Our Crumbling Infrastructure [aka Call Before You Dig]

[UPDATE: 01.10.09 - As mentioned, I recieved this as an email forward - one of those ubiquitous things that get pitched around in our digital age - thus had no context in which to verify the story. Thus, it turns out that the pics are from a corrosion-related rupture of the high pressure gas line along the Williams/Transco line north of the City of Appomattox, which occurred on September 14th of 2008. Apologies for the misinformation - but as I mentioned, one of those things that makes you wonder about our crumbling infrastructure, and you should still call and locate prior to doing any digging. Read more about it here. Also the pics are from a flickr photo stream from mattandashley - for proper attribution ...

...thanks to Dick for the comment pointing out the error - and thanks for the 7000+ visits for my stats - much appreciated - and not bad for a mistake!]

Call Before You Dig! - Original Post from 01.09.09
A colleague at work shot out the recent email with the caption above - showing the negative impacts of failing to locate subsurface utilities prior to digging.

The email, from an engineering firm, had the following text: "Take a look and see if “call before you dig” is a waste of time. These pictures are a result of mechanical post hole digging without calling for “locater service”. The employee hit an underground high pressure cross country gas pipe. Notice the point of contact was in the “middle of nowhere” of which some of your contractors may have used this very phrase."


:: point of impact - check out the scale on the 'crater'

The pics say it all...









Thanks Tim for the forward... yikes!

Veg.itecture #49: VIVA + VIA

As promised, a slight modification of the Veg.itecture posts - due both to the enormous amounts of projects out there, but also based on a need for some different needs for both built and design projects. So, as promised - in the upcoming 50th post on the series on Vegetated Architecture, an evolution of sorts that provides some of the flexibility to address a broader spectrum of these literally 'green' projects.

VIVA = Veg.itecture In Visual Assessment
This is designation is provided to capture the widespread conceptual adoption of the use of greening facades, rooftops, and interiors - but do not provide a whole lot of information - sort of the who, what, and where - but not necessarily the why nor the how. Part representational critique, part speculative narrative, these posts will explore the potential of the movement.




:: ORDOS 100 residence, by Architects: R&Sie(n) - images via Arch Daily

VIA = Veg.itecture in Action
This designation is aimed at a more rigorous analysis of both vegetated architecture projects and principles - using built projects (or those unbuilt projects with significant information and details available). More detailed and critical, the aim of these posts will be to learn and expand the potential of what is possible in the craft. The reality of these projects can be deconstructed - although there still is some potential information gaps - like determining whether the below project is real turf or synthetic... i honestly can't tell, but I'm guessing the latter.




:: Royal T Project by wHY Architecture - images via Arch Daily

As always, there will be additional posts looking at more specific ideas, technologies, and projects in greater detail - but look forward to the continuing series of posts periodically in both VIVA and VIA categories - marking a continual refinement of Landscape+Urbanism and the coverage of this sub-genre of architecture, landscape and urbanis, a phenomenon that is sure to continue in 2009.

Garden Ratings Made Easy

There has been a number of posts from landscape blogs in the past two days regarding the NY Times article related to the Sustainable Sites Initiative, the initiative to broaden the scope of site issues related to green building and design. It's great that the initiative is getting ink, and definitely take the time to offer comments to make the system better. That said, the article threw me off from the beginning with the title 'How Green is Your Garden? A New Rating System May Tell You', skewing the scope and breadth of landscape architecture and distilling it into the concept of gardening.


:: images via NY Times

That is not to say there isn't a bit of info regarding the true breadth of the topic... "The 179-page report, produced after three years of research by a diverse group of architects, landscape architects, ecologists and engineers, includes proposed guidelines for creating sustainable landscapes, as well as diverse examples of successful restoration projects, from Point Fraser, in Perth, Australia, where a toxic wetland full of heavy metals now supports native plants and wildlife, to the Queens Botanical Garden, in Flushing, N.Y., where harvested rainwater feeds into ornamental water gardens, and gray water from sinks, dishwaters and showers is cleansed by plants and used to flush toilets.

The report also includes a point system for rating a landscape, much like the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System, which rates the sustainability of buildings. The LEED system, created by the United States Green Building Council, a private group of architects, engineers, builders, manufacturers and others, has been around since 1993. But its ratings — even platinum, the highest one, so sought-after by green builders — focus much more on buildings than on the land around them."

It also expands on some of the detail missed in LEED - which I think is the biggest benefit of the new system. Read some interesting dialogue about this on Land8Lounge here. "The initiative, on the other hand, goes into detail, specifying the kinds of plants, for example, that can be used to cleanse a disturbed wetland; how trees can be used to shade a building, protect it from wind, prevent erosion and clean the air; and what kind of plantings enhance mental health, draw people outside the building and even engage them in tending the landscape."

The point that is missing is that it involves more than gardening, which the article dives back into with abandon - taking a tour of the United States Botanical Garden, which is interesting, but missing the greater discussion of sustainability and the landscape. Addressing the vital yet on-sided aspect of native plants, no irrigation, permeable walkways, and no pesticide use - all very appropriate for a garden landscape - but how about an urban plaza or waterfront.


:: image via US Botanic Garden

There's a bit of mashing about with the energy efficiency of greenhouses and such, but the article is really a puff piece about the garden - not a true story of what the SSI can do. Oh well, I'm sure the conversation will continue, and some great photos of plant closeups are included as well.


:: images via NY Times

I'm being coy of course, and there is a good amount of solid information in the article, and the old adage there's no such thing as bad press does work here - but we really need to elevate the conversation beyond these simple fundamentals and picturesque garden archetypes - to establishing credibility as a way of conducting design, implementation, and maintenance of landscape beyond the garden and into the city. Sustainable Sites is not a small and home/garden topic and implementation - it's green infrastructure, urban design, sustainable communities, public space design, parks, water resources, carbon sequestration and energy efficiency... much like landscape architecture, it's complex and expansive, and it can't be simplified to mere gardening.