide on Potential Exterior Landscaping 3 hrs 11 days
Collaborate with Other Groups on Interior Landscaping Design 3.5 hrs 11 days
Project Initiation (Week 4-6) 27 hrs 11 days
Define Parameters/Specifications for Interior and Exterior Landscape 4 hrs 11 days
Decide Upon Types of Plants for Interior and Exterior 4 hrs 11 days
Determine Fertilizers and Nutrients Needed 4 hrs 11 days
Determine Other Supplies Needed for Plants 4 hrs 11 days
Determine Possible Venders 5 hrs 11 days
Preliminary Cost Analysis 2 hrs 11 days
Preliminary Design for Landscaping 4 hrs 11 days
Client Presentation/Design Check (Week 6) 3 hrs 1 day
In-Depth Project Design (Week 6-9) 17 hrs 16 days
Refine Design Post-Client Presentation 5 hrs 14 days
3-D Modeling of Landscapes 4 hrs 14 days
Final Analysis of Plants 3 hrs 14 days
Final Analysis of Materials Used for Interior and Exterior Landscaping 5 hrs 14 days
Finalizing Design (Week 9-11) 14 hrs 16 days
Finalization of 3-D Models 5 hrs 5 days
Prototype Construction 5 hrs 5 days
Final Cost Report 4 hrs 5 days
Final Presentation of Design to Client 3 hrs 1 day

Final Design Report
December 11, 2006

Appendix C: Technical Specifications (Maya)

-21-

Final Design Report
December 11, 2006

-22-

Final Design Report
December 11, 2006

Appendix Da: Budget Information and List of Materials
Tools were found at http://www.hardwareworld.com/Landscaping--Garden-
cIRUC14.aspx
Plant price approximations were determined from Angel Plants, Inc. costs

ITEM ESTIMATED UNIT COST ESTIMATED TOTAL REQUIREMENT/
QUANTITY COST RECOMMENDED/
DREAM SOLUTION
Transplanter 20 $1.88 - $4.52 $37.60 - $90.40 Required
Cultivator 20 $1.88 - $4.77 $37.60 - $95.40 Required
Trowel 20 $1.93 - $4.77 $38.60 - $95.40 Recommended
Bulb Planter 20 $3.57 - $11.21 $71.40 - $224.20 Wish
Gloves 40 $2.77 (includes S, M, and L $110.80 Required
(can vary sizes) (quantity depends on how
greatly) often disposed)
Plant Food 8 (40 lb) $10 for 5 lb $80 Required
(Miracle-Gro)
Pots (Planters) 16 6’’: $1.02 $16.32 Required
12 8’’: $1.65 - $1.77 $19.80 - $21.24 (plants will most likely
8 10’’: $2.61 - $2.70 $20.88 - $21.60 arrive in pots)
4 12’’: $3.66 - $12.56 $14.64 - $50.24
Hanging Pots 8 10’’: $1.18 - $1.26 $9.44 - $10.08 Required
(Planters) 4 12’’: $2.60 - $2.71 $10.40 - $10.84 (plants will most likely
arrive in pots)
Pruners 20 $5 - $10 $100 - $200 Recommended
Watering Can 10 $4.64 - $5.03 $46.40 - $50.30 Depends on watering
method
Potting Soil 10 $4.10 (16 qt) $41.00 Required
(can vary
greatly)
Compost System1 1 $125 - $349 $125 - $349 Wish
Large Standing 5-7 $30 - $40 $150 - $280 Recommended
Plants (part of interior design)
Major Working 150 $10 - $30 $1500 - $4500 Required
Plants (depends on average sizes (students will take care for
ordered) these plants)
Other Plants 100 $10 - $15 $1000 - $1500 Recommended
(students will have
planned horticulture
activities with these
plants)
OVERALL $3233.48 - $7746.82
TOTAL RANGE
BAREBONES Plants: $2650
ESTIMATE Total: $3233.48
RECOMMEND Plants: $4460
ED Total: $5346.35
DREAM Plants: $6280
ESTIMATE Total: $7746

-23-

Final Design Report
December 11, 2006
1
Several compost systems can be found at this website:
http://www.gardeners.com/on/demandware.store/Sites-Gardeners-
Site/default/ViewSimpleSearch2-Start

-24-

Final Design Report
December 11, 2006

Appendix Db: Alphabetized List of All Plants

American Wisteria Globe amaranth Red Edged Dracaena
Baby’ breath Globe thistle Sagebrush/Wormwood
Basil Goldenrod Salvia
Bayberry Grape hyacinth Snapdragon
Bittersweet Heather Spider Plant
Blue Wild Indigo Honesty Statice
Canna Hydrangea Strawflower
Chinese Evergreen Larkspur Sumac
Chinese Lanterns Lettuce Swan river daisy
Chives Lilac Sweet Pea
Chrysanthemum Magnolia Teasel
Cockscomb Marigold Thyme
Cornflower Marjoram/Oregano Trailing lobelia
Curly Mint Night-scented stock Vine Lilac
Docks/Sorrels Pansies Violas
Dusty miller Peony Wax Begonia
Fairy fan-flower Pomegranate Weeping Fig
Ferns Pothos Yarrow
Gladiolus Queen Anne’s Lace Zinnia

-25-

Final Design Report
December 11, 2006

Appendix Dc: Plant Descriptions for Highly Recommended Plants
POTTED PLANTS

Dracaena

Genus: Dracaena, Species: marginata
(commonly known as Madagascar Dragon
Tree or Red Edged Dracaena)

Easy to grow, can be in sun or shade,
attractive foliage, true of most dracaenas,
this is just one particular species. Tolerant
to dry soil and irregular watering

Chinese Evergreen

Genus: Aglaonema (Chinese Evergreen can
be a common name)

Flowering tropical plants, about 20 species,
easy to grow, wide range of light, resistant
to disease and neglect, variety of leaf types
between species, prefer partial shade, moist
soil. Can filter the air.

Wax Begonia
Genus: Begonia, Species: semperflorens
(Commonly known as Wax Begonia)

Adaptable and forgiving plants, they
combine a neat, compact habit, attractive
flowers and foliage, and trouble-free
cultural requirements. They can yield a
long season of blooms while growing in
partial shade.

-26-

Final Design Report
December 11, 2006

Norfolk Island Pine Genus: Araucaria, Species: heterophylla
(Commonly known as Norfolk Island Pine)

Norfolk Island Pine enjoy humid
environments. With age, and lack of
humidity, the needles along the trunk will
fall off. Dead, lower branches, are a sign
that the plant has been dehydrated. The dry
needles will not come back. These plants
do best with consistency stay on a watering
schedule. Over watering results in sporadic
bright yellow needle clusters that come off
very easily, and don't come back.

HANGING PLANTS

Pothos Genus: Epipremnum Species: aureum (commonly
known as Pothos)

Very effective at removing indoor pollutants such
as formaldehyde, xylene, and benzene. Studies
show that when stimulated with music it gives of a
sweet scent similar to Chocolate and Vanilla.
Medium indoor light, grows hydroponically
(activities can be done with taking cuttings and
placing them in water for students who can’t work
with soil). Can tolerate much abuse.
Spider Plant

Genus: Chlorophytum Species: comosum
(commonly known as Spider Plant)

Effective at removing toxins, can be grown
hydroponically (same activities as Pothos), can
thrive in almost any condition.

-27-

Final Design Report
December 11, 2006

LARGE PLANTS (for separating greenhouse areas)

Weeping Fig
Genus: Ficus Species: benjamina
(Weeping Fig or Benjamin’s Fig)

Tolerance to poor growing conditions,
grows best under bright light but can
tolerate shade, only requires enough
watering to prevent drying out, warning:
drops many leaves when relocated as it
adapts to new light intensity. Effectively
removes indoor air toxins according to
NASA

VINES FOR FENCE

American Wisteria
This plant is terrific because of its beautiful
blossoms, and easy pruning. However, this
plant may be mildly aggressive and
strangle nearby trees. Dormant pruning is
the best way to maintain this plant, for it
controls the plant without sacrificing color.
The person in charge of pruning this plant
may want to ask t he plant vendor specific
directions for how to prune it.

Purple Hardenbergia

For a hardy, evergreen, twining, woody-
stemmed climber, the client may want to
purchase the purple hardenbergia. It has
dark green leathery leaves and produces a
mass of dark purple pea flowers.

-28-

Final Design Report
December 11, 2006

Carolina Yellow Jasmine

This plant is a nice, fast growing evergreen
vine with fragrant flowers that bloom
throughout late winter and early spring.
Caution! All parts of this plant are
poisonous.

-29-

Final Design Report
December 11, 2006

Appendix Dd: Notes on Other Plants
Plant recommendations were mostly based on hardiness and ease of their maintenance, so
that all of the plants would be able most likely to survive in any poor conditions or under
any potential mistreatment.

Note: general categories of plants such as docks/sorrels and grasses are not detailed here.

PLANT NAME NOTES RECOMMENDATION
LEVEL
American Wisteria Propagation: seeds, cuttings, Medium
(Wisteria frutescens) layering; seeds planted late Spring, (propagates easily, very
cuttings taken in early Summer hardy, but may take long
NOTE: can take up to 20 years to time to flower)
flower from seed
Baby’ breath Propagation: seeds, cuttings, root Medium
(Gypsophila) division before growth starts; (special water preference)
divided March to April
Basil Propagation: seeds, cuttings; Medium
(Ocimum basilicum) seeds planted March to May (special light/soil
preference, but propagates
easily)
Bayberry Propagation: seeds, cuttings; High
(Myrica) seeds planted late Spring/early (propagates easily, very
Summer, cuttings taken July/August hardy)
Bittersweet Propagation: seeds, cuttings, High
(Celastrus scandens) layering; seeds planted February, (propagates easily, very
cuttings taken in December, layering hardy)
in August
Blue Wild Indigo Propagation: seeds, division; Low
(Baptisia australis) seeds planted late Winter/early (special light/soil
Spring, divided in Spring preference)
Canna Propagation: seeds, dividing Low
(Canna) rhizomes, tubers, corms or bulbs; (special light/soil
seeds planted early Spring, divided preference)
in Spring
Chinese Evergreen Propagation: seeds, cuttings; Low
(Aglaonema) Warning: causes severe pain in the (although it is hardy and
mouth if ingested easily propagated, it can
cause oral pain)
Chinese Lanterns Propagation: seeds, cuttings; High
(Abutilon x seeds planted Spring, cuttings taken (blooms repeatedly
hybridum) early Spring throughout the year)

-30-

Final Design Report
December 11, 2006

NOTE: Physalis alkekengi is also
known as Chinese Lantern, but is
very toxic
Chives Propagation: seeds, dividing Medium
(Allium rhizomes, tubers, corms or bulbs; (special light preference)
schoenoprasum) seeds planted April to May
Chrysanthemum Propagation: dividing rootball, Medium
(Chrysanthemum) rhizomes, tubers, corms or bulbs (special light preference,
Warning: can cause severe skin skin irritation)
irritation
Cockscomb Propagation: seeds; Low
(Celosia argentea seeds planted early to mid Spring (special light/soil
var. cristata) preference, only seed
propagation)
Cornflower Propagation: seeds; Low
(Centaurea cyanus) seeds planted Spring (special light/soil
preference, only seed
propagation)
Curly Mint Propagation: seeds, dividing High
(Mentha spicata var. rootball; seeds planted Spring, (very hardy, propagates
crispa) divided anytime (preferably Spring easily, nice aroma)
or Autumn)
Dusty miller Propagation: seeds, cuttings, Medium
(Artemisia division; cuttings in late Spring, (special light preference,
ludoviciana) division in Spring or Fall but drought resistant)
Fairy fan-flower Propagation: seeds, cuttings; Low
(Scaevola aemula) long blooming period (not very hardy, rather
tender)
Globe amaranth Propagation: seeds Low
(Gomphrena (special light preference,
globosa) difficult to propagate)
Globe thistle Propagation: seeds, cuttings, root Medium
(Echinops) division; seeds planted early Spring, (propagates easily,
cuttings taken in Winter, division in drought resistant, but
Fall special soil preference)
Grape hyacinth Propagation: seeds, division; High
(Muscari seeds planted late Spring/early Fall, (although special light
armeniacum) divided in early Fall preference, propagates
easily, colorful, and
beneficial)
Heather Propagation: seeds, cuttings, Medium
(Calluna vulgaris) layering, division; cuttings taken (fragrant, propagates
late Summer/Fall, layering in Fall, easily, but special light

-31-

Final Design Report
December 11, 2006

divided in Spring preference)
Honesty Propagation: seeds; seeds planted High
(Lunaria annua) May to June (hardy, self-propagates,
Note: after first sowing, plant self- bright colored, fragrant,
sows freely but beware of allergies)
Warning: pollen may trigger
allergies
Hydrangea Propagation: seeds, cuttings, Low
(Hydrangea layering (special light/soil
macrophylla) preference
Larkspur Propagation: dividing rootball, Low
(Delphinium elatum) cuttings, air layering (poisonous if ingested)
Warning: All parts of plant are
poisonous if ingested
Lettuce Propagation: seeds High
(Lactuca sativa) (can be eaten)
Lilac Propagation: cuttings High
(Buddleja davidii) (beautiful and also
fragrant)
Magnolia Propagation: cuttings Low
(Magnolia Warning: poisonous if ingested, (poison and skin irritation)
grandiflora) skin irritation
Marigold Propagation: seed High
(Calendula Note: self-sows (hardy, self-sows)
officinalis)
Marjoram Propagation: seeds Medium
(Origanum vulgare) (easy to care for, drought
resistant)
Night-scented stock Propagation: seed Medium
(Matthiola (hardy, fragrant)
longipetala)
Pansies Propagation: cuttings, seed Low
(Viola x (special soil/water
wittrockiana) preference)
Peony Propagation: dividing rootball Low
(Paeonia lactiflora) (special soil preference)
Pomegranate Propagation: seed, cuttings, High
(Punica granatum) layering (Drought-resistant, edible)
Queen Anne’s Lace Propagation: seed Low
(Daucus carota) Warning: poisonous if ingested, (potentially toxic)
skin irritation
Sagebrush Propagation: seed High
(Artemisia Warning: trigger pollen allergies (drought-resistant)

-32-

Final Design Report
December 11, 2006

campestris subsp.
Caudate)
Salvia Propagation: cuttings Medium
(Salvia elegans) Warning: N/A (soil preference, fragrant)
Snapdragon Propagation: Seeds High
(Antirrhinum majus) (very hardy, colorful)
Statice Propagation: seeds; seeds planted High
(Limonium March to April (Easy to grow, hardy,
platyphyllum) attractive oval leaves that
can be dried)
Strawflower Propagation: cuttings; Medium
(Helichrysum cuttings taken from March to May (sasy to grow, silver
petiolare) foliage, but somewhat
tender and special light
preference)
Sumach Propagation: seedlings or fully Low
(Rhus typhina) grown trees (special light preference,
difficult to maintain,
mostly grown outdoors)
Swan river daisy Propagation: seeds; Medium
(Brachyscome seeds planted March to April (hardy, colorful, but
iberidifolia) special light preference
and difficult to propagate)
Sweet Pea Propagation: seeds; Low
(Lathyrus odoratus) seeds planted September to May (hardy, easy to grow, but
Warning: can produce a strong aroma may provoke
perfume aroma, peas are poisonous allergic reactions, and
if ingested toxic)
Teasel Propagation: seeds; Medium
(Dipsacus fullonum) seeds planted April to May (hardy, easy to grow,
visually interesting, but
require a year before
flowering, biennials)
Thyme Propagation: cuttings; Medium
(Thymus) cuttings taken May-June (woody aromatic perennial
and hardy, but special
light preference)
Trailing lobelia Propagation: seeds; High
(Lobelia) seeds planted March to April (hardy, very colorful)
Warning: pollen may trigger
allergies
Vine Lilac Propagation: seeds, cuttings; Low
(Hardenbergia) cuttings taken August to October (special water/light

-33-

Final Design Report
December 11, 2006

preference)
Viola Propagation: cuttings; High
(Viola) cuttings only July-August (interesting black petals,
hardy, easy to grow)
Yarrow Propagation: seeds (common), High
(Achillea seedlings (Hardy, Perenial flower,
millefolium) easy to grow, does not
spread uncontrollably,
attractive foliage)
Zinnia Propagation: seeds (common), Medium
(Zinnia) seedlings (colorful flower, grows in
any soil, but somewhat
fragile and special light
preference)

-34-

Final Design Report
December 11, 2006

Appendix E: Photographs Illustrating the Team Experience

-35-

Landscaping and Horticulture for Lauren Schwartz’s Memorial Greenhouse

Landscaping and Horticulture for Lauren Schwartz’s Memorial Greenhouse

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à Landscaping and Horticulture for Lauren Schwartz’s Memorial Greenhouse

Similaire à Landscaping and Horticulture for Lauren Schwartz’s Memorial Greenhouse (20)

Plus de ElisaMendelsohn

Plus de ElisaMendelsohn (20)

Dernier

Dernier (9)

Landscaping and Horticulture for Lauren Schwartz’s Memorial Greenhouse