Not just another Green Patch Questioning the role of Landscape Urbanism in shaping environments AR1U120 - History and Theory of Urbanism
Rahul Dewan 4505719 – rdewan@student.tudelft.nl
December 2016
ABSTRACT Perceptions towards urban landscape have altered drastically over the last few years. Traditionally the subject was perceived as an objectified beauty in the evolution of mankind. Either it was an ornamented belonging to the urban development or spaces that have been relegated to the extra-unused spaces in the urban environment. However, with contemporary trends such as landscape urbanism, coined by Charles Waldheim, the field has taken a new discourse in the light of a more sustainable and ecological development. The paper focuses on this relationship in a historic perspective to the origin of landscape urbanism as the new trend and questioning its implementation in the context of globalization. Moreover, the paper tries to take an example from the city of Dordrecht in Netherlands highlighting the role of landscape urbanism as a tool in shaping urban environments.
INTRODUCTION Landscape Urbanism has become the new trend in an attempt to a renewed relationship between city and landscape. The basic element of this trend is the use of landscape as a tool to develop a more concrete relationship between cities and landscapes towards a more sustainable urban development. Author Charles Waldheim argues this new rise has much to do with urban design’s ‘perceived inability to come to terms with the rapid pace of urbanization’ (Waldheim, 2010). The world’s population continues to grow resulting in a steady migration from rural to urban areas. As per UN Habitat around half of the world’s population live in urban areas and this number is expected to rise to 66% by 2050 (Cohen, 2006). Rapid Urbanisation is inevitable and as we urbanize we exploit the world’s limited resources. This cancerous urban cell is engulfing the outward natural landscape influencing a more indistinctive bond between the concrete jungle (city) and the natural green (landscape). With urban expansion over time, landscape is becoming an essential part of this growth. In today’s world the inevitable and inordinate complexity of globalization somehow is ignoring the immense contribution and benefits of this landscape. Traditional urban history made a distinction between the agrarian based economy and the modern industrial revolution that allowed cities to break beyond their former boundaries (Shane, 2006). Cedric Price in his ‘Three Eggs Diagram’ illustrates this, where he took an analogy to see the transformation of the city as an egg from a historic perspective (Figure1). With time the relationship between city and landscape became more indistinctive and landscape became just another green patch.
source: http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/534-the-eggs-of-price-an-ovo-urban-analogy
Recent urban theories such as landscape urbanism, as a framework promotes landscape as a design tool that provides immense scope and potentials for a renewed relationship between the urban structures and the landscape. However in recent times there are attempts to ‘insert’ landscape into the city fabric and such inserts do not acknowledge the relationship between city and landscape. Rather it ends as just another green patch. It becomes therefore interesting to explore whether does the implementation of landscape urbanism also results into a similar unvaried green spaces or are its potentials yet to be fully explored?
This brings us to the main purpose of this paper, that is, to focus on landscape urbanism as the new discourse. In this era of maximum privatization and neoliberalism to what extent can
landscape urbanism provide the answer to a sustainable and livable urban environment? The question on how we can give substance to a ‘renewed relation’ between city and landscape becomes of paramount importance, and therefore needs to be addressed.
Therefore, it is important to investigate a.
The current trends of landscape urbanism
b. Questioning this discourse in a global perspective
The first part of the essay will briefly explore on the origins of landscape urbanism as a discourse for design of cities. The second part will question the role of this discourse as a current trend in shaping urban environments. The third part of the essay will focus on landscape urbanism in the Dutch context highlighting on Dordrecht and putting emphasis on the possibilities of this emerging discipline. Finally the essay will conclude on recommendations and possible synthesis that might help in the implementation of the theoretical concept in reality.
THE GREEN PATCH – LANDSCAPE URBANISM
1.1
Relationship between cities and landscape – Historical perspective
Settlements have originated on the wilderness of Mother Nature. There is an unacknowledged relationship between this natural world and the man made built environment. From civilizations originating at the banks of a river to hidden settlements in the lap of valleys, mankind has always associated its evolution with nature. With the advent of time in the name of globalisation, nature slowly faded away from this unacknowledged relationship. This advancement can be traced from a historical perspective following Ian McHarg’s four distinct division of the urban landscape (McHarg and Mumford, 1969). The first were reflections of the Renaissance period where it found the ‘humanist expression’ defining man’s superiority and dominance upon nature. The second explorations were reflections during the colonial settlements where landscape was associated with ornamented geometric baroque gardens. The third period was during the eighteenth century where the idea shifted from the walled ornamented gardens and saw nature as a garden as a whole This was a major shift where the school of thought changed from a walled ornamented garden system to a system where ecology was a basis for function and aesthetics. The final phase during the nineteenth and twentieth century includes the modern era that saw a different relationship between man and nature. Current trends of banking, business, finance and real estate were skyrocketing in the western civilization. The machine age was engulfing the organic growth of cities. In his book “When Democracy Builds” Frank Llyod Wright lays out his ideas of how the architectural environment can reflect and promote democracy, individuality, and freedom (Wright, 1945). Central to this vision was his model of Broadacre City.
Broadacre City was an integrated distribution of living related to ground. It was based on an agrarian economy of production distribution, self-improvement and enjoyment. The perception of land to our built environment changed over the years. From a more expressive landscape it became a more objectified and productive landscape.
McHarg’s perspective in dividing this gradual advancement of the conception of urban landscape was extremely essential. It not only identifies the landscape characteristic of the epoch but also indicates the gradual transformation and shift in the school of thought in shaping our very modern environment. When seen from a historical perspective the relationship between landscape and city had always been identified as a separate entity. Every aspect of a city was ordered and precise and had allowed very little to build a more cohesive relationship between the two that would result in a co-benefit. This individual and separate identity of the city and landscape needed a new form of urbanism that would recognize landscape as a tool for new insights considering the contemporary urban situation. This gave rise to landscape urbanism.
1.2
Emergence of Landscape Urbanism
The ideology of Landscape Urbanism as a discourse originated in North America. The practitioners and authors who have been expanding this concept were in the likes of Charles Waldheim (who coined the term), James Corner (principal of James Corner Field Operations) and Mohsen Mostafavi (Dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Design). Hence it is evident that the birth of landscape urbanism took place in North America and its ideologies and elements are mostly subjected to an American context. Charles Waldheim has expressed this new alternative of landscape urbanism which holds the basic premise that landscape should be the fundamental building blocks for city design (Steiner, 2011). In tradition city development was restricted to structures like a wall, a road or a building. Green areas were relegated to the in-between left over areas or used as an objectified beauty. The decentralized postindustrial urban form highlighted these leftover spaces as potential areas that could accommodate space to build a renewed relationship between city and landscape.
Waldheim identified landscape urbanism as a discipline that can be made operative in these relegated spaces. It acts as a primary determinant in the urban development of a city. James Corner argues that the voids in the inner city of Detroit was a result of an industrial regime (Daskalakis et al., 2001) . He sees these voids as spaces to express landscape as a “performative urbanism� based on preparing the setting for programmed and un-programmed activities on ground (Corner, 2012). Corner traces this approach as an influence from the works of Rem Koolhas (New Town Competition entry, 1987) and Bernanrd Tschumi (La Vilette Project 1982). He identifies these spaces similar to an English Common or an Indian Maidan as spaces
that are flexible and open and could accommodate social activities (Shane, 2006). Therefore landscape urbanism conveys a hope that landscape has a much more deeper meaning than just one green space.
However, this concept relatively remains a new notion with few realized projects. One of the most recent successful projects was the High Line Project in Manhattan by Field Operations, which advocated an abandoned rail line in New York be converted to a 6.7-acre park. The green corridor was not restricted to just another green patch, rather it functioned as a recreational amenity, tourist attraction and a generator of economic development. This progressive concept and new discourse of landscape urbanism is unfortunately mostly theoretical and stays within the boundary of academic writing with very few realized projects. Hence the paper tries to critique the shortcomings associated with the ideologies, which still has not had its influence relatively in the global south.
IS IT JUST ANOTHER GREEN PATCH? Over the past decade landscape has emerged as a model for contemporary urbanism. Landscape Urbanism appeared in North America after a period of sustained industrial decline, during which brownfield sites were created faster than they could be reclaimed and populations were leaving the inner city for the ever expanding suburbs (Thompson, 2012). This model of decentralization was evident in the United States influenced by the phenomenon of ‘Edge City’ by Joel Garreau who argued that real growth in American cities took place in the sub-urban peripheral areas and not in the downtown areas (Thompson, 2012). In the western world the urban development shift was from the downtown areas to the outskirts of the cities that gave rise to landscape urbanism as a discourse binding the relationship between the city and landscape.
In the western world as a response to industrialization and high influx of workers, the city needed public spaces for recreational purpose. In the nineteenth century Frederick Law Olmstead advocated it where it was one of the first ‘prepared grounds’ that served as a place with maximum diverse activities that gave a whole new meaning to the city of Manhattan (Olmsted and Twombly, 2010). However such values are questionable when it comes to the context of a still developing country. Although they are in the same industrialization era it becomes a major challenge to think of landscape urbanism as a theory binding cities and landscape in a unified structure.
What we see in the developing countries of global south, is the reverse and the development trend is towards a metropolitan extension creating mega cities. Hence the question arises can this concept of a binary model be addressed to a situation in a developing country where increased population growth and industrialization of the city core is expanding at a faster rate. In the next 2 decades 60% of the population will live in urban areas concentrated in cities such as Mumbai or Shenzhen where development is happening in the form of increased industrialization and concentration of population. Can the global south accommodate landscape as a tool for a more sustainable development?
Therefore the biggest challenge is raised when the ideologies of landscape urbanism involves the context of a developing country. Lack of awareness and the fact that it stays within the theoretical boundaries makes it more challenging when it comes to implementation in a context such complex yet with maximum necessity for such interventions with high prosperity in the long term. Will the implementation of landscape urbanism influence another green patch in an overwhelming urban environment of the global south?
However in an advanced developed context such as Western Europe does Landscape Urbanism, as an approach ties together the city and the landscape or does the concept already existed? Interestingly In its Dutch origin landschap means to adapt cultural and natural processes to create new territory. As the word moved into English and other languages, it took a visual meaning as well. Frederick Steiner argues that landscape urbanism helped return the word to its root meaning (Steiner, 2011).
THE DUTCH CONTEXT Netherlands is one of the most unique countries in terms of its relationship between city and landscape. As an economical and socially advanced nation, Netherlands is a low-lying country with a sophisticated agricultural sector and high population density. More than two third of the land is below sea level. Yet remarkable engineering and technological advancement has protected this land since the iron age (Pleijster et al., 2015). Hence in Netherlands the relationship between city and landscape has been unlike the usual ones. It is remarkable how the hand of man, influenced in shaping the landscape of the country and building a state of the art relationship between the two, even before the term Landscape Urbanism was coined.
The present geography of Netherlands can be attributed to its history of dikes, which can be traced back to the Iron Age. These little dikes, no more than 70 cm high, were composed of neatly stacked peat sods against a core of loose bulk material. Later on adding an outer wall
with a gentler gradient reinforced the structure (Pleijster et al., 2015). This remarkable technique began its journey since the Iron Age and till today protecting every inch of its land.
The four biggest cities, Amsterdam, The Hague, Rotterdam and Utrecht, were joined together by highways, leaving the heart of the country as the farmland the Dutch had created it to be. (God may have made the Earth but the Dutch made the Netherlands, so the saying goes.) With less than an hour travel time from any city to another making connections perfectly simple, the urbanization of the cities into one large metropolis was inevitable, just as the urbanization of the land between them was inevitable. While traveling from one city to the next, one may see a landscape of grazing fields for dairy cows or a landscape of windmills (Helie, 2012). Hence it is amazing to learn that landscape in the Netherlands cannot be just another green piece of land.
Moreover after the flooding of 1993, as a precautionary measure – the dikes were reinforced once again, but it also became clear that raising the prescribed norm was not the only solution. The policy document ‘Ruimte voor de Rivier’ (‘Space for the River’) advocated widening the riverbed instead of another large-scale reinforcement of the dikes. This not only influenced a better water management technology but also influenced the inclusion of diverse social activities associated with this space. Can space for the river be imagined as a ‘performative’ space as coined by James Corner?
Another remarkable example of the intriguing landscapes of Netherlands can be seen in the city of Dordrecht, south of Netherlands showcasing a unique relationship with its surrounding landscape. Located at the heart of the Waal River, this small piece of island is located at the very place where broad sea currents met inland waters. The once prosperous port city saw a complete urban transformation after the devastating St. Elizabeth flood in 1412. The floodwaters from the sea poured in submerging most of the southwestern part of South Holland. The island of Dordrecht and most of its surrounding areas were reclaimed over time. Interestingly over a period, a network of small rivers and creeks emerged that gave rise to one of the only freshwater tidals in Europe – the Biesbosch. It is one of the largest green attractions as a National Park. Understanding of this relationship between the city and landscape has been illustrated in figure2. It tries to portray this urban fabric of Dordrecht through a miniature painting style depicting the linear layering in which more suburban areas follow the sprightly old inner city followed by the ecological balance of the Biesbosch.
Therefore in the Dutch context every inch of the reclaimed land has a much deeper meaning than just a relegated open unvaried green space found in most of the developed or developing countries. Landscape urbanism as a theory together with the Dutch knowledge of making cultural landscape has much more to offer for a more sustainable development.
RECOMMENDATIONS In conclusion the paper acknowledges landscape urbanism to be an integral and intangible tool and a savior that binds the profession of architecture, urban design and planning. As a framework it helps generate new insights in response to contemporary urban situations. Leftover unused open spaces resulting from post industrial and decentralized are the potential spaces for something becoming new and renewing a more sustainable relationship between city and landscape. Several unrealized projects such as the disused railway tracks and goods yards of London’s King’s Cross, Architect Cedric Price’s proposed mobile university in train carriages in abandoned railway tracks (Shane, 2006) to revive a similar rust belt area are examples of the high potential these urban transformations await. Over the years as cities are expanding, landscape has come to supplant architecture and its urban form as an essential organizing element for the contemporary city. Ornamented parks and gardens no longer define it. It includes the functionalism and dynamism of a city. “Landscape now has become both the lens through which a city is represented and a medium through which it is constructed” (Waldheim, 2012). Urbanism should not be restricted by the boundaries of its site. Considerations of its surrounding network of infrastructure that compliment each other provide new opportunities for redefinition of the public sphere. Mostafavi mentions that nostalgic yearning for lost spaces, monuments and public spheres won’t result in fruitful conclusions, rather there should be alternative models of urbanism that are open to and encourage citizen participation (Mostafavi and Najle, 2003). This theory of landscape urbanism synthesized together with the Dutch knowledge of making cultural landscapes can bring more light to this body of literature.
However, it is necessary to understand that the terminology originated from North America understanding its complex urban environment. In the scenario of a developing country although the potentials for such inclusions are high, but implementation is the stage when it faces maximum challenge. Cultural landscapes with the potentials of landscape urbanism can be a powerful catalyst to address such urban issues in an attempt to a renewed relationship between cities and landscape instead of just another green patch.
REFERENCES
COHEN, B. 2006. Urbanization in developing countries: Current trends, future projections, and key challenges for sustainability. Technology in society, 28, 63-‐80. CORNER, J. 2012. Terra fluxus. Lotus International, 150, 54-‐63. DASKALAKIS, G., WALDHEIM, C. & YOUNG, J. 2001. Stalking Detroit, Actar-‐D. MCHARG, I. L. & MUMFORD, L. 1969. Design with nature, American Museum of Natural History New York. MOSTAFAVI, M. & NAJLE, C. 2003. Landscape urbanism: a manual for the machinic landscape, Architectural Association London. OLMSTED, F. L. & TWOMBLY, R. C. 2010. Frederick Law Olmsted : essential texts, New York :, W.W. Norton. PLEIJSTER, E.-‐J., VAN DER VEEKEN, C., JONGERIUS, R. & LUITEN, E. 2015. Dijken van Nederland, nai010 uitgevers. SHANE, G. 2006. The emergence of landscape urbanism. The landscape urbanism reader, 55-‐67. STEINER, F. 2011. Landscape ecological urbanism: Origins and trajectories. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100, 333-‐337. THOMPSON, I. H. 2012. Ten tenets and six questions for landscape urbanism. Landscape Research, 37, 7-‐26. WALDHEIM, C. 2010. On landscape, ecology and other modifiers to urbanism. Topos, 71, 21-‐24. WALDHEIM, C. 2012. The landscape urbanism reader, Chronicle Books. WRIGHT, F. L. 1945. When democracy builds, Chicago :, University of Chicago Press.