EWx2001@EXCEL

The Show?

We didn’t seem to get it or get to it. Coming only a month after Saltex at Windsor it was always going to be difficult to attract large numbers of visitors. But is that the main reason? Maybe landscape architects are such a creative lot they don’t naturally need or like to speak to the landscape industry. Maybe we are just too busy, and only speak to suppliers when we actually have to. Or is there an element of turn-off with name - external works? Of course we need to be careful in this because this was not a landscape architects show. I suspect as many non landscape architects attended as those from the profession.

Whatever the answer, and there won’t be just one it was disappointing to find that a major trade fair was set up and yet again was poorly supported. I went on the last day and in most of the areas there seemed to be more exhibitors present than visitors. The same picture was painted by exhibitors I spoke to. I was also surprised to be told that coming from Peterborough I was one of the more distant visitors.

A shame, because there were about 200 exhibitors including a lot of new stone suppliers. Most of the stands were fairly standard, but some and notably the large maquettes of the Royal Society of British Sculptors stood out. There were of course the usual crudely functional products you quickly walk past, feeling sorry for the eager eyes following you.

ENDATs organisation of the event seemed excellent. plenty of adverts, the usual individual invitations and even I hear some desperate (?)telephone invites. There was a good catalogue and the new venue in the Royal Docks was impressive.

The added attraction of having seminars available was good , but unfortunately undermined by the non commercial seminars making commercial level charges. Poor turn out to these events was hardly surprising. Again a shame because there were some interesting topics and some very high level speakers. Enough in fact for a conference on its own!

I always find it fascinating to meet the directors of companies at these events and see where they come from. Interesting cross fertilisation of ideas also emerge. For example a mycorrhiza specialist opposite a wild flower supplier stimulated an interesting debate about a new use for mycorrhiza to effectively suppress vigorous vegetation. Mycorrhiza are very good at promoting the growth of struggling seedlings. They do not however help aggressive ruderals species. It looks as if wildflowers can be given an additional boost by mycorrhiza inoculation at the expense of the ruderals. It obviously depends on the type of soil, but an interesting and useful angle for those trying to convert nutrient rich grasslands to wildflower meadows.

We should give ourselves time to take advantage of these gatherings. It will be interesting to see what ENDAT`s survey of visitors and non visitors shows: was it mistimed or are we partly responsible?

Charles Clay