The joy of walking on dirt

I recently attended the ASLA conference in San Francisco, and after four days of walking up and down those steep hills, my flatlander's legs were quite sore. On my last day in San Fran I visited the Golden Gate Park and the Japanese Garden. Not being all that savvy with navigating bus routes, I got off at the wrong stop and had to walk several blocks to the park. While in the park I noticed I was gravitating towards the grass and dirt beside all the paved areas, and then I noticed that I wasn't the only one doing so. Every runner I saw that day in the park was running on dirt or grass, and there was a little dirt track next to most of the paved paths in the park. I realized that in a big city, where hard surfaces are 99% of the walkable area, residents seek out a softer surface whenever they can, especially runners.

With all of our emphasis on providing paved areas and ADA access in our green spaces, I think we sometimes forget that its ok to just let a surface be dirt or grass. I am now rethinking park design, particularly in large cities.

TND's and New Urbanism

After having toured I'on in Charleston, SC recently (for the second time, mind you) as well as adjacent Daniel Island, I have some thoughts on this particular type of community. Although I think the basic premise of New Urbanism is a good one, I have a few problems with the reality of these neighborhoods. The most blatant problem to me is that these places feel very contrived. Now, before you jump all over me in defense, I do think that both I'on and Daniel Island are good examples of NU and are very well designed. But the thing that seems to make particularly I'on feel so contrived is that all the homes are still designed in a very similar traditional style. If you drive through any small town in America, you will almost always see a blend of architectural styles that spans the last two or more centuries. Even the most quaint of traditional communities have a few token midcentury modernist ranch homes thrown into the mix, often accompanied by some much less appealing eighties modern split levels and other quirky styles. The thing is, these structures add a sense of reality to their communities. They signify the ever changing trends, as well as individual taste. Whether or not you like the design of such homes, they nevertheless make a place seem much more REAL.

My other major argument against NU is that these neighborhoods quickly appreciate out of the range of any low or moderate income buyers. I know that it is very difficult to control this, and frankly I see a valid argument in both directions on this issue. Some municipalities are placing limits on the amount of appreciation a buyer can gain on their property if they are within a certain income group. This is in effect saying that they don't deserve to make a bundle of money on their investment because they are poor. On the other hand, if such measures are not placed on purchases the homes quickly sail out of reach of low income buyers anyway. It's definitely not an easy issue to solve! I guess the good part is that if low-income buyers are helped initially with purchasing homes in NU neighborhoods, at least that is one less poor person after they sell their property!

Above is a picture of the house one of my family members just purchased in a TND neighborhood. This house has appreciated from the 350k range just 3 years ago to the 675k range today. I am understandably jealous!

Manifesto for an unblinkered Landscape Architecture

By Bob Jacobsen (See my list of links for source):

MANIFESTO FOR AN UNBLINKERED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, by Tom Turner*
1. We believe landscape architecture to be the most comprehensive of the arts. Its theory and history are continuous from ancient to modern times, with Senenmut, Vitruvius, Bramante, Babur, Le N-tre, Brown, Repton, Meason, Olmsted, Jellicoe, and McHarg among its leaders.
2. Lanship, defined as the condition of friendship between people and places, is our goal.
3. The six grand compositional elements of designed landscape are: landform,water, plants, climate, buildings, and paving (or "horizontal and vertical structures").
4. As an art, the practice of landscape architecture rests on the "imitationof nature" (mimesis) in the classical (neo-Neoplatonic) sense of representing visual ideas about the nature of the world.
5. Landscape design does best when preceded by excellent landscape planning and sustained by able stewards. It's therefore necessary to involve clients, communities, and other professionals in the planning, design, and maintenance of projects which aim to create lanship.

Simulation Games

My daughter bought a game today called Mall Tycoon 2, where you design and run your own mall. It's not a bad little game, but helping her play it got me thinking about these sorts of games. They have become very sophisticated, and I think we need one that is environmentally focused. Why not create a game whereby you have to run the world economy in such a way as to reverse the threat of global warming, for example? This would be a great way of communicating this concept to people in a non-threatening way, and would make people realize that driving a car, eating a lot of red meat, etc all impact the environment negatively when done en masse.

Designing for Seniors

This topic has been on my mind quite a bit lately, because my Grandmother is here now and I am realizing the full impact of what it means to be her age. She can't drive anymore, and is suffering from various ailments that prevent her from being able to get around as much as she used to.

It amazes me that we are not doing more to create communities for older people that function on many different levels. let's take Sun City as an example. If you have ever been into one of the Sun City complexes, they are really enormous and nicely laid-out, with lots of walking paths, golf courses and paths, and all sorts of entertainment options for the residents. Often they are also sited near a Wal-Mart and a health center, as well, so that residents have easy access to amenities.

However, the biggest problem with this sort of community is, the day the resident can no longer drive, they have to leave. A Wal-Mart in "close proximity" is one thing if you can drive there. It's another thing if you have to walk, and you have a replacement hip or are partially blind. It's so sad to think that older people must relocate and make new friends, and become re-accustomed to a whole new life once they lose the ability to drive. They might still be perfectly capable of cooking, cleaning their house, and doing other daily tasks of survival. They might have friends and a social life in their community. But in this modern age, if they cannot drive, their life is basically over.

Why can't we create communities that allow older residents to switch to a transportation-assistance program when they stop driving, and then gradually as they lose the ability to do daily tasks, they can be transitioned into an assisted-living arrangement where they live? Is this such a hard concept for developers to grasp? Many of these people either have no family, or else their families are far away and don't see them often. Their friends and neighbors may be all that they have. And, the nice thing about this social network is that many of the older residents are still capable of driving, working part-time, etc so they are a great resource for house-bound residents. Not to mention, that higher functioning residents know their time will come when they need help too, so they are probably glad to help those who are already further down the path in terms of functionality.

Depression among seniors is high. Families are more disjointed and remote than ever. It's time we design communities to help alleviate this problem and create places where people can age comfortably and without fear of losing their home when they get to a certain point.

Architects and Landscape Architects can be friends!

Ok, it is almost finals week, I have two kids and a new puppy to chase after, and I have a gazillion projects due like YESTERDAY, so of course I am doing the natural thing here in my blog - procrastinating!

I wanted to comment about the gray area between the two disciplines of architecture and landscape architecture. I am a teaching assistant in an introductory architecture studio this semester, and I really enjoy working with the students. I also love it when they teach ME a thing or two about photoshop! Today we had an interesting discussion about the boundary between our disciplines. Often, landscape architects will suggest a structure's shape or design when designing the environment around it, if there is nothing there yet. These impressions can often stick in a client's mind, so I believe it is prudent for the designer to try and remain vague and neutral with such suggestions, in order to make the architect's job easier later. However, by the same token architects should tread carefully when siting trees, ponds, etc in a design because those elements may not be feasible in reality or may be countered by other (dare I say better?) ideas formulated by the landscape architect. So each discipline must tread carefully and take care not to project too dominant of a theme relating to the other's "territory" in a design. There's room for both of them to work together and even inspire each other, too, of course.

Isolated wetlands

In recent years a supreme court decision took the power of designating isolated wetlands away from the US Army Corps of Engineers. This has resulted in many important wetland areas being developed. The Corps simply has to 'walk away' if there is no surface water connection to a wetland. States have the power to override this and designate isolated wetlands on their own. I will expand on this topic further later on, but it is important for us to all write to our congressmen and urge them to explore the issue. Development in my state is increasing at a very rapid pace, especially in coastal areas, and I have personally seen coastal wetlands disappear because of this loophole.

This photo was taken of a wetland in coastal South Carolina months before it was filled and townhouses were built on the property. The US Army Corps of Engineers could not protect it because of the issue I speak of.

Child-friendly neighborhoods

I live in a small college town, and purchased a townhouse to live in while I attend graduate school. The neighborhood is not bad, I would describe it as 'transitional'. There are a lot of students, and plenty of ethnic diversity. I have neighbors that are black, asian, hispanic, etc... and there are quite a few children on the street. The other day my seven year old was riding her bike on our street and someone who was driving past apparently said to her 'you shouldn't be riding here, little girl'.
Perhaps its for the best that I was not right there, or that person and I would have had words. Our street has no sidewalks, so I am fearful about my kids riding there, but what else am I supposed to do? Kids need a place to play outside. What is the world coming to when a child cannot ride a bike on their own street? It's not like this is a main thoroughfare with a lot of traffic; the only people who come down the street are residents and visitors. We are doing a huge disservice to our own children and society at large by denying children safe outdoor places to play. We wonder why they go and get into all sorts of trouble!

Habitat Restoration

Today I attended a water forum that included state and federal agencies, power companies and other utility providers, as well as academia. We had a breakout water quality session during which, among other things, the issue of wetlands restoration came up. I expressed an interest from a Landscape Architectural perspective, saying that our profession has a profound interest in this topic and this is an area where interdisciplinary work would be really beneficial. We provide the design experience as well as the cultural and economic facilitation, and the scientists help with technical details regarding how the ecosystem should be rebuilt. This cross-communication would also be very helpful in areas such as brownfield site restoration.

As one small first step in this endeavor, I make the following suggestion: (to be expanded upon ad infinitum...)

Biologists could provide us with lists of plant communities that function well together, and that provide habitats for sensitive animals. For example, if there is a type of bird that only likes to nest in a particular type of tree, and in addition this bird will not nest in said tree if it is located near a busy road...that would be very helpful information for a Landscape Architect. Perhaps that bird also requires food source plants nearby, such as a certain berry-producing shrub. How easy it would be for an LA to plant that particular combination of trees and shrubs, away from busy roads, and make a difference for an animal whose habitat is so specific.

This ties into my belief that it is not enough to simply plant native plants. I think we have a responsibility to carry this further, kick it up a notch and re-establish plant communities within developed areas. Why have the urban areas defined as for people only, and the wilderness for animals only? There should be room for both, at every level. Whether it is a residential yard or a large commercial campus, I think that we can shed this mentality of having separation between what is landscaped and what is natural simply by proper choice and location of plant material.

Frog Crossings

One of my professors told us that in parts of Europe (I want to say he told us the Netherlands, although I could be wrong) people have installed "frog crossings" under roads so that frogs and other small critters can cross safely. They are apparently gridded to allow some light through, and have fences on either side to direct the critters to the tunnel.

I am also interested in larger wildlife corridors across interstates. The fragmentation we are creating with major roads is severely impacting the distribution of wildlife, especially for animals that must try to cross these roads on foot. I think this is a very important step for us to take in reconnecting the currently isolated ecosystems.
(From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildlife_crossing)

Graffiti Walls

I heard about this last year and thought it was pretty interesting. Apparently in some urban parks they now include a wall specifically intended for graffiti art, in an attempt to give would-be vandals a place to outlet their artistic impulses.

I think this is a really great idea, and is particularly appropriate adjacent to a skate park, for example. I do have some questions, however...

1. Is it appropriate to establish a set of rules for content of graffiti? For example, are racial slurs or X-rated material permitted?

2. Should the walls be periodically painted white, providing a blank slate for a fresh set of art? Or, should the art just be built in layers until eventually older work is obscured by newer material?

Here is a good graffiti site to peruse:

http://www.graffiti.org/

And here are some descriptions about places where legal walls have been installed:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/east/series2/graffiti_vandalism_tags_spray_paint.shtml

http://www.abc.net.au/news/australia/nsw/newcastle/200505/s1376470.htm

(From http://www.nograffiti.com/files/freewalls.htm)
Rockford, Illinois. The Aldeen Dam, located in a Rockford Park, was previously a place where high school students, with a permit, could spend all night decorating the walls with boasts about their schools. In July, 1997, with the arrival of hip-hop taggers in Rockford, the Aldeen Dam became entirely dominated by hip-hop taggers only. Almost all graffiti at Aldeen is done by the same taggers and crews that vandalize the residences, businesses, billboards, railroad cars, and signage of Rockford. Further, the number of tags at Aldeen is proportionate to a crew or tagger’s frequency of vandalism on the streets of Rockford. This fact alone would seem to disprove the claim that a “free wall” might be an effective tool to combat graffiti. Aldeen also displays the “spread-to-all-adjacent-areas” characteristic which other free walls manifest: at Aldeen, in the areas adjacent to the free wall, there is graffiti on light poles, the grass, trees, the parking lot, trash containers, park benches, and walking trails through the woods. (Jim Powers)

The following comments were received as a result of our discussions on free walls from a very involved Law Enforcement officer specializing in tagger suppression.........

When I was a part of the team in the Long Beach undercover sting operation, I suggested an area of free walls back in 1991. None of the taggers were interested. The reasons why they were not interested:

1 The "establishment" was making them conform to rules.
2 Taggers have no rules and they are anti-establisment, like the crew names depict: YPN(Your Property Next) or MAK(Murderers Assassins Killers).
3 If it isn't vandalism its not graffiti. It would be like asking gang members to be gang members Monday thru Friday from the hours of 3:30 pm to Midnight and not on weekends.
Free walls will always attract the taggers that will not respect the concept and you have a Huntington Beach situation all over again. The only reason why there is a persistence to make this "free wall" mistake again is someones ego is getting in the way of common sense. If a person goes to the Venice "pit" where it is similar to a free wall, all you have to do is look around the neighborhood and its got graffiti on it. The taggers did not limit it to the pit.

I hope the folly of free walls begins to sink in, those people that say it is a success often times hide the disaster it causes. I would like to visit a city the size of LA and see where a free wall concept is working. Whats really working and not working may boil down to from whose perspective.

I am very interested in hearing of more communities where these walls have been installed, and whether they are successful in giving young people an artistic outlet, or as this last article implies, whether they are NOT successful.

I venture to guess that a free wall would work best in a small community or town where the teenagers need an outlet such as this, rather than trying it in an area where gangs are going to be a problem. And if, in a small community, it is made clear to those using the space that if it is abused the privilege will be removed, maybe it will work. Also, putting it in a place where it is highly visible might provide passive policing. In a park, near a playground for example, where not only will vandalism of other elements besides the wall be observed immediately, but inappropriate content will be noticed by parents and reported to park officials who can paint over it.

Welcome!

This is my first real attempt to blog, so first of all, pat me on the back for squeezing some time out of my insane graduate school schedule to do this.

I am creating this blog as a forum for anyone interested in the profession of Landscape Architecture, as I want to not only share my enthusiasm for my career but also educate the general public about what Landscape Architecture actually is, or is not. Hence the name for the blog, because the vast majority of people seem to think that all we LA's do is plant bushes and show bed layouts using garden hoses on HGTV.

I cut and pasted this definition from Wikipedia because I think it is a fairly good starting point: "Landscape architecture is a multi-disciplinary field, including within its fold geography, mathematics, science, engineering, art, technology, social sciences, politics, history, philosophy. The activities of a landscape architect can range from the creation of public parks and parkways to site planning for corporate office buildings, from the design of residential estates to the design of civil infrastructure and the management of large wilderness areas or reclamation of degraded landscapes such as mines or landfills. Landscape architects work on all types of structures and external space - large or small, urban or rural, and with "hard"/"soft" materials, hydrology and ecological issues."

Now, I must say that it drives me crazy when horticulturists and others in the industry criticize LA's for not knowing plants very well. This is because I, for one, actually do know quite a bit about plants and I resent being lumped in with those who do not. Unfortunately, however, there are many LA's out there who simply flip through a book and get a plant for a particular spot without having any clear understanding of what they are specifying. I think this is irresponsible and just plain bad. If you don't know what to use, please ask someone who does. Otherwise you are perpetuating the stereotype about us.

Apparently there has been some desire in the past to change the title of the profession to something less married to the field of Landscaping. I suggest that because there are many LA's who concentrate on residential design, that they remain "landscape architects", while those who do more urban and large-scale work call themselves perhaps "environmental designers".

At any rate, I have been summarizing Booth and Hiss all night for my studio class, and I am pooped, so after I try to add in a few sections on this thang, and perhaps some pics, I am calling it a night. Toodle pip old blog.





















This is a pre-1603 map of Belfast from Jonathan Bardon's book "Belfast: an illustrated history".

Landscape architects in general are very interested in urban form and how it develops historically.