~O'E
;~~
:~:TDy
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE (
THEORY An Evolving Body of Thought
ii==== ====== ~ ~
Michael
D. Murphy
TexasA&M University
WAVELAND
PRESS, INC. Long Grove, Illinois
(
J
Robert ~ White
For information about this book, contact: Waveland Press, Inc. 4180 IL Route 83, Suite 101 Long Grove, IL 60047-9580 (847) 634-0081
[email protected] www.waveland.com
Contents
~ ~
--.).. ..•..••.
Foreword v Acknowledgments \
vii
1
Introduction
>.;
Landscape Architecture Values 3 Commodity 7 Landscape 11 Architecture 13 Design 16 Education 19 Professions 22
2
25
Substantive Theory Design Philosophy 26 Sustainable Development 28 Environment-Behavior Studies Systems Theory 38 Copyright © 2005 by Waveland Press, Inc.
'l'
.
3
.~
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
Printed in the United States of America 7
6
543
2
1
49
ProceduralTheory Design Programming 53 Design Process 62 Landscape Planning 75 Landscape Suitability Analysis
ISBN 1-57766-357-8
system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher.
34
4
79
The Biophysical Environment Geophysical Conditions 84 Ecosystems 87 Goods, Services, and Processes Hi
99
83
iv
Contents Ecosystem Health 104 Urban Development 108 Site Analysis Factors 109
5 The HumanEnvironment
115
Cultural Diversity 117 Human Needs 118 Urban Development 124 Access and Movement 129 Site Analysis Factors 134
6 Design Form
139
Natural Form 144 Designed Form 147 Aesthetics 153
Forevvord
7 Design Purpose
159
Design Intent 160 Quality of Life 166
8 Design Practice Design Technologies 172 Organizational Values 174 Changing Characteristics of Professions Professional Services 184
9 Design Collaboration
171 176
189
Design Teams 190 Team Learning 192 Authority and Collaboration 196 The Team Environment 197 Shared Vision 199 Team Leadership 200 Team Size 201 Team Participation 201 Team Member Responsibilities 203 Rules of Engagement 204 Interdisciplinary Process 209
10 Conclusion Critical Thinking 214 Creative Thinking 218 Summary 221 Glossary 227 References 233 Index 245
213
Although we visualize the landscape as a place, it is better understood if we think of it as a process. The landscape is best described as a complex of biological, physical, and cultural systems engaged in a process of perpetual becoming. Over time the landscape takes different forms, each one expressing the state of these interacting systems at a . particulaI: moment and stage of development. As the landscape and society coevolve, we find that some conditions of the environment conflict with our activities and interests. In conceptual terms, design is. our way of intervening in the process of landscape evolution to eliminate conflicts and improve the human condition. Design is our way of managing the continuing process of change to enhance quality of life and create meaningful and compelling places as settings for human activity. Throughout history, modifying the landscape to improve our lives and express our humanity has been a continuing occupation. Today, as we gain increasing power to change the landscape we also increase our responsibility to do so wisely, to protect the landscape as a critical resource and invest the built environment with enhanced value and meaning now and into the foreseeable future. To ensure that our designs lead to durable improvements in the human/landscape condition rather than temporary alterations to its visual form or style, we need to consider all the salient factors of the landscape, including human interactions and the new activities to be accommodated, before deciding what a transformed landscape will become. But the environments we act to transform are not only
v
vi
Preface
dynamic but also complex. To design effectively requires a comprehensive approach to the identification, acquisition, and integration of the knowledge needed to support sound design recommendations. This enables designers to provide guidance based on a broad understanding of people's interrelationships with the environment. But our lack of expertise in some areas poorly equips us to take advantage of all the knowledge required to form a holistic understanding of people and the landscape. Sometimes the more committed we become to a particular kind of understanding the less able we are to accommodate other points of view-as expressed in the apparent dichotomies between art and science or between the so called "hard" and "soft" sciences. This creates a dilemma for the designer: what knowledge should be used to guide design change and how do we synthesize it to create better informed designs for better formed landscapes? While the intuitive aspects of designing-creating ideas with compelling form and spatial qualities-may be an unknowable mystery of the human mind, the rational aspects, that is, deciding what criteria designs should meet and why, are not. This is particularly evident in landscape designs responsive to a wide variety of requirements, such as those that improve the comfort, convenience, and functional relationships among people and their activities; enhance social interaction and aesthetic experience; and maintain the ecological integrity and vitality of the environment. This examination of theory focuses on the body of knowledge required to inform design thinking and on ways to apply that knowledge to improve the human/landscape condition and enhance quality of life through design performance.
Acknovvledgtnents In addition to those whose work is cited here, there are others to whom I owe special recognition for their individual contributions. First I thank my wife Doreen for her patience and support during the lengthy period of research and writing. I am deeply indebted to Chris Mulder for the time and energy we invested in developing and testing ,the design. process and interdisciplinary collaboration guidelines, and for his dedication to refining them through application. I also am indebted to Laurie Prossnitz for her skillful editing of the manuscript into a readable text. I thank John Motloch for our many discussions about the direction of the profession over the last twenty years. His critical insights into a comprehensive body of knowledge for the discipline have been a major influence on my own thinking. I thank Dieter Holm for his encouragement to write and for his comments on early drafts of the text. I also acknowledge the late Jot Carpenter for reading an early version of the manuscript and guiding me toward productive sources in the literature. I am particularly pleased to acknowledge Laurence Jacobs and Elizabeth Larkin for their assistance in preparing the illustrations. Mostly, I am indebted to the students for whom this text is intended. It would be difficult to imagine this book coming to fruition without the challenging inquiries of many generations of insightful and enthusiastic students.
vii
1 Introduction Man is a singular creature. He has a set of gifts which make him unique among animals: so that, unlike them, he is not a figure in the landscape-he is a shaper of the landscape. In body and in mind he is the explorerof nature, the ubiquitous animal, who did not find but made his home in everycontinent. -Jacob Bronowski,The Ascent of Man The rise of civilization has been traced as the intellectual evolution of a species with the ability to understand nature, and as a result, the capacity to control rather than to be controlled by the environment. Humankind, through its invention of tools and knowledge, has developed the capacity to mold both its environment and its future (Bronowski 1973:19). By accident as well as intent, human society has become the primary agent of change in the landscape. Design of the landscape is our way of guiding change to improve the human condition. Theory forms the basis for determining how to design well, to bring about successful change in the landscape. This examination of landscape architecture theory will focus on our efforts to change the landscape as a professional pursuit and on the body of knowledge we require to do so successfully. But landscape architecture theory is in an evolutionary state. What is presented here is a brief introduction to some of the seminal writings and ideas that have informed landscape architecture over the last fifty years. Some of
1
2
Chapter One
the writers are landscape architects, but many more are thinkers from a wide variety of fields whose ideas have illuminated the search for a theory of landscape architecture. This text attempts to bring the ideas of some of the most important of these writers together to present a broad view of a critical but still developing body of knowledge. The treatment of the material is introductory. Ideas are summarized to describe their essential characteristics and reveal their relationships to one another. For a more comprehensive treatment, readers are encouraged to return to the original sources and to read the rapidly expanding contemporary literature for a more complete understanding. To begin this introduction to theory we need a few definitions to clarify some of the principle issues. These issues are discussed to introduce you to the body of knowledge and to describe some of the major influences on its central themes. The themes described here are confined to the distinct knowledge areas-and their underlying values-that inspire the changes we impose on the landscape, inform our reasons for doing so, and guide us in reaching these decisions. 1Wocritical areas of knowledge are not addressed in this examination of theory: history and technology. History of landscape architecture has been well documented for many years and is not necessarily germane to the future form of the landscape. Neither building technology nor information technology will be covered, primarily because these are complex topics that are covered adequately elsewhere. The first consideration here is to provide a general definition of landscape architecture.
Landscape Architecture There are many ways to describe landscape architecture. The description used here is intended to be inclusive of a broad range of practice and research areas and provide a definition that most practitioners and academicians share. Landscape architecture is the discipline devoted to understanding and shaping the landscape and, as a profession, provides site planning, design, and management advice to improve the landscape for human benefit. The purpose of landscape planning and design is twofold: to guide change in the character of the landscape that will create and sustain useful, healthful, and enjoyable urban, suburban, and regional environments; and to protect and enhance their intrinsic physical, cultural, and ecological qualities. Professional practitioners provide advice in the form of planning and design services to individuals and groups actively engaged in modifying the landscape to improve its utility and value. Landscape architecture as a service profession is called upon to advise on the disposition and management of society's most valuable resource: the landscape. To do this effectively practitioners need to be
3
Introduction
well educated to understand the landscape and the ways people interact with it, and well trained to apply design process and implementation technology. They also need a sound theoretical base to structure and inform professional education and training and to guide their application in ways that are effective, useful, and valued by society. The overarching goal of the profession is to create order and harmony in our relationships with the environment. These relationships are expressed by the ecological, functional, and aesthetic characteristics of the places we create to facilitate human activity and to improve our use, experience, and understanding of the landscape. We alter physical conditions and processes in response to society's dynamic growth, development, and extension into the landscape. Attending the dynamics of human development is the challenge to continually reform the landscape in ways that better accommodate people's evolving requirements. These requirements include the provision of economic support, physical space for activities, improved satisfaction with and appreciation of the physical setting, enhancement and sustentation of environmental and human health, and expression of culturally and environmentally specific sense of place and community. To achieve these multiple objectives designers need a clear understanding of human and environmental processes and the ways in which they mutually interact to shape the landscape. To understand these processes designers also need to be aware of some of the factors that influence the way we comprehend and interpret the world around us. To better understand how we understand, we need to consider the influence of culture and values. Our cultural values have an important influence on the way we define the landscape and the actions we take to change or protect it.
Values Our values are the ideals and principles we consider important in our lives, the ideas that give purpose and meaning to our thoughts and actions. Although some value judgments are considered universal, different people and cultures differ in the way they comprehend events and assign meaning to them. In general, the values of landscape architecture fall into three broad categories: aesthetic, ecological, and social (Thompson 2000:7). Landscape architecture is deeply committed to enhancing the quality of human experience; establishing social equity; maintaining a supportive, conflict-free functional organization within the landscape; and sustaining environmental quality. The values we hold as a society significantly influence the way we understand reality and serve as the primary filter through which we perceive and interpret events and phenomena. This includes
4
Chapter One
our understanding of professional values, which may be broadly conceived as the values of a design subculture. To help separate reality from our perceptions of it, this investigation of design theory begins with an inquiry into our core beliefs about the nature of the world. A number of provocative questions may be asked: What are the fundamental values of our society and how do they influence our individual and collective perceptions and behavior? Do we, for example, believe in the principle of democracy, by which the most correct decisions are those supported by the largest number of people (as expressed by politicians)? Or, do we believe in the correctness of informed opinion as expressed by a well-educated elite (such as landscape architects) as the most appropriate determinants of action? Are we, as we believe, a free people and if so, do we have the freedom to think or act independently of the way prominent social and political leaders think and act? Do we value freedom of thought and action to the extent that we are tolerant of others if they do not think and act as we do? Do we grant ourselves the freedom to think thoughts others might not understand or approve? If we value freedom, do we believe that it comes with responsibilities? If so, to whom and for what are we responsible? Do we value social progress? If so, what do we mean by social progress? Does it mean that conditions progressively improve for the welfare of individuals and society at large? Or, is improvement only appropriate for those (such as the well educated) who control resources? At what levels and in what areas do we intend and measure improvement? Do we measure improvement by the accumulation of wealth and goods, or by the quality of our interrelationships with one another and the environment, or the opportunities we provide for our children-the inheritors of our society? These questions may be diffictilt to answer, but they deserve examination. Some historical perspective may be helpful as a point of departure. In the development of the United States, Americans advanced from a frontier society where survival was a daily struggle to a stage where enough control was established over the environment and its resources to assure survival on a predictable basis. We eventually reached the stage we enjoy today, where our needs have been satisfied in abundance. We are able to take from the environment enough not only for survival, but for the accumulation of sufficient reserves to increase control over our lives as well as the environment. Once surpluses were assured, the values of society began to change from those based on the satisfaction of daily needs to the accumulation of wealth. This shift affected all aspects of society, including political, economic, and technological power and prestige, to the extent that today our regulation of untapped resources, in the form of potential wealth, dominates our attitudes about and relationships with the landscape (Rodiek 1978). The landscape is more valued for its potential as future
Introduction
5
wealth than as an existing condition. For many years social commentators have remarked on our attitudes about natural wealth: A Great Promise of Unlimited Progress-the promise of domination of nature, of material abundance, of the greatest happiness for the greatest number, and of unimpeded personal freedom-has sustained the hopes and faith of the generations since the beginning of the industrial age. (Fromm 1976:1)
One of the defining characteristics of Western society, and indeed of modern societies everywhere, is the concept of ownership. Accompanying the promise of industrialism's increasing control over nature (as the repository of wealth-generating resources) has been the parallel notion of possessing it. As such, nature is defined as a commodity that we consume in exchange for increased wealth and an improved standard of living. Over half a century ago Aldo Leopold, regarded as one of the founders of the environmental movement in the United States, observed that "we face the question whether a still higher ,standard of living' is worth its cost in things natural, wild, and free" (Leopold 1949:xvii). The question remains relevant today. Control of resources for survival and prosperity is a universal concept. The concept of territoriality and the domination of space and resources is widely observed in nature and well documented for all forms of animal life (Ardrey 1966; Hall 1966:51), although it is not clear that territorial behavior is necessarily related to resources. Territorial behavior may be as important as a way of defining the individual and organizing the group as it is a way to assure their survival (Ardrey 1966: 170). There seems to be a consistent link between territ()riality and reproductive success. Nevertheless, the idea of owning nature or parts of it for personal benefit and enrichment appears to have developed as a natural evolution of human thought. It was a relatively short time ago that we abandoned the concept of owning people, and only then after a struggle. The concept of women as chattel is no longer legally sanctioned, but women's ability to exercise independent authority over family property without the consent of their husbands is relatively new in U.S. legal history. We are only slowly moving away from the concept of possessing others, not only as a means of controlling resources but also as an important way of defining ourselves. It is apparent that some of these more contemporary ideas regarding possession and ownership have not advanced to the same extent in all parts of the world, or even in the United States regarding our relationships with the landscape. In contemporary society our status is established to a large extent by what we possess-particularly the possession of things that increase or display autonomy and power over others. Territory and artifacts serve as symbolic representations of power. For over a century, owning
6
Chapter One
symbols of power has been referred to as "conspicuous consumption" (Veblen1899). A place or an object has value and symbolic significance only if others are aware of and impressed by our possession of it. Significantly, these symbolic possessions tend to be highly consistent with those things possessed by other people we wish to associate ourselves with. Not all groups use the same symbols: to use vehicles as an example, one group may use Harley-Davidson motorcycles, another may use Chevrolet Suburbans, and another Mercedes Benz. Those in one group are rarely impressed by the symbols of those in another. Within social groups, however, the advertising communications system has been highly successful at defining for us what to prefer and purchase to achieve and denote status within the community of our choice. In addition to the ownership of property, another of our most cherished values is individual liberty. We feel strongly that individualism and the protection of individual rights are among the most noble of human endeavors and that the protection of collective social values should be secondary to that of individuals. At times we make connections between behavior and individuality that may be difficult to understand upon careful examination, but seem quite reasonable when viewed through the filter of our social values. On the one-hundredth anniversary of the Harley-Davidson Motorcycle Company, George F. Will, editorial writer for Newsweek magazine, reported that sales for the year accounted for $3.3 billion with earnings of $435 million for 261,000 motorcycles. In addition, 650,000 Americans paid $40 annual dues to be members of the Harley owners group and 300,000 of them rally in Sturgis, South Dakota, every August. In 2002 bikers and enthusiasts spent more than $1 billion on Harley gear with the company label on it. Will quotes Jeffrey Bluestein, the CEO of Harley-Davidson, as saying that motorcycling means "freedom, adventure, individual expression." To which Will added, '1\8 does America" (Will 2002). Exactly how adventuresome, individualistic, or liberating it is to purchase vehicles and accoutrements identical to those purchased by hundreds of thousands of like-minded people was not explained. What may be more clearly revealed is our underlying value for shared experience, what Thorsten Veblen called a "propensity for emulation," even if we have to purchase it. Perhaps it is because we have purchased it, or because we are able to, that we value the experience so highly. Will noted that the average Harley purchaser earned $78,000 per year and paid, on average, $15,000 for "his machine." The exclusivity of the experience, as might be presumed from the purchase price, seems to increase its value and meaning because most Americans cannot afford to participate. This value on the purchase of individual status may also account for our reluctance to spend even modest amounts on an individual
7
Introduction
basis for the benefit of society collectively. We have persistent problems in affording the expense of good schools for example, or universal health care, or environmental protection, or public recreation facilities that are equally available to all members of the community. Our values seem to be inclined toward the individual rather than the community. There is a perception that little individual status accrues from the improved quality of community life. But in reality we are motivated to act on both individual and communal values. It is society that provides the opportunities we require to function as individuals. We must exist as an individual if we are to function as a thoughtful member of society. The survival of an open, democratic society requires thoughtful individual participation from its members. Both these motivations need to be understood and accommodated in the way we organize society and the shared landscape.
Commodity The fundamental structure of free enterprise, capitalistic society is based on the continuing production and consumption of goods-production beyond the level required for a comfortable life. We are constantly encouraged to buy things, not because they are particularly necessary in a utilitarian way and not because of their benefits to the environment or community, but because they are new and available for sale as a means of creating wealth. Just as the Communists defined themselves as workers, we happily define ourselves as consumers, consumers of resources as well as "products." The process of production and consumption must be continuous if our national economy is to grow and maintain the ability to support society and improve our standard of living-which seems to mean the accumulation of goods. This is one way the value structure of corporate capitalism shapes our concepts of ourselves, our relationships to one another, and our relationship with the environment. This is important to an investigation of design theory because it helps us understand how we as a society value the landscape. The landscape is important primarily because it is a commodity that can be exchanged in the marketplace, and as the source of raw materials from which products can be manufactured. The influence of these perceptions may be seen in our actions. Weabuse land becausewe regard it as a commoditybelongingto us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may beginto use it with loveand respect.(Leopold1949:xviii) Many educated people understand the concept of ecological community as a group of mutually interdependent organisms interacting
8
Chapter One
in a shared physical setting. Most people, however, do not regard humans as a component of an ecological community. We tend to see ourselves as set apart, above this level of ecological organization. We reserve a special status for humans and define ourselves in rather different terms. The ecosystem is considered to be an environment we control, not one we are a part of. We do not, as a general rule, define ourselves as being at all, but as having (Fromm 1976). We do not say that we work, but that we "have" a job. We do not say that we are educated, but that we "have" a college degree. These "possessions" have symbolic currency for the purchase of status in the social marketplace. On the basis of education and employment we are able to "have" wealth. In spite of our ability to enjoy a lifestyle unknown to even the most wealthy only a few generations ago, there is increasing evidence that our "way" of life is not only unsustainable in the long term, but also fails to meet our most fundamental human needs today. For over a quarter of a century many have believed, as Eric Fromm noted: • Unrestricted satisfaction of all desires is not conducive to wellbeing, nor is it the way to happiness or even to maximum pleasure. • The dream of being independent masters of our lives ended when we began awakening to the fact that we have all become cogs in the bureaucratic machine, with our thoughts, feelings, and tastes manipulated by government and industry and the mass communications that they control. • Economic progress has remained restricted to the rich nations, and the gap between rich and poor nations has widened. • Technical progress itself has related ecological dangers and the dangers of nuclear war, either or both of which may put an end to all civilizations and possibly to all life. (1976:2)
It is virtually impossible to hold the view that we possess land and at the same time to conceive ourselves as part of it. It is almost unthinkable that we would belong to the land rather than the other way around. A few, in reaction, have said that they do not own the land but that they have borrowed it from their children. The fundamental values we hold, the paradigmatic filter through which we view reality, denies to many in our society (although not to all) the opportunity to achieve a sense of belonging or wholeness with the environment. The intellectual structure of our relationship to the world is better characterized as ownership and domination than stewardship. We define land as a commodity belonging to individuals (Lahde 1982:9). Land defined as "property" has "value." Fromm believed that the industrial system had failure built into its two main psychological premises:
Introduction
9
That the aim of life is happiness, that is, maximum pleasure, defined as the satisfaction of any desire or subjective need a person may feel; and that egotism, selfishness, and greed, as the system needs to generate them in order to function, lead to harmony and peace. (Fromm 1976:5)
There is room for serious debate about the incompatibility of greed and peace. Or even that greed is the real motivator behind capitalism, even though it may often appear so. The acquisitive nature of capitalism may be better explained as a process of continual challenge and achievement rather than greed. It may simply be that acquiring wealth is the most universally accepted means of measuring success. But there can be little dispute that the satisfaction of unlimited acquisition requires immediate and often reckless exploitation of resources, irrespective of the consequence to those "downstream" in regard to their position in the economic order, the physical order of the landscape, or as future generations. Under the production and consumption paradigm, even people are considered a "resource" for industry-rather than the other way around. We do not even consider it odd that Texas A&M University, like most large corporations, has a Department of Human Resources. In fact, there is a national Society of Human Resource Management with offices in Alexandria, Virginia, that provides services to those in the business of managing humans as a resource. Some contend that we have so commodified our relationships with the environment and one another that even the most sanctified aspects of life derive their primary value from the marketplace. Consider the home. Home is that place where the family, the most important institution in human society, collectively and spiritually resides. The home is the sheltered setting for an array of interpersonal relationships. It is a place that provides the basic source of nurturing for the individual and the nuclear or extended family-the ultimate refuge from the uncertainties of the outside world. It is the place where you are loved and protected. As Robert Frost said, "Home is the place where, when you have to go there, they have to take you in" (1915). In our society we think of the home as being in a building, a dwelling. Some people think of it as the building. It is well understood that developers build and real estate agents sell "homes," not houses, and the public recorder transfers deeds for the sale of "property," not land. These issues raise fundamental questions: Where does the landscape fit in this paradigm? Does it have value to us in any context other than economic? If it has value, can we enhance and protect the value of the landscape through design? Do we as designers-as shapers of the landscape-have a responsibility to the landscape, or only to its owner and those who are to occupy it, those we call "users"? These are the questions you will either answer over the
10
Chapter One
course of your professional life, or they are questions you will let society answer for you. It is important to note that the answers society provides will be useful for the way society is currently organized and not necessarily for any other purpose. That is to say, the definition is framed to reinforce the status quo rather than design change. Each society will answer these questions in a different way. Over time societies will change their answers as understanding and social values evolve. For now there is the question of how this relates to an understanding of landscape architecture theory. Theory of landscape architecture addresses fundamental questions regarding the meaning and purpose of our activities to impose design change on the landscape: What is it that we do? Why do we do it? How do we do it? How do we determine when it has been done well? While the questions are simple enough, the answers tend to be both complex and elusive. These are the kind of questions that have perplexed philosophers of all societies in all ages and we are unlikely to answer them definitively here. But that does not mean we should not try. To become educated means that we have assumed the responsibility to try to answer questions that will accompany us throughout our life. Likewise, in the search for design theory, it may not be the destination but the journey that is most important to understanding. Because our world (physically, ecologically, culturally, aesthetically, and intellectually) is in a process of perpetual becoming, the landscape is continually changing and evolving in response to ongoing natural and human processes. As a consequence, the considerations for intervening in that process of change are likewise in a continual state of flux. In the search for understanding, meaning comes not just from the discovery of definitive answers to the questions but primarily from our individual and collective search for them. The future of the design disciplines and the quality of our professional lives will be defined by our examination of the issues and the conclusions we reach. In a service profession, it is always important to understand how our society perceives the need for the services we provide and how it values the advice it receives. If we understand the world to be in a process of perpetual change, and if our questions therefore cannot be answered definitively, it is reasonable to ask whether it is valuable to pursue these questions at all. Can we provide enduring answers to evolving questions? Almost certainly we cannot. It is not the answers but the principles that issue from them that may be more enduring. If we seek continuing improvement through design, our theories about why and how we design may need to change as rapidly as conditions if they are to remain relevant. The main questions may be: What is the condition of the landscape today? How does that compare to what we knew, or thought we knew, about the past and what does it mean regarding
11
Introduction
how we gain and apply knowledge to improve the quality of the landscape of the future? We live in a society and in a time when knowledge has become the primary motivator and determinant of thought and action. We trust knowledge and technology, sometimes even when we should question it the most. And since knowledge is not static, the process of understanding will require that we ask these questions continuously. Like the landscape, knowing is a process of continual change and improvement. The questions remain the same. It is only the answers that change. We will only know what the acceptable answers are if we continually pose the questions.
Landscape Another important consideration is to define what we mean by landscape. The traditional definition of landscape is an area of the earth's land surface that has been modified by human activity (Jackson 1984:5). This is from the Germanic root landschajt, as "a small collection of buildings as a human concentration in a circle of pasture or cultivated space surrounded by wilderness" (Motloch 2001 :3), and its English transliteration. Some expand the definition to include natural areas, such as wilderness, that do not evidence human modification. This seems appropriate since, in reality, there is virtually no place on earth that has not been influenced by human activity of some typethrough direct settlement, husbandry, deforestation, or by inadvertent actions such as acid rain, air pollution, or chemical contamination of the earth's soil and waters (Berleant 1992:3). Consequently the traditional definition is inclusive, encompassing all contiguous land areas of a definable character. The traditional definition is applied here since the designed landscape is, by definition, subject to human influence even though the physical evidence of that influence might not be obvious. Landscape is a broad term encompassing the totality of our physical surroundings: environment, place, region, and geography to name a few. The landscape is observed, visualized, and perceived differently by people in different situations and from different landscapes, conveying a different meaning to each of them. The landscape is an entity that is defined by our senses and interpreted by our intellect. It reflects prevailing cultural, social, and economic values and expresses the character of a society as it has developed over an extended period of time. When understood, the landscape may be comprehended as one of the most accurate indicators of a society, its values, its technology, and its aspirations. But because it is constantly changing, the landscape requires constant attention if we are to decode its fundamental meanings and gain a clear understanding of who we are and where we are going as a society (Meinig 1979:1).
12 Chapter One People have always altered the landscape to make it more responsive to their needs. Today we provide guidance for those anticipating landscape change as a specialized design profession: landscape architecture. Until very recently designs to transform the landscape as an entity were inadvertent, in response to actions to meet people's spe- ' cific needs, such as clearing a forest for agriculture or to build a town, flooding a valley for water supply or creating spaces for recreation. Contemporary design requirements are more complex. We now understand that there are indirect as well as direct needs to be addressed by design: maintaining the health and diversity of ecosystems; sustaining the landscape's intrinsic character, function, and productivity; and satisfying statutorily mandated codes and development standards. The complexity of contemporary design requirements continually increases as expanding knowledge advances our understanding of the landscape and human influences on it. Our efforts to design in ways that respond to this complexity and satisfy growing performance requirements accentuate one of contemporary society's most difficult problems: our inability to fully comprehend and manage increasingly complex technical, cultural, and biophysical systems (Senge 1990; Hutchins 1996). Because landscape or environmental issues exist primarily as a vast network of interacting features and processes, they belong to a class of problems that resist purely scientific or technological understanding and solution (Soule and Press 1998). Our continuing requirement to change the landscape to meet new needs and respond to new opportunities creates a situation where, as Albert Einstein noted, "Imagination is more important than knowledge." He may have overstated to make the point, but it should be clear that the two are complementary and equally important. Either in the absence of the other is of limited value, and as will be described below, potentially dangerous when it comes to changing the landscape. Contemporary approaches to landscape design are intended to address this complexity: to maintain balance in the environment as we alter its form and use, to provide for people's immediate needs while simultaneously maintaining the richness and vitality of ecological and cultural systems. It is in response to these interrelated processes of landscape change that the environmental design disciplines have evolved. Each discipline-architecture, engineering, landscape architecture, planning-addresses a different kind of process and employs a different theory, knowledge base, and technology. Each discipline provides answers for a different type of development problem, such as buildings, infrastructure, or landscape. One of our most important avenues of inquiry is to determine the areas of responsibility of these different disciplines so that we can better manage success-
13
Introduction
ful interaction and synergy among them. One of the disciplines most closely allied to landscape architecture is architecture.
Architecture No discussion of landscape architecture theory would be complete without reference to architecture. In the past a great deal of the theory of landscape architecture was borrowed from our older sister (perhaps mother) profession. In landscape architecture the term architecture is used in its generic sense as the process of applying design thinking to determine a desired future outcome. Originally, not only the process but also the principles of architecture were applied to the design of the landscape. But architecture as a discipline or profession is principally about the design of buildings. Landscape architecture on the other hand is principally about place making and only occasionally concerned with buildings. While it is useful to understand and respect the values and theory of a closely allied discipline, it is also important to know where to draw distinctions. Although architecture and landscape architecture address the world through a common design paradigm, and both fields approach design in a similar way, what these two disciplines design, the knowledge bases they apply, and the values they hold are quite different. There are many ways to define architecture. One of the classic definitions is from the Swiss architect known as Le Corbusier: 'J\rchitecture is the masterly, correct and magnificent play of masses brought together in light." This definition is both poetic and profound. Unfortunately, this kind of definition, which is not uncommon, casts little light on the subject. The uninitiated need a more concrete definition for fundamental understanding. Unless we can define, in a comprehensible way, what architecture is, there is no reason to suppose that we know what it is or, for that matter, whether it is being taught at the university. The same, of course, is true for landscape architecture. Architecture is a design discipline concerned with the creation of physical structures to shape, shelter, and facilitate specific, and usually concentrated, human activities. Landscape architecture is also concerned with facilitating human activities, often different kinds at different times in the same place. In addition, landscape architecture is equally concerned with the celebration and conservation of the environment where those activities take place. Architecture is likewise concerned with the celebration of building. Architecture also is concerned with expressing itself and its context, referential to both itself and its culture in space and in time. In architecture it is almost unthinkable that the structure, as the tangible manifestation of human influence, is not a conspicuous and distinctive physical expression. In landscape architecture, on the
14 Chapter One other hand, it is not uncommon that the touch of the designer is so restrained and the expression of design so subtle that the place appears almost untouched, as if in a "natural" state. Indeed, since the seamless integration of new activities into the larger framework of the landscape is one of the landscape designer's most difficult challenges, imposition of a subdued or naturalistic expression, consistent with the character of the existing landscape, is a common design strategy. The need for design change develops in response to society's dynamic growth and expansion into the landscape and to address our constantly evolving patterns of activity and technology. As society grows and changes we need more building and a revised landscape in which it occurs. Architectural responses tend to reveal the interplay of contemporary technology and style as a physical design expression. Landscape architecture, on the other hand, serves to make connections: between buildings and human activities. The landscape, because it is more enduring, also serves as a bridge over time, from our past to the present and eventually into the future. The basic role of landscape architecture is to continually reform the normally slowly evolving landscape to better accommodate these rapidly changing requirements for economic support, to provide space for new activities and, as a cumulative result, express a culturally specific sense of place. Unlike the architect, who can begin with designs for a new building with each commission, the landscape architect must return to the same material and, in a sense, the same place for each project. Each project is, in a broad sense, a refinement to the same common .place. Through the conscious imposition of ideas to shape the form of the environment and its elements, the design disciplines collectively seek to arrange the features, processes, and character of the urban and regional landscape to improve their overall utility and value and reflect the underlying social and ecological order. This process of change reveals an important consideration regarding Fromm's distinction between "being" and "having" as a way to define ourselves and our relationships with one another and with the environment. An intrinsic characteristic of the concept "to be" is the aspect of "becoming" (Fromm 1976:25). If we shift our focus from having to being, the next step is the concept of becoming. This is a critical consideration in design. Design is often described as creating form, with the very clear assumption that this is a formal change; that the form created is to be permanent and unchanging. This traditional architectural assumption is fundamentally· inconsistent with the reality of the landscape. All aspects of nature are in a state of perpetual evolution. They are constantly changing in both form and substance. Ecosystems tend to become increasingly complex, trapping and passing along more energy as a result of that complexity. The same is true for the landscape of urban systems.
Introduction
15
Cities constantly grow and change, breaking down old roads and buildings to make way for new. Likewise, each day we as individuals change; we become older, more experienced and, we may hope, more happy and wise. Each day also brings us nearer to our death, to dust and eventual reincorporation through the recycling of elements into the ecosystem via another generation of plants and animals; the process of which, coincidently, is the basic activity of the landscape. In effect we are becoming, at least in our elemental constituents, what we originally were-a part of the landscape. In a physical sense we come from and are becoming landscape. In a spiritual sense, however, we remain individual and distinctive. And for the moment, we are content to hold on to our distinctive existence. Architecture is much more reflective of that spiritual aspect of individual distinctiveness, and as such is quite different from landscape architecture, which is more reflective of dynamic process and becoming. Each day we are, a little more perfectly, whatever it is we are capable of becoming as a person. The same may be said of the landscape. The landscape we see is a point-in-time expression of interacting ecological, physical, and cultural processes, a momentary snapshot of what exists today. And, if we conceive human society as a system supported by many individuals maintaining and passing along the spark of life, our individual lives may be understood as part of a continuum of human life, sustained over time by successive generations. If we conceive of the world as constantly becoming, rather than being, .our understanding of the landscape and our responsibilities to intervene in the process of changing it will respond to and perhaps more closely approximate the reality of our evolving world. Architecture, however, tends to remain in its original form, particularly if it is architecture that we consider valuable as an expression of who we are, or who we would like to be. Our past concepts and theories of design have been inherited from the arts and architecture, which are oriented primarily toward the creation of formal, and static, artifacts. Classic examples of Western art and design have included such enduring physical artifacts as Egyptian pyramids, Greek temples, and Roman coliseums. We have inherited the formal design paradigm where the designer strives not just to create but sustain form over time. But the world is not static. To understand landscape design we need to begin with the concept of landscape as perpetual change within dynamic systems-process-and see the role of the designer as that of intentionally intervening in that process to effect improved systemic relationships. To achieve improvement through design we need to change the landscape in ways that are demonstrably beneficial. One of those benefits is to preserve the health and working order of the landscape, which implies an ability to continue the process of change and improvement, not to arrest it.
16
Chapter One
If we fail to understand that landscape is process, our designs will fail to integrate with reality in continuing and meaningful ways; they will fail to become an integral part of the landscape as a process. Without this temporal/conceptual integration our design ideas will remain rooted in the static concepts of discrete architectural artifacts, and we' lose the opportunity to contribute to continuing change and improvement, to the evolution of the built landscape as a systemic process. In architecture the product of design is not just a shelter, it is also a cultural artifact. In landscape architecture the product is not so much an artifact as it is an interactive environment. In landscape architecture the product is a process. Although architecture and landscape architecture may employ the same design process of determining change, the changes they determine do not result in the same kind of product. The landscape expresses itself as place. But this expression is not always a representation in the architectural sense, in that it may be documented and recorded with the expectation that the form of the place will remain static, recognizably the same, after an extended period of time. There should be every expectation that a well-designed-that is, living-landscape, in addition to its ability to promote enhanced human activity and experience, will also retain its capacity to evolve in response to changing demands from the environment or from those who use it over time. A living landscape is a growing and changing landscape, in part because we ourselves are changing and constantly placing new demands on it. . Within this dynamic environmental matrix, some landscapes express the moment just as is the case in architecture. Architecture is a temporal expression of what we as a society believe and how we build at a given moment. Some landscapes also express society and the environment in this way. But not all landscapes follow the temporal architectural model. Each form of expression is equally important. In a society such as ours, it is important that both temporal and dynamic designs are created. The icon is important as a statement of who we are and where we have come from. Design of the landscape as a dynamic system is important to provide a setting, or place, in which the icon exists. Architecture, with its paradigm of the artifact, provides one of the critical models and a basic underpinning for an important aspect of landscape architectural practice and landscape architecture theory. But there are also other models of design to be considered.
Design The artist Josef Albers said, "To design is to plan and organize, to order, to relate and to control. In short it embraces all means opposing
Introduction
17
disorder and accident. Therefore it signifies a human need and qualifies man(kind)' s thinking and doing" (1977: 75). Design is the process of forming things or places to bring about improvement-to make them more useful, economical, or beautiful, for example. Unfortunately, there is a growing body of evidence that the quality of the environments we collectively create, as well as those left unaltered, is declining rather than improving; in part because they have been conceived, executed, and maintained as static features embedded in the dynamic matrix of a fluid environment. But there is another consideration. All too often the design disciplines address problems of the landscape's subsystems, not problems of the landscape as a whole system. Our design solutions are only partial while the problems of the environment present themselves as interrelated wholes. The way we change the landscape negatively impacts many of its natural systems simply because we do not understand what these systems are or how they function. On a broad scale our designs are bringing about disorder in many aspects of the landscape. For example, our farming and forestry practices have almost eliminated many species because the complexity of these environments, and their habitat, is being lost. The relationships between what we create by design and all other interrelated aspects of the environment determine the overall quality of the landscape, and by extension, the quality of our lives. One of the clearest examples of these relationships may be seen regarding our ability to increase the human population (Kohnke and Franzmeier.1995:145). Through improvements in medicine and sanitation we have seen significant improvements in survival rates among the world's populations. These increased numbers of people have, in turn, had a significant impact on the quality of the environment: In the six secondsit takes you to read this sentence,eighteenmore peoplewill be added.Eachhour there are 11,000 more mouths to feed;eachyear more than 95 million.yet the world has hundreds of billionsfewer tons of topsoil and hundreds of trillions fewer gallons of groundwater with which to grow food crops than it had in 1968. (Ehrlichand Ehrlich1990:9) As the population increases, demands on the landscape grow. Both our population and our lifestyle are rising. A rising lifestyle means we have more resources at our disposal. Each day we require more from the landscape. And although these demands are growing, the landscape is not. We constantly extend and change the way we use and manage the environment to increase our ability to extract needed resources. The basic challenge in designing the landscape is to synergize biophysical and cultural processes to accommodate the dynamic requirements of both without critically compromising either. The way we define design and how we apply that definition to changing the
18
Chapter One
landscape is directly related to whether our efforts result in improvement or merely bring about change for its own sake. Design has been defined in a number of ways, typically as an activity: • To initiate change that will transform existing conditions into preferred ones (Jones 1966) • To envision "a desirable future and invent ways to bring it about" (Ackoff 1981 :62) • To determine a safe path to a desired future condition (Weisbord 1992)
19
Introduction
• access to resources shelter from elements functional organization comfort and convenience • social interaction human health and safety
• ecological sustainability • economy of construction • ease of maintenance • comprehension
and wayfinding
• aesthetic experience • sense-of-place expression
• "The conscious and intuitive effort to impose meaningful order" (Papanek 1984:4) The fundamental meaning of the order imposed is the improved utility, comprehension, satisfaction, and sustainability with the designed object or place. The principal characteristics of design action are purposeful change and improvement. Change may be imposed on an existing condition or it may address the process of change itself, sometimes to alter conditions in the environment, sometimes to preserve them. For example, New York's Central Park was originally a derelict wasteland that was transformed by design into a beautiful wooded park. On the other hand, at Yosemite National Park the original setting was so magnificent that the national government set about to preserve it. The image we see today is intended to be the same as that found by riders entering the valley on horseback in the early 1900s-the process of change has been arrested by design to preserve the desired form. For some, design includes the act of shaping the product, such as in pottery where the designer shapes the vessel directly. For others, and this includes most work by landscape architects, the act of shaping the product is indirect. Designers determine what the new form will be and others (contractors) execute the work on the basis of instructions from the designer. Design, then, is the process of determining the future form of the object or place, directly or indirectly. Design is defined here as the process we employ to guide intentional change in the environment to improve its value and fitness. Through design we act to improve the landscape in many ways, to transform the conditions we find lacking into those we desire. Some of the more important of these areas of change include those listed in box 1.1. Although these conditions describe the goals of design, they are not the "things" we design, the physical changes we impose to alter the social, ecological, functional, and spatial systems we seek to influence. What we design is different from why we design. We impose change in the composition, arrangement, and form of things to create improved relationships among them, relationships we
hope will result in benefits that do not presently exist. It is interesting that among the common purposes of design we do not typically include the need to ensure a capacity for future change. Even though we know that change is the only constant in the environment, we continue in our tendency toward the creation of fixed or static form of the landscape. To create conditions of comprehensive environmental improvement, design change needs to protect the critical characteristics of the present condition as well as to bring about improvement in as many of these categories of design intention as necessary. To do this successfully we need to institute systemic change in the environment whereby each of these aspects will be improved and also bear a beneficial influence on all the others (Mitroff and Linstone 1993). By investing environments with value and meaning on multiple, mutually reinforcing levels, designs increase their functional and perceptual significance for the people who occupy and use them. Consequently, it is in the broad range of categories in which improvement is sought that designs may be evaluated to assess their quality (Churchman 1982). Thus, designs can only bring genuine improvement when they favorably influence the entire range of conditions in which improvement is needed. If significant areas of concern are ignored, no matter how well we design those that have been addressed, the overall result will be deficient. The quality of a design, like a chain, is only as strong as its weakest link.
Education To prepare landscape architects for careers to address these complex issues as practitioners or disciplinary researchers, the profession requires that they receive a comprehensive education. Universities playa number of integrated roles in the process of professional prep-
20 Chapter One aration. They assume three primary responsibilities: teaching, research, and service to the community. In landscape architecture, the greatest amount of time among these is allocated to teaching, which is primarily studio based. Studio-format education is based on a process of learning by doing. As Aristotle said, "For the things we. have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them" (Nicomachean Ethics, Book II, chap. 1). The most important factor to solving design problems, and learning from the process, is critical thinking. Design is essentially a process of relating all the operational factors into a comprehensive whole (Sasaki 1950:159). The development of independent, critical thinking is the primary goal of studio education. The secondary goal is to provide experience in addressing certain types of problems. Essentially all design schools are based on this approach to design education. Students learn by trial and error how to harness their individual creative potential by working under the constant eye of the design tutor whose role is to guide the development of the individual student's skill and insight. To a large extent design education is focused not on what we design, or why, but how-on the process of examining, making, and defending sound design decisions. For instruction to remain relevant, however, it must be continuously nourished by contemporary knowledge and technology. While the creative energy is individual, it is expressed in relation to the context in which it is applied. Since the context is evolving, we must continually bring our understanding of the design context-the technology, the landscape processes, and the human processes that take place within them-up to date with current knowledge. This is achieved through ongoing research. The teaching faculty engage in research to create new knowledge and integrate it into the learning experiences of students through subject courses and studio exercises.In addition to the acquisition of knowledge, professional education is organized to provide three kinds oflearning opportunities (Steinitz 1988:136): 1. To build competence in changing or conserving the landscape 2. Tobuild experience and confidence in doing so 3. To build theory as the foundation for the first two Accredited university programs in the United States provide the content mandated by the Landscape Architectural Accreditation Board (LAAB)under the auspices of the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA).Curriculum requirements include: • landscape planning, design, and management • design implementation • landscape architecture history • professional practice
Introduction
21
Accreditation standards also require instruction in areas related to landscape architecture. These areas of instruction are intended to supplement and enrich the educational experience and ensure wellrounded preparation for professional practitioners. They include: • history, art, and communication • natural, cultural, and social systems • landscape planning, design, and management theories and processes • plants as design materials and their applications • construction materials and techniques • professional practice methods and ethics • public and private office practice procedures and methods • computer systems and advanced technology • contact with allied disciplines such as architecture and planning The content of professional education is intended to provide students with the necessary and comprehensive background preparatory to entering the public or private practice of landscape architecture. This preparation is intended not so much to provide education as to prepare for it. Education is a lifelong process. Regarding theory, professional education does not provide a design theory for students to adopt, but rather provides individual students with the tools to create and develop their own philosophy to guide their education and organize their professional activities. Theories about what you should do and how you should practice, it is hoped, will flow from the intellectual processes of learning, experience, and reflection. These processes will be stimulated by the challenge of ideas-some familiar, some unfamiliar, and a few unwelcome. By confronting these ideas, it is believed that you will be better able to form your individual theory of the life of design and better able to enrich the meaning and purpose of your professional life. One of the most satisfying aspects of design practice, or any endeavor, is in knowing that the quality of what we have achieved is high. Education and theory provide a basis for measuring design quality. The educational content of curricula investigates some of the major factors to be considered in evaluating the quality of the design changes we impose on the landscape. In addition, it describes considerations relevant to the process of developing and examining ideas and imposing change in ways that are based on sound scientific and technological evidence; evidence to improve the likelihood that the changes we propose will yield the benefits we intend.
22
Chapter One
Professions An examination of landscape architecture theory must include a discussion of how its practitioners are organized into a professional body. A profession is an organizational entity that has as its purpose the delivery of a service to society for which its members are compensated to derive their livelihood. A profession is a social entity structured around a value system its members hold in common. As in any social organization, the behavior of its members is monitored by the group and policed to maintain consistency with their commonly held values. This means that, to its members, an important indicator of the success of design activity is judgment by the internal values and standards of the profession. The benefit of this is that the profession sets and maintains standards of performance that society may rely on. The disadvantage is that standard performance is not exceptional. Exceptional performance must come in spite of the profession's requirement for standard performance. The profession of landscape architecture, as with other professions, exhibits typical characteristics. • It possesses a knowledge base as the foundation of its commonly held values and the services it provides. • It employs established procedures and techniques to apply its knowledge base. • The knowledge and procedures (sometimes referred to as the science and art) it employs can be learned and are taught to initiates. • The knowledge and procedures it employs are rendered in the form of services to clients and users. • The services are rendered to provide a practical and useful purpose, to satisfy the needs and desires of those served. • The services are rendered to promote the general health, safety, and welfare of society. • The services rendered are typically provided for a fee as the basis of compensation. • The standards of education and performance of the members are established by consensus of the professional body. • The professional behavior of members is self-regulated by the professional body. From this it should be evident that the character of the profession has a profound influence on the nature of both theory and practice. The education the professional organization requires for applicants and the values that emanate from it provide the basic paradigm
Introduction
23
through which we view the world, and as a consequence, shape the conclusions we reach. Our commonly shared knowledge base, values, and experiences create a unique perspective for comprehending reality. Although we believe that our point of view is correct and makes valuable contributions to society, it is important to remember that this is not an objective view, nor is it a view that is widely shared. We need to be constantly vigilant if we are to maintain a sense of objectivity about what we learn and what we do as designers. The ability to limit the influence of prejudice on our perceptions is one of our most difficult tasks. The influence of prejudice on design can be highly destructive. Design may be described as a process of inventing new and more effective ways of doing things. Prejudging the outcome of actions may result in our discounting other possible courses of action before they have been openly investigated, with the result that some courses of action-perhaps the most effective ones-may not be considered at all. These other possibilities are then beyond our reach since we will never really consider them if we prejudge their suitability and focus our attention elsewhere. When we judge the success of our designs only by our preestablished (conventional) internal standards, we limit the influence of knowledge or values other than our own and thus eliminate the possibility that our designs will satisfy broadly inclusive performance criteria: criteria that are used by others (who may include clients and users) to evaluate design performance and success. Finally, it should be noted that professional practice is licensed by state registration. Licensure of landscape architects, as for practitioners in all professions, is legally mandated by state law for one purpose: to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the state. Our theory must include consideration of this important social responsibility.
~~
,,(4~-r: -f'
I
2
~•
,~.11tt.,.
,.~
J'......
.,
\~''
;l
t,···,r ,~ "
•...
~ .•
~~/
Substantive Theory Theory: The body of generalizations and principles developed in association with the practice of a field of activity and forming its content as an intellectual discipline. The coherent set of hypothetical, conceptual and pragmatic principles forming a general frame of reference for a field of inquiry. -Merriam-Webster's
Third New International Dictionary
Theory of landscape architecture is based on the premise that quality of life for individuals and society benefits from the creation of harmonious and mutually supportive relationships between people and the environment. Given the speed and complexity of contemporary development, it is widely believed that such relationships may best be achieved through holistic, rather than single-purpose, intervention in the continuing process of landscape evolution. Theory of landscape architecture is becoming increasingly diversified to encompass the environment as a totality, but it is a work in progress. A half century ago Garrett Eckbo remarked: The great problem and the great opportunity of our times is to rebuild, on an infinitely higher plane, the unity and solidarity between man and nature which existed and still exists in primitive communal societies, and which was broken and shattered by the great sweep of history through slavery and feudalism to capitalism. This we can work toward every day on every job and
25
26 Chapter Two every (1950:58) project, no matter how small or inconsequential it may seem.
The significance of his comment is greater today than it was in 1950. During the last half century we have witnessed unparalleled, and mostly unanticipated, change to the landscape; much of it detri~ mental to human and environmental health. If theory is to playa useful role in our professional lives, it must influence what we do to improve the human condition and how we do it each day and with each project we undertake. To guide our work toward an increasingly valuable, and increasingly valued, contribution to the built environment, theory must enrich our understanding and use of the landscape and lead to designed places that improve the quality and character of our collective lives. To build a theory that operates on the most routine level in addressing the most ordinary of problems may well be one of our most important goals as practitioners. That we have been unable to make greater progress to address the needs revealed by the insightful minds of the past is an unfortunate but common attribute of history. In an enlightened age, the charge to each generation as the inheritors of the profession and the environment is to pass it on to the next generation in a better condition than it was received. But progress is a slow process. The visions of great minds are often motivated by insights for which no immediate verification exists. Fortunately, we now have information that did not exist a generation ago. The question now becomes one of how best to gain access to it and integrate this evolving knowledge into design decision making.
Design Philosophy Over the past thirty years two opposing philosophical positions have developed in landscape architecture, each related to the concept that quality of life is inextricably related to people's relationship with their surrounding environment. One position, expressed by Eckbo, describes landscape architecture as a design discipline (not a science) in which the appropriate role for the profession is to create new and innovative ways for people to relate to the physical environment (Gerhard 1992:8). The proponents of a concept that may be described as landscape architecture as art have been the primary adherents to this point of view. An alternative position describes landscape architecture as functioning principally as a profession of stewardship, identifying and preserving for improved human utility the intrinsic qualities found in nature through research and ecologically sound land planning and
27 design (McHarg 1969). The proponents of what might be described as landscape architecture as science have been the primary adherents to this view of the profession. Both of these positions have been instrumental in informing theory of the discipline and bringing us to the more holistic and integrated perspective now developing. To borrow a phrase from George Bernard Shaw, the scientist looks at the world and asks "Why?" The designer looks at the world and asks "Why not?" The important question is whether we must choose between them. It should be clear that an understanding of why things are the way they are will not lead automatically to a vision about how they should be in the future. Conversely, any speculation about what the future should be that ignores what we know about the present and our experience of the past places us at considerable risk of repeating past mistakes. The role of the designer, however, is to facilitate creative and innovative relationships by imposing alterations to the form of the environment. But change alone is not enough. It must be change that corrects past mistakes and takes advantage of new opportunities. The profession has now matured to the extent that both these approaches (landscape architecture as art and landscape architecture as science) are accommodated by a more holistic design theory. We now understand that both positions are equally appropriate and important to our understanding of landscape design. These positions are now understood as mutually reinforcing, complementary rather .than competitive. The theories to address these philosophical considerations fall into two broad categories. The two types of theories applicable to landscape architecture are substantive and procedural (Ndubisi 1997:37). The substantive theories promote better understanding of the landscape as the interface between human and natural process and are descriptive and predictive. Substantive theories originate from the natural and social sciences and the humanities, and are employed to inform our understanding of the environment. Procedural theories address methodological issues: ideology, process, purpose, and principles of design. These theories describe functional and procedural relationships concerning the application of knowledge to resolve human use and conflict in the landscape. They originate from design practice and the academic development and technical application of knowledge in a social setting. Substantive theory describes the knowledge used to inform decisions, procedural theory describes the methods of its application to guide the planning and design of landscape environments. Regarding land planning, Ian McHarg (1981) articulated a theory of human ecological planning that he summarized as follows: All systems aspire to survival and success. This state can be described as syntropic-fitness-health. Its antithesis is entropic-
28 Chapter Two misfitness-morbidity.Toachievethe first state requiressystems to find the fittest environment,adapt it and themselves.Fitnessof an environment for a system is definedas that requiring the minimum work of adaptation. Fitnessand fitting are indications of health and the processof fitting is health giving.The quest for fitness is entitledadaptation. Of all the instrumentalitiesavailableto man(kind)for successfuladaption, cultural adaptation in general and planning in particular appear to be the most directand efficacious for maintaining and enhancing human health and wellbeing. (1981:12) As with living systems, it is the underlying quest for survival, fitness, and health (individual, social, and ecological) that motivates reasoned planning and design activity, although it is usually expressed as a desire to meet some short-term (often economic) goal. It is for the purpose defining and satisfying these goals that the procedural theories are of formulated. Substantive theories are developed to help us understand the interrelationships that are influenced by designs to satisfy the goals we pursue when we impose change on the landscape. To a considerable extent, the substantive theories provide the basis for design goalsthat designs should be sustainable or that they should promote harmonious relationships between human activity and the environment. There are exceptions to this, such as goals related to facilitating specific activities (e.g., improving access or functional convenience) or resolving specific conflicts (e.g., reducing the risk of incompatible activities such as the intersection of pedestrian and vehicular traffic). The design goals establish what we hope to achieve by design. Procedural theories, on the other hand, address how we design; that is, the strategies we employ for achieving the design goals. This section reviews the substantive theories of landscape architecture: theories that address the understanding of landscapes and the motives underlying their modification and management to improve mutual fitness between natural and human systems.
Sustainable Development Although the idea of sustainable development first emerged in the global arena at the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment at Stockholm, it took more than a quarter century to become firmly entrenched in our collective thinking. The concept had been around since the 1950s, but usually related to carrying capacity for wildlife or livestock (Stoddart and Smith 1955) and timber production. It was called long-term sustained yield by ecologists concerned with production from heavily managed natural systems such as grasslands and
substantive Theory
29
forests. By mid-twentieth century our ability to use technology to impose change on the ecosystem was developing much faster than our ability to understand its implications. Some visionary ecologists began to recognize a growing problem with regard to sustaining human development, but few others noticed this looming crisis before the mid-1960s (Ordway 1955; Eisely 1957; Brown, Bonner, and Weir 1957; Sears 1959). In 1959 Paul Sears wrote: What other peopleshave accomplishedwithout the benefitsof science suggestswhat we might do oncewe learn to make technology our servant rather than our master. To that end I propose a question whose answer liesbeyond the reach of science,however much sciencemay illuminate the search. If we care what the future may bring forth, what do we desireit to be?Oncewe know what kind of world we want, sciencegivesus abundant means to shape it. (p. 17) Today we are beginning to get a clearer understanding of what kind of world we want and the connection between choices in the landscape. At least there is growing consensus about what we do not want from the environment: habitat destruction, ecosystem fragmentation, soil erosion, species extinction, atmospheric and aquatic pollution, diminished quantity and quality of food and water. Sustainable development has become an internationally accepted goal. We are slowly coming to the realization that we have a responsibility to protect as well as the power to change the landscape. Sustainable development is defined broadly as the wise development and conservation of the earth's resources. The most common definition was formulated in 1987 by the UN World Committee on Environment and Development, which declared that sustainable development meets the needs and aspirations of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Sustainability "means simply that in a global context any economic or social development should improve, not harm, the environment" (Newman and Kenworthy 1999:1). Sustainability is a global concern since most problems in the environment respect no political or geographic boundaries: climate change, soil erosion, air pollution, water pollution, and chemical contamination recognize no political borders. It now seems unlikely that compounds such as DDT or PCB, or radioactive isotopes can be released anywhere on earth without their influence being felt everywhere (Newman and Kenworthy 1999:1). A key concept of sustainable development is to think globally and act locally-to consider a proposed development's global consequences as well as the local benefits on the landscape before acting to realize it. Contemporary theory in landscape architecture attempts to fuse the apparently polar positions of innovative change and stewardship,
30
Chapter Two
and focuses on the development of holistic design strategies to improve the human condition and sustain environmental health and productivity. Stewardship without innovation would not be possible in a rapidly changing world. The world currently operates under nonsustainable paradigms (Capra 1983, 1996:3; Watt 1973:142; Lyle· 1994:20; Wynberg 1993:30). There are currently 1.7 billion people, one quarter of the human population, who occupy what has been described as the "consumer class"-those who have adopted diets, transport systems, and lifestyles of excessive consumption that lead directly to a degradation of the environment (Gardner and Assadourian 2004). Amid this great abundance enjoyed by the consumer class, 3 billion people-nearly two out of every five-are barely surviving on less than two dollars per day. Sustainable development, if it is to be achieved, will radically change the way we design and build in the landscape. Innovation will be required to change profoundly what we now do if we are to become stewards of the environment. Consider, for example, that all contemporary urban transportation systems in the United States are based primarily on the privatevehicle mode, which is designed to operate on expensive fossil fuel that will be exhausted in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, the most popular style of vehicle in the U.S. is one that greatly exceeds our need for power, size, and mobility in off-road conditions, and consumes more resources to build, maintain, and operate than popular models in almost every other country. The American system also requires enormous consumption of land and resources for the provision of basic freeway and street infrastructure (half of the land area in U.S. cities is dedicated not to human activity but to automobile movement and storage) because so many individual vehicles must use the system simultaneously. If fuel supplies were significantly interrupted, almost all of our cities would become immediately dysfunctional due to the extremely low density of contemporary suburban development and the consequent distances between origins and destinations that make routine transportation without private cars virtually impossible for the vast majority of people. Since most goods are transported by truck for at least part of their journey, food, fuel, and supplies would also become quickly exhausted. Another basic and even more critical component of life is food production. Like transportation, modern mechanized agriculture is only possible through the importation of nonrenewable fossil fuel into the production system to subsidize ecosystem control and increase energy extraction in the form of food or fiber. Over the past century, all societies have built behavior patterns into their relationship with the landscape that derive from what have been termed "naive attitudes" about the nature of the earth and human relationships to it. Examples include the continuing destruction of rainforests through-
Substantive Theory
31
out the tropics and reduction of biodiversity by the imposition of agricultural monocultures throughout the temperate regions of the globe. Each case reflects our failure to understand the critical role of complex ecosystems in sustaining viable agricultural production. These behavior patterns are based on concepts that are not just outmoded, but dangerous considering the systemic vulnerabilities and long-term implications of our actions. These concepts, expanded and driven by exploding population in concert with the ready (although temporary) availability of fossil fuel, have become unsustainable in the short term and potentially catastrophic in the long term (Lyle 1994:4). Sustainable development proponents maintain that "we must begin to rethink and restructure the processes and procedures of decision-making, including the underlying ideas and methods that shape our definition of problems that predetermine approaches to dealing with them" (Jacobs and Sadler 1990:3). For human environments to become sustainable will require both improved understanding of the ecosystem and radically changed patterns of consumption behavior (Papanek 1984). Contrary to widespread faith that new technology will solve our problems, there is no evidence to support the notion that there can be unlimited growth in population and economic development within a fixed-resource environment. And, unfortunately, if technology does not provide an answer, the food production and distribution systems will be unable to cope with any sudden and unexpected interruption. Sustainable. development focuses on knowledge-based decisionmaking processes whereby the interrelated structure and function of the environment are well understood and thus facilitate reasoned, systemic change. The criteria for success are the perceived advantages to be derived and retained for the benefit of present and future generations. The criteria are holistic and include ecological, economic, and community sustainability based on policy and institutional integration (Jacobs and Sadler 1990: 170). These criteria must be based on objective, quantifiable evidence (Le., science), particularly systems science that deals with integrated wholes and patterns of network interrelationships. Ecosystem management, a central concept of sustainable development, is becoming recognized as an important tool for protecting the productive capacity of the environment. Ecosystem management is based on the integration of ecological, economic, and social principles to manage biological and physical systems in ways that safeguard sustainability, biological and landscape diversity, and ecosystem productivity (Wood 1994:612). Ecosystem management is implemented to regulate internal ecosystem structure and function and, as a consequence, system inputs and outputs to achieve socially desirable conditions (Agee and Johnson 1988:237). Unlike historical landmanagement approaches, ecosystem management does not focus pri-
32
Chapter Two
marily on the delivery of necessary resource "goods" and "services" to society, but rather on sustaining the ecosystemic structures and processes necessary for the delivery of goods and services (Franklin 1993: 10). This is a radical departure from the position of most individual or collective actions, and significantly different from that of. most design professionals and their clients, who tend to be project (object) oriented rather than system (process) oriented, with the benefits of their enterprise deriving from immediate singular success of the individual venture (recreation, food production, wealth creation) rather than from bringing about collective long-term benefits to the quality of societal/environmental relationships. One of the most important aspects of sustaining a healthy environment is recognition of the interrelated systems in which life is embedded. The soils, water, and atmosphere at the surface of the earth have evolved over hundreds of millions of years to their present condition by the interrelated activities of the biosphere. It is this web of interrelationships that makes life both possible and sustainable. This complex of living organisms and their inorganic environment continues to develop. The system is not in equilibrium (Wilson 2002). It continues to evolve and respond in reaction to change. When we introduce change in a system in disequilibrium, we cannot know what the results will be. When we destroy ecosystems and drive species into extinction, we accelerate the process of change to a new but completely unpredictable future. Ultimately, degradation of theecosystem threatens our own existence. Contemporary political, economic, and industrial paradigms almost universally fail to take into account the value of the environment as a critical asset. Rather, it is thought of as a repository of useful resources. As a consequence, we fail to respond appropriately to our need to protect it for the benefit of future, as well as current, generations. The wealth of the environment is being systematically degraded through the wasteful exploitation of resources by methods that degrade the landscape through the processes of extraction. There are several areas of critical concern for future sustainability. Among these are the need to assure the diversity of biotic and cultural resources, increased reliance on renewable resources, and the management of urban/industrial/agricultural landscapes in ways that achieve more than production alone. To redress the inequities between these targets and current practice, a series of interrelated principles have been proposed as ways to increase resource productivity andThese sustain it into the future (Hawken, Lovings, and Lovings 2000). include: 1. Reestablish agriculture, industry, and urbanism on ecological models with closed loop systems and movement toward zero waste.
Substantive Theory
33
2. Shift the primary focus of agriculture and industry from the production and sale of goods (light bulbs) to the provision of services (light) for greater integration and efficiency. 3. Reinvest in the environment and its natural capital as the basis of all future prosperity. At present we utilize systems of development that do not fit into the structure and function of the landscape in ways that sustain viability. These development systems are, in effect, the antithesis of health maintenance. We have not developed ways of using the landscape without using it up. We do not understand how to use materials that can also be reused elsewhere in the system in other ways. Recycling is still a goal. Integration is not yet understood. We have not yet begun to design landscapes as regenerative systems. Our concepts of development remain as fixed as our concepts of design: we construct new landfill sites on which to dispose of urban waste rather than establish urban life support systems that eliminate waste as a byproduct to be disposed of (Lyle 1994). If we are to begin designing sustainable landscapes we must focus on optimizing functions and processes on many levels rather than maximizing for any. To maximize for some systems, such as urban systems, invariably means minimizing for others, such as natural systems, many of which (such as drainage) the urban systems rely upon. We are only beginning to recognize the advantages of designing for the benefit of both existing and introduced systems; conceiving design as the creation of a new and integrated complex of mutually supportive natural and human systems with the capacity to regenerate themselves over time. Rather than learning how to use less of our resource base with advanced technology, our tendency is to employ it to extract and use more, leaving less for the systems on which we rely to support and maintain themselves. In our quest to maximize extraction and reduce the burden of maintenance, we have introduced new "low-maintenance" materials into the ecosystem that are toxic to people and the ecosystem. We prefer to apply herbicides rather than to plow weeds or use defoliants to strip the leaves from plants prior to harvest. Unfortunately, these chemicals rarely stay where we put them, finding their way into streams and rivers and eventually into the oceans where they work their way back into our own food chain. And yet, we feel little obligation to take responsibility for these poisons in our air and water and food. We believe that maintenance is a process to be avoided, when, in reality, it is only through sustained and intimate contact that we come to know and understand these systems in the depth required to use and manage them sustainably. It is questionable whether societies, given the inherent power and privilege vested in the stability of current economic and political
34
Chapter Two
structures, are prepared to undertake a new social and economic order without compelling reason. The actual collapse of current systems might supply such a reason, but the possibility of a future collapse has not yet compelled action. Our patterns of behavior are based as much on habit as on the application of reason and knowledge to chart a sustainable future course for life. But the day may come, and perhaps soon, when the question put to designers will no longer be whether we are to change, but how. If such a time comes it will be useful if landscape architecture has considered its response.
Environment-Behavior Studies One of the most serious criticisms of contemporary design professions (architecture, landscape architecture, urban design and planning) has been their lack of a knowledge base from which to propose changes to the environment. Design professions are defined primarily as problem-solving professions. But before problems can be solved, they must be identified and understood (Zube 1987:425; Rapoport 1990:97). Although engineering has quantified the structural aspects of building, design problems are not primarily structural in nature. The purpose of design is not to employ technology, but through its application to provide shelter, sustenance, and services for human activities. For designers to understand the problems they intend to solve, they must possess not only technological competence but also knowledge of the physical, ecological, sociological, and psychological dimensions of the people they serve and the context in which they exist. Environment-behavior research has been an emerging area of intellectual focus within the design professions for the last thirty years, but only in the last fifteen or so has it begun to significantly impact design thinking and assume a prominent position in theory (Zube 1986). To some extent, contemporary design theory is more focused on how to design, with emphasis on the style of the resulting form, than on why-the proposed impact of design change on improving quality of life. Rapoport argues that contemporary design decisions are based primarily on what designers "prefer" from an aesthetic perspective, rather than on established knowledge or predictable performance outcomes. By the 1970s it was becoming apparent that under rapidly changing conditions, with designers becoming physically and socially separated from clients and especially users, they needed information to support design decisions that was unavailable. Research flourished in many disciplines (such as engineering and planning), and theory was becoming respected (and respectable) because of its power to provide insight into the future. However, the design fields were being left
Substantive Theory
35
out because they lacked a disciplinary knowledge base (Zube 1973:130; Rapoport 1977:4). At the same time, research and theory were becoming increasingly necessary due to the growing complexity of the design milieu and demands to satisfy specific performance requirements. Thus, predictive theories, concepts, and principles based on an expanding knowledge base have been unavailable at a time when they have been most needed. In a knowledge- and technologydriven society, the design disciplines are being marginalized and edged out of the dialogue about the future of the environment. Having an opinion about what the future should be is not considered as valuable as having predictable evidence about the advantages or disadvantages of a proposed course of action. Many schools of design are conducted today essentially as they were twenty-five or even fifty years ago, with many hours devoted to studio time and the students' search for their ideas. In most programs, design takes up as much as a third of course hours and the time actually spent in the studio may be much more (Bunch 1993). However, little or no time is being directed toward acquiring knowledge or research methods to determine what or how best to design, or what relationships provide the most desirable conditions in the environment (Papanek 1984). A definable body of knowledge for landscape architecture, on which there is consensus, does not yet exist. Proponents of the behavioral-science-based paradigm suggest that the built environment can be studied as a system of behavioral settings-without considering appearance or visual preference or making subjective aesthetic judgments-with social and cultural factors as the main variables influencing the character and quality of environments (Mar.cus and Sarkissian 1986:4; Rapoport 1990:91). Under this paradigm the traditional considerations of materials and technology are only secondary, modifying or constraining influences. Generalizations, it is thought, can be drawn if the topic is approached cross-culturally and comparatively. The design research that typically occursdesign guidelines, project-definition programming, and post-occupancy evaluations-is considered too specific and limited to adequately form a substantive knowledge base for the disciplines, even if these data are systematically compiled and made available to others. Since many designers are innocent of systematic research methods and statistical analysis procedures, a great deal of their project-based research and conclusions are unreliable in application to general (and even specific) situations. Because much of this information is considered proprietary, little of it is found in the literature in any case. The basis of an environment-behavior approach to design is the notion that there is a relationship between the environment and behavior and that this influence can be understood to inform design. We generally understand how the environment acts to influence
36
Chapter Two
behavior. People, for example, are more excited in a carnival atmosphere or more relaxed in a quiet park. Conversely, it is also true that our behavior has an influence on the environment. If people repeatedly follow a single path it becomes Worn to the extent that it is physically expressed in the landscape. Environment and behavior may be seen to be interactive when, as a consequence of our discovering a path worn into the landscape, it attracts us to adopt the same behavior. There are ecological relationships between environment and behavior due to their mutual influences on one another. The greater our understanding of these relationships, the greater our ability to apply that knowledge to guide design decisions and create predictable environmental settings. Environment-behavior research draws from a variety of disciplines, with the topic having more to do with geography and culture than with architecture. People, activities, schemata, and relationships are all considered more important than buildings or settings as artifacts to provide an understanding of the living environment (Rapoport 1990: 91). What is necessary, it is argued, is to be able to understand culturally different ways of comprehending the environment and that this understanding is more important than design methods or styles. Furthermore, the most important part of designsystematic problem identification-is often missing (or dismissed) from contemporary paradigms, and this condition constitutes an institutionalized constraint to effective paradigmatic change (Derrington 1981:59; Lynch 1981; Rapoport 1990:83). In the absence of systematic, comprehensive problem discovery and identification, designers often miss (or avoid) the most difficult and challengingthat is, real-problems by substituting their own self-posed problems as defined by the internal values of their profession; that is, trivial and easily solved ones. An even greater hindrance to the development of the design disciplines is the apparent disinterest among designers in finding and reducing areas of uncertainty through the development of knowledge, as other fields do constantly (Rapoport 1990:97). This may result because designers often consider the problems to be obvious, as viewed through the filter of their prevailing internal value system. When we believe that we know what the design problems are, we are unlikely to spend energy verifying that knowledge. Some design-research advocates conceive design as a process of proposing alternatives and choosing from among possible courses of action to achieve certain predicted effects based on explicit objectives, sometimes called the "choice model" of design (Rapoport 1977: 15). To achieve this, it is imperative that the design disciplines create and operate on the basis of a knowledge base-objective understanding of environmental reality-if their design services are to provide improved performance in the landscape. To determine the best among
substantive Theory
37
possible alternatives there has to be an evidentiary system for determining the most appropriate choices. Advocates of a knowledge-based approach see designs as hypotheses to be rigorously tested (Zube 1983; Rapoport 1990) to produce a cumulative body of knowledge. A strong research component is considered a minimum requirement for any discipline (and, within universities, any education program) to develop a sound knowledge base. Systematic evaluation of the mutual interaction of people and the built environment is concerned primarily with what to design and why; posing human criteria for designs based on an understanding of person-environment interactions. Rapoport suggests that this type of investigation deals with three general questions (1977:1): • How do people shape the environment? Which characteristics of people, as individuals or groups, are relevant to the shaping of different environments? • How and to what extent does the physical environment affect people? How important is the designed environment and in which contexts? • What are the mechanisms that link people and environments in a two-way interaction? Appleton (1975) theorized that people have an innate preference for certain protective or sheltering environmental settings. This is described as a prospect and refuge relationship between an observer and .the landscape. The basic premise of the prospect-refuge theory is that people evolved as an "edge" species in a savannah environment over many thousands of generations (Wilson 2002). The forest edge condition within the open grassland-woodland environment of the savannah provided a sheltered prospect from which people could view the open landscape in search of food and shelter. The edge condition also provided the benefit of a protective refuge that concealed the viewer from predators or enemies. The theory postulates that since people favored and occupied this type of landscape during a lengthy period of evolutionary development, this preference has been encoded in our subconscious as a precognitive response to an environment that provides a prospect and refuge setting. The theory suggests that to satisfy one of our most basic human needs, designed environments need to provide a recognizable and beneficial relationship (a prospect and refuge condition) if they are to be preferred on a fundamental subconscious level. An interesting aspect of the prospect-refuge theory is that the image presented by many landscape paintings seems to provide a broad panoramic, or prospect, view of the landscape from an obvious or implied refuge position. The prospect-refuge theory can be easily tested in the environment to demonstrate its apparent influence on behavioral choices. People,
38
Chapter Two
for example, are more often observed choosing to sit on benches under the shelter of trees at the edge of a space than on benches out in the open at the middle of a space, conspicuously located in the full view of others. People tend to want to view others more than they want to be viewed in this kind of setting, although there are, of course, excep"": tions. Theory provides useful guidance to designers in considering the use of public space, but the design decisions must still be made on the basis of value judgments. When designers evaluate available choices to address a wide range of problems and opportunities, the theory may explain, but it does not determine design choices. Design choices are always made to reach the most equitable and harmonious balance among a range of competing interests.
Systems Theory One of the greatest challenges of contemporary life is to understand and manage the interface between complex cultural and environmental systems (Senge 1990:14). Systems theory provides a means of comprehending reality on a holistic basis and has become our most important means of understanding complex conditions. Systems thinking provides a structure for unifying the broad theoretical positions that have been brought together to form the profession of landscape architecture as we now know it. Systems are defined as "wholes" consisting of entities and relationships that function through the interrelatedness of their parts. Systems exhibit existential properties independent of these parts (Motloch 2001: 1). Systems relationships are characterized as follows: • The behavior of each element of the system has an effect on the behavior of the whole. • The behavior of the system elements and their effect on the whole are interdependent. • The elements of the system are so interconnected that independent subgroups of them cannot be formed (Ackoff 1981). Insights from all branches of science during the last half of the twentieth century have precipitated a shift in worldview from the mechanistic view of Descartes and Newton to the holistic view of Smuts and Bertalanffy (Capra 1996:43). Newton used the metaphor of a clock to describe the intricate interrelationships among the different parts of nature. While it is true that the parts of a clock are activated by one another, they do not have the capacity to change one another and evolve together over time, and the action is directed in only one wayfrom spring to wheel to hands, not the reverse. Also, the individual parts of the clock do not exist for their own purposes, but only for their
Substantive Theory
39
collective purpose to measure time. The parts of a natural system are much more complex since each part contributes to its individual wellbeing as well as to function in concert with all others to influence the overall well-being of the system as a whole. Thus, the mechanical view of nature had a grossly simplistic and misleading influence on our understanding of nature. In particular, it suggested that by understanding the parts we could come to understand the whole. Systems thinking has developed in response to this deficiency. The systems approach affects all aspects of landscape architecture, including learning. An important characteristic of natural systems is their ability to learn, to acquire "information" that informs their development and evolution over time. DNA, for example, may be described as the information an organism uses to build itself. DNA is often referred to as the blueprint of an organism, telling each cell how to become a particular part of the system, such as bone or muscle in animals, or leaf or stem in plants. It might also be useful to think of DNA as compared to the policy and procedures manual of a complex organization. It not only tells the organization how to form itself but also how to act, or more correctly to interact, with other elements of the system. In either case the DNA is the repository of vital information. As organisms evolve and become more complex they acquire increasing amounts of information, stored in the DNA, to guide the creation of each subsequent generation in a predictable way. The same is true for the organism and its social group. As human society became more advanced and complex, people had to have increasing amounts of information to manage their survival. Continual learning is required for survival in a changing world. Hutchins (1996) describes learning as the process by which a system alters its structure to adapt to its environment and increase its capacity to survive. This is what happens to us as we learn. The more we learn, the more fit we become to survive in our environment. We also increase our capacity to become what we are capable of becoming as an individual. One of the reasons we are not the same person today that we were at age ten is that we have learned a lot since then and changed because of it. Learning is a creative process. There are seven principles of systemic learning (Hutchins 1996:137): 1. Learning is driven by a search to explain the discrepancy between past knowledge and present or anticipated experience. This is done to better predict the future and improve the probability of survival. 2. Learning is the active reconstruction of past knowledge and skills to integrate new information or behavior at a higher level of complexity. Memory occurs at an objective physiological level in the nervous system; thus, learners actively construct meaning.
40
Chapter Two 3. Learning is socially mediated and contextual. Learning has an "ecological context." When what is learned is influenced by the knowledge accepted by others, their beliefs, and their effect on the learning processes, it is socially contextual. 4. Learning requires feedback and comparison against an ' internalized standard or an accepted external standard. Learning does not occur without feedback to measure understanding or performance in relation to the standard. Delayed feedback or feedback unaccepted as a legitimate standard of evaluation does not serve to advance learning. 5. Learning requires integration and automaticity, which are dependent on motivation and persistence. Significant repetition is necessary to integrate new information or skills to the extent that their application becomes an automatic response. Unless new learning is fully integrated, old learned forms reconstruct themselves when the process is destabilized by stress or new information.
6. Learning is both a single-looped and double-looped process (cognitive and metacognitive). It is thinking directed toward learning new things as well as thinking directed at the process of learning-thinking, and thinking about thinking. 7. Learning is both product and process. Product and process are the same thing, only seen from different vantage points. Learners cannot achieve the product (knowledge) without the process (learning) taking place. They cannot meaningfully engage the process without a product resulting. These principles resonate strongly with the process of design. A useful way to understand design is to conceive it as an applicationoriented learning process. If we begin with the concept that we must know what is desired in the future and what conditions exist that require design change, it should be apparent that we need to learn these things in order to be able to design effectively. From a systems approach, design problems are best understood as a set of interdependent problems that are definable only by their specific interactions (Ackoff 1981). Learning is necessary in our search for what is, as well as for what should be. Based on the proposition that design requires learning, there are three principles of design process when approached from a systems learning perspective: 1. Design is a learning process: change must be informed by reliable knowledge if it is to bring about predictable improvement within a complex system. 2. Learning is a design process: it structures purposeful change in what we know and how we understand and relate to the world.
Substantive Theory
41
3. What must be known to design well must be learned: because the world is changing rapidly, we must learn continuously to be able to inform change in ways that result in the improvement required for design success. The principle of holism contends that as a result of synergistic interactions, the whole of a system is greater than and different from the sum of its parts (Smuts 1926). Holistic thinking emphasizes the organic and functional relationships between the parts and the whole, an integrated system of mutually interdependent relationships that facilitates the emergence of new (systemic) properties. Contemporary ideas about systems discount the notion that we can understand the whole by examining the individual parts: by examining the parts individually we fail to comprehend the essential relationships between them (Wheatley 1992). In design it is always the relationships rather than the parts that are most important. The world is filled with examples of landscapes, tools, machines, buildings, and towns that are well designed, in comparison to others that are not. The examples in both categories may contain precisely the same type and number of parts. Having all the right parts does not equate to having a good design. They must be placed in harmonious relationships with one another. An understanding of systems relationships is integral to design, as expressed in John Motloch's view: For landscape management, planning, and design to effectively integrate diverse systems, landscape designers must be systems thinkers (thinking integratively and with cognizance of systems dynamics). They must be committed to landscape management, planning, and design that optimize the health and productivity of diyerse physical, ecological, and human systems. Landscape designers must aspire to manage, plan, and design people-environment relationships and human interventions that promote landscapes of high relevance and deep meaning that are sustainable (address today's needs while sustaining the ability to address the needs of the future) and regenerative (function to regenerate system capacity). (2001 :1)
In many ways, designers have always been systemic thinkers, organizing a broad array of interrelated parts to produce a unified design whole. The primary difference between Motloch's description and the way designers have always worked is mainly a matter of what is to be included, the extent to which systems thinking has been expanded to apply to an increased range of considerations. In the past, designers tended to focus their attention on the specific place or object being designed. We now realize that in designing the landscape, this objective view is inadequate for understanding the relationships we influence. The systems being influenced far exceed the limits of the property being designed or developed.
42 Chapter Two For designs to holistically address the total complex of interactive relationships in the landscape requires a systems approach. Open systems, such as the landscape, which are subject to influences from outside the system (and in turn, exert influences beyond the system), exhibit a number of common characteristics. These include (1) interdependence in the relationships among subsystems and the ovenill system, or suprasystems; (2) hierarchy among subsystems and the suprasystem which have specific patterns of influence within and between system levels; and (3) tradition, in that systems are subject to the irreversibility of time and the increasing entrenchment and reinforcement of complex interrelationships. Any system has its own hierarchy of subsystems and at the same time exists as a subsystem in the hierarchy of a greater or suprasystern. Each level of complexity has the explanation for its mechanisms in the levels below, and its significance in the levels above. In an African savannah ecosystem, for example, the lions exist as a predatory subsystem because of the available energy organized by the subsystem of grazing animals who convert the energy captured by photosynthesis in the subsystem of the grassland. Each level in the food chain exists because of the one below. Antelope colonize the region after the grassland becomes well enough established to provide a predictable food source. Lions assume a predatory role in the food chain after the antelope become well enough established to provide their food source. Once established as a subsystem in the ecosystem, the lions serve to keep the numbers of antelope in check and prevent weak individuals from transmitting their characteristics into the gene pool. Each level, or subsystem, in the food chain is interdependent with the others. The history of the ecosystem describes system change over time that enables the hierarchical subsystems to become established and their interrelationships entrenched. Reduction of the grassland through the introduction of farming, for example, would bring about a reduction in the antelope population that, in turn, would cause a reduction in the number of lions due to the loss of available food source for each level. Alternatively, if the number of lions was reduced through hunting, the antelope population could expand, increasing pressure on the grassland that would bring about its reduction through overgrazing. The essential properties of a system derive from the interactions among its hierarchically interrelated subsystems, the interaction of the parts acting as a whole, not the parts acting or existing separately. When the elements are taken apart the system loses its essential properties and ceases to exist. Systems theory has become our most important means of comprehending reality on a holistic basis. It provides structure for unifying the broad theoretical positions held by the many disciplines dedicated to understanding natural and built environments in ways
Substantive Theory
43
that integrate knowledge of the processes by which nature and society organize themselves. It also provides insight into the processes of learning and decision making that lead to design results. There are two primary reasons why systems theory is important to landscape architecture. One is that the environment is highly complex and complex conditions require a systems approach to understand them. The other reason is that the environment is dynamic. This leads to continual change and, as a consequence, makes continual learning a central feature of successful design process. The advantage of a systems approach becomes obvious when we understand that, like the landscape, design problem solving is an unending process. Because problems and solutions are in constant flux, they do not stay solved. And, even when problems remain relatively stable, their solutions become obsolete, sometimes before construction is complete (Ackoff 1981). Landscape improvement is an ongoing process of complex systems management. Landscape design is a specific step in the process. An important result of systems thinking has been the shift from a purely quantitative view of the individual parts of nature to a more qualitative understanding of nature as a whole: a shift from the singular focus on substance to a more balanced assessment of both the form and the substance of interrelated phenomena. We are still in the process of shifting our view from the concept of the machine to ecosystems, and unfortunately this view is not yet fully understood in the corporate, political, or academic communities (Leopold 1949:243; Capra 1996:4). The decision-making world seems to be trapped in a crisis of perception. If we perceive things as being separate and unrelated, we will continue to address them as such. This is what we observe when we see that streets,are designed as one system, utilities as another, and buildings as another in the formation of cities. None of these closely related urban features are designed to perform as a single system, the city. The result is dysfunctional or poorly functioning urban environments. One of the most important aspects of a systems view is its repositioning of attention from objects to relationships-a shift from objective to contextual thinking. Unfortunately, the world is slow to change its fundamental intellectual framework. Perhaps too many people have too much at stake in the old paradigm for it to be changed quickly. There is compelling reason to believe that the looming crisis of the environment calls for change that is both profound and immediate. But, unless our perceptual abilities allow it, we are unable to comprehend reality in a new and more integrated way. One of the clearest examples of the view that nature can be comprehended by investigating individual parts is the university, whose institutional structure is based on different disciplines (physics, chemistry, biology, economics) existing in relative isolation from one another. The parts work well to focus on research into different areas of knowledge but
44 Chapter Two there are no clear systems for integrating the knowledge each of them creates into a comprehensive, or comprehensible, whole. Quantum physics revealed that, at the subatomic level, objective reality does not exist, only the probability of reality as expressed through the presumed interrelationships among particles. This shift in attention from objects to relationships, from a focus on the discrete components of nature to the contextual structure in which they exist and the forces that motivate them, enabled the science of ecology to develop. Attention to the structure and function of environments as complementary realities, rather than the mere quantification of individual objects within them, is providing the design disciplines with an . opportunity to better understand the environments we act to influence. This improved understanding enables us to view environments as settings of dynamic and meaningful relationships rather than static voids awaiting improvement from the hand of the gifted and creative designer. To design in a way that takes all the subsystems (biological, geological, social, political, etc.) into account requires that we learn a great deal about the system and its subsystems. Systems theory holds the promise of providing the unifying theoretical field to integrate knowledge of the way nature, and society as a part of it, organizes itself. Systems thinking is particularly important to design because it is largely based on pattern recognition and organization, a fundamental principle of design thinking. "The idea of a pattern of organization-a configuration of relationships characteristic of a particular system-became the explicit focus of systems thinking in cybernetics and has been the crucial concept ever since" (Capra 1996:80). The evolving nature of pattern organization is becoming increasingly important to landscape planning and design. In changing the landscape it is not only important to organize different elements in an appropriate pattern of relationships, but also to integrate that pattern into the larger patterns of the landscape in ways that are harmonious and mutually supporting. Systems, whose essential properties exist and function through the interrelatedness of their parts, may be described according to their relative stability (Motloch 2001:2; Capra 1996:27). Equilibrium structures are highly integrated, interactive, self-perpetuating, and stable. Dissipative structures are highly spontaneous, dynamic, and inherently unstable. Stable systems exhibit structures that have evolved slowly over time to increase the interrelatedness of their parts and have few internal or external conflicts. Unstable systems, undergoing transformation, promote the spontaneous generation of new structures and maximize the rate and extent of change within them. Fundamental change in equilibrium systems is extremely difficult because of their internal stability and resistance to outside influences.
45 Equilibrium structures are usually fine-tuned for change in the ,hort term and tend to be homeostatic: functioning to sustain themselves over time. Dissipative structures operate in a condition of dis~uilibrium and are characterized by high internal and external conflict and intense stress over short time periods. Dissipative structures func,.Don to create new and more relevant interrelationships, and evolve fnew and more appropriate equilibrium structures-in the long term. Their instability makes them somewhat unpredictable in the short term. But conditions of great turmoil and instability, while stressful, afford great opportunities for fundamental design change due to the rapidly changing nature of the current situation. An example of these opposing structures may been seen in the apparently stable paradigm within the design education system (with its continuing value on the art rather than the science of design) existing in parallel with the rapidly changing design practice environment. The latter must respond to unstable and rapidly deteriorating built environments and to clients' changing value systems. And there is another consideration. In spite of continuing technological advances and the abundance of resources available to them, American architects, engineers, planners, and landscape architects have been unable to create reliably safe, healthy, enjoyable, and beautiful urban environments. This results, in part, because designers in each discipline take responsibility for their own area of expertise-and that area alone. They do so with apparent faith that by designing the parts, the whole will also be designed. In reality, this is true. Because the subsystems are interdependent, the whole system is being designed. Unfortunately, it is being designed inadvertently or by default. The values that guide the design decisions about the parts do not relate to the outcomes of the whole. As a consequence we are, by neglect, designing the whole system badly. The same design thinking being applied to the parts needs also to be applied to the whole, and in a holistic or systemic way. To meet rapidly evolving performance standards, the contemporary development environment (requiring science-based prediction of design outcomes) is being required to move beyond the traditional design approaches and adopt new ways of interpreting the process of landscape reformation. Land planners and designers of the future will have to find ways of reconciling and creatively integrating these diverse value systems if the profession is to remain relevant and viable. As we hold to our values of the past, other disciplines, such as civil engineering and planning, are stepping up to the opportunity by offering new services to meet the changing requirements of contemporary land design and development. They bring to this challenge their own technology, but often without the values of the whole; that is, without the integrated and collaborative synergy of multiple knowledge bases, technologies, and values.
46 Chapter Two Over the last quarter century there has been steady progress toward organizing landscape architecture in conformance with a systems approach to the process of learning. Professional design performance and the related process of educational preparation are based on three interrelated suppositions regarding the relationships betwfen education and practice: 1. The behavior of each element of the system (either design practice or its educational preparation) has an effect on the behavior of the whole (the profession). 2. The behavior of the system elements and their effect on the whole are interdependent (in other words, education is depen- . dent on the design profession and the design profession is dependent on its educational preparation). 3. The elements of the practice/education system are so interconnected that they cannot be formed into independent subgroups (Ackoff 1981); that is, they exist as integrated components architecture (the discipline and the profession) asofa landscape whole. An underlying presumption of these suppositions is that the student is a member of the profession with the status of landscape architect-in-training. There is no distinction between student and practitioner; that is, there is no physical or intellectual distinction between the person a student is now and the person she or he will be upon becoming a practitioner at some future date. The student is an integral part of the system of landscape architecture, currently operating in the educational subsystem. The future of landscape architecture is reliant on the quality of education students now receive to prepare them as both trained entry-level practitioners and as life-long learners who will very shortly assume leadership of the profession. As stated earlier, the essential properties of a system derive from the interaction of its parts acting as a whole, not the parts acting separately (Capra 1996:29). The requirements of professional practice influence education as much as the characteristics of education influence the nature of practice. If a system is taken apart it loses its essential properties. When you disassemble a car and lay the parts out on the shop floor you no longer have a "car" (as a whole system). You only have the parts. When the parts are integrated and interactive, a system results: a condition exists in which the whole is capable of actions its parts.that are greater than is possible from the sum of the actions of For the parts of a system to be fully understood, they must be comprehended in their systemic or holistic context. You cannot, for example, understand the feeling of power from speed of movement or the sense of freedom you experience from owning or driving a car by
stantive Theo_ry
47 _
. . g the parts on a shop floor. Similarly, to fully understand the ucation process it needs to be comprehended in the context of the ,sociopolitical and biophysical processes in which it takes place, and With regard to the requirements of contemporary professional practice. ~( A systems approach to design intervention in the continuing evelopment of the landscape includes understanding, arranging, and !.rnanaging the integrated features, processes, and spatial patterns of !'lhecommunity and its host environment (the urban landscape and its .regional hinterland) to improve the quality of their interdependent relationships. The quality of design ideas, and in particular the environments that issue from them, must be measured by the extent to which the whole system integrates with and responds to the demands being placed on it. These demands include our immediate needs, the biophysical requirements of the environment, and our continuing requirement to effect useful change in the landscape in the future. The importance of design ideas cannot be overstated. An idea is to design what light is to vision. Ideas are the enabling vehicle that conveys and makes tangible the meaning of design change. For design ideas to keep pace with rapidly developing knowledge and events, the discipline has acquired new knowledge, and professional practice has incorporated new technologies, methods, and services. An important role for current practitioners and academicians will be to guide the future development of the profession in ways that will preserve the best of the discipline's traditional values while simultaneously shaping new holistic ones that encompass our evolving social and environmental concerns. To meet needs on a systemic basis requires that we consider the interrelated concerns for quality of life and quality of the environment from an evidence-based perspective. These interrelated aspects, for which design consideration must be made, include: • cultural and social considerations • economics and production • environmental processes • physical and functional relationships • sensory and perceptual considerations The systems criteria for achieving holistic integration of these considerations through design are characterized by: • the multidimensionality of relevant knowledge areas and performance criteria • the interdependence between criteria originating from different sources • the dialectic between problems and their proposed solutions
48
Chapter Two
Sophisticated design methods are needed to effectively integrate design thinking into the decision-making processes for land development. Of perhaps equal concern is the question of whether our contributions are being made in the most effective decision-making arenas. Do designers, for example, interface at the most appropriate levels of political and economic decision making to exert the influence we wish to achieve? This question, while important, is not discussed here. The considerations to be reviewed here address what is known about the process of delivering design services as it is now employed and how this process may be managed to improve the quality of design results. Design process, or design technology as it is also called, is one of the primary indicators of successful design practice (Coxe et al. 1987: 8). The procedural theories of design that address methodology, ideology, purpose, and the principles of knowledge application are outlined in the following chapter.
3 Procedural Theory Some people consider it noble to have some method, others consider it equally noble to have no method. To have no method is bad. To adhere strictly to method is worse still. It is necessary at first to observe a strict rule, then to penetrate intelligently into all the transformations. The possession of method liberates us from the necessity of possessing method. -Lao Tzu
The procedure of design decision making, design process, is an area of theory encompassing a number of broad considerations. This area of theory is based on the notion that how we apply knowledge is as important to successful landscape change as the knowledge we apply to inform design thinking. An evidence-based design process is intended to connect knowledge to design action. By this approach the problem is framed in relation to design intentions and context, and decisions are based on an understanding of the critical issues. Because decisions are directly related to knowledge, this approach is seen as an effective means of integrating and resolving all the relevant concerns (Archer 1965). In very broad terms, there are three basic questions to be addressed through design: 1. What do we have? What conditions now exist that are insufficient to meet our needs or satisfy our goals and aspirations?
49
50
Chapter Three 2. What do we need? What conditions or relationships must exist for us to meet those needs or achieve our goals and aspirations? 3. How do we get it? What physical arrangement will provide the conditions and relationships we desire and how might th9t be achieved?
Procedural theory is intended to address these questions in an integrated way. Design process is defined as the sequence of events that extends from the time when a condition requiring design intervention is detected, through the deliberation of factors influencing the decision, to the final determination of a course of action to change the environment (Broadbent 1973:10). Early work by Hideo Sasaki to outline the design process suggested that three types of thinking were involved (1950:159): 1. Research: investigation to understand the context and factors to be considered 2. Analysis: determining the ideal relationships among the factors and context 3. Synthesis: integrating the complex of relationships into a spatial organization Christopher Jones modified and elaborated the three stages of what he described as a systematic design method (Jones and Thornley 1963). It was intended to have two benefits: reduce the likelihood of design error, redesign, and delay, while at the same time make possible more imaginative and advanced designs. The three stages include: 1. Analysis: listing the design requirements as a set of logically related performance specifications 2. Synthesis: finding possible solutions to each performance requirement and developing complete designs from these with the least amount of compromise 3. Evaluation: evaluating how well alternative designs meet the performance requirements prior to final design selection (Jones 1984:10). The typical phases of design process are traditionally described as inception, immersion, inspiration, and implementation (Jones 1992), suggesting that design ideas come from a deep understanding of context and desires. Design requires knowledge to guide future change, but creativity, particularly in analysis to determine meaningful relationships and synthesis to create forms that facilitate them, remains critical to design success. Even when design was thought to be based primarily on creative inspiration, rather than evidence-based predictability, deep immersion in the problem was considered necessary to enable designers to "create" effective ideas. In contemporary lan-
Procedural Theory
51
guage, it also means that our thinking is informed by relevant knowledge about the conditions we seek to influence. When broken into definitive actions, the design process may be described as four stages (Broadbent 1973): 1. Recognize and describe the problem 2. Describe the conditions to be met in resolving the problem 3. Formulate a solution that satisfies these conditions 4. Implement the solution Design thinking and design training come to us through a long tradition originating in the fine and applied arts. Each design discipline has its own definition of purpose and function. Architecture, for example, is oriented toward the provision of shelter, landscape architecture toward the provision of place, and engineering toward the application of technology to solve human problems. The mainstream approach to architecture, and by extension to landscape architecture, has been described as the "grand tradition" of design, in contrast to "vernacular" design that is not produced by professional designers (Rapoport 1977:5). The results of grand-tradition design are often self-consciously formed landscape or urban elements, including built monuments and landscape features that tend to be overt, often selfreferential, and communicate "... the uniqueness of man. They represent the 'high art' that is generally taught in schools of design. It is based upon an anthropocentric (human as center) and anthropomorphic (human as form-giver) mindset" (Motloch 2001:293). Grand-tradition design is focused on expressing the idiosyncratic concepts of the individual designer in an elitist manner, with form originating primarily from the designer's attitudes about aesthetics rather than from an understanding of ecosystems, culture, or place. These "professional" forms typically offer little opportunity for self-expression or influence from users of the built environment, nor do they tend to express the uniqueness of the biophysical environments in which they occur. The recent history of design methods has evolved from this traditional approach to design as a highly individualized, intuitive process where designers are primarily concerned with self-expression, toward methods that apply rational goals and objective knowledge as a basis for decision making. In the mid-twentieth century thoughtful designers began to develop a rationale for design that went beyond individual preference or intuition. Four generations of design process have been identified (Cross 1984:2; Strauss 1990:19). First-generation methods (dating from the 1960s) developed in reaction to preconceived, intuitive designs formulated to express the designer's ideas-such as a building form based on the shape of a crab shell, for example. These early design processes, oriented toward the identification and resolution of functional (and sometimes environ-
52
Chapter Three
mental) problems were linear, systematic, and "expert-driven" problem-solving approaches. These methods were based primarily on quantification and design programs generated by the designer (Motloch 1991:257). Second-generation processes (dating from the 1970s) based decisions on an expanded range of expertise, as represented by participants in the design process. These processes assumed that dialogue between designers and users would promote greater understanding of needs and conflicts (Caudill 1971; Zube 1974; Alexander et al. 1977), The process included participation by clients and users and was based on the perceived importance of common perceptions and values as a means of providing coherent application of knowledge (Broadbent and Ward 1969:41; Cross 1984:305). Reiteration of the design search began to deviate from a linear pattern of thinking. Third-generation processes (dating from the 1980s) regarded professional designers as experts in decision making but not in determining how people should live-that is, designers were thought to be knowledgeable about how to design but not what to design. Form proposals came from the design expert, but they were based on the knowledge and values of others. Users or clients determined whether to accept or reject the proposals (Marshall 1981:77). Decisions rested with clients, not designers. The process became cyclically reiterative as a means of incorporating feedback through multiple cycles. Under this paradigm the designer was seen as a facilitator of form decisions (Gilbert 1987:221). Fourth-generation design methods now emerging are sometimes referred to as innovation-intervention processes (Van Gigch 1984). These processes seek to network people, manage dialogue, identify and resolve conflicts in value systems, integrate expertise, and remove roadblocks that inhibit change (Strauss 1990:31; Motloch 1991:257). They serve to create sociopolitical environments within which healthy and responsive design decisions can emerge. Motloch contends that these processes can facilitate the concentration of common, culturally instituted meanings to the environment and promote social evolution and emancipation from institutionalized constraints. Fourth-generation methods (based on decision-making systems that are open and cyclical) often employ decision frameworks and design goals and objectives to pursue and document progress toward their satisfaction. Design guidelines and performance criteria are operationalized to implement the objectives through planning and design decisions. Fourth-generation methods are knowledge based and often integrate the expertise of a wide range of participants and technical consultants to assure the comprehensive resolution of complex problems. The rapid pace of contemporary change and our growing awareness of the complexity of the environmental conditions to be
53
Procedural Theory
addressed create a condition of urgency for responsible, knowledgebased planning and decision making. However, this is not as easy to accomplish as to recommend. The successful application of knowledge has many problems associated with it (Capra 1983). Having knowledge about the environment or critical design issues is not enough. More importantly, we must know how to effectively apply knowledge in a design situation. Among the most significant of the difficulties in applying knowledge include: • The great diversity of knowledge areas to be integrated through design • The absence of an institutionalized framework for information • The lack of understanding about what is known and what is unknown • The inability to predict what knowledge is most urgently required • Profoundly different approaches to the creation of knowledge • A lack of understanding about the values encoded in the information produced • A lack of understanding about how to apply knowledge through physical planning and design The first two stages of design process-to recognize and describe design problems and to describe the conditions to be met in resolving them-are the stages dedicated to learning about the design context and the problems to be resolved. We must first learn what is required before we can be reasonably certain that our design proposals will satisfy clients' or users' requirements, or integrate harmoniously into the environment. There are two conventional processes for building the knowledge required for effective decision making. One of these, decision modeling, is for application to general landscape-planning situations. The other, design programming, is for application to specific landscape or site design projects.
Design Programming American philosopher John Dewey said that "a problem well stated is half solved." If design problems are well defined, the likelihood of their satisfactory resolution is greatly enhanced. Alternatively, if the problem is unclear, or if the client and designer hold differing views of the critical issues, the likelihood of satisfactory resolution is quite low. For a design to predictably meet an elevated standard of performance requires that the project intentions and design criteria describing that standard are clearly and mutually understood.
54
Chapter Three
For example, if we intend for designs to integrate well with the existing ecological setting, we must identify the conditions of that setting and determine how design changes relate to them. Design programming is the process of learning to support a definitive statement of the problem to be solved by design. It is based on'the notion that defining project parameters and design performance requirements is an activity distinct from solving them. In reality, while the products of programming and design-design problems and design solutions-are distinctive, the process for achieving them need not segregate these two interrelated considerations. Programming was developed to provide the information required to facilitate effective design decisions. In response to the growing complexity of design practice and the perceived deficiencies in design information, the architectural profession instituted this "operating procedure for systematizing the design process" (Sanoff 1977). The proponents of programming recognized that an important aspect of any design is the effective definition of the problem; that is, establishing the critical issues to be resolved. The purpose of the design program is to objectively determine and categorically state the design problem (Alexander 1984; Lawson 1994:135). Design programming provides critical information needed to resolve problems of an unfamiliar nature, projects of great complexity, or work being performed on behalf of large client bodies (Pena, Caudill, and Focke 1977:82). It offers a way to translate information from one form (verbal and quantitative) into another (physical and spatial) to bring the client's goals closer to reality (Palmer 1981:16). Over the last thirty years there has been a growing body of literature in the United States on the topic of architectural programming as a method for controlling the quality of design products and assessing the success of design solutions. Early work by Alexander (1964) focused on the identification and analysis of environments that people found successful. The identification of successful design relationships provided information that could be integrated into the formation of new environments. Under a later approach (Alexander et al. 1977) he attacked the design problem by breaking it down into manageable categories or subproblems. Different design collaborators (representing different areas of knowledge) established a number of requirements for successful design resolution. These requirements could be synthesized into the formulation of design elements. The correct solution to a subproblem yielded a design element. These elements could then be combined into patterns, and the patterns combined and recombined into a pattern language to define "goodness of fit" for the design of a complex system-a building or landscape. The obvious purpose of programming is to provide an overview of design requirements that integrate human, physical, and external elements relevant to the feature or facility being designed (Palmer 1981).
Procedural Theory
55
The program is intended to insure that adequate, reliable, accurate, and relevant information is available to support design decisions (Douglas 1995:26). William Pena, one of the pioneers of the procedure, describes programming as a pre-design activity distinct from design. He delineates programming as problem seeking, and design as problem solving (Pena and Focke 1969). Another less obvious but equally important purpose of programming is to provide clients with an adequate understanding of the issues to be addressed by design. This enables them to make informed decisions about whether to accept or reject the design advice being offered. The key to improving design quality through research is to make specific connections between knowledge and form. Only when we (both designer and client) are able to relate what we know about the problem to form and process decisions are we able to improve the quality of design results. The third critical purpose of programming is to establish systematic communication between designers and clients that focuses on an objective assessment of design purpose and context before discussions of design results are considered. It is necessary to clarify basic design intentions prior to the discussion of design proposals. Unless the client and designer are in agreement on the intentions and requirements of a design project, it is unlikely that they will be able to work well together to develop and agree on a proposed solution. It is imperative that the knowledge-building aspect of design process is employed to clarify complex issues and reduce conflict among the parties. If the parties fail to reach a mutual understanding prior to the development and discussion of design proposals, it may be impossible to reconcile differences after opposing positions have been taken in defense of them. Programming as a process includes information collection, analysis, organization, communication, and evaluation (Palmer 1981) and results in the final comprehensive statement of the design problem to be solved. Pena (1987) describes problem seeking as a five-step procedure that includes: 1. Establishing the design goals 2. Gathering the relevant facts 3. Developing concepts to address the design issues 4. Determining the design needs 5. Stating the problem in a comprehensive way Each of these steps provides a specific type of information or element of the program. Under Pena's approach, the elements of programming are evaluated relative to their influence on design considerations. Pena described the program elements as being responsive to a set of universal design considerations or factors to be evalu-
56
edural Theory
Chapter Three
ated. The four fundamental design considerations are form, function, economy, and time (see box 3.1). These four design considerations provide the basis for information analysis. Analysis is the key to making knowledge an effective force in design. Only when we understand the design implications of the knowledge gained will we able to use that knowledge to improve design results.
The physical spatial form and pattern arrangement created
to be
ere has been acceptance, but not enthusiastic support among ,6igners for the programming paradigm. The procedure, while gen'ally accepted, is not rigorously applied in the United States (Derington 1981:59) nor effectively taught in the United Kingdom Symes, Eley, and Seidel 1997). Routine, systematic application of an 'dence-based design approach is still a thing of the future. Design programming represents a systematic departure from the 'aditional design approach (i.e., intuitive and personalized decision aking within the framework of prevailing values, past experience, d contemporary style) that is unwelcome among some practitioner d academic adherents to the view that "good" design springs from e creative genius of the gifted mind. Because of the enduring appeal grand-tradition design as an operative paradigm, it is not surprisg that some design schools devote little time to the systematic appli.ation of programming principles in either design practice or ~ducation. It is not uncommon to hear design instructors comment on design proposals they "like" or "dislike" in design reviews. And although design research constitutes an important component of most design education, rigorous methods of data acquisition, analysis, and application are often absent. More importantly, the analysis and translation of research conclusions into comprehensible and defensible design performance criteria do not receive attention commensurate with either their importance or their potential to advance design form exploration. Proponents of rigorous programming procedure are primarily those who hold that design is neither art nor science, but a decisionmaking process. In this view, design is conceived as a systematic process through which both science and art are embraced to bring about creative change to the environment. Acceptance of design as a systematic, knowledge-based decision-making process remains relatively uncommon (with the exception of technical knowledge) as an educational paradigm in many baccalaureate and masters degree programs in the United States. A review of the curricula of twenty-four accredited undergraduate landscape architecture programs revealed only four with specific courses in design research and of those, only two identified the subject matter as programming (Murphy 1998:71). Programming, when undertaken as a central aspect of design process, includes a number of relatively discrete research, analysis, and synthesis activities. The integrated tasks of a holistic programming and design process are outlined in box 3.2 on p. 58. The purpose of these integrated tasks is to organize design inquiry in a way that leads directly to usable information; that is, information that has a direct effect on design decisions. One of the first requirements in programming is to formulate a comprehensive definition of the critical design issues. This serves to organize and direct project of
Function Economy
Time
The functional relationships to be facilitated by design form Taking the greatest advantage of the resources available The temporal influence of decision making, implementation, and future use
Preiser (1978) considers that the overarching purpose of programming is to facilitate social change by promoting effective communication between the users, owners, and managers of designed places. To achieve this he suggests that programming must incorporate humanistic information. Among the types of information he recommends are person/person and person/environment relationships, psychological needs, spatial behavior, and aesthetic considerations. His procedure employs seven steps: • Document the client's organizational goals and objectives and the impinging codes and regulations. • 1ranslate the goals and objectives into functions that the organization must carry out. • Break down the functions dated spatially.
into activities to be accommo-
• Formulate performance requirements criteria for each activity setting. • Devise adjacency requirements trade-offs.
and environmental
and establish priorities and
• Designate appropriate spatial requirements with their estimated areas to provide an assessment of overall facility size. • Develop options or different types of solutions to the program. In spite of an extensive body of literature by both practitioners (Pella and Palmer) and academicians (Alexander, Preiser, and Sanoff),
57
58
59
Chapter Three
• State the general design problem to be resolved • Define the specific project issues and requirements
to be met
• Conduct project research of the issues and analyze critical relationships • Document the research conclusions as design performance requirements • Propose alternative design concepts to address the issues • Evaluate the design concepts for feedback inputs • Restate the design problem and critical issues on the basis of feedback inputs • Repeat the process until a thorough understanding been achieved.
I
of the problem has
research in productive areas and leads, through analysis, to a definitive statement of design instructions and performance requirements. A broad understanding of the critical issues enables the designer to establish a frame of reference from which to assess the information gained by research relative to possible design relationships. The next step is to establish a conceptual design approach, which identifies the specific information to be collected and establishes the significance of the issues in relation to one another. The result of this process of knowledge building, design integration, and feedback assessment is a set of comprehensive design criteria (design performance requirements) to guide the formulation and evaluation of design proposals. This approach gives designers increased assurance that their designs will satisfy established client and user requirements and fit appropriately into the framework of the environment. The knowledge which the performance criteria are based is acquired through dataoncollection.
Data Gathering The quality of a particular design is more often a reflection of the type of questions we ask than the answers we provide. Asking the right questions is one of the most important factors to design success, and thus one of the most critical aspects of the design process. Unless we know our destination, the likelihood of arriving is low. To guide the acquisition of needed information, we must first identify the critical issues. Four areas of investigations may be conducted to define the critical design issues: 1. Existing site conditions: investigate the natural and cultural features and processes currently taking place on the site.
2. Requirements of users: establish and determine the needs of primary user groups as well as those acting in support of them, such as maintenance or security. 3. Requirements of the activities to be provided: each activity to be provided or retained has preferred or limiting relationships to be established with one another. 4. Constraints under which the project will be implemented: all projects operate under constraints such as the values of the client, economic constraints, legal requirements, or time limits that will influence the nature of a final design solution. To further their understanding of the critical issues, designers may perform several different kinds of investigations. These include: 1. Survey of similar facilities: conduct parallel studies of similar situations to determine the strengths and weaknesses of current development practices. 2. On-site investigations: investigate site conditions, activities, or processes to determine their potential influence on design decisions. 3. Review of current literature: determine the state of the art from published research as a point of departure for establishing design performance standards. 4. Inquiry-by-design: conduct preliminary design studies to establish the specific relationships to be encountered by the proposed development. These information-gathering techniques will lead to the creation of a comprehensive database to inform and evaluate design proposals. But before information can be used to guide design decisions, the raw data must be translated into a usable format. This begins with data analysis.
Data Analysis It is necessary to know how information is to be used before it is possible to assess its importance to design. In most situations the only way we have to establish the relevance of information is through its relationship to the intended design conditions within the context of the proposed development site. For example, if the requirement is to provide sports fields on a site with seasonally saturated soils, the type of hydrologic information to be gathered and the requirements for its analysis will be directed toward designs to lower and control groundwater levels. Alternatively, if the design requirement is to create a year-round wetland and wildlife habitat, the analysis of the same information would be directed toward methods to maintain soil moisture on a year-round basis. The data may be collected and analyzed
60
Chapter Three
61
but, without a direct relationship to intended use, fail to provide improved understanding of the situation. The purpose of analyzing research data is to determine how knowledge may be applied to design decisions: determining the most appropriate (or inappropriate) locations on the site for the proposed activities, and the most appropriate (or inappropriate) relationships to be established among them. Once these broad conclusions have been reached, attention may be shifted to the development of more refined information analysis, such as the detailed consideration of technical performance and spatial or dimensional relationships.
improved upon? What constitutes improvement in the environment to be changed? Design goals define the desired results of the changes to be imposed, such as convenience, profits, or safety. The goals need to be as comprehensive as possible if the basic project intentions are to be addressed holistically. Alternatively, if the goals are to define the parameters of the project realistically, they should be limited to the capacity of the decision-making process. Examples of design goals might include protecting development from flood damage, or using site resources effectively.
Translating Conclusions into Design Instructions The pivotal function of programming is to acquire and translate information into useful knowledge; that is, into design performance instructions. These instructions must be neither vague nor overly restrictive. They must be clear enough to guide design decisions without dictating specific choices. Designers require three general things from the program: • Clear guidance about preferred relationships design performance
and intended
• conform Clear understanding of the conditions to which the design must • Flexibility to give designers the freedom to create the best possible overall relationships If there is too much uninterpreted information, designers will be unable to connect the knowledge to design decisions. If there are too many restrictions or preconditions, designers will lose flexibility and be unable to maneuver within the context of existing conditions to establish desired patterns of relationships and formulate appropriate design solutions. Once the data have been analyzed and conclusions have been reached, the program information is documented to clarify the design guidance, often as a hierarchically ranked array of design requirements. These requirements include the project goals, project objectives, and performance criteria. Project goals. The goals state the intended results: why design change is being considered. If the goals cannot be clearly defined and written, it is highly unlikely that the designer/client team collectively knows with any certainty what they are. Unstated goals cannot be shared, cannot become the basis for general agreement, and are unlikely to be achieved (Pena 1987). If the design intent is to improve on conditions that presently exist, the first questions to be asked are: What are the conditions to be
Project objectives. Design objectives are the means we employ to satisfy the project goals. Unlike goals, which are general statements of project intent, the objectives are concrete steps specifically related to design form. To establish the objectives, it is useful to have physical relationships in mind. This requires the consideration of the general form relationships to be employed to satisfy the goals, but not necessarily in the context of an overall design concept-the various objectives may be unrelated to one another, at least in the beginning, before they are integrated by a final design. To satisfy a goal of protecting development from flood damage, the design objectives might, for example, include maintaining existing streams in a natural condition as a flood-management strategy. Locating golf-course fairways in a floodplain to utilize land that is occasionally inundated might be an objective to satisfy a goal to use the site resources effectively. Design performance criteria. Performance criteria refer to the desired qualitative standards of physical design relationships. The performance criteria, which cover all aspects of design, address a variety of areas in which the quality of design performance may be measured (Garvin 1988). These include: • Functional and spatial requirements of the activities to be provided • Reliability of the design functioning as intended • Degree to which the design functions conform to established standards • Durability or useful life expectancy of the built design • Serviceability or ease of maintenance • Fitness of the built design to the environment in which it is located • Aesthetic qualities of the design in relation to its environmental context • Perceived quality as determined by the client or users Area requirements for the desired features of a design are typically among the first criteria to be established. These would include such things as the area required for a parking lot or a sports field. Location
Chapter Three requirements, functional relationships, and technical or construction limitations also are among the more obvious of the design perf()rmance criteria. _ Design quality can only be reasonably evaluated in relation to the performance requirements· it is intended to meet. Criteria establish the relationships to be satisfied by a designed condition. However, if the performance requirements are inadequate to address all the critical issues, the design may, by definition, be considered successful but at the same time fail to address the full spectrum of human needs or ensure the appropriate use or protection of the environment. Programming is the designer's way of providing designs that are both successful and effective improvements to the environment. One of the most important considerations to successful programming is that the information on which it is based is both complete and factual. Unfortunately, we can never foresee future information needs well enough to determine precisely what information will be needed to support designs prior to their formulation. For this reason, the development of preliminary design concepts is useful as one of our most reliable means of revealing deficiencies in program information. From the evaluation of preliminary design proposals, the absence of needed information is revealed. Once these deficiencies have been identified they may be used to guide additional information acquisition until all necessary information has been collected. For this reason, programming is not just a preliminary or pre-design activity. Rather, it is better to understand process. it as an ongoing requirement throughout the design decision-making
'OceduralTheory
63
Under the best of circumstances we should consider that, as designers, we are active collaborators with clients, builders, lenders, and municipal reviewing authorities. Each of these players has different priorities, holds different values, and pursues different goals. Integrating these participants into a successful decision-making and implementation process can be particularly challenging. But there is another fundamental characteristic of the process that makes success in design so difficult to achieve. Designers and their collaborators apply current information to predict future conditions. Each of these collaborators provides critical (although sometimes conflicting) information on which to base design decisions. On the basis of this broad array of information we attempt to predict the future success of design proposals. Unfortunately, success will only occur if the underlying assumptions are correct (Jones 1992). Predicting the future is an inherently risky proposition. It is this unreliability of the process that makes successful design resolution so challenging. As Jones explains: The final outcome of designing has to be assumed before the means of achieving it can be explored: the designers have to work backwards in time from an assumed effect upon the world to the beginning of a chain of events that will bring the effect about. If, as is likely, the act of tracing out the intermediate steps exposes unforeseen difficulties or suggests better objectives, the pattern of the original problem may change so drastically that the designers are thrown back to square one. (1992:10)
Six-Step Design Process
Design Process Design process has two primary aims. One is to assure that all the appropriate questions are posed and the relevant issues are considered in the decision-making procedure. The other is to facilitate the development of solutions that respond to these issues appropriately and take advantage of all the available opportunities to ensure design success. The secondary aims of design process include the management and integration of the different stages of design thinking, including the interactions and deliberations of all parties. This helps assure the effective and efficient application of knowledge, time, and resources. On complex land development projects, these aims are difficult to accomplish, meeting them requires systematic organization and management and procedures. Delivering successful designs is demanding due to the complexity of the information required and the number of participants involved.
Under typical practice conditions, the delivery of site-design services is guided by a sequence of six general steps. The six-step process is organized so that each step prepares for the next, leading designers through a logical progression of tasks. The sequential order of the steps suggests the underlying logic of their relationships to one another. Step 1: State the design problem. Begin the process with an initial charge or appointment from the client to the designer. This is normally expressed as a formal statement of the design commission recognizing that a condition requiring design change exists. Step 2: Define the problem. Engage the discovery stage of the process by identifying and assessing critical issues, developing design concepts, and uncovering information necessary to the successful execution of the design. A detailed description of the issues to be resolved is recorded in a program of instructions to the designer. Step 3: Search for solutions. Envision possible courses of design action available and evaluate each possibility in terms of its suitability
64
65
Chapter Three to the requirements of users and the site, and its acceptability to the client. Select and develop the best alternative. Step 4: Document the 'design decision. Prepare a record of the selected design idea to provide a detailed account of the relationships to be established. Documentation takes a form suitable to guide future implementation of the design in an accurate, complete, and technically appropriate way. Step 5: Implement the design. Execute the design idea. This is normally carried out by independent building and earthwork contractors with the designer administering the construction contract on behalf of the client to ensure faithful execution of concepts and specifications. Step 6: Evaluate the design result. Critically analyze the completed project under use conditions to determine the extent to which it meets client and user expectations and requirements and fits appropriately into the conditions of the environment. This is also an opportunity to evaluate the design delivery and implementation process. Results of the post -occupancy evaluation form the basis for improved design quality and service delivery in the future. The six-step process leads the designer through a series of criticalthinking and decision-making stages. It begins with a broad vision that improvement is needed, but where relatively little is known about the details of the design problem or the opportunities to be addressed. From there it progresses to the development of sufficient understanding to support the formulation of reasonable possibilities. With this understanding the designer proceeds to the final determination of landscape form. Based on the selected course of design action, the environment is reformed and ultimately evaluated to determine if the desired results have been achieved. The design process is organized to provide continuity throughout the life of a project. The continuous nature of design is reinforced over time by the post-occupancy evaluation (POE), which serves as a bridge between projects by systematically linking the knowledge and experience gained on one project to those that follow, providing a mechanism for continually improving design knowledge and design performance with each successive commission (Preiser, Rabinowitz, and White 1988). This final step brings the process full circle, returning designers to the first step on the next project with the advantage of knowing (rather than believing) how well (or how poorly) their previous design ideas succeeded. Ervin Zube (1983) has described design as a hypothesis to be tested. Although we may be reluctant to describe them to our clients as such, all designs are experiments. The design process makes it possible to
conduct a controlled experiment, the stages of which combine to provide a systematic record of both design intent and design result. From a perspective of knowledge building, as opposed to problem solving, implementation is necessary to provide the objective data from which design results may be determined. But it is the design program and the post-occupancy evaluation, not the built design form, that provide the knowledge base to evaluate the quality of the learning process and the information employed to effect changes in the environment. Designers, however, do not have to build their ideas to evaluate them. The process of learning by testing ideas against reality may be achieved intellectually as well as physically-at least partially. By introducing new knowledge into the decision-making process and testing it against design intent and environmental context, we model the process of learning by experience. This offers many of the advantages of new insight without the need for implementation. And without the burden of time and cost associated with it. The most rational method we have for understanding systemic relationships is to hypothetically model and evaluate them. The design process is not only a way of proposing future conditions, it is also a way of investigating them. Design investigation is an opportunity to speculate about an integrated set of conditions for the purpose of examining their potential relationships. Design exploration is our primary means of holistically testing possible future conditions and evaluating their potential to solve conflicting or unmet design relationships. Establishing and evaluating design form is our principle means of examining an integrated complex of systemic relationships. We postulate a possible future condition in order to work backwards and evaluate whether we have established the desired relationships. The critical step in design analysis-holistic analysis as opposed to analysis of individual parts-is in developing and testing design concepts. We have no other means of "seeing" all the potential relationships we need to evaluate to determine if the design form is a good one, relative to existing conditions and to other possible alternatives. Multiple alternative concepts provide further opportunities to evaluate and understand design form relationships.
Learning through Feedback A design process that models a proposed future reality and its context in a comprehensive way incorporates two important features into decision making: it broadens the knowledge on which decisions may be based and simultaneously creates a steeper learning curve, increasing the value we derive from improved knowledge. It is not the increase in knowledge itself that is important in design, but our improved understanding and ability to model design ideas with
66 Chapter Three greater predictability. The evaluation of proposals during the design investigation and elaboration stage simply mimics the POEstep, based not on actual conditions but on our perception of them. Efforts to estimate a design proposal's capacity to satisfy the conditions imposed by the program also improve our understanding of the complex interrelationships we propose to change. As our understanding of these relationships evolves we are able to reexamine design ideas in light of new knowledge and insight. With improved insight we attempt to improve the predictability of design concepts and their potential to bring about improvement in the landscape. This brings us to the question: How is the process applied to produce this result? The six steps of design are listed as a sequence of stages. But the linear sequence is only an outline of steps, not a description of the process as an operational system. In reality the process is rarely applied linearly, with one step being concluded and then moving on to the next until the entire sequence is completed. It is most successfully applied as a reiterative or cyclical process, with the steps being repeated as we attempt to improve the quality of the design results. Improving design concepts based on evaluation, referred to as recycling with feedback (Halprin 1969), has the benefit of continually incorporating new information and fresh insight before reaching a final decision. The feedback-response mechanism is active in the formation and evolution of complex systems and it works equally well in the development of designs for them. All complex systems evolve into harmonious relationships. This is particularly so of dynamic systems such as landscapes. In nature we find that the relationships of site contour, soil, water, plants, and their associated animal communities are finely tuned with one another. Because these relationships are well understood, biologists often rely on one aspect of the environment to provide clues about others. Understanding plants can provide very accurate indications about not only which animals might use them for food or live in association with them, but also what soils, climate, and water relationships have to exist for them to survive. When we try to create such harmonious relationships by design we find that they are usually too complex to be fully understood or established at first attempt. But through reiterative investigation and refinement, designers are able to create complex, fully functioning systems with all the problem areas addressed. Just as harmonious relationships in natural environments need an opportunity to mature and evolve, so do the designs we develop to create them. It is the designer's role to establish these relationships and refine them until all the bugs have been worked out. For each set of relationships we establish, we create new relationships that conflict. These new or unintended relationships need to be adjusted just as certainly as those we
67
Procedural Theory
originally set out to correct. Designers benefit from a process that facilitates the growth and evolution of comprehensive solutions for complex environments. The process requires that we continually evaluate the proposal to find these newly created problem areas and then to provide clues for addressing them. Ideally, we need a continuous cycle of design and evaluation to enable solutions to evolve and develop (Zeisel1981; Kaplan and Kaplan 1982; Weisman 1983).
Phases of Design Evolution To describe design process as an integrated learning and decisionmaking procedure, it is helpful to generalize the steps. During the ideation stages of the process, the six steps are reduced to four. Two are omitted since we need to neither document nor implement in the formative, envisioning stages of the process. And, while a post-occupancy evaluation is not possible at this stage, evaluation of the proposed concepts in a model form is ongoing. This modified four-step framework provides the abbreviated context for the conceptualization stages of the design process. These four steps form the basis of a continuous, cyclical process of learning, postulating, evaluating, and ultimately, deciding about the design conditions we hope to improve. To describe the interactive relationships among the design process components, or subsystems, it is useful to direct attention to what might be more properly referred to as phases of interaction. The phases of design process represent stages of activity as they proceed in a cyclical, or systems, approach to defining the project issues and formulating appropriate design responses. The four cyclical phases are illustrated in comparison to the six-step process as follows: Phase 1 Problem Statement Phase 2 Problem Definition Phase 3 Concept Development
Phase 4 Concept Evaluation
Step Step Step Step Step Step
1 2 3 4 5 6
State the design problem Define the project Search for solutions Document the results Implement the solution Evaluate the design
These phases of interaction are used as an operational framework for describing design process as an integrated learning and decisionmaking procedure. The procedure is based on essentially equal portions of discovery, conceptualization, and evaluation. The discovery, or learning, component is the research part of the process, undertaken to assure that designs are well supported by relevant data. Conceptualization includes the creation of possible future conditions based on application of the information. Evaluation is the critical analysis of concepts to assure the appropriate application of knowledge.
68
Chapter Three
The term phase is used to convey a zone of influence in the process rather than a discrete activity with precise limits. The phases have products, but, because the product of each phase is integral to all other products, it is only tentative; until the product of each phase has been verified by the products of the other phases of the process, we cannot be certain that any of the products are correct or in harmony with one another. Only when each phase of the process reaches a state of equilibrium with all other phases, and each product appears to be equally appropriate relative to all the other products, can any of them be considered individually complete or systemically correct. The four phases represent a hypothetical sequence of thinking activities we engage to develop our understanding of the problem and to formulate the most appropriate design response to it. The phases are repeated in a cyclical pattern of reiterative statements of problem definition, design speculation, and evaluation for feedback to improve our understanding and to provide the basis for a repetition of the four-phase cycle. The design concept-both problem and solution-evolves holistically in the same way that nature evolves. Nature evolves as a series of integrated wholes rather than as an accumulation of sequentially ordered parts. Each cycle in the design process represents an evolutionary stage of development for the concept: a whole that, in the early stages, has not yet fully evolved. An advantage of this approach is that both the process and product of design lend themselves to greater flexibility and to the possibility of more systematic understanding and knowledge-based decision-making. This is so, in part, because there is not only the possibility, but the expectation, that each phase has the potential for change and improvement-the potential to evolve-as the circumstances, created by new knowledge and design insight, indicate that change is appropriate. Because the phases are executed reiteratively, the relationships between them closely approximate the interactive way designers think and the way the environment works as it changes and evolves over time. Repeated cycles to produce multiple design options provide numerous vantage points from which to evaluate the problem. The cycles of evaluation approximate the influence of the forces in the environment. Establishing a system of feedback loops based on whole (but not fully developed) design ideas provides the potential for increasing our understanding of the whole system (problem and solution). As we improve our understanding of the parts (the problem issues) in their relationship to one another, we improve our understanding of the whole. Because designs for the landscape are complex, this approach creates multiple opportunities to discover critical design relationships and to formulate design responses that take optimum advantage of
ocedural Theory -------------------
69
them by investigating all of the issues integrally as they relate to the .total context of the problem situation. Because design problems do not arrange themselves to conform to our project or time requirements, the process also needs to provide an opportunity for the phases to occur in any sequence. Any prearranged sequence of events, even cyclical, suggests that the creative resolution 'of complex and poorly understood problems is predictable and likely to emerge from some predetermined pattern of working. Yetwe know that a design formula that assures success is highly unlikely, and it is the unpredictable and the unknown that designs are formulated to resolve. The pattern of work needs to be flexible enough for any phase to come first, or to come last, if it is to provide optimum opportunity for innovation and learning under uncertain and dynamic conditions. Improved system performance based on continual learning and the incorporation of feedback is a fundamental characteristic of ecological and cultural systems. Complex, self-organizing systems maintain harmony and fitness with their environments by gaining information continuously through feedback loops (Capra 1996; Hutchins 1996). This is well illustrated by the example of steering a ship. As frequent compass readings reveal departures from a set course, brought about by wind or current, the helmsman makes corrections to bring the ship back on course. As natural systems detect departures between their performance and the desired relationship with the environment, information is fed back to stimulate changes to improve or correct the relationship. The reiterative design process provides the opportunity for creative speculation (setting a course), critical evaluation (checking the compass to determine if we are on course), and the means to determine the conditions that cause any deviations between an environment's intended performance and its estimated or assessed performance (wind pushing the ship off course). Awareness of a deviation between intended and estimated (that is, designed) performance and the identification of its cause provides the basis for feedback. Most importantly, it improves our understanding of the critical relationships to be established: the design questions. The design questions are improved incrementally as the multiple perspectives created by successive design cycles are engaged to evaluate proposed changes to the system. Since improving relationships with the environment is the function of both natural change and imposed design change, the evolution of design understanding may be based on the same feedback process as that employed by highly evolved organic systems-processes developed over millions of years of trial and error-to improve their fitness and success in the environment. In nature, feedback loops are perpetually operational. If we are to model design on highly successful universal change processes, feed-
70
Chapter Three
71
back needs to be continuous throughout the design process. The feedback must also be immediate to be of greatest benefit (Hutchins 1996). Delayed feedback is less likely to reveal a direct connection between cause and effect, and thus, less likely to indicate appropriate ways to improve the unsatisfactory relationship. The cyclical relationships among the phases are illustrated in figure 3.1. Each phase is linked in an unending pattern with design activity moving from phase to phase; the arrows indicate a clockwise learning progression between the phases.
standing of the problem as well as the possible solution. Based on the designer's improved understanding, a revised and elaborated statement of the problem can emerge, leading the process back into Phase 1 (Problem Statement), or more precisely, problem restatement. Because the statement of the problem has changed, so may the definition of the critical issues. In a second cycle through Phase 2 (Problem Definition), the designer redefines the critical issues arising from the revised statement of the problem. Because the process is reiterative, there is no anticipation of conclusion with the completion of each cycle. Each cycle returns to the same phase at which it began, but not to the same level of understanding. Advances along the spiral path measure not only the passage of time (and in practice, money), but also increased knowledge of the project issues, opportunities, and design possibilities. The process
Based on this pattern of relationships, successive cycles of activity are shown in figure 3.2, passing repeatedly through the four phases, as suggested by Richard Moore (1980, pers. comm.). Project time begins at the center of the diagram and radiates out in all directions. The point of beginning is the moment work begins on the project. Programming activity begins at that point and moves along the spiral path, each cycle of the feedback loop marking increments along the time lines. Taking the process repeatedly through the four phases creates multiple opportunities to build knowledge through evolutionary growth of project understanding.
Time
At least two things may be learned from the evaluation phase. Evaluation of proposals provides feedback to improve our under-
CD
o
CD State the Problem
Evaluate Alternative Concepts
(1)
Define Problem Requirements
Develop Alternative Concepts
Define
State the Problem
Time
Time
(1)
Evaluate Alternative Concepts
Develop Alternative Concepts
Figure 3.1 Cyclical programming and design process
Figure 3.2 Multiple iterations of the cyclical process
72
Chapter Three
reveals the critical relationships between the program and the design concept, and between the design concept and the existing conditions in the environment. It is not the intention of the process, at least initially, that the purpose of formulating and evaluating multiple concepts is to determine the appropriateness of alternative design schemes, although this is, of course, our ultimate aim. But for initial purposes, while we employ the program to evaluate design alternatives, we also employ the design alternatives to evaluate the program. The process enables the designer (perhaps in collaboration with the client or users) to evaluate each new cycle of proposals to gain insights by which to revise and improve the program. The initial purpose of the reiterative design process is to assure an accurate and complete program on which design decisions will ultimately be based. By engaging the process as a means of learning as well as deciding about design, the designer is alert to all possibilities. It is possible that the problem statement or understanding of the critical issues may remain unchanged throughout the cyclical design process. But by anticipating that they may change, the designer reduces the likelihood that important learning opportunities will be missed. By shifting our focus and preparing our mind to see and learn from new insights, we translate a decision-making process into a learning process, but without forfeiting its decision-making potential. If, on the other hand, we employ the process only to solve design problems, our attention is focused on an end product and the alternative possibilities that present themselves-particularly those that apply to improving our understanding of the design problem-may be missed in the rush to completion. Because we tend to find what we seek, if we seek conclusion that alone will be the discovery. At the beginning of a project, however, completing the design is not as urgent as getting the design problem defined correctly. There is little satisfaction or value in quickly finishing an inadequate or inappropriate design. Because the pattern is cyclical, there is no requirement that research must occur prior to design, or vice versa, since after the first cycle, all phases become part of a continuum of interactive problem restatement / problem redefinition / concept development / concept evaluation, and so on. There is no particular benefit, nor is there any requirement, to begin the process with any particular phase. The important consideration in design is to begin immediately, wherever we find it most convenient to "prime the pump" and get the process moving. It is more important to get the process moving than to wait for the "right" moment or "enough" information. While it is reasonable to begin the cyclical process with Phase 1 and proceed through phases 2, 3, 4, it is also possible, and just as rea-
Procedural Theory
73
sonable, to begin with the last phase in the cycle. In this case the designer might evaluate an existing facility similar to the one to be designed, the existing facility serving as an alternative concept to guide the formulation of a general statement of the design problem, leading to Phase 1. From there, the designer might move through Phase 2 and Phase 3, formulating another design alternative based on what was learned in the phases already completed. This second design concept, however, would be specific to the project site, another alternative to be evaluated in a second visit to Phase 4. A reiterative process reduces the likelihood that decisions will exclude important factors simply because they have not been immediately recognized. It also limits the possibility that decisions will fail to take advantage of significant opportunities that cannot be anticipated. Many design opportunities are not revealed until the project has been thoroughly researched and tested by design. In either case the cyclical design approach provides a mechanism for deferring commitment until a great deal has been learned about the problems and the potential solutions to be considered. Louis Pasteur said that "... chance favors the prepared mind." The reiterative process provides designers with many chances to prepare their minds for the discovery of good design ideas. The integrated design and programming process is knowledge building as well as knowledge based. It provides a systematic means of evaluating the research data and the problem issues integrally rather than individually. Integrating the evaluation of all the design issues is one of the most difficult and complex problems facing the designer. Design concepts provide our only means of seeing the problem as a whole rather than the issues individually. Reiterative design feedback is an effective strategy for integrating the analysis and promoting the discovery of the most appropriate direction for design change. Each cycle through the four phases produces new conceptual design alternatives and each design alternative, in turn, provides an opportunity for new feedback from evaluations and the potential for improved understanding. Because both the definition of the problem and its design solution are continually open to reinterpretation, new revelations may originate in any of the phases and influence all the others directly and more or less simultaneously. Ideally we engage the process until the feedback responses become redundant and no new information can be gained. Once it is believed that the most appropriate and complete statement of the problem has been identified, the programming phase of the process ends and attention shifts directly to design decision making. Another bonus of a cyclical process is that design ideas always tend to evolve and improve with progressive investigation. As a result, they oftentimes acquire a life of their own and sometimes drift away from their original purpose. Cycling back to revisit the problem state-
74 Chapter Three ment on a regular basis not only strengthens the designer's understanding of what the real problems are, but also assures that the solutions proposed remain faithful to the original, as well as the revised and improved, description of design intent. If we carry the process through a sufficient number of iterations, the process will provide maximum potential for holistic understand_ ing, ideation, evaluation and, ultimately, decision making. But this is true only if the process moves along rapidly. Speed is essential to make this type of process operational within a limited time frame, and in design, time is always limited. But speed in moving through the cycles should not be interpreted as haste in concluding the process. Speed is only useful if the project is moving in the right direction. It is also important to bear in mind that increased understanding resulting from the evaluation of alternative concepts can be as greatperhaps even greater-from the consideration of weak or poorly developed concepts as from those that may appear to have serious merit. Any opportunity for learning is an opportunity to build comprehensive understanding of the issues. For this reason it is not only unnecessary, but undesirable, to defer critical evaluation of proposals until after they have been thoroughly worked out as potentially Successful solutions. The sooner ideas are brought under scrutiny for evaluation, the sooner we will have the opportunity to learn from the feedback. It is through an integrated programming and design process that designers are able to attack the large, overly broad question or initial statement of the problem as it was received from the client. A commission to "design an urban park" is essentially meaningless in formulating an effective design solution. Without elaboration regarding where, when, for whom, in what context, and at what cost, the design question cannot be realistically answered. The designer's initial task is to break the general problem statement into many smaller, simpler, answerable design questions representing all of its critical aspects. But as we know, dealing with the parts is not the same as dealing with the system as a whole. So, through repeated investigation of design possibilities, the designer has many opportunities to create and refine a holistic statement of the design problem. The result of the final stage of the process is the systemic reintegration of the many smaller design questions into a single, comprehensive statement of the design problem and, ultimately, its holistic resolution. The process identifies and segregates the parts of the system to discover what they are, then, through design, puts them back together to discover their integrated meaning. The process applies systems learning to manage systems change in the environment. The cyclical process is a programming and design method of integrating the analysis rather than segregating the research tasks from design resolution: analysis of the issues is accomplished by design integra-
75
edural Theory
>no Although the process may appear to be lengthened by reiteration the design search, it may in effect be more efficient when we con.er that, based on the evidence available, the design is increasingly sed on addressing all of the right questions. l Rather than a linear approach to "zero-defect" design through .austive predesign research, an integrated programming and design ess undertakes a "fast-fail" reiterative approach that permits ediate design speculation and evaluation. Multiple design itera·.onsenable designers to quickly identify deficiencies in understanding d facilitate rapid feedback to guide information gathering. This 'proach builds on Henry Ford's premise that failure is "the opportu'ty to begin again more intelligently." Designers are repeatedly seeing :hingsin hindsight, with the improved understanding that comes with !it. Time and effort are not reduced in the interest of efficiency,but nei[ther are they necessarily increased to accomplish the required knowledge-building tasks. Effort is simply shifted from a primary emphasis on traditional front -end investigative procedures to more formal, but less traditional, inquiry through design, where knowledge building is incorporated throughout the process. As the design problem evolves and new information becomes needed, as is inevitable when we face a complex situation, we have the ability to gather and incorporate new information as a normal aspect of the process. Design inquiry does not replace traditional research. What it does is amplify and structure research to improve the chance that the results will be applied effectively. Each new piece of information is gained in response to a specific area of inquiry. That is, the design need, or the way information is to be used, is created in advance of the information being obtained. When information is gathered in direct response to a known question, the role it is to play in the process becomes clear. The more effective the application of available knowledge, the more likely it is to lead to genuine improvement in the environment. When improvement applies to a range of systemically interrelated issues, we increase the likelihood that the issues addressed will bring about sustainable changes to the environment. That is, the design changes will satisfy our goals of both enhancing quality of life for users and improving the health and viability of the environment.
Landscape Planning Actions to improve the landscape at temporal and spatial scales greater than those typically undertaken by site design are referred to as landscape planning. When the process includes considerations for the management of human and landscape ecosystems it may be referred to as applied human ecology planning or applied landscape
76
Chapter Three
'OceduralTheory
77
,Fo-
ecology planning (Ndubisi 2002:146). But whatever the title, landscape planning is directed primarily toward the allocation of resources (Marsh 1983:8). Since landscape planning to optimize development necessarily includes ecological consideration of human and landscape systems--optimization assumes that all factors are considered (Fabos 1979)-the terms are, in reality, synonymous. Sustainable landscape development recognizes that true economic gains account for environmental and global consequences (Ahern 1989:2). The geographic extent and the time intervals covered by landscape planning are too great to be addressed by explicit designs for immediate implementation. Landscape planning does not address spatial organization or experience at a human scale but at the scale of the landscape, although human valUes and perceptions are often considered. Landscape planning functions to guide the integration of human activities into the landscape in ways that separate incompatibilities, reconcile diverse uses, and relate activities to the landscape to create appropriate settings for life (Laurie 1986:106). Landscape planning is undertaken to identify and capitalize on the known relationships between the human activities to be provided and the intrinsic Opportunities and constraints of the environment. Because landscape planning operates at a greater scale than design, it also retains greater flexibility between decisions and ultimate development. As time proceeds between planning and implementation, new information may be gained or conditions (such as markets or technology) so changed that precise site designs are not practicable. Even long-range plans are usually changed in the time between landscape planning and implementation. Although the overall logic of the plan may be retained, specific activities may be substituted or alternative provisions for addressing environmental systems may be employed. Landscape planning is undertaken to formulate and answer a series of questions about the landscape and the reciprocal human relationships to be considered. The questions include: • How does the spatial arrangement (structure) of landscapeelements and ecologicalobjectsinfluencethe flow of energy,materials, and species(processes)acrosslarge land mosaics? • In turn, how doeslandscapefunctioninfluencestructure? • How are these spatial arrangements revealed? • What levelsof spatial resolution and temporal scaleare appropriate to understandinglandscapestructure and processes? • How does the understanding of landscapestructure, processes, and change inform the resolution of spatial problems arising from human-nature dialectic?(Ndubisi2002: 149) Landscape planning provides a comprehensive framework for future designs that links technical and scientific knowledge to actions
lto change the landscape for optimum results (Friedmann 1973). The basic purpose of landscape planning is to accommodate human needs 'Whileprotecting significant natural and cultural resources. As a conse'quence, the process is predicated on an understanding of both the natural and cultural systems of the landscape, and an assessment of :outcomes from alternative development scenarios, a process sometimes referred to as decision modeling. The process includes efforts to: • Understand the landscape in terms of patterns, processes, and interactions • Understand the interactions between development and natural processes • Analyze areas of human/landscape interaction and interdependency • Synthesize assessment outcomes to mediate development/landscape conflicts • Evaluate potential courses of action and their probable effects • Formulate measures to implement preferred options • Monitor the effects of implementation (Ndubisi 2002:139) Many models of forecasting rely on traditional technological tools: cost-benefit analysis, demand forecasting, project programming, and budgeting systems. These linear, extrapolative methods, however, have demonstrated limited value in situations that have multiple variables-situations in which the social, political, economic, and ecological aspects of the environment are both interacting and changing continuously. Developing, and largely experimental, methods for predicting how multiple, shifting variables may interact with each other over time include systems and input-output analyses, environmental impact assessments, Delphi techniques, and crossimpact analyses. Unfortunately, each order of magnitude of improvement in technology and management also requires greater orders of magnitude and sophistication of the modeling techniques we use and greater coordination and control of the processes of decision making and change (Henderson 1996:229). Research is conducted to provide information to reduce uncertainty for decision makers. However, in many cases the result is that the information provided through broader research methods, such as environmental impact assessments, only increases uncertainty by making decision makers more aware of what they do not know or understand the implications of. The Cartesian approach does not seem to recognize that the development of knowledge requires an imaginative hypothesis as well as careful validation by logical quantitative methods (Henderson 1996:230). A more balanced approach requires both rational and intuitive thinking to achieve comprehensive understanding-what De Bono
78
79
Chapter Three
(1999) calls critical and creative thinking. Critical thinking is held to high standards of knowledge and prior validation, creative thinking~is free to go in any direction without being constrained by what is already known. The rational and intuitive aspects of knowing are not, as many believe, in opposition but in reality are complementary. When used together each balances the weakness of the other and provides a more complete picture of reality and its likely impact in the future. There are many approaches to the landscape planning process. Most of these are directed toward the implementation of a predetermined development outcome: planning a residential subdivision, for example. In these cases the answer is largely determined prior to framing the questions. A more open approach to landscape change might begin with the end product as more of a question than a predetermined answer. A comprehensive framework for organizing holistic landscape change is proposed by Carl Steinitz (1994). He suggests that such a procedure should include the positing of six types of questions, each representing an independent level of inquiry related to a theorydriven modeling type. Each level of inquiry requires the management of information, and geographic information systems may be used, but each type of model requires a different application. The six-level modeling approach is employed to identify the context and scope of the project before carrying it forward to its conclusion. The six questions (and their appropriate modeling types) are: 1. How should the state of the landscape be described? In context, boundaries, space, and time? What is the structure of the landscape? (Representation model) 2. How does the landscape operate? What are the functional and structural relationships among its elements? What is the function of the landscape? (Process model) 3. Is the current landscape functioning well? Is it organized to facilitate human and environmental processes and prevent conflicts among them? (Evaluation model) 4. How might the landscape where, and when? (Change model)
be altered?
By what actions,
5. What predictable differences might the changes cause? Will the differences improve the function, character, or health of the landscape? (Impact model)
Landscape Suitability Analysis
6. Should the landscape be changed? How is a comparative evaluation of the impacts of different alternatives to be made?
Analysis of the landscape, or suitability analysis, is a process of determining the fitness of a specific landscape condition to support a
80
Chapter Three
well-defined activity or land use (Steiner 1991). Suitability analysis of the landscape-as prominently advanced by McHarg (1969:103) and others-has over the last thirty years become accepted as one of the most comprehensible and defensible approaches to landscape planning. Its basic purpose is to determine the appropriateness of a given landscape for a particular use. The basic premise of suitability analysis is that each aspect of the landscape has intrinsic characteristics that are in some degree either suitable or unsuitable for the activities being planned, and that these relationships can be revealed through detailed evaluation and assessment (Marsh 1998:196). Suitability evaluation supports a preferential decision to provide for certain types of activities (such as recreation, housing, or industry) within a particular landscape condition (such as floodplains, wetlands, steep slopes, or upland ridges). Such suitability is determined through systematic, multi-factor analysis of the different conditions of the landscape. Ideally, the result is a site arrangement that takes advantage of the landscape's intrinsic attributes while avoiding unsuitable or unsupportable locations for activities where obvious site conflicts or incompatibilities may be expected. The intention of the process is to determine the optimum site location for activities while minimizing negative impacts on the environment (see figure 3.3). The factors to be considered in suitability assessment include the human, biotic, and abiotic aspects of the landscape. Human factors include community needs, economics, community organization, demographics, land use, and history. Biotic factors include wildlife (mammals, birds, reptiles, and fish) and vegetation (habitats, communities, and plant types). Abiotic factors include soils, hydrology, topography, geology, and climate. The independent analysis of these factors is carried out to determine the extent to which each factor is favorable or unfavorable for the location of the activities being considered and leads to a suitability assessment for each activity. Each landscape factor (for example soils or hydrology) is individually assessed to determine the level of compatibility with the proposed land-use activity (such as highway location). Soils with poor bearing capacity might be incompatible with major road or bridge construction and judged unsuitable for their location. Well-drained upland ridges with soils having good bearing capacity supportive of road development might be judged suitable, and would be mapped to reflect their suitability. An overall plan is developed to optimize the design condition in relation to a host of site features. There also are a series of cultural features that are typically considered in a suitability analysis. These include such considerations as land use, zoning, circulation, utilities, and community service facilities. The site being analyzed is mapped with a different suitability assessment layer for each factor considered. For example, there might be suitability assessments for land-
Procedural Theory
to Its Compatibility with Existing Site Factors
r
Suitability Activity According ~ Assessment for ,.Each Composite Site Suitability Assessment for Each Activity Relative to Overall Conditions
Activity I Tennis Courts
Activity 2 Parking Lot
Activity 3 Access Road
Figure 3.3 Landscape suitability analysis
81
82
Chapter Three
scape layers such as topography, soils, geology, vegetation, and so on. Each layer is mapped to indicate those portions of the site that are suitable, unsuitable, or neutral for each particular activity being contemplated. The maps do not reveal the site conditions themselves, such as topography, but the extent of suitability for development as revealed by an assessment of that particular site factor. The suitability assessments may be expressed, for example, as high, moderate, or low suitability. Ultimately, all of the site-factor suitability maps may be synthesized into a composite map to provide an overall picture of the site as a whole for the different land uses being considered. The suitability analysis process provides a systematic method of assessing a wide range of site conditions and land uses. In its composite form the suitability map provides a cumulative, overall assessment of site locations that possess the most supportive, as well as the most problematic, array of site conditions in regard to each particular type of land use. From this comprehensive assessment, overall site organization decisions may be made on the basis of spatially specific evidence. Although it is cumulative rather than holistic, the suitability analysis approach to making land-use planning and design organization decisions has demonstrated its value. The process helps designers examine, set parameters, and solve the problems associated with locating human activities in the landscape in ways that use the resources of the landscape to optimum advantage (Ndubisi 1997:24). Landscape suitability analysis has one significant weakness. It does not establish the most appropriate relationships among the activities to be developed, which isjust as important as determining the most appropriate location for each activity. The knowledge gained by this process reveals only the relationships between the land-use activities being planned and their landscape setting, not the relationships of land uses among one another.
4 The Biophysical Environtnent Most of the problems we face as a nation, and most of the goals to which we aspire are closely linked in one way or another with our use of the environment. -National Academy of Sciences The thin mosaic, the tissue of the planet, is in upheaval. An urgent need exists for new tools and new language to understand how to live without losing nature. The solutions will be at the landscape scale-working with the larger pattern, understanding how it works, and designing in harmony with the structure of the natural system that sustains us all. -Grant
Jones, in Landscape Ecology Principles in Landscape Architecture and Land-use Planning
Environment factors are among the most significant influences in shaping the character of the built environment and, therefore, future directions in professional practice. A basic understanding of the environment is prerequisite to effective professional education as well as to meaningful professional practice. And yet, this fundamental understanding does not exist at a significant level. Although landscape 83
84
Chapter Four architects consider themselves stewards of the landscape, their knowledge of the structure and function of the environment is often superficial on an ecological or geological basis. It is difficult to imagine a more compromised position for a designer proposing to bring about predictably beneficial change in a system that she or he does not understand on a fundamental level. But landscape architects are not the only ones who make changes in the landscape without a thorough knowledge of potential environmental implications. It is almost universally true that those exerting the greatest influence on the environment are also those who understand it the least. Prominent among these are politicians who enact development ordinances and tax codes; industrialists and miners who extract resources on a large scale; bankers and mortgage lenders who determine what development projects to support; entrepreneurs who initiate, locate, and implement development projects; and, ultimately, consumers who support consumption and development patterns through purchase decisions. For landscape architects to be a part of the solution rather than part of the problem, they must have a basic understanding of how the landscape ecosystem functions. This is not to suggest that designers need to become ecologists or geologists. They do, however, require a fundamental grasp of the workings of the ecosystem, and with this basic understanding can position themselves to pose appropriate questions to those who understand the landscape in depth. By using the expertise of others, designers can employ greater knowledge than they possess. A review of the basic considerations of geology and ecology is a useful starting point for understanding how the landscape works and the ways we influence it when change is initiated.
Geophysical Conditions The geologic base of the landscape, the substrate on which the biotic components of the ecosystem rely, is a system in constant upheaval. The physical environment provides both the setting and the source of critical elements required to support terrestrial life. The chemical elements organisms use to build themselves and operate their metabolic processes exist in a fixed supply and must be continuously reused to become available to each new generation of organisms. The physical environment continuously recycles these critical elements through the different phases of matter, thus making them perpetually available. By continuously combining with other elements and constantly changing in form, the elements move through solid, liquid, and gaseous states, and in so doing, create opportunities for their capture and incorporation into the biotic system. Oxygen, for
The Biophysical Environment
85
example, exists as a gas in the atmosphere as free oxygen (02), as liquid water in combination with hydrogen (H20), or as a solid in glucose (C6H1206). If it becomes permanently bound up as a solid, as when it combines with silicon to form quartz (Si02), it is no longer available to the ecosystem. Because many of the geophysical processes that carry out these chemical transformations operate at vast scales and geologic time intervals, they are slow to reveal themselves. Floods, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes, for example, are among the most common events in nature, but they occur infrequently-at least they seem infrequent when measured on a human time line. It is only when we are in their path that we notice their destructive influence. Even then, if we should be in their path and bear the force of their effect, it is often because we failed to take notice of their likelihood and did not understand the implications of our actions when we placed human activities in the landscape. We also suffer their effects because we precipitate and magnify their destructive force by the nature of our human activities. We observe this, for example, in cities that are flooded because development has increased runoff by increasing the amount of impervious surfaces-streets, roofs, parking lots, and sidewalks. Likethe ecosystem, the geophysical setting is best understood as a dynamic system, changing constantly in response to the forces acting on it. The geology we observe is a record of past processes. The earth's landform is primarily material that was originally formed by volcanism that thrust it to the surface, where it cooled and hardened into igneous rock such as basalt (Byrne 1974:82). This rock was then subject to physical and chemical weathering that eroded the mass of rock into small particles that were transported by gravity, wind, water, or ice to new locations. This fragmented rock, combined with organic material, became the surface soil that serves as the growing medium for plants. Sometimes the mineral fragments were washed down and reorganized into new forms, stratified into sedimentary rock such as sandstone that developed from the compression and cementing of deposits at the bottom of seas. These sedimentary rocks were eventually lifted up to form new land, now comprising about three-fourths of the surface of the landscape. Over time, some sedimentary rock will undergo another change in form or chemical composition to create metamorphic rock, such as slate, which is formed when pressure is applied to shale. This metamorphosis generally occurs as the result of increases in pressure or temperature, such as occurs when sedimentary rock is overlain by deep deposits (Byrne 1974:94). The geologic processes of uplift, erosion, deposition, and transformation are normally thought of as long-term processes, taking place over hundreds of millions of years. But they also take place on much more rapid cycles, seasonally and annually, and influence the nature
86
Chapter Four of the landscape in short-term intervals as well. It is commonly said that topsoil is formed at a rate of an inch per century, but that same amount may be eroded away in a matter of weeks when left unprotected and subjected to the effects of water or wind. Of course, the actual time required for soil formation varies with the conditions of the site. Some soils form rapidly, such as those in active floodplains, and others very slowly, such as those in semiarid prairies (Kohnke and Franzmeier 1995:66). It has been estimated that as much as one-third of the topsoil in the Midwest-the breadbasket of the nation-has been lost in the 150 years it has been under cultivation (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1991). Understanding the landscape and predicting change requires that we give attention to both long-term and short-term geologic processes. The long-term processes establish the base conditions we have to work with and the short-term processes describe the conditions we influence and must take into account as we act to change the face of the landscape. The landscape we experience is essentially a record of the movement of water across the face of the earth. The form of mountains and hills reveals the path of streams carving into the landscape and carrying eroded material to lower valleys where it is deposited as floodplains and deltas. Local streams express these processes in both the contour of the landscape and the nature of the soils that are found in different positions on the landscape, such as deep floodplain soils in low-lying areas, thin coarse-textured deposits on slopes, and well-developed soils of moderate depth on level ridges. Corresponding to these general topographic and soil patterns are the patterns of vegetation and wildlife. Low-lying flood zones tend to have the greatest diversity of species and scale of vegetation due to the extended periods of available moisture and the better developed soil structure and fertility created by the constant nourishment from flood deposition and increased organic accumulations. As streams move across the more level areas of the landscape, such as floodplains, they tend to cut into the outer bank of curves and deposit materials on the inner banks, slowly but constantly shifting the location of channels as they move laterally in response to these cutting and depositing actions. These general landscape patterns are comprehensible and inform the careful observer of both past events and potential future conditions. It is only on the basis of predictable future conditions that we can reliably organize human activities in the landscape to enhance benefits and avoid problems. To comprehend the geophysical aspects of the landscape we need to understand the different landscape systems operating in a particular area. These physical systems include: • Climate: this includes the seasonal dynamics of range and extremes of temperature, precipitation, humidity, and wind patterns
'he Biophysical Environment
87
• Geology: the bedrock underlying the surface and the relationships it bears to soils, ground moisture, and potential movement dynamics • Relief: the slope, complexity, and orientation, or aspect, of the land contour and its influence on rainwater runoff, airflow characteristics, and soils development • Soils: the mineral constituents of the soil, their depth, position, moisture relationships, and organic content, and the extent of their change through soil development or erosion • Hydrology: the pattern of water movement over the landscape and through the geologic substrate, and the patterns of seasonal change, from drought to flood condition for example Each of these physical systems may be described as an isolated aspect of the landscape, but full understanding comes from determining their interrelationships. We also require an understanding of their potential to support or conflict with human activities, particularly the potential hazards these aspects, or their combination, pose-hurricanes, floods, subsidence, earthquakes, or other violent action that can threaten human life and property.
Ecosystems Understanding the landscape also requires an understanding of the biological systems. This is gained from an examination of three basic issues: the underlying function and structure of the environment and their interactions to produce change over time. This examination, or ecology, is the study of the relationships between organisms and their environment. The biological organizing structure of the landscape is described as an ecological system: an integrated whole made up of plants and animals interacting with the physical environment, engaged in the interactive processes of energy transformation and material cycling. The force motivating the landscape ecosystem is the energy of the sun that, once captured by plants, supports creation of the organic components of the system that transfer energy through the multiple layers of their interrelated energy structure or food chain. The ecosystem is an energy-processing system whose organic and inorganic components have coevolved over a relatively long period of time and typically exhibit a state of dynamic equilibrium. The capture, transfer, and ultimate degradation of energy as it passes through the ecosystem motivates material organization and cycling processes that integrate biotic and abiotic components into a highly interdependent environmental system (Forman and Gordon 1986; Smith 1986).
88
-
Chapter Four
Understanding the ecosystem is based on the three basic characteris_ tics of the landscape: • Structure: the spatial relationshipsamong the distinctiveecosystems or "elements"present-more specifically,the distribution of energy, materials, and speciesin relation to the sizes, shapes,number,kinds, and configurationsof the ecosystems • Function: the interactions among the spatial elements;that is, the flows of energy, materials, and speciesamong the component ecosystems • Change: the alteration in the structure and function of the ecologicalmosaicover time (Formanand Gordon1986:11) Continuous change or disturbances of the ecosystem, and its recovery or reorganization in response, are not anomalies. Change in the landscape is a normal condition. As a consequence, the establishment of new patterns of organisms and interrelationships is a central characteristic of the system. The devastating floods, fires, or earthquakes we experience from time to time are normally viewed as unusual, unexpected events. We consider these natural disasters unusual because the periodicity of their occurrence is greater than our normal period of observation. Our life span is too short to experience many of these events, thus we assume they do not happen under "normal" conditions. But, in fact, these changes are among the most normal events in the landscape and we need to design in ways that anticipate them. Human design intervention for landscape modification, just like the influence of fires or floods, may also be seen as a natural aspect of the landscape. Progressive change toward the development of ecosystem complexity is often referred to as ecological succession, the process of transition from a relatively simple array of organisms and species structure toward a climax, or ultimate, condition of species complexity and energy capture, use, and storage. Succession is defined in terms of three parameters: 1. It is an orderlyprocessof communitydevelopmentthat involves changesin speciesstructure and communityprocesswith time; it is reasonablydirectionaland, therefore,predictable. 2. It results from modificationof the physicalenvironmentby the community; that is, successionis community controlledeven though the physical environment determines the pattern, the rate of change,and often sets limits as to how far development can go. 3. It culminatesin a stabilizedecosystemin which maximum biomass (or high information content) and symbiotic function between organisms are maintained per unit of energy flow (Odum 1971:251).
he Biophysical Environment
89
The process of succession expresses itself as a series of transitory lcommunities; the early or pioneer communities being replaced by progressively more developed ones over time. These sequential ecosystems with their increasingly complex pattern of plant and animal communities are called seres. Each sere provides not only for itself by accumulating energy and organic matter, but for its eventual destruction and replacement by creating an improved environment suitable for the survival of higher order plants and animals that invade the . system. For example, as plant litter accumulates from the decomposition of simple plants, the structural and nutrient characteristics of the soil improve, providing a habitat suitable for more complex or longerlived plant and animal species. As ecosystems evolve toward greater complexity they eventually reach a condition beyond which succession cannot continue due to limitations of the site: soil fertility, available moisture, temperature, radiant energy, periodic flooding, the presence of fire, or other factors. The climax condition will exhibit the maximum extent of species diversity, biochemical diversity, stratification and pattern diversity, or spatial heterogeneity possible in that landscape. Once established, the climax condition remains until it is disturbed by some action, such as climate change due to natural conditions, or alteration by human influence, such as agriculture. Although ecosystems are complex organizations of organisms acquiring energy and materials from the environment and organizing it into patterns that support their life cycles, they are activated and characterized by two basic processes: 1. A one-way flow of energy from the sun-this energy is captured by plants and moves via the food chain through the other organisms of the system until it has been locally exhausted. 2. A continual recycling of necessary elements-these elements exist in a fixed supply and are perpetually used and reused by successive generations of plants and animals. In addition to energy that drives the system, ecosystems consist of three basic components: producer organisms, consumer organisms, and inorganic elements. Producers are the energy-capturing element of the system-plants that transform radiant energy into chemical energy through the process of photosynthesis. Consumers are animals that-through the consumption of the energy captured by producers-utilize, organize, and distribute nutrients and the energy stored by producers throughout the system. Inorganic elements of the ecosystem include oxygen, carbon, hydrogen (as free oxygen, carbon dioxide, water, etc.), and nutrient elements (nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, iron, etc.) that are derived from the physical environment. Photosynthesis is the chemical reaction that enables producer organisms to trap and store energy through the transformation of car-
90
Chapter Four
bon dioxide and water, in the presence of light (radiant energy), into stored carbohydrates and oxygen (simply expressed as: 6C02 + 12H20 ~ C6H1206 + O2). Plants, thus, manufacture their own food. Photosynthesis performs three life-sustaining functions. First, it traps energy from the sun and makes it available to the ecosystem in the form of living organisms with their stored food supply. Second, it removes carbon dioxide, a toxic gas, from the atmosphere and regulates its presence. Third, it liberates free oxygen as a by-product of the process to create and maintain the (relatively) oxygen-rich atmosphere we require. Consumers are organisms organized as a hierarchy (food chain) of herbivores (speciesthat consume plants as their energy source), carnivores (species that consume other animals as their energy source), and decomposers (microorganisms that consume the dead tissue and wastes of all organisms). Herbivores consume the energy stored in plants and make it available to the next level of the hierarchy, the carnivores. Carnivores consume herbivores and make use of their stored energy as food source. Decomposers reduce the residue excreta and dead organism tissue and break them down to release the basic nutrient elements required to support subsequent generations of organisms. Organisms are organized as an ascending hierarchy of trophic (energy) levels, with energy passing from one to another in a chain of energy transfer, or food chain. Producers form the base of the food chain. Consumers form the remaining tiers to permit the transfer of energy through herbivores, carnivores, and ultimately, decomposers. The outputs of each subsystem or trophic level of the ecosystem are the inputs into another, forming a continuous cycle of energy transfer and nutrient element cycling through the system. Because the transfer of energy from one tier in the food chain to another has energy loss inefficiencies, each ascending trophic level is reduced until the system exhausts its stored energy supply. The continual cycling of the elements required for the production and maintenance of organisms is one of the most important ways of describing the processes of ecosystems. The cycles of a few elements are prominent due to the critical nature of their physiological functions in plants and animals (Molles 1999:363). The carbon cycle transfers carbon, essential to organic molecules, from its atmospheric reservoir (where it exists in compounds such as carbon dioxide, CO2, and methane, CH4) to plants by way of the biological process of photosynthesis. Carbon is returned to its atmospheric pool by the reciprocal biological process of respiration. Because carbon is sequestered in soil and rock for relatively long periods (thousands of years for carbon in sedimentary rock), the process has both short-term and long-term cycles. The nitrogen cycle transfers molecular nitrogen, N2, from its atmospheric pool (where it comprises about 78 percent of our atmo-
The Biophysical Environment
91
sphere) to the soil, where it becomes available to plants for use in forming essential compounds such as amino acids and chlorophyll. There are two basic ways for nitrogen to enter the ecosystem, by lightning and bacterial fixation. Atmospheric nitrogen can only be used directly by a few bacterial organisms called nitrogen fixers. After fixation, nitrogen in the form of ammonia, NH3, becomes available to higher plants and is passed into the food chain. Nitrogen is returned to the atmosphere by way of bacterial decomposition called denitrification. However, like carbon, nitrogen is resident in the biosphere for a significant time period, estimated at about 600 years. During the phosphorous cycle, phosphorous enters the ecosystem by the slow weathering of rock from its geologic pool, where it -exists in relatively small amounts, primarily in marine sedimentary deposits. Although soils may contain relatively large quantities of phosphorous, it is normally in a chemical form that is not available to plants. Phosphorous is essential in biological energy transfer mechanisms, the structure of living systems, and for genetics (it is essential for DNA molecules). Much of the ecosystem's phosphorous is washed into streams and eventually finds its way into seabed deposits. Because marine sedimentary deposits must be uplifted to form new land before it becomes available to the ecosystem, the cycle extends for hundreds of thousands of years. Phosphorus weathered from sedimentary rock has made at least one passage through the global phosphorous cycle. In addition to cycling nutrients, the ecosystem also is engaged in cycling other chemical compounds. Significant among these is water, a threshold requisite for life that is cycled by way of its interfaces between solid, liquid, and gaseous states. The hydrologic cycle is a sun-driven cycle of water moving through the biosphere through the mechanisms of evaporation, transpiration, condensation, precipitation, and runoff. Although water is abundant on earth (over 71 percent of the earth is covered by water), the availability of fresh water is limited by the actions of the hydrologic cycle. The vast majority of the earth's water is seawater: over 97 percent of the water in the biosphere is in oceans. Polar caps, glaciers, and permafrost contain 2 percent of the earth's water. Less than 1 percent of the earth's water is contained in rivers, lakes, and actively exchanged groundwater (MoUes 1999:49). The gravitational movement of water from landmass to ocean is counteracted by heat-driven evaporation that transports fresh water into the atmosphere where it accumulates in clouds. The clouds are moved by heat -driven air currents that transport the cloud formations back over land where their moisture precipitates as rain or snow to become available once again to terrestrial ecosystems. One of the most obvious effects of water moving through the ecosystem is its influence on the contour of the landscape. The form of the landscape is the result of sculpturing from the movement of water.
92
Chapter Four
!,TheBiophysical Environment
Human Impacts on Ecosystems
is mounting evidence that there are limits on the amount of stress that can be placed on the ecosystems' productive capacity while retaining their viability as our life support system (Ecological Society of America 1995:5-14).
Aristotle's observation that "nature does nothing uselessly" (Politics book 1, ch. 2) describes the elegance of the ecosystem with its vast
array of interdependent interactions. Unfortunately we cannot say the same for contemporary designs for the landscape. Unlike ecosystems where the outputs of one level of the system are the inputs for another, the outputs of human systems are almost invariably useless additions to the environment, and to a very large extent they are harmful to the operations of ecosystems. We do not design to promote synergies between elements of the built landscape or to improve the health of the ecosystem, but for the benefit of a particular (and usually single) subsystem within it, such as forests that produce timber or cropland to produce food. Consequently, the inadvertent influences of design and development on other interrelated subsystems of the landscape or the ecosystem as a whole are often impairments rather than improvements. To better understand the unintended impact human activity has had on the quality of the environment, it is useful to review the history of the ways people have reshaped the landscape and the long-term effects these changes have had, and continue to have, on the health and well-being of people and the environment. During the last century human populations increased over fivefold (Nadakavukaren 2000). Along with this growth came increasing demands for space, resources, and amenities from the environment. During that same time the earth lost nearly one-fifth of the topsoil from its cropland and nearly one-fourth of its tropical rain forests, while thousands of plant and animal species became extinct. Atmospheric carbon dioxide (C02) has increased by 13 percent, setting the stage for hotter summers. The protective ozone (03) layer has been depleted worldwide (with the greatest reduction in Antarctica where ultraviolet radiation is estimated to have increased as much as 130 percent), increasing our exposure to harmful radiation (Brown et al. 1989:3; Fergusson and Wardle 1998:8; UNEP 1998:1). With few exceptions, the exploitation of the earth's ecosystems is resulting in their modification and deterioration at a pace faster than any other time during nearly four billion years of history. These exceptions include periods of global catastrophe such as that characterized by the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, at which time the dinosaurs disappeared. Furthermore, many structural changes have occurred, such as extreme ecosystem fragmentation and systemic disruption of the landscape, along with certain kinds of pollutants, such as chlorinated hydrocarbons (DOT,2-40) and PCBsthat have no precedent in earth's evolutionary history. Because these new compounds have no evolutionary history, there are no built-in ecosystemic mechanisms for their reintegration through normal chemical cycling processes. There
93
Landscape Ecology Landscape ecologists and landscape architects, responding to the growing evidence of unwise land-use and management practices, have begun to develop systematic methods of understanding landscapes. The recent emergence of landscape ecology as a discipline seems to reflect an awareness of the practical value of a whole-landscape perspective for managing natural systems (Forman and Gordon 1986; Wood 1994). To the landscape ecologist, the landscape is a heterogeneous area made up of several ecosystems forming a mosaic of visually 'distinctive landscape elements or patches. For example, a mountain landscape might include forests, meadows, streams, and rock outcrops. An urban landscape might include residential districts, industrial districts, parks, and sewage treatment facilities. Analysis of these patches provides an understanding of how the landscape is structured and how the elements functionally interrelate. On the basis of improved understanding of the landscape's structure and function, we hope to improve the ways we use the landscape to protect ecosystems and, in particular, protect their biodiversity as a key ingredient to their continued health and vitality. Understanding the mosaic of the landscape requires detailed investigation and management of a number of key relationships (Dramstad, Olson, and Forman 1996:19; Ahern 1989:3): • Matrix: the most extensive landscape element or character with a primary role in determining landscape function • Patches: the nonlinear elements of the landscape that differ from the surrounding matrix and provide habitat opportunities when they are large enough to possess significant interior areas • Corridors: the linear elements of the landscape that differ from the matrix and often function to connect patches and extend habitat opportunities where separation exists • Edges: the outer boundaries of patches or corridors where conditions differ from both the interior and the matrix
1
Habitat increasingly appears as scattered patches due to landscape change and fragmentation. The altered landscape is no longer a continuous matrix, but remains as isolated remnants disrupted by agriculture, urbanization, transportation networks, and so on. The patches are roughly analogous to islands of habitat left isolated within development. The character of the boundary creates an edge effect that influences the flow of nutrients, water, energy, or species
94
Chapter Four
along or across it. As patches become fragmented, the corridors that provide connections between them become critical to the sustainabil_ ity and health of the ecosystem. Ecosystems are expressed as a mosaic of plant and animal communities sharing space and resources. Each community can be " described by its physical boundary. But unlike nonliving features, these spatially defined communities have boundaries that are both porous and dynamic, across which energy and matter are freely exchanged. The boundaries in ecosystems are more reflective of identity than exclusion. Overlap and interspersion leading to constant change and evolution are common in ecosystems, which can make them difficult to fully comprehend. Understanding the overall structure and function of the landscape as a mosaic of patches, edges, and connections is an important concept for describing ecosystems and, as a consequence, informing future design interventions. In addition to a broad understanding of ecosystems for general planning considerations, there are a number of specific site factors that are important to design. One of particular concern is climate and how designs may be organized to take advantage of favorable conditions or, alternatively, to ameliorate adverse influences.
-
95
~TheBiophysical Environment
Solar Radiation
\
'
~. {~-
Sun
Winter Sun: Northern
Summer Sun: Northern
Hemisphere
Hemisphere
Seasonal Sun Earth Relationships
./
The Influence of Climate The earth's climate varies due to a number of factors: radiation, humidity, wind patterns, elevation, longitude, and many others. One of the most influential climatic factors is seasonal change. This pattern of warming and cooling cycles results from uneven heating of the earth throughout the year (Molles 1999:16). Radiant energy (which we may assume to be from parallel solar rays as they strike the earth's surface) is most concentrated and delivers the greatest heat energy when the sun is directly overhead (Marsh 1998:289). However, because the angle of the sun varies throughout the year, the sun is directly overhead at midday only part of the year. This is explained by a peculiarity in the earth's angle of rotation in relation to the sun. The earth orbits the sun with its axis of rotation at an angle that deviates 23.5° from the vertical. This causes the latitude at which the sun is overhead to change with the season. This also causes the Northern and Southern hemispheres to have reciprocal seasons; when it is winter in the Northern Hemisphere it is summer in the Southern Hemisphere. Because the tilted angle of rotation is constant throughout the year as the earth orbits the sun, we experience a relatively perpendicular midday sun angle (when the sun is at its zenith) during the summer and a substantially reduced, acute sun angle during the winter. The exception to this occurs at the equator, where the sun angle is relatively stable year round. (Seefigure 4.1.)
,/"'" ,/"'" ,/"'"
~o( ~~,/"'"
(f -\'
,/"'"
,/"'" ,/"'",/"'",/"'"
./
\
./~\ CO
./
./
./
./
./
./
.-1 Surface with 90° Angle of Incidence Receives 50% More Energy than Surface with 40° Angle of Incidence for Solar Radiation
Solar Incidence Variation
Figure 4.1 Variation in radiation intensity on the earth's surface (after Byrne 1974:28,29)
96
Chapter Four
Throughout the year the sun angle changes daily as it makes a complete cycle from its lowest midday point at the winter solstke (December 21) to its highest midday point at the summer solstice (June 21). The midpoints of the year between the solstice sun angles occur at the vernal and autumnal equinoxes, the two days of the year when the sun rises at due east and sets at due west. On these days the midday sun angle is at the midpoint between its highest (mid-summer) and its lowest (mid-winter) points. As the sun cycles from spring to summer to autumn to winter, the sun angle changes slightly each day. The sun angles for a site can be calculated for the solstice and the equinox days with simple formulas (Degelman 1998, pers. comm.). The formulas are applied to calculate local sun angles in the examples shown below. Midday sun angle for the summer solstice, June 21:
90 (degrees) - Latitude (of site) + 23.5 (degrees declination) = noon sun angle (for College Station, Texas: 90 - 30 + 23.5 = 83.50) Midday sun angle for the winter solstice, December 21: 90 - Latitude - 23.5 = noon sun angle (for CollegeStation, Texas: 90 - 30 - 23.5 = 36.50) Midday sun angle for the equinoxes, March/September 21: 90 - Latitude = noon sun angle (for College Station, Texas: 90 - 30 = 60°) Applying the formulas for the midday sun angles at College Station, Texas, located at 30° North Latitude, the maximum sun angle at the summer solstice is 83.5°, the maximum sun angle at the equinoxes is 60°, and the maximum sun angle at the winter solstice is 36.50. This variation in sun angle from one season to the next is the primary cause of the temperature differences between summer and winter. The significance of sun angles relates to the extent to which they influence radiation impact on the earth's climate. The amount of energy received by a surface with radiation striking at an angle of incidence of 90° is approximately twice that received by a surface with radiation striking at 30°. The differences in these sun angles, and their effect on energy absorption, result in the earth receiving uneven heating from the sun at different seasons. Furthermore, the number of hours during which the earth receives radiation during the seasons varies, with greater exposure during the extended day length of summer and reduced exposure during the reduced day length of winter. Knowing the seasonal pattern of sun angles and day length gives the designer a level of predictability about where sun and shade may be expected throughout the year. With this information they are able to organize the site and arrange the activities and features in ways
iThe Biophysical Environment
97
that make full use of the sun's radiation in winter when it is desired .and to provide shelter from radiation in the summer when it is unwanted (White 1960:7; Olgyay 1973:88). The applicability of this information is illustrated in the orientation of a house using sun angles to determine the arrangement of building form and the placement of sheltering roofs, shielding walls, and window openings to optimum solar energy advantages. Designing a building to invite sun penetration during the winter to provide warmth and to block sun entry during the summer to maintain a comfortable interior temperature illustrates the application of knowledge of the environment to improve design performance (White 1976:4). Careful planning and design allows us to achieve significant climate amelioration without the additional cost of mechanical systems. In particular, we can reduce the consumption of energy it takes to operate these supplementary systems, and the consequent addition of pollution to the air that results from them. (Seefigure 4.2 on pp. 98-99.) To apply knowledge of ecosystems to design requires not only that we understand the basic structure of the environment in which we are working but also that we have a set of basic principles to guide application of this knowledge. There are six principles of ecology that serve as broad guidelines for managing and changing the landscape. • Networks: At all scalesof nature, we find living systems nesting within other living systems-networks within networks. Their boundaries are not boundaries of separation but boundaries of identity. All living systems communicate with one another and share resourcesacrosstheir boundaries. • Cycles:Alllivingorganismsmust feedon continualflowsof matter and energyfrom their environmentto stay alive,and all living organisms continually produce waste. However,an ecosystem generatesno net waste, one species'waste beinganother species' food.Thus,matter cyclescontinuallythrough the web of life. • Energy: Solar energy, transformed into chemical energy by photosynthesisof greenplants, drivesthe ecologicalcycles. • Partnership: The exchangesof energy and resourcesin an ecosystem are sustainedby pervasivecooperation.Lifedid not take over the planet by combatbut by cooperation,partnership, and networking. • Diversity: Ecosystemsachievestability and resiliencethrough the richnessand complexityof their ecologicalwebs.Thegreater their biodiversity,the more resilientthey will be. • Dynamic balance: An ecosystemis a flexible,ever-fluctuating network. Its flexibilityis a consequenceof multiple feedback loops that keep the system in a state of dynamic balance. No singlevariableis maximized;all variablesfluctuate around their optimal values. (Capra2002:231)
98
99
e Biophysical Environment North
Summer Sunset Solstice
"-
",
/
~U
Q/ I \ ""
\ ,............. ",
, at Equinox 'West C=:J~C=:J
Sunset , ~ Winter r,......, Sunset
O~::'"
Solstice
,
Pian View
"Horizon
...•.•...•..
0
" ,,' .•.'"
"" /
",
"",-"'"
at Equinox
I
.•..••..•.
I Sunrise Winter Sunrise
"""0 /
,.....L...,
/,""
-_/
N-;C;;" ",
--
.••.. ~ South
'......
Summer Sunrise Solstice
East c=1..
••••••••• ')<./
Noon
--
I
" ./ C=:JC=:J~
"'9"" -
'D / \
","/
,,' C=:J ••••••••• -:-:,,,
",."
, "",,'"
, ,~
0 0
~""
\
.••..
Summer Solstice Noon Sun Angle
Section View
7
././
Solstice
Figure 4.2
/0-/cr 0'
Easl
",,'
I I I\ No", ~ "
\
~
..... \
<:::><:::>~
"
.....
..•.
Oblique View
, -- -....
Horizony-----
365·
' b '\
\
"\ ~~." ",I
\
"
\
~ ~
\~".". \ --
\'~
Sunset-
Influence of sun angles on building orientation
••••
0/ 0\ I I
\'\"i:;:.. \~""
Figure 4.2 (after Marsh 1998:299 and Olgyay 2000:803)
~
. h~'i.So",h I "
\
U____.
,
--
\ ""',~" " "~
When changes to the built landscape are based on a premise that designs should support the continued function and vitality of these basic ecosystemic functions, we will begin to create human settings that are well integrated into the ongoing processes of the environment. More importantly, when they are well integrated these environments may be expected to lead to healthy and sustainable human communities. Until designs for urban systems begin to integrate with the environment to maintain vital ecosystem networks and material recycling, consume energy and matter creatively, and sustain biological diversity we should not expect them to result in the kind of healthy, flexible, optimizing systems we require.
Noon Winter Solstice
sunri:L~~~--
".'" "',
/ /I "', / ." ',\".'
~ ~ West
(continued)
Goods, Services, and Processes Contemporary development is taking place without appropriate provision for maintaining the ecological infrastructure of the landscape. We need this ecosystemic infrastructure to provide long-term support for both society and the natural systems on which it depends. Landscape development of the future, if it is to be sustainable, will need to be based on a more thorough understanding of the interrelatedness of environmental processes and the influence development has on them. Human society is wholly reliant on ecosystems to carry out a diverse array of processes that provide the fundamental conditions to support life on earth.
100
Chapter Four
One way of describing the benefits of global ecosystemic processes is to list the "goods" and "services" they provide. Ecosystem pro..; cesses are defined as the fundamental maintenance activities required to keep the system in good health and working order. Ecosystem goods are things with market value that are extracted from the environment and exchanged for money. Ecosystem services are the processes that have value but are rarely exchanged for monetary benefit. The basic ecosystemic port life are outlined inprocesses, box 4.1. goods, and services required to supThe overall record of human development in recognizing and protecting these basic life-support processes, goods, and services is not encouraging. For example, 20 percent of the earth's land surface is arid or hyperarid desert (Biswas and Biswas 1980:vii; Grainger 1990:6). The area of deserts is thought to be expanding and has been systematically reported in the u.s. (Sears 1935) and Africa (Aubreville 1949) for well over half a century. The primary threat, however, is not the expansion of deserts but the degradation of their soil and veg-
Ecosystem Processes
Hydrologic dynamics and storage Biological production Biogeochemical cycling and storage Decomposition of waste
Ecosystem Goods
Maintenance of biological diversity Food and water Medicinal plants Construction and manufacture materials Fuel for domestic and industrial heat Wild genes for domestic animals and plants Tourism and recreation
Ecosystem Services
Maintaining hydrologic cycles Regulating climate Cleansing air and water Maintaining the gaseous composition of the atmosphere Forming, maintaining, and developing soils Pollinating crops and other important plants Storing and cycling essential nutrients Absorbing and detoxifying pollutants Providing beauty, inspiration, and knowledge
(Adapted from Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1991; Lubchenko et al. 1991; Richardson
199-4;Daly 1997).
-;l'he Biophysical Environment
101
'etation (Grainger 1990:7). Most desertification is thought to be ,directly attributable to the interaction between climactic fluctuations and human development and exploitation of the landscape (Food and Agriculture Organization 1983:6; Dregne 1992:vii; Nadakavukaren 2000). Soil degradation in deserts is caused by destructive agricultural practices (Grainger 1990: 7). The annual worldwide loss of topsoil is :estimated at 24 billion tons (Brown et al. 1989:3). Eroded soils are detached from the landscape, introduced into stormwater runoff, and washed into streams. From there the soils are transported to the sea, ,thus becoming permanently lost to society-at least within the geologically foreseeable future (remember that soil forms under good conditions at a rate of an inch per century). The landscape is being exploited in ways that are inconsistent with our clear need to support a rapidly growing human population or even the landscape's capacity ''for sustained utilization. North America was changed profoundly after European colonization in the 1600s. Nowhere has the extent and pace of forest clearing and settlement been greater. Between 1800 and 1900, some 500,000 square miles of virgin forest were destroyed. And although forests have returned in many of the less arable regions, the soils, ecosystem complexity, and species composition are greatly reduced from the original condition. More than 50,000 square miles of wetlands have been destroyed, with agriculture accounting for 75 percent of the losses (Marsh 1991 :338). Many of the original species have become extinct due to active destruction or from the unintended result of disease and pest invasion of the weakened ecosystems or loss of habitat. 'fragically, much of the agricultural land created by the clearing of forests has also been lost during the intervening period due to poor agricultural practices, often in conflict with the goals of commerce. Speciesdestruction has been accelerated due to a lethal combination of five main factors: increased demands of a growing human population, over harvesting, habitat destruction, pollution, and the invasion of habitat by exotic species (Wilson 2002). All these are the result of human actions in the landscape. A fundamental role of society, typically through the agency of collective government, is to provide for mutual security through the recognition and protection of critical life-support resources. However, there has been a long-standing perception that the rapid exploitation of presumably renewable resources has an immediate economic value sufficient to outweigh any risk of damage to ecosystems. Furthermore, any damage that occurs is considered insufficient to diminish the ability of future generations to produce continuously needed goods and services. It appears increasingly unlikely that this perception will be borne out in the future (Ecological Society of America 1995:2).
102
Chapter Four
The widespread perception that ecosystem damage due to exploitation is inconsequential prevails for several reasons. First, there is lit,,tle comprehensive scientific information regarding the complexity and functional dynamics of most ecosystems. In fact, they are more complex than we are currently able to understand. This results in part because the prevailing reductionist scientific view of reality does not reveal systematic change to complex systems since it is based on analytical rather than contextual thinking (Capra 1996:29). In other words, we cannot prove long-term harm in advance of the facts, which will only be available in the future after the harm has been inflicted, perhaps permanently. Second, the openness and interconnectedness of ecosystems on temporal and spatial scales greatly exceed the understanding and jurisdiction of most political or management authorities. In the absence of specific information to the contrary, people tend to believe what appears to be in their immediate best interest. Actions are based largely on our perception of immediate rather than long-term interests. This is not, as it might appear, an irrational pattern of thinking. For most of human history, survival depended on the immediate satisfaction of our needs for food, water, shelter, and defense. As a consequence, humankind has developed ingrained patterns of thinking based on short-term rather than long-term considerations. In particular, our evolutionary history has not included a requirement to pattern our behavior in relation to its influence on protecting the natural environment. During most of human history the natural environment, wilderness, has been seen as a threat to human existence. A great deal of our collective history is the story of human migration in search of better environments, places with greater opportunities for resource exploitation. Our understanding of human society and its relation to the landscape has been conditioned by a history of the influence of the landscape on people, not people on the landscape. Inuit society, for example, or Arab societies can be largely explained by the nature of the relationships they have with the landscapes they inhabit. In the past it has not been thought necessary to consider the long-term influence of our actions on the environment. Rather, we have conditioned ourselves to be concerned primarily with the influence of the landscape on people. For Americans there may be another reason we are unable to engage in effective long-term planning for the environment. Anthropologist Edward Hall has described our unique concept of time that may account for our inability to think about a distant future (1966:134). We begin with an assumption that there is order in the universe and that our role is to discover that order and create intellectual models that reflect it to inform decisions. Time is one of these models. We never question the idea that time should be planned and
The Biophysical Environment
103
events fitted into a schedule. We think that the future is immediate and that it should be anticipated. For us, the future is near. One consequence of this notion is that we do not consider it productive to spend too much time thinking about (we might say dwelling on) the past. Results must be obtained now, or at least in the immediate future. To Americans, time is short. Deadlines are serious and there are penalties for being late, for not keeping our commitments to "time." We think it is natural to quantify time and specify how long it will take to do everything. We also connect things in a chain of time: "when I was in college," "before I was married," "after I left the service." One consequence is that it is difficult for us to connect things in our minds when they are separated by too much time. "This," Hall concludes, "makes it almost impossible for us as a nation to engage in long-range planning." Planning for the environment is not just a long-term effort. It is, if we are to engage it, a permanent artifact of our life. One other factor may reduce our ability to plan effectively for the future. The growing influence of market forces affects all aspects of contemporary life, and with the globalization of the economy the effect is being felt worldwide. Because it is virtually impossible to predict the state of the economy for as long as a year in advance, decisions become focused on immediate rather than long-term considerations. Corporate decisions are oriented toward productivity within the quarter (three months), driving the time interval on which broad decisions are based even lower. All these factors combine to make long-term planning as difficult as it is important. Human society has no history of needing to provide for the continuing viability of the landscape. In our collective thinking, the landscape, like time, simply exists and we expect that it always will. Furthermore, there is a continuing prevalence to see things as they have been seen in the past, in spite of obvious (and often unwelcome) changes in the landscape and the speculation by many about the unhappy effects they may have on future generations. Even though there is ample evidence that the environment on which we depend is deteriorating, we are slow to give it the kind of planning and design attention required to redress its diminishing condition. Understanding reality seems to be less a matter of our "believing it when we see it" than of being able to "see it only when we believe it" (Barker 1985 :256). Without conclusive, concrete evidence that our paradigm is faulty, faith in our understanding, based on past perceptions, continues unabated. Our rapidly emerging requirements to care for the environment, and to do so over the long-term, have been with us for too short a time to become established in our collective psyche. As a consequence, even though it is becoming increasingly apparent that our survival as a society (and as a species) depends on it, we cannot easily or quickly change to a new way of understanding nature or behaving
104
Chapter Four
appropriately regarding our relationship with it. To do so will require radical and creative change in how we think as well as how we behave. But, as Leo Tolstoy said: "Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself." Perhaps the first thing we as designers must change is not the landscape, but ourselves.
Ecosystem Health In 1992 the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) determined that over the previous twenty years the health of the environment on a global scale had deteriorated at an unprecedented rate (Wynberg 1993:xiii-xxi). This is thought to have resulted primarily from a failure of governments to integrate actions regarding development and the environment with economic policy and decision making. Changes in the environment are taking place more rapidly than our human institutions are able to recognize and, as a consequence, they supersede society's ability to formulate appropriate responses. Five years after UNCED,in 1997, the UN held a follow-up "Earth Summit Plus 5" Conference in New York. In summary, the conference findings were that forest loss continues at a global rate of 30 million acres (55,000 square miles) annually through cutting and burning. Carbon emissions into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuel continue to rise, now at 6.2 billion tons annually. And although birth rates are declining, the median age is lowering, thus population will continue to rise with a leveling off expected to begin around 2050 at about 9 billion, depending upon future fertility rates (U.S. Census Bureau 2004:11). The high estimate is that the world population may reach 11 billion by 2050 and the lower estimate is 7.2 billion. In either case, the demand for resources during that time will increase significantly. Demand for fresh water continues to grow in all parts of the world; consumption more than tripled between 1950 and 2000 (Postel 1993:22). Although vast reserves of fresh water lie beneath the earth's surface, much of it is too deep to economically recover (National Geographic 1993:24) and the fresh water in rivers, lakes, and wetlands accounts for less than 1 percent of the earth's water (McAllister, Hamilton, and Harvey 1997:210). While the availability of fresh water is fixed, the population demanding access to it is not. Currently, 20 percent of the world's population lacks direct access to a safe water supply (Dodds 2000:292) and 40 percent of those people live in water-stressed river basins. It is projected that by 2025 half of the world's population will occupy regions with water stress, 70 percent of which will be under severe stress (United Nations Development Programme 2001:103-110).
The Biophysical Environment
105
One of the most significant current trends is the relationship between population increase and environmental degradation (Harrison 1992). In the fifteen years between 1973 and 1988, growth in developing countries (which represent 80 percent of the world's population) was responsible for 79 percent of deforestation, 46 percent of arable land expansion, and 59 percent of the increase in livestock. These factors are closely linked to loss of wildlife habitat and biodiversity, accelerated soil erosion, diminished watershed protection, and increased methane and other global warming emissions (Wynberg 1993:17). Whether changes in climate are an inevitable natural process or the result of ill-advised land development, or a combination of the two, is not fully known. What is known is that the future success of human society will be closely tied to our ability to live harmoniously with those changing conditions and their impact on the environment. In addition to the pressure for water resources brought about by population increase and urbanization, climate change is another, and potentially more significant, environmental dimension to the water crisis. In 1988 the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO) established the UNEPIWMO Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to examine how climate might change in the future. The panel concluded that if atmospheric gas emissions continue to rise according to present trends, global mean temperatures might be expected to increase by about 0.3 degrees Celsius each decade over the next century. If this happened it would produce temperatures higher than at any time during the last 150,000 years, and would likely be accompanied by other changes such as altered rainfall patterns, intensified drought, increased sea levels, flooding, disease epidemics, and changes in agriculture (Krause, Bach, and Kooney 1995: 73). Changes of this magnitude would have profound demographic, social, economic, and political implications on a global scale. Irrespective of the possibility of climate change, it is important that management of the landscape becomes more responsive to prevailing conditions. Providing favorable microclimatic conditions within the urban environment in general, while simultaneously precluding the unnecessary expenditure of energy for climate control, needs to become a design priority of the future. Beginning in the early 1960s the combination of technology and (presumably) cheap fuelled to the creation of urban environments increasingly reliant on automobiles and mechanical air conditioning, with little attention given to the amelioration of the living environment in general. In Texas, for example, it has become common over the last forty years to live during the summer months through a series of closely linked conditioned air environments-home, car, office, car, shop, car, home-with little time being spent outdoors. As excess heat has been pumped out of our
106
Chapter Four
cars, houses, shops, factories, and offices, it has been pumped into the ambient environment of the city. Our ability to avoid these increas-' ingly stressful environments has not led to increased attention to their careful design to make them more comfortable or enjoyable. Comprehensive assessment of alternative climate control systems in concert with site orientation and utilization factors are important to both building and site design (Holm 1983:27) if effective and sustainable use is to be made of the existing resource base of the landscape. Diminished ecosystem stability has become an area of critical concern. A diverse and complex species structure operates to provide ecosystems with stability and viability over time. The importance of complexity with its vast array of interconnections is one of the most vital lessons of the last century of research and ecosystem-management experience (Peterson 1993:2152). Biological diversity and its interrelated structural complexity are critical to processes such as primary production and nutrient cycling. The history of human design and management of the landscape, however, is one of continued ecosystem simplification and compartmentalization. Complexity and diversity impart resilience and resistance to ecosystem disturbance and provide the genetic material needed to adapt to long-term change. Once disturbance has occurred, the more complex systems demonstrate significantly greater recovery potential (Tilman and Downing 1994). Biotic complexity has important influences on the hydrologic cycle through condensation, interception, and evapotranspiration, and on geomorphic processes such as erosion. Utilitarian extractive processes such as agriculture and forestry explicitly reduce the complexity and diversity of ecosystems to increase the productivity of selected species (such as cattle, corn, or pine) in the lower trophic levels. This is normally accomplished by the displacement of complex indigenous species by a few exotics and through the transfer of significant energy inputs from other sources into the production system. In mechanized agriculture this is accomplished by the subsidy of petroleum energy, thereby exhausting nonrenewable resources in order to extract renewable ones (Lyle 1994:20) with the result being (perhaps short-term) increases to the environment's human carrying capacity-increases beyond the level that can be sustained by local resources. The issue of diminished ecosystem stability is particularly relevant with regard to the influences of species-specific pathogens that may pose high levels of risk to monocultures (mono-specific agricultural practices such as timber-producing regions or wheat-producing regions). Thus, these simplified systems are less stable and less sustainable than more complex natural ecosystems (Ecological Society of America 1995:8). Furthermore, biotic community simplification in marginal habitats, such as deserts or semi-arid areas (conditions prev-
The Biophysical Environment
107
alent in much of the agriculturally productive western U.S.), increases the vulnerability that a herbivore will become a pest to one of the few remaining species (Watt 1973: 146). The same conditions of risk to ecosystems through artificially induced simplicity prevail for urban land as well, although the area of coverage and impact is much smaller and thus represents less potential for risk to the environment as a whole, even though the loss of significant urban species structure (such as the loss of elms throughout cities in the central U.S.) can be a deeply felt loss. However, the profound influence of urban areas on their surrounding hinterland adds increasing pressure for ecosystem simplification over large areas of the environment as a rapidly growing population must be employed, housed, and fed. The intense demands created by increasing population for both urbanization and primary food and fiber production are being satisfied through the loss of long-term system stability in the landscape. The present systems of landscape utilization are resulting in the permanent loss of habitat for many indigenous animal and plant species, with an associated loss in the ecosystem's ability to regulate necessary processes and resist adverse change when faced with altered conditions (which are normal conditions in the landscape), such as climatic change or plant-disease epidemic. If we are to employ planning and design to break the cycle of ecosystem deterioration, we will need to better understand the conditions we are changing and approach the landscape in ways that protect and maintain the basic workings of the system itself rather than to focus only on what we want from it. Designs for the land need to reverse current trends toward ecosystem simplification and fragmentation and the resultant interference with the production of ecosystem goods, services, and processes. Only when the protection of the environment becomes a standard goal of design and development activity will we begin to address this problem on the scale that it exists. We have not adopted this level of concern as a professional responsibility yet, but we are beginning to understand that it is necessary to do so. Now we must begin to learn how to do so. We can begin by understanding that each act to change the landscape has consequences to the system as a whole. If we acknowledge that one of the most common attributes of ecological health is the connectivity of natural systems (Dramstad et al. 1996 :41) and its effect on their sustained viability, we may begin to design in ways that assure the continuation of these connections. Designs need to be based not so much on concerns for regional or global degradation, but on the local effects of introducing new activities into the landscape. Designs for the landscape need to assure that development is organized to minimize disruption of the natural systems as much as the natural systems need to be manipulated to avoid disruption of development.
108
Chapter Four
Urban Development As a consequence of growing population, urbanization throughout the world is taking place at an accelerating rate. During the last half of the twentieth century the world population doubled, growing from 3 billion in 1960 to 6 billion in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2004:11). Most of this increase has taken place in urban areas. In the early years of the twentieth century less than a quarter of the population was urban. By the end of the century that proportion had risen to 55 percent. By the year 2020 it is estimated that between 70-80 percent of the population will live in urban areas. The implications for the design disciplines are profound. The pattern of urban development in the United States has been particularly important not only to the character of the urban environment but also to the character of our evolving cultural experience. During the next twenty years, the pattern of the living environment for almost half of the urban population will be established. Whether that pattern is one that promotes the physical and emotional health of those who live in those communities will depend, to a significant extent, on how well designers are able to inform themselves about the needs of people and respond appropriately through design. During the decades after the 1950s, the landscape was increasingly transformed by urbanization through the development of sprawling, fragmented cities with uncontrolled, low-density housing areas distant from work, schools, shopping, and community facilities. To achieve this type of development, valuable agricultural land and natural areas were appropriated with little consideration for the effects on environmental quality. Unfortunately, the very low-density, suburban character of most contemporary developments is maximizing the negative impact on the landscape, much of which is irreplaceable, highly productive agricultural land. The worldwide effects of urban development have been significant. In the view of Odum (1993), contemporary cities function as parasites that, unlike their successful counterparts in nature, have not evolved mutually beneficial relationships with their life-support host organism (the landscape) that prevent its destruction and thereby themselves. Modern cities act to draw resources from their environs but lack the mechanisms to return waste products to the landscape for recycling. While exhausting their landscape base through an increasing demand for resources, cities are simultaneously destroying the quality of their air, water, and soil by a mounting accumulation of wastes, hastening urban degeneration-particularly in nonindustrial countries (Lyle 1994:5). Of greatest concern is that these conditions are systemic results of the way we currently comprehend, plan,
The Biophysical Environment
109
design, build, and manage the landscape environment. Our decision making does not reflect a basic awareness of the way the landscape works, or that we are wholly reliant on these systems for survival. This must change if knowledge is to make its way into decision making in time to prevent the permanent loss of the landscape's potential to support society at the level we desire. But supporting society requires more than the protection of critical resources. To assure that design changes are integrated harmoniously into the landscape it is necessary to understand the conditions into which the design must fit. There are a number of landscape factors that are typically investigated prior to the development of designs for landscape change.
Site Analysis Factors In assessing landscapes to determine how harmonious design relationships may be established, a number of site conditions are routinely evaluated to determine their potential influences on future design conditions. One of our first tasks is to inquire about the state of the landscape and to determine what things should or should not be changed to provide some assurance of improvement. The most common naturally occurring site factors and the types of considerations to be evaluated include the following.
Topography Typical base data include a relief map of the site at a convenient scale, with surface features and contour intervals appropriate to the detail required for planning or decision making. Site analysis from the contour information may include: • Determination and mapping of steep, moderate, or gently sloping areas of the site • Determination of the percentages of the site in each slope category • Determination and mapping of watersheds and drainage patterns • Determination of compatibility of slope or landform relative to intended uses • Determination of difficulty anticipated in using the site for the activities intended • Potential influence of site topography in satisfying handicapped user accessibility • Visibility and visual exposure resulting from site relief • Wind and solar exposure resulting from site slope and aspect
110
Chapter Four
• Extent of land-form modifications, such as cut or fill, and their projected costs in developing the site • Potential difficulty in site drainage relative to poor drainage from level areas or soil erosion in steep areas • Potential hazards from steep, precipitous, or unstable topographic conditions
Geology Typicalbase data include a map of surface geology, with indications of formation, depth to bedrock, and strata inclinations. Where mapping is the result of test borings, descriptions of the underlying strata will normally be provided. Areas of earth fill or deposition conditions would also be identified where applicable with a general description of the nature of the deposited material. Site analysis may include: • Structural support and stability of underlying geologic formations • Bearing capacity of subsurface strata and influences on structural design • Determination of ease or difficulty of excavating material near the surface • Determination of cut-slope stability for material near the surface • Determination of water-bearing strata near the surface • Stability of material relative to subsidence or fault movement potential • Potential for settling or contamination from areas created by fill material • VISUalimplications of exposedgeologicmaterial or rock formations • Identification of potential geologic hazards
Soils
The Biophysical Environment
111
• Soil drainage capacity for percolation through soil horizons • Determination of areas with permanently saturated soils • Erosion potential of soils in drainage paths or on moderate to steep slopes • Appropriateness of different soil conditions for the location of intended uses • Corrosion potential for below-grade structures and utilities • Determination of the extent to which soils must be modified to support intended uses • Determination of potential hazards such as erosion or soil slippage
Hydrology Typical base data include descriptions of surface and subsurface conditions. Surface conditions may be interpreted from topographic and soils data. The extent of surface flooding is obtained from soil maps, historical records, or engineering calculations. Subsurface conditions are normally taken from well records or borings or are inferred from geologic data. Site analysis may include: • Existing drainage patterns and impoundment areas as illustrated by site topography • Extent and frequency of surface inundation in floodplains and floodways • Presence of permanent or seasonal wetlands • Erosion or deposition patterns along drainage channels • Anticipated peak flows of stormwater drainage and their contribution to flooding hazard • Depths, duration, and fluctuation of seasonal water table • Seasonal fluctuations in stream channel flow
Typical base data include a map of soil types for the site, with accompanying cross-section profiles and descriptions indicating surface and subsurface conditions to a depth of four to six feet. Site analysis may include:
• Existing and potential quality of surface and subsurface water • Aquifer locations and zones of surface recharge potential • Potential for aquifer pollution from existing or intended site or near-site uses
• Soils expansion potential relative to the location of structures • Suitability as structural support for the location of buildings or roads
• Potential for surface water pollution from existing or intended site or near-site uses
• Suitability as construction material such as earth fill, building aggregate, or road base • Soil fertility and the potential to support plant growth • Soil moisture relationships relative to supporting plant growth
• Surface retention potential for permanent water features or temporary detention as a flood control measure • Location, water quality, and capacity of on-site stream flow or wells • Appropriateness of intended activities to the site water regimen
112
Chapter Four
The Biophysical Environment
113
• Extent to which drainage patterns must be modified to accommodate intended uses
• Appropriateness and compatibility of existing vegetation for intended activities
• Identification of potential hazards such as flooding or subsidence
• Susceptibility of vegetation to damage from development or anticipated site uses • Relative stability and anticipated longevity of existing species and plant communities • Seasonal effects of vegetation on humidity, insolation, temperature, and ventilation • Influence of existing vegetation on site stability or erosion control • Seasonal influence of vegetation on site image and aesthetic experience • Seasonal maintenance to be expected from retaining existing vegetation • Determination of threatened or endangered species on or near the site
Climate Typical base data include regional or local macroclimatic averages for precipitation, temperature, humidity, wind velocity and direction, and seasonal extremes. The number of sun days, frost-free days, and dates of the first and last frost may be useful in some cases. Microclimatic information may include solar angles, site aspect, wind screening and funneling effects, fog, cold air drainage, and heat traps. Site analysis may include: • Microclimatic variations within the site • Microclimatic comfort variables and seasonal variations • Desirable and undesirable locations or orientations for anticipated use activities • Climatic influences of site vegetation, water bodies, and topography • Influence of wind patterns on off-site activities or on emissions affecting proposed site uses • Influence of wind patterns on proposed site activities as they affect off-site land uses • Influences of sun angles on slope aspect conditions of the site • Character and season of precipitation and its influence on site design • Seasonal influences on intended use activities • Identification of potential hazards such as ice or fog on roads
• Visual, spatial, and microclimatic amelioration opportunities afforded by existing vegetation • Visual, spatial, and microclimatic amelioration required by the retention of existing vegetation • Identification of potential hazards such as fires or disease epidemic
Wildlife Typical base data include descriptions of existing species and their related habitat requirements and any published listing of locally threatened or endangered wildlife species. Site analysis may include: • Desirability of existing species relative to the activities intended on the site
Vegetation
• Appropriateness of retaining wildlife species with anticipated site uses
Typical base data include aerial photographs and maps of site vegetation indicating location, species, crown spread, and soil elevation at the base of significant groupings or individual specimens; any published listing of locally prohibited, preferred, or threatened and endangered plant species. On infrequent occasions plant community maps with descriptions of dominant and typical species composition may be required. Detailed ecological surveys may include indications of community succession or regression due to past land-use impacts on or near the site. Site analysis may include: • Amenity value of existing site vegetation
• Implications of retaining or encouraging the continuation of existing wildlife populations • Habitat requirements of existing populations regarding water, food, and cover vegetation • Seasonal and daily corridor requirements for wildlife movement through the site • Identification of habitat zones of threatened or endangered species • Determination of threatened or endangered species residing on or near the site either permanently or seasonally • Identification of potential hazards such as disease or pest infestation
• Use and design performance opportunities afforded by existing vegetation
114
Chapter Four
All these site factors may be important to design decision making. However, since each design setting and its requirements are unique, the exact mix of salient considerations changes from project to project. Design analysis is conducted first to establish the factors to be considered, and second to determine their likely influence in support of or conflict with the proposed development. It is on the basis of these determinations that many site organizational decisions are made. But knowledge of site features is not the only important consideration in design. The processes of the site also must be understood before we can expect to integrate a new set of activities, or systems, into the landscape without inadvertently disrupting these processes. In addition to consideration of the landscape's natural features and systems there are equally important social and psychological considerations that, when understood, may be used to inform landscape design. The next chapter introduces these human factors of design.
5 The HuO\an EnvironO\ent Our lookingenters as one of the determinants in the reality event that we see. We know that our concepts, our notions or basic assumptions, actively direct our precepts. Our mind directs our sensory apparatus every bit as much as our sensory apparatus informs the mind. -Joseph ChiltonPearce,Crack in the Cosmic Egg The basic purpose of design is to improve people's ability to use the landscape to meet their needs and aspirations, to modify the form of the landscape in ways that facilitate human experience, interaction, and activity. Designs to facilitate human activity include actions to organize space in support of improved function, safety, and convenience; to reveal the intended pattern of organization and provide cues to appropriate behavior; to better express who we are as cultural and social groups; and to improve the quality of our experience with one another and the physical setting. The value judgements we apply in establishing priorities among these multiple and often competing interests need to correspond to their influence in improving and sustaining the quality of our lives, enhancing social interaction and vitality, and maintaining the viability of the environment. 115
116
Chapter Five
We seek more from life than mere survival. We also want our lives to be comfortable, pleasurable, and meaningful. We place many demands on the environment, some of which are deeply personal, some broadly social, and some fundamental to all people and all societies. The most pressing reason for planning and designing the landscape is to assure the satisfaction of our basic needs: to provide food, water, shelter, and community. Each year, each day, this becomes more difficult to achieve. The world population is increasing at a rate of 74 million people per year (U.S. Census Bureau 2004:14). Increasing population with all its implications is one of the most difficult problems to be faced over the next half century. People are living longer, while increases due to births continue to add to the numbers (Lappe and Shurman 1995:104). The rate of population increase is staggering. From the beginning of human history until the time of Christ, approximately 60,000 years, the world population grew to a size of about 200 to 300 million people. Over the following 1,600 years the population doubled to around 500 million by the year 1650. The population doubled again over the next 200 years to 1 billion by 1850, and doubled again in 80 years to 2 billion by 1930. It doubled once again in 45 years to 4 billion by 1975 (Nadakavukaren 2000). Over the last fifty years the global population has more than doubled (growing from 2.5 to 6 billion) with the likelihood of reaching 8 billion by the year 2030 (U.S. Census Bureau 2004:11). Contemporary design opportunities, as well as responsibilities, due to population growth are enormous. Half of the urban environment will be designed and built during the professional careers of those now entering practice. Doubling the size of our cities over the next forty years means that land development decisions will be made at an accelerating pace. As a consequence, one of our most pressing problems will be to integrate knowledge-based design thinking into the development process in time to make a significant impact. The rapid growth in third-world urban areas has been expressed in both increases in conventional development and an explosion of informal settlements around cities, typically existing without basic social and technical infrastructure. In developed nations as well as undeveloped nations, population growth inevitably puts greater pressure on the ecosystem to provide the increasing amount of goods and services required for its support. Continuation of prevailing low-density development patterns will only make that more difficult. Another issue associated with population growth is population migration. As resources become scarce in one area, people move to new regions in search of greater opportunities. Inevitably these migrations affect the distribution of populations as people move from the countryside to cities. Often the move is from the countryside in the third world to a city in an industrialized nation. An important
The Human Environment
117
consequence of the continuing increase in population in the third ~. world is the global increase in cultural diversity in both the third world and the developed countries.
Cultural Diversity Population diversity poses a number of constraints in the provision of effective land planning and design. Through evolving paradigms, people form understandings of the world, identify problems, and organize socially (Beckand Cowan 1991). Different social groups reach different understandings regarding the nature of the world and as a consequence hold culturally distinct perceptions and concepts of reality. They also differ in their socio-spatial organization. In public spaces people cannot predictably control their interactions with others and are generally expected to follow the rules of the resident culture. However, in many urban settings there are multiple resident cultures that must coexist in the same public spaces. The rules of behavior within a common culture that facilitate the interaction of strangers in public space are no longer available when different people from different cultures share the same setting. They no longer share and understand a common set of cultural rules to inform their interactions and confirm their place-specific behavior. Each culture takes its values for granted and people assume that others share their perceptions and spatial behavior. Shared values, however, are difficult to achieve in a complex multicultural setting. Exuberant public behavior from one group may be offensive or intrusive (or perhaps threatening) to those in another group with more restrained habits of public behavior. People share two kinds of cultural space. One of these is referred to as proxemic space (Hall 1966; 1971 :247), which is shared with those who hold similar cultural paradigms and in which culturally specific behavior is allowed to take place. The other type is described as distemic space (Greenbie 1981: 108; 1982: 113), which is that shared by those who hold culturally diverse values, perceptions, or behavioral norms. Proxemic spaces are occupied by homogeneous groups with highly consistent spatial behavior. Examples of proxemic spaces include sports clubs, fraternity houses, and places of worship for religious congregations. Both the social interactions and the physical environment can be extremely complex because the social rules are largely taken for granted due to the users' high degree of familiarity with them. Proxemic spaces are usually high in associational meaning, and policing of behavior is accomplished by heavy social pressure. As a consequence there are few interpersonal conflicts and little need for behavioral cues to prompt appropriate interactions.
118
Chapter Five
Distemic spaces are those shared by people who are culturally diverse and who hold different values, codes of conduct, myths, symbols, and cognitive attitudes. Examples of distemic settings include festivals such as the Mardi Gras in New Orleans or the departure lounges of international airports. Behavior by one group may be expected to infringe on that of another. To avoid this, overt behavior is controlled by the imposition of explicit behavioral rules, cues, ordinances, and external policing. The members of varied cultural groups see the world in profoundly different ways. Their different concepts of reality influence the ways in which they interact with one another and the environment. Our awareness of social and physical environments is fundamentally shaped by the familiar home culture and it is primarily when people have the security that a proxemic spatial identity provides that they have the confidence to interact within the uncertainties of complex human interaction (Greenbie 1982: 113). For designers, this cultural diversity poses a challenge in the design of public space to create a setting that is equally available to all members of the public. In other words, they must strive to create a proxemic spatial setting rather than a distemic setting for users from diverse age groups, cultural backgrounds, or socioeconomic conditions.
Human Needs On a fundamental level, people interact with one another and the environment to satisfy their basic needs. Human behavior is broadly thought to be governed by actions to satisfy a series of basic drives (Maslow 1970). These are defined as a hierarchically arrayed sequence of basic motives or conative factors. People strive to meet their needs in a series of categories, satisfying their most basic biological or physiological needs first, then, as each successive category becomes relatively satisfied, attention is shifted to address those in the next tier in the hierarchy, one that is relatively less important to immediate survival. The pattern of these tiers is described as a pyramid of human needs with the opportunity to expend energy to satisfy each tier being based on the relative satisfaction of the one immediately below it. As action shifts from basic survival (the lowest tier) to more advanced and complex psychological and sociological requirements, people engage in the activities that most clearly distinguish us as human, individual, and cultural. The needs hierarchy outlined by Maslow has five tiers. From the most basic to the most individual they are: 1. Physiological needs include hunger, thirst, sleep, shelter, and procreation. These represent the most basic category of human requirements.
The Human Environment
119
2. Safety needs include physical safety, security, stability, and the psychological protection from fear and chaos. 3. Socialization needs include people's drive to be accepted by their community or social group through expressions of belonging and receiving approval from interpersonal interactions with peers. 4. Esteem needs include people's drive to achieve self-esteem and to gain the esteem of others to attain status within their community. 5. Self-actualization describes the desire for self-fulfillment; becoming all that one is capable of being in life. It is unclear, however, whether all people are motivated to satisfy this ultimate level of human need. In addition to meeting their conative needs, people also act in response to intellectual motivations or cognitive factors. These are defined as requirements that are satisfied through perception, intellect, and learning as adjustment tools to be used in satisfying the conative needs (Stokels and Altman 1987). For example, as we observe and interpret the urban landscape, we learn when and where to cross streets safely or what neighborhoods to walk in after dark. We adjust our behavior on the basis of what we learn about the environment. Optimizing the capacity to address cognitive needs improves the ability to satisfy conative needs. Cognitive factors that motivate human behavior include: 1. The need to know and understand, which motivates our continuing desire to learn. 2. Aesthetic needs, which motivate our drive to experience the world and derive pleasure from that experience. The former encompasses the ability to acquire knowledge and gain insight about the world. As people seek to satisfy this need they place two demands on the physical environment: first, the environment must make perceptual and associational sense, and second, it should offer interest and engagement, the potential for continued exploration, learning, and attraction. Acting together, the processes of exploration and understanding address the need to gain new environmental information and to structure that information to resolve uncertainty. Aesthetic needs include the individual's need to express or experience deep satisfaction with the conditions of life (e.g., the experience of beauty) and to create them where they are found lacking. Aesthetic values are thought to be culturally as well as individually specific, and aesthetically satisfying experiences that are shared within a common human context may not be observed across cultural lines. Several key psychological and physiological factors are thought to influence people's ability to satisfy their conative and cognitive needs
120
Chapter Five
(Stokels and Altman 1987). These factors represent relationships that can be addressed as a measure of the quality of our interaction with the environment and should be understood as critical considerations in the design of settings for human activity. Arousal refers to a person's general level of psychological or physiological alertness and relates to the extent to which one is mentally engaged in an activity, place, or experience. An effectively designed setting provides people with the opportunity to regulate stimulation levels in response to the variable optimum arousal levels they seek. One measure of satisfaction with the experience of a setting is the extent to which a person becomes mentally aroused as a result of environmental stimulation relative to the level being sought. Different people engaging in different activities may require different levels of stimulation from the same environment. Park visitors, for example, may engage in active recreation to increase their arousal levels while others seeking relaxation may seek to reduce arousal. Performance in learning or working environments is considered best at moderate levels of arousal, with productivity falling when arousal levels become too high or too low. Optimum arousal levels tend to be higher for simple or routine activities than for new ones or for activities in unfamiliar or unsafe settings. Stress refers to the psychological and physiological response to threat, demand, or challenge and includes arousal and active attempts to cope. Stress can occur in response to many factors in the environment, especially adverse conditions that are unpredictable or uncontrollable and where there is a realistic likelihood of injury or loss associated with our inability to interpret environmental cues correctly and respond appropriately. Stress may also occur in environments that fail to assure safety, or to satisfy routine needs, such as providing information to support appropriate behavioral choices. Stress can adversely affect people's experience or task performance and can appear after the stress-producing factor has been removed. Excessive or harmful stress is increasingly common in contemporary urban environments. Satisfaction with an environment is enhanced if it provides opportunities to meet our needs without excessive stress or if it facilitates stress-reducing activities. Distraction and overload refer to the temporary loss of focus that results from excessive sensory stimulation stemming from too many demands for attention or from distractions in the environment. Excessive distraction can cause overload by demanding more of a person's mental capacity than can be spared to perform an activity effectively. Overload also can be caused when information is received too rapidly, in excessivevolume, or when accompanied by noise, demanding activity, or uncomfortable temperatures. Sudden, novel events (such as unfamiliar noises), compelling conditions (such as glare), or meaningful events (such as conversations) over which a person has little sen-
The Human Environment
121
sory control are most likely to disturb or distract. Environments that ~. contribute to extended periods of overload can lead to stress. Settings that give people choices in regulating sensory information provide them with the opportunity to manage stress from the environment. In many parts of the world, and even in the United States today, it is becoming increasingly difficult for many to satisfy their most basic physiological needs. As people move into unfamiliar urban environments seeking greater opportunities, their ability to satisfy their socialization and esteem needs becomes increasingly problematic, while for a growing majority, self-actualization is not even a distant hope. Transforming the urban landscape of the future into a healthy, physically and socially sustaining behavioral setting will require an enormous expenditure of energy and commitment, and an equally significant level of understanding and creative insight.
Behavioral Dimensions of Space In addition to behavior to satisfy their basic needs, people also have spatial dimensions to their interactions within the environment. These represent demands we place on the environment and in some cases may be physically amplified by design. lWo broad concepts describe these spatial factors. One is highly personal and individual: personal space (Sommer 1959; Hall 1968); and the other describes a more group-oriented process: territory (Ardrey 1966; Sommer 1969). Personal space and territoriality represent important types of interdependency between people and the environment. Personal space is the portable "bubble" of space surrounding each person, into which others may not trespass. It is an interpersonal distance regulator that functions to determine how closely we interact with others. Personal space may expand or contract depending on the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Personal space is always with us, although it may be quite small during intimate interaction with loved ones or quite large in formal or threatening situations. Territory is a spatially defined area, typically with visible boundaries, that is owned and controlled by one or more individuals. Territory functions to determine who may enter and interact and prompts specific behaviors based on perceived rights of ownership. Territory is relatively stationary and bound to place. Different types of territories have been identified within which people are prompted by their understanding of the environment to make different choices and behave differently. Three types of territories have been defined (Lyman and Scott 1967: 108; Sommer 1969 :43): • Public territory: places such as parks and city streets that provide people freedom of access, but not necessarily freedom of action
122
Chapter Five • Home territory: public spaces taken over by groups or individuals (such as college bars or children's makeshift clubhouses on vacant lots) where regular users or patrons have a sense of familiarity and exert social control • Interaction territory: areas with clearly marked boundaries and rules of access where social gatherings can occur, such as dance halls
People may be expected to respond differently in regard to each of these distinctive territorial types and they will pattern their behavior specifically to the nature of each one. The more intimate and personal the space, the greater the individual's freedom of action and the greater their control of it. The more the territory is deemed public or under the control of others, the more restricted the individual's freedom of action. Some territories may only be understood by those in a position of assumed ownership, such as gang turf, while other territories are clearly demarcated, such as a gated community with its name on the wall. When territories are poorly understood, their owners may design ways to reveal their limits, such as gang graffiti on building walls. Territory may be an important way for people to meet their conative needs, such as gaining esteem by having a residence with a prestigious address or attending a highly respected university. The need to maintain personal space may be evolutionarily encoded into our neurological processes (Burkeman 1999). There is evidence that living creatures have displayed a significant sensitivity to spatial limits for millions of years. This territorial response has evolved in humans to the extent that minor invasions of space can become an emotional issue. This may also result from complex territorial conditions that overlap. Road rage resulting from personal slights is an example of this kind of territorial response-the road may be public space but the driver is also in the private space of a personal vehicle. Territories can be encroached upon in at least three ways (Sommer 1969:44): • Invasion: the physical presence of intruders within the boundaries of the space • Violation: when there is unwarranted use of the space by outsiders • Contamination: when the space has been rendered impure by the presence of outsiders with respect to its definition and usage People's understanding of territory affects their daily choices about where to go and how to behave. Different settings prompt different behavioral responses: actions at a nightclub are expected to be quite different from those in a library. In public space people read cues and pattern their behavior according to cultural spatial norms (Motloch
The Human Environment
123
1991:14). In private space people are able to avoid unwanted interaction through psychological means (withdrawal), rules (manners), behavioral clues (gestures), spatial separation or physical devices (walls, curtains) to selectively control contact or filter the flow of :information between themselves and others, and by structuring activities in time to avoid coincidental interaction (Rapoport 1977:290). The extent of our personal space, the distance at which we feel comfortable with others, is culturally determined. That is, people in Latin America are comfortable in much closer physical proximity to others that those in North America. Consequently, the design of places for interaction should make allowance for different people with different concepts of personal space.
Designing for Diversity People from different cultures interact spatially and act to satisfy their conative and cognitive needs in culturally distinct ways. Furthermore, people in different circumstances have different standards and expectations, and thus place different demands on the environment. In designing for people who are culturally, socially, or economically uniform, it may be reasonably easy for designers to establish settings that can be comprehended, used, and appreciated in relatively predictable and satisfying ways. This may be particularly true when designers share the same age, socioeconomic status, and educational level as those for whom they design. In designing for culturally diverse users, however, some of whom may be acting to address survival level needs while others are addressing needs on a higher social or aesthetic level, it is difficult for designers to either understand such complex behavioral needs or to provide appropriate settings for them. Cultural distinctiveness, while often problematic in a political or social sense, is valuable and healthy for both the group and its individual members. The development of culturally distinct groups (called clustering) helps cultures survive by providing the appropriate setting for group behavior with clues that can be mutually understood. Clustering provides settings with appropriate organization of meaning and communication through the sharing of symbols and unwritten rules, and provides congruent activity systems to structure group member's interactions (Rapoport 1977:256). The environment may be designed as both the place and the instrument of communication to inform and facilitate appropriate behavior within culturally distinct settings. Cultural differences in the United States are emphasized by profound differences in age, race, religion, ethnicity, income, and education. Different racial, cultural, or socioeconomic groups within the population reflect these background differences and create additional
124
Chapter Five
barriers to understanding among culturally distinct populations. The uneven distribution of education and wealth among culturally divergent populations has created profound differences between the values and lifestyles of a growing majority of the population in many inner cities and those of the providers of professional planning and design services. These service providers usually live elsewhere, typically in remote suburbs. For many years designers were led to believe that by virtue of their superior education and refined aesthetic taste, their role was to uplift the awareness and sensibilities of the users of their designs, thereby contributing to the elevation of society. We are beginning to learn that while aesthetic preferences may differ, they are not necessarily better or worse, simply different, based on different values. The elitist view of designers as being society's arbiter of "good taste" is being discredited as we learn, and learn to appreciate, more about the value of diversity within society. Of the basic human needs, aesthetic experience is certainly one of the most important to be addressed by design and the one most universally acknowledged among designers of all stripes as their point of common ground. However, it is difficult to argue that because it is the value most commonly shared by designers that it has greater priority than any of the others, or that designers agree on aesthetic preferences. Addressing the full range of human needs for a community, not the least of which include survival, health, and individual fulfillment, is a minimum requirement to improving the human condition. Providing shared landscapes that are deeply satisfying and respected across the cultural lines within an increasingly pluralistic society will be necessary if these landscapes are to be sustainable in the future. This is a task few designers have been prepared for in the past, but one for which all must be prepared in the future.
Urban Development Urban environments are formed to facilitate social and economic interaction, and promote the health and welfare of individuals and society. People choose to live in urban settings for the social and economic opportunities they provide. For people to use the urban environment successfully, they need to be able to understand it and ~ove through it freely. To do this people form cognitive maps of the environment that serve to guide their decisions about what the environment holds in terms of places and opportunities, and to aid navigation through it to gain access to these places. Cognitive mapping is facilitated when the urban environment is organized to convey the kinds of information people seek to gain better understanding of the setting.
The Human Environment
125
As environments become more visibly articulated to reveal the "nature of human activity as a force shaping the urban landscape, they more clearly express themselves. The more clearly the landscape reveals itself the more easily people are able to form cognitive maps and improve their access and use of it. Kevin Lynch (1960) suggested five categories of features of the urban setting that facilitate cognitive mapping. The features he found people using to describe and analyze cognitive maps, as well as some recent additions, include: • Paths: shared Jravel corridors through the environment, such as highways, rail lines, streets, pedestrian paths, and rivers • Districts: large areas of the cognitive map that have common characteristics, such as campuses, industrial areas, residential neighborhoods, or entertainment districts • Edges: features that form the boundaries of or enclose areas that, while linear, are not typically used as paths, such as walls or shorelines • Nodes: major points where activity is concentrated or focused, typically associated with the intersection of major paths or places where they terminate, such as a central market or street intersection • Landmarks: distinctive features of the environment, usually visible from a distance, that people use as reference points, such as a lake or monument • Portals: an entryway by which a sense of arrival or departure to the urban environment or district may be expressed, such as a formal gateway to a residential area (Brooks 2004) • Ecological corridors: a natural system cutting through the urban environment that remains more or less intact, such as a river, topographic ridge, or hill (Dee 2001) In addition to traditional elements of urban structure, features such as ecological corridors provide distinctive form and identity to the built environment. Under ideal circumstances these ecological corridors are retained as beneficial additions to the urban environment, adding richness and diversity beyond the contributions of typical urban systems. More commonly, these natural systems have been degraded to the point of basic utility, sometimes operating more as open, often concrete lined, storm sewers than functioning riverine systems or ecological corridors. Urban environments that facilitate people's ability to cognitively lllap and actively use them increase their potential for improving quality of life. The extent to which environments reveal themselves and facilitate people's ability to comprehend them is referred to as design legibility. As contemporary suburban development becomes
126
Chapter Five
more undifferentiated and homogenous it tends to become less legible, and as a consequence less satisfying. In these settings the characteristics that facilitate decoding and understanding tend to be absent or obscured, making comprehension, cognitive mapping, and wayfinding difficult. These settings, rather than improving quality of life, create obstacles to achieving it. The low densities found in many suburban settings also have had the effect of separating people from one another. The loss of opportunities for human contact makes the satisfaction of people's basic human needs considerably more difficult to achieve, primarily because low density has the effect of diminishing social interaction and the cohesiveness of communities. By definition, communities are made up of the total range of populations residing and interacting in a setting. It is only through community interaction that people are able to take actions for mutual safety and facilitate behavior to promote socialization and esteem. In the United States people are becoming not only widely dispersed, but also highly stratified by age, income, and education characteristics, making awareness and appreciation of values other than their own difficult to comprehend. This also may have an adverse influence on people's ability to form strong, supportive communities. Society is the organization of people in definable groups-by shared history, language, culture, religion, and place of origin. One of the important ways of providing for people in groups (particularly dense groups in cities) is through the development of public, urban open space. There is a great deal of open space (space not occupied by building) in our cities, but little of it has been designed in ways that meet our needs for social interaction (Whyte 1980). Much of it is simply space left over after building rather than space consciously designed as a behavioral setting. Public places must be purposefully designed to facilitate social interaction if they are to meet the needs of individuals and groups. Clare Cooper Marcus and Carolyn Francis have developed a set of design criteria based on many years of research in San Francisco and Berkeley, California (1998:9). They conclude that public open space should: • Be located where it is easily accessible to and can be seen by potential users • Be accessible to all, particularly children and disabled people • Clearly communicate that it is available for use, and is meant to be used • Provide a feeling of security and safety to would-be users • Be furnished to support the most likely and desirable activities • Be organized to meet the needs of the user group most likely to use it
The Human Environment
127
• Encourage use by different user subgroups without conflicting with one another • Be comfortable, particularly at peak use times, regarding sun, shade, wind, and so on • Incorporate opportunities for engagement or manipulation (lawns for play, sand in playgrounds, interactive sculpture or fountains in plazas) • Provide options for individuals or groups to become attached to the place and care for it through involvement in design, construction, or maintenance; by use for special events; or by temporarily claiming personal spaces within the setting • Be easily and economically maintained within the limits of expectation for a particular type of setting • Where appropriate, offer relief from urban stress and enhance the health and emotional well-being of its users • Support the philosophical program of the managers of the place (education, child care, hospital therapy) • Be beautiful and engaging from the outside and the inside • Balance attention to artistic expression and behavioral setting; undue attention to either at the expense of the other may result in an inappropriate and unhealthy (unsuccessful) place Performance criteria for housing development, formulated from research by Marcus and Sarkissian (1986), addressed the need to balance community and privacy interests, safety, territoriality, and psychological health with guidelines to promote inclusiveness and foster a sense of community, by providing community services and recreation, and by providing opportunities for enhanced social interaction within the residential environment. For example, they suggest that design goals for low- and medium-density housing areas should include opportunities for community building as well as health and safety considerations. Marcus and Sarkissian propose the following design guidelines to promote community building. • Promote homogeneity within residential areas to develop a feeling of community and belonging • Cluster dwellings for families with similar life-cycle stages, such as families with small children or retirees • Provide opportunities (such as shared community pathways) to facilitate casual social interaction near the dwellings • Meet community interaction needs by providing features such as common open space or day-care facilities • Locate all community facilities along a common pedestrian path that can be used for recreation as well as access
128
Chapter Five • Avoid conditions that force interactions where residents have no choice, such as sharing driveways or common paths to individual front entryways
In addition, they suggest the following guidelines to provide a safe, secure, and healthy residential environment: • Enhance community identity and security by restricting access to the area • Provide for safety and security through visibility and control of entryways • Promote security and safety by community surveillance from dwellings • Provide common open space recreation for children in the residential area • Ensure access and convenience for children and the less mobile or disabled • Assure that children are provided with play areas safe from cars • Provide for the privacy needs of residents near as well as in the dwelling • Provide opportunities for residents to express a sense of territoriality through such means as the flexibility to personalize front lawns and entryways These examples of broad performance criteria may appear to be common sense, particularly in view of our understanding of people's fundamental human needs. In some cases, such as safety, these design performance criteria are required by law. But they have not always been well understood. These criteria were developed only after many years of systematic research and, for the most part, resulted from observations of both successful and unsuccessful settings. In large part, the problem with poorly designed places may be revealed in the researchers' final suggestion for urban public space: that the design approach should be balanced. That is, the design should satisfy the values of the users as well as the designers. Perhaps designers in the past have placed undue emphasis on the artistic and aesthetic aspects of design. For example, Marcus and Sarkissian (1986) encourage the provision of some degree of architectural complexity. However, they caution that too much control over fa~ade variety is not perceived by residents, and thus does not improve the design when measured by improvements to residents' quality of life. But until we provide evidence that other criteria are equally (or more) beneficial, designers will likely remain committed to what they already know (or think they know) about what constitutes good design. Designers' intuition, however, is not necessarily wrong. One of the most important aspects of a healthy living environment is the reduc-
The Human Environment
129
. tion of stress. Stress has become a common aspect of contemporary urban life. In reaction, people have long acted on a felt need to escape the city and repair to the countryside for the therapeutic benefits of nature. We are now beginning to learn that our feelings were accurate, that contact with nature is indeed restorative and healthful (Ulrich et al. 1991) and environments that provide routine exposure to natural elements such as lawns and trees can be stress relieving and healthful (Ulrich 1984). This has significant implications to the way we design and build our urban environments in the future. It is also important to add that there is a universal desire for autonomy, to exercise freedom of choice in our lives. Designers in particular seem to express this desire for autonomy in their work. If there are any universal human preferences beyond the desire for love and belonging, the desire for freedom must certainly be one of them. If people are to be genuinely free to make individual choices, they must find opportunities in the environment to act on these choices. Providing options for users may be one of the most important characteristics of successful urban spaces. And perhaps one of the most difficult to provide.
Access and Movement The environment is useful only if we can gain access to it. Navigation of the environment is achieved by wayfinding, or finding one's way. Wayfinding requires that we correctly decode the setting to make appropriate choices of movement. Wayfinding is a cognitive process that requires the ability and the information to map a setting, an ability to create a plan of action, and a decision-making capacity to translate plans into behavioral choices. Providing for orientation and wayfinding in the urban landscape is becoming increasingly important as environments become more complex and as people travel for work or leisure to new settings that may present potential risks (Passini 1984; Golledge 1999). Provision for access within the urban environment provides one of the clearest examples of systems design. Other examples, such as water and sewer systems, are similarly well organized but are largely hidden underground and less visible, and thus less well understood by most of us. Street systems in the urban environment are carefully designed to conform to the patterns of use and volume hierarchy established over many years of systematic observation. The systems are designed in ways that are thought to best serve the need for movement and access throughout cities. Cities all over the world have circulation systems organized into a hierarchical pattern of freeways, expressways, arterials, collectors, and local streets (Landphair and Klatt 1988:85).
130
Chapter Five
Before we developed the systematic patterns of highways and streets, the road was a regional connector providing communication from city to town or countryside. The road imposed a means of control that has been understood since the time of the Roman Empire. The Appian Way remains one of the significant symbols of the Roman Empire, with some portions of it retaining Roman-era paving today. The road facilitated the movement of goods and services as well as the armies necessary to exercise central authority over a vast empire. In the New World the El Camino Real, called the Old San Antonio Road today where it connected Texas with Mexico City, enabled the Spanish and later the Mexican government to control Texas for three hundred years. The road has long been recognized as a major element of human use and domination of the landscape. It is one of the most visible of the cultural features of the landscape-revealing both human activity and, by traveling over it, visual access to the landscape. In The View from the Road (1964), Donald Appleyard, Kevin Lynch, and John Myer described the influence of the road on our perceptions of the environment. They pointed out, for example, that the orientation of the road concentrates attention and directs our perception toward certain aspects of the environment and away from others. Our understanding of the urban or rural environment is determined largely by what we are able to see from the road. If there is little to interfere with our observation, we may be able to easily comprehend the surrounding landscape. If there is interference-from the need to cope with high traffic volumes or speed on the road, or from undifferentiated tall buildings or forests along the margin-we may gain little understanding of the environments we pass through. But in either case, this is the only point of view we have of the landscape. People arriving at a strange city by way of car will have a completely different understanding or image of the city from those who arrive by train. The different paths reveal strikingly different urban realities. The road is one of the most visible expressions of human activity in the landscape. The pattern of movement is revealed as a line or path on the ground. One of the most "significant aspects of the road was how it affected the landscape; how it started out as a wavering line between fields and houses and hills and then took over more and more land, influenced and changed a wider and wider environment, until the map of the United States seemed nothing but a web of roads and railroads and highways" (Jackson 1980: 122). Another important aspect of the road is its function as a place of interaction within towhs and cities. Before people began to share streets so heavily with vehicles, the road was the primary place of meeting and interaction. In many older cities, in Europe for example, the street serves as a continuous urban space for socialization, commerce, and recreation. Places that attract a great many people have been widened to form plazas,
The Human Environment
131
often with specific design attention to improve their comfort and convenience for social interaction. But modern cities reflect little of this historic behavioral pattern. The road has long been one of the most significant orgamzmg devicesof the landscape. J. B. Jackson has described the road as moving through a series of distinct characterizations (Snow 1967:13). Originally, the road was defined personally and behaviorally rather than spatially. It was not a place but the decision an individual routinely made in navigating the landscape. By repeated use the road became physically established along the most favorable path for a particular route. It was little more than the human equivalent of an ant trail or deer trail, but it had progressed from a behavioral to a spatial entity. And it changed the landscape in a visible way: it was a design, unlike the king's highway, which was a legal rather than a spatial entity, since it often had no physical expression. The royal road conveyed rights of passage and protection, but often lacked spatial definition. Early Texas travelers had difficulty finding the El Camino Real, the Spanish name for the king's highway, even though they enjoyed the legal protection of the king in using it. This was a protection unknown to many of the indigenous people living in the vicinity, who often resented trespassers in their territory-a resentment that was at times strongly expressed. Today we know the road as an area, a strip of space reserved for a particular activity. Formerly a strip of land attached to and extending the spatial organization of a town or city, the road was often named for the city it connected, such as the San Antonio Road leading to the city of that name. The new, or modern, road has changed in character again. The new road, which is a relatively modern invention, operates to facilitate movement, but does not attach to a place or connect places directly. The modern highway is designated by a number rather than by attachment to place. It connects continuous space and multiple destinations are accessible by it. Like the original road, this is also a behavioral road since it facilitates a singular type of behavior. The new road does not have a personal spatial characterization. The scale of space connected by the modern road is that of the landscape, or greater. Common examples of the new road are U.S. Highways, often freeways, connecting the space of states and the nation. Significantly, this new road is a direct expression of a change in human behavior. Because we have the freedom of movement afforded by private cars, we move through the landscape more freely and that movement, that behavior, driven by recreation almost as much as necessity, has left its impression on the landscape. Todd Snow, in observing the changing nature of the road, commented: The NewRoad,then, has little more in commonwith the old road than a name. Genetically,functionally,and morphologicallyit is different.Its impact on the landscapealso is different.Directly,the
132
Chapter Five form of the new road is such as to require considerable reworking of the landscape. Where the old road had "followed" or "scarred" the land, the new road changes it. Valleys are raised, mountains are lowered, forests are rooted out, streams bridged, properties divided. Also, the very pervasiveness of the New Road, the fact that it starts from every community in the country, makes it a dominant feature in the landscape. (1967: 14)
Today we understand very well that the freeway is also the precipitating event to the urban (more properly suburban) development of the landscape. The hinterland of all American cities may be mapped as an extension of development following the major circulation routes radiating out from cities. The form of the urban environment, that once could be mapped as a compact circle of development, is now an open web with tentacles extending out from urban centers in lengthening lines of movement connecting residential areas with the city center. The original American suburbs occurred as the result of rail lines that gave urban dwellers the ability to escape the heat and congestion of the city, not just for the weekends or the summer, but on a daily basis. The possibility of rapid rail connection between outlying suburbs and the central city began a pattern of development that has lasted for a century and shows no sign of changing, even though the necessity for daily contact with the central city, around which the suburbs are developed, is no longer a reality. So, the road that began as an expression of human behavioral patterns is reciprocally changing human behavioral patterns. Transportation represents one of modern society's most significant design advances, and at the same time one of its most difficult problems. The highly efficient urban thoroughfare systems, in addition to handling high volumes of urban traffic, also consume vast areas of landscape through the promotion of inefficient development patterns. As these freeway systems devour large amounts of land, they tend to fragment and subdivide the urban and suburban environment in ways that interfere with the development of established social patterns. Highways are employed to connect remote housing areas to central cities, requiring that people expend large amounts of time and money in commuting so they will be able to more economically occupy large amounts of land for housing (Wynberg 1993: 31). The construction of urban freeways with their capital-intensive infrastructure requirements has been given priority over other forms of transportation, particularly in the United States. While highways ror passenger cars and trucks have been expanding dramatically, highly efficient rail travel has decreased, primarily due to the preferences of users. People prefer private modes to shared modes of travel. But there is a price to be paid. Estimates of efficiency vary, but the energy consumption per passenger mile for private automobiles is estimated as
The Human Environment
133
being over four times that of intercity buses (U.S. Department of Energy 2002). In terms of energy per person, travel by both passenger .train and bus may be as much as twenty times more efficient than travel by private car (Holm 1983:101). Growing dependence on private automobiles and wheeled transport creates an increasing demand for the importation of petroleum that is not only expensive but limited in supply. The importation of fuel requires the export of capital and other critical resources that are badly needed for basic support or as exchange on the global market for more vital or sustainable goods. In addition to the extremely high cost of building streets and highways, providing required parking once cars have been driven into urban centers creates the need to commit enormous resources for temporary storage. For example, parking accounts for nearly 40 percent of construction costs in Los Angeles (Shoup 1997:3), while it now covers up to 40 percent of the land area of many towns and cities (Miller 1988:1). Our contemporary cities' land-use pattern and urban form are fundamentally shaped by priorities in transportation (Newman and Kenworthy 1999). The freeway-dominated transportation system promotes low-density land utilization that is antithetical to the compact development patterns generally preferred by planning professionals for several reasons (Kannenberg 1994): 1. High densities in a compact urban form are necessary for efficient public transportation systems such as buses, trams, and subways. 2. Higher economic thresholds are created where population and movement patterns are concentrated to stimulate economic activity. 3. Infrastructure and social services can be delivered more efficiently and economically. 4. The nearer agriculture production areas are to the urban centers they serve, the more economically produce can be transported to the end users. 5. In addition, the nearer production areas are to consumption centers, the more easily waste materials may potentially be organized and returned to the landscape for recycling. If we consider cities as organisms and compare their circulatory systems to those in living organisms that convey water and nutrients to cells and remove wastes, we may expect that vehicular circulation systems will remain one of the most influential systems in urban landscape design. At present, however, the broader and more serious considerations of integrating circulation into the fabric of the living environment have only begun to affect the thinking of transportation
134
Chapter Five
planners and designers. If we are to promote more holistic consideration of circulation as only one of many systems to be integrated into a sustainable urban pattern, rather than a primary (and very well funded) single-purpose system, we must become better informed about how to more fully engage in transportation system design. It is sometimes difficult to understand that the urban circulation systems that so dominate urban environments are actually intended as supporting infrastructure for the land uses and human activities they so commonly influence adversely through neighborhood dispersal, community fragmentation, air pollution, traffic congestion, and noise. Design emphasis for the urban environment has shifted from the purpose of movement to support activities to movement as the purpose, with the predictable consequences of misplaced design priorities. To redress the misplaced priorities will require a more balanced approach than we have recently seen. At present our participation in decision making regarding this primary determinant of urban form is quite limited. If we remain silent we waive our right to influence this critical design consideration.
Site Analysis Factors There are a number of cultural or human-use factors of the site that are typically evaluated to provide essential information about how activities need to be arranged in a future landscape condition. These human-use factors address wide-ranging conditions that have bearing on the site's suitability.
Land Use Typical base data include a boundary survey map of the site indicating all existing improvements and activities, or use, conditions. Also employed are land-use and land-zoning maps for the local vicinity, local zoning ordinances, and deed restrictions indicating existing and permitted uses in the general vicinity of the property. Finally, a general inventory of major institutional, recreational, and commercial activities near the site, all mapped at a suitable scale, reveal a broad picture of the land-use condition. Site analysis may include: • Relationship with other critical community facilities within the, vicinity of the site • Compatibility between adjacent land-use activities and those anticipated for the site • General character and state of maintenance of site and near-site conditions
The·Human Environment
135
• Patterns of social organization and activity on or near the development site • Location of hazardous or undesirable emissions or materials production, storage, or transport near the site
Statutory Requirements Typical base data include identification of municipal, county, or state laws with all local, regional, state, and national regulations, codes, and ordinances governing the development of the property. Site analysis may include: • Building and fire code restrictions on the property • Permissibility of the anticipated use activities for the site • Identification of pertinent review and approval agencies • Building setback requirements from each property line • Building height limitations or air rights restrictions • Permissible building area or land coverage restrictions for the site • Total and off-street parking requirements for the intended development • Site access limitations from public streets or thoroughfares • Stormwater runoff control measures required • Flood-control restrictions or floodway development requirements • Historical, cultural, or environmental restrictions to development • Required provision for special populations
Easements and Rights-of-Way Typical base data include vicinity and site-specific maps of existing and proposed rights-of-way and easements, with descriptions of all restrictions attached or applied to the property. Site analysis may include: • Existing and proposed right-of-way widths along adjacent streets • Existing access or utility easements crossing or adjacent to the property • Potential for extension or expansion of new easements near or through the property • Limitations to development posed by existing easements or rights-of-way • Restrictions attached to the deed of sale • Compatibility between anticipated activities and permitted easement and right-of-way uses
136
Chapter Five
Economic and Social Conditions lYPical data include demographic descriptions of adjacent populations and maps of local property ownership indicating property values and property tax levels where available. Site analysis may include: • Social character and stability of the local neighborhood • Economic character and stability of the local environment • Potential for synergism between the local neighborhood and the intended activities • Potential for political resistance to intended use activities on the site • Compatibility between current ownership patterns and anticipated site uses • Potential for change in existing land use on adjacent properties • Potential for acquiring additional property adjacent to the development site • Site history and identification of significant cultural features, events, or personalities associated with the site or local vicinity
Circulation and Traffic Typical base data include regional and local circulation and traffic system maps with indications of volume flow and peak periods of activity. These would describe existing conditions as well as proposals for future development or redevelopment of the circulation systems. Plans should include widths of rights-of-way for principal collectors and arterials, and the location of public transport stations and transit lines near or adjacent to the site. Site analysis may include: • Adequacy of the circulation system to serve the anticipated site development • Compatibility of the proposed development with area circulation patterns • Potential for future expansion of the circulation system and its effect on the site • The influence of general circulation on access to and movement patterns through the site • Accommodation required of the site design for general circulation in the vicinity • Influence of local traffic patterns on vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site • Restrictions for points of access to connect site circulation with external systems • Emergency and service vehicle access requirements
The Human Environment
137
• Potential conflicts or hazards to be accommodated by the site design • Requirements for developer participation to expand the existing circulation system in order to meet new demand
Utilities Typical base data include vicinity and site-specific utility maps showing locations, sizes, and available capacities of system components. These would normally include water, sanitary sewer, stormwater, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable service with line heights for overhead services, depths for underground lines, and flow-line elevations of gravity-flow systems. Site analysis may include: • Adequacy of existing infrastructure to support anticipated site development • Available capacity and expansion potential of existing infrastructure • Compatibility of proposed development with system components and locations • Required locations for connection to gravity-flow systems • Relationships of connection points to site topography and site use opportunities • Potential for rerouting systems should conflicts arise • Proximity to and requirements for fire hydrants • Potential cost of system expansion to meet anticipated requirements • Potential cost of underground placement for overhead services • Visual impact of above-ground facilities and overhead service lines
Community Services lYpical base data include the identification of social services available to the development site, their quality, proximity, cost to users, and the influence of service locations on site design. Some services may be located on vicinity maps to illustrate physical relationships to future users. Site analysis may include: • Availability and nature of security or police protection • Distance to firefighting equipment or stations • Availability of ambulance and emergency medical assistance • Proximity to public or private schools • Proximity to public library • Proximity to public parks and recreation facilities and programs
138
Chapter Five • Proximity to public or private transportation lines and stations • Availability and requirements for refuse collection vehicles • Availability and requirements for snow removal vehicles
Historic or Cultural Conditions lYPical base data include the identification of historically or culturally relevant settings, mapped to identify their location, extent, and the nature of their significance. Site analysis may include the location of:
6
• Historic landmarks or buildings on or near the site • Settings of historic events such as battles, treaty signings, or settlements • Culturally important settings for contemporary events such as festivals or rituals
Design Fortn
• Culturally significant settings such as holy sites or burial areas • Archeological or paleontological sites
Visual Quality Typical base data include the identification of prominent on- and off-site visual features, maps of masked and visible areas to and from the site, and descriptions of the visual character of the site and general vicinity. Site analysis may include: • Prominent features and landmarks to be incorporated into the site design • • • •
Prominent features or views to be screened by the design Prominent desirable views within, onto, and from the site Prominent undesirable views within, onto, and from the site Visual sequence conditions or potential adjacent to or within the site
• Building massing and land form conditions on the site and adjacent properties • Identification of the visual character to be enhanced or retained by the design
Design is poetry-from the Greek 7tOU;tv, to create-insofar associates forms into new meanings. -Paul Jacques Grillo, Form,
as it
Function & Design
Consideration of form has been the primary focus of design for many centuries. The search for perfect harmony in form reached a zenith when the ancient Greeks invented geometry and applied its proportional relationships to architecture (Murphy and Kovach 1972). The golden section relationship of 1:0.618 (figures 6.1 and 6.3) has long been considered an ideal. Expressed in the equation form: A:B = B:(A+B). This is the formula of the celebrated golden section, a uniquely reciprocal relationship between two unequal parts of a whole, in which the small part stands in the same proportion to the large part as the large part stands to the whole. (Doczi 1981 :2)
It has often been shown that the golden section proportions are common among the patterns of nature-in daisy spirals, for example, or the spiral of a seashell (figure 6.2). Designers have traditionally demonstrated their preferences for this relationship in the formation of buildings, their windows and doors, paper money, credit cards, and so on (Doczi 1981:3). The common 5-inch by 8-inch index card illustrates the golden rectangle proportions. But the application of propor139
140
Chapter Six
141
Design Form
tional harmonies, while easily adapted to paper products and architectural structures, is not so easily applied to the form of the landscape. Even architecture no longer follows these established "rules" of geometric proportional relationships. Design thinking has evolved considerably over the last quarter century. Through the first three-quarters of the twentieth century the design disciplines increasingly followed the admonition that "form
!
1.0 .5
A
.618 1
J
1
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ \
\
Construction
of Golden Rectangle
Logarithmic Spiral and Golden Triangles
Logarithmic Spiral "
"'"
/1/'
",,'
"',
"',
,,"
"'''.,,,
"
",/'
,//,/" , , ,,/'
"'"
,,, ",
"
,'I,'
Additive Squares Spiral Pattern in the Sunflower
Figure 6.1 Golden Section Relationships: Construction of the Golden Section, Logarithmic Spiral, and Additive Squares (after Huntley 1970:61, 67, 10 I)
Figure 6.2 Spirals in Nature (after Huntley 1970:165,171)
142
Chapter Six A + B+A =
Design Form
143
15 = 2.236
A + B = 1.618
A = 0.618 ..
B= 1
I A = 0.618
II I:Q
Pentagon Showing Pythagorean Triangles and Golden Section Proportions
Pentagram Showing Pythagorean Triangles and Golden Section Proportions
Figure 6.3
Classical Construction
of the Golden Section
Figure 6.3 Golden Section Relationships: Pentagon, Pentagram, and Classical Constructions (after Doczi
1981:
I, 3, 6, 9)
(continued)
ever follows function" (Sullivan 1896). Before the 1970s it was generally thought that the functional aspects of the environment could be improved by controlling the aesthetic (principally visual) characteristics of design. By around 1970 many designers began a shift to the notion that the aesthetic aspects of the environment could be improved by the integration of functional and ecological relationships. Ian McHarg's response to Sullivan's admonition that form follows function was: "form follows nothing-it is integral with all processes" (1969:173). McHarg introduced a radically new way of looking at the environment and our design responsibilities to it with the publication of Design with Nature in 1969. Today in the early years of the twenty-first century, landscape architects have begun to adopt a more holistic view, considering that
144
Chapter Six
technical, functional, ecological, economic, and aesthetic issues represent multiple forces that influence design form and, as a consequence, multiple dimensions of design meaning. These issues represent different ways of examining the possibilities for forming the landscape; different value sets, each of which may be integrated by design into a comprehensive systemic whole. Each of these values is driven by our knowledge of it. As our knowledge increases, the meaning of form expands and improves. In particular, we are beginning to depart from the notion that good design decisions can be made primarily on the basis of what the end product looks like. The traditional design approach placed great emphasis on physical form. Almost all of our modeling techniques in design were intended to suggest what a future condition would look like rather than how it might influence human behavior or evoke an emotional response from users (as opposed to approval from designers). Form became a preoccupation that focused the emphasis of design not on shaping the quality of our relationships to one another or the environment, but on shaping the visual quality of the form intended to establish those relationships. When viewed from this perspective, design quality was judged largely by the direct functional and aesthetic characteristics of the built form, not by the performance characteristics of human and ecological relationships. But it is not the purpose of design to create new form. Rather, innovations in form are introduced for the purpose of creating new and improved relationships in the environment. Design form is the physical manifestation of the resolution of desired relationships. The more appropriate the relationships relative to intended purpose and context, the more successful, or better, the design form. The meaning of design form therefore lies in its expression of desired relationships. There are many levels of meaning in design: the organization of activities, ecological relevance, expression of function, integrity in the use and expression of materials, reference to historical context, cultural appropriateness, symbolism, and many more. One of the key aspects of form is its relationship to context.
Natural Form The forms of nature are particularly useful in an examination of design since all natural form is purposeful. Our ears, for example; protrude as shells to scoop up sound, our eyes are binocular and forward oriented to better perceive objects and their precise spatial relationship to us. To the extent that we can understand it, natural forms are very precise responses to the challenge of integrating organisms and their environment. The form of the natural landscape is the physical
Design Form
145
expression of an ecosystem's structure and function at a particular ~. moment. "Form is the visible manifestation of underlying organization" (Lyle 1991 :39). Examining the life forms found in nature helps us to understand the relationships between form and context. There is great diversity of life forms in nature. Each species is unique in its form. It is through this individuality of form that we recognize and classify organisms-we know that it is a horse because it has the characteristics of a horse. This uniqueness is due to the different environments organisms inhabit and the precise relationships they have established with the array of conditions in which they live. Each species is formed through the process of evolution to create the most favorable relationship between the organism and its environment (Weiner 1995). Over time, organisms evolve in response to changing environmental conditions. "Life must change constantly to survive" (Hall 1966:87). The form of the organism that survives is the one that facilitates better access to energy and resources and better adapts to the changing conditions in which it lives. For example, finches on the Galapagos Islands survived climate change and the loss of their small-seed food source by evolving larger and stronger beaks that enabled them to make use of the larger and harder seeds that remained after the drought (Weiner 1995). Such changes improve organisms' fitness for survival within the complex array of conditions in the environment. Organisms seem to be continually "redesigned" by the evolutionary process to improve their fitness for survival in a dynamic environment. But this is not strictly true. Design has prior intent. Evolution does not. That is, evolution proceeds according to opportunities for change rather than along a preordained path to a specific conclusion. There is no final form in nature. Because geological and ecological processes are continuous, the form of the landscape continues to unfold. These changes precipitate change in life forms. As long as life is transferred from one generation to the next through sexual propagation, and the genetic opportunity for evolutionary process continues, the potential for change in the form of organisms exists. Sexual reproduction is nature's way of providing the opportunity for innovations in form. Undue emphasis on form as the product of design misses the point. Form is not the purpose but the medium of design. Form in the environment is important for recognizing and classifying species (and for human experience and appreciation), but its more critical role is establishing relationships between organisms and their environment (regarding the designed environment, this includes people and place). Evolution equips some organisms to move through the air, others to move through the water, while still others move over the surface of the land, or just below it. Each organism is uniquely formed to facilitate a nearly perfect point-in-time relationship with that part of the
146
Chapter Six
environment (the ecological niche) it inhabits and on which it depends for survival. Similarly, creating physical form through design is the most tangible manifestation of change in the environment, but the meaning or purpose of form is in the resultant relationships it creates. And, it must be remembered, the creation of form is only one of the designer's primary responsibilities. Determining the factors that most appropriately influence form is another. Form and context are inseparably linked. Because the environment is always changing, the potential for continued modification of life forms in nature-and· in designed environments-is always present. The new or changed form reveals that change has taken place, and because the organism survives, verifies that it is a successful change. That is, the altered relationship is an improvement, at least for the moment, as long as the conditions to which it responds prevail. As the environment changes, and its relationships to the organisms that inhabit it shift (sometimes favorably, sometimes unfavorably), it stimulates responses within these organisms. For example, when conditions become unfavorable, organisms either change their form (physically or behaviorally) to establish more beneficial relationships, they leave the environment in search of more favorable conditions elsewhere, or they die out and become extinct. These same processes apply to shaping the landscape. Changes in climatic, geomorphic, or biotic conditions are expressed in the form of the natural landscape. Climate change toward drought creates deserts. Flooding erodes valleys, and the deposition of the eroded material creates floodplains or deltas. Plant succession transforms disturbed grasslands and savannahs into forests. Forests accumulate organic litter that contributes to the creation of enriched soils capable of supporting an expanded species structure. As the natural landscape responds to the dynamic influences of physical and biological processes, it not only better adapts but also better reflects and accommodates these influences-the form of the landscape is integral with and reflective of the processes that create it. If intentional design changes are to be as successful as the natural changes we observe in the environment, we need ways to reliably measure their success. Success should be measured by the extent to which newly designed landscapes acquire the ability not just to meet new needs, but to sustain themselves and become better integrated with their environmental context over time. This means that the landscape form we create must be able to meet current needs and to,facilitate future change (or at least accommodate change with minimum disruption), as conditions demand in the future. For this reason the architectural model of form as a static condition or artifact (such as the forms we see in a Mayan pyramid or Greek temple) has only limited application in landscape design. This causes some confusion since
147
Design Form
the architectural process, applying systematic design change to the landscape, seems particularly appropriate as a means of instituting the change we desire. While there are some forms in the landscape that we do not want to lose, to view all designed changes as permanent conditions not only presents an obstacle to their continued elaboration, it alters our conception of what the landscape is-that is, an artifact rather than a process. There is a great deal of attention devoted to preserving the form of culturally significant architecture and landscapes; in fact there are research centers dedicated to this activity in many architecture schools. At the Texas A&M University College of Architecture it is called the Historic Resources Imaging Laboratory. When a building or place considered architecturally or culturally important cannot be preserved, it is carefully measured and documented to provide a record of exactly what its original form was. Very often the form of buildings reveals the materials and methods that were used to construct them, so the form has meaning on multiple levels. But it is usually the recognizable image, and the emotional and cultural responses it provokes, to which we attach the greatest significance, not the deeper understanding about who the builders were, where they lived, or what technology they possessed. Applying this visual-emotional approach as our primary means of understanding form is incompatible with our requirements to shape and improve the landscape, at least to the extent that we want to create a landscape that will continue to evolve and serve our changing needs. The landscape is a dynamic, not static, form. Landscape form should not only be functional, physically attractive, and amenable to change, but should also promote change. In other words, the landscape should facilitate the continued elaboration of new and more appropriate conditions and relationships. One of the most important considerations in design is to create connections that improve our ability to perceive complex relationships and facilitate deeper understanding of the meaning of form. Each beautiful thing we find in nature-whether an organism, a snowflake, or a landscape-is only a physical manifestation of itself, an expression of what it is (McHarg 1969:163). The more we understand them the more we are able to appreciate their beauty. If designed forms were shaped to improve our understanding of the complex relationships we address, they would do much to advance not only beauty in the landscape but also more appreciative and informed use of it.
Designed Form Form is the designer's way of bringing everything together; to integrate what we know and what we want to change about the envi-
148
Chapter Six"
ronment. The search to create meaningful form begins with the identification of critical design issues. The critical issues, or design factors, that influence form may be thought of as design forces. The form of design directly expresses the forces acting to produce it. The forces that bear on design may reflect the values and priorities of the designer, the client, the user, the community, or the environment itself. Preferably, all these interests are systemically integrated to produce a balanced set of influences acting in concert to determine the form of design. When these forces are balanced the form may be thought of as holistic (figure 6.4). When influences are expressed with greater or lesser emphasis, their relative force in shaping design decisions may be read from the resultant form. A common criticism of designs considered to be of
149
Design Form
inferior quality is that too much value has been placed on limiting the ~.initial cost of their construction, or perhaps too little value has been placed on the quality of the user's aesthetic experience. In contrast to a balanced influence of forces, altered priorities shape design form to reflect an exaggeration or diminution of the value we place on particular issues (figure 6.5). Physical form provides designers with a "shorthand" method of determining the success of designs. But evaluating physical form
>.c E .2 0"" c u o 2 u..., w '"
co
U 'to-
o
Functional Utility
Functional Utility
Figure 6.4 Balanced or equal forces shaping design form
Figure 6.5 Unbalanced or unequal forces shaping design form
150
Chapter Six
directly on the basis of aesthetic response is not the only means, and often not the best means, of determining design quality. Evaluation of the relationships that the form creates between people and the environment-through comprehensive systematic evaluation-is the most reliable test of design form. It is well understood that the landscape is an artifact that expresses us as a culture (Meinig 1979; Jackson 1984). But, it is much more than just an artifact. The landscape is also an environment that sustains us, makes our activities convenient or difficult, affects our comfort, influences our sense of well-being, and provides personal or group identity and satisfaction. These effects are critical to the success of design. The search for appropriate design form must address at least three basic issues. Interestingly, these are the same issues to be addressed when our goal is to understand the landscape. In very broad terms, these are the fundamental characteristics of design form: 1. Structure: What are the physical relationships to be established in the landscape and how do they relate to the context of the environment? 2. Function: How are the activities we design for, and their relationship with the context of the environment, intended to satisfy our needs and desires? 3. Change: How might the changed form be integrated into the existing landscape and accommodate further modification in the future? For the designed and built environment to meet our continually changing needs, it becomes necessary to transcend the traditional approach to designing the landscape as a static condition. This is not to imply that culturally or ecologically significant landscapes should not be preserved. Places such as the Washington Mall and Yosemite Valley are important expressions of who we are as a society and how our national values have been shaped by the landscape. But in general, the landscape is a living and changing environment, a dynamic place accommodating a dynamic society. The ongoing modification of the landscape is an essential response to continually evolving conditions and human needs. The imposition of "architecturally" or "artistically" refined form (i.e., fixed, unchanging form) on the landscape is inconsistent with our understanding of the landscape as an evolving expression. of interacting cultural and biophysical processes. It is also inconsistent with how we use the landscape to derive optimum advantage over time through continuing modification and improvement. While it is important that some features of the landscape are retained in their essential form, this should not be the case for the overall form of the landscape.
Design Form
151
It would be a great cultural tragedy if we were to lose places such as ~.Versailles, where architects first began to extend the broad sweep of design change on whole landscapes. But not all places need to be preserved as landmarks in the progress of design thinking. We need to begin to design the overall matrix of the built landscape in ways that accommodate and facilitate rather than obstruct continuing change. We have not yet matured as a design discipline to the extent that we are capable of guiding this type of dynamic development of the human landscape. We do not yet have answers to these questions because they have not yet been seriously posed. To some extent the designer serves to shape the landscape in the same way that the process of evolution shapes living organisms or ecological succession shapes the biophysical landscape. Designers are at least significant participants, if not leaders, in the process. But unlike evolution, which has no guiding or underlying purpose, or predictable result, design is a process of directed change; change intended to result in a preferred outcome, activity, or pattern of development. Because design has purpose, our role is to give direction to a process of change from which physical form is to result. As a consequence, we need to give at least as much attention to the process we employ as to the forms we create. The process shapes the outcome. And, in response, the form of the setting shapes human process. Winston Churchill once said, "We shape our buildings, thereafter they shape us." It is as important to be able to understand the results of form as to create it. The most important measure of form is its ability to promote the kind of human-environment relationships we seek. Both form and process are equally important because each one determines the character and the quality of the other. An important aspect of the process we employ to change the landscape is its potential to bring about improved understanding of the factors that determine appropriate design relationships. Because design is a contemplative as well as a learning process, engaging in form investigations can lead to greater understanding of the landscape and its potential for change and improvement. If we are to successfully alter the outward expression of various interacting landscape systems, we must understand their substance. This understanding requires both a knowledge base and a delivery process that is equal to the complexity and the importance of the task. Improved design quality is the goal of a knowledge-based design process. To achieve excellencerequires a departure from the traditional theoretical focus on the aesthetics of form. Designers need to shift their primary attention from design products to design processes, to move from a view of reality that focuses on the form of the objects making up a system to an understanding of the relationships among these objects. In reality we must consider both, but to get to that posi-
152
Chapter Six
tion requires a substantial transformation of our design paradigm. This shift in attention may lead to a particularly useful discovery: that form and substance-product and process-are not different aspects of reality but the same thing, only seen from different points of view. The landscape form or "product" is simply a point -in-time expression of an ongoing process of environmental change. The landscape is process. Therefore, both form and process must be considered before either is likely to be understood or improved by design. The design form ideas we create may be compared to the variable organic forms found in nature that develop in response to the diverse forces of the environment. In design, just as in nature, many potential new forms are proposed. In nature all organisms occasionally produce atypical offspring, or mutant progeny, most of which do not survive. But every so often a new form appears to fit the environment a little more perfectly and becomes the progenitor of its line due to its success in the environment-usually because the environment itself has changed (Bohm 1982; Birch 1990). Similarly, most novel or experimental design forms do not survive the harsh realities of the environment. Just as the unsuccessful experimental progeny fails in the environment, the unsuccessful design innovation cannot withstand the harsh realities of knowledge-based evaluation. Only the ideas with high survival value flourish. As in nature, anyone of a number of factors may be limiting to the survival of the novel form. In nature, feedback from the environment acts directly; in design, the influence of limiting factors is expressed indirectly, through our knowledge of their potential implications. Survival value in design depends on acceptance of an idea from the perspective of the expertise we bring to bear through the design process, and ultimately from individual users and society at large. The requirement for broad evidence-based support for design proposals, rather than reliance on individual preference, diminishes the possibility of strong or persuasive personalities exerting undue influence on the acceptance of idiosyncratic and perhaps inappropriate, although aesthetically satisfying, design forms. The form of the built environment, even successful form, is only temporary. The more comprehensive and appropriate the changes imposed, the more satisfying and enduring the design of the landscape. Conversely, the more limited the range of issues addressed and the more narrowly we target our design efforts on segments of the evaluation spectrum (whether economic, aesthetic, or other), the less designs will satisfy and endure. Survival, or design success, depends heavily on landscape form that is both comprehensive and appropriate-issues that an evidence-based design approach is best suited to address.
153
Design Form
Aesthetics One of the most compelling aspects of form is its aesthetic appeal: the extent to which we are sensually attracted to the beauty and emotional impact of form. A central concern in design is to make a thing beautiful so that it will be enjoyed and appreciated for the sensory experience of it. The search for and appreciation of beauty is so ingrained in our thinking that it occupies a central position in our judgments and decision-making about design (Huntley 1970:16). Aesthetic response to the landscape is broadly described as preference and pleasurable feelings that result from an encounter with the environment (Ulrich 1986:30). The aesthetic appeal of the landscape has been described as profound, even spiritual, for thousands of years. The Chinese philosopher Tsung Ping (375-443 AD) commented on the importance of beauty and its relation to the Tao or "way" of appreciating the landscape: The virtuous man follows the Way by spiritual insight: the wise man takes the same approach. But the lovers of the landscape are led into the Way by a sense of form. The virtuous man also takes pleasure in this. Then, are not the pleasures of the virtuous and the wise similar to those of the lovers of the landscape?
Human society's enduring and universal quest for beauty as a matter of profound importance has led to the development and pursuit of the field of aesthetics. Aesthetics is the branch of philosophy that deals with beauty or the beautiful; what might be called the science of beauty or art. Webster's dictionary provides a common definition of aesthetics as the science of sensuous knowledge, whose goal is beauty and whose subject matter is the description and explanation of art, artistic phenomena, and aesthetic experience. Aesthetics includes the psychology, sociology, ethnology, and history of the arts and their essentially related aspects. This traditional definition presumes that there is congruence between art and beauty, a presumption that may not be borne out by a good deal of contemporary artistic expression, some of which rejects traditional concepts of beauty as the basis for meaningful aesthetic experience. Aesthetic experience may be generally described as an emotional response based on an awareness, selection, and understanding of the order by which natural forces, or human creativity, have produced the places or objects (or people) we admire for their beauty (Berleant 1992:164). Beauty is a quality that, when perceived, brings about pleasure to the senses and charms the intellect (Huntley 1970:12). The perception of beauty is generally, but not necessarily, limited to visual and aural perception, the images we see or the sounds we hear.
154
Chapter Six
Access to beauty may be intellectually or culturally preconditioned. What is deemed to be beautiful may be restricted to those conditioned by prior knowledge to appreciate a certain form of experience as beautiful. Beauty has both sensual and intellectual aspects, even though it must be sensorially perceived to be experienced. The significance of the experience we describe as aesthetically satisfying also suggests that compellingly beautiful things are rare rather than ordinary occurrences. It is important that we are able to discriminate between the quality of beauty and the beautiful object. Everyone seems to be aware of the proverb, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." This means that what is beautiful is dependent on who is doing the looking or listening. Another interpretation might be that we know it when we see it. But what is it that we know? What conditions or characteristics do we identify when we experience a beautiful thing? For the designer, the question is not so much What is beautiful? but rather What is beauty? If aesthetics is a science, there must be a body of knowledge about what constitutes beauty. Claude Monet, who spent much of his life in communicating the beauty of the French landscape, commented on beauty as being contextual: For me, a landscape does not exist in its own right, since its appearance changes at every moment; but the surrounding atmosphere brings it to life-the light and the air which vary continually. For me, it is only the surrounding atmosphere which gives subjects their true value.
The experience of beauty is determined by the qualities a beautiful thing possesses as well as their relationships to one another and their context. These qualities may be described as the criteria by which we measure beauty. Aesthetic criteria are applied to evaluate the overall sensual quality of phenomena or experience. In evaluating beauty or aesthetic quality, there are a few broad categories of consideration, the things we expect to find in an aesthetically satisfying experience. These include: • Novelty: A novel experience is unusual or exceptional and achieves a level of perceptual significance that exceeds the expectations of ordinary experience. The perception of beauty gives an unexpected and compelling sense of delight to the beholder (Maddi and Fiske 1961). • Variety: The more complex a phenomenon or experience, the richer and more engaging it tends to be. The less varied and more simple a phenomenon or experience, the less its' potential to sensually engage or psychologically arouse. However, complexity should not be perceived as sensually chaotic; variety and diversity must be well integrated into a congruent totality (Bronowski 1965:27).
155 • Unity: This describes the extent to which the richness and variety of complex phenomena or relationships are integrated into a coherent and satisfying pattern of unified relationships (Bronowski 1965:27). Variety and unity occupy opposite positions along a continuum of consideration. A very simple condition may be highly unified but lack diversity. Highly diverse conditions may lack overall, unified coherence. Neither variety nor unity provides high aesthetic quality in the absence of the other. • Harmony: A harmonious condition prevails when the complex parts of the whole are perceived as being unified in an apparently logical, mutually reinforcing, and comprehensible way. Harmony exists when there is a unity of the parts to the whole that is perceived as highly appropriate and satisfying as a total experience, including harmony with setting. • Clarity: Clarity describes the extent to which the experience is easily grasped by the observer (Ulrich 1986:35). Unless the person engaged is able to understand the form, structure, and complexity of the experience, it is unlikely that the encounter will stimulate a pleasurable aesthetic response. • Intensity: This describes the extent to which one is attracted to perceptually engage in an experience and be sensually aroused by it. Unless the phenomenon or experience is sensually compelling, the aesthetic value is low. The more deeply felt the experience, the greater its aesthetic quality. Compelling attraction may require an intellectual or cultural awareness of the relationships it expresses. • Security: When people perceive that the encounter does not present a threat, they feel secure (Ulrich 1986:32). An aesthetic response may be predicated on a perception of security that allows the person to engage in the experience without being preoccupied by a concern for personal safety. Beauty is commonly described as unity in variety (Bronowski 1965). Michael Laurie explains beauty as the simultaneous experience of novelty and regularity; relying on two complementary neurophyskal principles (1979:165). One is the response to novelty, change, and stimulation; the other a response to repetition or pattern. Broadly defined, beauty is a condition that motivates compelling sensual attraction in response to a perceived harmony of relationships between the parts and the whole. A thing or experience considered beautiful will express this characteristic with increasing intensity as it increases in novelty, complexity, and unity. If beauty as a concept is defined as encompassing all aspects of reality, it becomes an effective instrument for measuring design quality. However, if beauty is simplistically defined as a concept addressing only the superficial aspects
156
Chapter Six
of perception, a commonly applied definition (consider the "beauty" of the well-groomed young men and women we see adorning popular magazines), it has very little value in informing us about the intrinsic qualities of the things (or people) depicted. We are able to see what they look like, or appear to look like, but not necessarily what they are like. This might be particularly true of people depicted on the covers of magazines who lead self-indulgent or socially irrelevant lives. To have anything more than superficial meaning, aesthetic judgments need to relate to the totality of relationships about the condition or experience to which they apply. In its most inclusive form, beauty may be described as perception of the goodness or rightness of something. In application to design, Victor Papanek said that "the 'rightness' of any design solution will depend on the meaning with which we invest the arrangement" (1984:6). In the holistic sense of the term, beauty, or the rightness of form, relates to utility as well as perceptual or sensual delight. In the Platonic sense of the term, beauty is the single, ideal form of a thing, a form to which we aspire, but rarely achieve. But this is not the way we typically use the term today. To us, beauty is perceptual rather than moral. Aestheticjudgments, while generally considered responsive to universal standards or categories, are also thought to vary specifically along cultural or group lines. Those conditioned only by Western forms of musical harmony and tonal range may be unable to derive comparable aesthetic satisfaction from hearing the music of Asia or Africa. As we learn to view reality through a particular cultural or group paradigm, we place ourselves in discrete categories of people who exercise similar aesthetic judgments about the quality of beauty or aesthetic experience. If we are educated about the values of other cultural groups we may be able to appreciate their concepts of beauty. If we are unaware of their culturally conditioned perceptions or values, we may be unable to understand or share their concepts of beauty or the beautiful. Aestheticism is the doctrine that the principles of beauty are fundamental and that all other principles (goodness, justice, truth) derive from them. The application of this doctrine to design is problematic since, in regard to landscape in particular, it seems to give priority to a single value system rather than integrating many value systems holistically. Under this doctrine all values other than perceptual beauty are derivative or of secondary priority. The problem with this is easily understood if we consider that radioactivity in the soil may not be perceptible on a sensory level, but we would soon feel the effects of its presence nonetheless. Some aspects of complex systemic relationships do not lend themselves to sensory perception and evaluation. In design, as opposed to art, our work is almost always for the benefit of others. Thus, it is important that in regard to beauty, pref-
157 erence should be given to the aesthetic values and judgments of the '-clients or users of the designed environment, rather than to the values of the designer. Designers are educated to become members of an aesthetic elite who may have concepts of beauty that are not widely shared. Attempts to impose our more "refined" aesthetic values on others is not only likely to be resisted, and perhaps resented, but in many cases will be neither perceived nor appreciated by those outside what we consider our particular elite group. Research to evaluate aesthetic response to architecture suggests a few key ways that people respond to their environment (Gifford et al. 2000:163). People generally seem to express greater preference for buildings that are moderate in their complexity (Wohlwill 1974) and those that are more orderly or coherent (Herzog 1992). Aesthetic appraisals of architecture also depend on the degree to which buildings appear compatible with their immediate context (Groat 1994; Gifford et al. 2000:164). There are indications that laypeople prefer buildings that are examples of prototypes (Whitfield 1983), while architects display a preference for buildings that represent departures from prototypes (Purcell and Nasar 1992), indicating that the two groups hold distinctly different aesthetic values. In art, the expression of the individual creator of an artifact or composition is paramount. In design, we are asked to design other people's settings, to be constructed with other people's money, to be used by other people and maintained by other people's effort. If the goal of design is to improve the quality of life for the users of our designs, it would be highly presumptuous for us to ignore the values of those who may spend their lives with these places and impose upon them our own narrow concepts of beauty. It is fundamentally important to understand that one concept of beauty is not necessarily better than another; it is only different. If the beautiful experience is intended to enhance people's lives, then it is only the experience to which they have access by way of insight or education that can provide the aesthetic satisfaction we intend. There is another consideration in applying aesthetic criteria as the primary means of evaluating the form of the landscape. Making an artifact beautiful may be more easily achieved than making an environment beautiful. But neither is particularly easy, as the general quality of our physical environment attests. Even in those cases where exceptional effort has been expended to make the landscape beautiful, there are difficulties. It is questionable, for example, whether a golf course located in the desert of the Southwest Unites States, that has the form of a meadow from New England, is really beautiful. This is particularly problematic when we consider that a great deal of water, a valuable and limited landscape resource, must be sacrificed to create and sustain the desired image, even though that image would be
158
Chapter Six
widely considered "beautiful" if it were in New England. Context is always relevant with regard to visual perception. Often, these "oasis" golf course designs stand out in sharp contrast with the existing landscape. Images that do not contribute to overall harmony tend to diminish one another-the golf course is seen as incongruent with the desert and vice versa. Although they may be seen as beautiful to the golfer or the developer, they may seem otherwise to those with a more holistic view. Sometimes the values of the user create a conflict that presents a dilemma of values for the designer. Another difficulty with making environments beautiful is our lack of overall control of the full range of relationships we hope to establish. The landscape we perceive is usually more extensive than the portion of it that we design. The landscape we see is usually owned by many different people who tend to have highly differentiated values and notions about what the landscape should be, how it should be used, and how it should be maintained. Only rarely do all these people share common ideals about appropriateness of use and beauty. Most commonly, such ideals of beauty are never even considered. There is also the consideration that the landscape is formed by processes, such as geology or climate or economics, over which we exercise very little control. Designers rarely have significant influence over most aspects of the landscapes we perceive. This does not make the concern for beauty any less important but it certainly makes the creation of beautiful environments an ongoing challenge for the designer. However we try to achieve it, we know intuitively that the aesthetic characteristics of the landscape are an important aspect of people's experience and satisfaction with the environment. We believe that the aesthetically satisfying experience has a profound influence on people and their sense of well-being. Beauty might seem trivial in comparison to other values, such as power and money, but the universal quest for beauty assures us that it is important and worthwhile, even though it may be difficult to provide evidence of what it is and why we seek it. But, we are well aware that those with the greatest access to power and money often expend much of it in the acquisition of beauty. The houses, furniture, gardens, clothes, jewelry, cars, and art collections with which they surround their lives are often among the most beautiful to be found. Nevertheless a few critical questions remain. Are beautiful landscapes good landscapes? Or, is it the other way around, that good landscapes are beautiful? Is our goal to make beautiful landscapes or good ones, or both? How do we determine what makes a good landscape from the aesthetic point of view of those for whom we design?
7 Design Purpose Designs are good only inasmuch as they do good. -Norman
T. Newton, Approach to Design
Once we have informed ourselves sufficiently about people and the environment, and applied this knowledge through design, we need to be able to determine when the design has achieved a sufficient level of excellence that we may conclude the thinking aspects of the process and proceed to action. We need some acceptable standards by which designs are to be evaluated. Our definition of what constitutes "good design" changes as society and the environment evolve toward increasing complexity and integration. Consequently, our concepts of aesthetics, form, function, and environmental fit also evolve toward greater complexity and process definition. Because our methods for producing and evaluating changes in the environment are increasingly responsive to the growing knowledge of the expanding relationships we seek to improve, it is important that our standards for design success expand as well. By understanding design as an integrative and interactive process of systems learning and change rather than an exercise in the individual creation of unique, proprietary artifacts, we transform the traditional definition of design as a professional activity. We can no longer rely solely on how we feel about designs-how we respond to the way they look-as reliable indicators of design quality. 159
160
Chapter Seven
If we refocus the purpose, processes, and requirements of design toward achieving demonstrable outcomes in multiple areas, landscape architecture becomes an invaluable service to society. Rather than creating designs to improve only the perceptual and functional characteristics of the landscape, we may begin to integrate the complete spectrum of process considerations for near-term and long-term benefits. If we are successful with this transition, we may begin to operate under concepts that approximate the highly successful processes of change we find in nature rather than our relatively limited individualized and discipline-bound concepts-that is, form based on contemporary style. By requiring broad performance-based demonstration that the conditions we create are, in fact, improvements over existing conditions, both in terms of human needs and in maintaining the health and vitality of environments, we will not only be able to design "with nature" as McHarg suggested, but we also will begin to design "like nature." From an evidence-based, systems approach to design, comprehensive knowledge of existing conditions is employed to shape ideas in the same way that the conditions this knowledge represents shape organisms and natural landscapes. When we are successful we may achieve Norman Newton's definition of designs "being" good when they "do" good. This brings us to the question: How should designs be evaluated to determine if the new form will "do good"?
Design Intent Design purpose-that is, the reasons we change the landscapecan be organized into a number of broad categories. These general categories of design intent, based in part on Kevin Lynch's (1966) performance characteristics for urban form, provide a comprehensive outline for evaluating the quality of design performance. These evaluative questions cover an extensive range of design requirements from a number of different perspectives and direct our attention to appropriate design answers. Each design project is unique and will have a different range of appropriate intentions based on user or client requirements, the context of the environment, and the information available about them. A list of typical design intentions, or goals, provides some insight into the complexity of changing the landscape and the critical issues to be considered. If design form is found to achieve these goals-to create these beneficial relationships-we may consider that it is a "good" or "successful" design. The design goals may be posed as questions to determine whether the design arrange!llent satisfies all the appropriate requirements.
Design Purpose
161
Design Goals Adequacy of accommodation. Are the activities to be provided adequate to meet the known or anticipated needs of the users? Do the activities address the full range of requirements identified? Can the activities be supported by the available infrastructure? Can the site as a physical setting or ecological system adequately support the intended uses? Appropriateness. Is provision being made for all appropriate needs of the user groups? Are the activities and features of the design, and the manner in which they are arranged, clearly appropriate to the context of the natural environment? Are the activities appropriate to the prevailing conditions of society and the times? Does the design reflect the values of the owner, the users, and the local community? Is the design visually appropriate to the context of the physical setting? Functional utility. Are the activities, their supporting infrastructure, and circulation support systems organized for optimum functional utility? Does the site provide a supportive and appropriate setting for the functional relationships required by the activities? Are the activities and design features arranged to enhance their functional relationships, both individually and to meet the requirements of the others? Comprehensiveness. Does the design address the complete range of issues to be resolved within the limits of the decision-making process? Does the design comprehensively address or reflect an awareness of the broad range of users and their requirements, the site and its opportunities and limitations, the activities to be provided, and the culturally specific character of the place? Accessibility. Is there adequate access to activities for all potential users and user groups? Does the general circulation pattern avoid conflicts among the activities and with other elements of the circulation system? Is the circulation system well integrated into the environmental setting? Is there appropriate visual access for users and other members of the community? Compatibility. Are the activities to be provided, their supporting infrastructure, and access systems arranged for optimum compatibility with one another? Are they well integrated into the ecological and cultural conditions of the site on which they are located? Do the activities reinforce or support those features and processes existing on or near the site? Health and welfare. Will the individual's experience of the place promote a sense of psychological well-being, physical health, and improved quality of life? Does the design limit stressful conditions for
162
163
Chapter Seven
users, to an extent that is likely to promote their well-being? Is there provision for the health of the social and ecological systems? Does the design address the users' needs for both privacy as well as belonging and interrelatedness with others? Safety. Does the design create an environment that ensures an adequate level of protection to those who use or come into contact with the activities or features provided? Does it convey a sense of predictable safety to the users and the local community? Are activities l~cated to avoid or reduce the potential for risk from known development-induced or natural hazards such as flood, fire, or earthquake? Security. Does the design provide a defensible setting? Are community and private spaces defensible against unwanted intrusion by those who pose a threat to individual safety or social integrity? Does it convey a sense of psychological security to the users and the local community? Are critical resources and infrastructure arranged for protection against hostile, criminal, or terrorist acts? Comfort. Does the design preserve desirable environmental conditions and ameliorate adversities to provide adequate comfort for the users? Does the level of comfort provided facilitate all the desired uses or activities? Does the design address comfort during all seasons, periods of use, and critical times of day? Convenience. Does the design make life easier for those who use it to engage in their daily or routine activities without undue conflict or effort? Are there provisions for convenience on many levels of activity; moving to or away from the place, engaging in the activities for which the place is intended, moving from place to place within the design setting, or for engaging in casual social interaction along the way? Choice. Does the design offer users the opportunity to exercise individual discretion regarding preference in the level of engagement, the extent of contact with others, or activities desired?Are choices available continuously or do they vary depending on the timing of decisions? Legibility. Does the design clearly express itself and its relationships to adjacent settings? Does it clearly reveal the provisions being made to facilitate desired activities, or those made to discourage undesired activities? Are critical destinations or features clearly communicated to those seeking that information? Does it clearly express the purpose of form and honestly express the use of materials from which it is constructed? Wayfinding. Does the design facilitate comprehension of the setting and orientation to place to promote wayfinding? Are there sufficient points of reference or landmarks to enable users to find their
Design Purpose way through the environment and make appropriate choices of move~ ment toward desired destinations? Diversity. Does the design provide a socially or culturally complex setting in which diverse categories of people can interact and find common purpose? Does the design facilitate harmonious relationships between socially and culturally diverse groups? Does it promote environmental complexity and species diversity to maintain ecosystem health and viability? Community. Does the design represent a socially responsible alteration of the landscape and contribute to an enhanced state of social interaction, individual participation, and community interaction among those for whom it is intended? Does the design facilitate desirable social engagement among users to strengthen their shared sense of community and provide opportunities for informal social interaction? Privacy. Does the setting provide the opportunity for withdrawal and privacy for personal reflection and intimacy? Are such opportunities provided in a way that enables those making the choice to withdraw to do so at their discretion without inviting sanction from others? Beauty. Does the design enhance users' appreciation of the physical setting and the elements within it? Does the design meet users' needs for interrelatedness with place and heighten their aesthetic experience of it? Does it have a compelling physical attractiveness based upon a harmonious arrangement of its elements? Can the beauty of the place be comprehended through a variety of senses and is it related to the values and cultural perspectives of the users? Does the place express the changing dynamics of diurnal and seasonal cycles? pleasure. Does the design provide the opportunity for experiences that are highly desirable and actively pursued for the pleasurable benefits they offer to users? Are there opportunities for intellectual and spiritual as well as sensory pleasure on multiple levels? Are pleasurable attributes available to the full range of likely users or community members? Sense of place. Does the design promote a culturally specific sense of place and community? Does it incorporate and express regionally specific characteristics and features of the natural environment? Is it particularly appropriate to the specific character of the local community as it has developed over time? Productivity. Does the design facilitate productive activity on multiple levels? Does the setting promote productive relationships to address the users' working, social, or leisure requirements? Does it
164
Chapter Seven
promote the production and maintenance of complex biomass? Does it stimulate improved productivity throughout the local environment, beyond the limits of the property being directly considered?
Design Purpose
165
visual resources within the perceptual reach of users employed to ~ good advantage?
Profitability. Does the design promote the possibility of profitable or rewarding result for the user, developer, or investor? Does it benefit the local community? Is the likelihood of advantage to members of the local community sufficient that they are likely to support the project's implementation and benefit from its presence?
Recyclability. Can the materials used to construct the design be disassembled and reconstituted into new forms with minimal inputs of energy? Is the design constructed of materials that have been previously used in another context? Does the design encourage recycling and reuse of critical natural resources such as stormwater with minimum interference, loss, or contamination?
Economy. Does the design promote economic viability? Does it promote economies regarding the level of investment required for development and maintenance? Are design forms, materials, and processes realistically related to the resource base of the local environment? Can the design be realistically achieved within the limits of available resources?
Synergy. Does the design promote a creative interaction among the site's processes and activities that results in a whole greater than the sum of its parts? Does the design promote the simultaneous integration of the users of the site in creative and productive ways? Does it bring the social, economic, and ecological aspects of the environment together to encourage long-term viability?
Efficiency. Does the design provide maximum benefit in development and operation for minimum expenditure of resources to attain a given level of achievement or standard of performance? Do the materials selected have limited embodied energy requirements? Does the design limit the expenditure of energy and resources required for implementation and to sustain its operation?
Sustainability. Does the design promote self-reliance and reduce dependence on limited resources such as capital, fossil fuel, or groundwater? Does the design reflect local values to the extent that society is likely to support its long-term existence? Can the site, within the limits of available resources or environmental conditions, sustain the design as an integral element of the ecological system? Can required activity sustain itself as a cultural setting with infrastructure and circulation systems providing physical support and access? Does the design support or reinforce the activities of the surrounding community and the ecosystem? Can the design support future as well as present users? Is it regenerative?
Adaptability. Is there a realistic opportunity for the design to respond to growth or to adapt over time to accommodate changed circumstances? Can it support use under a variety of conditions, seasons, or times? Can the design idea be sustained over the anticipated period of its life span and under the altered circumstances that are likely during that time? Is the design a highly specific "tight fit" arrangement with only a limited range of functions, or a more general "loose fit" design that can be easily adapted to multiple generalized functions? Resource conservancy. Does the design protect and conserve the site's cultural, physical, ecological, and visual resources? Are the site resources employed in a way that sustains and enhances their value for future as well as present generations? Does the design incorporate resource elements of the past into the fabric of the present and extend them into the future in ways that retain their value, utility, and viability? Does it confirm our cultural and ecological heritage? Are there provisions for limiting the expenditure of energy resources necessary for successful construction, operation, and maintenance? Resource utility. Does the design make effective use of the resources available? Are the site's cultural, physical, ecological, and visual resources used in concert with financial resources to take optimum advantage of the site and its context? Are resources used in ways that reasonably assure their long-term sustained yield? Are
While it would be unrealistic to expect any design to satisfy all the design goals listed above, it is equally unrealistic to ignore a number of these important issues and still expect to bring about beneficial landscape change.
Pursuit of Excellence Comprehensive improvement in the landscape requires the integrated resolution of a full range of salient issues: people's needs to be met, issues of the environment addressed, problems to be resolved, and opportunities to be taken advantage of. It is reasonable to expect that design change in the landscape will solve more problems than it creates. And, in addition to simply solving problems, designs may reasonably be expected to create new opportunities and improved conditions, as well as to protect the prevailing qualities and intrinsic values of the existing landscape. But meeting the minimum expectations for design is not enough. Excellence is the only goal worthy of pursuit. Providing designs of excellent quality must ultimately mean that the
166
Chapter Seven
changes we impose on the landscape result in an improved quality of life for present and future generations, regardless of whether this was the client's primary motive in initiating the project. Perhaps we should have a commitment of principle for landscape architects similar to the oath taken by the young men of Athens during the Golden Age between 500 and 400 Be. It said in part, ''In every way we will strive to pass the city on to our children greater and better than it was when our parents passed it on to us."
Quality of Life To be taken seriously, design proposals must demonstrate that they promote functionally, socially, and ecologically relevant landscape change to meet the immediate and long-term requirements of clients, users, and members of the general public. Competence in delivering this kind of service is considered the central thrust of relevant professional practice and university preparation and research. Although the design goals outlined earlier are intended to be comprehensive, dealing with the full spectrum of requirements in landscape design, there are two categories of goals that must be given special attention. These goals address quality of life and the interrelated aspects of quality of environment. The primary purpose in design change is to improve quality of life for the people who are to use the resultant environments. No matter how important other considerations, unless these issues are addressed, the others are unlikely to be appreciated-or perhaps undertaken. To focus on the issues that directly enhance quality of life, some of the design goals can be translated into a list of universal design requirements. These represent the performance criteria that all design changes should satisfy to improve the human condition. Although these are not the only important issues to be resolved by design, they are those most clearly understood to apply in nearly all circumstances to all people. Designs of landscape settings that contribute significantly to enhanced quality of life satisfy the following performance requirements.
Quality-of-Life Design Criteria Human needs. The landscape setting is organized to satisfy the full range of basic physiological needs for the user populations. Toilets, for example, are always needed even though many landscape settings fail to provide for this universal requirement. Function. The arrangement is a functionally appropriate organization of the built landscape that creates convenient and mutually
Design Purpose
167
beneficial relationships among adjacent activities. This helps preclude ~conflicts and stress that negatively impact people's daily lives. Access. Use of the environment is predicated on access to it. Access to and use of the landscape is provided to improve people's contact with the environment while at the same time protecting it from abuse and deterioration from overuse. Health and welfare. The patterns of activities and design details promote society's general welfare by assuring relationships and conditions that protect people's safety and security, and enhance human health and well-being. Social interaction. The landscape is arranged to facilitate social interaction among homogeneous social groups and afford choices to users that preclude forced contact with others through the development of public spaces appropriate to the users' shared activities and social values. Accommodate diversity. The landscape is arranged to enhance opportunities for harmonious interactions among heterogeneous social groups through the development of public spaces appropriate to people's diverse economic and social backgrounds as well as their community interaction desires. Community involvement. The landscape setting is based on community participation and community values to enhance people's ability to actively participate in controlling and shaping their shared living environment. Community sense of place. The landscape setting expresses a culturally specific sense of place that is symbolic of, and responsive to, the unique characteristics of local cultural conditions and traditions. Equity. The landscape setting is efficient and economical as well as compelling as an appropriate setting to foster human interaction, social equity, and cultural evolution. Historic precedent. The landscape incorporates and protects historically and culturally significant features of the local and regional environment into the setting to preserve cultural identity, maintain a narrative record of cultural heritage, and enrich people's knowledge and experience of place. Aesthetic experience. The landscape incorporates sufficient novelty and complexity into a unified and harmonious setting to stimulate a compelling sensual response and enrich users' aesthetic experience. Legibility. The landscape provides sufficient order and clarity to satisfy people's cognitive need for environments that make associa-
168
Chapter Seven
tional sense by revealing the nature and character of the setting and how it is to be used. The setting reveals itself as a repository of critical resources, processes, and features; facilitates users' comprehension of the physical environment; and provides understandable cues to appropriate and effective behavior. In addition to the direct quality-of-life criteria, there is another category of design requirements that indirectly affects the quality of human life. These are the criteria that establish the general quality of our living environment and represent the basic performance requirements for almost all landscape settings.
Quality-of-Environment Design Criteria Environmental fit. The landscape is arranged to reduce conflicts between human activities and natural site processes. The landscape setting employs existing ecological and geomorphic processes to meet human use and management functions such as site drainage, climate amelioration, or plant maintenance requirements. Environmental health. The landscape is organized to maintain and enhance the health, diversity, and stability of existing ecosystems. The setting protects critically important environmental processes through their integration into the built landscape (and vice versa) to ensure their continuing vitality and provide benefits such as clean air, clean water, and healthful living conditions. Resource conservation. The landscape is organized to maintain the availability of renewable environmental resources and promote their management to ensure the ongoing provision of food, fiber, shelter, and fuel. Environmental sense of place. The landscape expresses an environmentally specific sense of place that is responsive to, and integral with, the unique characteristics of local ecological and geomorphic conditions. Integration. The changed conditions integrate into the existing context of the landscape in ways that take advantage of existing opportunities without undue disruption of ongoing natural processes. Flexibility. The changed condition retains sufficient flexibility to accommodate future change and evolution without undue disruption of ongoing human activities and natural processes.
Lifestyle and Health Quality of life depends on many aspects of everyday activity. In particular it is concerned with human health. One of the most alarm-
Design Purpose
169
ing public health problems in the United States today is obesity among children. The magnitude of the problem is revealed by the estimate that the cost of health care due to obesity amounted to $93 billion in 2002 (Finklestein et al. 2003). This is partly, but only partly, related to diet. It is also due to our increasingly sedentary lifestyle; a quarter of Americans are estimated to get no exercise at all. Quality of life is directly related to style of life. If we are inactive we become obese unless we eat less, which, as a nation, we do not; or eat better (that is to have a more healthy diet with regard to salt, fat, starch, refined sugars, and chemical additives), which we do not. One of the reasons for our sedentary lifestyle has to do with the design of our living environment. Most of us live in remote, low-density, single-land-use residential suburbs. When we grew up we learned to drive (or be driven) to the places we wanted to go and lived in environments arranged to facilitate this kind of movement. We have not designed our contemporary urban environments to facilitate walking or biking as an integral part of life. In fact, we have designed them to discourage it and in so doing deny for many the opportunity to keep themselves in good physical condition as a normal part of everyday life. For most Americans, the daily commute to work or school or shopping is measured in miles or minutes, not blocks. For Americans, life without a personal automobile is almost impossible, and for most, unthinkable. Except for those who live in the centers of our largest and oldest cities, to walk the distances we have built into the contemporary urban environment would require most of our waking hours. If we lived in Los Angeles or Houston with their extensive low-density pattern of development, it might take all of our waking hours just for the one-way trip to our place of work, leaving no time to work, play, study, or shop. Even when we drive we spend a very high percentage of our day commuting. Private automobile commuting also requires us to spend a commensurately high percentage of our income to support the construction and maintenance of streets and highways and to purchase and provide the fuel for cars. These expenditures leave little income to support more efficient forms of transportation and cleanup of the air polluted by fuel exhaust or the water polluted by the hydrocarbon runoff from streets. These conditions are conducive to neither healthy people nor a healthy environment. Better design could address many of these highly integrated problems simultaneously. Without knowing it, we have designed our cities to create unhealthy citizens living in an unhealthy environment that is expensive to maintain. The organization of the contemporary urban landscape is difficult to define as "good design." The form of our contemporary living environment has not been the result of an integrated consideration of the myriad factors that
170
Chapter Seven
intersect in the systems of the landscape. In fact, it is difficult to fault these urban designs at all since they are really the almost-accidental result of a wide array of highly segregated, single-purpose decisions for different subsystems, such as land use, utilities, or transportation, rather than a holistic approach to the design of the city as a whole entity. Perhaps in the future, landscape architects will become more holistic and collaborative in their work and begin to leave the urban landscape in a better condition than they have inherited. Designs of the future are almost certain to be evaluated on the basis of what might be possible through greater integration and collaboration.
8 Design Practice Professional designers and those lay persons who seek to influence the quality of the built environment through their professional and advocacy skills had best be aware of today's trends. -Robert H. McNulty, Partners for Livable Places
Design firms are administered for effectiveness in achieving the organizational goals set out by their owners and managers. Different design firms are organized to achieve different personal and professional goals and are driven by different values. The major differences between professional service firms are found in two main areas of organization: how the work is done, and the philosophy of the firm's leaders about how to organize and operate the firm. These are referred to as design technologies and organizational values, respectively. Investigations to determine the most effective patterns of organization and management strategies have revealed that there is no best way to do these things. It depends on who the people are, what they want to accomplish, and what their opportunities are. But a few key characteristics seem to emerge (Coxe et al. 1987:7): 1. Firms with the longest record of successful achievement tend to deliver their services in a generally uniform way. Their approach to performing work and operating the firm is clear and these practices have been followed consistently for a relatively long period of time. 171
172
Chapter Eight 2. Firms that do best tend to adopt one particular approach to their style of leadership-ownership organization and remain faithful to it over many generations. 3. The area where differences are most pronounced between firms is in the determination of how work is to be performed. This is also the area of greatest consistency within individual firms.
Design Technologies Different firms are organized to deliver different types of design technologies, depending on the kind of work they perform and the type of projects they provide services for. There are three main ways to categorize design technology: strong delivery, strong service, and strong ideas (Coxe et al. 1987: 11).
Strong Delivery These firms are organized to deliver higWy efficient service for similar types of projects, such as for housing developments or for park and recreation facilities. The clients of these firms generally require more of a product than a service. This type of firm tends to repeat both the process and the product of its best prior solutions, project after project, with a high level of reliability regarding the professional quality of the work, cost of development, implementation, and technical excellence. Firms organized with a strong delivery orientation tend to have a project operating structure based on specialized teams or departments that work like an assembly line, each of which is responsible for a particular area of project requirement. Decision making is standardized for each project specialty. Project staffing is usually handled by paraprofessionals who are trained in a particular area of performance. The firms "sell" an expert product and typically find their best market (on all but the most complex projects) among certain kinds of government agencies and corporations. Strong delivery firms tend to charge a lump sum or fixed fee for each project based on a bid price. Their profit strategy is to compete on the basis of their highly efficient operation.
Strong Service These firms are organized to deliver a high level of experience in handling complex projects where the requirements for success are unpredictable and tend to change from project to project. These firms emphasize management processes that coordinate multidisciplinary teams and provide services to address problems until the project's critical issues have been resolved or implementation is complete.
Design Practice
173
Firms organized with a strong service orientation usually employ a project operating structure based on studios or teams that are guided by hands-on project leaders. A principle-in-charge or department head with responsibility for all aspects of a project makes decisions. Project staffing relies on professionals who are trained and retained to keep needed experience within the firm. Since this type of firm sells reliable service, their "product" is experience. The best market areas for strong service delivery firms are institutions, public agencies, and major corporations that require dependability and reliability of service. These firms tend to charge on an hourly basis for an open-ended period of time, whatever is required to complete the project. Their profit strategy is based on having a reputation for being good enough to charge a premium for their work.
Strong Idea These design firms are organized to provide the expertise and innovation required to resolve a particular kind of project, although each client may present a different type of challenge. This kind of firm tends to rely on the leadership and style of its leader/guru, and can be highly flexible in response to the demands of unique project requirements. Firms organized with a strong idea orientation employ a project operating structure based on flexible teams built around the requirements of each unique project. Decision making rests with the single authority of the firm owner/leader or guru. Because these firms sell innovation and one-of-a-kind results, staffing is based on attracting the best and brightest professionals in the field. Their best markets are those with unique problems and the ability to pay the premium for highest quality. Payment is typically a lump sum based on value. These categories of service technology, while descriptive of a few pure or representative firms, represent, to some degree, the types of services provided by all firms for all projects. Each design firm tends to form its own area of focus or unique combination of these technologies depending on the values represented in the organization's management structure. Individual firms that focus their operation on only one of these three broad categories have characteristics of operation and management that follow typical patterns.
Evolution of Design Technology Over the life of design firms there is a tendency for their design technology to evolve in response to forces in the marketplace. Strong idea firms tend toward becoming strong service companies as the firm stakes out a particular market territory in which it develops a critical area of expertise due to repeated experiences with a particular type of
174
Chapter Eight
project. Then, after their area of expertise becomes incorporated into general practice, to the extent that other firms also develop competence with a particular technology or project type, the firm is no longer able to compete on the basis of its exclusive claim to expertise. After this, the strong service company tends to evolve into a strong delivery firm, competing on the basis of increased efficienciesdue to its lengthy experience in a particular area of practice (Coxeet al. 1987: 16). There is a parallel tendency for markets to evolve over time. As new challenges arise, new firms develop to meet them. The percentage of firms operating on the basis of strong idea technology tends to increase over time as new problems or technologies, and the projects where they are required, emerge. And although the overall percentage of strong service firms seems to remain relatively stable, the percentage of strong delivery firms becomes relatively diminished as a consequence of the growth of new idea firms in the marketplace.
Organizational Values In addition to service delivery technologies, the other distinguishing characteristic of professional service firms is the set of organizational values that underlie the firm's approach to its structure and operation (Coxe et al. 1987:21). There are two basic philosophical positions: one focused on professional practice and the other on business as an economic enterprise. The two practice types produce radically different ways of determining the firm's success.
Practice-Centered Business Practice in this context means engaging in a profession or occupation as a way of life. The practice-centered firm engages in the profession as a business for the purpose of executing works of design. The practice-centered business uses a qualitative system of evaluating firm success. The practice-centered business typically employs an organizational structure such as a proprietorship or partnership with equal ownership among the partners. Decisions are made by consensus and planning tends to follow existing forms of practice in response to new opportunities. Since the owners are already engaged in doing what they want and leading the professional life they choose, the firm does little formal strategic planning to facilitate change for the future. Marketing tends to be broad with participation by partners who act as job prospectors, deal closers, and project executors, called "closer-doers." The firm's best market area includes clients who want to be directly involved with the person providing the service; institu-
Design Practice
175
tions and entrepreneurs such as developers. The practice-centered ~ firm usually follows a staffing strategy of recruiting career-oriented professionals and promotes leaders from within the firm. Consequently, staff turnover tends to be low and the firm retains maximum experience among its employees. Profit strategy focuses on maximizing charge-out rates for delivering greatest value. The practice-centered culture promotes a leadership-management style focused on the philosophical and technical quality of work and longterm professional trends. Rewards are related to a qualitative index of how well projects come out; that is, how well the work is designed and recognized.
Business-Centered Practice The term "business" is used to describe a commercial enterprise, engaged in the profession as a means to gain financial reward. The business-centered firm engages in the practice for the purpose of increased financial compensation. The business-centered practice applies a quantitative measurement of firm success. The business-centered practice is organized around a corporate structure with power closely held by owners and employs a hierarchical authority-based decision-making process to maintain it. The firm operates from planned goals and objectives that target specific growth and development achievements in the marketplace. Marketing is centrally controlled, using marketing representatives to find and pursue leads on work. These deal "closers" then hand the projects off to "doers" who execute the work. The best client base for the businessoriented firm includes large corporations and government clients who have the capacity to delegate project work within their own organizations. The staffing strategy is to hire experienced staff on the basis of project requirements. This leads to high turnover, with job tenure assured only for core expertise specialists. The profit strategy is to seek lump sum fees that stimulate maximum efficiency. The leadership-management style focuses on administration of the firm as a profit -oriented organization. Attention is directed to details and shortterm results. The reward system is based on a quantitative index related to how well the firm did on the project; that is, how much money was made. While there are examples of firms that follow these pure forms of practice, most design firms do not. Most firms, although they may favor one orientation or another, tend to be hybrids, responding to the varied values of owners and managers, and to the opportunities for work presented by different types of clients in the local or regional markets in which they operate.
176 Chapter Eight
177
Design Practice
Changing Characteristics of Professions The characteristics of design professions are changing in response to evolving economic conditions, technical capacities, and political dynamics. As the professions respond to these changing circumstances in the marketplace they begin to assume new characteristics. Over the last twenty-five years, professional design firms have undergone a number of fundamental changes. Consequently, the basic paradigms regarding the role and nature of design firms have undergone some profound shifts. A comparison of old and emerging professional paradigms in box 8.1 illustrates the impact of evolving conditions on contemporary design practice. The factors that brought about these paradigmatic shifts include a number of rapidly developing influences. These include management, construction practice, economics, technology, and the regulations that govern the development process. In combination these influences have reshaped the nature and type of services that design firms offer. Because these changes in the character and orientation of contemporary professional practice are ongoing, they need to be reflected in design education if it is to adequately prepare students for successful entry into design practice. Investigations in Great Britain and in the United States indicate that this has not been the case in the recent past (Crosbie 1995:47; Symes, Eley, and Seidel 1997:44).
Management Considerations Evolving conditions in urban land development have brought about systemic changes in the nature of contemporary design practice (Derrington 1981:5-11; Crosbie 1995:50). Over the last quarter century the size and scope of development projects have been increasing, with projects being commissioned by a new type of client rather than the traditional owner-occupier of the past. Contemporary clients for expandedscope projects are often collectivebodies such as public agencies, corporations, institutional boards, and development consortia. In the United States, three-fourths of landscape architects surveyed indicate that their most likely type of client was a developer (American Society of Landscape Architects [ASIA] 1990:38). Because these clients rarely use the facilities they develop, the relationship between the designer and client is becoming impersonal and distant, with the result that many of the traditional advantages of a close working relationship have been lost. These changes in clientele have also brought about a change in their expectations (Derrington 1981: 5). Increasingly, they seek a client-centered service rather than design advice with an aesthetically sophisticated form orientation. These clients demand increasing attention to their unique organizational or operational needs-often time
Old
New
solution oriented
problem oriented
Professional practitioners were trained to define problems in terms of a preordained solution.
Professional practitioners are trained to explore situations and define problems in an effort to identify possible solutions.
question answering
question asking
Professionals were trained to
Professionals are encouraged to inquire continually about problems in a more open, error-embracing, and surprise-anticipating manner (fast-fail, then rapid recovery).
answer questions "professionally" (i.e., error-free and surprise-free).
system closing
system opening
Professionals were trained to operate within a closed system environment that was elitist, technocratic, bureaucratic, conflict masking, and product oriented.
Professionals operate in an open, democratic, liberal, flexible, conflict-exposing, and process- or system-oriented environment.
organization captured
boundary expanding
Professionals were trained to
Professionals operate in exposed, free-floating, humanistic, and issueopportunistic situations.
operate in a protected, institutionalized, client-oriented, and constrained situation.
politically explicit
politically flexible
Professionals were trained to operate late in the political process with well-defined roles and expectations.
Professionals operate early in a political process that is issue formulating and uncertain of roles or expectations.
foreign ideas
indigenous ideas
The profession engaged in "borrowed mentality" and was impressed by imported technologies and organizations.
The profession places emphasis on developing new local methods and technologies, or adapting ideas to suit local or regional conditions.
static conditions
dynamic conditions
Professionals were trained to deal
Professionals are trained to deal
with conditions and promote relationships as if they were fixed and unchanging.
with conditions as evolving and adapting, and to promote integrated, interrelated, systemic solutions.
Adapted from Faniran 1987:317-33.
178
Chapter Eight
and budget requirements or specific functional and marketing considerations. The nature of the clients' needs depends on the type of organization they represent and its specific development goals or internal decision-making structures. Several areas of change in design practice have been identified. Management is one of the most prominent. Management concerns are growing in importance as an integral component of all the design professions. As building projects have expanded in size and scope, many specialists have been incorporated into the design process to address an increased number of development requirements (Caudill 1971: 71). The growing number of participants in the process has required designers to devote an increasing amount of time to managerial responsibilities. These are responsibilities that designers are often ill-equipped by temperament or training to handle, with the result that design firms are entering into collaboration with management consultants or introducing managerial expertise into design practice. The consequence of these changes is an expanded and increasingly expensive administrative function that is seen to detract from traditional focus on architectural concerns and as a consequence, constitutes an erosion of long-held professional roles and design values (Derrington 1981: 6) Landscape architects report that they are increasingly engaged in a variety of activities other than design in their routine work. These include practice management, contract management, project management, marketing, and public relations (ASLA1990:3). Architects and landscape architects alike indicate that recent graduates have little awareness of project and budget management in particular, and that their general preparation for this area of practice is inadequate (Crosbie 1995:47; Murphy, Seidel, and Huang 2002). British architects also report that they are increasingly engaged in management activities (including budget management); activities for which they feel poorly prepared by their formal professional education (Symes et al. 1997). About half of British architects surveyed report inadequate training in other areas they rate as important to practice as well. These include urban design, planning, codes, and programming. Management of the process of design service delivery has become complex because the requirements of landscape design have become complex. It has become imperative that practitioners become managers as well as designers if they are to thrive in the contemporary development environment.
Construction Practice Changes in construction practice are having an important influence on the design professions. The nature of the construction contractor also is changing. No longer a generalist builder, the contractor
Design Practice
179
has become a specialist broker of subcontractors engaged to execute ~the different elements of the work. Because of its increased size and complexity, the building enterprise has diminished the role of the individual craftsperson. Consequently, the architect is no longer asked to supervise the work of tradespeople in the production of quality building, but to oversee work executed by unskilled or semi-skilled laborers who are often unconcerned with the quality of the finished product. The responsibility for quality now rests with the general contractor, who is, in effect, removed from the building process (Derrington 1981: 7). The pressures of the contemporary development process tend to create a relationship between clients, designers, and contractors that may often be described as one of stress and frustration. These changes in the nature of contracting have led to a shift in attention away from the pursuit of quality building to the legal interpretation of contractual obligations. The traditional pattern of development has been for the designer to prepare design plans and specifications to describe the work. Clients receive, on the basis of the plans and specifications, bids from contractors who compete, on the basis of price for construction, to receive the building contract. The successful bidder is awarded the construction contract and implements the project under the oversight of the designer to assure compliance with the plans and specifications. This process, referred to as the design-bid-build process, is employed to separate the design decisions from construction decisions in order that the most appropriate construction, rather than the easiest or most profitable development, will be implemented. A major consequence of this process has been that the relationships among the parties "collaborating" in the execution of the development project are becoming increasingly adversarial-at times resorting to the legal system to resolve disputes. Common disputes relate to construction that the designer deems inadequate or inappropriate relative to the specifications provided. Because land development is a complex enterprise with emphasis on the application of specialized skills, division of labor, and cooperation to apply a wide variety of resources in orchestrating change to the environment, adversarial relationships become both destructive to the process and frustrating to the parties involved (L. N. Sullivan 1997, pers. comm.). The result is that the delivery of excellence in both design and construction under traditional design-bid-build relationships is becoming difficult in the extreme. Perhaps the greatest loss is that innovation and creativity have become essentially impossible in the context of an adversarial relationship often characterized more by conflict than cooperation and collaboration. An emerging alternative to the traditional implementation process is the design-build process. In this process the designer and contractor
180
Chapter Eight
collaborate to expedite the process and seek efficiencies that may be passed along to the client. There is a long tradition of design-build in landscape architecture and about 25 percent of practitioners in Texas now employ this approach (Murphy et al. 2002).
Economics Economics has become the most significant factor in the changing character of design practice. The influence of monetary inflation and depression cycles has created severe pressure for all decisions and services to be delivered within compressed time frames. In addition, many projects are undertaken with interim financing and clients want to limit the amount of time during which this expensive financing arrangement takes place. The urgency regarding financing impacts all other aspects of the design and development process. The most compelling result of reduced time is noted in the quality of the design service being delivered (Derrington 1981 :9). As clients become increasingly aware of the cost of services (and require the delivery of designs in abbreviated time periods to reduce uncertainty and potentially increased costs), their quality appears to be impaired. This is often evidenced by inadequate or conflicting instructions in the (rushed to completion) design and contract documents, with the inevitable cost escalation and delays that result when changes are made after construction contracts have been signed and building begun. The development industry has responded to these pressures with process technology, such as construction management systems (often supplied by outside experts), to ensure that projects are executed on time and within budget. A major consequence of this is that the designer has become only one of a number of service providers with diminished capacity to oversee overall excellence in the quality of the finished project. Moreover, design fees under tight economic conditions are sometimes negotiated to the lowest possible levels with the result that design quality is further threatened (Derrington 1981 :10). Design quality thus has been essentially redefined by current economic conditions. Attention to physical form as the principal measure of design excellence (as defined by the professions) has diminished in light of contemporary influences on design and construction processes. To clients, quality has come to mean the delivery of the project on time and within budget (Derrington 1981: 10). And, in construction, time means money. Clients often feel that considerations of design function and aesthetic appeal are concerns for the designer, and as a consequence, tend to trust that the designer will attend to them as a matter of course, separate from more pressing responsibilities such as time schedules and budgets, with which clients are primarily concerned.
Design Practice
181
Design practice also is being affected by the growth of the con~sumer movement. In an effort to ensure that they receive value for their money, clients demand detailed accounting of expenses, contractual performance specifications for services, and sometimes explicit rationale (or defense) of (often rapidly formulated) design recommendations. Additionally, there has been an enormous growth in regulatory requirements to which designs must respond and regarding which the designer must submit to lengthy review by statutory authorities to assure compliance (Derrington 1981:9). Taken together, these influences create many layers of constraint to individual (unilateral) design behavior and significantly alter (and from the point of view of the designer and client alike, complicate) the design process.
Technology Design, information, and construction technology are the primary tools for determining the quality of design results. What we build is determined by the technology we control. What we design is determined to a large extent by what we can build. Current means of bringing technology to bear on shaping the landscape, and by extension on the learning tasks to prepare for that activity, require that we continually consider developments in implementation and information technology. The ongoing developments in contemporary technology are rapidly changing the nature of professional practice. An increasing amount of designers' time is being spent in keeping up with these rapidly evolving technical innovations. Although the application of technology is not the purpose of design, it is the vehicle through which change is implemented. Unless our ideas are translated into physical reality they will have no influence on improving the landscape. We must understand and control the technology by which designs are realized. Ultimately, the landscape will become not what we can design and build, but what we can maintain. The technology to understand, organize, and manage the landscape is continually changing. Unfortunately, it may be reasonably argued that the change we impose on the landscape is far more an expression of our technology than our understanding. This condition may be reversed when we dedicate as much attention to learning what is appropriate as to what is possible. We also must be mindful that what we build is based on what is socially acceptable and permitted by laws and ordinances. Through the application of statutorily enacted codes and regulations based on contemporary technology, changes in the landscape are based on normative procedures (not innovation) as imposed by presumably qualified technicians in the areas of development, maintenance, or environmental concern. But, the regulations to assure the application
182
183
Chapter Eight
of technology are invariably framed by those with political and legal, rather than technological, expertise. One of the most promising technologies for landscape architecture lies in the power of rapidly advancing geographic information systems (GIS). These complex data-management systems are beginning to reveal the landscape in terms that closely approximate the true complexity of its cultural, physical, and ecological interrelationships. This is a significant advance when we compare the decision making of today with that of just a few years ago when designers trusted aesthetic values as their primary source of environmental understanding. Today we are able to amass enormous amounts of spatially locatable data about the landscape and evaluate the interacting relationships among them in ways that were barely possible a decade ago. This ability not only provides new insights into the environment but also will guide future design and management of the landscape. The growing complexity of contemporary practice with its increasingly complicated environmental and regulatory requirements necessitates that landscape architects understand and apply these sophisticated datamanagement systems.
Regulations Land development is highly regulated: directly, through building codes and zoning ordinances, and indirectly through the provision of capital and infrastructure. It also is influenced through public participation in applications for changes in land-use zoning ordinances. In some situations the physical arrangement of designs is almost entirely shaped by legal and statutory requirements. These requirements include those listed in box 8.2. Legal requirements may originate from a variety of authorities and agencies, ranging from local, county, and district levels to state, regional, and national levels. Different levels of authority with different areas of statutory responsibility regulate development through the imposition of restrictive criteria. Municipal agencies often have detailed guidelines to control design and development. It is in the designer's best interest to identify the extent and potential impact of these restrictions as early as possible. Only when the land development parameters are fully understood can effective design proposals be developed and services provided. The restrictive language of codes makes it difficult for designers to retain flexibility since regulations often dictate a normative rather than a creative response. Designers are constantly reminded that agencies act in the public interest and although practitioners are paid by their clients, they also have responsibilities to the broader community through the satisfaction of codes and legal requirements. Meeting
Local Restrictions
Building codes Zoning ordinances Property setback restrictions Building height restrictions Land-use restrictions Land-coverage restrictions Accessibility requirements Park and open space requirements Stormwater discharge restrictions Pollution discharge restrictions Sewerage discharge restrictions Deed restrictions Architectural controls Signage controls Materials requirements Tree-removal restrictions Plant-use restrictions
Regional Restrictions
Wetland protection Protection of threatened
or endangered species
Riparian rights Flood-control requirements
these requirements demands that designers work closely with regulatory agencies to avoid conflicts that may interrupt the flow of the development process. Because land-development regulations are continually being revised and expanded, designers have seen a similar increase in the time required to understand and respond to them through design. On rare occasions authorities may be unable to provide direct information except in response to specific proposals or requests for project approval. In these cases restrictions may be politically influenced and instructions or approvals may not be directly forthcoming. In such a scenario the specific language of the code or ordinance may be insufficient to provide a complete guide to development requirements. In some circumstances the review process may be expanded to include community participation or local authority involvement to address issues to the satisfaction of all concerned parties. Professional designers must spend increasing amounts of time to anticipate likely design limitations or requirements and limit their potential to stall proposals or require substantive changes late in the design process. Proposals
184
Chapter Eight
that fail to satisfy required statutory requirements inevitably slow the development process and make it more expensive.
Professional Services Landscape architects operate in the marketplace through the provision of professional services. We tend to focus our attention on the design service, but there are a number of supporting services that are necessary for the effective delivery of design research, development, and implementation. In our initial contact with clients, for example, it is premature to discuss design ideas even though this is the basis of the conversation. Designers must begin by inquiring into the client's motives and perceived problems before enough can be known to discuss reasonable design solutions. For this reason, designers usually initiate the process with a discussion of the comprehensive nature of the services we offer; that is, programming and project research as well as design and documentation. The discussion of the broad range of professional services informs clients about the nature of the work we provide and the types of products we deliver in the course of a typical design commission. Clients, on the other hand, have needs that go beyond the finished product. They must first engage in the sometimes-lengthy process from which a design product will eventually result. Clients have apprehensions about the entire process of design and implementation and tend to focus on its economic and temporal dimensions and the inherent risks involved with them. Design services are organized to address the needs and responsibilities of both the designer and the client. Service, which includes management of the design process, has been identified as the most important aspect of design practice for clients (Derrington 1981 :80). Clients ranked management and technical knowledge equally for second place, and design form as the least important aspect of the services they received from architects (Derrington 1981: 80). Architects queried in the same survey that identified client needs, however, considered the creation of design form to be the most important aspect of their service, with technical knowledge ranking second and professional service a close third in priority. Clients place the highest priorities on controlling costs and having their interests and priorities accurately identified by the designer. More recently, landscape architects have placed their highest priority on design quality with projects that function effectively and conform to regulatory requirements and codes, as well as the delivery of consistently high quality service (Murphy et al. 2002). As a consequence of this divergence in perceptions, or values, there have been changes in the way architects and landscape architects
Design Practice
185
relate to their clients. Not too surprisingly, these changes have been responsible for a perceived deterioration in the value of the services being rendered. One reason for this perception is that contemporary clients require more than mere design service. They demand strict control of costs, adherence to abbreviated time schedules, provision of consistent and knowledgeable contact personnel, rapid and effective decision making, and the demonstration of considerable flexibility in design approach to accommodate specific client goals, needs, and activities. They prefer primarily that the construction be sound. Architects, on the other hand, continue to place primary emphasis on the quality of design form, apparently unaware of or unconcerned with the changing needs of their clientele (Derrington 1981 :88). Landscape architects are under similar pressures and exhibit similar, if less pronounced, tendencies. Moreover, clients sometimes feel their needs are going unmet due to the design community's lack of managerial skills and the inability of formal mechanisms within the design process to precisely determine and satisfy client needs (Derrington 1981 :89; Crosbie 1995:48). Not only are architects often ill-prepared by training to satisfy their clients' needs, but more importantly, the profession as a whole is not oriented toward the identification and satisfaction of these needs (Rapoport 1990:82). A survey of Texas landscape architects indicates they believe their clients place a high value on the execution of projects within budget, but that their actual performance in this regard falls short (Murphy et al. 2002). This may be a result of their focus on, and confidence in, their well-established internal values and professional goals in preference to the values and goals of their clients. It is important that the design disciplines do a better job of aligning the services they offer with the needs of their prospective clientele. Specifically, there needs to be a better correlation between the values held by designers and those expressed by clients.
Design Services Landscape architects influence the environment through the instruments of design service they provide. They do not normally change the landscape directly but give advice to those who will. Professional advice is rendered in the form of specific design and construction oversight services. These services are conveyed in the form of documents, usually drawings and written descriptions of the design ideas proposed. Design services follow a typical sequence of stages. The process outline and the documents that convey these services are as follows. Programming. Work begins with project definition; that is, research and analysis on site, user, and activity characteristics to
186 determine the requirements-the the design proposal.
Chapter Eight design problem-to
be satisfied by
Schematic design. This is a preliminary stage of design resolution intended to provide direction for the solution, but without detailed investigation of precise form and materials deployment. This stage typically explores available options prior to establishing the basic arrangement of the solution to be pursued. Design development. This involves refining the selected design approach to determine the detailed requirements of the solution and its implementation. At this stage specific form relationships, dimensions, and materials are finally established. Construction documentation. This typically includes drawings and specifications prepared to guide implementation through the contract for construction between the client and the building contractor. These documents form the basis of the implementation contract between client and contractor. Bidding and negotiation. The designer makes the contract documents (contract forms, drawings, and specifications) available to contractors for the submission of competitive bids for the construction contract and assists the client in negotiating a final contract agreement. Contract administration. The designer oversees the implementation process as executed through the construction contract to assure the quality of the finished product. The landscape architect typically serves as agent on behalf of the client in oversight and reporting of construction progress during the implementation process. These typical services parallel the phases of the design and implementation process as provided by other design professionals, notably architects, who originally developed the process and its standard phases of service.
Other Services In response to an expanding development market and the ready availability of information technology, landscape architects are broadening the range of services they provide. Many of these fall within the typical design or pre-design activities, while the newer areas of professional service include construction management and community development-services that are beyond the areas of preparation provided by conventional design education. The most common of these broad-scope service areas are listed below. Site master planning. This is one of the more common services offered by contemporary practitioners. It is an almost standard pre-
Design Practice
187
design service for clients who wish to make broad site development decisions prior to the execution of specificdesigns. The site is organized into an overall pattern of development to guide future design decisions. Landscape planning. lYPically this service provides developers of future projects with a broad understanding of the most appropriate overall pattern of development in relation to the context of the site and the political, economic, or environmental limitations to be overcome in responding to it. Site context analysis usually includes an assessment of the problems and potentialities that are likely to be encountered in the landscape regarding a particular type of development project. Landscape planning is a broad organization of the pro• posed development's land-use activities and service infrastructure fitted to the general pattern of the site's existing cultural and biophysical setting. Project/construction management. This service amplifies the role of the designer to include administrative oversight and technical management for clients who lack these capacities within their current organizational structure. This is a relatively new service area for landscape architecture professionals. Community development. Such a service is typically related to a particular type of development, such as medium-density housing projects. It includes landscape planning, master planning, and site design services in support of the rapidly expanding suburban housing developments, usually on the margins of urban areas. Public participation facilitation. Designs to improve community services, such as new or renovated parks in existing cities, often require the active participation of local citizens since these projects are normally paid for by their taxes. To assure active support for these projects and to prevent the development of facilities the community might consider wasteful or unusable, local citizens are included as active participants in the programming and design review process. Design-build. This occurs when a single firm provides both the design and the installation for clients. Although a minority of firms offer this type of service, it is the basis of one of the most common forms of landscape architecture practice. Those providing this service have produced some of the best examples of design, particularly residential landscape design. Urban design. Designs for the urban landscape offer one of the most important areas of opportunity to touch the lives of a substantial number of people and improve the quality of their shared environment. Because the urban landscape is typically characterized most by structural features and infrastructure rather than natural fea-
188
Chapter Eight;
tures, design consideration to include or retain natural elements is high. In urban design the organization of space and the provision of amenities are even more important than in more naturalistic settings' due to the increased number of people who must use and live within them. It is important to note that involvement in this type of project is almost always a collaborative effort, undertaken in concert with a number of other professionals such as architects, urban planners, pol-' iticians and administrators, economists, horticulturists, and sociologists, as well as representatives from the communities for whom the designs are intended. Some design firms offer services' in environmental resource and conservation management. Typically these services are in support of the management of large holdings or public lands for which landscape quality or public use is an important area of responsibility or concern. Environmental
9
management.
There are a number of other services currently being offered by some practitioners. These include such things as GIS services and golf course design. The wide array of service areas, some offered by a relatively large percentage of landscape architects, suggests very clearly that practitioners must be knowledgeable in a number of service delivery areas if they are to compete favorably in today's marketplace. Moreover, the increasing list of emerging service areas also suggests that professional preparation needs to continually expand to satisfy the ever-widening range of services required by potential clients for their land planning, design, development, and management projects.
Design Collaboration The ultimate good is better reached by free trade in ideas. The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market. -Oliver Wendell Holmes
Increasingly, landscape architects are becoming involved in projects that require the collaboration of multiple disciplines in a comprehensive design enterprise. In a complex setting it is inevitable that designs prepared by professionals from a single discipline will, on occasion, be inadequate to address all the issues at an appropriate level of resolution. Each discipline has its own particular strengths, knowledge areas, and skills, and as a consequence, its own weaknesses and limitations. To make up for these weaknesses, design teams are formed to broaden the base of expertise and resolve problems holistically. Comprehensive design resolution requires a deep understanding of the issues. The application of knowledge from a broad range of disciplines or knowledge areas is best achieved when those possessing that knowledge are directly involved with decision making. Integrating this broad-based knowledge and applying it to design decisions is a process that requires its own area of expertise. Managing a collaborative design enterprise requires knowledge and skill beyond that normally provided in design schools.
189
190
Chapter Nine
Participatory design is an area of growing concern in contempo_ rary professional practice-particularly for design projects with complex technical, environmental, or user requirements. Successful design within the context of economic, political, and environmental concerns is difficult due to the shifting nature of events and our growing awareness of them. Perhaps the most significant problem to be addressed is the difficulty of fully comprehending and, as a result, successfully managing complex systemic relationships (Senge 1990: 14). The knowledge required to inform design decisions that manage comprehensive change in complex systems must come from many sources and respond to many different problem situations and value systems. For this reason a multidisciplinary design approach has been adopted for many large-scale or community-based development projects. A collaborative approach, whereby specialists with knowledge from a wide range of disciplines interact to improve understanding and design response, is seen as one of our most powerful approaches to resolving complex problems.
Design Teams The design team approach has two basic advantages: (1) it is built on an expanded knowledge base and (2) it has the potential for advancing knowledge beyond that held by the individual team members. This is possible because team members are able to learn from one another through interaction, and more learning takes place among multiple disciplines working in groups than when individuals or disciplines work alone (Senge 1990: 14; Parker 1994:23). Working in teams, however, also has a number of disadvantages. When people from different disciplines interact, they almost always lack a conventional method of communication such as that which typically exists within individual disciplines. Consequently, it is often difficult for professionals from different fields to interact meaningfully since they have their own ways of communicating and making decisions. In these cases we often try, although usually without success, to get others to come around to our way of doing things. This is further hampered by the fact that people from different disciplines operate from different knowledge bases, and in particular from different value systems, that may not be fully shared by other members of the team. Perhaps the greatest difficulty for team members is to overcome perceived infringements on their professional territory. Territorial conflict, behavior that seems to be a constant in nature (Ardrey 1966:170; Bell et al. 1996:305), creates a situation that must be continually confronted. William Caudill, who led one of the most successful team design firms in the United States, describes the prob-
Design Collaboration
191
!ems of working in teams in very strong terms. In a January 1971 ~officememo he wrote: "Team action is hell! But," he went on to say, "it's the best way" (1984). He recognized conflict for both its creative and destructive potential. The memo continued: A firm like CRSwhich operates on a highly complex multidisciplinary basis will always be in turmoil. It's a matter of degree. Once we accept this-knowing that there will always be conflict, then we can eliminate the feelings of personal inadequacies and concentrate on perfecting the tasks which we have to do as individuals and as groups. Thrmoil must not breed contempt for either the task or for those working on the task. I look upon a certain degree of turmoil as healthy, engrossing, intellectual vitality, stimulating and stretching one's capabilities. On the other hand, too much turmoil tends to destroy. (1984)
The territories in this context are professional territories, sometimes called "turf." Tobalance the level of turf conflict and resolve difficulties without destroying the creative potential of team interaction requires the establishment of innovative working procedures, or team organizations. Organizations are systems that capitalize on learning to minimize the difficulty associated with managing complexity and uncertainty (Senge 1990; Wheatley 1992). Developing and maintaining team structure and management is a constant problem for teams that include members from multiple disciplines. There are two basic types: multidisciplinary teams and interdisciplinary teams. Teams that include members from a number of different disciplines but are led by a single discipline are referred to as multidisciplinary. The knowledge base from which these teams operate is expanded, but the definition of the problems they address tends to be disciplinarily focused-such as a multidisciplinary team to address an engineering project, for example. Success is measured in a disciplinarily discrete way; that is, the team is intended to provide an improved engineering outcome. The additional expertise is there to strengthen the engineering. The turf of these teams is well defined as "belonging" to a particular discipline. Interdisciplinary teams also are made up of people from multiple disciplines, but the definition of the problem and the outcome tend to be more open to the interpretation that the team members collectively establish. Success for such a team may not conform to any particular disciplinary definition. The role of the team is not to maximize the outcome for a particular discipline (engineering, for example) but to optimize the outcomes for all participants. That is, such teams address problems in holistic rather than disciplinary terms. The question of turf is more open to interpretation since team members define both the problem and their mutual responsibilities.
192
Chapter Nine
Management of interdisciplinary teams-teams that behave integratively rather than cumulatively-is much more problematic since the design project the team is formed to resolve may not have a clear disciplinary definition, such as an engineering project or an architectural project. In these cases the project is not oriented toward a specific disciplinary outcome and may lack the clarity of expectation that helps unite members of diverse teams. A major challenge for interdisciplinary teams is the need to reconcile and integrate individual team members' strongly held opinions, as well as the views of clients and users. Under single-discipline or multidisciplinary approaches, individual designers, by virtue of the design services contract, are able to draw authority from the client to lead others in the acceptance and support of proposals with a strong disciplinary focus. In an interdisciplinary setting, however, authority is more diffuse and it becomes necessary for all team members to establish their credibility through individual contributions of expertise, insight, or discovery of useful information. This helps build mutual understanding and acceptance of ideas representative of the team as a whole. This means that each discipline must have knowledge that is understood to be of value to the rest of the team.
Team Learning The basis of team interaction is the learning that takes place among people who have different knowledge and experience. The team learning process, when all participants are collaboratively engaged, can serve as an important means of reaching a collective understanding of the issues and lead ultimately to consensus and shared ownership of the resultant design ideas. But this is only likely to happen if the team is constituted as an effective learning organization. Senge (1990) describes five principles necessary for the development of an effective learning organization. 1. Personal mastery: continually clarifying and developing our personal and professional vision, of seeing reality objectively, of focus, and patience. This is the learning organization's basic foundation. 2. Continual development of mental models: deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, or images that influence how we understand the world and how we take action. Mental models must be rigorously scrutinized and periodically amended if appropriate change is to take place. 3. Creation of shared vision: collectively forming a clear picture of the future to be created, enabling team members to
Design Collaboration
193
excel in their contributions because they do so in their own self-interest. 4. Reliance on systems thinking: managing activities within a conceptual framework; that is, a body of knowledge and tools developed to make patterns clearer and to help the team discern how best to change patterns by focusing on critical relationships rather than the objects of design intention. S. Reliance on team learning: developing an ability to think collectively based on dialogue and participation, to surpass the power of any single discipline and accelerate the learning process. A learning-based design process builds on these principles to provide the philosophical basis for synergistic interaction to initiate meaningful change in the environment. It is based on fundamental change initiatives (as opposed to replicating conventional solutions from the past), emphasizes leadership from all levels (as opposed to leadership from the top), places importance on individuals as the critical element of the group in reaching defined goals, and promotes the development of shared values and the collective creation of a binding vision for the future. Because of the considerable advantages of team learning and synergy, and in spite of the very real interpersonal, organizational, and communication problems, the interdisciplinary design approach is becoming an increasingly important organizational method for addressing complex and difficult to resolve planning and design initiatives. Particular attention must be given to forming, maintaining, and managing interdisciplinary teams. Because complex design problems are unique, and thus difficult to define, the organizations established to address them are typically ad hoc and short term; intended only for the life of the project they are formed to address. This means that these organizations often lack continuity and the ability to continually learn and develop as their members gain experience in working together over an extended period of time. One of the most common problems with interdisciplinary teams is leadership. Such an approach is not based on a lead discipline with others (consultants) acting in subordination, but rather on the premise that the environment exists as a whole and that designs for whole environments-not discrete components such as buildings or infrastructure or setting-should be the result. Rather than using consultants to support the elaboration of a lead designer's ideas (developed from the perspective of a single discipline), interdisciplinary team members collaborate equally to define and resolve problems holistically. However, participation on teams of equals is not something for which designers (planners, engineers, architects, or landscape architects) are particularly well prepared by their training (or perhaps tem-
194
Chapter Nine
perament). Most designers tend to trust their own (disciplinary) ideas more than the ideas of others who operate from a different knowledge base and value system. Traditional design training is heavily focused on the value of individuals working alone, with professional recognition being conferred on those whose work is considered innovative or creative-but only when understood within the prevailing values of their individual discipline. In the relatively recent past, a team approach was considered unsuitable for the creation of design ideas, particularly in pursuit of excellence in individual achievement, to which all professionals aspire (Caudill 1971). In fact, the phrase "design by committee" is intended as a pejorative to convey the inevitable dilution effect of consensus. But, design by committee is not the same thing as design by team. William Caudill was one of the first to describe the benefits of team design with the publication of Architecture by Team in 1971. The Houston architecture and engineering firm of Caudill Rowlett Scott (CRS) began in the 1960s to experiment with design teams to address the technical, management, and production aspects of large-scale design commissions. CRSrecognized that projects were becoming far too complex for one person to command all the knowledge and skill required and that teams of specialists were necessary to resolve all the problems to a high level of satisfaction. Team participants were united by a common goal driven by a design commission, even though the teams included clients, users, and technical advisors in addition to architects. Under the CRSconcept, specialization led to greater competence in all areas of practice-programming, design, technology, management, design development, contract administration, and eventually project management-and thus enabled the delivery of an improved architectural product. Significantly, this approach facilitated the direct incorporation of client and user information into design decision making. Because the views of designers and users often conflict (Berger and Sinton 1985 :24), it is now recognized that the views of users must be consciously included as a central feature of the process for reaching effective design decisions. User values must be understood so designs address the way people use the landscape and adapt to it (Abbott 1995:156; Ndubisi 1997:28). Though designers and social scientists alike have difficulty in reaching the understanding necessary to ensure that culturally distinct values are included in decisions about how the landscape is to be shaped, some useful methods have emerged. Community participation through workshops or through the inclusion of community spokespersons on design teams has become a common way to empower people to shape and control their immediate living environment (Abbott 1995:6; Hester 1984:7; Kotze and Swanepoel 1984). Designs that address issues of broad community interest are, of necessity, focused on problems arising from those who
Design Collaboration
195
are directly affected (Park 1993:8; Whyte 1991:7). Thus, in participa~.tory design the values of the people from the affected community, rather than those of the design professionals, should be given preference (Reason 1994:328). One way to ensure that people's needs are well understood is to involve them directly in defining the design problem. John Motloch and Thomas Woodfin (1993) have identified a number of tasks they regard as essential if designs are to produce settings that are meaningful to the people who use them. To promote culturally sustainable decisions, designs should address the full range of operative value systems and integrate with local ecological and cultural systems. To do this they suggest that designers: • Discover the value systems operating at the local level • Respond sensitively to the user groups' value systems as well as to their perceptions of problems, coping strategies, and organizational structures • Identify the needs and perceptions of the full range of users, many of whom may approach the world from different value systems • Facilitate environmental understanding by the full range of people who form their cognitive images of the environment through different value systems • Provide designs that address the needs and perceptions of the full range of users to build consensus, minimize stress, and avoid conflict These measures are suggested to assist designers in producing places that promote self-esteem, involvement, and a strong place-specific sense of community for users with diverse value systems. When these conditions exist the place becomes not only a setting for behavioral interactions, but territory to which individuals and groups belong, and to which they have responsibilities for defense and maintenance over time; that is, culturally sustainable space. Because landscape design is based on a process of perpetual discovery, it should always be viewed as participatory, involving the inhabitants of a place in a meaningful way (Ndubisi 1997:38). Participation by users, as a central feature of the design learning process, is viewed as an important way to ensure that the design form created is capable of expressing the intricacies of interrelationships between people and the landscape. "Participatory design fosters a better understanding of 'community' and is in itself a reflection of (socially) ecological processes evolving towards higher forms" (Kaplan 1983:311). Participatory decision making, however, has inherent organizational and social problems. The type of organizational structure being employed exerts a significant influence on the outcome of the project.
196
Chapter Nine
Authority and Collaboration Different types of organizational structures have been identified with respect to group decision making. These include pyramidal structures, factional structures, and coalitions of power (Ahmed and Ludtke 1990:2). • Pyramidal power: structures resulting from elitist models that place the greatest power in the hands of a few at the topa traditional design paradigm in which the designer is presumed to know best and thus should be responsible for making final decisions. • Factional power: this occurs when groups with diverse interests compete for resources to address their individual concernsa common scenario when resources are limited or the values of designers conflict with those of users or clients. • Coalition power: occurs when individuals or groups form alliances to address issues they have in common. Community participation is most likely to succeed when there is both a strong community structure where coalitions may be formed and when the issues to be addressed are understood to be common to all participants in the design decision-making process. The community participatory approach, sometimes called design facilitation, is a process that focuses on coalition building, and thus provides one of the most effective bases for collaboration between designers and users. Unfortunately, traditional design training has not included preparation in coalition building. Most design training is based on an elitist model with the designer at the top of the pyramid. Most community or environmentally sensitive design projects require grassroots influence on decision making with input coming from many sources to develop broadly acceptable conditions. The future practice of landscape architecture is likely to require considerably more use of coalition power rather than decision making by authority. Participation in collaborative teams requires a sensitivity to many issues that are not taught in traditional design schools. To begin, teams are the antithesis of individual action. Teams are small groups of people who hold themselves mutually responsible for achieving common goals through the integrated application of complementary skills (Katzenbach and Smith 1993). By definition, design teams are collaborative in nature and structure. Collaborative teams offer some key advantages. They provide a way of integrating different kinds of knowledge and different ways of comprehending reality. They also offer different ways of defining and solving problems. This increases the internal checks on intellectual rigor and improves the reliability of
Design Collaboration
197
the information being used through independent evaluation from ~II1ultiple perspectives (Lincoln and Guba 1985). In addition to broadening the knowledge and skills base, there is another reason that integrating different perspectives is so important to design. Innovation is required to change reality significantly, but it is not just designs that are different that matter; they must incorporate the differences that matter. The changes to be imposed must deal with reality and promote improvement on multiple levels simultaneously. Innovation requires a departure from the norm-a shift in paradigm or way of viewing reality. Departing from the conventional mind-set is much more likely to be by chance than intention, and the innovations that attend these departures are almost always initiated by outsiders (Barker 1992). Teams incorporating members from many different disciplines consist essentially of outsiders, improving the chance of innovation-first in understanding problems, later in resolving them. When team members develop their particular disciplinary solutions prior to the establishment of a comprehensive view of the problem, they are likely to spend their time arguing over whose solution is best. Alternatively, if the team begins by sharing insights and defining the problem in a comprehensive way, the solutions they develop will be held to a shared vision of the issues to be resolved and the prospect of arguing over disciplinarily discrete solutions will be largely eliminated. In other words, when the team has a common understanding of the whole problem-as defined by the team as a whole-the members become more interdisciplinary in their thinking and more synergistic and creative in their interactions. A number of factors contribute directly to the success or failure of team design initiatives. These factors include the quality of the team environment, the extent to which team members share a common vision of project success, team leadership, team size, and the responsibilities of team participation (Murphy 1997).
The Team Environment The most important indicator of an effective team environment is the quality of the interactions among team members (Forsyth 1990). The strong group dynamic required for effective interaction is dependent on a working environment of mutual trust and acceptance (Bertcher and Maple 1996). Although teams work best when everyone shares the same values and their interactions are guided by common principles (Wheatley 1992), this is difficult to achieve when team members represent diverse professional positions. Team members must share the core val-
198
Chapter Nine
ues of their collaborative enterprise if they are to trust the guiding principles of what in most cases is a temporary organization. When participants are able to trust in the purpose of the organization, they are also likely to feel secure enough to express themselves in creative or unconventional ways. Unconventional behavior, however, is only acceptable it if does not threaten others and if it is understood to be in the interest of the group effort. Each discipline has its own conventions and we are often uncomfortable if forced to work outside those conventional rules of appropriate behavior. One of the most effective ways for team members to overcome the perceived threat of working outside the comfort zone of their disciplinary conventions is to create new ones. But before they can do this, they must have a working environment that supports the communication and interaction required for integration. Different cultural groups have distinctly different perceptions, understandings, and concepts of reality. Different professions function much like different cultures with their own value systems and social norms and in the way they read clues and pattern their interactive behavior (Motloch 1991). In group settings people are expected to follow the rules of the prevailing culture. However, on interdisciplinary teams many professional "cultures" must coexist in the same setting. Each culture or profession takes its values for granted and members assume that others share their perceptions and interactive behavior. Unfortunately, these are internalized patterns and people rarely understand the behavioral norms or social values of others. This makes it difficult to interact and achieve consensus in a complex or poorly understood cultural setting. In providing a team environment that is mutually understood, it is useful to recall the two kinds of spatial settings: proxemic space and distemic space. Because proxemic settings are occupied by homogeneous groups with highly consistent social behavior, they facilitate interpersonal interactions that are extremely complex. All members of the group are thoroughly familiar -with the rules, which are largely taken for granted, therefore policing behavior is accomplished by internal social pressure and there are few interpersonal conflicts and little need for behavioral cues to prompt appropriate interaction. Distemic settings, on the other hand, are occupied by people who are culturally diverse. They hold different values, codes of conduct, or attitudes, and the behavior of one group may be expected to conflict with and infringe on that of another. To avoid conflict, behavior is controlled by explicit rules, cues, or external policing. The need to control behavior makes spontaneous and creative interaction difficult in a distemic setting. The team environment needs to provide a proxemic setting for interactions to be effective. To do this it must promote the accultura-
199
Design Collaboration
tion of team members to synthesize common group values and pro~mote harmonious and synergistic interaction. When people have the security such a setting provides they may also be expected to have the confidence to deal with the uncertainties of demanding interpersonal interaction. People behave differently in different settings. A team environment that frees members from the constraints of prior experience and enables them to excel as individuals also holds the greatest potential for creating the best individuals for the team, and a team that can make the most of the opportunities confronting it.
Shared Vision The greatest likelihood that a design team will realize its full potential is when all the members share a strong personal commitment to their common enterprise (Katzenbach and Smith 1993). For team members to be committed to interactive collaboration they must have a common core of shared values. One of the first priorities in establishing a team is to develop a set of inclusive project values. Through these a sense of common purpose will be created that will govern their collective behavior (Senge 1990; Parker 1994). This is established by the collaborative development of a set of inclusive project goals. For the collaboration to be seen as worthwhile, the team goals must embrace the individual values of all its members. Although project purpose is the critical factor to group formation, the members are only likely to commit themselves to full and active participation if they see a personal benefit in doing so. Shared goals enable individual team members to shape the work of the entire team to address their personal aspirations and ensure the loyalty of all members to the group. A strongly shared sense of purpose provides a clear picture of the common future they seek to create and binds team members together (Lawson 1994). Team members are motivated to excel in their collaborative participation because they do so in their own self-interest. Teamwork is most creative when it operates with a few clear principles and a great deal of individual freedom (Wheatley 1992). Teams working as learning organizations with a capacity for self-development and periodic renewal naturally develop their own unique vision as members share knowledge and increase one another's overall understanding of their common purpose. Since reality is not fixed, it must be continually defined and redefined. Central to the process is a capacity for good listening. Unfortunately, since we all seem to trust the things we understand the most, individual designers may trust
200
Chapter Nine
their own vision of the future more than that of someone else whose vision they may neither understand nor appreciate very well. Team interaction that promotes good listening, which is not a universal trait, is one of the most important factors to the creation and maintenance of a sense of common purpose.
Team Leadership Effective team leadership is usually subtle. On interdisciplinary teams the leader's function is to provide focus and direction for the group by constantly reminding members of the project vision they themselves have created. Since the best teams are self-defined, selfmanaged, self-taught, and self-regenerating, it is not the function of the team leader to establish the vision. Team members must be able to make significant individual contributions as well as participate collectively. Successful leaders are those who can bring out the best contributions of the members individually and, as a consequence, the team collectively. A prerequisite to successful leadership is mutual respect between team members and team leaders. An effective leader needs to represent the project rather than a particular discipline, although they often are drawn from one of the disciplines on the team. People tend to have more confidence in and feel more comfortable with those who see the world in much the same way they do. Although such a leader may (or may be thought to) favor the position of a particular discipline, effective leaders have the ability to transcend discipline-based labels and foster broad support for the shared values of the team. The effective leader facilitates team interaction by protecting members from embarrassment and power struggles. The team must not be dominated by a few who may be highly verbal or have dominant personalities. Domination by a few can diminish the contributions of less assertive members, thereby diminishing the quality of team learning and the quality of the team's collective understanding. An essential aspect of team leadership is the ability to organize a number of highly talented people, who are most often accustomed to organizing themselves or others. Caudill described this with an analogy to football and the role of specialists on the team. If the team has a superstar, management is easy-just give that player the ball most of the time. But teams may have several superstar specialists and this requires a much more sophisticated style of management. 'A. good coach designs the game plan to fit his people. Same with good managers" (Caudill 1984:74). The game plan must fit the people, not the people to the game plan.
201
Design Collaboration
Team Size A team should be as small as possible while maintaining the capacity to perform its required mission (Parker 1994; Bertcher and Maple 1996). As team size increases arithmetically, the relationships among the members increase geometrically, demanding significantly increased time and energy for communication and interaction. This in turn requires greater management oversight to prevent the loss of the team's intellectual agility and effectiveness. The larger the team the more rules members have to accept to maintain effectiveness. Larger team size reduces the team's freedom to act and results in a loss of spontaneity and creativity. Larger team size provides less opportunity for each person to participate actively, and some members may participate very little. The result of limited participation is that some individuals will undergo very little personal change from the process, and the group's ability to function as a learning organization will be diminished. Thus, team size is of critical importance to team success. Assessment of architectural teams reveals that many designers prefer their teams to be small enough to build close, productive relationships that lend themselves to easy communication-usually about five members-but large enough to assure the development and exploration of a variety of ideas (Lawson 1994). Team size, however, depends as much on the requirements of the project as the preference of the participants.
Team Participation The most effective teams have members that are task oriented, interact positively with one another, and share power equally (Bales and Cohen 1979). Effective teams are composed of people who share an interest in doing the best they can now rather than entertaining aspirations of achieving greater things later when they have more information or conditions are more favorabk Good team members are improvisers, flexible in their thinking and approach (Parker 1990); they learn what is needed to accomplish their goals, rather than rely on a formula. Their power derives from an ability to learn quickly what needs doing and doing it quickly. Creative, self-reliant team members are not only free to act, but just as importantly, free not to act according to previous patterns. They do not require the legitimizing tools of past experience to feel competent; they can learn new ways and change as they learn. While team members must focus on the collective problem from a holistic perspective, effective interdisci-
202
Design Collaboration
Chapter Nine
plinary action is possible only when strong disciplinarians interact. It takes accomplished disciplinarians and the depth of understanding they provide to function interdisciplinarily. Team members must be competent to represent their area of expertise and be able to communicate their knowledge and values effectively to the wider audience of the team. They need to have confidence in the value of their contributions and in the contributions of other team members. Good team players are knowledgeable, self-confident, hard working, and have good communication and diplomatic skills. They have the ability to work within the limitations of a team setting (Adair 1986). Team members must be able to engage in what is often heated discussion without being offended or threatened by challenge from others. They must be able to put criticism of their ideas to constructive advantage without damage to their egos. Team members need to be free to express themselves openly in order to say what is needed to improve team understanding and performance. This is done most effectively when conflicts are framed as a conflict of ideas rather than a conflict of personalities. They should also feel an obligation to provide the greatest support possible to the team, as well as the right to depend on that same level of support in return. Teams need members who have similar levels of expertise but different knowledge and problem-solving skills. If members are too different in the extent of their knowledge or experience, or if the boundaries between them are too distinct, they may withdraw into their comfort zones. Conversely, the more homogeneous the team in terms of knowledge or professional values the less likely the potential for truly creative interaction. If there are two people on a team with the same expertise, there is probably one too many. Team success seems to rely on having knowledgeable specialists who have the capacity to integrate into a commonly defined group. Followers must be able to become leaders when the moment is right, and leaders must be able to become followers when it benefits the project. The best teams become highly integrated learning organizations rather than a multidisciplinary collection of experts. What is crucial is the relationship that exists among members as they interact to pool their talents and establish the best course of action. A team operating within the context of its own self-referential values and principles is free to create-knowledge, vision, ideas, strategies, even itself-the things teams are formed to produce. Effective team members are committed to their group task as well as to the overall concept of collaborative resolution. All members of the team should be there by choice. Members who do not wish to participate cannot be forced; they will only become obstacles to the progress of others. Team members who want to be present but are
c .
203
unwilling to participate fully or conform to group norms should be replaced. On very rare occasions a team's members might need to be reconfigured to cope with a dominant individual, particularly if that person is considered central to the success of the project. But replacing a team member is not something to be taken lightly. If new members must be brought in they must be carefully integrated to ensure that they fully understand and accept the unique vision that has been created by the team. If new members are not fully integrated, they run the risk of constantly referring to their individual rather than the group's frame of reference.
Team Member Responsibilities The most important decision in forming an effective and creative team is the selection of its members. Successful team participation requires members who understand and accept two general responsibilities throughout the life of the project: to achieve the group's common purpose and to maintain harmony within the team environment (Adair 1986; Forsyth 1990). Neither of these responsibilities can be satisfied in the absence of the other. Design team members assume a number of specific responsibilities: to uphold the standards of performance in their professional discipline; to support other team members in meeting their standards; and to creatively integrate the team's multiple talents to produce an overall understanding and design result of exceptional quality. Meeting these responsibilities requires attitudes and working habits we may be unaccustomed to and for which we may be ill prepared by past experiences. To be genuinely creative, participants on an interdisciplinary team must be willing to relinquish control of the design process and of the design concept, to trust the collective vision as well as their collaborators, and to see the problem from a broader perspective than their previous experience provides. This is not easy for those accustomed to exercising control of the process as a way of controlling the quality of the product. The creative ideas of others may not be expressed in a form that we consider professionally acceptable according to the prevailing standards of our individual disciplines. But, upholding the traditions and best practices of our particular discipline should not be confused with being creative. In fact, it is just the opposite since these are character traits of convention not innovation. The depth of understanding seasoned professionals possess enables them to defy convention without an unacceptable risk of error or oversight. To achieve the understanding required for design excellence, team members must act in ways that bring out the best contributions of
204
Chapter Nine
one another. Unfortunately, we do not traditionally see the work of our collaborators as our personal responsibility. This is because between the professions we are not traditionally team players. The different disciplines have developed around real differences. The most important contribution of designers is their skill in composing the elements of the environment into a satisfying and effective form. But much of this contribution occurs after programming and development concepts have been determined, after the program has been essentially (and collaboratively) finalized. This means that the designer's individual contributions do not interfere with team programming but rather amplify the process. Many designers tend to be more synthetic than analytic in thinking style and if takes the integration of both styles to realize the greatest understanding of the issues. Designers also are particularly well prepared to formulate and predict the possibilities inherent in conceptual ideas. Their experience in implementing designs gives them valuable insights into potential technical and functional relationships; they are well acquainted with the impact of construction and maintenance methods on designs. Another valuable contribution is their ability to pull the ideas of other team members together and express them in ways that ensure everyone's complete understanding of the implications of the issues. Moreover, the designer's fluency in the universal language of graphic communication facilitates the understanding and discussion of concepts required to advance the investigation process. It is particularly important that ideas are made concrete and visible through graphic display to ensure shared understanding and reduce reliance on memory as well as interpretation (Warfield 1990). Each team must work out its own procedure for integrating members' multiple contributions without yielding to the temptation to folIowa path of least resistance and let the "experts" take charge in the interest of efficiency. Even after the program has been finalized it is important that it is thoroughly reviewed by the full team to ensure that goals and performance criteria related to every member's point of view have been included. Or, alternatively, if all such criteria have not been included, at least everyone will be fully aware of the trade-off that has been made. The omission will not be made in error but by consensus.
Rules of Engagement Because the interdisciplinary process is so unlike single discipline or multidiscipline approaches, team members may have to follow a few rules, some of which call for interactions that are different from traditional designer behavior. These rules of engagement enable the interaction of relative strangers to proceed without undue disruption
Design Collaboration
205
and improve the chance of reaching a successful conclusion. Sometimes highly regarded individuals come to be seen as prima donnas. But, there can be no prima among a team of equals. To avoid this each participant will benefit by observing a few rules.
Be a Team Player The first consideration in collaborative design is the integration of the different individual personalities into an effectively functioning social group. Teams are formed to take advantage of differences and to pool dissimilar talents, consequently keeping the team together is a constant and collective responsibility. To fit into this milieu, designers must find ways to shift their conceptual focus from thinking of their role as autonomous individuals to that of team players. This happens only when team members commit fully to doing more than just their share of the work, with the expectation that others will do the same.
Everyone Is Equal By definition there can be no most or least important players on a team. Only those who are necessary are members of the team and all those who are members of the team are necessary. Within a knowledge-building process it is important that the contributions of all members are seen as crucial to overall design success. This requires avoiding verbal and symbolic communications designed to convey an elevated status for any individual discipline or team member. Since all members of the team are selected on the basis of individual excellence, excellence among team members is the norm, not the exception.
Share Knowledge All members of the team must take responsibility for identifying the relevant issues and communicating them effectively (persuasively) to the rest of the team. Each discipline contributes to the creation of a comprehensive view of the project. It is important for team members to bear in mind that their particular area of expertise may not be fully understood by other team members and to take steps to ensure that the necessary information is communicated. Withholding knowledge to enhance individual position or influence, for example, can be highly destructive to team interaction and learning.
Listen Actively To become effectively integrated into the team, members must hear and understand the positions of one another. This requires more than just allowing other members to present their views; it also requires that all members assume responsibility for listening care-
206
Chapter Nine
fully, with an open mind, to understand fully the views of others. Unless we achieve this level of understanding it will be impossible to understand the implications of another's insights to our own area of responsibility. Good team members listen well-to clients, users, and one another.
Learn Critically To be effective, participants need to learn new things quickly if they are to internalize them in time to put them to use through design. Perhaps even more importantly, team members must be able to unlearn old things, things they thought were true, but only when viewed from prior positions. The conditions and ideas to which participants must respond change with the composition of the team. Being a quick learner also enables team members to move effectively from project to project and team to team.
Remain Flexible Because the team is a learning organization, members must be able to shift position as new information or ideas are absorbed. Unless team members are able to reposition themselves and their ideas quickly, the development of new knowledge will not be able to favorably influence design outcomes. It is important to remain tentative with all positions until a final, consensual decision has been reached. This means that commitments must be abandoned and reformed repeatedly throughout the process as increasingly integrated understanding emerges from the interactions of team members.
No Hidden Agendas All members of the team must be confident enough to reveal their individual goals and aspirations for the project. One of the major obstacles to effective interaction within a design team is not the result of too many disciplines but too many agendas. Sometimes these are openly stated, but far too often they are not. Hidden agendas can prevent the best-organized team from reaching collectively acceptable design performance standards and results. Excellence in a single area may be a common way of achieving exceptional disciplinary results, but it will almost certainly lead to mediocre team results. Participation to satisfy ulterior purposes, other than those agreed upon by the team as a whole, is certain to damage the team process.
Share the Design Role In a team setting the traditional role of the designer is altered. Particularly during programming, the designer must act as a facilitator
Design Collaboration
207
to promote the form-giving influence of other team members and to help form a design team that will, in turn, collectively influence design form. This role requires shifting from a product -as-object to a product-as-process approach to design. During the programming stage, the designer serves more as a player/coach than as a player with primary responsibility. It is the design relationships rather than the design form that facilitates improvements in the environment, and each member of the team has important contributions to make in establishing those relationships. Programming seeks to establish the design requirements, not the design form; the form of the solution, which will come later, is simply the instrument for shaping the desired relationships.
Share the Ownership of Ideas Viewing the designer as the sole source of ideas is not only ineffective, it is destructive to team interaction. When teams work synergistically it is often difficult to determine where ideas originate; they just seem to happen. When team members share in the collective ownership of ideas they are allies in getting them accepted and realized. If only one or a few get the credit, the others cannot be counted on for full support. What can be counted on is that those who do not receive credit will work against acceptance of the ideas of those who do.
Actively Seek Critique The critical evaluation of ideas is the team's primary means of feedback for the improvement of design understanding. Without feedback there is no learning. Although we normally like to have positive feedback, it is the negative feedback that provides the most useful insights. Feedback from multiple perspectives strengthens our understanding of reality at the same time that it strengthens our ability to think collaboratively. Designers are not always objective in evaluating their own ideas. Because other team members may have less emotional commitment to a particular design idea, they may be expected to respond with greater objectivity.
Keep Designs Impersonal Critical analysis of design schemes carries the inherent risk that the proposal under review may be unacceptable to other team members. Should this happen and the originators of the concept refuse to accept criticism, the process will not lead to improved understanding. When ideas become team property, critique serves to preserve an attitude of open-mindedness and objectivity and permits the growth of understanding on which appropriate design response may be based. To maintain freshness in approach and to move quickly to gain new knowledge
208
Chapter Nine
from design concepts, we must be able to actively promote the critical evaluation of the ideas we produce. Doing so is dependent on our ability to separate ourselves, and our reputations, from our ideas.
Keep Communication Effective One of the most important aspects of successful interaction and decision making is positive, two-way communication among the participants. Great care must be exercised in the method of information exchange since lengthy, poorly structured interaction is time consuming and unproductive. This not only becomes prohibitively expensive, but actually discourages further communication. The challenge lies in how to encourage more communication rather than just more talk. Each team member must strive for informative and efficient communication if group interaction is to be productive.
Keep Communication Positive Since team members must work closely together it is important that sharp comment on ideas is not interpreted as a personal attack. The openness required for effective team interaction and feedback requires the removal of social masks, which in turn leaves team members vulnerable. Team members must exercise particular care to avoid destroying this openness, and the free exchange of ideas it promotes, through the use of careless comments. It is a truism that others will go along with you only if they get along with you. There should be an underlying concern that all communication is expressed as a positive attempt to improve understanding, rather than as a contest between people with competing ideas.
Avoid Jargon Effective team interaction requires the use of a common language equally understandable to all members. As disciplines become more sophisticated and distinct they develop unique language forms for communicating complex concepts in shorthand. This means that team members uninitiated in a particular discipline will often be unable to decode the language being spoken. Unless all members communicate in a common language the predictable transfer of knowledge will not take place. At times this may require an explanation of esoteric terms, but these should be kept to a minimum.
Keep Focused For decision making to proceed effectively the process must focus on the project and its key issues-as they have been holistically defined by the group. Unless the critical issues are maintained as the
Design Collaboration
209
team's primary focus, thinking may slip back into traditional pat~terns. Once this happens, the creative interaction of the team will diminish. Once lost, regaining focus on the project's uniquely defined character is virtually impossible. If an idea of importance to a particular member is not accepted by the group, that member must accept this and move on. Repeated attempts to bring the team to accept the idea may only have the effect of marginalizing its proponent, resulting in further loss of that member's contribution.
Maintain a TIght Schedule The need for focus is mirrored by the need for speed and momentum. Because group work is inevitably slowed by the increased need for communication, it is important that the time schedule is rigorously compressed to take advantage of as many feedback cycles and as many opportunities to build and refine understanding as reasonably possible. If time is allowed to drag, the process will lose momentum that may never be regained.
Carry Your Share of the Load Always do your share of the work, and when necessary, be prepared to do more. Teams have little patience with members who are not, or appear not to be, doing their share. When the work of the project as a total effort is understood to belong to everyone, then the issue of someone doing only his or her share never arises. While all team members share overall responsibility for the project, they rely on one another to provide specific leadership in the areas of expertise and skill each member represents.
Put Pride Aside The most important rule for managing a team is to prevent personal pride from negatively affecting the relationships. If we can keep focused on what the team is trying to collectively achieve and ignore the slight of having our own ideas rebuffed from time to time, almost anything is possible. But if we are overly sensitive to our individual position or contributions, the slightest conflict can become magnified to the extent that it interferes with, and perhaps derails, the process.
Interdisciplinary Process On interdisciplinary teams the design professionals, as all other members, serve the team and the team collectively serves the project: they employ their discipline to address the problem rather than engaging the project to advance the status of their discipline. This is a
210
Chapter Nine
substantial departure from the process employed to produce many highly regarded (and awarded) designs of a disciplinary discrete character. Projects executed by lead-discipline teams are often more effective at articulating the prevailing values of their profession than addressing the broad problems of the environment. The first task of the collaborative process is to define the problem comprehensively, at which stage the design professional is just another member of the team with a particular area of expertise to contribute. The knowledge that drives design decisions may originate from many sources and interactive learning represents one of the most important ways of establishing the broad base of understanding required for effective project resolution. A team process that promotes success through the recognition of specific individuals or disciplines impedes interdisciplinary interaction and synergy. Ultimately, it is not a particular design process but the design result that matters most. Any way to introduce increased knowledge into the stream of decision making to improve holistic understanding and the conditions of the environment is desirable. Central to success is an ability to understand the salient issues and apply that understanding to design response. Better informed design is the immediate goal of the process; better places for living and improved relationships between people and the environment are the long-term goals. Any approach that achieves excellence in these areas is an appropriate way for designers to discharge their responsibilities. However, one departure from the traditions of design practice seems particularly useful; for designers to shift their attention from design products to design process, to move from a view of reality that focuses on the objects making up a system to an understanding of the systemic relationships among them. This can lead to a particularly useful discovery: that product and process are not different aspects of reality but the same thing seen from different points of view. The landscape "product" is simply a point-in-time expression of the ongoing "process" of environmental change. Therefore both must be considered before either is likely to be understood or improved by design. The conceptual design ideas produced by the interdisciplinary team may be compared to the variable organic forms found in nature. Life forms develop in response to the diverse forces of the environments in which they evolve. In the design process, just as in nature, many potential new forms are proposed. All organisms occasionally produce atypical results, mutant progeny, most of which do not survive. But every so often a new form appears to fit a little more perfectly and becomes the progenitor of its line due to its success in the environment-possibly because the environment itself has changed (Bohm 1982; Birch 1990). In design, as in nature, most experimental forms do not survive. Just as the unsuccessful progeny fails in the
Design Collaboration
211
environment, the unsuccessful design innovation cannot withstand ~ the harsh realities of knowledge-based evaluation; only those ideas with high survival value flourish. Also, just as in nature, anyone of a number of factors may be limiting to the survival of the novel form. In nature, feedback from the environment acts directly; in design the influence of limiting factors is expressed indirectly, through the knowledge of team members who are intimately familiar with their potential implications. Survival value in design depends on acceptance of an idea from the multiple perspectives of the team members, and ultimately from individual users and society. The requirement for broad team support diminishes the possibility of strong disciplines or personalities exerting undue influence on the acceptance of idiosyncratic, and perhaps inappropriate, design forms. But the form of the environment, even successful form, is only temporary. The more comprehensive and appropriate the changes imposed, the more satisfying and enduring, that is, the more sustainable the design. The more narrow the range of issues addressed, the less designs will satisfy and the more transient they will be. Survival or design success depends heavily on whether the changes imposed on the environment are both comprehensive and appropriate-the issues interdisciplinary teams are best at determining. Our concepts of aesthetics, form, function, and environmental fit continuously evolve toward greater complexity and process definition. One reason for this is that our methods for producing and evaluating changes in the environment are responsive to the demands of increasing knowledge to explain the expanding relationships we seek to improve. By understanding design as an integrated and interactive process of systems learning and change, rather than just the individual creation of unique proprietary artifacts, we will reform a traditional definition of design as an activity. And perhaps for the first time the environmental design professions will begin to operate holistically, under concepts that approximate the reality of nature rather than our relatively limited disciplinary concepts of it.
10 Conclusion The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new lands but in seeing with new eyes. -Marcel Proust
Linking knowledge to design form depends as much on how well we think as on how much we know. Design thinking includes many kinds of mental activity, including observation, inquiry, recall, speculation, interpretation, evaluation, and judgment. Just as the landscape is our most valuable resource, thinking is our most valuable design tool. We need to keep it on the cutting edge of learning, creativity, and exploration. Unfortunately, we all have preconceived ideas that are reinforced by our personal experiences and professional allegiances. Engineers, for example, are trained to value a conservative approach-their designs favor a proven prototype. Architects are trained to value a liberal approach-they favor innovative departures from prevailing norms. Landscape architects value prevailing environmental processes-their designs tend to integrate change in ways that respect existing cultural and ecological conditions. Developers tend to be pragmatic-they value immediate market response. When left to our own devices none of us is really objective about design priorities (Lawson 1994). Because we subconsciously operate
213
214
Chapter Ten
from these preconceived notions, it is difficult to maintain objectivity. These notions have been established by past experiences that cloud our ability to assess current reality objectively (Pearce 1988). We do not perceive reality objectively, but mentally construct our notions of it from the information we process (Bruer 1993; McCombs 1994). Since we all operate with different background knowledge and information, we anticipate a different reality. And because our assumptions influence our understanding, what we see of reality is strongly influenced by what we expect to see; the mind directs perception as much as perception informs the mind (Pearce 1988). Mental activity does not reflect an environment independent of the mind that perceives it and therefore does not reveal an objectively existing external reality (Capra 1996). Each of us lives in a different reality. To design for a commonly shared reality, rather than for one that is individually conceived, we must be able to determine what it is. We need to impose a measure of objective assessment on our observations and our judgments. To do this we must be able to think critically.
Critical Thinking While most attention is focused on creative thinking in design, it may be that critical thinking is the most important. This is not because creativity is less important but because we need to be sure that we are applying ourselves to the right, or at least the most important, problems. Creatively addressing the wrong problems is unlikely to lead to meaningful change in the landscape. Improving the quality of our thinking processes is the most productive area of control at our disposal to improve design process and design success. Thinking is defined as controlled mental activity (Ruggiero 1998:2). There are at least two areas of control that are critical to design success. To be a successful thinker requires both factual accuracy and facility in dealing with the facts we possess: proficiency in thinking. One of the most common ways of describing design is to frame it as a problem-solving process. Designers are, among other things, problem solvers. Good problem solvers share a number of characteristics (Ruggiero 1998:10): • Clarity on how to begin: Good problem solvers are able to assess a problem carefully and begin immediately to attack it. Poor problem solvers have difficulty in understanding unknown situations and formulating a clear method of attack. • Focused application of available knowledge: Bringing to bear the knowledge they possess, rather than waiting for more perfect information, is a common characteristic of good' problem
Conclusion
215
solvers. Poor problem solvers are often hesitant, feeling that they will be better informed and better equipped later when more information is available. • Systematic thinking: Breaking down problems allows you to resolve comprehensible components or sub-problems. Poor problem solvers often begin unsystematically, jump haphazardly from one part of the problem to another, or operate from untested hypothetical positions. • Rely on reasoning: Confident and self-reliant, good problem solvers trust their intelligence to find a productive and satisfying solution. Poor problem solvers often lack the confidence to move vigorously ahead and confront problems directly, particularly when they have no clear vision about a conclusion. • Critical perspective: This occurs when you recognize that problem solving requires critical evaluation of steps and possibilities until the issues are completely resolved. Poor problem solvers often lack a critical attitude and take too much for granted, moving through the process without thoroughly evaluating possibilities to determine whether knowledge is being applied effectively. In design, as in all aspects of life, if we cannot effectively apply the knowledge we possess we are no better off for having it. Through critical thinking we develop an awareness of the assumptions we, and others, make to guide thoughts and actions and as a consequence, become aware of the context in which thoughts and actions are developed. It is through this critical awareness that we examine ideas and decide for ourselves whether to accept or reject them. For critical thinkers, ideas are accepted not because they are acceptable to others, but because they are found to be congruent with the reality in which they exist (Brookfield 1987). Critical thinkers are, by definition, independent thinkers-skeptical of universal truths, simple answers, and quick-fix solutions. When Galileo published the Dialogue on the Great World Systems, his theory that the earth rotated around the sun rather than the other way around, he was threatened with torture if he did not publicly recant. His ideas were not acceptable to the Church of Rome. In fact, Galileo had been instructed not to publish the theory (originated by Copernicus) because it conflicted with Church doctrine that the earth was the center of the universe (Bronowski 1973:209). Although he prudently recanted, Galileo stubbornly held to his critical view, as expressed in his famous comment: "1 do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended for us to forego their use./f But of course, for many, that is precisely what happens. Because thoughts and actions are socially
216
Chapter Ten
mediated, critical thinking can be a threatening prospect, even though for most this is a social rather than physical threat. The most important object of design education is to develop fluency in critical and creative thinking. Acquiring knowledge is important, of course. "You can only think what you know" (Barucchieri 1990, pers. comm.), so acquiring knowledge is prerequisite to creative thinking. Critical thinking is prerequisite to knowledge application: making effective use of what we know. Many people possess knowledge that they cannot effectively apply through design. Design thinking, the integration of critical and creative thinking, requires learning that is actively directed and contextual rather than passive and socially mediated. Scientists, who spend their professional lives trying to objectively define reality, are often reluctant to speculate and thus lose their objectivity. Designers, on the other hand, are forced to speculate since all design is for the future. To improve the likelihood of success, designers must be highly critical with their thinking. But there are many common obstacles to independent thought. The common impediments to critical thinking are mostly habits or learned patterns of thinking. Many of these thinking habits are easily recognized. Among the most common are the following (Ruggiero 1998:45): • Assumption of superiority: asserting that our ideas are the best they can be, usually as an extension of ourselves or an expression of ego. Beginning with the presumption of superiority destroys objectivity and eliminates the possibility of examining issues openly on the basis of merit. • Face saving: similar to the assumption of superiority, face saving comes into play after a position has been expressed or an action taken. It then becomes necessary to prove that it was the correct action, seeing only the advantages of an idea in order to protect the ego and avoid embarrassment. • Resistance to change: the tendency to reject new ideas without examining them thoroughly simply because we are comfortable with the way things are. Intellectual inertia may be one of the most powerful, and normal, human forces. This may serve as a defense mechanism against change coming too fast to be absorbed, threatening the status quo. • Conformity: taking the value of adhering to mutual expectations and social mores too far; thinking and acting with greater regard for what others might think rather than for truthfulness, intellectual honesty, or the advantages, as well as disadvantages, of a concept or action. • Stereotyping: the extreme form of generalizing things into categories according to common traits. StereotypiIlg blinds us to
Conclusion
217
the reality that exists because our minds are already fixed on what we expect it to be, leading to irrational thought. • Self-deception: willful self-delusion to support a positive or flattering rather than negative interpretation of our ideas or actions; often to protect our egos, or to avoid responsibilities or consequences we wish to avoid. Designers who are successful in changing the environment in meaningful ways, reliant on their own self-confidence and reasoning capacity, tend to avoid these thinking pitfalls. Their ability to sustain critical evaluation as an integral aspect of design thinking actively protects them from habits of ego protection and self-delusion. For designers, developing the facility of critical thinking is fundamental to improving their capacity to see the world anew with each project and create new and more effective intellectual responses to it. To develop the skills of critical and creative thinking we need to be able to recognize the traits by which they are defined. Critical thinking is an activity that involves much more than the skills of logical analysis. "It involves calling into question the assumptions underlying our customary, habitual ways of thinking and acting and then being ready to think and act differently on the basis of this critical questioning" (Brookfield 1987: 1). Some ofthe fundamental characteristics by which this kind of thinking may be identified include (Brookfield 1987: 5): • Productive and positive activity: Critical thinkers are engaged with life; they are innovators who see possibilities for improving all aspects of their personal, social, and professional lives. They see the world as dynamic and open to change rather than static and are confident about their possibilities for change through personal actions or collaboration with others. By thinking critically, they tend to become aware of the value of diversity in all aspects of life, making them accepting of differences and respectful of values and actions different from their own. • Process, not outcome, oriented: Critical thinking requires an ongoing process of learning and questioning of assumptions. Such thinkers never arrive at a final conclusion. Reaching a final or perfect state that describes a single desired or universal truth is contradictory to the skeptical nature of the critical thinker. The world and the ideas to describe it are thought to be dynamic and evolving rather than fixed. • Driven by context: Manifestations of critical thinking are dependent on the contexts in which they occur. To the critical thinker there is no conclusive way of describing reality through the development of universal truths, ideas, or values. All ideas are contextual and thus varied according to setting: localities, regions, or cultures.
218
Chapter Ten
• lriggered by either positive or negative stimulus: Critical thinking is just as likely to result from a traumatic or unsatisfactory event as from an exhilarating or joyful one. In either case, critical thinkers tend to reinterpret past values, ideas, or actions in light of current knowledge or experience and extrapolate applications to create a more satisfying future. • Emotive as well as rational: Emotions are central to the critical-thinking process. The exhilaration of an intellectual breakthrough is just as rewarding and important as the rationality of its content. Abandonment of old assumptions can be a personally liberating experience, just as the creation of a new intellectual paradigm is satisfying as a strategy for responding to this abandonment. Ultimately, design success will depend on how effectively we employ knowledge to create the conditions we seek. Insights about future potentials are as important as information about prevailing conditions. We need to place more emphasis on the value to be derived from information than on the information itself. Being right about the past does not make us right about the future; that is, right about how to best use knowledge to shape design. Consequently, our Western traditions of thinking, which are highly focused on knowing and categorizing "what is," often work against the interests of design thinking, which is highly innovative and speculative about "what might be."
Creative Thinking Designers like to speak of being creative. But, in fact, designers create nothing. What designers actually do is to think creatively about how best to rearrange things in significant and unusual ways. If we "create" a building, this does not mean that we create the stone or the wood or the glass. These design components are created by nature. What we create are new relationships. The stone is quarried and the wood is cut from trees in regular shapes. The glass results from reforming the sand. Then we assemble these components into innovative--ereative-arrangements. The same is true in the design of a landscape. Buildings are arranged and plants are moved from one place to another to form desired patterns. Stone is arranged for walls or paving, and water may be relocated by reshaping the soil to form impoundments. For designers, creation means thinking up meaningful ways to arrange the parts and the whole. The design process requires both creative and critical thinking, but they must be organized into a pattern that integrates rather than conflicts. A common way for designers to improve understanding is to
Conclusion
219
pose a series of "what if?" questions and move from program to ~design response in an alternating pattern (Lyle 1985). The sequence enables designers to pose a series of conceptual design proposalswhat if we did this?-then evaluate them to gain insight into the critical issues. The sequence alternates between creative and critical thinking (De Bono 1994). The designer creates a new idea, critically evaluates it to determine its strengths and weaknesses from varied perspectives and, as a result, broadens the basis for improvements in understanding. Most significantly, the process creates an expanding knowledge base from which to evaluate proposals and gain increasingly insightful feedback. We seek creative solutions to design problems because no other type of response will do. Conventional responses are not solutions. Unless we depart from tradition, designs will never improve on our ability to incorporate new knowledge and address the changing conditions of the future. But that does not mean that any departure from the past is automatically creative or a better-informed solution. Creative departure is only useful when it is successful relative to intent and context. If we are to improve our creative thinking ability we need to understand its qualities and the characteristics of those who produce novel and effective design responses. Creative thinkers share a number of common characteristics (Ruggiero 1998:84) and tend to be: • Daring: For creative people, thinking is an adventure since they are less inclined to conform to conventional views and less confined in their mental outlook. The challenge for creative thinkers is stimulating and enjoyable. They are unafraid to entertain unpopular or even outrageous ideas. And they are unafraid to make a mistake. • Resourceful: They are effective due to their ability to conceptualize unusual and unconventional approaches to problem solving. This ability, one of the most important aspects of practical intelligence, may develop as a consequence of having limited access to conventional means or resources. • Industrious: They are hardworking and undaunted by the threat of failure, determined to succeed no matter what effort is required. This may result in part from creative thinkers' tendency to become deeply absorbed in the problem and to focus all their attention on solving it. It is also likely that they are passionate about the issue and thus willing to expend whatever effort is required. • Independent: They draw greater strength from personal accomplishment than from the approval of others. Consequently, the social distance that is created by proposing a new
220
Chapter Ten idea is not threatening to them and does not inhibit their speculating with or expressing these ideas to others.
Because these characteristics are thinking habits as much as they are expressions of intellect and personality, they lend themselves to learning and development. To become expert in any field requires a significant investment in time and effort to master the necessary knowledge and skills. For this reason people rarely gain expertise in an area in which they do not have the intellectual predisposition-the talent-and the intense personal interest-passion-necessary to sustain the required commitment of time and effort. Of these requisites, intense personal interest may be the most important to success. Bauhaus architect Walter Gropius said, "Only work which is the product of inner compulsion can have spiritual meaning." Deriving spiritual meaning from our work enables us to focus intensely, improving the likelihood of "discovering" creative ideas. But intensity is often balanced by another characteristic of creative thinkers. Creative people are, as much as anything else, playful, almost childlike about their work. They are highly engaged because they find their work enjoyable and challenging. Carl Jung said, "The creative mind plays with the object it loves." Creative thinkers become so immersed in their work that they are endlessly entertained by it. They toy with the things they enjoy, with the result that many possibilities are created and examined before reaching a conclusion and selecting the best of their ideas for application to the problem before them. An amateur within any field may find his or her pursuits personally and spiritually meaningful. Amateurs, however, love doing a thing whether it is well done or not. Professionals require more than the personal satisfaction of engaging in the creative activity. They also require objectively measured success. They hold themselves accountable for a much higher standard of performance that mere participation. Their ideas must be intellectually sound as well as rewarding to produce, and for them the success of the idea relates to objective and peer recognition as well as success in the market environment. Successful designers have the capacity for creating new ideas. Ideas are to design what light is to painting. Ideas are the vehicle that both shapes and expresses the meaning of design. Designers must be creative as well as critical thinkers. As Francis Cartier noted: There is only one way in which a person acquires a new idea: by the combination or association of two or more ideas he already has into a new juxtaposition in such a manner as to discover a relationship among them of which he was not previously aware.
Looking for this new relationship requires great effort as well as great interest. Discovering new relationships, as the goal of the creative designer, is greatly advanced by a deep interest in pursuing them.
221
Conclusion
Summary This brief introduction to landscape architecture theory has dealt with few issues in detail. The attempt rather has been to bring a broad range of issues together in a systematic way. As an interpretation of design theory it began with a few simple questions. What is it that landscape architects do? Why do we do it? How do we do it? How do we determine when we have done it well? The ability to answer these questions relies on a comprehensive body of knowledge. The responses provided have been a summary of the writings of some of the clearest and most articulate thinkers in our field. They have included landscape architecture teachers, researchers, and practitioners, as well as a wide range of designers and scientists from other fields: anthropologists, architects, artists, ecologists, engineers, foresters, geographers, geologists, mathematicians, physicists, planners, psychologists, and sociologists, who have been actively engaged in advancing design knowledge and theory over the last half century. An interesting result of this examination of the literature has been the revelation that the criteria for producing appropriate functional relationships, enhanced aesthetic experience, healthy ecosystems, and healthy people bear striking similarities to one another. They all require a holistic and creative approach to organizing and integrating complex relationships into unified wholes. We may have begun to answer the questions about what we do and why, but left largely unanswered are the questions about how to do it and, in particular, how to assure that it is done well. That is, how to creatively connect a broad and rapidly changing knowledge base to design performance. In this regard it might be well to remember the advice of Linus Pauling, two-time recipient of the Nobel Prize. "The best way to have good ideas is to have lots of ideas." After that, it is simply a process of throwing out the bad ideas and keeping only the best. Simply stated, landscape architects discern what needs to be changed in the landscape, as well as what should not; develop and evaluate a number of possible courses of action and predict their likely implications; and formulate design recommendations for changing the landscape. The processes we employ to achieve these ends encompass a range of complex and interacting systems. This seems to be necessary no matter what our client's intentions, the needs of users, or the context of the environment. It is particularly true if our goal is design excellence: to achieve the highest standard of design performance and satisfy a full spectrum of immediate and long-term requirements for improving our relationships with one another and the landscape. What we require from theory is a basis for design approach that will dependably lead to the results we seek. The character of such an
222
Chapter Ten
approach was outlined by John Ormsbee Simonds, one of the clearest voices of landscape architecture in the twentieth century: The design approach then is not essentially a search for form, not primarily an application of principles. The true design approach stems from the realization that a plan has meaning for man(kind), for whom it is planned, and only to the degree to which it brings facility, accommodation, and delight to the senses, and inspiration to his mind and soul. It is a creation of optimum relationships resulting in a total experience. (1961 :226)
Unless we are content to rely upon chance, one of the critical tasks for achieving excellence in design must almost certainly be to devise a strategic thinking process. Unfortunately, designers are often reluctant to accept or develop a definitive, systematic process for the creation of design ideas, viewing it as an inhibition to their creativity and design freedom. This is true, partially because different design problems require a different approach to understanding and resolution. It is also true that greater knowledge creates greater responsibility and thus places greater restrictions on our freedom to act. But this insistence on personal freedom is also somewhat unrealistic in light of what we know about the environment today. It is no secret that the landscape is being systematically, although for the most part inadvertently, degraded by careless development and management. When considered in this light it seems to be a dereliction of responsibility when the cost of failure is so high. It also seems the height of inconsistency for designers to disdain the use of a strategic process to achieve their goals, while at the same time seeking to convince their clients that they should do so. That is, we encourage our clients to understand the need for a systematic design approach to resolve their development projects. We want clients to engage us to execute the systematic process on their behalf-and, in addition, to compensate us for applying the process. There is an implicit message in an offer of design service that the designer is knowledgeable of such a process and expert in its application. It is, after all, the only area of knowledge in which we can claim exclusive expertise. Almost all other knowledge comes from disciplines outside the design domain. When armed with such a strategy, we are reasonably well positioned to predict whether our theory and its influence on what we do to shape the landscape-how we design and why-will lead us toward satisfaction of the goals we set out to achieve, and not incidentally, toward the goals that our clients, design users, and members of the general public wish to achieve by the design changes they undertake. In addition to design process, there is the issue of the knowledge required to achieve excellence in design result. We must assure that we
Conclusion
223
are well-informed by current knowledge and equipped with contemporary technology to predictably devise and realize the improved conditions we seek. An evidence-based design approach is required to systematically identify and integrate the knowledge required to frame these goals and estimate their likely satisfaction. It is useful to approach design from the view that it is not in spite of, but because of, our comprehensive understanding of the critical design issues and limitations that we are able to design. Without constraints there would be no design since there would be no compelling purpose to the changes we propose. Unlike art, design requires purpose beyond the act itself. Finally, there is the issue of design skill. We must be well-trained, skilled in the integrated processes of acquiring new knowledge, translating it into design performance and form relationships, and communicating these relationships to others so that they may understand and support our efforts. Formulating appropriate, intellectually defensible, and inspiring design ideas is only one aspect of the design process. We should not forget the equally difficult task of implementation, realizing our ideas as a physical condition in the landscape. Design conceptualization and realization are equally complex and demanding activities. But, the discipline, technology, and economics of implementation exist at another level of consideration. For this examination of theory it is enough to consider only the quality of design ideas. What designers sell is advice based on the ideas we have for reforming the environment. When people take the advice we offer, and act on these ideas, design concepts become realities. For clients and users, the physical reality may be the ultimate objective. But for designers, the quality of design ideas-as ideas-is as important as the quality of the environments we create. And, in the selling of ideas, we must remain mindful that advice is only taken and acted on when it is understood and believed to be useful. Design success depends as much on communicating the purpose, validity, and value of our ideas as on the process of formulating and expressing them. Ultimately, the role (perhaps the goal, and certainly the hope) of the profession is to make meaningful and lasting contributions to the quality of our shared environment. If we can do this with each project we undertake no matter how small or how large, and these contributions accumulate over time, the positive influences of landscape architecture will be expressed in the nature and character of human life. Although we may all desire the great commissions by which the influence of our designs will be felt by many, the most likely commission is more modest. But the results need not be modest. It is not among the great monumental works of landscape design that most of us will spend our lives. The most pressing need for good design lies in the
224
Chapter Ten
streets, parks, neighborhoods, schools, shops, offices, and factories where we live and work and play each day of our lives. If there were a single agreed-upon purpose in our work, it might be to change with each new design our concepts about how to learn from and reform the ordinary landscape, the landscape that shapes our lives each day. As Garrett Eckbo wrote in 1950: goodtheory of landscapedesign,then, must be a theory of form as well as function. It must be artistic as well as practical,in order to produce the maximum for those who will experiencework influencedby it. Every work of landscape design, conscious or unconscious, whether it be the utility garden of the southern sharecropper or the Central Compositionof Washington, D.C., producesan arrangement of forms, colors, and textures in space which results in some sort of cumulative effect,good or bad, on those who pass through it. . . . This we can work toward every day on everyjob and everyproject,no matter how smallor inconsequentialit may seem.(1950:58)
A
The urban landscape-the city and its regional hinterland-is the ultimate human artifact. The quality of our cities speaks clearly about who we are as a people and the aspirations for life we share. Great societies quite naturally create great cities because they require them for and of themselves. It does not matter whether they are formed by the marble palaces of Venice or the mud buildings of Timbuktu. The most important measure of quality in the city is not in the material of its construction but in the character of life it creates for its inhabitants. And this quality is, to a significant extent, determined by the character of its shared public space-the landscape of the city. It is also this aspect of the city that is often the last to be consciously or artfully designed as a place for community life. The idea that it should be so designed continues to go unrecognized in far too many places. In the American experience these urban spaces are typically designed as zones of traffic movement and the location of utilities, not as settings of vibrant human interaction. To design and build them otherwise is considered a novel idea. But if it is the role of designers to advance new ideas, then the ideas we propose must be seen as useful and appropriate and inspiring. Creating ideas with relevance and urgency must be central to our task as designers if we are to approach greatness in our professional pursuits. Ultimately, the greatness to which designers aspire will result from more than sound knowledge well applied to satisfy the requirements of utility or economy or aesthetic experience or social vitality or ecological sustainability. It will be more than the form concepts that integrate knowledge to achieve these aims. Excellence in design results when all these considerations integrate to achieve a synergy of form and process that is greater than the sum of their parts, forming
Conclusion
225
a dynamic and interactive system of human-environment integration. For this reason the challenge of good design continues to expand at a pace even faster than the accumulation of knowledge or the demand for actions in response to it. As a consequence the designer can never establish design excellence as a permanent condition. Each significant achievement not only creates a new plateau of expectation, but also raises the bar in the pursuit to exceed these efforts in the continuing quest for design excellence. Design theory is required to support and improve both the creation and the implementation of great design ideas, and the continuous learning on which they are based. But we are still in the early stages of forming a coherent theory of landscape architecture. As educated citizens and professionals, we need a guiding philosophy, if only to satisfy our curiosity about the world and our place in it and, equally importantly, to establish our role in society as architects of the landscape. I encourage you, as you move into practice and research and begin to learn by experience, to continue to read and reflect, and most importantly, to write your own version of landscape architecture theory. By committing your thoughts to paper over time you may see more clearly what your ideas are and better determine where they are leading the profession you are preparing to lead. For most designers this is a lifetime search. In regard to that search I have two hopes for your journey through the development of theory. First, that it will provide an intellectual undercurrent of life-long learning to propel you along the professional stream of your choice. And second, that the journey will be as enjoyable as it is productive. As writer Ursula le Guin said, "It is good to have an end to journey towards; but it is the journey that matters, in the end."
Glossary There are some things which cannot be learned quickly, and time, which is all we have, must be paid heavily for their acquiring. They are the very simplest things and because it takes a man's life to know them, the little new that each man gets from life is very costly and the only heritage he has to leave. Ernest Hemingway, Death in the Afternoon
Aesthetic needs an individual's need to express or experience beauty and deep satisfaction with the conditions of life. Aesthetics the branch of philosophy that deals with beauty or that which is beautiful. Architecture the design discipline concerned with the creation of buildings and physical structures to shape, shelter, and facilitate human activities. Arousal the level of a person's psychological or physiological alertness regarding their extent of mental engagement in an activity or experience. Behavioral setting a space used as the setting for specific human activities or interactions. Carbon cycle the transfer of carbon from the atmosphere to plants through the process of photosynthesis and the return of carbon to the atmosphere through the process of respiration. Cognitive factors influences expressed as higher level human needs that motivate perception, intellectual inquiry, and learning. Conative factors influences expressed as basic needs that motivate human behavior. Consumers organisms (animals) arranged in the ecosystem as a food chain hierarchy that utilize, organize, and distribute the nutrients and energy stored by producer organisms (plants). Creative thinking mental activity free to move in any direction without constraint by prior knowledge or validation. Critical thinking mental activity held to high standards of knowledge and prior validation.
227
228
Glossary
Culturally sustainable space territory to which individuals and groups belong and to which they assume responsibilities for defense and maintenance over time. Decision modeling a process during which the designer assesses the outcomes from alternative development scenarios to determine the most appropriate recommendation for future action. Denitrification a process of bacterial decomposition that returns nitrogen present in the soil or in other organisms to the atmosphere. Design the process of determining the future form of a thing or place to bring about improvement; i.e. to make it more useful, economical, or beautiful. Design goals the broad results intended from a design intervention that are too far removed from specific form or behavior to be directly measured. Design legibility the extent to which environments reveal themselves and facilitate people's ability to comprehend and use them. Design objectives the steps, or measurable actions, specifically related to design form that are employed to satisfy the design goals. Design performance criteria the desired standards and relationships by which the quality of design'performance may be measured. Design process the sequence of events that extends from the time when a condition requiring design intervention is detected, through the deliberation of factors influencing the decision, to the final determination of a course of action. Design program the definitive statement of a problem to be solved by design. Design programming the process of acquiring knowledge to establish the statement of a problem to be solved by design. Dissipative structure characterization of the state of a system that is highly spontaneous, dynamic, and inherently unstable. Distemic space space that is shared by people who are culturally diverse and who hold different values, codes of conduct, myths, symbols, and cognitive attitudes. Distraction the temporary loss of focus that results from excessive sensory stimulation. Ecological succession a process during which an ecological community transitions from a relatively simple array of species and energy structure toward increasing complexity, and ultimately a climax condition of species structure and energy capture, use, and storage. Ecology the study of the relationships between organisms and their environment to understand the structure and function of nature. Ecosystem goods things with market value that are extracted from the environment and exchanged for money. Ecosystem management the management of ecosystems by regulating internal ecosystem structure and function to safeguard sustainability, diversity, and productivity rather than to provide for the delivery of resource "goods" and "services" to society.
Glossary
229
Ecosystem processes fundamental maintenance activities required to keep the system in good health and working order. Ecosystem services the processes that occur throughout the ecosystem that have value, but which are rarely exchanged for monetary benefit. Equilibrium structure characterization of the state of a system that is stable, highly integrated, interactive, and self-perpetuating. Feedback information in response to the evaluation of conditions that either confirms their appropriateness or illuminates discrepancies. Golden section a form with proportions exhibiting uniquely reciprocal relationships between two unequal parts of a whole, in which the small part stands in the same proportion to the large part as the large part stands to the whole. Hydrologic cycle sun-driven cycle of water moving through the biosphere through the mechanisms of evaporation, transpiration, condensation, precipitation, and runoff. Inorganic elements components of the ecosystem such as oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, etc. that are derived from and continuously recycled through the physical and biological components of the environment. Interdisciplinary team a working group that includes members from multiple disciplines that interacts integratively to define and address problems in a holistic fashion rather than in disciplinary terms. Landscape an area of the earth's land surface that has been modified by human activity. Landscape architecture a design discipline devoted to understanding and shaping the environment. Professional practitioners provide site planning, design, and management advice to improve the landscape for human benefit. Landscape architecture as art a philosophical position that describes landscape architecture as an artistic design discipline (rather than a science) in which professionals create new and innovative ways for people to relate to the physical environment. Landscape architecture as science a philosophical position that describes landscape architecture as a profession of stewardship-identifying and managing for improved human utility the intrinsic qualities found in nature through research and ecologically sound land planning and design. Landscape ecology systematic investigation applied to the understanding of whole landscapes, which are defined as heterogeneous areas made up of several ecosystems forming a mosaic of visually distinctive landscape elements. Landscape planning a process of investigation and recommendation to improve the social and ecological aspects of the landscape at temporal and spatial scales greater than those typically undertaken by site design. Learning a process by which a system alters its structure to adapt to its environment and increase its capacity to survive. Multidisciplinary team a work group that includes members from different disciplines, but is led by a single discipline and tends to interact cumulatively to address problems with a disciplinary focus.
230
231 Glossary
Nitrogen cycle a process that transfers molecular nitrogen from the atmosphere to the soil, where it becomes available to plants for use in forming essential compounds before returning it to the atmosphere through decomposition. Nitrogen fixers bacterial organisms that have the capacity to withdraw nitrogen from the atmosphere and make it available to the ecosystem in the form of ammonia. Overload a condition in which there are too many demands for attention that command more of a person's mental capacity than can be spared to perform an activity effectively. Personal space the "bubble" of space surrounding each person into which others may not intrude. Phosphorus cycle the process through which the phosphorous contained in sedimentary deposits enters the ecosystem through the slow weathering of rocks in order that it may be incorporated into the ecosystem before returning to the soil and geological components of the environment. Post-occupancy evaluation the evaluation of design projects after execution and occupation to determine the extent of their success. Procedural theories theories regarding methodology and the application of knowledge that describe functional and procedural relationships that guide planning and design decision making. Producers plants that transform radiant energy into chemical energy though the process of photosynthesis. Prospect-refuge theory the theory that people innately prefer settings that offer a panoramic view of the landscape from a position of relative seclusion. Proxemic space space that is shared by homogeneous groups with highly consistent spatial behavior. Seres the transitional ecosystems of increasing complexity that develop during the process of succession. Stress the psychological and physiological response to conditions (typically unpredictable or uncontrollable) that represent the possibility of threat or challenge; responses include arousal and active attempts to cope. Substantive theories theories regarding the knowledge from which an understanding of the landscape as the interface between human and natural processes is derived. Suitability analysis the process of determining the fitness of a landscape condition to support specific human activities or land uses. Sustainable development wise development and conservation of the earth's resources to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Systems entities and relationships that function through the interrelatedness of their parts. Territory a spatially defined area, typically with visible boundaries, that is owned or controlled by one or more individuals.
Glossary Values the ideals and principles we consider important in our lives that motivate and give purpose and meaning to our thoughts and actions. Wayfinding the ability to cognitively map the environment and make appropriate navigational decisions.
References Abbott, J. 1995. Sharing the city: Community participation in urban management. London: Earthscan Publications. Ackoff, R. L. 1981. Creating the corporate future. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Adair, J. 1986. Effective teambuilding. London: Pan Books. Agee, J., and D. Johnson. 1988. Ecosystem management for parks and wilderness. Seattle: Umv. of Washington Press. Ahern, J. 1989. "Planning and design for sustainability in a changing New England." Proceedings of the 1989 American Society of Landscape Architects Annual Meeting, Orlando. Ahmed, K, and R. Ludtke. 1990. "Community organizing: Theory and action." In Organizing communities for change: A guide for action, edited by K Ahmed and R. Ludtke. Grand Forks: Univ. of North Dakota, Center for Rural Health. Albers, J. 1977. Despite straight lines. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Alexander, C. 1964. Notes on the synthesis of form. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press. ___ . 1984. "The determination of components for an Indian village." In Developments in design methodology, edited by N. Cross. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Alexander, c., S. Ishikawa, M. Silverstein, I. King, and S. Angel. 1977. A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction. New York: Oxford Umv. Press. American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA). 1990. National salary surv~ of landscape architects: An economic profile of professional practice. Washington, DC: ASLA. Appleton, J. 1975. The experience of landscape. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Appleyard, D., K Lynch, and J. R. Myer. 1964. The view from the road. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
233
234
References
Archer, L. B. 1965. "Systematic method for designers." In Developments in design methodology, edited by N. Cross. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Ardrey, R. 1966. The territorial imperative. New York: Antheneum. Aubreville, A 1949. "Climate, forests, and desertification de I'Afrique tropicale." Quoted in M. P.Aleman, 1995, PhD dissertation, Texas A&M Univ. Bales, R. E, and S. Cohen. 1979. SYMLOG: A system for the multiple level observation of groups. New York: Free Press. Barker, J. A 1985. Discovering the future: The business of paradigms. St. Paul, MN: ILl Press. ---.
1992. Future edge: Discovering the new paradigms of success. New York: William Morrow.
Beck, D. E., and C. C. Cowan. 1991. "Vision, values and change." Workshop, Dallas, Nov. 1-3. Quoted in J. L. Motloch, "Delivery models for urbanization in the emerging South Mrica." Paper presented at the Urban Design Conference, Athens, 1993. Bell, P. A, T. C. Greene, J. D. Fisher, and A Baum. 1996. Environmental psychology. 4th ed. Orlando: Harcourt Brace. Berger, J., and J. Sinton. 1985. Water, earth andjire: Land use and environmental planning in the New Jersey Pine Barrens. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press. Quoted in G. E Thompson and E R. Steiner, eds., Ecological design and planning (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1997). Berleant, A 1992. The aesthetics of environment. Philadelphia: Temple Umv. Press. Bertcher, H. J., and E E Maple. 1996. Creating Groups. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Birch, C. 1990. On purpose. Kinsington, Australia: New South Wales Umv. Press. Biswas, M. R., and A K. Biswas. 1980. Desertification, environmental science and applications. Vol. 12. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Bohm, D. 1982. "Conversations between Rupert Sheldrake, Renee Weber and David Bohm." ReVISion 5:23-48. Broadbent, G. 1973. Design in architecture. London: John Wiley & Sons. Broadbent, G., and A Ward, eds. 1969. Design methods in architecture. London: Lund Humphries. Bronowski, J. 1965. Science and human values. New York: Harper & Row. Originally published in 1956. ---. 1973. The ascent of man. London: British Broadcasting Corporation. Brookfield, S. D. 1987. Developing critical thinkers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brooks, K. R. 2004. "Texas, Nexus, Luxes." Lecture, Texas A&M Umv., in which he quoted Raymond Weisenburger. Brown, H., J. Bonner, and J. Weir. 1957. The next hundred years: A discussion prepared for leaders of American industry. New York: VIking. Brown, L. R., A B. Durning, C. Flavin, H. E French, J. Jacobson, M. D. Lowe, S. Postel, M. Renner, L. Starke, and J. E. Young. 1989. State of the world 1990: A Worldwatch Institute report on progress toward a sustainable society. New York: W W Norton. Bruer, J. T. 1993. Schools for thought: A science of learning in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bunch, M. 1993. Core curriculum in architectural education. San Francisco: Mellen Research Univ. Press. Burkeman, 0.1999.
"Keep your distance." The Guardian (UK), September 14.
References
235
Byrne, E 1974. Earth and man. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown. ~ Capra, E 1983. The turning point. New York: Bantam Books. __ . 1996. The web of life. London: HarperCollins. ___ . 2002. The hidden connections: A sciencefor sustainable living. New York: Doubleday. Caudill, W W 1971. Architecture by team. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. __ , 1984. The TIBs of Bill Caudill. Houston: CRSS. Churchman, C. W 1982. Thought and wisdom. Salinas, CA: Intersystems Publishers. Coxe, W, N. E Hartung, H. Hochberg, B. J. Lewis, D. H. Maister, R. E Mattox, and P. A Piven. 1987. Success strategies for design professionals: Superpositioningfor architecture and engineeringjirms. New York: McGraw-Hill. Crosbie, M. J. 1995. "The schools: How they're failing the profession." Progressive Architecture (September). Cross, N., ed. 1984. Developments in design methodology. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Daly, G., et aI., eds. 1997. Nature's services. Washington, DC: Island Press. De Bono, E. 1994. Parallel thinking. London: Penguin. ___ . 1999. "Serious creativity." Lecture, Univ. of Pretoria, South Mrica. Dee, C. 2001. Form and fabric in landscape architecture: A visual introduction. New York: Routledge. Derrington, P. A 1981. "Controlling the quality of professional performance in architectural practice." PhD dissertation, Univ. of California, Berkeley. Doczi, G. 1981. The power of limits: Proportional harmonies in nature, art & architecture. Boston: Shambhala Publications. Dodds, E, ed. 2000. Earth summit 2002: A new deal. London: Earthscan Publications. Douglas, V. S. 1995. "Implementing quality function deployment and comparison to traditional programming in a health care facility." PhD dissertation, Texas A&M Univ., College Station, Texas. Dramstad, WE., J. D. Olson, and R. T. T. Forman. 1996. Landscape ecology principles in landscape architecture and land-use planning. Washington, DC: Harvard Univ. Graduate School of Design, Island Press, and American Society of Landscape Architects. Dregne, H. E., ed. 1992. Degradation and restoration of arid lands. Lubbock, TX: International Center for Arid and Semiarid Land Studies, Texas Tech Umv. Eckbo, G. 1950. Landscape for living. New York: Dodge. Ecological Society of America. 1995. Report of the Ecological Society of America committee on the scientific basis for ecosystemic management. Durham, NC: DukeUmv. Ehrlich, P.R., and A E. Ehrlich. 1990. The population explosion. New York: Simon & Schuster. ___ . 1991. Healing the planet: Strategies for resolving the environmental crisis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Eisely, L. 1957. The immense journey. New York: Random House. Fabos, J. G. 1979. Planning the total landscape: A guide to intelligent land use. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Faniran, A 1987. "Institutional arrangements for the planning and management of water supply in Nigeria." In Water for the future, edited by W Wundelich and J. E. Prins. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Balkema.
236
References
Fergusson, A, and D. I. Wardle. 1998. Arctic ozone: The sensitivity of the ozone layer to chemical depletion and climate change. Environment Canada. Finklestein, E. A, I. C. Fiebelkorn, and G. Wang. 2003. "National medical spending attributable to overweight and obesity: How much, and who's paying?" Health Affairs W3:219-26. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations and the United Nations Environmental Programme. 1983. Provisional methodology for assessment and mapping of desertification. Rome: FAO. Forman, R. and M. Gordon. 1986. Landscape ecology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
I I,
Forsyth, D. 1990. Group Dynamics. 2nd ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Franklin, J. F. 1993. "Lessons from old growth." Journal of Forestry 91:10-13. Friedmann, J. 1973. Retracking America: A theory of transactive planning. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Fromm, E. 1976. To have or to be? New York: Harper & Row. Frost, R. 1915. The death of the hired man, line 322. Gardner, G., and E. Assadourian. 2004. State of the world 2004: The state of consumption today. World Watch Institute. Garvin, 1988. quality: The strategic and competitive edge. New York:D.The Free Managing Press. Gerhard, D. 1992. "Interview with Garrett Eckbo." Re-alignment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
I
Gifford, R., D. W. Hine, W. Muller-Clemm, D. J. Reynolds, Jr., and K. Shaw. 2000. "Decoding modern architecture: A lens model approach for understanding the aesthetic differences of architects and laypersons." Environment and Behavior 32, no. 2 (March):163-87. Gilbert, A J. 1987. "Psychology in context: Cross cultural research trends in South Africa." Edited by K. F. Mauer and A I. Retief. Pretoria, South Mica: Human Science Research Council. Golledge, R., ed. 1999. Wayfinding behavior: Cognitive mapping and other spatial processes. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press. Grainger, A 1990. The threatening desert: Controlling desertification. London: Earthscan Publications, in association with United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.
237
References
Harrison, P. 1992. The third revolution: Environment, population and a sustainable world. London: IB Tauris & Co. Hawken, P., A Lovings, and 1. H. Lovings. 2000. Natural capitalism: Creating the next industrial revolution. Boston: Little, Brown. Henderson, H. 1996. Creating alternative futures: The end of economics. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press. Herzog, T. R. 1992. '1\ cognitive analysis of preference for urban spaces." Journal of Environmental Psychology 12:237--48. Hester, R. Jr. 1984. Planning neighborhood space with people. 2nd ed. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Holm, D. 1983. Energy conservation in hot climates. London: Architectural Press. Huntley, H. E. 1970. The divine proportion: A study in mathematical beauty. London: Dover. Hutchins, C. 1. 1996. Systemic thinking. Aurora, CO: Professional Development Systems. Jackson, J. B. 1980. The necessity for ruins and other topics. Amherst: Univ. of Massachusetts Press. ___ . 1984. Discovering the vernacular landscape. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press. Jacobs, P., and B. Sadler. 1990. Sustainable development and environmental assessment: Perspectives on planning for a common future. Hull, Quebec: Canadian Environmental Research Council. Jones, J. C. 1966. "Design methods revisited." In The design method, edited by S. A Gregory. New York: Plenum. ___ . 1984. '1\ method of systematic design." In Development in Design Methodology, edited by N. Cross. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. ___ . 1992. Design methods. 2nd ed. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Jones, J. c., and D. Thornley, eds. 1963. Conference on design methods. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Kannenberg, A C. K. 1994. "Curitiba, Brazil: A working example of sustainability within an urban context." Proceedings of Institute of Landscape Architects of South Mrica, Gauteng Region, workshop on the role of landscape architects in a democratic South Mrica.
I
Greenbie, B. B. 1981. Spaces: Dimensions of the human landscape. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.
Kaplan, S. 1983. '1\ model of person-environment and Behavior 15:311-32.
---.
Kaplan, S., and R. Kaplan. 1982. Cognition and the environment: Functioning in an uncertain world. New York: Praeger. Karlin, E. F. 1995. "Population growth and the global environment: An ecological perspective." In Technology and global environmental issues, edited by W. J. Makofske and E. F. Karlin. New York: HarperCollins. Katzenbach, J. R., and D. S. Smith. 1993. "The discipline of teams." Harvard Business Review (March-April). Kirkby, J., P. O'Keefe, and 1. Timberlake, eds. 1995. The Earthscan reader in sustainable development. London: Earthscan Publications. Kohnke, H., and D. P. Franzmeier. 1995. Soil science simplified. 4th ed. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Kotze, P. A, and H. J. Swanepoel. 1984. Guidelines for practical community development. Silverton, South Africa: Promedia Publications.
1982. "Distemic space: The community of strangers." Public Space. Quoted in J. 1. Motloch, 1991, "Delivery models for urbanisation in the emerging South Mrica." PhD dissertation, Univ. of Pretoria.
Grillo, P. J. 1960. Form, function & design. Toronto: General Publishing. Groat, 1. 1994. "Carbuncles, columns, and pyramids: Lay and expert evaluations of contextual design strategies." In Design review: Challenging urban aesthetic control, edited by B. C. Scheer and W. F. E. Preiser. New York: Chapman and Hall.
I
Hall, E. 1966. The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday. ---. 1968. "Proxemics." Current Anthropology 9:83-107. ---. 1971. "Environmental Communication." In Behavior and Environment, edited by A H. Esser. New York: Plenum Press. Halprin, 1. 1969. R S V P cycles: Creative processes in the human environment. New York: George Braziller.
compatibility."
Environment
238
239 References
Krause, E, W. Bach, and J. Kooney. 1995. '1\ target-based, least cost approach to climate stabilization." In The Earthscan reader in sustainable development, edited by J. Kirkby, P. O'Keefe, and 1. Timberlake. London: Earthscan Publications. Lahde, J. A. 1982. Planningfor change: A course of study in ecological planning. New York: Teachers College Press. Landphair, H. c., and E Klatt. 1988. Landscape architecture construction. 2nd ed. New York: Elsevier. Lappe, EM., and R. Shurman. 1995. "The population debate." In The Earthscan reader in sustainable development, edited by J. Kirkby, P.O'Keefe, and 1. Timberlake. London: Earthscan Publications. Laurie, M. 1979. An introduction to landscape architecture. New York: Elsevier. ---. 1986. An introduction to landscape architecture. 2nd ed. New York:Elsevier. Lawson, B. 1994. Design in mind. Oxford: Butterworth Architecture. Leopold, A. 1949. A sand county almanac. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Reprinted 1966, Oxford Univ. Press. Lincoln, Y. S., and E. G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lubchenko, J., A. M. Olson, 1. B. Brubaker, S. R. Carpenter, M. M. Holland, S. P.Hubbel, S. A. Levine, J. A. McMahon, P.A. Matson, J. M. Melillo, H. A. Mooney, C. H. Peterson, H. R. Pullman, 1. A. Real, P.J. Regal, and P.G. Risser. 1991. "The sustainable biosphere initiative: An ecological research agenda." Ecology 72:371. Lyle,J. T. 1985. "The alternating current of design process." Landscape Journal 4: 1. Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press. ---. 1991. "Can floating seeds make deep forms?" Landscape Journal 10, no. 1:39-40. Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press. ---. 1994. Regenerative design for sustainable development. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Lyman, S. M., and M. B. Scott. 1967. "Territoriality: A neglected sociological dimension." Social Problems 15. Lynch, K. 1960. The image of the city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. --. 1966. "Quality in city design." l1!110 designs America? Garden City, NY: Doubleday. --. 1981. Good city form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Maddi, S. R., and D. W. Fiske. 1961. Functions of varied experience. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. Marcus, C. c., and C. Francis, eds. 1998. People places: Design guidelines for urban open space. 2nd ed. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Marcus, C. c., and W. Sarkissian. 1986. Housing as if people mattered: Site design guidelines for medium-density family housing. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press. Marsh, W. M. 1983. Landscape planning: Environmental applications. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 1991. Landscape planning: Environmental applications. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons. ---. 1998. Landscape planning: Environmental applications. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Marshall, 1. 1. 1981. Landscape architecture: Guidelines to professional practice. Ann Arbor, MI: Book Crafters.
References Maslow, A. H. 1970. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row. McAllister, D. E., A. 1. Hamilton, and B. Harvey. 1997. "Global freshwater biodiversity: Striving for the integrity of freshwater ecosystems." Sea Wind 11, no. 3:1-140. Bulletin of Ocean VoiceInternational. McCombs, B., ed. 1994. Learner-centered principles. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association and the Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory. McHarg, I. 1. 1969. Design with nature. Garden City, NY:Doubleday/Natural History Press. _.1981. "Human ecological planning at Pennsylvania." Landscape Planning 8:109-20. McNulty, R. H. 1990. Partners for livable places. New York: Acropolis Books. Meinig, D. W 1979. The interpretation of ordinary landscapes: Geographical essays. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Merriam-Webster. 1981. Merriam-Webster international dictionary of the English language unabridged. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster. Miller,C. G. 1988. Carscape:A parking handbook. Columbus, IN: Irwm-SweeneyMiller Foundation. Mitroff, I., and H. Linstone. 1993. The unbounded mind. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Molles, M. c., Jr. 1999. Ecology: Concepts and applications. New York: McGraw-Hill. Motloch, J. 1. 1991. "Delivery models for urbanisation in the emerging South Africa." PhD dissertation, Univ. of Pretoria. __ . 2001. Introduction to landscape design. New York:Van Nostrand Reinhold. Motloch, J. 1., and T. Woodfin. 1993. "General systems theory, cultural change, and a human science foundation for planning and design." Journal of Systems Research 10, no. 2. Murphy, G., and J. Kovach. 1972. Historical introduction to modern psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich. Murphy, M. D. 1997. "Design teams and team leadership." Working paper, CRS Center Research Series, vol. 4. Collegeof Architecture, TexasA&MUniv. ___ . 1998. "Survey of the profession of landscape architecture in South Mrica." Unpublished monograph. Pretoria: Department of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, Univ. of Pretoria. Murphy, M. D., A. D. Seidel, and C. S. Huang. 2002. "Survey of the profession of landscape architecture in Texas." Working paper no. 1, vol. 1. Department of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, TexasA&MUniv. Nadakavukaren, A. 2000. Our global environment: A health perspective. 5th ed. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. National Geographic. 1993. "Water: The power, promise and turmoil of North America's fresh water." National Geographic Special Edition. Ndubisi, F. 1997. "Landscape ecological planning." In Ecological design and planning, edited by G. F. Thompson and F. R. Steiner. New York: John Wiley & Sons. ___ .2002. "Managing change in the landscape: A synthesis of approaches for ecological planning." Landscape Journal 21, no.l. Newman, P.,and J. Kenworthy. 1999. Sustainability in cities: Overcoming automobile dependence. Washington, DC: Island Press.
240
References
Newton, N. T. 1951. An approach to design. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Odum, E. p. 1971. Fundamentals of ecology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: w: B. Saunders. ---. 1993. Personal comment, quoted in J. T. Lyle, Regenerative design for sustainable development (1994). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Olgyay, V. 1973. Design with climate: Bioclimatic approach to architectural regionalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. --.
2000. Quoted in Architectural Graphic Standards 10th ed., edited by J. R. Hoke, p. 803. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Ordway, S. H. 1955. Prosperity beyond tomorrow. Ronald Press. Palmer, M. A 1981. The architect's guide to facility programming. New York: American Institute of Architects and Architectural Record Books.
Papanek, V. 1984. Design for the real world: Human ecology and social change. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Park, P. 1993. "What is participatory research? A theoretical perspective." In Voices of change: Participatory research in the Unites States and Canada, edited by P. Park, M. Brydon-Miller, B. Hall, and T. Jackson. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Press. Parker, G. M. 1990. Team players and teamwork: The new competitive business strategy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ---. 1994. Cross-functional teams: Working with allies, enemies, and other strangers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Passini, R. 1984. Wayfinding in architecture. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Pearce, J. C. 1988. The crack in the cosmic egg. New York: Julian Press. Pena, w: M., w: w: Caudill, and J. w: Focke. 1977. Problem seeking: An architectural programming primer. 2nd ed. New York: Cahners Books International. Pena, w: M., and J. w: Focke. 1969. Problem seeking: An architectural programming primer. Houston: Caudill, Rowlett, and Scott. Pena, w: M., with S. Parshall and K. Kelly. 1987. Problem seeking: An architectural primer. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: AlA Press. Peterson, C. H. 1993. "Improvement of environmental impact analysis by application of principles derived from manipulative ecology: Lessons from coastal marine case histories." Australian Journal of Ecology 18:2152. Postel, S. 1993. "Facing water scarcity." State of the world: A Worldwatch Institute report on progress toward a sustainable society, edited by 1. R. Brown. New York: w: w: Norton. Preiser, w: F. E., ed. 1978. Facility programming. Stroudsburg, & Ross.
PA: Hutchinson
Preiser, w: F. E., H. Z. Rabinowitz, and E. T. White. 1988. Post occupancy evaluation. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Purcell, T., and J. 1. Nasar. 1992. "Experiencing other peoples' houses: A model of similarities and differences in environmental experience." Journal of Experimental Psychology 12:199-211. Rapoport, A 1977. Human aspects of urban form. New York: Pergamon Press. ---. 1990. "Science and the failure of architecture: An intellectual history." In Environment and behavior studies: Emergence of intellectual traditions, edited by I. Altman and K. Christensen. New York: Plenum Press. Reason, P. 1994. "Three approaches to participatory inquiry." In Handbook for qualitative research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y; S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
References
241
Richardson, C. J. 1994. "Ecological functions and human values in wetlands: A framework for assessing forestry impacts." Wetlands 14:1-9. Rodiek, J. E. 1978. "Landscape analysis: A technique for ecosystem assessment and land use planning." Landscape Planning 5:27-44. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Ruggiero, V. R. 1998. The art of thinking: A guide to critical and creative thought. 5th ed. New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Sanoff, H. 1977. Methods of architectural programming. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden Hutchinson & Ross. Sasaki, H. 1950. "Thoughts on education in landscape architecture: Some comments on today's methodologies and purpose." Landscape Architecture 40, no. 4:158-60. Sears, P. B. 1935. Deserts on the march. Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma Press. ___ . 1959. "Pressures of population: An ecologist's point of view." What's New. Chicago: Abbott Laboratories. Senge, P. M. 1990. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday. Shoup, D. 1997. "The high cost of free parking." Journal of Planning Education and Research 17:3-20. Simonds, J. 0.1961. Landscape architecture: The shaping of man's natural environment. New York: McGraw-Hill. Smith, R. 1. 1986. Elements of ecology. 2nd ed. New York: Harper & Row. Smuts, J. C. 1926. Holism and evolution. New York: Macmillan. Reprinted 1987, Cape Town: Citadel. Snow, J. T. 1967. "The new road in the United States." Landscape (Autumn). Sommer, R. 1959. "Studies in interpersonal space." Sociometry 22:337-48. ___ . 1969. Personal space. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Soule, M. E., and D. Press. 1998. "What is environmental studies?" BioScience 48:5. Steiner, F. 1991. The living landscape. New York: McGraw-Hill. Steinitz, C. 1988. 'A framework for theory applicable to the education of landscape architects (and other environmental design professionals)." Landscape Journal. Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press and Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture. ___ . 1994. 'A framework for theory and practice in landscape planning." Ekistics 61, no. 364/365 (April). Stoddart, 1. A, and A D. Smith. 1955. Range management. New York: McGraw-Hill. Stokels, D., and I. Altman, eds. 1987. Handbook of environmental psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Strauss, E. 1. 1990. 'An innovative process to facilitate and coordinate planning and design decisions in property development projects." Master's thesis, liniv. of Pretoria, South Africa. Sullivan, 1. H. 1896. "The tall office building artistically considered." Lippincott's Magazine (March). Symes, M., J. Eley, and A Seidel. 1997. Architects and their practices: A changing profession. London: Butterworth. Thompson, I. M. 2000. Ecological community and delight: Sources of value in landscape architecture. London: E. & F. N. Spon.
242
References
Tilman, D., and J. A. Downing. 1994. "Biodiversity and stability in grasslands." Nature 367:363-65. Ulrich, R. S. 1984. "View through a window may influence recovery from surgery." Science 224:420-21. ---. 1986. "Human responses to vegetation and landscapes." Landscape and Urban Planning 13:29-44. Ulrich, R. S., R. F.Simons, B. D. Losito, E. Fiorito, M. A. Miles, and M. Zelson. 1991. "Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments." Journal of Environmental Psychology 11:201-30. United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme, World Bank, and World Resources Institute. 2001. World resources 2000-2001. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 1998. Environmental effects of ozone depletion: 1998 assessment. Nairobi: UNEP. U.S. Census Bureau. 2004. "Global population profile: 2002." International Population Report, WP/02. Washington, DC: U.S. GPO. U.S. Department of Energy. 2002. Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 23, chapter 2, table 2.11. Washington, DC: U.S. GPO. Van Gigch, J. P. 1984. "The metasystems paradigm as a new hierarchical theory of organizations." Annual Meeting of the Society of General Systems Research, New York. Veblen,T. 1899. The theory of the leisure class. Reprint edition, 1979. New York: Penguin Books. Warfield, A. L. 1990. "The team member workbench: A case study of an innovative information system at Domino Pizza distribution." PhD dissertation, Univ. of Michigan. Watt, K. E. F. 1973. Principles of environmental science. New York: McGraw-Hill. Weiner, J. 1995. The beak of the finch. New York: Vintage Books. Weisbord, M. 1992. 'Applied common sense." In Discovering common ground, edited by M. Weisbord. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Weisman, G. D. 1983. "Environmental programming and action research." Environment and Behavior 15.
Wheatley, M. J. 1992. Leadership and the new science: Learning about organization from an orderly universe. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. White, R. F. 1960. 'A case for 'south living.''' Reprint 102 E99-60. CollegeStation: Texas Engineering Experiment Station. ---. 1976. "Effects of landscape development on the natural ventilation of buildings and their adjacent areas." Research report 45. College Station: Texas Engineering Experiment Station. Whitfield, T. w: A. 1983. "Predicting preference for familiar, everyday objects: An experimental confrontation between two theories of aesthetic behavior." Journal of Experimental Psychology 3 :221-3 7. Whyte, w: H. 1980. Social life of small urban places. Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation. ---., ed. 1991. Participatory action research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Will, G. F.2002. "Hog heaven: Harley at 100." Newsweek (July 22:60). Wilson, E. O. 2002. The future of life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Wohlwill, J. 1974. "The place of aesthetics in the study of the environment." Paper presented at the Symposium on Experimental Aesthetics and Psy-
References
243
chology of the Environment, International Congress of Applied Psychology, July, Montreal. Wood, C. A. 1994. "Ecosystem management: Achieving a new land ethic." Renewable Natural Resources Journal 12:612. Wynberg, R. 1993. "Exploring the earth summit." Findings of the Rio UN conference on environment and development: Implications for South Africa. Rondebosch: Department of Environmental and Geographical Science, Univ. of Cape Town. Zeisel, J. 1981. Inquiry by design: Tools for environment-behavior research. Monterey, CA:Brooks/Cole. Zube, E. H. 1973. "Scenery as a natural resource: Implications of public policy and problems of definition, description and evaluation." Landscape Architecture 63, no. 2:126-32. ___ . 1974. "Cross-disciplinary and intermodal agreement on the description and evaluation of landscape resources." Environment and Behavior 6, no. 1:69-89. ___ . 1983. "Landscape meaning, values and ethics." Lecture series, Texas A&MUniv. ___ . 1986. "Landscape values: History and theory." In Foundations for visual project analysis, edited by R. C. Smardon, J. F.Palmer, and J. P.Felleman, 3-19. New York: John Wiley & Sons. ___ . 1987. "From synthesis to analysis and back again." Journal of Environmental Psychology 7, no. 4:425-33.
Index Abbott, J., 194 Accessibility/accommodation, as design goal, 161 Accreditation, 20-21 Ackoff, R. L., 18,40,43,46 Adair, J., 202-203 Adaptability, as design goal, 164 Aesthetics cultural variation in judgments of, 156 defined, 156 of form, 153-158 human need for, 119, 124 Agee, J., 31 Ahern, J., 76,93 Ahmed, K., 196 Albers, J., 16 Alexander, c., 52, 54, 56 Altman, 1., 119-120 American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) accreditation standards of, 21 curriculum requirements of, 20 Analysis of landscape suitability, 79-82 of research data in design programming, 59-60
Appleton, J., 37 Appleyard, D., 130 Applied human/landscape ecology planning, 75-76 Archer, L. B., 49 Architectural programming. See Design programming Architecture applied to landscape design, 13-14 definitions of, 13 spiritual aspect of individualism expressed through, 15 temporal model of, 16 Ardrey, R., 5, 121, 190 Arousal, as aesthetic measure, 120 Art, landscape architecture as, 26 Assadourian, E., 30 Aubreville, A., 100 Bach, W, 105 Bales, R. F., 201 Barker, J. A., 103, 197 Beauty, 153-156. See also Aesthetics of form Beck, D. E., 117 Behavioral dimensions of space,
121-123 245
246 Behavioral settings, 126 Behavioral-science-based design, 35-38 Berger, J., 194 Berleant, A, 11, 153 Bertcher, H. J., 197,201 Biophysical environment. See also Ecosystems geophysical conditions in, 84-87 importance of, in landscape architecture, 83-84 site analysis factors in, 109-114 Biotic complexity, 106 Birch, c., 152,210 Biswas, A K., 100 Biswas, M. R., 100 Bohm, D., 152,210 Bonner, J., 29 Broadbent, G., 50-52 Bronowski, J., 1, 154-155,215 Brookfield, S. D., 215, 217 Brooks, K. R., 125 Brown, H., 29 Brown, 1. R., 101 Bruer, J. T., 214 Bunch, M., 35 Burkeman, 0.,122 Business-centered practice, 175 Byrne, E, 85 Capitalism, values of, 6-9 Capra, E, 30, 38,43-44,46, 53, 69, 97,102,214 Carbon cycle, 90 Cartier, E, 220 Caudill, W W, 52, 54, 178, 190, 194,200 Change landscape form as promotional agent of, 147 as principal characteristic of design, 18-19, 150 resistance to, 216 stewardship linked with, 29-30 Choice discretion, as design goal, 162 model of design, 36-37 Churchman, C. W, 19 Circulation, site analysis factor of, 136
247 Index Clarity as consideration in defining beauty,155 importance of, in critical thinking, 214 Climate defined, 86 influence on ecosystems, 94-99, 105-106 site analysis factor of, 112 Coalition power, 196 Cognitive mapping, 124-126 Cohen,S., 201 Collaboration. See also Teams comprehensive design resolution requiring, 189 design-team, 190-195 organizational structures for group decision making, 196-197 shared vision in, 199-200 Comfort/convenience, as design goal, 162 Commodity, landscape as, 7-11 Communication, effective and positive, 208 Community design guidelines for building, 127-128 development services, 187 housing, performance criteria for, 128 interaction, as design goal, 163 services, site analysis factor of, 137 Commuting, financial and healthrelated costs of, 169 Compatibility and comprehensiveness, as design goals, 161 Conative factors, in human needs hierarchy, 118 Concepts, alternative, evaluation of, 65, 73-74 Conformity, dangers of, 216 Conspicuous consumption, 6 Construction management systems/services, 180, 187 practice, changes in, 178, 180
Index Consumers vs. producers, in ecosystems, 89-90 Consumption conspicuous, 6 effect of consumerism on design practice, 181 required changes in, for sustainable development, 31 Context-driven critical thinking, 217 Continuum, landscape architecture as reflective of, 15 Cowan, C. c., 117 Coxe, W,48, 171-172, 174 Creative thinking, importance of, 218-220 Critical thinking, imporlance of, 20, 77-78,214-218 Crosbie, M. J., 176, 178, 185 Cross, N., 51-52 Cultural conditions, site analysis factor of, 138 Cultural diversity, effect on land planning and design, 117-118 Cultural values. See Values Data analysis, in design programming, 59-60 Data gathering, in design programming, 58-59 De Bono, E., 77,219 Decision modeling, 53, 77 Decision-making, group. See Collaboration; Teams Dee, c., 125 Deforestation, 101, 104 Delayed feedback, problematic nature of, 70 Denitrification, 91 Derrington, P.A, 36, 57,176, 178-181,184-185 Desertification, 100-101 Design. See also Design theory; Landscape design application-oriented learning process of, 40 beauty as measure of quality in, 155 change and improvement as principal characteristics of, 18-19
choice model of, 36-37 collaboration in. See Collaboration definitions of, 17-18 ecosystem knowledge applied to, 97
form in. See Form fundamental considerations in, 56 goals of, 161-168 golden section relationships of form in, 139-143 "grand tradition" vs. "vernacular" approach to, 51 history of methods in, 51-52 imporlance of creative thinking in, 218-220 importance of critical thinking in, 20, 77-78,214-218 prejudicial influence on, 23 purpose/intent of, 160-166 quality of life and quality of the environment as interrelated concerns in, 47 studio-format education techniques in, 20, 35 technological evolution in, 173-174 Design practice business-centered, 175 construction practices' effect on, 178-180 economic effects on, 180-181 land regulation's effect on, 182-184 organizational values in, 174-175 practice-centered, 174-1 75 professional services in, 184-188 professions, changing characteristics of, 176-184 technologies of, 172-1 74 technology's effect on, 181-182 Design process. See also Design technologies creative thinking in, 218-220 critical thinking in, 214-218 cyclical nature of, 70-74 defined,50 ideation and interaction phases of,67-68
249
248
Index
as indicator of successful practice,
48
innovation-intervention processes,52 investigating systemic relationships in, 65 learning through feedback, 65-67 nonsequential nature of, 69 post-occupancy evaluation in, 64-65 predicting future conditions in, 63 programming in, 53-54. See also Design programming quality as goal of, 151 reiterative vs. linear approach to, 75
research, analysis and synthesis in, 50 six steps of, 63-64 stages of, 51 Design professions business-centered, 175 changes in construction practice, 178-180 changing characteristics of, 1 76 changing paradigms of, 177 economic effects on, 180-181 management considerations in, 176-178 practice-centered, 1 74-1 75 technology's effect on, 181-182 Design programming data analysis in, 59-60 data gathering in, 58-59 defined, 53-54 elements of design in, 54 goals, objectives, and performance criteria in, 60-62 incorporating humanistic information in, 56 integrated tasks of, 57-58 lukewarm reception for, 57 making connections between knowledge and form in, 55 problem seeking in, 55, 56 proponents of, 57 purpose of, 54 translating conclusions into instructions, 60-62
Design subculture, values as, 4 Design technologies, 172-173. See also Design process Design theory contemporary, how vs. why of,
34
fundamental questions regarding, 10-11 holistic, 27, 38, 41 human ecological planning, 27-28 moving beyond formal design paradigm, 15-16 procedural, 27-28, 49-82. See also Procedural theory professional education in, 21 substantive, 25-48. See also Substantive theory Design-bid-build process, 179 Design-build process, 179-180, 187 Designed form, 147-152 Designers, evolutionary role of, 151 Dewey, J., 53 Dissipative structures, 44-45 Distemic space, 117-118 Distraction, 120 Diversity cultural, constraint on landscape planning and design, 11 7-118 as design goal, 123-124, 163 Doczi, G., 139 Dodds, E, 104 Douglas, V. S., 55 Downing, J. A, 106 Dramstad, WE., 93, 107 Dregne, H. E., 101 Easements, site analysis factor of, 135 Eckbo, G., 25-26 Ecological community, concept of, 7-8
Ecological corridors, 125 Ecological succession, 88-89 Ecology, defined, 87 Economics conditions, site analysis factor of, 136 effect on character of design practice, 180-181
Index Economy, as design goal, 164 Ecosystems accelerating modification and deterioration of, 92, 104 basic processes and components of,89 biotic complexity of, 106. See also Biophysical environment changing nature of design in, 14-15 climate's influence on, 94-99, 105-106 cycling of elements in, 90-91 diminished stability of, 106-107 ecological principles for managing/changinglandscape, 97 ecological succession in, 88-89 effect of increasing population on, 116 goods, services and processes of, 99-104 health of, 104-107 hierarchies (food chains) within, 90 human impacts on, 92-93 landscape ecology and, 93-94 long-range planning, factors working against, 102-103 management of, and sustainable development, 31-32 population increase effect on, 105 porous and dynamic boundaries of, 94 resource exploitation in, 101-102 systems theory and, 42 urban development's effect on, 108-109 Education system, emphasis on art vs. science of design in, 45 Efficiency, as design goal, 164 Ehrlich, A. E., 86 Ehrlich, P. R., 17, 86 Einstein, A, 12 Eisely, L., 29 Eley, J., 57, 176 Environment biophysical. See Biophysical environment evaluating aesthetic response to, 157
human. See Human environment management services, 188 quality-of-life design criteria and, 168 relationship ofform to, 146 wayfinding in, 129 Environmental health, as design criterion, 168 Environment-behavior studies, 34-38 Equilibrium structures, 44-45 Esteem needs, 119 Evaluation, importance of, in design process, 70-71 Excellence, design as pursuit of, 165-166 Fabos, J. G., 76 Face saving, 216 Factional power, 196 Faniran, A, 177 Feedback, in design process, 65-67 Financing, impact on design process, 180 Finklestein, E. A, 169 Fiske, D. W, 154 Flexibility, as quality-of-life design criterion, 168 Focke, J. W, 54-55 Food chains, hierarchical, in ecosystems,90 Food production, and sustainable development, 30-31 Form aesthetic appeal of, 153-158 architectural model of, 146-147, 150 beauty as rightness of, 156 design as the medium of, 145 design forces influencing, 148 design quality, determining through,149-150 designed, 147-152 expression of desired relationships through, 144 fundamental characteristics of, 150 golden section proportions of, 139-143 linking with knowledge, 213 natural, 144-147
252
Index
contemporary complexity of, 12 evolving needs addressed by, 12 meeting human needs through, 115-138 negative impact on natural systems,17 synergizing biophysical and cultural processes in, 17 theory of. See Design theory Landscape ecology, 93-94 Landscape planning, 75 decision modeling in, 77 definition and purpose of, 75-77 landscape-human relationship questions regarding, 76 professional services in, 187 six-levelmodeling approach, 78-79 Landscape suitability analysis, 79-82 Lappe, F.M., 116 Laurie, M., 76, 155 Lawson, B., 54,199,213 Leadership and interdisciplinary teams, 193, 200 Learning application-oriented, in design, 40 defined, 39 as a design process, 40 importance of, in systems theory, 39-40 systems approach to the process of,46 Legibility, as design goal, 162 Leopold, A, 5, 7,43 Lincoln, Y. S., 197 Linstone, H., 19 Long-term sustained yield. See Sustainable development Lovings, A, 32 Lovings, L. H., 32 Ludtke, Ro,196 Lyle,J. T.,31, 33, 106, 108, 145,219 Lyman, S. M., 121 Lynch, K., 36, 125, 160
Nadakavukaren, A, 92, 101, 116 Nasar, J. L., 157 Natural form, 144-147 Nature as commodity, 5 quantitative vs. qualitative view of,43 restorative and healthful qualities of, 129 Ndubisi, F.,27,76,82,194-195 Newman,P., 29, 133 Newton, N. T., 159 Nicomachean Ethics (Aristotle), 20 Nitrogen cycle, 90 Nitrogen fixers, 91 Nodes, 125 Novelty, as requirement of beauty, 154
Maddi, S. R., 154 Management concerns, and the design profession, 178 Maple, F.F., 197,201
Objectivity, importance of, 213-214 Odum, E. P.,88, 108 Olgyay, V, 97 Olson, J. Do,93
Mapping,cogrritive, 124-126 Mapping, for landscape suitability analysis, 82 Marcus, C. c., 35, 126-128 Marsh, W M., 76, 80, 94, 101 Marshall, L. L., 52 Maslow, A H., 118 McAllister, D. Eo,104 McCombs, B., 214 McHarg, I. L., 27, 80, 143, 147, 160 McNulty, R. H., 171 Meinig, D. W, 11, 150 Miller, C. G., 133 Mitroff, I., 19 Molles, M. c., 90-91, 94 Moore, Ro,70 Motloch,52 Motloch, J., 41, 44, 51-52, 122, 195, 198 Motloch, J. L., 11, 38 Multidisciplinary teams, 191 Murphy, G., 139 Murphy, M. D., 57,178,180, 184-185, 197 Myer, Jo, 130
Index Ordway, S. H., 29 Organizational values in professional practice, 174-175 Overload, 120 Ownership, concept of, 5-6 Palmer, M. A, 54-56 Papanek, V, 18,31, 35, 156 Park, P., 195 Parker, G. Mo,190, 199, 201 Participatory design, 190. See also Collaboration Passini, R., 129 Paths, 125 Pattern language, in design programming, 54 Pattern recognition in systems theory, 44 Pearce, J. c., 115, 214 Pena, W M., 54-56, 60 Performance criteria, 61, 127-128 Performance requirements, 62 Personal space, 121 Peterson, C. H., 106 Phosphorous cycle, 91 Physiological needs, 118 Ping, T., 153 Pleasure, as design goal, 163 population, 17, 107, 116. See also Urban development Possession, symbolic currency of, 6, 8 Postel, S., 104 Post-occupancy evaluation, 64-65 Power structures in group decision making, 196 Power, territory and artifacts as symbols of, 5-6 Practice-centered business, 174-175 Preiser, W F.E., 56, 64 Prejudice, negative influence on design, 23 Press, D., 12 Privacy, as design goal, 163 Problem seeking, in design programming, 55-56 Problem-oriented paradigm of design professions, 177 Procedural theory defined,27-28 design process in, 50-51, 62-75
253 design programming in, 53-62 first- and second- generation processes, 51-52 landscape planning as, 75-79 landscape suitability analysis, 79-82 systematic design method, 50 third- and fourth-generation processes,52 three basic questions regarding, 49-50 Process vs. outcome orientation, in critical thinking, 217 Producers vs. consumers, 89-90 production and consumption paradigm, 7,9 Productivity, as design goal, 163 Professional services broadening range of, 186, 188 changing characteristics of, 176-184 design-related, 185-186 Professionalism, in landscape architecture, 22-23 Professions. See Design professions Profitability, as design goal, 164 Programming. See Design programming Programming services, 185-186 Project/construction management services, 187 Prospect-refuge theory, 37-38 Proust, M., 213 Proxemic space, 117 Public participation facilitation, 187 Public space, 126-127 Public territory, 121 Purcell, T., 157 Pyramidal power, 196 Quality, systems integration as measure of, 47 Quality of life as design goal, 166-168 lifestyle and health aspects of, 168-170 Quality, education and theory as measuring devices for, 21 Quality-of-environment design criteria, 168
254 Rabinowitz, H. Z., 64 Rapoport, A, 34-37, 51, 123, 185 Reason, P., 195 Recyclingwith feedback, 66 Regulations, 182-184 Reiterative design feedback, 73 Relief,defined, 87 Resource conservancy/utility /recyclability, 164-165 Rights-of-way, site analysis factor of,135 Roads, influence on perceptions of environment, 130-132 Rodiek, J. E., 4 Ruggiero, V.R., 214, 216, 219 Sadler, B., 31 Safety needs, 119 Safety/security, as design goal, 162 Sanoff, H., 54, 56 Sarkissian, W, 35, 127-128 Sasaki, H., 20, 50 Schedule maintenance, 209 Science,landscape architecture as, 27 Scott, M. B., 121 Sears, P.B., 29 Seasonal change, influence on ecosystems, 94-98 Security, as consideration in defining beauty,155 Sedentary lifestyle, 169 Seidel, A D., 57, 176, 178 Self-actualization needs, 119 Self-deception, pitfall of, 217 Senge, P.M., 12,38,190-192,199 Sense of place, 163, 168 Seres, 89 Service technologies, categories of, 172-173 Services, professional, 185-188 Shared experience, value of, 6 Shared vision, in teamwork, 199-200 Shurman, R., 116 Sinton, J., 194 Site analysis factors in human environments, 134-138 Site master planning services, 186-187
Index Smith, A D., 28 Smith, D. S., 196, 199 Smith, R. L., 87 Smuts, J. c., 41 Snow, J. T., 131 Social conditions, site analysis factor of,136 Social progress, accumulation of wealth as measure of, 4 Socialization needs, 119 Society, landscape as an accurate indicator of, 11 Soils desertification of, 100-101 site analysis factor of, 110-111 understanding types of, 87 Solution-oriented paradigm of design professions, 177 Sommer, R., 121-122 Soult\ M. E., 12 Space behavioral dimensions of, 121-123 distemic vs. proxemic, 117-118 personal, 121 public, 126-127 territorial, 121-122 Species destruction, 101 Statutory requirements, site analysis factor of, 135 Steiner, E, 80 Steinitz, c., 20, 78-79 Stereotyping, pitfall of, 216-217 Stewardship, 8, 26, 29-30 Stoddart, L. A, 28 Stokels, D., 119-120 Strauss, E. L., 51-52 Stress, 120, 129 Strong delivery/strong service/ strong idea design technologies, 172-173 Structure, as characteristic of design form, 150 Substantive theory defined,27-28 design philosophy of, 27-28 environment-behavior studies, 34-38 prospect-refuge, 37-38
Index sustainable development, 28-34 systems theory, 38, 48 Succession, ecological, 88-89 Suitability analysis, 80--82 Sullivan, L. H., 143 Sullivan, L. N., 179 Sustainability, as design goal, 165 Sustainable development, 28-34 ecosystem management and, 31-32 resource productivity improvement principles, 32-33 Sustainable development theory, defined,29 Swanepoel, H. J., 194 Symbols, power- and status-defining, 5-6 Symes, M., 57, 176, 178 Synergy, as design goal, 165 Systematic design method, three stages of, 50 Systemic relationships hypothetically modeling and evaluating in design investigation,65 managing through collaborative design, 190 Systemic thinking, 41, 215 Systems theory, 38-48 critical understanding of relationships in, 41 ecosystems and, 42 equilibrium vs. dissipative structures in, 44-45 holistic thinking in, 41 importance of, in landscape architecture,43 principles of design process, 40-41 principles of systemic learning, 39-40 system relationships, defined, 38 Teams. See also Collaboration advantages and disadvantages of, 190-191 effective environment in, 197-199 innovation factor in, 197 interdisciplinary process in, 209-211
255 leadership in, 200 learning as interactive basis for, 192-195 member responsibilities, 204 multidisciplinary vs. interdisciplinary, 191 organizational power structures of,196 participation in, 201-203 rules of engagement for, 204-209 size of, 201 Technology categories of. See Design technologies effect on design practice, 181-182 importance of, in sustainable development, 33 purpose of, in design, 34 Territory encroachment on, 122 spatially defined areas of, 121-122 Theory, defined, 25 Thinking, critical/creative, 214-220 Thompson, I. M., 3 Thornley, D., 50 Tilman, D., 106 Time, American concept of, 102-103 Topography, site analysis factor of, 109-110 'Itaffic, site analysis factor of, 136 'Itansportation design challenge of, 132-133 health-related issues, 169 sustainable development and, 30 Ulrich, R. S., 129, 153, 155 Unity, as consideration in defining beauty,155 Urban development access and movement in, 129 biophysical environment and, 108-109 design services in, 187-188 human environment and, 124 transportation problems in, 132 vehicular circulation systems and, 133-134 Utilities, site analysis factor of, 137
256 Values corporate capitalistic influence on, 7 individual vs. community, 7 influence on landscape architecture, 3-7 landscape as a reflection of, 11 Van Gigch, J. P., 52 Variety, as consideration in determining beauty, 154 Veblen, T., 6 Vegetation, site analysis factor of, 112-113
Wealth as measure of social progress, 4 natural, human attitudes toward, 5
success measured by, 9 Weiner, J., 145 Weir, J., 29 Weisbord, M., 18 Weisman, G. D., 67 Wheatley, M. J., 41,191,197,199 White, E. T., 64 White, R. E, 97 Whitfield, T. W A, 1.'57Whyte, W H., 126, 195 Wildlife, site analysis factor of, 113-114 Will, G. E, 6 Wilson, E. 0., 32, 37, 101 Wohlwill, J., 157 Wood, C. A, 31, 93 Wynberg, R., 30, 104-105, 132
Vehicles. See Transportation Vehicular circulation systems, urban, 133-134. See also 1tansportation; Roads Ward, A, 52 Water hydrologic cycle of, 91 world population's increasing demand for, 104 Watt,K.E.E,30,107 Wayfinding, 129, 162-163
//,
Zeisel, J., 67 ____ Zube, E. H., 34-35, 37, 52, 64
!:"<·<:o~,.
,
':"•. "
~:\"",..,",""
',.'\,
I
',)
_..:7" ~;-t_~
=
O~ =::sa
0= N-
..,).::-=
O;;; 0= OO~
~ N= ..0__
O;::E!
~= 0$
O~
~= N--
0=';;
~ =-= ~ ..::: "l~ ••......