.

In the nperun

d r 11 I

th t

ti n ) I. r hit e -1 u re

.

1 n J C n t year) , 1 th

t e 11 dr w tr let J n

" h it i

uld 11 t (or w uld 11 and I nd p. To

rks nd I

pi nnin I

.eptual s p w( rks, nd infr tru tur , all thematic to a 10 fferine an

rg n Z

.

mza-

ormation. (he .ntl defin d limit t . p n I ttl it

and infra tru tural area, ... ) it .ern that c rtain a h th

design prof si lJL-ar hit tur land ap archit cture, urb n sign, an plann ing-. re moving t w. I'd a shared form of pre t ice. for hich th term

lt1ndscape hold central i mificr nc , as crib d thr us h ih

laudscap IIrh! nisin. \ hat i th pre i. n t l roth i h

re each ot th . t rrns land-rapt 11 i uri nisin Iter d?

This n di iplinarv collu i( n was anti ipatcd in the I .in Is 1J 'rbJJli III

syrnp« ... ium .md e rhib it i. n in I q 7, (wigin .. II 1 ivc i and r d ,-' Charle \'\' •. ildh iru, ~ nd h.l b n furthc I' articul [ d thn ugh :1 l .. mg of u li .... lti ns. It is a prop« ilion f li iJ liuar onfl.uion .md unit. II it. unit ih t

t ntainv, , T hold" tog -ther, di 1'1 n L·-dirf -renc in terms ( til, ill) I,

prngr. nun.rri , and uh ur al 'tHlh.nt of ... h o l th ~ 10.1 d. nil nt st word. l.mds ape,' "urb.mi Ill' 'II, I.

lU U

h.

J)-

nt

n

th

Clearly, much of the intellectual intent of this nli:lnifestolike proposition] and the essavs collected under that formulation here, is the total dissolution of the two terms into one word, one phenomenon, one practice. And yet at the same time each term remains distinct, suggesting their n ecessary, perhap inevitable, separateness. Same, yet di fferent; mutually exchangeable, yet never quite fully dissolved, like a new hybrid ever dependent upon both the x and y Chr01TIOS0111e, never quite able to shake off the different expressions of its parents.

Such a dialectical synthesis is significant, for it differs from earlier attempts to speak of urban sites as landscapes, or frorn attempts to situate landscape in the city. The more traditional ways in which we speak about landscape and cities have been conditioned through the nineteenth-century lens of difference and opposition. In this view, cities are seen to be busy with the technology of highdensity building, transportation infrastructure, and revenue-producing development, the undesirable effects of which include congestion, pollution) and various forms of social stress; whereas landscape, in the form of parks, greenways, street trees, esplanades, and gardens, is generally seen to provide both salve and respite from the deleterious effects of urbanization. A most canonical instance of this, of course, is Olmsted's Central Park, intended as relief from the relentless urban fabric of Manhattan-even though the catalytic effect that Central Park exerted on surrounding real estate development links it more closely with a landscape urbanist model. In this instance) landscape drives the process of city formation.

Danish emigre and Chicago landscape architect lens Jensen articulated this sentiment when he said, "Cities built for a wholesome life ... not for profit or speculation, with the living green as an important part of their complex will be the first interest of the future town-planner." "Complex" is an important term here) and I shall return to it; suffice it to say that for Jensen, as for Olmstedand even for Le Corbusier in his Plan Voisin-this "green complex" comes in the form of parks and green open spaces, accompanied by the belief that such environments will bring civility, health, social equity, and economic development to the city.

More than aesthetic and representational spaces, however, the more signifi~ant of these traditional urban landscapes possess the capacity to function as important ecological vessels and pathways: the hydrological and storrnwater system underlying the necklacelike structure of Boston's Back Bay Fens, for example, or the greenway corridors that infiltrate Stuttgart and bring mountain air through the city as both coolant and cleanser. These kinds of infrastructural landscapes will surely continue to be important to the overall health and wellb.ein.g of urban populations. These precedents also embody some of the more significant potentials of landscape urbanism: the ability to shift scales, to locate urban fabrics in their regional and biotic contexts, and to design relationships between dynamic environmental processes and urban form.

024 JAM

)

)

phasing an

deveJopme t

)

equence

)PH

-

FIG 2 Fresb Kills tifescape, Staten Island, 2004, phasing diagrams

The challenge in looking to these precedent for insight into OUf contemporary conditions i their invocation of a cultural image or "Nature," all image to which landscape is so firmly attached. Nature, to the above-mentioned examples. is mostl; represented by a softlv undulating pa toral scene, generally (onsidered virtuous benevolent, and soothing, a moral as \ ell as practical antidote to the corrosive environmental and social qualities of the modern city. This landscape is the city's "other," its essential complement drawn from a nature outside of and excluding building. technology, and infrastructure.

A more comple and contradicton example is the La!'! Angeles River, which runs from the Santa Susana Mountains through downtown l.A. The "river" is

<-

actually a concrete channel built b} the U.S. Corps of Engineers in response to

the serious flood threat posed by the springtime snow-melts combined \\ irh surface runoff from surrounding developments. The channel is designed to optimize the efficiency and speed at which the water is discharged. Its advocates view "nature" here as a v iolent and threatening force-and rightly SL). On the other hand, landscape architects, environmentalists •. md \ ar ious cornrnunitv group want to convert the channel into a green corridor, replete , .. ith rip.uian habitat, woodlands, birdsong, and fishermen. For these gruups, "nature" ha'> been defaced by the engineer's zeal for control. It is. I believe. a well-iritentioncd but misguided mission, and it underscores the persistent opposition in people's minds.

·1 his contest gOC'i both wavs. The debate i ... not unly concerned with bringing landvcapc into ... it ie ... hut also with the expansion of cit i c s intn sur rouudrug land~l..ape-the r"OU[Ct' of the p.] toral Ideal, ch.ir.u t cr i 'C'd b\ vast <l~r,Hi,111 fields, wooded hillsldes, and natural preserves. In 1955. t he mega-mall urhani ... t Victor Crucn coined the term '\;itY:SI..<lP",\" which he p(l"itt:d ill \.-\1I1lr.1di~liTl non

FIG,3 East Darlmg Harbor. Sydney Australia. 2005; aerial View of new waterfront urban developrnent as an exo rc iopcgraphrcal landscap

to "landscape." Gruen's "city cape" refers to the built environment of building 1 paved surfaces, and infrastructures. These are further subdivided int "te hno.... capes," "tran portarion-scapes,' "suburb- scapes,' L1Tl I c 'en ,( ubcity C,lP , -th peripheral trip and debris that Gruen calls the's ourge of the rnetrop li .' n the other hand, "landscape," for Gruen, refer to the ( nvirr nm nt in \ hich nature i~ predominant." H docs say that landscape is not the '<natural environment' per sc, as in untouched wilderne s, hut to those regions \ here human occupation has shaped the land and its natural proce: sc in an intimate and reciprocal way. He cites agrarian LInd rural situation L S examples, inv ikrn an image of topographic and ecological harmony .. athed in green v etari n rnd clear blue "ky. For Gruen, cityscaj c ~ nd landscape were once de rly separated but today the cit ' h,l~ broken its walls tu ... ubsume md homogenize its urrounding landscape in an economic and "technological blitzkrieg "-the var iCHlS "scapes" now in conflict and with boundless definition. \

Th i-, image of one thing overtaking another with competing \ alues attached to each, a in either landscape permeating the citv or the cit r spraw it f. Ll('ro ... it hinterland) is reminiscent of debates surrounding the design 11t Pare d LI \ ill tte in which many landscape .. irchitecrs Initially d '(["it'd the lack of "landsca] e' in the park's design, !-.u:ing onl) rhc building ... or "tollie-,' More recenrlv, lands ap architects have revised this sentiment, suggesting that upon fin thcr inspcctioi . the still maturing landscape h(l~ lome tu prey. it ov r the building v. J hi "LI timent i~ hry lelling, fur-.l'l with Jensen, l )lInsted. it' Corhusi .r, Gruen, dnJ 11 'Ir contempor.uies, or indeed for the \ arinus group- c ont c sting the 1 I S \n el River tud.l} -It keeps the cillcgoril.s of building/crtj \ l ... us preen land. dJ

epar.ue enrir«- : the follies at I Villette are somehow 110t r ounize I • " h in

I.

()? lAME ORN[ R

or institutionalized discipline. rch-

it cts engineers and planners, they design citie ;

landscape in the form of earthwork. pl. nting nd

open-space d entimcnt f many land cape architect i

indignat ion that the Pare de la illette v 'a designed not y a landsc.ip ar: .. hitect but in an architect, irnilarly, wh n a land cape architect win. a COl rpctition to(iil\ that ar hitects think bel ngs in their domain, 1 here can be heard some rather cynical grumbling in that ourt too. '10 this ntinomic, categorical eparation between lund cape, nd urbanism persists today not only becau e of a }I> - ceived differen e in material, technical, and imaginotive/moralistic dimen ions of these two media, but abo because of a hvper-profcssionalized cia. sificati n, a construction further COI11I licared through competing power relati oris.

For example, it has been argued by others that landscape tends to be repressed bv architects and planner ... , or appropriated only to the extent that it frames and enhances the primacy of urban form Landscape is employed here a a bourgeois aesthetic, or naturalized veil. Moreover, it is increasinglv the case that \ il. t developer-engineering corporations are constructing today 's , v 'orld \ ith such pace, efficiency, and profit that all of the traditional design disciplines r and not only landscape) are marginalized as mere decorative practices) literally di enfranchised from the work of spatial formation.

Conversely, of course, many ecologically aligned landscape architects see cities as grossly negligent with regard to nature. While the accomplishments of environmental restoration and regulation are both urgent and impressive, the exclusion of urban form and process from any ecological analysis remains extrernelv problematic. Moreover, so-called "sustainable" proposals, wherein urbaru . srn becomes dependent upon certain bioregional metaboli ms, while assuming the place-form of some scmi-ruralized environment, are surely naive and counterproductive. Do the advocates of such plans really believe that natural svsterns alone can cope more effectively with the quite formidable problem ... of waste and pollution than do modern technological plants? And do they realh believe that putting people in touch with this fictional image called "nature" will predi pose everybody to a more reverent relationship with the earth and with nne another (as if relocatinc millions from cities to the countrv .... ide will actually somehow

~ ,

improve biodiversity and water and air quality) FIC. -'I?

.At the beginning of the twentieth century, only sixteen cities in the world had populations larger than i:l million people, yet at the dose of [he ccntur Y more than hvc hundred cities had more than a million inhabirants. man), hOLl~ling more than ten million residents and ... till expanding. I\h.'"trtlpolIl,Ul [0-. \Ilgd has ,1 cur rent population or approx.imatelv thirteen million and is prlliCl"tl'd to

part f the land 31 I iu 1, the on rete river charm lin t r C • d

, ogmzc <1

I nd CJp eleme nr, \ en though Its I nd 12' J C [un ttion i olely hydrollJglcal.

i\ I . re ver, \ knc W full \~ 11 that e:lch r the • c, tego ie -land cape < nd urbanI, rn-b lungs to .. certain profe ... I n 0 in titutionalized di ciplinc. AI' hirects LOll I ruct buildings and, with engineers . nd plcllncrs, they de ign citic ; landscape architect build landscapes, in the form of earthwork, planting, and open- pac de ign. Implicit in the sentiments ( f many landscape architect i indignation th t the Pare de la \ illette was de igned not by a land cape ~ rchit ct hut hv an architect. Similarly, vhen d landscs pe architect vins a cornpetition t rduy that architect think bel ng-, in their domain. there can be heard some rather cynical grumhling in that court too. So this antinornic , categorical scparation between landscape and urbanism persists iuday not only because of a perceived difference 111 material, technical, and imaginJ(ive/mol"<llistic dim .n ion of these t\ '0 media, but also because of .1 h) per-professionalized cla sificatic n, J construction further complicated through cornpetmg power relation.

For example, it has been argued by others that landscape tends to be repre\ ed by architects .md planners, or appropriated only to the extent that it frame ... and enhances the primacy of urban form Landscape is employed here ::IS a bourgeois aesthetic} or naturalized veil. Moreover, it is increasingly the ca e that vast developer-engineering corporations are constructing toda. s world, ith such pace, efficiency, and profit that all of the traditional design disciplines (and not only landscape I are marginalized as mere decorative practices, literallv disenfranchised from the work of spatial formation.

Conversely, of course, many ecologically aligned landscape architects . ee citie .. as gro~sly negligent with regard to nature. While the accomplishment ~ of environmental restoration and regulation are both urgent and impressive, the exclusion of urban form and process from any ecological analysis remains e tremelv problematic. Moreover, so-called «sustainable" proposals, \\ herein urbanism becomes dependent upon certain bioregional metabolisms, while assuming the place-form of some serni-ruralized environment, are surelj naive and counterproductive. Do the advocates or such plans really believe that natural s, stems alone can cope more effectively with the quite formidable problems of waste and pollution than do modern technological plants? And do they really believe that putting people in touch with this fictional image called "nature" will predi .pose everybody to a more reverent relationship with the earth and with one another (as if relocating millions from cities to the count!') side will actually somehow improve biodiversity and water and air quality) lilt •. 'II?

At the beginning of the twentieth century, only sixteen citie in the world had population larger than a million people, yet at the close of the cenrurv more than fin:" hundred citic ... had more thJI1 a million inh .. ibir .. ants, man- h()J~tJJ1g more than tell million residents and sj ill expallJing. MClrorolitJIl Los Angel s h.l!-. a current population (If appnoximatcly thirteen million and j ... project d to

TERRA LJ U 0 t'

Fl. 0 nic n I u r 0 uc n J a 00 s· n - p c

g rden as a ew hyb Ized. arm, co Join ~ng u an pr g .- e

ethnology nd Inform ion wi h na ure, op n pace, an rain for

1-

"

,

...

e

I

1

..-

T

-

I

1

I

-

..

u

I

--

II

I

,

I

J

..

I

1

I

~

1

!>

1

.'

II!!

II'

J

iii

f

Ii

II

1_

~ _ II

r
iii ~
1 ' -
.. th •
1,
r 1 ] ]-
~
_1 1

If ] oj
t,
~
] ] r " J I 11 "
III '"
1 - I 1 - ~
]~ ,h ]j t ... 1 , I
I
.. h
,t
t J ~ I
I •
.., 't In
... ilur
- t t
....
110 d II .. Ii
1 L I
1 III
I ,.
~ •
t ) I 1 l' 1 -

II

I

I

--

a

I

fro; ,

iii

• •

2

n nt rb

..

Ism

"

r

r

ii

J

h

r

rr

I

5

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful