it's only text

In the case of design, this is far from the truth. However, I just came across an article about a recent commencement address. The speaker makes the claim that none of us our special because of trophies, accolades, awards or anything of the like since, throughout our country and the world, there's someone else who has the exact same thing. I just posted about LEED and other certifications the other day, and ironically, stumbled on this article today.

The full transcript can be found here. Below is my favorite line from it:

"... I urge you to do whatever you do for no reason other than you love it and believe in its importance."



I'd say life and design are one in the same.

brownfield redesign competition

Here's an interesting and worthwhile competition to enter. The deliverables are rather minimal, timeline is decent, the site is high profile and the problem is complex and allows for wild idea generation.

http://designing-action.org/

line items on a resume, yawn.

Lately, I've been spending some time contemplating the value of LEED, CDT and other potential certifications that look nice on a resume for a landscape architect. I can't rationalize dedicating a large amount of my time reading through LEED literature or memorizing numerous pieces of information to eventually apply to some test. I want to design, I don't want to pad a resume with some titles after my name or line items in a "certifications" section of a resume.

When I've had this conversation with others in the past it's usually always the same answer. "But if you're not going to get all of these certifications, how will you ever stand out when you apply for graduate school or look for new jobs in the future?" My answer is, "because I like to think, generate ideas and string together a set of ideas to do something that lets me apply what I know in more complex ways then memorizing test material." Cue the eye roll.

But, regardless, I believe in it. And, if I see a resume of a prospective employee or intern I care more about how you applied knowledge in a unique way or pursued radical ideas. So what do I mean? I'm thinking about anything from publishing an article in a magazine, starting a blog (hello), starting a company (go big), managing a team for a competition, speaking at a conference or voicing opinion and ideas in any public forum. This is a small list, maybe a bit far reaching, but it's all about the idea of actually standing out instead of fitting in. More and more people have some bundle of letters after their name, but only few have something interesting to talk about when it comes to doing something different.

We're not doctors or lawyers. To practice we need to have that ever sought after RLA, sure. The additional items may add some characters to a resume but sure don't make a coffee conversation very interesting.

change the local, impact the global

"For example, let's say an ant in a colony stumbles upon a new food source. No dictator ant has to tell the colony to reorganize itself to harvest that source. Instead, one ant, in the course of his normal foraging stumbles upon the food. Then a neighboring ant will notice that ant's change in direction, and then a neighboring ant of that ant will notice the change, and pretty soon, as Steven Johnson puts it, 'local information can lead to global wisdom.'"

David Brooks, 'The Social Animal'



That food source can be a designed change or alteration to our landscape, whether it be the city, the suburbs or our home and garden. As I'm particularly interested in the way we will produce and perceive agriculture and food production in the future, I think the quote is quite revealing. Our focus in design and theory can move from thinking about the big picture to instead thinking about the small scale, individual paradigm shifts which, as social evolution would argue, make a sizeable contribution to the big picture.

The food source can also be landscape reuse, (re)discovering the culture of industry, suburban retrofitting, and the list can go on.

simple

We constantly hear the term, simple. Make it simple. Keep it simple. 

It makes sense, not only in design but also in many other facets of our lives. As complex beings, we need simplicity and thrive for it since it is so crucial to the way we perceive landscape, whether physical or cultural, and gain satisfaction. Simple can provide answers. However, from the standpoint of design, what does simple really mean? From the beginning of a design career, sitting in an intro studio, there is constantly a discussion of simplicity. Now, a few years later and with more experience, its fun (and necessary) to rethink simple. 

When I first started down the path of landscape architecture and looked at work of modernists especially, I was intrigued by the forms and lines. So, akin to many people who think they can create a modern piece of art because it's just a few lines or a few blocks of color, I figured I could create a simple, elegant and pure landscape. 

A line, therefore, is simple? 

_______________________

Further, a collection of these simple lines to form a composition of space is therefore simple, right?

I suppose I would have said yes to this a few years ago. I certainly say no to it now. The beauty of simplicity is in the process of the management of complexity in a physical reduction of its being but not in its existence. Simple for the sake of simple is boring, as there is no foundation of complexity. The essence of complexity remains, though masked by an elegance of simplicity. For me, this is true not only in the design process but also in the graphical representation of design ideas. The manifestation of a graphical product, similar to the manifestation of a concept to a constructed work, goes through so many revisions and so much reduction and retooling. But, it doesn't lose its appeal or its beauty, for every piece of reduction or component of change there is a gain in appeal. The final product that is seen by those who have had no ties to it or witnessed the process, makes sense and works. Generally, because it is simple.

This notion of simple isn't about the line anymore. This is about the management and clever integration of complexity to achieve purity in form, meaning and purpose. Take for instance almost any designed landscape that is considered beautiful and successful. The landscape that is built reflects a purity and an elegance that is understood by the masses, but is only achieved by the skills and vision of the few. It requires the collection of tedious tasks from working through the big idea and the intuitive forms to making it come to life. Further, it is the collection of every minor detail and every major or minor decision along the way that make the final product something special. As much as everyone may want to praise the notion of putting pen to paper and create purely by intuition, the final product is only 50 percent of that initial stroke. That's why creating simple work isn't and shouldn't be simple in process. 

This idea is analogous to the mountain landscape - the intrigue of a natural wonder and our attraction to sex. The last one may be a stretch to some, but if you think about it, it likely will ring true. When we take in the view of the natural landscape from the top of a mountain, what we see is overwhelming but so simple and pure in its appeal. We don't think about every single detail and interaction that make it work but they are there and they all need to happen. Similarly, if we think about sex in the context of a relationship, the sex is a simple and pure act but it requires the counterparts provided by the complexity involved in the relationship on the whole. The sex is the view from the top of the mountain, the final built landscape or final graphical representation of an idea. It doesn't just happen, it happens as a result of complex interactions, balances, gives/takes, etc. 

But imagine, what if when we looked at the view from the top of the mountain we were shown every single detailed process that was taking place, or when we were having sex we were reminded of every single complex or challenging part of our relationship. If you get where I'm going here, this is the idea of design versus engineering. We need both to create beautiful places, but if engineering isn't well integrated into a visionary design, then I don't believe simple can be achieved. If during the complex phases of design development we sacrifice our initial vision to standard engineering requirements then the view from the top of the mountain won't be elegant as much as it will be filled with reminders of where we couldn't push our ideas and creatively manage complexity. For instance, what if the engineering for the High Line wasn't extremely well integrated into the design but instead revealed with clunky supporting structures and mechanisms? Small suburban streets are a perfect and constant reminder of where engineering beat out design. We have so many roads that are sized 1.5 to 2 times the necessary width for the car traffic and have greatly reduced any sort of simple and beautiful form in the suburban road network, not to mention the poor placement of numerous septic tanks in front yards.

So what is the point of this? I don't believe form is inherently simple, but instead simple form is a product of complexity. It is a combination of intricate details that need to work together and be well choreographed to create an experience that is beautiful and understood by the masses. It is about finding a compromise and cohesive blend between design and engineering. The complexity will always exist, and needs to. But beautiful design can pleasantly manage it and create simple and beautiful physical form. 

If a designed space doesn't make sense to people, why will they continue to visit, to use? Maybe because they have no other options, but as designers we should never settle for this.

color/ texture/ feel

Over the past few months, I've worked on a variety of digital plan renderings. Each rendering uses the same basic principle of texture and tone application, however each is tweeked slightly to convey a different feeling and emotional connection to both the site and design language.

The first rendering is an expansive mountain garden that seeks to seamlessly integrate the designed with the surrounding natural systems, vegetation patterns and topography. The second is a competition proposal for a 9/11 memorial where the guiding principle is to achieve a quiet, reflective environment. The last rendering is a more punctual contemporary residence set into a mountain context.

Do you buy into this claim that graphic representation can successfully match the concept? Do these plans do that?

Image credit: Ed Krafcik/ Design Workshop

Image credit: Ed Krafcik

Image credit: Ed Krafcik/ Design Workshop

what came before

"We are constantly benefitting from advances that went before us and taking things that people before us developed... It's a wonderful, ecstatic feeling to create something that puts it back in the pool of human experience and knowledge." - Steve Jobs

Image property of Design Workshop, Inc.

The garden of food production.