Oh Puckler...you've done it again

In Babelsberg we have a Puckler design that is better thought out and more refined that what we saw in Bad Muskau. The framed views, poplars and planes as 'marker' trees, pleasure garden follies, topographic variety, layered itineraries and terracing is all there-but better. One stark element that was missing from the Babelsberg design, when comparing it to those at Muskau and Branitz, was the use of a large constructed wetland meant to organize the park space. Although there was a small brook running through the park, it was off to one side and was not an organizing principle. 

The topographic variance found in Babelsberg was of particular interest to me. In Bad Muskau, for example, the only constructed topography was used to create the ridge for the gloriette. In Babelsberg, however, numerous mounds and hills created  'pockets' for pleasure gardens and mini-follies. These gardens were much more developed that those at Muskau, and seemed to require their own attention from the viewer/visitor. If I can make a metaphorical comparison, Bad Muskau's spatial arrangment was like a 2d constellation of blurry stars, with nebulous nodes occuring throughout. Each node is distinguisable from its surroundings, but don't have such a lasting or intense gravitational pull (less the Blue Garden). By comparison, Babelsberg is like a true solar system - the palace as the sun, with discrete and dynamic planets that require the visitor to stop and remain. They are clearly delineated by topographic enclosure as well as ornamentation and vegetation.