LA NOT UA [CONCISE ADR]
MLA_PROJECT B. MITCHELL CLOUTEN S3108013 RMIT 2012 | ARCH 1367. MASTERS OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
MITCHELL CLOUTEN S3108013 | RMIT2012 MLA SEM02 W04 – Project Abstract
LA NOT UA Reconsidering the Agrarian Landscape Through landscape architecture can we invigorate urban agriculture to become an engaging recreational facility for city inhabitants?
Landscape architecture not urban agriculture is the direct statement this research project is based upon; it clearly states the tone, scale, and lens by which this research compares itself to. I believe growing food in the places we live to be an important design ambition, and as resourceful as urban agriculture is to expanding cities it still remains very much dormant. Urban agriculture is currently considered for the residual spaces in the city, retrofitted, re-appropriated, and seldom used as the focal design component. This results in its private, individualised, and subtle practice. Innovative urban agriculture is currently being conceived: for example, vertical farms, Continuous Productive Urban Landscape’s (CPUL), and rooftop gardens. However, there still remains a disconnection between their ownership and interaction within the existing urban fabric. Building on this growing interdisciplinary discourse, as a student of landscape architecture, I ask how these food producing landscapes can challenge the segregated nature of agricultural spaces. How could these spaces operate as both a food production facility and as an occupiable public space offering new ways of recreation and engagement? The term agrarian landscape is used to create a distinction between agriculture and its forms of urban appropriation, with the ambition of this research. It deviates from the sole practice of farming, to the cultivation of land – agriculturally, socially, and environmentally. With design principles shared in permaculture and agrarianism this new appropriation of the term operates through the practice of landscape architecture. The agrarian landscape becomes an alternative agricultural system (contrasting to the industrialised models) that embraces biodiversity, integration, education and public interaction. Being a constructed ecology, it is modelled on natural ecosystems which are then appropriated with food producing species. Woodlands become not just a space to appreciate and meander, but a location to forage, harvest, eat, and explore. Such public edible landscapes then provide an array of engaging recreational activities not known to many urban dwellers; enriching the city recreationally, nutritionally, and environmentally.
005
TABLE OF CONTENTS CURRENT ABSTRACT 005 PRE 2012. Landscapes, Culinary Culture and a Tri-Polarity
010
PROJECT A. Follies, Foraging, and Food in the City 020 Forming a Critique of Urban Agriculture 026 First Conceptions of the Agrarian Landscape 029 Project A. Presentation Abstract 033 PROJECT B. Reflection, New Site, New Opportunities Agrarian Ecology and Inhabiting the Canopy Spatially, Socially, Environmentally, and Agriculturally
040 049 053
PRE 2012
PRE PROJECT A. REFLECTION
LANDSCAPES, CULINARY CULTURE AND A TRI-POLARITY ‘Landscape’ is an ambiguous term, subjective and worthy its own in-depth exploration. Neither the time nor place it is important that I outline what ‘landscape’ means to me, how I understand it, and how it has influenced my research to date. Despite its theoretical use (in identifying intellectual areas of understanding) I largely refer to landscape as in its occupiable, physical construct. Landscape is (but not limited to) a spatial expanse, with a palette characteristics particular to a place or places. It is an inhabitable area, a spatial architecture contained only by the measure of scale and context. Growing up in north east Victoria I have an abundance of opportunities to experience many different aspects of the natural landscape: from the family property in Barnawartha, the Alpine National Park, to the Murray River. These landscapes are often experienced
010
in associated with particular recreational activities such as camping, kayaking, hiking, fruit picking, hunting, etc. Others are in direct relation to a rural lifestyle, such as the collection of firewood, harvesting produce, caring for livestock, and general property maintenance. Through these opportunities I have developed an enduring passion between outdoor recreation and the appreciation for the natural landscape – a physical exploration of the world. Since moving to Melbourne many of those opportunities have no longer been locally or immediately available, which has challenged my engagement with the natural landscape. Consequentially this change in lifestyle has exposed me to another type of landscape, the constructed landscape and its role in the urban environment. This is particularly accentuated through the study of landscape architecture. Where the natural environment is preserved, unaltered and appreciated for its inherently wild character and beauty, the constructed
environment is an intensely measured, designed and deliberated space. The consideration of how a space functions, its effect, and the profusion of programmes it harbors were all new to my spatial appreciation. As I understand it landscape architects have the responsibility to continually challenge the performance of our constructed environment; enhancing its and our relationship with the broader urban context. The built environment demands to be flexible, responsive, abundant, and engaging. Underlying my design ambitions in the past has been a close consideration of how of these two polarised landscapes can be interwoven. Which leads to an important paradox: the two cannot intersect as in the process of designing a natural landscape it then becomes constructed. An absolute natural landscape for theoretical purposes is indeed impossible to construct. If a constructed natural landscape appears, acts, and operates like that of its natural counterpart – where an
occupants is blissfully unaware – then a constructed natural or pseudo-natural landscape is possible. Using this perhaps crude assumption my focus is now able to shift from its initial theoretical framing into an exploratory field of design. How can these polarised landscapes be interwoven? What opportunities could they create for the built environment, and how might we engage with them differently? A seemingly unrelated incessant passion of mine is all things food: learning, cooking, eating, growing, and collecting. This perhaps is a result of moving between a rural environment and inner city Melbourne, or maybe it is an influenced by the current ‘Foodie’ culture developing in Australia. Specifically, I find that growing and collecting of food to be an extraordinary activity – physically engaging, mentally edifying, and culinary rewarding. Two observations are of particular interest to me. Firstly is the abundance of produce that can be grown, even within an apartment (without external
011
Figure 001 - The Agricultural Landscape
Figure 002 - Encroachment of Urban Sprawl
012
Figure 003 - Urban Agriculture Along Side Train Line, Melbourne
Figure 004 - Example of a Food Forest
013
access) I have been able to grow quantities of herbs and small fruits that provide lavishly for ourselves and direct neighbours. Supporting this is the common anecdote is that a single citrus tree provides copious amounts of fruit for a single household that surplus is simply given away. Secondly, there are numerous recreational activities affixed all types of produce. From friends and neighbours exchanging produce, recipes and knowledge, to more social occasions of berry picking, fruit harvesting, and mushroom collecting. These activities are engaging and unique to which many travel for. In many cultures these events not only reap bountiful rewards but are social opportunities that pass on family traditions, knowledge and products. Through previous work I have often romanticised about bringing these culinary activities and opportunities into the urban environment. Agriturismo Venezia (Figures 005-007) was a design studio proposition for the development of a Venetian island. Originally an artificial
island constructed for industrial waste, the island would be transformed through landscape remediation and supported by biological services. The design supported an agricultural landscape intended to encapsulate and involve the vast tourism that the region experiences. Specialising in an array of local produce, the site would fluctuate through season, produce, recreation and landscape aesthetic. Supporting the islands diverse activities are a series of exploration tracks, that integrate produce and recreational opportunities. The thought process invested in this proposal surrounded a central idea that there is an array of rural experiences that many would yearn to participate in. More recently I participated in a permacultural elective outside the school of architecture and design. Permaculture is a design discipline with a framework of design ethics and principles for developing environmentally sustainable agriculture, by constructing efficient food based landscape systems. This experience
015
016 Figure 005 - Agriturismo Venezia Collage
bay laurel - individual TOTAL : 0.2500 ha
mint - field
TOTAL : 0.3612 ha 0.3612
plum - orchard
TOTAL : 1.3370 ha
fig - orchard
TOTAL : 1.2735 ha
0.7717 1.2735 0.5653
Figure 006 - Agriturismo Venezia Produce Diagram
apple - orchard
TOTAL : 1.2155 ha
bay laurel - individual
TOTAL : 1.2094 ha
1.2155
TOTAL : 0.2500 ha
mint - field
TOTAL : 0.3612 ha
1.2094
safron - field 1.5238
Figure 007 - Agriturismo Venezia Produce Mapping
peach - orchard
TOTAL : 1.5238 ha
0.3612
plum - orchard
apricot - orchard
TOTAL : 1.3370 ha
TOTAL : 1.1021 ha
0.3540
strawberry - field TOTAL : 1.6000 ha
TOTAL : 1.2735 ha
0.7717
0.3248 0.4233
fig - orchard
1.2735 0.5653
apple - orchard
artichoke - field
TOTAL : 1.2155 ha
TOTAL : 0.8438 ha
peach - orchard
TOTAL : 1.2094 ha
1.6 1.2155
0.8438
persimmon - orchard TOTAL : 1.2919 ha
walnut - individual
safron - field
TOTAL : 0.4000 ha
1.5238
0.4382 0.8238
1.2094
TOTAL : 1.5238 ha
apricot - orchard
TOTAL : 1.1021 ha
0.3540 0.3248
0.4000 0.4233
grape - vineyard
TOTAL : 4.656 ha
0.7983
chestnut - individual
strawberry - field
TOTAL : 0.2500 ha
TOTAL : 1.6000 ha
1.6897
artichoke - field
TOTAL : 0.8438 ha
1.6 0.2500
0.8438
2.1679
asparagus - field
TOTAL : 1.0751 ha
persimmon - orchard
pear - orchard
TOTAL : 1.2919 ha
TOTAL : 1.1925 ha
1.0751
walnut - individual TOTAL : 0.4000 ha
0.4382 0.8238
1.1925
grape - vineyard
united previous interests in recreational potential found through agriculture and the built environment. Stemming from a landscape architectural background I found the opportunity to challenge the project brief for the major assessment. Traditionally permaculture has been most commonly practised at a private and recreational scale, therefore it was suggested that we develop a proposition for a site of up to an acre in area. Alternatively I proposed the entire 47 acre site of Bingarra Estate, Barnawartha as an exploration of permaculture at a much broad scale. This experience continues as a passion on mine; using the design ethics and principles of permaculture and applying them through the lens and scope of landscape architecture.
0.7983
TOTAL : 4.656 ha
0.4000
chestnut - individual TOTAL : 0.2500 ha
1.6897 of my passions creates a tri-polarity consisting of three 0.2500 overarching landscapes inherent in society: the natural, 2.1679 constructed and agricultural. Note this theoretical notion pear - orchard asparagus - field TOTAL : 1.1925 ha TOTAL : 1.0751 ha isn’t as naïve to say1.0751 there is nothing outside of this field; 1.1925 nor am I suggesting it is a completely new construct. It however provides a personal and interesting framework to develop my master’s research though. What are the recreational opportunities within the natural and agricultural landscape? At what point do these distinct landscapes converge, or how can they be interwoven? What new opportunities do they enable for the built environment, and how do they impact the way we engage with the city?
When we consider agriculture to be an underlying foundation of civilisation and recall my interest in the distinction between the natural and constructed landscape, a powerful construct begins to emerge from my fields of interest. The amalgamation
017
PROJECT A
Figure 008 - Foraging Diagram 1
Figure 009 - Foraging Diagram 2
PROJECT A.
FOLLIES, FORAGING, AND FOOD IN THE CITY At the beginning of this research project my initial ambitions were clear but broad - the enhancement of our cities by introducing forms of agriculture into our public spaces. Through the early exercises of ‘follies’ and associated methods mental mapping my broad field of interest was explored and narrowed. Three dominant topics circulated through this period: three landscapes systems, food foraging, and food in the city. This early investigation into these topics created the foundations of this research project. It is already apparent the omnipresent interest in food production, its influence for landscape architectural practice, and associated food cultures. Following my contemplation of the tripolarity landscapes (natural, constructed, and agricultural) my initial follies (Fig. 10-12.) were representative of how three landscape systems may coexist, interweave and interact. Through this exercise I wanted to tease-out ideas and relationships that I perhaps had not considered. Despite instruction not to be literal, the consideration of
020
these systems was literally manifested as three types of differing string. The exercise then became about the deconstruction of the original follies, which lead to surprising successes. One observation was that these systems don’t necessarily need to be whole, but could be collectively present. Another and perhaps contradictory observation was that a densely entangled network allows fluctuation while retaining strength. Follies D and E (Fig. 14-17) were focused on the notion of foraging. As a new consideration to my research, I wanted to explore the point in which someone might participate in various forms of foraging; leading to testing factors of convenience, advertising, and engagement. Questions raised during the brief contemplation of this idea were: why would I forage when a store is more convenient? How would one know that the fruit is edible, ripe or available for collection? The corresponding follies trialled visual cues, signage, and sweet rewards. It was only after presenting this exploration that my fellow classmates began to interact.
Figure 010 - Follie A
A
Figure 012 - Follie C
C
B
Figure 011 - Follie B
Figure 013 - Follie C
021
Figure 014 - Follie D
D
022 Figure 015 - Follie D
E
Figure 016 - Follie E
Figure 017 - Follie E
023
024
Figure 018 - Visualising the City Through Foraging
Figure 019 - Foraged Walnuts
Figure 020 - Foraged Sorel
The notion of food foraging quickly became an important aspect of my research, and I could relate to the collection of food, whether it is from a garden or the wild, from growing up in rural Victoria. This led to the exploration of current practices of urban food foraging. Referenced by several online communities and Melbourne newspaper articles, “Urban Food Maps” and “Sharing Abundance” are two strong foraging communities piloted by Julia Aniche. As an alternative food system foraging is a vital activity shared by many cultures whether it is for nutritionally, culinary, recreationally, or social purposes. To build on this interest I participated in two foraging expeditions - one rural, one urban.
follies experimentation. This raised the enquiry of how we engage with the city as a place of foraging, and how do we design cities for foraging?
The harvest yielded walnuts, fig, dandelion (root and flower), purslane, mushrooms (not eaten), sorrel, clover, lavender, and rosemary. Despite the season the foraging was a success, which also challenged the range of species I had previously considered to be agricultural produce. Most importantly Foraging isn’t something most people have to do, but a recreational activity they wish to participate in; this was also demonstrated in my
While imaging the city as a place for foraging, I used simple illustrated mappings (Fig. 8,9,18) to explore how existing city infrastructure may be used as connective spaces for agriculture: the nature strip, planted avenues, traffic islands, rail lines and residual spaces. This continued on the idea that ‘public produce’ needed to be close, convenient, and readily accessible to become an activity someone may engage in. Essentially the streetscape would become and edible landscape. This particular set of explorations are not new ideas, nor very rigorous, but they did give rise to another fundamental interest embedded with this research project – how can edible landscapes inform how we engage with the city? This promptly asks how I understand and value the current forms and practice of urban agriculture. The term urban agriculture hadn’t been used during my research, strategically, until this point.
025
Figure 021 - Urban Agriculture : Urban Farming
PROJECT A.
FORMING A CRITIQUE OF URBAN AGRICULTURE Omitted from the language up until now, urban agriculture for me is a problematic buzz-word; the same can also be said for edible landscape and edible city. Forming a Critique of Urban Agriculture is exactly as titled, the formulation of my current understanding of urban agriculture and its practice. In defining urban agriculture I also acknowledge its ambitions and demonstrate how I intend to work in opposition to them. Urban agriculture is currently a disjointed programme. Its variance in discourse, intention, scale, and application create a general ideal, but prevent it as an application design element. Commonly known practice ranges from a humble vegie patch, the home garden, a community plot, an urban farm, or a city-wide policy. With advancements in technology urban agriculture continues to be developed into many contemporary appropriations: in example rooftop gardens, green walls, and vertical farms. An admirable ambition of urban agriculture is growing food in the places we live – this itself creates a wealth of social and environmental
026
benefits. Another admirable characteristic is the ability of food and its production to connect communities across entire networks and cities, thus creating alternative food systems and securities. Despite this appreciation for amongst urban agricultural projects, as a student of landscape architecture I find myself asking why all these agricultural spaces, systems and communities are predominantly private in nature. A critique of community gardens is that they themselves are exclusive. Consider how you need to purchase, lease or attain a plot to be involved. Developing on this position isn’t the argument regarding about whether these spaces should be gated or open, it is the acknowledgment of how highly sort after these opportunities are within dense urban centres. This raises one of my fundamental questions, why don’t we have openly public forms of urban agriculture? Through discussion with peers and the exploration through design discourse there seem to be a reoccurring resistance of
Figure 022 - Urban Agriculture : Green Roofs
who owns it, who maintains it, how is it regulated? While acknowledging this resistance I intend to place them aside momentarily – as perhaps the benefits of public urban agriculture applications will outweigh or these predispositions. Importantly such resistances do provide a manner in which my research can be compared and qualified against. A pivotal observation for me is that urban agriculture is too commonly retrofitted into the residual spaces of the city, re-appropriated, and seldom used as the focal design component. This results in its private, individual, and subtle practice. Innovative urban agriculture is currently being conceived: for example, vertical farms, Continuous Productive Urban Landscape’s (CPUL), and rooftop gardens. However, there still remains a disconnection between their ownership and interaction within the existing urban fabric. This phenomenon relates directly to my reflection prior to the commencement of Project A. At its very core my research has been developing around the interweaving of three landscapes: the constructed, natural and agricultural. I have been asking how these productive landscapes
can challenge the notions of urban development. How can they act as both highly fertile and food producing spaces, becoming an engaging public landscape? The edible landscape had been a fitting term up until now. Titled clearly, it is used commonly through discourse and media as simply a landscape that is constructed of edible plant species. This doesn’t justify the level of engagement that my project is seeking to include. Resisting urban agriculture’s underlying closed nature, the term agrarian landscape has been appropriated to create a distinction between the current forms of urban agriculture and the broader agricultural landscape. In speculating what the agrarian landscape is to become, it needs to address the following underachievement’s of current urban agricultural practice; openly accessible, publicly owned, convenient and interactive, integrated and multifaceted, and engaging.
027
Figure 023 - Adapted Forest Ecology
028
Figure 024 - Adapted Woodland Ecology
PROJECT A.
CONCEIVING THE AGRARIAN LANDSCAPE Responding with my criticism of the urban agriculture’s shortfalls the agrarian landscape needs to respond socially, environmentally and agriculturally. True to the ambitions of this research, it critically needs to engage its inhabitants through social and recreational opportunities – new and existing. An inherent quality of parks, gardens, and contemporary public spaces is also its environmental impact. Specifically dealing with a landscape full of vegetation, the agrarian landscape needs to address resource management and energy cycles. Budding with the environmental consideration, agricultural produce will need to be safe, responsible and sustainable. Bridging this disconnection between the critique of urban agriculture and the ideals of the agrarian landscape I draw inspiration from paralleled design principles in permacultural discourse. Like that of permaculture, the agrarian landscape could be a constructed ecology modelled on a natural ecosystems
with the integrated of food producing species. It is important to note that permacultural ecosystems are near self-sustaining, requiring little maintenance after its initial stages of construction. They also are designed, as in nature, to create an abundance of natural resources that foster fertility and growth. A point of difference between the agrarian landscape and permaculture is its primacy in providing recreational and aesthetic qualities found built and natural environment. The investigation of which natural landscape ecologies to model also considers how these spaces may be occupied, the recreational opportunities within these landscape typologies, and suitable edible planting for Melbourne’s climatic conditions.
029
Figure 025 - Adapted Meadow Ecology
Figure 026 - Adapted Orchard Ecology
030
Figure 027 - Adapted Herbaceous Ecology
Figure 028 - Adapted Shrubbery Ecology
Figure 029 - Adapted Prairie Ecology
031
Figure 030 - Project A. Masterplan
DE S IG N MA S TERPLA
N
E
CO N S TR UC TE D U RBAN S PA CE A - LAR G E O PEN PLAZA B - MI N O R S P O RT FIELD S & RE C RE AT IO N FA C ILITIE S C - IN F O RM AT IO N C ENTER S PA CE D - CO N G RE G AT IO N CO RRI D O R E - S MALL S UN LIT PLAZA
WB 3 E OP x
D
C A
WB2
B
E OP x
032
x E OP
CO N S TR UC TE D WETLAND S / WA TER S T O RA GE RY S T O RA G E: W B1 - PRILIMINA DEEP PERMANENT WA TER BOD Y, AQUACUL TURAL AR E A W B2 - S E CO NDA RY S T O RA G E: PRIMARI LY FL O W RE S TRI C T O R G R OU ND WA TER RE C HAR G E P O IN T W B3 - TEMP O RA RY WA TER CO LLE C TI O N : PRIMARI LY G R OU ND WA TER SOU R C E F O R SOU THERN EXTERI OR AL SO A C T S A S EMER G EN C Y O VERFL O W P O IN T EO P - EXI
S TI N G O VERFL O W P O INT
PROJECT A.
PROJECT A. PRESENTATION ABSTRACT Landscape architecture not urban agriculture is the direct statement this research is based upon. It sets the tone, scale, and lens by which this research compares itself to. Growing food in the places we live is a noble ambition, and as resourceful as urban agriculture is to the development of sprawling cities, it currently lacks particular design ambitions inherent in landscape architecture: connection of a the broader context, programme opportunities, and the ways in which we spatially inhabit and engage with a place. Urban agriculture is commonly retrofitted into the residual spaces of the city. Re-appropriated within architectural spaces such as rooftops and vertical surfaces, and rarely considered as driving component of the development of city. The scales and purpose in which urban agriculture currently operate vary: from the rooftop garden for the restaurant below, the residential vegie garden, community plots for apartment dwelling, up to the highly integrated network of community farms. All of which on operate privately. To further this interdisciplinary discourse, as a student of landscape architecture, I question how these agricultural landscapes can challenge the current trends of urban development? The term agrarian landscape is used to create the distinction between urban agriculture, the agricultural landscape, and permaculture. Largely influenced by permacultural practice, the agrarian landscape is a
constructed ecology, modelled on its natural counterpart and integrated with food producing species. Importantly these ecosystems are near self-sustaining, requiring little maintenance after its initial stages of construction, and they create an abundance of natural resources. Through the lens and scope of landscape architecture this research starts is aimed at starting a discussion. How can the agrarian landscape, both fertile and food producing, create new opportunities for engagement within the public landscape?
033
“This sectional cut shows the blending of one agrarian landscape into another. The specific relationship between each agrarian landscape and its position on the megastructure maximises the spatial opportunity.” WOODLANDS
034
FOREST
ORCHARD
SHRU
UBBERY
HERBACEOUS FIELD PRAIRIE
MEADOW
RESIDENTIAL
INTERNAL INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMERCIAL
035
“The urban design proposal works to connect the daily occupation of different spaces through a series of terraced topographies, each with a specific functionality.” ENTERTAINING COMMERCIAL PROMENADE VIEWING PLATFORM
036
RELAX
ROOM WITH A VIEW MEETING PLACE
FITNESS TRACK
Figure 031 - Project A. Sectioal
037
PROJECT B
Figure 032 - Project A. Site
PROJECT B.
REFLECTION, NEW SITE, NEW OPPORTUNITIES Upon reflection of the Project A. design iteration (Fig. 30-31) there exists a disjunction between the driving ambitions of the project and its design articulation. A primary contributor to this revelation was the projects development through opposing modes of scale. The site selection and typical analysis (not included in this concise ADR) allowed the opportunity for the design of a high density residential estate freed from imposing infrastructures and other common compromising factors. In achieving a high density residency amongst an agrarian landscape was a megastructure that enabled a terraced roof to act as a vast graded landscape. However the sites (Fig. 32) area of 1km足2 lead to an extensive agrarian park network that lacked the ecological and spatial relativity fore mentioned as an example of the agrarian landscape. The change of site for the progression of this research was a direct reflection of the insufficient articulation of an agrarian landscape in Project A.
040
Working previously on the urban fringe the project was required to address residential, commercial and landscape development. To create a constructive contrast between the design iterations the new site was selected to meet the following conditions: an innercity location, established development, smaller urban scale, an existing connection to transit infrastructure, a differing demographic and context. Port Melbourne (Fig. 33-34) is a well-established inner city Melbourne suburb, within close proximity of the CBD and bay side area. It is a moderately populated suburb, with scares private open space, and has a diverse culinary and cultural demographic. It also consists of a connected series of linear reserves which serves as an invaluable public open space and transit corridor to the city. The established condition of the Port Melbourne site already allows a more detailed site analysis with existing relationships, considerations and opportunities that invigorate the research process.
Figure 033 - Project B. Site Context
Figure 034 - Project B. Site Locality
041
Figure 035 - Site Photographs
Figure 036 - Site Lines of Connection
Figure 037 - Design Development
043
Figure 038 - Visualisation 1
044
Figure 039 - Visualisation 2
Figure 040 - Visualisation 3
045
Figure 041 - Visualisation 4
Figure 042 - Visualisation 5
046
Figure 043 - Visualisation 6
Figure 044 - Visualisation 7
047
Figure 045 - Modelling Scales
048
Figure 046 - Modelling Density
Figure 047 - Model Visualisation 1
Figure 048 - Model Visualisation 2
PROJECT B.
AGRARIAN ECOLOGY AND INHABITING THE CANOPY To further develop of notion of the agrarian landscape a detailed understanding of its mimicked ecologies was required. This included the scientific classification, an ecological character description, and the testing of its parameters within urban context. This exploration narrowed the usage of the seven different agrarian landscape ecologies in Project A. (Fig. 23-29) to four primary ecosystems: forest, woodland, orchard, and meadow. These particular agrarian ecosystems were prioritised based on their higher potential for recreational and agricultural functions. The ecological character descriptions are as follows: [1] Woodland: Open stands of trees (at least 5m tall) only covering 30% of the surface, sparse undergrowth with occasional grass cover. [2] Forest: A closed canopy of trees (at least 3m in height) with interlocking crowns, densely populated by herbaceous
shrubs, undergrowth, groundcover, and a persistent evergreen main canopy. [3] Orchard: Dominantly deciduous fruit bearing trees, creating a closing canopy with scarce undergrowth. [4] Meadow: Open grassland with a growing rhythm based on a mowing maintenance programme. Light grass, selected weed and bulb species that maintain a vegetated ground cover. Through an exploratory modelling process the woodland ecosystem was selected for further parameter testing based on the challenge of its urban reconstruction. This modelling study provided a valuable classification for what constitutes as woodland for my research. The parameters involved are the minimum edge conditions, canopy density and variation, and the grouping of the trunks, solids and voids. This is the scalar relationship absent in Project A. It also alluded to another design consideration not considered prior – a connected
049
050
Figure 049 - King Park Canopy Walk, Perth
Figure 050 - Design Ambitions
051
052
relationship between the user and the canopy. In most cased the canopy is removed from physical interaction, determining a spatial boarder, cover or edge – where now it creates an opportunity for inhabitation and additional
PROJECT B.
SPATIALLY, SOCIALLY, ENVIRONMENTALLY, AND AGRICULTURALLY recreational opportunities. The current design iteration for Project B. is an overindulgent infrastructural forest. The site is delineated by a complex network of paths, access points, and transit spaces which are enveloped by an elevated meadow and canopy walkway. The proposition maintains its transit routes (cycle, tram, and road) while joining the separated reserves into an array of specific and individualised agrarian spaces. Embedded in its design are current and desired routes interweaving through the site; with the careful inclusion of routes that allow the exploration of the many hidden internalised spaces. This iteration
addresses the constraint of retaining site lines of the city and surrounding context by splitting the topography into two plains (an elevated and ground ) which also creates the opportunity of retaining open grassed spaces. Through path intersection and overlap the space continually collects users, either physically or visually. Increased parking bays service both the transit programme and broader community, but double as an appropriative open space for in situ market and agricultural exchanges. Intended through the design development is a supporting structure that houses a
053 Figure 051 - Canopy Documentation
Figure 052 - Project B. Masterplan
054
Figure 052 - Project B. Spatial Index
055
series of commercial and public facilities inclusive of cafĂŠs, transit and site specific storage, wash room facilities, cooking facilities, stairway and elevators. Despite the radical transformation from the original site, this proposition seeks to encourage continuation of present recreation activities (like exercising, dog-walking, and informal sports) by maintain open, adaptable and transitional spaces. Most importantly this proposition creates a place for exploration, education, interaction
056
and appreciation. Not included thus far, this site aspires to boast comprehensive environmental impacts. The elevated meadow would serve as vast rainwater collection vessel, with biological filtration and recycled resource flows. The dramatically increased reforestation of the site would provide various sources of green mulch, biological wastes and other sources of natural fertiliser. Even the microclimatic conditions would allow the sites users a
Figure 053 - Project B. Sectional Visualisation
natural reprieve the outside conditions. As a response to the critique of urban agriculture, this agrarian landscape above all is publicly accessible, diverse, interactive and engaging. The design has encompassed twenty eight dominant tree species, ranging from tall nut trees to short stone fruits and citrus, also included is an open list of shrubs, herbaceous and flowering bulb species – all climatic appropriate to Melbourne. Sporadically planted to create
a diverse agricultural landscape, the site boasts [insert number] individual fruit and nut trees. Embedded within this agrarian landscape are microclimatic conditions that represented at diverging edge conditions, these further which allow the opportunity for appropriation and adaption. This design iteration seeks to enable users to forage, harvest, exchange, teach, learn and experience all aspects of edible species in a pseudo-natural landscape.
057
058
059 Figure 054 - Project B. Species Locality
060
061