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.