Image credit: The Blue MarbleAfter posting the last post on the indiviual scale agricultural model, I came across an older post (Nov. 2009) from Landscape + Urbanism on the elements of urban agriculture. It's a very interesting post, and although a bit older, still very relevant in the discussion of the many uses of agricultural systems. Take a look.
Some recent work has catalyzed thoughts about what urban agriculture means in relation to the community scale, city scale and individual family scale. Perhaps the most interesting scale here is at the level of the family, since this indicates one of the biggest changes in perception of agriculture and food production. While the levels of community and city are, of course, crucial to a wholesale revision of agricultural processes and the integration of locally grown food, the centering of agriculture as the framework for the family garden is truly a change in individual attitude and livelihood. When we interact with community gardens or a network of urban agricultural infrastructure, we're connected to the production, however we can choose to not be immersed in it. If we think about the garden scale, we are immersed in an agricultural system, one that only survives if we put the effort forth to do so. This relies upon a family or, potentially, a group of families, but not an entire community base with a group of organizers or a board to ensure the garden does not fail. From a landscape architecture perspective, the interesting component of this concept is that the notion of the 'garden' is transformed. We've certainly seen productive gardens and organic gardens, but not yet as a widely accepted design route in the residential market. Introducing agricultural systems into the garden can create a completely different and unique experience for its users, as well as a shift in the trajectory of garden design as we progress into the 21st century. Perhaps one may criticize this concept is not part of an urban agriculture movement or should be classified in, say, suburban agriculture. Ultimately, though, I believe that all scales of 'urban agriculture' are in a symbiotic relationship, where each will function more efficiently and be more powerful if the others do well. Whether this exists in a suburban context or a more highly urban context, an increasing growth of family immersed agricultural endeavors can dramatically change the way neighbors and a community see food production. Of course, not everyone will buy into the idea of a family farm or a greenhouse or an edible, productive garden, but the more that do, the more change we will see in the framework 10, 20, 50 years down the road.
Imagine a suburban image. Imagine that suburban image where 10 or 20 percent of the homes have converted 50 or 75 percent of their green lawn to an orchard, a food forest, a series of row crops or where McMansions have retrofitted greenhouses as an extension of the home, as part of the livable footprint.
I think this shift is exciting and I think as designers it's certainly in our future to push the thinking forward and use agriculture as a mechanism for affecting change in more than just a food production paradigm.
Of course, a broader definition of landscape. One that includes a generalization of human civilization. I recently read an NYT OP-ED, located here, on what Steve Jobs meant to society beyond technology and iEverything. The author linked the notion of Jobs' appreciation for the perfected aesthetic to multiple periods in architecture, planning and design where the focus was not on beauty as much as boring and ugly execution, a disregard for innovation and a lack of productive function.The big idea is the connection between Jobs and a revived appreciation for beauty and excellence in product design and how this carried over to a societal shift in what we now see and demand around us in the landscape, our architecture and our communities. Quite an interesting read.
About a week ago I read a short essay in the New Yorker titled, "Get Out of Town; has the celebration of cities gone too far?," by Nicholas Lemann. Lemann essentially makes the argument that while cities may certainly be forever praised, the suburban or out-of-city life won't simply disappear. There are qualities of the suburban and town-scale form and living that recall the age old American dream - privacy, a lawn, a peaceful place to raise a family, a small town and close knit community. Many of us, myself included, make the argument that the American dream is irrelevant in the 21st century and instead we will find fulfillment without green lawns, acres of private space and a dominant reliance on the car. However, Lemann makes a point that many of us in younger generations don't think about when arguing for a revision of the American dream: where will we eventually want to raise a family? Many of us were born and raised in suburbs, played in ultra-wide streets and cul-de-sacs or perceive the notion of community based on our evolution in a suburban setting. We then grow fed up with the suburb and migrate to the city. However, at what point - if there is one for certain individuals - will those who left the suburbs eventually return? Cities are cool. No doubt about it. They provide unique experiences at every turn of the corner, are home to a creative class, offer proximity for the development of unpredicted friendships, relationships and coversations and are simply fun to be in.
After reading Lemann's essay I have to admit that my admiration of the city and it's idiosyncrasies hasn't faded, though I have significantly re-thought my understanding of what suburban really means. Working on developing an opinion means coming to know all angles of an issue - this certainly includes a multi-generational analysis, which is quite hard to imagine unless you read or listen to the opinions of those from different generations.
Additional reading:
Elijah Anderson, "The Cosmopolitan Canopy: Race and Civility in Everyday Life"
Richard Florida, "The Rise of the Creative Class" and "The Great Reset"
Edward Glaser, "Triumph of the City"
John D. Kasarda/Greg Lindsay, "Aerotropolis"Doug Saunders, "Arrival City"James Russel, "The Agile City"
There is an interesting article from designboom.com that reflects on the notion of natural architecture, a movement that seeks to reconnect architecture with nature. The article speaks to the work of Alessandro Rocca, who published 'Natural Architecture' in 2006. The concept behind natural architecture expands on the land art movement and ultimately seeks to merge humanity and the environment. It challenges the standard concept of architecture, to create shelter from nature and instead seeks to embrace nature in shelter. It seems to me that natural architecture is simply a synonym for landscape architecture. In fact, I would challenge this "architectural" movement and insist that as landscape architects, we strive to design within the constructs of natural systems and bring people closer to the idea of nature. Agree, disagree, agree to disagree?
Image credit: The Blue Marble