SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPE URBANISM – Unit 1

LANDSCAPE URBANISM (LU) – an Introduction

• Landscape Urbanism framework is formulated as a collection of ideas by architects, landscape
architects, urban designers & planners as an approach to the urban agenda.
 LU advocates invalidity of traditional dichotomies like country & city to define the
contemporary urban realm.
 It suggests a possibility to draw inspiration from the functions & operational aspects of
landscape rather than its aesthetic qualities.
 Landscape is more than a back-drop to architecture. Rejection of landscape as a scenic
image doesn’t mean rejection of form. Rather the models & strategies of LU demonstrate that
form & process don’t have to compete. Integration of form & process can rather inspire new
aesthetical & functional solutions.
 The motivation of LU is the creation of a sustainable city regarding several parameters
such as ecological, social, economic and aesthetic aspects.(Charles Waldheim, 2010)

Definition of LU by Richard Weller(2007)

LU claims to
 align itself with contemporary scientific paradigms of nature as a complex, self-
organizing system, conceptualize, interpret and directly engage the city as a
hybrid ecology
 emphasize the creative, time developmental agency of ecology in the formation of
urban life as opposed to envisaging an ideal equilibrium between culture and nature
 include within the purview of design all that is in the landscape – infrastructure,
bldgs., etc. at a scale that bridges the gap between landscape – design, ecology &
planning
 experiment creatively with computer driven methods of mapping social &
ecological forces which affect a given site to get closer to the complex dynamics of
landscape
 foreground the landscape as the ultimate system to which all goes and from which
all comes, a template for urbanism
LU rejects
 the Garden as landscape architecture’s metaphor
 landscape as urbanism other, as a repressed, gendered and passive layer
 a nature to effect equilibrium between nature and culture
 designing towards fixed and final objects or aesthetic intuitions regarding formal
composition
 style, image, scene and symbolism as dominant aspects of design
 neo-conservative, new urbanism & avant- garde originality
 modernist planning & its pretense to control & contemporary planning devoid of the
creative processes
 a McHargian binary coding between nature & culture. (Weller,2007 p.67)
 The idea of landscape as a structuring element for the city is not new. Examples from the
history of city planning, architecture & landscape architecture such as Boston back Fens by
Olmsted, Garden City by Ebenezer Howard & Villa Radieuse by Corbusier demonstrate how
landscape is qualified to organize a city & contribute to the urban experience in a positive
way.
 The proponent of LU - James Corner(2010) says that LU represents new ideas & hence
dichotomies like rural-urban, nature-culture & planning-design are not valid when addressing
the contemporary urban realm. Today’s cities include hybrid typologies too complex to
categorize as urban/rural. A new model is required that enhances interdisciplinary
approaches & process to address the complexity and indeterminacy of the contemporary
city. Hence landscape acts as a MODEL for Urbanism that includes how things work in
space & time.
 LU – an academic product of many institutions
o US
1. Graduate School of Design, Harvard
Imp. Proponents - Charles Waldheim
- Mohsen Mostafavi
2. University of Pennsylvania
Imp. Proponent - James Corner
o Austria
Technische Universitat, Vienna
o France
Versailles, Paris
o England
AA School, London
o Denmark
1. The Royal Danish Academy of Fine arts
2. School Of Architecture, Copenhagen
3. Aarhus School of Architecture
 City of Perth, Australia – nature (bush land) overlapped with culture (developments) over time.
 LU a topic of debate among
practitioners & theorists involved in
the forming of the contemporary city
 Arena of debate – conferences, on-
line, dissertations & journals than
literature
 Imp. Journals publications with LU
as theme are
1. Praxis#4
2. Kerb#15
3. Topos #71(latest)
- shows how the debate is
broadening with contributions
from all over the world
 Blog & online forums - Landscape + Urbanism
- Random Rants
- Architectoniki
- www.timstonor.com
- AA’s blog spot

 DEBATE circles around 3 issues

1. Does LU have a potential to generate form?
2. Abstract texts & pretentious terminologies!!
3. Are the ideas presented by LU new or just old ideas updated to contemporary conditions?

Debate #1
LU’s potential to generate FORM?
Susannah Drake (2010) – LU shows high competence in marketing an idea but demonstrates a
sparse engagement in design. Vague formulations ending in empty words, blandness & anonymity

Drake quotes Corners description of LU

“…….a productive attitude towards indeterminacy, open ended-ness, intermixing and cross
disciplinarity. Unlike the overly simplified view of the city as static composition, with the planner
as figure in-charge, LU views the emergent metropolis as a thick, living mat of accumulated
patches & layered systems with no singular authority or control. Such a dynamic, open-ended
matrix can never be operated upon with any certainty as to outcome & effect…………”

Drake comments - Corner explains 5 characteristics as a base for a new form of practice
o Horizontality
o Infrastructures
o Forms of process
o Techniques
o Ecology
However Corner is leaving out the subject of design. He says LU is as much an ideology as it is
a mode of practice. Yet he explains that most projects are still on the drawing board because of
the clients lack of visionary thoughts

When it comes to form, LU does not suggest anything new. Nothing beyond McHarg’s methods
but has a more sophisticated verbal construct

 Offices engaged in LU theory & practice in recent years

- Stoss LU
- Hargreaves Associates US
- Corners Field Operations
- Palmbout Urban Landscapes
- West 8 Holland
- Turenscape – Beijing

LU suggest neither a new formalism nor a renewed emphasis on landscape in the city. It is not a
theory of design but promises to innovate at the level of design practice
(Hight is cited in Muir 2010, pg7)

Debate#2
Abstract texts & pretentious terminologies…!!!
Is it rhetoric without substance?
The critique of LU regarding its inaccessible character, its dense texts & abstract terminology is
happening at the global level.
e.g. web based LU bullshit generator mocks the pretentious terminology & impreciseness of LU

Debate#3
A collection of old ideas?
Mohsen Mostafavi (2010 pg.32), one of the instigators of LU states that the interdisciplinary &
multi scalar approach of the framework further a new model for sustainability. LU provides a
complex range of perspectives (economic, political, social & cultural)

Provoked by LU’s claim to present a paradigm shift by Waldheim in his quote “LU describes a
disciplinary realignment in which landscape replaces architecture as the basic building block of
contemporary urbanism”, Gary Scott, president of ASLA retaliates saying Landscape architects
have already engaged in questions of LU like Olmsted’s planning principles where city form is
generated from the landscape

Muir(2010) says it is important to acknowledge prior theories of landscape architecture to

enhance LU’s accessibility.
The Emergence of LU
The debates show the lack of consensus regarding LU. The lingering question “ Why does LU
exist at all?” Background of emergence of LU will bring clarity to this

 Lindholm (2008 pg4) - LU is a concept, an abstraction, a meta level. Concept developed for 2
reasons by architects, landscape architects, urban designers & planners
1. To address the perceived lack of contemporary planning models for understanding the
processes changing the urban realm over time
2. To counteract the perceived inability to creatively use ecological know-how in design &
planning thinking

 LU sprung from a reaction against the superficiality & political disinterest of post modernism
 LU – a reaction against the environmental framework that was seen as aesthetically
unconscious
 Gray (2006) – Emergence of LU traced to the theoretical currents of non-linear dynamics,
mathematical field theory & computer simulation technology highlighting relations &
interconnectivity as opposed to single objects
 This demonstrates the striving for a new model to use for a city
With the change in morphology of the contemporary city, its functions & forces are
transformed
 The 3 eggs diagram of Cedric Price illustrates this. This change calls for new methods &
models to view & understand the city
 As the dichotomy of the city & country, nature & culture becomes blurred LU suggests a
revaluation of landscape as a model to understand the cities of today & tomorrow
Revaluating the concept of landscape – a new urban morphology requires a new approach to
Landscape & Urbanism

James Corner invented the phrase “Landscape as Urbanism” in a series of conferences in mid
1990s. Landscape played the lead in these conferences with themes like “constructing landscape”
& “recovering landscape”. Aim was to discuss & theorize landscape architecture & push the
discipline forward. This was the starting point of revaluation

The Picturesque movement represented nature as pastoral scenes composed of trees, hedges,
meadows & water in its paintings regarded as righteous, kind & comforting as against the morally
degenerated city. Can this be useful in the design of our contemporary landscape addressing
infrastructure lines, derelict industrial sites or wind power masts? (Prominski 2004 pg.26)

Such Arcadian landscapes may be applicable in some places but as an overall model for
contemporary urban conditions where the dichotomies of old cities cease to exist - it is irrelevant

Corner (1999) says that if landscape is used in a scenographic sense as a backdrop for urban
life or as a passive product of culture, it loses its potential to produce & enrich culture.
Hence revaluating landscape to the advocates of LU is necessary.
Landschaft

Corner (1999) says - a revaluation of landscape means a possibility to introduce a model that
includes different forces – natural, cultural, economical, social, etc. over time, discarding the ideas
of dichotomies. He puts more meaning into the word landscape by referring to the German
word “Landschaft” – which covers relationship not only among the visible (bldgs. & fields) but also
of programs, processes & space.

Landschaft - land shaped & organized by humans with a focus on productivity; not a scenic picture,
nature or wilderness. It happens by the hands & plans of humans (Muir, 2010)
Corner (1996) – e.g. for traditional opposition between nature & culture – Los Angeles River;
the river runs in a concrete channel built by engineers to handle spring flooding & surface run-off.
He disregards the will of environmentalists & landscape architects to transform the channel into a
green corridor accessible to the people as it was against nature & culture. The channel needs to be
looked at as part of the landscape as it performs the function of a hydrological vessel.

The concept of landscape as a construct by Simmel

enables LU to apply landscape as a model for our
physical surroundings. A construct can be renegotiated.
Bach et al (2005) say that Simmel’s view is a pre-requisite
to dissolve the dichotomies and relieve urban & landscape
elements from their preconceived meaning & reconnect
them both visually & procedurally. Simmel’s idea of
landscape as a concept opens up a wide range of
interpretations which risks causing ambiguousness &
confusion.

The landscape of LU means a shift from the idea of the passive picturesque landscape defined by
the human eye to the active and operational landscape used as a model by humans. This shift
means a focus on how the landscape functions and how it operates over time rather than what it
looks like. The question of what this means in practice yet remains.

Landschaft in practice – defining competitions

How can ideas of landschaft be transferred to form?
Certain competitions serve as defining elements of LU. These emphasize 3 issues – uncertainty,
processes & relations.

Prominski (2005) says – landscape is characterized by both spatiality & temporality, subject to
unpredictable change governed by the specific site and its context. It is an evolving evolutionary
system rather than a static image. These characteristics of landscape are applied on the city – as
an evolutionary system. He means dealing with questions of
- determinacy Vs indeterminacy
- spatial qualities over time
- complexity, uniqueness & value conflicts
& providing a systematic framework open for change at the site.
Competition – Example #1
Parc de le Villette, Paris, 1982 by Rem Koolhaas / OMA (2nd entry after Tschumi’s)
This project is recurrently referred to in writings of Waldheim (2006), Bach (2008) & Gray (2006) as
it demonstrates how determinacy Vs indeterminacy & the questions of spatial qualities over time
can be addressed by applying an organizational model inspired by landscape.

The competition brief asked for a long list of programmatic demands but without specifying where,
how & when different parts of the programs would be developed on the competition site – 121 acres
of an old slaughterhouse complex.

The OMA’s response to the brief & the site was less of a design solution and more of a strategic
organization. The focus was on how the surface of the park could be equipped & staged in order to
anticipate & accommodate change in demand & programs.

Responding to uncertainty with a landscape inspired approach……

OMA worked with 4 different layers that organized different parts of the program.
 50m wide East-West Strips organized synthetic & natural surfaces – similar to an
agricultural organization of a field
 Confetti Grid organized large & small service points and kiosks
 Circulation paths &
 Large objects organized the linear & round forests
Muir (2010) illustrates the possibility of each strip to accommodate a different program contributing
to flexibility as each program is independent of its neighbor. Moving perpendicular to the strips, the
visitor will encounter the section of all programs. Moving along a strip a continuous atmosphere is
presented. The stable element of the park is illustrated by the natural aspects such as rows of trees
& a round forest. The other elements are of a more flexible character as they can be replaced as
the program & activity changed. The OMA entry presented a shift from a fixed design to a strategy
for facing future change.
“It is safe to predict that during the life of the park, the program will undergo constant change &
adjustment. The more the park works, the more it will be in a perpetual state of revision. Its “design”
should therefore be the proposal of a method that combines architectural specificity with
programmatic indeterminacy”. (Koolhaas, 1995, pg.932)
A flexible framework that can handle change, mutability & indeterminate processes were emerging.

Competition – Example #2
Downsview Park, Toronto, 2000
This project is recurrently referred to in writings of Czerniak and Hargreaves (2007) & Waldheim
(2006) as it not only illustrates how indeterminacy & flexibility can be achieved but also emphasizes
on modern ecology where the dichotomy of nature & culture is dissolved, highlighted by working
with strategies rather than form. It is an interdisciplinary approach that shows how representation
can be used to illustrate dynamics over time.

17yrs. after La Villette, an international competition for a major city park, the Downsview park was
organized. The site - a de-industrial site, a former military base in Toronto with an indeterminate set
of programs. The brief was in a LU manner with emphasis on landscape as the medium, to design
for changes & dynamics of time – with a focus on ecology.
The brief read “….for an interpretation of ecology consistent with an adaptive, self-organizing, open
system”. The entries illustrate how these forces were used as structural elements and as tools for
designing & organizing the site.

The site was positioned on a watershed, which encouraged the competitors to allow the hydrology
of the site guide the organization of the program. Ecological strategies were developed to
interweave nature & culture – natural & artificial processes not to be in contradiction. However
design & definite form were lacking in the entries. Instead guiding strategies & structures were
proposed in the form of matrices of interacting programmatical & ecological systems. Another tool
used to present the proposal was the phased framework plan, expressing dynamics over time by
presenting scenarios of the park in 5, 10 & 15yr. periods. The strategies proposed were clearly
different from the models proposed by Ian McHarg 30yrs. prior. McHarg used the diagrammatic
method with overlays but excluded the aspect of time & the synthesis of nature & culture in his
presentations. He proposed a closed & balanced model towards a climax state.
The Downsview competition present the interaction between nature, culture, processes & patterns
in a more complex & nuanced manner (Gray, 2006).

The entry of James Corner & Stan Allen, Emergent Ecologies illustrates this evolutionary inspired
theory. The concept was based on an operational matrix, displayed in layered diagrams. The
proposal showed detailed site sections in order to demonstrate how the proposal would affect the
site (Muir, 2010).
 James Corner + Stan Allen
“emergent ecologies,”
Downsview Park, Toronto,
Adaptive management
Strategies

River Birch Grove Meadow marsh / Tall

grass prairie

White Cedar / Black Sumac / Sassafras Grove

spruce swamp

Red Maple Swamp Eastern Sycamore Grove

James Corner + Stan Allen, et al., Emergent Ecologies,

“Emergent Ecologies” – Downsview Park, Toronto,
Diagrams of habitat nests

Matrices of interacting programmatical & ecological systems

Designing a process as opposed to form:
The winning competition entry by OMA & Bruce Mau –
Tree City focuses on designing a process & strategy for achieving
indeterminacy and flexibility. Groves of trees, water features &
meadows were designed without specifically addressing their order
within the park. Graphics as a tool for “non-design” applied.
OMA in La Villette proposed strips of landscape to organize parts of
the park whereas they used circles in the Tree City (Gray, 2006).

Strategy for Tree City Manufacture nature + Tree City by

1000 pathways + grow the park + curate culture + sacrifice and Bruce Mau
save + destination and dispersal = low density metropolitan life
The proposed park was to be 25% forest supported by meadows, gardens, playfields and 1000
pathways. The dots of the park plan were ambiguous and could be interpreted as anything.
This “non-design” allowed for flexibility in that they provide organization & form. Tree city was
more a formula than a design – a pragmatic response to unknowable political and economic
conditions. But this vague strategy has to be followed by a prolonged process. The ambiguity and
open-endedness of the design may show a potential for flexibility but it might be difficult to
implement by the politicians and planners because of lack of definition and legibility.

Ambition – intertwine nature & culture over time + the natural conditions of a site guide the design
& strategies of a site + design for indeterminacy by designing a process
How much of the park’s current status is a result of the open-endedness of the design needs to be
studied.

Pathways diagram

Preservation
diagram

Program / Plan

Program diagram
 Buildings
(suburban structures)

Pathways
(hard and fast paths – recreation
soft wide paths – strolling
ornamental paths - peaceful contemplation)

Dots
(cultural campus buildings,
parking, deciduous forest,
security, information centers,
housings, recreational water,
gardens, meadow lots, sports fields,
wetlands and outdoor theatre)

Tree City Park –

Overall Plan
Super imposition of
layers

Current use : The Downsview Park hosts mainly community based events such as concerts, Trail of Lights
festival, theatres and games. A Sports Centre where people can play hockey, basketball, volleyball, soccer
and any other popular sports is available. The Park also houses the Toronto Aerospace Museum, the
Toronto Wildlife Centre, the Downsview Park Film and Television Studios and the Downsview Park Arts
Alliance.
Current status : The development of the park is currently halted due to insufficient funds. Not everything has
been realized according to the original plan; there are discussions on privatizing the area to raise enough
money to maintain the park.

Competition – Example #3
Fresh Kills to landscape, NewYork, 2001
o Emphasis on
1. Modern Ecology
2. Resilience by dissolving the dichotomy of nature & culture
3. A long term strategy to remediate a polluted site
o Method – diagramming as a tool, concept and frame to describe ecological dynamics
interacting with human interventions.
Designing for resilience by intertwining nature & culture:
James Corner’s winning entry developed an idea for resilience for the Fresh Kills landfill project on
Staten island, NewYork.
 Brief : transform 2200 acre site from landfill to landscape
 Existing site : 40% of the area was industrial or vacant land

 PROPOSAL :
o 75% of nature, recreation & residential programs on the site
o A layered model showing development of the site over time
o Each layer – constituted an ecology having its own time frame & site boundary in
order to project a long term plan.
Time being part of the plan meant a potential for resilience.
What is Resilience? – the ability of a system to adjust to changing conditions without losing identity
or performativity.
What is “Park”- resilience? – ability to accommodate diverse and shifting social, cultural,
technological and political desires while maintaining its identity. The potential for park resilience lies in
the strategic design of its organizational systems & logics – whether infrastructure, form or modes of
operation that enable it to absorb and facilitate change yet maintain its design sensibility.(Czerniak
2007, p216).

The resilience of the park was solved by the use of a matrix. This not only
Illustrates resilience, but also the co-existence of natural & cultural systems like
animal habitat and infrastructure development in terms of function/interaction
on the site.
The matrix proposed a process of re-colonization of the polluted site with organizational layers
1. Threads (linear paths and circulation) - organized the flow of matter including water which
would rejuvenate derelict and ecologically poor areas
2. Mats (surfaces & fields) - constituted a patchwork of porous surfaces that cover the ground
providing erosion control and native habitat
3. Islands (clusters & groups) - allowed for protected habitats, seed sources and program
activities
would provide access & framework of organic matter, people and programs.
These 3 elements/layers and their interrelationships were the backbone of the park’s organization.
The 3 elements/layers would
o develop in time to a self-sustaining, flexible & resilient system that can absorb change &
transform as per demand
o act as a framework providing identity & perform functions on the ecological level in the site

The proposal was for 30yrs. in 3 phases.

o Phase -1 – “Seeding” – “public access to safe areas of the site, the restoration of native habitat
& the development of recreational facilities for the neighbouring area”
o Phase -2 - Overall infrastructure development of the site including road network, utilities,
plantings and other structures
o Phase-3 – Site programming (will change with time - as demography & demand change) -
long term adaptability plan
A communication campaign was conducted aiming at upgrading the area from the public idea of a
landfill to a valuable park. This enhanced public engagement in the site to make the proposal a
success(Muir 2010).

“It is not an exercise of trying to design a fantastic park; it is a method of trying to get from what it is
now to something that is green, public and safe. And that process would then produce a park that had
very unique spatial and aesthetic experiences and properties.”(Comer cited in Muir 2010 p166)

“….particularly compelling is the complex interweaving of natural ecologies with the social, cultural
and infrastructural layers of the contemporary city.” (Waldheim cited in Gustavsson p34)
The message conveyed is that the intertwining & integrating the natural and artificial layers of a site is
significant for LANDSCAPE URBANISM
Unit – 1
Questions
Part – A
1. What is Landscape Urbanism(LU)?
2. How does Richard Weller describe Landscape Urbanism?
3. Name 2 examples from the history of city planning where landscape is used as the structuring
element for the city.
4. What are the various sources of debate and discussion on LU?
5. Write about the background of emergence of LU
6. What is Landschaft?
7. Name any 2 competition designs that serve as defining elements of LU
8. What are the 4 different layers that organized different parts of the program of OMA’s Parc de le
Villete?

Part – B
1. Give a detailed account on the discussions & debates on landscape Urbanism
2. Explain the concept of “designing for resilience by intertwining nature & culture” in detail with an
example
3. “Designing a process as opposed to form” – explain this with OMA’s proposal of the “tree city”