a protest, the landscape and what goal?

The recent growth of the 'Occupy' movement and its lack of a decisive end goal made me think about what landscape is in relation to the concept of 'Occupy.' While the 'Occupy' movement wants to last for two months and have its participants develop their own desired outcome, there won't truly be a way to say it was successful when it ends. Yes, if it lasts two months, then it has been successful for lasting a second on the pop culture clock. But, with no goals set in the beginning, how do you evaluate its success at the end in more than one dimension?

This thinking can be attributed to landscape architecture. The 21st century has been and will continue to be full of complex problems that need to be addressed through a holistic, multi-dimensional approach. I'm thinking on the larger scale here, at the community, regional or city level where we are making decisions that will impact a great number of people. My recent Fulbright proposal looked into analyzing the success of post-industrial reuse by attributing a value to a diverse collection of landscape pieces. Imagine taking your definition of landscape and individually expanding every component that you considered to be part of landscape: environmental factors, cultural perceptions and community organization, needs and desires as well as physical infrastructure, economic structure (the job market, real estate market, land values, etc.) and the notion of beauty, then attribute a way to analyze each of these elements to observe how a proposed design will perform in relation to the existing condition.

Sure, this question was aimed at the post-industrial landscape and generated to identify why creatively inserting new uses into the landscape can be more successful than tearing down and starting from scratch, but it is widely applicable to design on the whole. If we want our landscapes to last the test of time and be successful in positively impacting those who they are designed for, then shouldn't goals be set at the beginning in order to evaluate at the end? If we want to evolve the definition of landscape architecture, then we should be able to show communities, people, developers, politicians, local governments and other consituent groups that what we do has successfully made a difference in bettering an existing landscape.

Does our work need defined goals to proove that is has actually done something? I'm sure, just like the 'Occupy' movement there will be multiple opinions and those that say art has an impact with no goals, it exists to make a difference by being. I belive otherwise, if we can't prove success then how do we actually say we've made a positive difference or a working solution to a complex problem?

concepts / percepts / affects

Bernard Tschumi FAIA, with Bernard Tschumi Architects, was recently featured at UPenn for the 2011 Louis I. Kahn memorial lecture; the title of his talk was “concepts, percepts, affects.” One of Tschumi’s most recognizable projects (initially, at least for me) that put his practice on the map back in 1983 was Parc de La Villette. They have since conceptualized and implemented a range of urban design, museum, master planning, public buildings, housing, and infrastructure projects throughout the world, including the Acropolis Museum, Elliptic City, and Bridge. Tschumi has also been known to contribute to the theoretical side of design professions with such literature as Architecture and Disjunction, Event-Cities, and many others. Tschumi and the firm have established a reputation as one of today’s foremost architects and practices leading design professions throughout the past 2+ decades.

The “rough approximation” of Tschumi and the firm’s approach is very interesting in that it is spelled out and a fairly specific step-by-step process that values program, constraint, space, movement, material, and above all else concept (and a maintained integrity thereof). During the talk, Tschumi boiled it down to “concepts, percepts, affects.” He used an example of an arch to explain the ideas of each term. The first image illustrates the concept of an arch; the second begins to create a percept through materiality and dimension; the third image evokes emotional affects.

A great example that Tschumi used during the talk to provide clarity in defining “concepts, percepts, affects” was the difference between two projects which have the same concept, but different percepts and affects. He discussed the Rouen Concert Hall and Exhibition Complex and the Limoges Concert Hall and how both projects stem from the same concept, program, and double-envelop-style building. What is the major difference? Materials (percepts), which leads to a different experience (affects).

Tschumi is a starchitect and has achieved great successes in design, but I wonder what the role of starchitect design will be in the future (like the Frank Gehrys and Peter Eisenmans) in comparison to a grass-roots approach that involves community participation. Maybe it is more a question of scale, client and context that defines appropriate approaches, designers and involvement. Thoughts? I know Frank Gehry does not think of himself as a starchitect (check out the article/interview where Gehry defends this notion).

urban park as opposite of refuge

The High Line was recently featured in a National Geographic article that spoke to the notion of a paradigm shift in urban parks. No longer does an urban park need to escape the vernacular of the city and turn its back on infrastructure and urban form. As we all know, this is a shift that will continue long after the hype of the High Line has faded. With so many vacant structures, dilapidated water fronts and under utilized warehouse districts amidst numerous cities around the world, the precedent set by the High Line is one that will constantly be examined and built upon.

I think the most exciting fact about this article is that adaptive reuse is being recognized and the concept of beauty is emerging in what was once ruin. Designers will undoubtedly play a major role in re-envisioning and reconstructing the urban form for years to come - so to see the success and popularity of the High Line continue to grow is only more motivation for what more can be done.

So, in the 21st century, is central park dead?

catalysts

I recently attended the EPA's webinar about brownfields as catalysts for successful and innovative area wide planning efforts. You can learn more about the 23 pilot projects and respective communities at NALGEP and from the EPA.

The concept of adaptively reusing brownfields is something that will prove to be more and more important as we continue to understand shrinking cities and urban redevelopment. What's more interesting, and highlighted in the brownfield area wide planning pilot, is the idea of utilizing adaptive reuse or redevelopment to spawn community revitalization. This methodology seeks to look further than just site specific reuse and, instead, understand how entire neighborhood's and communities can reap the benefits of transforming a vacant, under utilized landscape.

This basic principle identifies the post-industrial landscape as multi-dimensional and able to plug into the surrounding landscape in numerous ways. It is this notion that opens the door for discussing adaptive reuse as it relates to area wide planning. Since there are so many different potential reuse scenarios for any given post-industrial site or region it is possible to think of how many different benefits these scenarios can have for the local people and landscape. Furthermore, it will be the ability to understand and build upon precedent cases of successful brownfield reuse and learn about the successful components of each project.

A disclaimer: This is only a fraction of the complexity that engulfs the post-industrial landscape. This idea spawns from a more pragmatic vantage point and does not even begin to address the theoretical constructs that reside within the realm adaptive reuse and the manipulation of cultural landscapes and infrastructural identities. However, in cities like Cleveland and Detroit, and the opposite end of the spectrum, the Brooklyn Waterfront and the current and proposed development of the Highline, it will be the reuse, redevelopment and re-integration of post-industrial sites, neighborhood's and culture into an ever changing landscape dynamic that will be an arena of innovation.

There is much to learn and there is no doubt that we will continue to look towards the vacancies of urban America as the catalysts for regrowth and transformation.

natural architecture

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?

decentralized

Is there a place for the notion of central park in a 21st century fringe? In a sprawled, disconnected landscape, the concept of nodal and multimodal infrastructure is one proposed design intervention. Spatially, this would look at structuring nodes in areas of existing infrastructure and access to potential or existing mass transit. In this scenario, the spatial configuration of open space would develop into a series of networks and decentralized parks that connect nodes together. Thus, one must ask, is a central community park part of the phased out 20th century American dream?

Moreover, is decentralization actually a viable remedy to the plague of sprawl? To support this argument I would ask the following question: if we seek to reconfigure a sprawled fringe landscape by centralizing development in a single town center, what happens to the scattered development far outside of walking distance, or even biking distance? Have we done anything to reduce the daily vehicle miles traveled per person or the frequency of car use over walking or biking? (One stipulation of this conceptual spatial pattern is scale - a study area of a 1/4 or 1/2 square mile would need to be treated far differently than a study area of 16 square miles.) Instead of concentrating all commercial, retail and services in a single town center, what if we spread them out in a series of smaller satellite centers that offered similar basic amenities? Big box stores could still be concentrated in a larger hub where people could drive from further distances to reach, but ideally could walk, bike or carpool to a smaller satellite center for every day items.

This would be a process of strategic infill that could begin to connect seemingly disconnected suburban entities to each other and eventually to larger urban centers and cities. This revised pattern of development could have significant impact on open space networks, ecological systems and transportation options. Instead of focusing on simply preserving land we would be able to focus on integrating under utilized, disconnected open space parcels into a larger system.

So, decentralization to fix disconnection?

suburbia: what next?

Architectural Record has a great interview with June Williamson from the School of Architecture at The City College of New York focusing on the challenges surrounding suburbia. She discusses the idea that suburbia as we know it has grown over the past 50 to 60 years and we can expect a similar time frame to retrofit and repair it. This shift will be increasingly difficult as more and more of the population abandons the 20th century American dream of a single family house with a yard for the comfort of denser urban living conditions.

The suburban context is far different than it was years ago, as the demographic is shifting from middle income families to lower income immigrant populations. Williamson discusses the notion that retrofitting will require responding in unique ways to the wide variety of suburban demographics. There will be no quick fix prototype and no widespread adoption of a plan that can work universally. The challenges will be site specific and the future uses as diverse as the current suburban complex.

There is also the discussion of larger regional transportation networks and systems that interact with both the urban and suburban fabric of the American landscape. Given the state of local economies nationwide it is unrealistic to think we can radically change suburbia as we know it. However, there is a real chance to begin to centralize development and create nodes that respond to and grow from existing infrastructure. Williamson also addresses the idea of land use planning as an effective tool to begin to change the way suburbia will grow in the future; pro-active planning that challenges the system that fostered sprawl and to physically affect future growth patterns.

Sure, there are many critics who claim all efforts to shift the course of our faltering suburban landscape are rooted in academia and so they will remain. Whether we want to believe it or not, the challenge of developing creative solutions for a grim fated suburbia is one that will stick with us for many years to come. It is this challenge that is exciting many designers and one that will continue to be addressed here on dimensions.