Siftings: 01.11.12

"“All great art is born of the metropolis.” - Ezra Pound

 :: image via NY Times


A great little snapshot on urban serendipity from the NY Times that looks at the accidental 'curation' of spaces that the urban environment yields, such as the framed view from the subway to the Brooklyn Bridge.  Perhaps the uniformity of the grid is part of the magic, as the NYT also talks about the 200th Anniversary of the Manhattan Grid, along with the exhibition at the Museum of the City.  And speaking of paving here in Portland, local group Depave got some nice coverage on OPB for their continued work on rolling back pavement in the city.  As for making money on the urban agriculture and gardens - a study in Vancouver, BC finds that it is still a challenge to make a living wage farming, even in the city.  Perhaps we can lobby for urban farm subsidies?

:: image via Museum of the City

Nate Berg at the Atlantic Cities sums up Los Angeles Times architecture critic Christopher Hawthorne's year-long project to explore his city through its literature, and some of his conclusions on where we stand.  As quoted in the Atlantic article:

"“What the books have suggested to me,” Hawthorne argues, “is that we really don’t have – and need – a new framework for understanding the city at this moment in its history as it undergoes this transition.”

A review of his most recent reading of 'Los Angeles Plaza: Sacred and Contested Space' can be found here - which is an interested exploration of the role of space, and the role of social status, on the way we interpret urban histories.  Related, and probably not big news, but people are less enamored with the suburbs, and are re-urbanizing, in this case, Philadelphia along with living in more dense types of housing. 

:: image via Philly.com

More on Occupy, with the recent flurry of Global and US occupations bringing into question the 'limits' of how public spaces are.  As mentioned in the story:

"The Occupy Wall Street movement showed there are often limits to how long one can stay in the town square of a “free” state to express one’s opinion. Various kinds of force were used to get people out of New York’s Zuccotti Park."

An interesting article from The Dirt on the $50 million!!!!! dollars of planning documents and designs for the Orange County Great Park, which has failed to yield much in terms of output.  It brings into question the time-scale on these massive endeavors, and how much needs to happen to create a 'park' in a traditional sense to satisfy some - while allowing space (and budgets) to evolve over decades.

:: image via The Dirt

Finally, a new competition from the Land Art Generator Initiative asks how renewable energy can be beautiful with a planned site at the Freshkills Park - which has a similar time-scale to the Great Park above.  And Freshkills may be an apt model for Mexico City, who is planning to close their massive landfill... And for the squeamish, a new report from the National Research Council changes the tune of reclaimed wastewater (aka toilet to tap) from a 'option of last resort' to a viable strategy that poses no more health risks than other sources.  Drink up!

Reading the Landscape: A Reference Manifesto

As mentioned previously we are fully engaged in a group reading of the Landscape Urbanism Reader, edited by Charles Waldheim, and as promised, are providing some brief synopses of what transpired in the previous weeks dialogue are regular intervals.  Our first week was a soft launch, allowing folks to introduce themselves to the group, and then to comment on the Introduction by Waldheim, "A Reference Manifesto".

BACKGROUND: THE GROUP
For starters, I wanted to give a brief overview of our group members - so you have a feel for the who and what of this diverse array of contributors.  It's exciting to see the diversity (geographical, disciplinary, age, background, gender, and more) of the group as well as to have folks relatively new to LU theory and those with some experience.  A rough breakdown of two key metrics gives a snapshot of the group dynamics and global community made possible through our digital opportunities:

Disciplines:
Landscape Architecture/Design, Architecture, Real Estate Development, Planning, Civil Engineering, Graphic Design, Marketing, Sustainability Consulting, History and includes focus from Academia (both students and professors) and from a range of firms, universities, and experiences.

Locations:  
Shanghai, China; Portland, Oregon; Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; Washington, D.C.; Nashville, Tennessee; Boston, Massachusetts;  Guelph, Ontario, Canada; Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Seoul, Korea; Charlottesville, Virginia; Austin, Texas; Somerville, Massachusetts; Los Angeles, California; Salida, California; London, UK; Manchester, UK; Rougemont, Switzerland;

WEEK ONE:  A REFERENCE MANIFESTO (Waldheim)
This is sort of a preliminary overview and snapshot of what's in the book - so it typically left the group with more questions than answers.  There was some good dialogue that referenced the distinction between those new to Landscape Urbanism and those with some background - as well as a few surprises from people that had initially read the book but were now revisiting it after some time.  The frontispiece included an image from Andrea Branzi - particularly his

The intro also includes the controversial and provocative excerpt from the text - outlining the 'discinplinary realignment' that places landscape in a more prominent position in terms of conceptualizing and production of urban space.

As a relatively open-ended intro, there were many perspectives - including some of those mentioned within the text such as global capital, de-industrialization and changes in the modes of economic production, increased importance of public infrastructure, decreased density & decentralization (surburbanization), cities as themed environments for tourism, commodification and homogeneity of form, waste & toxic landscapes, social pathologies, and prevalence of the automobile/paved surfaces, and the integration of ecological processes.

While Waldheim specifically frames these issues within the predominant themes of North American cities, many question the overall potential scope of LU - particularly in being able to address rapidly growing cities, density, and whether it is specifically oriented towards looking at suburbs instead of the city per se.  It echoes trends from a number of critics that the theory ignores specific existing conditions of growing cities and the rapidly changing nature of cities - folding into that concept the distinction of what is considered 'urban' today as densities, edge cities, and other non-central city agglomerations change our perceptions of the city.  There was also thinking about the different nature of deindustrialization between the ideas of Rust-Belt shrinking cities versus changes in the nature of production (a shift to the service economy) in cities that are still growing but changing in less physical and more social/economic ways.

Others mentioned questions related to the ideas of horizontality, the role of the car within, how is landscape defined within this context, the role of ecology, positions on capitalism, origins in postmodernism, and the role of nature (and our historical/cultural perspectives of it)...bringing in ideas from Leo Marx to William Cronon - as well as the role of Olmstedian designed pastoral scenery from the 19th Century.   Marx was brought up in terms of the concept of the triad of primitive, progressive, and pastoral views - specifically relating to the American viewpoint of its relationship with land derived from the frontier ethic and movement westward - which is a truly American phenomenon that has taken root in other locales that didn't experience the same relationship. This was mentioned as a source for some of the confusion related to LU theory - as it does focus on the progressive in that it acknowledges the technological and economic reality that influences our modern world (infrastructure, cars, decentralization).  The resulting view then is that by default, acknowledgment is akin to support.

Much attention was given to the concept of the 'horizontal field' as merely a "uni-directional urbanism" or in a broader viewpoint of a "multi-directional" schema capturing fluctuations of people, capital, communication.  Others   One reference connected this to Peter Walker's minimalist themes of flatness, seriality, and gesture - which provides a connection to postmodernism at least from the design perspectives of the 1980s. Even taking in the context of a field of operations, the horizontal field seems to be ambiguous, leading to questions of scale, how does agriculture fit in, is it relevant to the city or just the suburb, and ambivalence towards sprawl.  Others took a different reading of horizontality, seeing the references as "not to me so much a call to build cities this way but rather, an acknowledgment that they exist in this form." or that the views of horizontality are not limited to terrestrial or territorial expansion, but encompasses the surfaces at a variety of scales of rooftops and other urban spaces.  It is also important to mention that many point to the fact that Waldheim, although the originator of the term, does not speak for the movement as a whole - and others may have a more expansive viewpoint.

The idea of a new prominence for landscape architecture, a theme admired by many of the LAs in the group was also mentioned - whether as a "shot across the bow of the other design professions" or a true path to interdisciplinary methods with landscape architects as the synthesizing leaders of these teams.  Building on this idea is a broader viewpoint of landscape as a more holistic conceptual framework (not specifically applying to a discipline) that including the broad range of landscape elements, as well as the urban landscape that includes people and buildings as parts.  This distinction beyond 'greenery' to a broader view of landscape is vital - as there is a good amount of ambiguity in the word landscape that seems to stir up the already muddied theoretical waters - which definitely need to be addressed in LU as well as ecological urbanism and environmentalism in general.

Many offered ideas for ways of placing LU within larger theoretical frameworks such as New Urbanism, the work of Kevin Lynch (Image of the City), Aldo Leopold (A Sand County Almanac), Ian McHarg (Design with Nature), to a sprawling commentary (which I cannot begin to paraphrase in a meaningful way) covering foundations in philosophy from Aristotle & Plato, Copernicus & Aquinas, and Wittgenstein & Merleau-Ponty - attempting to place the concept and utility of themes in search of a Good Maxim in which to direct us. 

Many were and are intrigued by concepts within LU that attract many to the dialogue, such as process & systems thinking, catalyzation and staging, ecological thinking, focus on infrastructure, as well as interdisciplinary synthesis.  An overall theme however, which is the point of the reading and will provide some clarification, is that there are still a lot of questions and frustration about specifically what LU is proposing.  People mentioned: "...beyond simply describing urban processes as one-dimensional fields, LU theory would be better served by formulating a working framework for also analyzing the character of those phenomena." or "ways that these concepts can be applied for more useful ends that promote urban density and vibrancy rather than fetishizing their demise" or simply a desire to find "the positive side" of LU.

There was a strong desire for specific viewpoints on things like specific urban issues, a search perhaps for a working methodology of landscape urbanism. While some of these answers may be found in the text - there will also, like this chapter, result in more questions than answers... but then again, isn't that the point of urbanism?

Obviously this is a vast paraphrased oversimplification of many of the multivalent discussions at play  (even for a chapter so utterly lacking in real content) - so apologies for misrepresenting or missing any key points - so participants feel free to shoot an email or comment to clarify or expand on any of these points.

Next Steps...
We're currently wrapping up week 2, where we discussed Terra Fluxus (Corner) and Landscape as Urbanism (Waldheim) - so an update on both of these will be coming soon by members of the group.  Stay tuned for more.

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.

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.  

On Agrarian Urbanism

An opportunity for point-counterpoint on the topic of Agrarian Urbanism - one that, with the recent explosion of discussion and interest in urban agriculture - is vital to discussing the place of food in the city, and what impact this will have on the form and function of our urban agglomerations.  The topic is poignant here in Portland, as it is both a hotbed of urban agriculture, as well striving for density through urban growth boundaries (UGBs) to protect adjacent farmland.  The question becomes one of spatial configuration - as space within cities can be allocated in whatever configuration we choose - but this does have implications on the overall spread.  I'm amazed with the ability to drive 10 minutes and find working farms - (while also looking around my neighborhood and finding working produce, poultry and other small-scale productive urban gardens).  Both of these will contribute to a final spatial arrangement of the city.

:: image via OregonLive

More on this urban/rural - inside/outside dichotomy, but for now a few bits of related reading.  Charles Waldheim has a recent post on Design Observer: Places, 'Notes Toward a History of Agrarian Urbanism', which is excerpted from the recent issue of Bracket: On Farming' and takes a mentioning Wright's Broadacre City, Ludwig Hilberseimers 'New Regional Pattern' and Branzi's Agronica  (a great article, once you translate from Italian here) which is great as a social critique, if not in its formal design qualities.  Looking backwards to see the future, the idea is to think about these not in terms of individual interventions, but with an eye on holistic urbanism.  From the article.

"To date the enthusiasm for slow and local food has been based, on the one hand, on the assumption that abandoned or underused brownfield sites could be remediated for their productive potential; and on the other it has been based on the trend toward conserving greenfield sites on city peripheries — on dedicating valuable ecological zones to food production and to limiting suburban sprawl. But these laudable goals are not much concerned with how urban farming might affect urban form."

:: image via Places

As a historical overview, Waldheim's thesis (the point) is to understand some of this utopian precedents, 

Broadacre City as a vision is appalling, but as a futurist prediction of auto-dominated sprawl, it may not be that far off.  To augment the examples mentioned, I would add Le Corbusiers' Radiant City - perhaps with a less modernist blank green space but as dense spires amidst farmland... Both this and Broadacre City are equally dispiriting, but in polar opposite ways.  In the abstract - both could be vehicles for agricultural urbanism that will appeal to a particular urban/suburban demographic of the population.

:: image via Brian's Culture Blog

The Howard-esque Garden City/Greenbelt City  is another integrated agro-urban example, focused more on concentration of uses (focused urban density) than full integration.  Similar to the drivers of Portland's UGB, there is clear compartmentalization of agriculture from city - keeping it in proximity but also at arms length... to connect the urban dweller to the rural worker in physical and cultural ways - at least in the abstract.

 :: image via Cornell Library

All the examples are not urban per se (as in densely agglomerated), but rather suburban (dependent on continued decentralization) in their contexts (or at least in their location of agricultural uses) - but do tell us much about the cooperative potential of the urban and the agricultural... perhaps the connection between the desire for land and space (our roots) and the historical suburban dispersion.  It was less about a 19th century model of  fleeing the ills of the city, as it was about recapturing some of our agrarian ideals.  The problem therein, lies in really tackling this in a truly urban form not the quasi-middle ground of suburbia (although a ripe ground for re-purposing to include agricultural uses, for sure). 

:: image via Places

The point is that it is fundamentally about what we want in cities (the actual urban parts, not the sprawling metropolitan statistical areas) - monocentric agglomeration and density or polycentric dispersion and space?  The point being, when looking at the 'landscape' of cities - the spaces for non-building, road, etc. there is opportunity (Mason White's 'Productive Surface'?) available at a variety of scales, where 'agriculture' amongst other uses (programmed and other) can exist within cities.  This may be the simplistic, Thus the continuum of spaces is not specifically relegated to the dispersed - large tracts of agricultural land in cities (reducing density, likely leading to sprawl) or the hyper-dense (and I say neo-utopian) vertical farms (technological solutions at exorbitant cost - although I hear they may save the world).

:: image via Treehugger

It's obvious that industrial agriculture is undergoing a necessary shift, and that some space is necessary for food production in the city, but the extent and shape of this (both spatially and culturally) is yet to be determined.  This differs (and influences) urbanism in many ways, depending on what you believe, where you live, and what you grow - amongst myriad other variable.  But is on the minds of many.  These are leading to both inventive proposals, the provocative, the cute and ephemeral, the strange, or the already tried and true - yet somehow new ideas, in the name of agriculture made urban.

The historical account of Waldheim may be compared to (the counterpoint), a similar crop of recent writings by Andres Duany on the same topic, particularly the New Urbanist recent interest in Agricultural Urbanism - which spawned a very NU-centric book (but mostly referenced by Duany as the same 'Agrarian' moniker).   As mentioned on Planetizen, this is to become an emphasis:

"At the 18th Annual Congress for New Urbanists, Andres Duany announced 'Agrarian Urbanism' as his new planning emphasis. He believes that the success of New Urbanism has stultified its progress and reduced its potential...  Agrarian urbanism is a society involved with the growing of food," explains Duany. He now aims to create a locavorous community where the resident is responsible for designing his "own utopia." Greg Lindsay believes the ideas could be attractive to the Whole Foods demographic but is unsure if they are ready for the hard work involved with growing food. Duany concedes that his agrarian communities would still "end up hiring Hispanic laborers to do the dirty work," but that these laborers would have a closer relationship with their employers."

For some of Duany's view on this topic (echoing the above quote) you can turn to Fast Company,  New Urbanism for the Apocalypse, a snapshot of the CNU annoucement, particularly how this viewpoint fits into the NU paradigm.  From the article:

"Agrarian urbanism, he explained, is different from both "urban agriculture" ("cities that are retrofitted to grow food") and "agricultural urbanism" ("when an intentional community is built that is associated with a farm)." He was thinking bigger: "Agrarian urbanism is a society involved with the growing of food." America abounds with intentional communities, he pointed out -- golf course communities, equestrian ones, even the fly-in kind. So why not build one for locavores? And they can have as much land as they like -- it's just that they would have gardens instead of yards, or community gardens and window boxes if they choose to live in an apartment. Their commitment to "hand-tended agriculture" would be part of their legally binding agreement with the homeowners' association. "You design your own utopia," he said. Instead of a strip mall in the town square, there's a "market square" comprised of green markets, restaurants, cooking schools, an agricultural university, and so on. "This thing pushes buttons like mad," he said. "The excitement this triggers -- they get as excited about this as they did in the old days about the porch and the walkable community."

:: Agricultural Transect - image via Fast Company

I particularly enjoy the idea of writing this into the CC+R's of a community (above underlined passage) a sort of 'thou shall farm' edict that allows you to design your own utopia, as long as it fits within certain cultural and community expectations as defined and dictated those in power.  Is this the small-scale version of hobby-farming to the suburban masses - because it isn't really a model of truly 'urban' development?


Another, from Houston Tomorrow, sums up a recent presentation on 'Agricultural Urbanism: Transects & Food Production' with a focus on the recent NU-inspired Southlands project in BC .  Picking up the thread of CNU18, Kunstler shows he may be on board, quoted  on Clusterfuck Nation echoing the need for this return to the farm as also a response to impeding climate change related disruption. (underlined quote mine)

"Among other things, the most forward-looking leaders in the New Urbanist movement now recognize that we have to reorganize the landscape for local food production, because industrial agriculture will be one of the prime victims of our oil predicament. The successful places in the future will be places that have a meaningful relationship with growing food close to home. The crisis in agriculture is looming right now -- with world grain reserves at their lowest level ever recorded in modern times -- and when it really does hit, the harvestmen of famine and death will be in the front ranks of it."

The Houston article links to the long presentation by Duany about the topic, via YouTube - although I haven't had a spare two hours to check it out yet... anyone will to summarize, let me know.

For some related content, one must delve into the interesting concept of CPULs.  Also check out the project 'Garden Block' project by Daniel Nairn, which has garnered praise for it's plausibility from Smart Growth advocates like Kaid Benfield ('Agricultural Urbanism that actually is urban') who have been critical of some urban agriculture proposals.  As an object of defined spatial arrangement incorporating density and agriculture - it seems to work for this block (one that would attract some, but not all urban agrarians).  I expect and desire more models, both the practical to the sublime, from NU/LU/EU and other 'U's - investigating codified solutions and abstract indeterministic ones - giving plenty of fodder for discussion on the future of food in the city.

:: image via Grist

The question of this not just as a site or district image, but as it relates to the overall structure of how we plan and shape cities - is a much larger question indeed.  Looking at utopian precedents, and site specific examples, we have opportunities for not just the physical integration of agriculture into cities, but a clear picture, good and bad, of what some of the consequences may be. 

Reading List: The Exposed City - Mapping the Urban Invisibles

If you love maps, not as just as visual artifacts but as part of design and planning methodology, Nadia Amoroso's recently published 'The Exposed City: Mapping the Urban Invisibles' (Routledge, 2010) will validate, comfort, and quite possibly amaze you. That's the effect it had on me - after quickly devouring this visually rich resource - I was full of ideas on representation and new uses for maps as valuable tools for urban studies, planning, and design.



While ostensibly advertised as a book on planning and geography, 'The Exposed City' offers a much broader natural extension of traditional static mapping as a tool for urbanism. Taking a number of historical precedents and new technologies, Amoroso looks at the vast amount of complex information that is collected and exists for urban areas and asks a simple question: "If a city was able to be defined by these characteristics, what for would it take? How could it be mapped?"

Mapping today is a common and accessible exercise (with hoards of of historical precedent to boot). Many designers work in GIS, have available digital tools and online maps, and get access to information that is often employed for diagrammatic purposes, utilized for a neo-McHargian overlay mapping. Most designers are familiar with a range of mapping techniques - but this book will challenge your concept of what you consider a map and how these may inform your work. The concepts in the book look at 'maps' of the urban invisibles - that information perceived yet hidden away in data sets - as a new opportunity for designers. The books thesis is regarding maps per se, but specifically "...the role of maps as both presentational results as aesthetic objects and informative tools, which could be used to influence architectural, landscape architectural and urban design moves." (p.xi)


:: Nolli map - image via @rchitecture

In short, the book moves through the work of Hugh Ferriss, who developed amazing graphic interpretations of buildings using the 1916 New York zoning ordinance, touches of the more well known work of Kevin Lynch (Image of the City), Richard Saul Wurman (Understanding USA), and visual communication guru Edward Tufte (Envisioning Information), satirically provocative MVRDV/Winy Maas (Datascapes), and finally trend-setting landscape architect James Corner (map-drawings). Together these actors outline a methodology of data-mapping that offers many potential expanded opportunities for architects, landscape architects, and urbanists to generate, represent, and develop data-driven visions for a range of issues.

Instead of going into massive detail (which Amoroso does nicely and which from reviewing my notes would take multiple posts) I thought I'd give a few snapshots that resonated with me, and leave it for you to discover all of the rich content and leads outlined within. Trust me - get the book - it will give you plenty of ideas and fodder for discussion and thought, whatever problem, scale, solution, or design you make be working through.

I was immediately struck in Chapter 1 by the work of Hugh Ferriss (which was 100% new material to me) and his amazing three-dimensional renderings of urban potentials based on complexities of codes - specifically crunching the zoning codes of 1916 to create 'potential scenarios' that gave developers ideas of how they could maximize buildings within the existing parameters. In the following image, the graphic evolves from a massing study, gaining articulation, fenestration, and finally a realistic potential urban massing. The result is not a building, but a "...sculptural impression of a completed design for a skyscraper in which the careful arrangement of the masses in accordance with the legal and economic measures of zoning ensures the building's practicability." (p.14) Or, simply, a map.


:: Evolution of the Set-back Building - image via the/hectic/interlude!!!

Our historic perceptions of the stylistic architecture of the 1920's may lead us to see a common building form in these drawings, but at the type of architecture at the time was quite revolutionary (a collection of his work is titled 'The Metropolis of Tomorrow'). These drawings provided a blueprint for many architects and developers of the time - meaning the 'maps' influenced the future urban form: "Indeed, as the new breed of towers began to rise, Ferriss's moody drawings of their mountain-like masses, terraced setbacks and soaring pinnacles proved as crucial as any built work to setting the tone for New York's super-charged urbanism of the 1920's" (p.31)


:: image via Artect

In addition to outlining the early role of the 'renderer' in early architectural work (which has evolved, but to tell you the truth graphics say a lot, even with modern architecture). Ferriss shows the power of the pencil (or charcoal) in translating complex data into visions of urban form.

This idea of drawing and graphic representation is the crux of Chapter 2 - a mixed bag incorporating the work of Lynch, Wurman, and Tufte that investigates "...the use of diagramming and mapping as a means of simplifying the complexity of urban flux (changes in urban form, i.e. the development of parks, streetscape, new buildings, etc.) in essence to review the complexities of the city." (p.41) Most of these works are well-known and taught at many universities, so a quick overview will suffice.

As mentioned in the text, Lynch used mapping to draw out the 'imagability of the city', which "...is the quality embodied in a physical object that gives it a high likliehood of generating a strong image within a given observer." (p.42) While the resultant produced drawn line drawings are compelling on their own, they are even more powerful when compared to each other to showing perceptual differences between individual memory maps, field sketches and what this means for urban form and potential markers to influence the evolution of our mental maps.


:: Imageability Mapping (Lynch) - image via CSISS

While Lynch gave us a much-used urban vocabulary of paths, edges, nodes, districts, and landmarks which has persisted in use in mapping for planning and design, the work of information architects such as Wurman investigate the ability to graphically represent massive or complex sets of data - whether urban or merely statistical. In Wurman's view, the map is essential: "You cannot perceive anything without a map. A map provides people with the means to share in the perceptions of others. It is a pattern made understandable; it is a rigorous, accountable form that follows implicit principles, rules and measures. Maps provide comfort of knowing in that they orient us to the reality of place." (p.57)


:: Understanding Demographics (Wurman) - image via Architectradure

Wurman's work encompasses a range of disciplines - some not specifically urban, but all relevant. His more recent work takes it back to global urbanism with the 19.20.21 project, a study of 19 cites, with 20 million people in the 21st century, which will "...focus on globalization patterns and explanations that will become key tools for mapping and understanding our future city." (p.59) Switching scales dramatically, Edward Tufte has been imminently influential in a new focus on visual communication, stating that "...the packaging of information is something that ultimately determines how much is accepted and used by other individuals." (p.60)

This focus on graphic legibility isn't necessarily 'mapping' but is more focused on the means and methods of delivering information. In this case, Tufte is best known for amazingly complex but clear drawings using rules (i.e. integrity of scale, appropriate color schemes, correct proportion, and elimination of 'chartjunk') used rigorously to display information. Somewhat in conflict with the more abstract creative aspects (shown in upcoming topics) these data rules are essential to understand and achieve "clarity, correctness, and coherence"... something we should all strive for in any graphic communication.


:: Napoleon's March (Tufte) - image via Edward Tufte

Chapter 3 includes exploration of the work of Dutch firm MVRDV, particularly their groundbreaking planning studies "...using data to generate alternative urban and architectural forms and as a means to help guide planners to urban design decisions." (p.68). Implied as plausible fictions, these graphics crunch available numbers into a 'statistical description' making 'datascapes', or abstractions of physical, social, cultural, and environmental features in graphic representations.



:: China Hills Datascape - image via arqa.com

Not solutions per se, these graphics merely outline "...the maximum limits within which the architect can produce his designs.", providing a touchstone to potential decisionmaking. . The absurdity of creatively generating data, then using "...architectural autonomy to impose 'expert' authority, that is, the architect plays a part as the director of political powers in design." (p.70) While there is some debate about the overall relevance, as a tool for urban exploration of ideas these datascapes are a work of pure genius, in particular in works such as Pig City - which take scenarios and create actual spatial configurations that satirize concepts of growth, localism, and realities of scale - provoking dialogue and debate.


:: Pig City - image via Archilogy

This concept, and the bulk of the chapter, references the amazing 'Metacity/Datatown' which ought to be required text for any budding urbanist, at least in terms of new methods of analysis and representation. In a nutshell, the premise involves quadrupling of the current population of the Netherlands, portrayed in a range of visual 'scenarios' encompassing living, agriculture, CO2, energy, waste, and water consumption. These concepts could yield dull and dry map objects, but instead focus on 'extremizing scenarios' that "...takes a leap in regards to mapping conventions by visually documenting the urban consequences spatially and by providing a potential new urban form." (p.72)


:: Datatown - image via Serial Consign

One example above uses an abstraction (red boxes for areas of habitation) juxtaposed with graphic representation of other materials, in this case waste "...such as household products, dredging sludge, vehicle wrecks, hazardous waste, office products and waste from construction and demolition. These amounts emerge as hills an mountainous forms, which create a new landscape." (p.80). The chapter ends with an interview with Maas, summed up in the following quote:

"Datascapes give a more mathematical answer towards the complexity. The second component, which was surrounding meta (data types and kinds), deals with larger urban processes that became more relevant in the practice again. Architects, like me, were only dealing with objects. There was a need to redefine architectural object through some meaning in an urban and larger format, and urbanism deals with issues of numbers and statistics and of course larger sclaes, more than the individual." (p.88)

Chapter 4 get's into Corner's map-landscapes (best captured in the book 'Taking Measures Across the American Landscape" w/Alex Maclean)... are a hybrid of maps and drawings: "...a combination of map and drawing styles such as collage crafted by Corner as a means to interpret the aerial photos, and thus, creating a map-drawing of the site." (p.94) Less specifically data driven, these maps are aligned closely with operational practices in landscape architecture, a blending of the creative and the technical. Getting out of the typical uses in design and planning - the concept is that mapping loses power with mere tracing or analysis, but instead "Maps present... an eidetic fiction constructed from factual observation. As both analogue and abstraction, then the surface of the map functions like an operating table, a staging ground or a theatre of operations upon which a mapper collects, combines, marks, masks, relates and generally explores" (p.100) That 'fiction' is where creative ideas come from.


:: image via Pruned

Amoroso also links these mappings with the field of landscape urbanism, connecting the ideas of change, temporality, and movement - embedding this in a typically static medium. Regarding LU: "...it is the potential mapping capability and visual representation of this new discipline that is most appealing. Landscape urbanism can be summed up as an arresting medley of landscape techniques. These include mapping, cataloging, triangulating, surface modeling, managing, phasing, layering and others - which can also be combined with urban design techniques such as planning, diagramming, assembling, allotting, zoning, etc. - to broaden the visual palette of the mapping field." (p.107)


:: image via Pruned

The book outlines much of this early work, along with an interview with Corner that touches on many of the methods - including formative inspiration from McHarg, the connections between landscape and maps, and new avenues for research - all with Corner's trademark verbosity... An excerpt: "...I believe another body of research should look at how maps are inevitably cultural contstructs, not simply inert rational data banks, but active diagrams that extend a certain agency over how the world get's shaped. Artists and conceptualists are good at seeing maps in this way, not so much as informational devices, but as performance stages that can critically script certain spatial geographies in fresh ways." (p.112) These mapping techniques show up in some of Corner's later work in competition entries and diagrammatic mappings for such projects as the High Line and Fresh Kills - showing the progression of this method in practice.

A summary of the intent is mentioned in the foreword by Richard Saul Wurman Amoroso makes the connections from Hugh Ferris, to Edward Tufte, James Corner, Kevin Lynch and MVRDV's datascapes - creating maps as: "...statistics through time, the visualization of changing complex data that allow one to see the things they've always seen but never seen...", and utilizing "...map-landscapes...as the preeminent way of organizaing and understanding complex data relative to demographics, marketing, the environment, traffic patterns, as well as the less romantic descriptions of crime and unrest." (p.viii)

The final section discusses some new tools (such as Google Earth) and the work of the SENSEable City Lab at MIT, which is worth checking out for their uses of sensors to develop new maps of invisibles. From their site: "The real-time city is now real! The increasing deployment of sensors and hand-held electronics in recent years is allowing a new approach to the study of the built environment. The way we describe and understand cities is being radically transformed - alongside the tools we use to design them and impact on their physical structure. "


:: image via SENSEable City Lab

The bulk of this final section investigates a number of new 'map-landscapes' by others and created by Amoroso - inspired by the sum of precedents contained in the first four chapters. While the whole point is there aren't rules, she does outline a number of useful strategies for generation of map-landscapes gleaned from the precedents and studies - worth including:

• Treat data as spatial representations
• The visual representation of data is related to the numerical representation
• Use the data as the palette to guide the form
• Use effective artistic licenses
• Dramatize the data
• Choose an appropriate method or representation
• Apply more lighting to emphasize larger quantities or points of interest in the data
• Select the most telling viewpoint to profile the map-landscape
• Visually represent the overall communicative message

The precedents and examples in 'The Exposed City' showcase an old/new method of using mapping techniques to display information in ways that can inform new processes such as landscape urbanism and complex urban planning and design. The ability to capture and reuse the myriad data in the world not just for analytical means, but with the interweaving of art and urban theory, gives designers new tools for representation and understanding of the complexities of the urban condition.