By Jim McCloskey
As someone who sat in a spa for the first time in 1970 and has relaxed in a great many of them through the years, I have to confess that I’m not a fan of most I see physically attached to swimming pools.
Yes, I love the way they feel when< style="color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, 'Bitstream Charter', serif; line-height: 1.5; font-size: 16px; margin-bottom: 24px;">I sit in them and confess to having passed many a carefree hour being pummeled within their confines, but I generally hate the way they look – like flaws in otherwise wonderful gems.
Given my druthers, I prefer designs in which spas, if they must be included at all, are tucked inside a corner of their associated pools at the waterline: This hides them about as well as can possibly be, making them less obtrusive and less significant sources of visual noise.
I confess as well that the artistry of David Tisherman once persuaded me to give pool-adjacent and even raised spas another, more positive look: I genuinely admire his spillway systems and their small flows of water (especially when he’s arranged them asymmetrically) and think they bring enduring visual value to his compositions when he uses them.
There are some other exceptions I can think of, too, but I can only wish that all watershape designers would figure out, as David and some others have, that something really needs to be done to make pool-adjacent spas – especially when they’re raised – make any visual sense at all. At the moment, I don’t get the general impression that designers put enough thought into this part of their projects.
Agree or disagree, please let me know what you think.