Aquifers not Aquitards

From the recent post on watershed boundaries, a reader mentioned the concept of underground aquifers and their relation to geographical boundaries and .  My title is in jest (sort of) referring to 'Aquitards' which according to Wikipedia is "a zone within the earth that restricts the flow of groundwater from one aquifer to another", but I thought an apt metaphor for our overuse and depletion of these amazing resources.  So in a crude analysis, the map of US aquifers is pretty amazing (here's a comparison of 'watersheds' and 'aquifers' in two maps with some context of states and cities (images from National Atlas mapping tool)

aquifers

watersheds

While many aquifers develop in tandem with surface waterways, others are disconnected from these sources giving them different patterns.  Ancient sources are often tapped, with draw-down causing these to be depleted much faster than they are recharged.  One of the most familiar, the 10 million+ year old Ogallala Aquifer (synonymous with 'High Plains Aquifer') that supplies water to the agricultural bread-basket of the world - centered in Nebraska and spreading from the southern tip of South Dakota into the northern panhandle of Texas.  

:: image via Wikipedia

I hadn't considered the number of aquifers and their distribution (another great tool is an online mapping application from National Atlas, found here), but it's interesting to see the difference between more broadly based, central aquifers (not specifically linked to a river) like the Ogallala, or in Oregon the Pacific Northwest Basaltic rock aquifers (unlike the Columbia River based systems to the north.  These more agriculturally oriented aquifers can be compared to small scale aquifers like the Biscayne which supplies drinking water to much of Central Florida.

:: image via USGS

The interactive mapper allows you to zoom in on state & county boundaries, as well as locations of significant cities, to see the relationship of urban agglomeration to aquifers, for instance a closer look at the area centered on Chicago (mapped from the National Atlas).

The cause and effect of cities and aquifers is probably more significant in the impacts of urbanization on water supplies (both through depletion and pollution) and the delicate interaction between surface and subsurface conditions.

:: image via Wikipedia

While subsurface conditions do exist separate from visible surface conditions, there are impacts as many rivers as charged with these underground sources, and depletion (and diversion) has caused some rivers to no longer reach the oceans - such as the Rio Grande and the Colorado (anyone guess the reasons) or the filling of traditionally large reservoirs like Lake Mead and Powell - creating significant water scarcity issues in certain metropolitan regions.  Another great lens to look at cities, so more on this to come... seems the hydrological cycle is tied to everything we do.

:: image via EDRO

Natural Boundary / Political Boundary

I'm really glad that Strange Maps featured the interesting (albeit never realized) notion of John Wesley Powell's watershed-based approach to defining political boundaries in his 1890 'Map of the Arid Region of the United States'.  The concept reframes the Jeffersonian national grid, using drainage districts as "the essential units of government, either as states or as watershed commonwealths".

:: image via Strange Maps

Some further information: "Powell was convinced that only a small fraction of the American West was suitable for agriculture (3). His Report proposed irrigation systems fed by a multitude of small dams (instead of the few huge ones in operation today) and state borders based on watershed areas. The bulk of the arid regions should be reserved for conservation and low-intensity grazing. But other interests were at work; the railway companies lobbied for large-scale settlement and agricultural development."

:: image via Strange Maps

Just imagine the differing political geography of a West that is defined through natural boundaries of topography and hydrology, and what implications  While Powell's emphasis was on agriculture, imagine the different ways this would have allowed for looking at urbanization in the relatively dryland west that would have resulted through looking at availability of water.  Would Los Angeles and Phoenix be the same as they are today?

:: image via MIT

The concept obviously was a radically different approach to the orthagonally based, Jeffersonian approach in the late 18th Century, now continued to be managed by the Bureau of Land Management through the Public Land Survey System (a good resource of info as well from from National Atlas).

:: image via National Atlas

Some pertinent history, from the site:  "Originally proposed by Thomas Jefferson, the PLSS began shortly after the Revolutionary War, when the Federal government became responsible for large areas west of the thirteen original colonies. The government wished both to distribute land to Revolutionary War soldiers in reward for their service, as well as to sell land as a way of raising money for the nation. Before this could happen, the land needed to be surveyed.  The Land Ordinance of 1785 which provided for the systematic survey and monumentation of public domain lands, and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787which established a rectangular survey system designed to facilitate the transfer of Federal lands to private citizens, were the beginning of the PLSS."

The remnant of this being the rather 'straight-edge' development of political boundaries for delineating terrain that we live with today - the only diversions being for river edges that divide states, mostly expressed in the Montana/Idaho and somewhat less in the Washington/Oregon borders.

:: image via National Atlas

Drilling down into some of the smaller scale patterns, it's easy to see the disconnect between the political 'grid' and the underlying hydrology at work.  A map of Kent County Michigan (although not of the west) illustrates this point, with the clash of political delineation over the organic, dendritic patterning of hydrology on the landscape.

:: image via Wikipedia

Which maybe reads a bit different in a drier region, such as that of agricultural Kansas (where the use of fixed pivot irrigation is evident).

:: image via Wikiipedia

My favorite example of course, growing up in North Dakota where one is intimately connected to the Jeffersonian grid, is the use of the 6x6 mile township system dividing land into an individual square mile pattern to develop a road system that literally etches gravel pathways throughout every corner of the state (allowing a significant amount of public access to territory via ca, ostensibly for access to farmland).  It's virtually possible to zig-zag your way from one end of the state to another.  It's also interesting to note, even with a seemingly barren flat landscape, the subtle patterns of water (creeks and potholes) on the land (more on this later as I sat staring at Google Earth closeups for about an hour, mesmerized).

:: image via Google Maps

The grid of course, cannot stay pure (even in the topographically flat areas), and it's funny after miles of arrow straight country roads to encounter the grid shift (scene of many a lonely automotive faux pas on a snowy day).  These shifts, beyond the topographic, offer a more telling idea of the difficulties of a grid as a pure form on the larger landscape.

:: image via Google Maps

This idea, in a different scale, was inspirational for the conceptualizing of 'Neighborsheds' or neighborhood-based watersheds - that was the topic of my ASLA National Conference talk in 2006.  More on this soon, once I dig out the materials - something I've wanted to revisit.  Thanks to John Wesley Powell, although unsuccessful, in planting a seed of bioregional planning and boundary making, well before it was popular.

Upcoming Lecture on Detroit

Detroit: the 21st Century Challenge - a test of equity, vitality, and sustainability

THURSDAY DECEMBER 9TH, 5:30 TO 7 P.M.

Please join us for a moderated discussion with Dr. Ellen Bassett of the Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning and a panel of speakers including Dr. Robin Boyle of Wayne State University in Detroit; Ms. Linda Thomas of the Detroit community development corporation U-SNAP-BAC; and Ms Michelle Rudd, a partner at Stoel Rives and member of the City of Portland’s Planning and Sustainability Commission.

Location:  University Place Hotel | Columbia Falls Ballroom, 310 SW Lincoln Street | Portland, OR
RSVP by November 29th to Megan Tiede at tiede@pdx.edu or 503-725-4044

Environmental Urbanism Panel Discussion

As an addenda to the previous post, on Chris Reed's lecture, a round-about summary of the panel discussion that followed.

Panel Discussion - Environmental Urbanism: 

Ecological Design for Healthy Cities

The panel was moderated by Peter Steinbrueck, with Reed joined by additional panelists including Randy Hester (who lectured the previous evening on Design for Ecological Democracy) and Frumkin (newly installed as Dean of the UW School of Public Health).  Definitely a diverse group which ranged into ecological democracy and public health, paired with Reed's landscape urbanist approach - which offered a potentially interesting exchange of ideas, the result was less than satisfying.  A summary of some of the highlights.

The Potential for Public Health (HF)

Dr. Frumkin has written quite a bit recently about Biophilia and it's usage in a wider arena of public health, and started the discussion with a summary.  The evolutions from Environmental health (dealing with Toxicity), Urban health (focused on the urban poor), and Health Promotion (typically behavioral changes) could be married to create a new approach to urban environmental health.

The key concepts necessary for this were response to equity, considering differing health disparities, and the development of a viable body of evidence-based design strategies (proven through scientific methods) that achieved the dual public health goals of efficacy and safety.  He mentioned that design, although backed with some new environmental science, is not evidence-based, and this would make it difficult to convince public health officials of its worth, due to lack of scientific data.  While Frumkin's ideas of expanding the realm of biophilic design and evidence-based concepts to cities was interesting, a quick reading of some of his reading work shows that a mere translation of site-scale biophilic concepts to public scale is difficult.  The other issue is that there is a definite problem with balancing the cultural aspects of design with the scientific models - to avoid a overtly deterministic reading and application of ideas.

Design for Ecological Democracy (RH)

Not having a chance to hear Hester's talk from the previous evening (and only having skimmed his new book) it's difficult to capture the essence of his idea, but as he mentioned - it involves design that supports values, specifically democracy, equity, access to nature.  As he mentioned, in this context, place matters, and he outlined 3 approaches:

1. The Uniqueness of Place matters to our health (there are different flavors of democracy, much like there are different systems of ecology.

2. Awareness of Personal Ecology: Design and form matters

3. Applying Democracy and Ecology - both can be informed by key principles but are influenced by external forces (for instance free-markets) which augment their level of success.

Our typical mode of operation currently, in an age of consumerism, is that we get democracy, but rarely give back to it - and similar factors are at work in our relationship with ecology.  Take but no give.

Natural Processes & Community (RH)

Requires understanding through experience, ecology of knowledge which leads to stewardship. access to wild nature, but innately this has little evidence (other than anecdotal study - nature=good).  Connecting this back to design, Hester mentions that access to constructed nature, we want to experience nature, but also appreciate the mentorship of the designers intervention - teaching through design.  In this way, we can connect something simple, like a species of bird, to a much larger process of ecological function.

Interaction with Ecology (CR)

Reed mentions that one aspect is that it isn't a duality of nature/city that we need to provide access to, but to provide the same range of interactions to those inside the City... He defines three concepts 1) Wilderness preserve - outside; 2) Central Park - cloistered; 3) interactive ecology - inside and incorporated into the fabric of the urban area.

Landscape Urbanism Theories (CR)

The question posed was how did these connect to public health, but Reed strongly cautioned against a focus on evidence - arguing for the cultural aspects of design that can't be quantified.  In his terms, the concept of health is closely tied to ecological principles of the work - such as survivability and resilience - things found in healthy ecosystem.  Most interactions with nature are anecdotal, and the research should fit within design strategies of diversity and choice for users.

The project work, particularly small scale solutions, involve the testing of theories in metropolitan environments, trying out ideas, innovations, materials, and venues - and experimenting with small-scale ecologies.

The project work, particularly small scale solutions, involve the testing of theories in metropolitan environments, trying out ideas, innovations, materials, and venues - and experimenting with small-scale ecologies.  He mentions the role of the designer changing to accomodate monitoring over time, with landscape architects taking over more roles and responsibilities.

He also mentioned the upcoming ideas of Corner's work on the Seattle Waterfront, an opportunity to apply some landscape urbanism principles (but something developed in context).  The major opportunity is to rethink large scale systems, and redirect existing resources (waste heat, stormwater) in looped systems available in urban agglomerations.  In short, it becomes a wholly economic idea to push an ecological concept because they have value that needs to be quantified (this is where we need evidence)

Unified Field Theory of Public Health, Ecology, and Landscape Urbanism (all)


Frumkin:  Sustainability is a model - 3 legged stool and ability to specify outcomes to acheive prosperity, equity, and social goals.

Hester: The Intention of the System - develop a shared language; there are three different languages that exist: 1) those that are different, 2) those that are words for the same thing (different disciplinary languages - potential for obfuscation), and 3) those that are purposely convoluted (making something simple sound very complex - which leads to it being the next hot thing.

Reed:  Defending language, there are many ways to use it which are all appropriate (public, private, academic) - these different modes have the same principles.  We talk in public in pragmatics (design informed by professional perspectives, using disciplinary language, a different language for structuring projects and frameworks for projects,  They are in competition, but able to co-exist.  Rather than focus on language, Reed sums up the point (in what I think is the best quote of the day):

"The goal should be to use social/ecological dynamics that are flexible for futures we can't imagine."

Planning for these Spaces (CR)

There is the need to determine what we know, and what we can't know - thus the need for open-ended projects.  Some models of determination include preparedness planning - looking 30 to 40 years into the future to plan for spaces.  This will involve working at a wide range of scales - with a range of resources, for the entire lifecyle

Ephemera

• Need to plan for aging populations - loss of ability to drive and less mobility (HF)
• Look at co-benefits of designing for the old, the young, the disabled - all with specific by interrelated needs for space (RH)
• The approach to research/evidence based design requires new ways of working together, identifying which types of issues to accomodate (HF)
• Define the outputs for a range of systems, redirected within the city (CR)

Summary

Honestly, what could have been a really engaging dialogue of disparate (but related ideas) was somewhat handicapped by poor choices of questions from the moderator and audience led to a mishmash of  concepts - rather than a response and relation to the topics offered by Reed (which I guess I was predisposed to want)... the divergence from the original presentation was problematic, and the trying to tackle public health, ecological democracy, and landscape urbanism under a wide banner of 'Environmental Urbanism' left me feeling like in trying to do it all, nothing was accomplished.

While Frumkin had ample time to offer thoughts on public health implications, the focus on evidence based design was not fully discussed, and was divergent from concepts of ecological democracy (at least in this context.  Perhaps an all day exploration would yield results, but a short panel discussion was not enough to even ask, much less discuss, many of the relevant questions.

Ecology.Agency.Urbanism

I warn the reader that my take on the recent NOWurbanism lecture featuring Chris Reed, Randy Hester and Howard Frumkin may be skewed by a really bad cold and the influence of massive doses of cold medicine, along with spilling an entire water bottle inside my bag that literally muddied my notes into a semi-decipherable pulpy mess.  As all histories are individual, this will be my reading of the nights events (and I fear I will not do them justice).  But then again, perhaps this is the perfect storm of dissociation in which to warp and skew the voices into a coherent narrative.

I was really excited to hear from Reed, Principal at Boston-based Stoss Landscape Urbanism and adjunct associate professor of landscape architecture at Harvard GSD.  As recipient of the 2010 Topos International  Landscape Award, "...in recognition of the “theoretical and practical impulses the firm provides to the advancement of landscape architecture and urbanism as dynamic and open-ended systems.”  As a practitioner who embraces the project-oriented aspects of landscape urbanism, I think Reed is unique in straddling the line between theory and praxis - and approach that is often attempted, but rarely done in a legible way.  I was keenly focused on finding out the methods for achieving this balance.

Ecology.Agency.Urbanism

The bulk of Thursday's time was given to Reed's lecture entitled 'Ecology Agency Urbanism' in which he frames landscape and ecology in a context beyond the current concepts of 'sustainability' and 'LEED', arguing for the 'agency of ecology' that is not used as a palliative but as an instigator.  In our search for a positive performative approach, we often rely on the crutches of simple definitions or rating systems, which move towards luke-warm, incremental changes, but not paradigm shifts.

Some History

Reed first frames some of the historical elements of ecology as it relates to planning and design, mentioning Ian McHarg's ecological assessments (inventory, mapping, overlay) and giving value systems to data to use for design and planning-based decision-making.  While acknowledged as important in elevating the discussion, there is also the flip side of criticism's of this objectivty and quantification of processes, alluding to the lack of a cultural lens in which to perform interventions with this information.  The most interesting idea, according to Reed, from McHargian theory was that of 'propinquity', an innate acknowledgement of the proximity, but also the kinship of the environment and it's actors - aligning the needs of the people with that of the surrounding ecological landscape.

:: image via Gardenvisit

He follows this with the next phase of landscape ecology, best expressed in the work of Richard TT. Forman which "catalyze the emergence of urban-region ecology and planning", using the concepts of matrices, interconnections, and networks to express exchange of materials.  The major contribution of this is the visual, using mapping to acknowledge not a static ecological system, but to facilitate flows that observe an active and dynamic nature.   On a practical front, Reed mentions the work of Richard Haag and George Hargreaves as innovative early examples of built projects using these environmental dynamics as generators of form under the mantle of landscape architecture.  The realizations contributed to a conceptual shift of ecology from the static (equilibrium theory) to one that included fluctuations in response to disturbance and change.

:: Louisville Waterfront Park (Hargreaves) - image via Hargreaves Associates

The final phase came in some of the early large scale landscape competitions, such as Downsview Park in 1999, which featured time as part of the design brief.  All of the entires worked time into the solutions, which laid some foundations of modern landscape urbanism theories of indeterminancy.  Not the finalist, but of interest was the proposal from James Corner and Stan Allen, "Emergent Ecologies, which is described on the Downsview site: "The framework consists of an overlay of two complimentary organizational systems: circuit ecologies and throughflow ecologies. These systems seed the site with potential. Others will fill it in over time. We do not predict or determine outcomes; we simply guide or steer flows of matter and information."


Four Tendencies
The next section discussed the 'Four Tendencies' that have emerged into a set of typologies of ecological systems, summarized by Reed here (and hopefully captured in some sense of legibility):

1. Structured Ecologies:  Active habits of plant growth, water movement, habitat use - manipulated over time in response to change, factoring in resiliency and incorporating landscape as a dynamic field.


2. Analog Ecologies: Use ecological elements to achieve non-biological products, epitomized in the work of Ned Kahn and Chuck Hoberman.


3. Hybrid Ecologies:  Responsive design systems that tap into large scale system dynamics, including human and non-human interaction in space.


4. Curated Ecologies:  Structured interactions with dynamics over time, not under specific control, but poked and prodded - designers role shifts as project demands.

The work evolved from the Harvard GSD, particularly the work of Nina-Marie Lister, for a May 2010 event 'Critical Ecologies' which synthesized the historical and current practices of biology, horticulture, and anthropology as antecedents to design.  (need to find out more on what happened here, as it sounds like a great event with some amazing speakers.

Work of StossLU

In the next part, Reed explained some of the work of Stoss, to give a physical reality to some of the ideas of open-endedness and concepts in action. To provide a framework for these approaches, these were intermixed within a number of larger ideas.

Thicken the Surface:
Using the concept of multiple uses and meanings for land, imbued with both form and performance - but not strictly in a sculptural sense.  This best expressed in Riverside Park, in New Bedford, Massachusetts, an eco-park that elaborates the performance aspects of topography, with formal sculptural qualities as a result of the underlying processes.

 

:: Riverside Park - images via stossLU

Draw on Local Practices:  
The project mentioned was the Competition for the Herinneringspark in regional West Flanders, Belgium, which used ephemeral interventions over large spaces for this historical WW II site - specifically focusing on agricultural cycles to highlight specific forms.  (sorry, couldn't track down any pics on this one)

Flexible Spaces for Social Interaction:
Using the Erie Street Plaza in Milwaukee, Wisconsin as an example, mentioning the patterning of materials (lawn and pavement) and the interplay as a randomized surface that allows for a flexibility of uses.  The other aspect of interest was the connection to the water table and the fluctuating levels of moisture and the use of steam to melt portions of the snow for year-round use.

:: Erie Street Plaza - image via Architect's Newspaper

Open Ended Design:
The garden festival in Grand-Metis, Quebec is the example for open-ended design, 'Safe Zone' was designed with simple materials in new forms, for a flexibility of uses... a play area, but not prescriptive, rather a safe and injury free surface for experimentation and adaptable play (one as Reed mentions, kids get intuitively, but adults take time to adapt to)...

:: images via playscapes
(more pics here on L+U)

Civic Scale:
A more expansive explanation included the concepts of civic scale, expanding some of the more ephemeral and small-scale interventions into significant projects in urban areas.  One example Reed noted was the Fox Riverfront in Green Bay, Wisconsin, which is built above a sheetpile walll, and required the manipulations of various surfaces to accomodate a range of spaces.  The stepped benches form seats and chaise lounges, reacting to the different heights of the subsurface conditions.

:: image via Minnesota Public Radio

The overall site also responds to the flooding conditions that come up and over the bulkhead, creating a reactivated civic space while simultaneously incorporating a functional piece of civic infrastructure.

:: image via National Design Awards

Engaging/Recalibrating Infrastructure
The representative project for this concept was the controversial (locally) competition for capping the Mt.Tabor Reservoirs in Portland.  Stoss's concept was one of the more innovative, blending a new ecology while creating a social spaces.

:: image via National Design Awards

An Integrated Project: Lower Don Lands


A larger example of a project was the competition for the Waterfront and Lower Don River area in Toronto, Canada, which Reed explained in a bit more detail.  The concept (the competition eventually won by MVVA) by Stoss offers a chance to provide an integrated approach, with a goal towards both restoration of the Lower Don River and the subsequent urbanization.  This river first, city second does resonate with the landscape urbanism principles of new form-making driven by landscape/ecological processes.

:: image via The Torontoist

The condition of the existing 90 degree bend of the river, and the need for a more modulated river/lake interface required designing a river, which had both a performative and aesthetic requirement.  This involved a couple of what Reed refers to as principles and flexible tactics:

1. Amplify the Interface: between the river ecosystem and the restored estuary
2. Hybridize the Parts: changes between armored and porous materials, restoring the marsh condition and then letting the ecological systems take over, which provides flood control while creating spaces for urban activities.
3. Modify the Harbor Wall:   establishing a vocabulary of marshes and channels, which form courtyards as catalysts with flexible programs.
4. Unique Building Typologies: Flexibility of form, and flow of landscape across spits and islands, then up the faces of the buildings - green machines.

:: image via The Torontoist

:: image via Penn Design

As Reed mentioned, this provides an example of using ecologies as generative forces (agencies), which as seen from the above examples provides a snapshot into the conceptual framework that is applied to projects at a variety of scales.  Be sure to check out the full range of project work on the Stoss website and get more information on some of these projects mentioned.

Stay tuned for a synopsis of the Panel Discussion coming in a separate post.
Thanks to all the great folks at UW, as well as Chris, Howard, Randy, and Peter for the great after lecture discussions and dialogue.

NOTE: Anyone in attendance wanting to clarify, contest, or expand any of these thoughts, feel free to comment.  Look forward to hearing more.

Parsley On the Building

A great overview on Urban Omnibus features some of the recent site specific events in the 50th Anniversary of the GSD celebrating the half century of urban design (which at least in a modern perspective evolved from Harvard and mid-twentieth century theorists).  While the author seems to incorrectly equate concepts ecological urbanism and landscape urbanism, and does reinforce some anti-density precepts that have been tacked on to landscape urbanism, the overall tone is pretty evenhanded and worth checking out.  My goal here, then, is not to rehash the recent 'wars' which have received a ton of attention, but to point out a few new conceptual tidbits worth exploration.  The first one that got me a bit riled was attributed to Duany in the following paragraph:

"It is probably best that these two urbanisms are fighting to dominate intellectual territory of urban design, for both will be necessary to promote real sustainable solutions. This was made quite clear when Duany suggested that the best use for Ecological Urbanism was biophilia: greening buildings to make them more aesthetically pleasing to the middle class."

Yes, biophilia is a powerful concept that will continue to become more integrated into landscape and architecture and urban planning, as a metaphorical and formal framework to achieve needed access to nature (both visual and physical).  The fact that this becomes Duany's 'best use' for ecological urbanism, making buildings palatable for the middle class, definitely counts as another over-simplification at best.  While the notion of the vegitectural as aesthetic 'parsley on the building' has definitely become commonplace with architects - at least in photoshopped forms (it has also been vilified, rightly so, for it's simplication as inert green garb - used as an inert architectural material, applied like any other inert material) - preferrably for architects in a aggregated 'system' that can be specified and purchased on a square foot basis.

There is an innate ecological value in the process of attaching vegetation to buildings, so to reduce it to aesthetics is belittling both that value and the value of those working in these areas of practice.  One aspect of a true ecological urbanism would be to incorporate not merely biophilic (which is valuable, but non-performative), but bioclimatic principles (incorporating ecological systems into the fabric of building systems to augment and replace mechanical systems, improve indoor air quality, increase comfort, and provide myriad other benefits beyond those of the biophilic).  It can't just be appliquéd - but rather must be integrated, using interdisciplinary approaches (not photoshop) resting on ecological principles.  The result is centered on building users, environmental concerns and reduced impacts to natural resources, and a vital connections to local context that is necessary for optimum performance.

The second quote involves the framing of NU for sustainable urban design.

"... Duany listed three reasons why the recent financial and intensifying environmental crises favor New Urbanism to offer sustainable urban design solutions. First: peak oil will make it more costly to drive, thus favoring creation of the dense, walkable neighborhoods advocated by New Urbanism. Second: the mainstay metric for ecological footprint analysis is carbon emissions, which will incentivize walking and public transit over cars as favored modes of transportation. Third: the residential, mixed-use typologies championed by New Urbanism were too complicated to be included in the mass securitization of mortgages and thus were resilient to the housing crisis."

The concepts of adaptability and indeterminacy (and I'd say, a renewed focus infrastructure) will have more benefit than those of New Urbanism in responding to peak oil, as although we can see the crisis looming, we have no way of predicting what impact it will have on cities, and the impacts of individual investigations at a site scale will be minimal.  While the 'nifty' six point plans for suburban retrofits make for good soundbites for new sustainability initiatives and plans for reducing ecological footprints, they involve a recontextualizing of the same principles, not a reformulating of an approach to urbanism.  Yes, we will fight out the new urban condition in fields of grey and brown, but will: "...restructuring and redevelopment of suburbia - so that retrofitted centers are walkable, diverse and environmentally sustainable..." actually mean anything substantive and repeatable beyond a few American enclaves... while the rest of the world decays at an alarming rate and at a vastly different scale.  Furthermore, the typologies mentioned I'd say were immune to the mortgage crisis purely due to lack of affordability, as those buying these houses are not those specifically impacted in the economic malaise. The packaging and reformulating of the ideas will provide some solutions to these crises, and incorporating walkability, diversity, and sustainability are laudable goals.  But with few viable and repeatable examples (particularly in terms of diversity) so far realized, making it's tough to see how this will be 'the' solution.

Talking 'bout My Generation
I found it doubly interesting, to put it in perspective, that the GSD Urban Design Program is 50, the principles of New Urbanism recently turned 30, and the theories Landscape Urbanism barely clocks in over 10 (a wee bit over perhaps)... give or take a few years a span of a generation between each.  Take in for a second the concepts of maturity and growth, as new concepts are born, learn, adapt, and mature - sometimes rigidly dismissing their elders, often becoming a new hybrid 'adult' formulation worthy of adoption or dismissal.  While I'd love to say my 10 year old self was correct, it would be good to note how these ideas have changed and grown (for instance, new urbanism developing a much more successful concept of sustainability long after it was 10 years old), or urban design learning from 'modernist' experimentation (success and failure), incorporating new ways of seeing cities, such as those of Jane Jacobs) and developing a level of maturity.

Much as new urbanism did not throw out the foundations of urban design but framed them in specific ways, landscape (and ecological) urbanism does not aim to disregard a history of theory and practice gleaned by many professionals over the years - but rather aims to re-evaluate these principles through new lenses.  These lens promote sprawl or focus solely on infrastructure.  They also don't preclude walkability, cities for seniors, appropriate density, or 'practical patterns of human settlements' - but rather acknowledge a  reality that is complex beyond a simplified deterministic approach.

I'd like to agree with Michael Sorkin's point in Urban Omnibus that we can merely use the lens of humanity, equity, sustainability, and beauty (all good concepts that seem aptly homogenized in reductive strategies like LEED) but perhaps we need these arguments to frame a real approach to urbanism that is both realistic and beneficial to all.  Maybe not calling it anything (although that seems hard to market) would be helpful, but I think we all still project and promote urbanisms as frameworks and use the ensuing dialogue for good, healthy, progress, not just a staking out of territory and proclaiming oneself the victor.  

The result will be closer to the goals Sorkin mentions:  

"We need a lot of new cities and a lot of better old ones. They should assume many morphologies. We are very far from done with inventing the form of the city. Neither the reflexive reproduction of historic types … nor the ‘go with the flow’ of urban capital sluts will work it out alone"

Probably neither of those are LU or NU, but both have much to offer to conversation.  

Environmental Urbanism

Excited to have a chance to head up to Seattle for tomorrow's lecture as part of the NOW Urbanism series at University of Washington.  Look for a report of the festivities in coming days.

November 18: 

Environmental Urbanism: Ecological Design for Healthy Cities

Kane Hall, Room 120 (University of Washington)

What does it mean to envision a healthy city - one that nurtures both people and the environment? Environmental Urbanism acknowledges and embraces the relationships between people and their material surroundings. This session will explicitly consider how the human processes of city making involve an ongoing negotiation with various non-human elements-- soils, water, atmosphere, and animals. By considering the intended and unintended effects of urbanization, our goal is to better understand how and to what extent we can intentionally shape future urban landscapes.

Lecture and discussion panelists include: 

Chris ReedstossLU, Boston

Chris Reed is an Adjunct Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design, and founding principal of Stoss Landscape Urbanism, a Boston-based strategic design and planning practice. Reed is a registered landscape architect with professional interests in strategic planning and urban framework design. His research interests include infrastructure and urbanism in the contemporary North American metropolis, with a recent focus on Los Angeles; the recalibration of engineering and infrastructural technologies toward an expanded and hybridized notion of a landscape-based urbanism; and a reconsideration of the meaning and agency of ecology in design practices and design thinking.

Reed’s own work has been awarded, exhibited and published nationally. He lectures internationally, and has taught at the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, the Rhode Island School of Design and Florida International University."

 

Randy Hester  Landscape Architecture, University of California, Berkeley

Professor Hester’s research focuses on the role of citizens in community design and ecological planning. He is one of the founders of the research movement to apply sociology to the design of neighborhoods, cities and landscapes. His current work is a search for a design process to support ecological democracy. Topics of special interest include Citizen Science, Stewardship, Sacred Landscapes, and Environmental Justice.

 

Howard FrumkinDean, UW School of Public Health

Howard Frumkin is Dean of the University of Washington School of Public Health. He is an internist, environmental and occupational medicine specialist, and epidemiologist. From 2005 to 2010 he served leadership roles at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, first as director of the National Center for Environmental Health and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and later as Special Assistant to the CDC Director for Climate Change and Health. Previously, he was Professor and Chair of the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health at Emory University's Rollins School of Public Health and Professor of Medicine at Emory Medical School.

His research interests include public health aspects of the built environment; air pollution; metal and PCB toxicity; climate change; health benefits of contact with nature; and environmental and occupational health policy, especially regarding minority communities and developing nations. He is the author or co-author of over 180 scientific journal articles and chapters and several books.

'A Landscape Manifesto'

Always a big fan of manifestos - the recent release of Diana Balmori & Michael Conan's 'A Landscape Manifesto' aims to be an interesting read (I have a copy en route, so stay tuned for a more expansive review).

:: image via Amazon

Some info on the book, from the Manifesto Website.

"A Landscape Manifesto' is a new book by Diana Balmori that presents her theory and practice of urban landscape design as an art that spans the divide between culture and nature, while combining the science of ecology with formal aspects of aesthetics.  This timely Manifesto - consisting of 25 points - advocates a new language for landscape, reflecting the shift in our understanding of nature and how it interacts with "the city".

A Landscape Manifesto is much more than just a book to read, enjoy and set aside –– it's intended to spark a conversation about the infinitely changeable nature of our world, and how we might effect positive transformation where we live, work, sleep and play."

The points are concise and evocative - for instance #1 is timely in the current debate surrounding LU v. NU.

"Nostalgia for the past and utopian dreams for the future prevent us from looking at our present."

– Manifesto point #1, from The Landscape Manifesto by Diana Balmori.

As an adjunct to the book, and to meet some of the above goals of an expanded converstation, Balmori has launched a companion website and call for 'Post-It Landscape' to illustrate the key points of the manifesto.  A few examples are up on the site - giving some physical context to the narrative of the manifesto points, using a simple media of staged photographic elements.

For example Yen Trinh's example of Manifesto point #18 uses a contested space, specifically an East Village Community Garden, showing evolution of a grassroots process of reclaiming space, and some of the subsequent pressures for development that have made this particular landscape an 'actor' in the political arena.

It should be interesting to see these connections, gleaned from a range of sources - as a great example of new media (building on Balmori's very cool Twitter version of space planning on the 'Making Public Places' from 2009).

Look for info more soon, including a review and my own addition to the Post-It Landscape... and thanks to Monica @ Balmori for the heads up!

Second-Rate Urbanism

Reading through some old articles, I just had to post this quote from Duany - published in the Atlantic - you know the one with the great title 'The Man Who Reinvented the City'... :)  Asked about a May report from the Brookings Institution on The State of Metropolitan America (also check out the interactive map here), the response definitely piqued the interest of many - which I imagine may make recruiting for the CNU a bit more difficult in years to come... (underlined passages by me)

"There's this generation who grew up in the suburbs, for whom the suburbs have no magic. The mall has no magic. They're the ones that have discovered the city. Problem is, they're also destroying the city. The teenagers and young people in Miami come in from the suburbs to the few town centers we have, and they come in like locusts. They make traffic congestion all night; they come in and take up the parking. They ruin the retail and they ruin the restaurants, because they have different habits then older folks. I have seen it. They're basically eating up the first-rate urbanism. They have this techno music, and the food cheapens, and they run in packs, great social packs, and they take over a place and ruin it and go somewhere else.

I've known for 10 years about this destructive monoculture that's condensed in the suburbs. These people would normally be buying real estate by now. And we designed for them. We kept saying, "Aha, these kids, between 24 and 35, will be buying real estate." Guess what? They aren't. Because they can't afford it. But they're still using the cities--they're renting and so forth. The Gen-Xers also discovered the cities; they're buying in a proper way. The Millennials are the ones we're talking about. And they love cities desperately. And they're loving them to death."

Rather than sounding like a cranky senior (you kids today with your loud techno-music?) it's interesting to criticize an entire generation, especially one that, unlike their parents generation who hollowed out many of the US cities, seems to have rediscovered the City for it's life and culture, even after being battered by childhoods in the suburbs.  Hampered by an economic situation that was none of their making, they see opportunity in cities, but have little of the money (or perhaps desire) to make things happen in a traditional sense.  That's why they are the cutting edge in art (although rarely selling), the guerrilla gardeners, the urbane musicians (often playing in the streets or in a club for free), the community designers (doing more with labor in lieu of money) and the remainder of a rag-tag, creative class (not Richard Florida's version, but the real creative class) that makes cities vibrant and interesting.

:: Burnside Skatepark

Simply, they represent the undercurrent of urban life that gives cities a flavor unlike a homogeneous and expensive quasi-suburb - which they have perhaps grown up in but fled, never to return.  Perhaps they will evolve a differing urbanism that is more youth-oriented and affordable, allowing this 'lower-class' to have some space without ruining the 'first-rate' urbanism due to their differing habits and economic strata?.

We may enjoy this Second-rate Urbanism?

More on the Urbanism Wars

GSD as Epicenter

The escalation of voices in the (let's call it debate for lack of a better term) about some of the urbanisms out there - most notably New Urbanism and Landscape Urbanism, has kicked up a notch even in the past few weeks since the initial salvos. There has been a fair amount of dialogue around this (and also a lot of posturing), which from reactions I've heard has both engaged and alienated equal numbers from both camps.  As most folks have heard, in Metropolis, Duany attacked (there's no other word for it), the alleged 'takeover' of the Harvard GSD with a nefarious Waldheim-led transformation so that "the Urban Design Program will morph entirely toward third world initiatives—all offshore—thereby leaving the field clear for Landscape/Ecological Urbanism to be the GSD’s only urban program operating in North America and Europe." and that "there will not be much of whatever remained of the urbane, urban design sensibility. Landscape/Ecological Urbanism will rule without dissension."

The response from Alex Krieger (soon after) captured a less reactionary tone of a natural progression of ideology over time (something the CNU may consider a valuable lesson).  He mentions:

"I suspect Andres’ postulating a nefarious ‘coup’ at Harvard, in which Urban Design is erased in favor of something called Ecological Urbanism, is actually a cover for a personal worry that the term Landscape Urbanism will soon supplant New Urbanism amongst the purveyors of design sloganeering. The arrival of a new oracle, timely draped with environmental virtues is unsettling. "

Not really having a lot to say about the GSD or it's influence on the profession, I think the specifics of the exchange are less interesting than the very public 'shot across the bow' as Krieger put it, leading to what I think may prove to be a significant escalation on both sides of the battle lines (as if it were a war with only two sides...).  The war continues...

Some Recent Battles

Waldheim's post on Agrarian Urbanism got some convinced that Landscape Urbanism wished for a return to the 'sprawl utopia' of Wrights Broadacre City or other utopian agro-urban visions from the twentieth century.  Taking the mantle of oppositional dynamics of cities and ag lands - even when it is obvious there is a strong desire for some balance.  As Daniel Nairn, who came up with an interestingly balanced proposal of urban agriculture worthy of investgation, on his blog Discovering Urbanism mentioned, "A quick background check on Landscape Urbanism suggests that he may seriously be hoping to revive the Broadacre City. When we thought Jane Jacobs had thoroughly shellacked the whole decentralist train of thought back in the 1960s, a few academics have apparently determined that the dictates of avant garde subversiveness actually swing them back into the direction of auto-dependency and vigorous fragmentation of land."  

:: Farmadelphia - image via Ziger/Snead

He then swings widely to a broad generalization of the opposition, which i think is the most interesting point of the arguments, as it belies the balanced approach of land (ecological, productive, useful) within the urban pattern - which can be done without the sacrifice of density and urbanization.  More production in cities will impact urban form - it's inevitable and part of a conversation - but if we're really talking about where people live and what they want, it's very clear that food (for novelty, self-sufficiency, or even for apocalyptic preparation) is something than can and will be woven into our cities.  It won't look like Garden Block, and it won't look like Broadacre City...

This alludes to another in a line of misunderstandings, perpetuated by a cherry-picking of thoughts from literature - similar to that of Michael Mehaffy's article before, amping up the notions of justifying sprawl (how the hell the landscape urbanists caused sprawl is beyond me), or a desire for automobile-centric cities (being realistic about culture and conditions is not the same as condoning them).  I wonder what the critics would say about similar exercises like Weller's Boomtown 2050 which uses a number of utopian frameworks to envision development and density of Perth, Australia (reminiscent of the equally abstract 'Metacity/Datatown' explorations of MVRDV  These are not projects to pick apart - but are, at best, inspired and relevant thought exercises that we can learn from - with no notions that these are actual solutions.

:: Datatown from MVRDV 

The ideas that we understand an urban reality and 'get real' about sprawl, ecological systems, the prevalence of cars and transportation desires, amongst and other realities - is helpful, and (rather than ignoring them for some traditional ideal) reflects the sense of landscape urbanism ideology and venturing into history for precedents seems valid for any urbanist approach.  Also the common assumption that landscape or ecological urbanism is about throwing out the baby by displacing urban density and elimination of walkability, compactness, transit (good city planning, smart growth, new urbanism, whatever you want to call it) in lieu of protecting the bathwater and providing 'greenery', as demonstrated in Nairn's split shot of a natural lake scene and a downtown streetscape - is also equally misguided, as there isn't a call for suburban utopia of Broadacre or a modernist tower in the park of Le Corbusier.  An ecology of the city is not, like early 20th Century ecology, removed from humanity, but interwoven into it.  It is also not purely based, as critics would like to admit, on avant-garde artistic expression at the detriment to good urban principles.  It is rather not deterministic - relying on a fluidity and acknowledgement that we set a stage, but ultimately fail when we try to control all of the details of a city.

The point made by Waldheim, (and Daniel - it's Charles, not Peter) was not a tacit agreement with the proposed projects, nor a call to an agrarian suburbia dominated by cars.  Understanding the history of the agrarian urban tradition (my reaction to Waldheim's essay here) is vital - and discussion of historical examples is not to be equated with a blind acceptance of the merits of these proposals.  (Yes, hindsight is good, but vilification for revisiting history is something New Urbanists may want to avoid).  In fact, Waldheim seemed cautious of the proposals, not laudatory - a sort of a plea, in our rush to implement all things urban agriculture, to perhaps learn and not repeat some of history's mistakes.  As stated by Waldheim, it is an exploration, as:

"...these brief notes outline a history of urban form perceived through the spatial, ecological and infrastructural import of agricultural production. The choice of projects is based on the idea of agricultural production as a formative element of city structure, rather than as an adjunct, something to be inserted into already existing structures; thus this tentative counter-history seeks to construct a useful past from three projects organized explicitly around the role of agriculture in determining the economic, ecological and spatial order of the city."

Another post from Yuri Artibise gets into the discussions of the variety of available 'ubanisms' - mentioning the concept of 'sustainable urbanism' (also echoed in Duany's essay in the Ecological Urbanism book that is supposedly the 'first official guide of the new regime').  As mentioned: "Sustainable urbanism is an emerging discipline that combines creating multi-modal places, nurturing diverse economies and building high-performance infrastructure and buildings. It is more than a synonym for green or ecological urbanism. Rather, it looks at the triple bottom line by making sure that our urban centers are socially inclusion, economically dynamic and environmentally conscious."  

:: Sustainable Neighborhood - image via Google

This seems more like 'green' new urbanism than anything else.  And there's nothing inherently wrong with the sentiment - as an ecological lens to new urbanism has been much more integrated in recent years, which was a welcome addition.  It's the subtext that this is unique and different from other urbanisms (underlined passage to highlight this) that seems odd.  If one can reference above definition as antonymous to green or ecological urbanism, then it represents a common misunderstanding by many of green or ecological urbanism - reduced to greenery in cities with little to no regard for the actual social and economic functions of cities - which is a simplistic viewpoint that doesn't mesh with the literature.  More also to come on Duany's article in the EU book - which is pretty interesting reading...

:: Page from Ecological Urbanism - image via GSD

Is it LU v. NU?

The responses above (and the current ire/debate/flame war) I believe stems from the very specific attack (there's no other word for that either) thrown out by Waldheim previously that LU was in diametric opposition to NU - as quoted:

"Landscape Urbanism was specifically meant to provide an intellectual and practical alternative to the hegemony of the New Urbanism.” 

And as Krieger mentions in response to Duany: "Well, those are fighting words, I guess, and so a counter-offensive campaign among the New Urbanists has been ordered. ". This kind of provocation is kind of asking for some reflexive response (perhaps that was the goal?) but I think muddies the waters in terms of the debate. While it's easy to say that it is placed in opposition, I don't see Landscape Urbanism being approached in any sort of systematic way to refute or offer an alternative approach directly framed as attacks on New Urbanism.  Perhaps a more nuanced reading and criticism of NU (along with some really good questions, like why West Coast Calthorpe NU seems so different than the Neo-Traditional approaches?)

:: Calthorpe's Urban Network - image via Neo-Houston

There are too obvious fundamental differences and a philosophical gulf between the two concepts but its simplistic (and diminishes the value of LU) to frame it merely as an alternative to NU (see a recent, more broadly articulated vision from Waldheim here) - as it is looking at a vastly different context, scale, and approach.

Voices of Reason

A couple of readings from both sides of the argument give a much clearer ideological breakdown and are much less divisive - which I think is much more useful than name calling and stereotyping based on simplied notions of either NU or LU theory (both sides are guilty of reducing for the purposes of denigrating the other).  These two voices seem to offer a useful discussion of the merits.

The first, from Tim Stonor from The Power of the Network, questions the divisiveness of the debate, recognizing both positive and negative overlaps between the two and understanding the potential of these to reinforce each others.  From the post.

"The most striking aspect of the presentation was that Landscape Urbanism’s breakup of urban places into small enclaves is resonant of many projects of the New Urbanism, where relatively isolated “communities” of pretty, historically familiar houses are set within a green landscape. But, Waldheim was clear to present Landscape Urbanism as a critique of New Urbanism – as beyond New Urbanism. However, his critique focused on the aesthetic – the architectural treatment of the buildings within the pockets – rather than on the morphological – the pockets themselves. In terms of morphology and not aesthetics, the overlap between Landscape and New Urbanism outweigh the differences."

Stonor does go on to adopt the same 'grey versus green' assumption of NU critics of LU, stating that "The Landscape Urbanism projects that separate the green from the grey do not therefore do enough, if anything, to change the paradigm of “you can have either local or global but not both together” that the New Urbanism inherited from Buchanan." and goes on to use the New Urbanist 'transect' as a replicable model. "It should be to see the “grey” city, in itself, as an ecological object. To acknowledge that the grey city – as a network of streets and spaces that are simultaneously landscape corridors and conduits of human movement, community relations, commerce and ideas – is the green city. New Urbanism offers the concept of the “transect” as one means of doing so. This is a powerful start. One that Landscape Urbanism ought to be able to embrace."

:: Broadacre City - image via Discovering Urbanism

The transect is an interest metaphorical model, again worthy of discussion (and I know for a fact that many LU folks are intrigued by the ideas - at least until it becomes a mechanism for Smart Codes).  It is not, however, to be translated into a one-size-fits-all solution (unless you can find me a great monocentric model city where the categories work).  Much like economic city models that use monocentric principles (simplified versions of city dynamics), they are fine for analysis, but not necessarily for action because they don't capture the complexity of the reality of cities - because no code is that smart.  

I also wonder, somewhat, where these 'projects' are that are the basis of some of this criticism (as I've mentioned previously, this is still a very vague notion - and I would love some specifics, if only to evaluate what is being evaluated). I don't think there's agreement on what is a work of landscape urbanism (if it exists at all), so using project specific criticism seems a bit hollow.  Is it site based?  Aggregations?  Districts? or just viable at a city scale... I'm slowly amassing some ideas from readers, and it's leaving me with more questions than answers - so LU proponents and NU critics - let's look for a shared understanding that at least is a point of departure for philosophical differences we can debate.

:: Crossroads Project from LA Dallman

Another post, (and belying my ideological stance) is what I think is the most elegant and eloquent response I've heard (worth all of us reading) from Charles Birnbaum, written in The Huffington Post today.  voice of rationality to the entire proceedings.  The sentiment from the article, which is gleaned from a number of practitioners and academics can be summed up as such:

"Since the early 1980s, Waldheim noted, landscape architects have played the role of environmental advocates, concluding, "the advocate scenario reached the limit." He added, "The rise of landscape as a design medium is bigger than all of us and none of us have exclusive access." Waldheim is building a big tent in theory and now in faculty. The approach welcomes shared values, myriad and overlapping expertise and a celebratory embracing of complex social, environmental and cultural systems. He notes, "there is a decentralization to horizontality and it is very difficult to structure urbanism out of buildings. ... 

I am among those that believe that the time for landscape architecture has come and that there is sufficient evidence of increasingly greater global demand for our leadership. Our potential role has never been more central. So to Duany and those that disagree or feel threatened, go back and read Olmsted, Jr., because in addition to the principles that you have liberally borrowed for context-sensitive architecture and planning, much can be gleaned from Olmsted Jr.'s enormous comfort zone, which like the Landscape Urbanism movement, embraces a shared value, systems-based approach that is built on collaboration and open mindedness." 

:: Green Networks in Olmsted Bros planning - image via Heaviest Corner

Birnbaum reaches to Waldheim, Czerniak, Pollack, and even Martha Schwartz for some of the recent thinking on the emergence of landscape architecture, who collectively provide a range of ideas in practice and academia.   Perhaps for those not excited about Martha Schwartz as our defender, can look to folks like Mark Rios (both and architect and landscape architect) who offers a great perspective:  

"Architects are trained to design objects. They go through design school looking at form and program. Landscape architects look at voids, space, systems, based in training in ecology. They deal with bringing spaces together -- how they are transformed through ecology. It feels to me that the basic training of the professions is different and landscape architects deal with city building in holistic ways."  "New urbanism does not do that. It is a holistically fabricated place that does not look at pieces in the puzzle." He suggests, "We need to find ways to be fabric weavers -- you can't have a whole city of objects."

The 'we' in this case is all of use collectively, and divisiveness only furthers the gulf, to the deteriment of our collective impact on cities.  Only with an understanding of each side can we compare and contrast - so those with issues with New Urbanism (or parts of it) need to learn what the concepts and results are.  Those who aim to dismiss Landscape and Ecological Urbanism may do everyone a favor and do the same.  It's a simple case of knowing thy enemy. 

Getting Back to Urbanism

This is illustrated in another recent definition (from Tom Turner at Gardenvisit) for the slippery idea of what landscape urbanism (or at least the urbanism part) actually is.  From some recent discussion, he states that: "LANDSCAPE URBANISM is an approach to urban design in which the elements of cities (water, landform, vegetation, vertical structures and horizontal structures) are composed (visually, functionally and technically) with regard to human use and the landscape context."  I'd disagree, saying the reference to 'design' and composition make it landscape architecture, not urbanism.  A good case in point is the High Line - which can be understood in terms of landscape urbanism through its contextual place in the urban fabric, but in application is seen as a design using compositional principles.  See why this is so confusing?

:: High Line (landscape design or urbanism) - image via Arch Daily

Thus, I find it funny that the term 'urbanism' (at least how I interpret it) has become disconnected from the origins that makes it a powerful analytical and theoretical tool.  Urbanism, per se, is not a planning system or urban design method, and it is definitely not a landscape design strategy or architectural approach.  Rather, it is a way of reading cities in ways that yield information that is utilized towards those ends (which not being the means to those ends).  As Wikipedia simplifies it: "Broadly, urbanism is a focus on cities and urban areas, their geography, economies, politics, social characteristics, as well as the effects on, and caused by, the built environment."


One aspect I think worthy of discussing is the general premise that New Urbanism is a codified normative planning strategy, meaning 'that it is indicative of an ideal standard or model', while Landscape Urbanism, which is primarily a postive (or descriptive) planning strategy, aimed at describing 'how things are'. This is overly simplified, but really constructive when you consider that landscape urbanism is looking at a different worldview that is much closer aligned to what we mean by urbanism - not seeking out or determining outcomes that is more akin to architecture, landscape architecture, and urban design.  

:: Transect - image via Think of Thwim

I've even heard folks in the urban design realm (and landscape architects as well) starting to get their hackles up, criticizing LU by either saying it's irrelevant or that it is what we're already doing.  This misses the point, as you are fundamentally talking about a key different between design and urbanism - which seems lost on most folks.  Thus I can be an urbanist (landscape, ecological, or other...) while also being a landscape architect - not having to trade one in for the other because they are fundamentally different modes of operating in cities.

Comparing Apples to Apple Trees

The analogy that comes to mind, instead of saying these are comparing apples to oranges, is that the comparison is closer to comparing apples (NU) to apple trees (LU).  One is a discreet product, the other a complex system.  One is small and decipherable, the other larger and more complex.  One yields understandable forms, flavors, colors and textures, while the other is more varied (not containing an inherent 'taste' or 'style') but forming an armature for myriad possible differences in its fruit.   Yet they both coexist and are reliant on each other... much as the apple and apple tree are.  

:: Apple Trees on the Chantemesle Hill - (Monet 1878) - images via monetalia

I think perhaps to take the metaphor a bit further let's call a city an apple tree, and the Landscape Urbanism a larger-scale, complex, rooted, system and each individual apple is a context-based product yielding a specific result.  Cities, through urbanism, have a generalized structural focus on the 'how things are', while sites have a specific programmatic and spatial configuration determined through urban design, planning, landscape architecture, and architecture.  I believe this is why it is so difficult to pin down 'works' of landscape urbanism - because the concept doesn't operate at the scale of works, but rather at a larger scale (what that is is undetermined), one concurrent with a true definition of urbanism. 

The Future of Urbanism


Perhaps as mentioned by Mason White on Twitter, is there an opportunity to open up the debate on urbanism to a wider array, and see who is the survival of the fittest: He posits:  "this new urbanism vs landscape urbanism scuffle could use more ____ urbanisms to let a full fledged Darwinian onslaught unfold. any takers?"  The [blank] urbanism debate not withstanding (and frankly I'm enjoying a sort of cage match format) - the whole concept of urbanism as a term is quickly becoming somewhat comical (similar to the modification of terming ending with -urbia that preceded it) with either serious or seriously funny iterations - which if anything is going to render meaningless the concept of which we try to understand.  Few of these discussions are about 'urbanism' in a true sense, but rather descriptors for planning, urban design, landscape architecture and architectural solutions.  I wonder what should, and what is going to replace it, because after this we may have to abandon it's lifeless corpse, leaving it again to those who want study cities, not design them.

I do agree that, once all the huffing, puffing and chest thumping is over, there will eventually be a shaking out of a somewhat cohesive (and constantly evolving) group of approaches to urbanism.  Not one of these will be the answer to all of our problems, but perhaps we can reach a level of stasis where each is mutually reinforcing and complementary to the others to allow a range of potential readings of the city.  These 'urbanisms' will be reinforced by a range of strategies for portions of the urban areas, through planning, urban design, site design, and architecture.  Any designer/urbanist/planner/architect - lending to the flaws of a single-purpose approach that we've seen so shallow and misguided throughout history - is going to be quickly left in the dust of the more enlightened and holistic thinkers.