Does RHS Chelsea Flower Show need to evolve?
Imagining a better model for the UK's flagship gardening show for communities, nature and the gardening profession
For years I and countless others have had mixed feelings about the Chelsea Flower Show, the flagship UK gardening show carrying big impact around the world online and in media.
Issues with inclusivity (explained well here by Tayshan Hayden-Smith), sustainability, cost, protecting or contributing to enhancing nature, and generally making the right kind of impact. In essence, most people I speak to don’t feel Chelsea presents the best of what gardening is all about, although lots of the best people are involved in the show - I don’t want to take away from the positives of what people do there, this post isn’t about that.
For me, it’s the impermanence of the thing, discussed at length in my recent post. My designs have natural ecosystems, community, sustainability and longterm thinking at their core, it’s simply not possible to create that in a temporary show garden, even if it’s then moved onto its final permanent place. I also don’t have a desire to compete with other designers or to make something that communities cannot enjoy longterm.
Very few people I know - designers and nurseries - need the garden shows for publicity or awareness anymore, the internet does a solid job of that.
Below is a suggestion for an alternative model of garden show, or the start of a conversation for something different. As a designer I’ve been thinking about this for years: what would the ideal garden show be to me? Can one exist?
In France there is the International Garden Festival at Domaine de Chaumont-Sur-Loire, that asks designers to create show gardens that are kept for a year, allowing visitors to explore them over the seasons. But this is still impermanent and it’s still in one place.
An alternative model for RHS Chelsea Flower Show
If I were in charge of the RHS, this is what I would do.
1) Stop Chelsea Flower Show
Start afresh with something new, it has become too expensive and too tying, preventing the RHS from change and becoming a distortion of what gardening is all about.
2) A regional show or shows in a different place each year
Like the Olympics, City of Culture and other events that bring investment into different communities, have a single show in a different place each year. The Great British Flower Show. Potentially, there could be multiple regional shows - maybe for different seasons - but I think limiting it makes sense for reducing the overall cost to the RHS, and for meaningful investment in communities (discussed below). BBC TV is well experienced and equipped for a regional model, the Antiques Road Show and Question Time move around every week! Whether it’s one or multiple shows is a question of logistics, that would need calculating. Uncoupling the show from the Chelsea borough of London, one of the wealthiest communities in the world, makes a lot of sense.
3) Make it permanent
Rather than temporary show gardens, by moving the show around the country, all of that money, skill and planting could be invested into an incredible permanent garden or outdoor space for communities to enjoy for many years to come. And of course, permanence is what nature needs to thrive. How amazing would that be, for the wonder of Chelsea to be given to communities around the UK, what a difference that would make over ten, twenty years! For people who work on the show, how much more satisfying to be able to go back and see how it has evolved. Obviously this requires thought for what happens when the show and TV crews leave, which leads to...
4) Invest and work with communities
This is to Tayshan’s point - are there existing community plans and desires that the RHS could direct all of the Chelsea investment and industry effort into? Like City of Culture and the Olympics, communities could work with their existing organisations to submit their ideas and plans for the opportunity to be selected. With some criteria from the show to make sure it also has what is needed for visitors and TV audiences.
5) Scrap the medal system as it stands
One of the most off-putting things for me as a creative is the medal system. I know too many people who’ve been left heartbroken at receiving bronze or missing out on a gold - often widely considered unfairly. I know lots of people who’ve won gold too, a moment of pure joy. But do we need it? Why are we putting people through that mental rollercoaster and hurting some people?
Personally, I do not want to be judged for my art, I want to make art and people to enjoy it, some people might not - do I need to know they don’t like it? No. Who is to judge my art except me and people who find joy in it?
I guess competition and medals make for entertainment, perhaps there could be categories such as “Most wildlife supported by a space” or “Most accessible garden”.
Or perhaps, visitors and the press simply celebrate what they love about what they see, choosing innovations and favourite plant combinations. Talk to the communities and their stories instead, that is far more compelling to me than medals.
6) Designers, landscapers and nurseries work together
What if all of the talented people who grow, build and design at the show gardens instead work together as the ultimate design team on what could be one large new garden or a number of gardens around a city or town? Imagine a deprived city centre being turned into an urban RHS Wisley or Kew for future generations. Or installing edible orchards and food forests. Or even helping start new allotments for people to grow themselves.
What a thing that would be.
Instead of individual show gardens, different areas or different gardens around a town or city could exist. Still celebrating different styles, while incorporating cohesion and collaboration. Perhaps one large garden with different areas to walk through rather than separate show gardens.
Rather than the same faces every year, perhaps the teams come from the communities, supported by expertise from other talent around the country if needed.
Obviously each event would need longer planning than a year, so perhaps locations are selected 2-3 years in advance like the Olympics.
7) Rethink cost and commercialism
Shopping is not gardening. Wealth is not accessible to all.
Do show tickets need to be so expensive? Obviously costs need to be covered, public shows are very expensive to host and sponsorship isn’t enough or reliable. And I guess a permanent garden or set of gardens will be free to access forever more in future, so it’s probably fine the show itself is charged for - but there is no denying the cost of RHS Chelsea stops many people with less money from attending.
Personally I find the commercialisation of garden shows - and all shows for that matter - with too many stands of products for sale off-putting, it detracts from the art and beauty of nature. While we need some products to grow, like compost and tools, not to mention plants, shopping for shopping’s sake is not gardening. Is there a way of keeping this in check, separating it out? I would personally like to limit the shopping element at shows, focus on the gardening, which is plants and spaces. But I understand it is likely necessary to help cover costs and I do want to spotlight sustainable commercial gardening businesses.
Which leads to, could cost be reined in? What if another criteria was set around doing amazing things on more limited budgets?
To bring some realism, I know that show gardens sound like a lot of money to people, but when it comes to patios and hard landscaping, in the real world, the cost is no different to house construction. It uses the same materials and labour, so a patio is more expensive than most people realise. Sustainable materials are often more expensive. And the kind of investment I’m talking about here will need big budgets for safe, accessible and permanent new garden areas for communities that last for decades. For example, the number of plants to fill a show garden people may not realise is more than the entire stock of a normal size garden centre - which costs a lot of money. The cost of a garden, to pay for all of the jobs involved, which is many, I’m fine with, if it’s permanent, to last for years or decades to come.
But do we need so many show gardens? Could the new regional show instead focus on a reduced number of areas in a new community garden or town centre set of gardens? E.g. 3 - 5 new “show” areas of garden, as opposed to 18 or more. There could still be scale, from allotments and sown meadows - permanent planting planned in advance can be more sustainable, cheaper and use cutting edge techniques. TV coverage could also explore home gardens of professionals in the area that year for more ideas and inspiration, track a longer build up and planting that started a year or more in advance etc.
8) Make sustainability and nature core
No more peat, no more pesticides, reduced plastic, reduced transport, reduced impact from installation, only sustainable materials etc. Involve ecologists. Make the showgarden element permanent and lasting in communities. Let’s celebrate what gardening is really capable of: making the world a better place for us and wildlife.
I believe in the RHS, I believe in the BBC. I know many great, smart and kind people in these organisations. It’s time to release them from the chains of the expense of Chelsea which leads to decisions like extending the use of peat in the show. Release them to do the good they want to do.
This is just a brain dump of an idea, I’ve no doubt other people will have better ideas, I’m probably wrong in lots of areas. But I think it is positive and healthy to question and discuss what our main garden shows should and could be. After all, the shows are run by the RHS but really, they belong and represent all of us. It is time to reflect and change the garden shows to match what is in our hearts.
This is the kind of garden show I would like to be involved in.
How refreshing to hear a gardener/designer say these things. I’ve felt similar for a long time. I love Chelsea in many ways, but it is elitist and no longer fit for purpose. I can’t afford to go and besides, I get anxious in large crowds, but it’s not because of my personal prejudices. I hate the waste involved. It makes me sick and sad. Like you, the shopping element leaves me cold. I stopped going to major agricultural shows because of this aspect. I went to a gardening show in Edinburgh a few years back and it was much more community focused, with plant sales from nurseries making up most of the shopping element.
There is so much scope to do something different that could have lasting benefits for nature and communities. I sincerely hope the RHS is thinking about change.
Thanks so much for writing this, Jack.
I think you make some very valid comments Jack. I hope the countless others who feel as you do are airing their views publicly too. Chelsea is an anachronism in the world we live in now. On the whole, it feels to me like a show by the elite for the elite. I also hate the way they draft in all the "celebrities" to present the BBC TV coverage, some of whom have little or no knowledge of gardening or plants.
I would like the money to be spent on greening up our cities with sustainable gardens, which both educate the public in how to garden sustainably and provide a green oasis in a sea of concrete. A good example is the National Trust Castlefield Viaduct garden, which has been waiting for months to be awarded a grant to extend the garden. The RHS needs to team up with the National Trust and other much smaller organisations to form a network across the country.