"...But urbanism is also, these days, something that in its broadest sense also includes appreciation of landscapes of the urban, of the role of open spaces, and not restricting the study of the city to the study of the objects that occupy the city..."
The unspoken fact about the 'urbanism' and 'landscape urbanism' fashion is that Architects who are untrained in the field of landscape architecture use the trendy new 'field' as a 'license' of sorts to plan and design landscapes in cities and beyond.
For those who follow the writings of Mohsen Mostafavi, Charles Waldheim and others leading this arrogant and hollow field and look for projects built with these ideas (none really built yet), you will find a lack of many of the factors that are at the heart of Landscape Architecture is about (scale, ecology, historical and cultural context, environment etc.).
I am somewhat disappointed that it is the leaders of this field that are educating the next generation of designers.
Am I alone?
I feel compelled to defend my education of 15 years ago, Noreg. I was always taught to consider the building in a larger built or unbuilt context - including every one of those things you list above.
I'll propose that what you're seeing is that the field of architeture has publicly moved more toward isolated formal object in the last 15 years, but that the less-prominent schools - with the work that is not being published - are still teaching the issues that concern you: built and social context both. I think architects trained in this latter way are more than qualified to teach the type of larger-scale "landscape" design - landscape meaning both hard and soft scape - discussed above.
Yeah, Noreg, I've got to disagree with you as well. I think that architects, urbanists, and larchs are all moving together towards a redefinition of their respective fields as systems, and those systems necessarily interact with other ones, up and down in scale, and side to side with adjacency.
We're not all fighting some intellectual turf war (ha!), it's about learning from each other and making newer, better, things and places.
Noreg,
Not sure if i read your comments above right. However, if so i beg to politely disagree. While their is certainly now panacea offered by the observations/explorations of landscape urbanism, it is certainly not in my opinion a "arrogant and hollow field "
In fact, i think that the breaking down of barriers between object/field and the expansion of interest in whole/total site or field/fabric planning is the future. Both within practice where it allows for more well rounded and complete programming and within theory promises the hope of no longer valuing hierarchies of training...
Edited...
Noreg,
Not sure if i read your comments above right. However, if so i beg to politely disagree. While their is certainly no panacea offered by the observations/explorations of landscape urbanism, it is certainly not in my opinion a "arrogant and hollow field "
In fact, i think that the breaking down of barriers between object/field and the expansion of interest in whole/total site or field/fabric planning is the future. Both within practice where it allows for more well rounded and complete programming and within theory where it offers the promise of no longer valuing hierarchies of training...
He's basically rehashing the same philosophy that has pervaded most Midwestern architecture programs for the past 40 years. The only difference is the global tentacle-y reach of Harvard.
May 12, 08 1:23 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
6 Comments
"...But urbanism is also, these days, something that in its broadest sense also includes appreciation of landscapes of the urban, of the role of open spaces, and not restricting the study of the city to the study of the objects that occupy the city..."
The unspoken fact about the 'urbanism' and 'landscape urbanism' fashion is that Architects who are untrained in the field of landscape architecture use the trendy new 'field' as a 'license' of sorts to plan and design landscapes in cities and beyond.
For those who follow the writings of Mohsen Mostafavi, Charles Waldheim and others leading this arrogant and hollow field and look for projects built with these ideas (none really built yet), you will find a lack of many of the factors that are at the heart of Landscape Architecture is about (scale, ecology, historical and cultural context, environment etc.).
I am somewhat disappointed that it is the leaders of this field that are educating the next generation of designers.
Am I alone?
Noreg
I feel compelled to defend my education of 15 years ago, Noreg. I was always taught to consider the building in a larger built or unbuilt context - including every one of those things you list above.
I'll propose that what you're seeing is that the field of architeture has publicly moved more toward isolated formal object in the last 15 years, but that the less-prominent schools - with the work that is not being published - are still teaching the issues that concern you: built and social context both. I think architects trained in this latter way are more than qualified to teach the type of larger-scale "landscape" design - landscape meaning both hard and soft scape - discussed above.
Yeah, Noreg, I've got to disagree with you as well. I think that architects, urbanists, and larchs are all moving together towards a redefinition of their respective fields as systems, and those systems necessarily interact with other ones, up and down in scale, and side to side with adjacency.
We're not all fighting some intellectual turf war (ha!), it's about learning from each other and making newer, better, things and places.
Noreg,
Not sure if i read your comments above right. However, if so i beg to politely disagree. While their is certainly now panacea offered by the observations/explorations of landscape urbanism, it is certainly not in my opinion a "arrogant and hollow field "
In fact, i think that the breaking down of barriers between object/field and the expansion of interest in whole/total site or field/fabric planning is the future. Both within practice where it allows for more well rounded and complete programming and within theory promises the hope of no longer valuing hierarchies of training...
Edited...
Noreg,
Not sure if i read your comments above right. However, if so i beg to politely disagree. While their is certainly no panacea offered by the observations/explorations of landscape urbanism, it is certainly not in my opinion a "arrogant and hollow field "
In fact, i think that the breaking down of barriers between object/field and the expansion of interest in whole/total site or field/fabric planning is the future. Both within practice where it allows for more well rounded and complete programming and within theory where it offers the promise of no longer valuing hierarchies of training...
He's basically rehashing the same philosophy that has pervaded most Midwestern architecture programs for the past 40 years. The only difference is the global tentacle-y reach of Harvard.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.