suburbs. shifting

I came across a thought provoking article about the 5 ways the suburbs are changing. While I don't agree with everything the article says, I do find it interesting in the way it begins to classify the exurban versus the suburban landscape. Often times I get myself wrapped up in the conversation of suburban and relate it to where I grew up, which in the case of the author's opinion, is actually invalid. What I should be saying is that I grew up in an exurban landscape and, thus, am actually different than a true suburbanite.

If you go ahead and read the article, what it really highlights is the role of perception in the discourse of landscape theory and project execution. Nothing new about that. But, if you read through some of the comments at the bottom, it's interesting in the way the perception of a "problem", or lack thereof, surfaces.

Designers (quite) often get stuck in the academic when it comes to big picture problem solving - hence, few radical suburban redevelopment initiatives. I think there are a few reasons why:

1) Funding and the lack of it. It's hard enough to conceptualize ways to address the issues associated with suburbia (or exurbia, if you wish to further categorize), let alone find the funding to make the better ones come to life. A solution here needs to arise from the ability to bridge the gap between science and design - how can we show people, with proof, that a radical idea can go above and beyond a comp plan and really address core issues of disconnection, population and demographic shift, property values, the 50 year picture? I'm really getting at the idea of gaining federal dollars for big picture projects that address issues larger than just infrastructure and facade redevelopment.

2) Going back to the article and the idea of problem perception. So many people living in suburbia (or exurbia) are there and are content. Even if we, as designers, who think it can be changed for the better, our biggest obstacle in affecting a change is making an impact in the minds of the individuals who make up the community. Again, it goes back to proof and being able to articulate in more than just what ifs, powerful graphic depiction of future scenarios based on speculation and the notion that our solution works because we belive in it. There's an interesting opportunity to employ a scenario planning approach that merges high level conceptualization with real empirical quantities that can both relate to and inform the other. After all, getting ideas past a planning board is hard enough, but seeing a radical project that can truly alter the way of daily life and routine is even more daunting.  

3) Holistic. While we do think big picture, I don't think we pursue projects in enough of a holistic manner. Going back to the notion of infrastructural improvements: we design something that will help to mitigate traffic or improve aging bridges and, in general, beaf up roads that no longer meet the contemporary needs. OK, great. But, really, the question we should be asking, and addressing, is multi-dimensional. What causes the need for infrastructural improvement? Sure, age is undeniable as a factor, but so is the evolution of our daily routines and addiction to be able to move quickly and easily between point A and point B. If we think more holistic, I think it can look something like this:

We can improve infrastructure while at the same time improving crucial components of existing systems or routines. Often times (myself included) we will drive to a certain destination, park, do what we came to do, then drive 2 minutes down the road, park, do what we need to do and drive away. If we improve infrastructure by adding lanes and improving the congestion of overwhelming traffic volumes, all we're really doing is saying, go ahead and continue abusing the ease of vehicular transit. Instead, we should address the fundamental issue of why we are so inclined to park, get out, drive, park, get out, drive park, ad infinitum. This aligns with the notion of town center, or at least the fundamental construct of walkability and connectivity. Strip malls in the suburban context are certainly not going anywhere, but improving their relationship to each other and their interface to parking and roadways is very real.

Then we can begin to rethink parking and rethink the natural reaction of widening roads to handle traffic volumes. What if we actually make the roads more appealing and safe to walk across? What if then in this system of connection we add a concept of pocket parks or usable public open spaces that actually can become a place for lunch, for a break (if you happen to work in one of the many strip mall stores)? What if we begin to see a success in this logic, then can we begin to connect to nearby neighborhoods with an actual trail and open space network that exceeds a simple asphalt path with a few curves? This linkage then grows and continues to be a catalyst for change further and further away from the epicenter. And since suburbia (or exurbia) is so disconnected, there exists a potential to achieve a similar scenario in a variety of epicenters.

So, if we go beyond infrastructural improvements and turn federal dollars into something that actually can change and improve the lives of people holistically, maybe we'd actually see some positive suburban change. But, holistic only works if we can blend the pragmatic with the conceptual and the abstract theories with the real, built forms.

rutgers university landscape architecture department

towards a new curriculum, image and breadth of work

material tectonics H*Comb 2011 + The Pulse 2010

a great publication

Check out World Landscape Architecture for a wondeful collection of contemporary projects by some of the top firms around the globe.

a follow up on the urban ag post

Image credit: The Blue Marble

After 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.

the urban ag paradigm [shift?]

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.

Steve Jobs and landscape beauty

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.

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?