Peering into the Future: An Interview with Joseph E. Brown, FASLA

 
Joseph E. Brown, FASLA, discusses the front-end role of landscape planning, the shortcomings of academic pedagogy, the uphill challenges facing Obama’s presidency, and the urgency of post-carbon public works. 

This interview was conducted by Pierre Bélanger, Associate Professor, Harvard University Graduate School of Design, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Recipient of the 2009 ASLA Medal, the highest honor conferred by the American Society of Landscape Architects, Joseph E. Brown is chief executive of planning, design, and development at AECOM. Educated as a landscape architect and urban designer with a master’s degree from Harvard University and a Bachelor of Architecture from Catholic University, Brown’s background has included a range of high-profile design and planning projects worldwide, from the National Capital Commission in Washington, D.C., to Tokyo Midtown in Japan. An aggressive advocate for global, interdisciplinary practice and for leadership by landscape architects, Brown is a Fellow of ASLA, a member of the American Planning Association, and an Associate Member of the American Institute of Architects. Brown has maintained an active registration as a landscape architect in the State of Virginia since 1982.

In 2005, EDAW teamed up with architecture and engineering giant AECOM in an unprecedented merger of intentions and objectives. As the chief executive of planning, design, and development at AECOM, why has this revolutionary merger between the largest landscape planning firm in the world and the largest engineering firm in the world gone almost unnoticed by the design disciplines?

The merger has been noticed but only anecdotally, in small separate pieces by the individual design disciplines. AECOM’s intranet is read by more than 43,000 people. That presence alone is approaching half of Architectural Record’s readership worldwide. If we go by the measure of what notice is taken, the world is a little upside down. Regardless, we’ll be noticed very soon, as a major architectural firm acquisition is on the horizon…a move that will effectively complete the total service delivery capabilities of the organization.

Is this merger indicative of the underlying urban agency of land-based challenges in the discipline of civil engineering today?

By this coming November, we’ll be integrated horizontally across all our other practices including landscape, engineering, building engineering, and structural and site engineering. AECOM will provide the front-end planning expertise to oversee those operations. As a landscape architect and urban designer, I’ll be in charge of the entire set of capabilities including architecture, building engineering, design, planning, economics, and program management. I’ll be leveling the playing field among disciplines as opposed to the current cafeteria-style model of practice, which is inflexible and hierarchical. In our future, engineering and architecture will be calibrated with science, counterbalanced with the fields of ecology and landscape.

Is this alliance of disciplines—the design commons—better equipped to see the future challenge than governments?

Yes, I certainly hope so. The professional world is changing quickly, but designers are, ironically, the slowest to change. They may dress creatively, and they may draw creatively, but their thinking is very conservative, stolid, and entrenched. Designers fail to understand the foreshadowing of the challenges we face today, let alone to grapple with the magnitude of conditions lying ahead. Think about the complexity of current issues: Take the usual conditions of program, use, cost, public-private constituencies, factor them by disaggregated systems of infrastructure that are falling apart, and then top them off with budget crises, carbon urgency, climate change, and population migration. We’re not in catastrophe mode or a doomsday scenario, but we’re confronted with complex challenges with many variables that require strategic, systemic thinking.

Given the current magnitude of ecological challenges, are landscape architects equipped to engage infrastructural challenges and to take the lead on new public works projects?

Consider this: In the past 30 years of liberalization in China, 300 million people have migrated from one side of the country to the other. The rural has become urban. In the next 50 years, there will be a great exodus of people moving from the Southern Hemisphere to the Northern Hemisphere chasing food and water due to climate change. In the next 30 years, 50 percent of the built environment will be entirely replaced. Notwithstanding the effect of global climate change on global metropolises with rising sea levels, we can’t keep doing things the same way. We need global-scale intelligence to communicate and a global scale of operating that addresses these challenges in a unified system. That’s where ground-level implementation comes into play, and that’s what AECOM is about…the integration of that system.

Are these challenges contributing to the rediscovery of planning?

Look back to 1968. We had a war in which 55,000 young Americans would die, Martin Luther King Jr. and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated, all the major cities were burning and lit up with riots. In that moment, America understood what was at stake, and we were motivated to do something about it. One could compare current global environmental, economic, and social conditions to a 1968. It is a watershed moment, but we are lacking the recognition and the motivation. What needs to happen for people to embrace a more radical approach to these issues?

You have never resorted to the facile tactics of the New Urbanists that foster American traditionalism and excessively memorialize the legacy of the past. Instead, for the past 40 years, you have been cultivating a long-range, local-scale landscape milieu where urbanism, industry, infrastructure, conservation, and communities converge, cooperate, and coexist. At AECOM, how do you distinguish yourselves vis-à-vis the predominant canon of the New Urbanists that seems to be sweeping parts of America?

What AECOM is doing, integrating services, connecting architecture and infrastructure—green, and gray, and blue infrastructure—is more important than the concern about New Urbanism. We’re dealing with a larger context, solving larger problems. We should not dismiss New Urbanism—some of the alternatives it has provided to suburban development patterns have been helpful, if not very significant. But New Urbanism is superficial when compared with the real design and engineering project of making built, natural, and social systems function together.

Should we begin to start large-scale, long-range plans?

I would say that we did that in the 1930s. Some projects worked, and some others failed. The megastructures movement of the 1970s marked an end to that era. Architecture lost its final grip. But what we haven’t done is planned the middle scale between the large-scale geographic plan and the site scale. We’ve never really planned the 1:5,000 to 1:500 with urban configurations and infrastructure systems. We essentially need performance-driven, technology-driven planning and design. It’s no longer about pretty surface, but about firm foundations. We need to be developing metrics at the middle scales.

Do you foresee the emergence of public design competitions as an important contributor to this watershed change?

It’s very difficult for public design competitions to address all of the issues at all of the scales. Public design competitions are narrowly defined, and they have to be for people to compete effectively. But they only deal with one sector of the design agenda. They can get very random and strange when they attempt to tackle large-scale problems.

As public think tanks, are universities well positioned to engage this mission?

They are extremely well equipped, but they’re holding back. They need more open-minded teaching environments to different scales and different practices. In some universities, faculties can’t even integrate their own departments, while on the other hand, others speak fluidly across their faculties and departments. So far, that level of interdepartmental collaboration has yielded mediocre work. So, we can’t be producing average work and excuse it for collaboration. We need to do high-quality work and demand high-quality performance. Academy and the public sector have to pick up the pace and operate at a bigger scale, because the professional world is experimenting much more and much faster. Harvard has a good shot at that but must tackle its financial challenges first, and quickly. The current economic climate is the perfect opportunity. With its unique position, Harvard has to leave its legacy as a private university with private interests aside and put forward a public agenda with new forms of public interests. Knowledge should be organized around a set of defined challenges and issues relevant to our time like housing affordability, health, and water quality that could be tackled by a “dominant problem” studio series addressing major challenges and major problems. Harvard should work more on the engineering side with MIT—they’re just down the road. If only Harvard would get much more radical. In fact, historically, Harvard used to be radical.

In a 2003 article in Topos magazine titled “Emerging Territory,” you discuss how the partitioning and fractioning of the design disciplines into small boutique firms goes “against the grain of cooperation.” Is this the result of professional education programs that ironically bolster small individual practices that are overabundant instead of cooperative public organizations?

It seems to be. There is a widespread model of atelier-based offices throughout North America. In certain parts of the world, there are regulatory parameters that, in fact, prohibit large agencies. In universities, there are values, mentors, and leaders that foster small-scale work. In fact, most professional program faculties are made of owners with small, private practices and very few public practices. In France, for example, there is a legal structure that disincentivizes firms larger than 15 people and reinforces the atelier or small design workshop model. It is pervasive in Europe. Elsewhere, what seems to be taking place today is another round of initiatives and changes—alternatives that are attempting to integrate project delivery methods. This is being driven by the need for high-performance buildings, energy systems, curtain walls, and technology systems that are produced with design tools such as BIM, the building information modeling process that generates and manages building data during its life cycle. There’s just a new wave of concurrence about testing some alternatives. The horizontal integration taking place involves the steps we go through for design and the technology and the performance metrics we are using to rationalize those steps. The vertical dimension deals with disciplines by putting them all on a more level playing field for architecture, landscape, urban design, ecology, economics, social programs, engineering, and site engineering to achieve sustainability at the community scale. This may mean that the single model atelier and signature may survive, but maybe those practices will have to dramatically change. 

Is there not enough engineering in design?

It sounds like heresy, but there’s too much rhetoric and not enough engineering. The crisis in design is like Wall Street and the financial crisis—too much conceptual derivatives and not enough financial engineering. Right now, there’s too much talk about sustainability in every definable dimension, axis, and mode, in dimensions ranging from the social to the economic. These are all important subjects, but we need tighter, more hard-core systems of integration between the landscape of infrastructure and urbanism, where site systems interface with spatial experiences and connect with ecological processes.

In reference to your Harvard Design Magazine article “Landscapes as Complex Adaptive Systems” (2008), in which you state that “the era of thinking about bridges, buildings, pipes, parks, streetscapes, or restored river courses as separate things is decisively over,” are we witnessing a need in other allied disciplines, especially civil engineering, to engage biophysical processes and ecological dynamics as part of their overall strategies?

Yes. Infrastructure that was or is currently done by civil engineers all by themselves in a disciplinary vacuum is one day all going to be ripped out. Most of them cannot deal with the pressure for creative solutions when dealing with multiple challenges at multiple scales. This is a factor of isolated problems, isolated budgets, and isolated clients…but that’s on the verge of total change. It’s a blunt statement about the flattening of the design disciplines, and you would think that this is common knowledge. The public sector has its public works departments: roads here, parks and rivers over there, water and supply and sanitary over here. And they all go about building these systems without an integrated strategy. Notwithstanding cohesion and configuration of density, mix of uses, park design, and open space systems, it’s shocking. Then when everybody is trying to be comprehensive, everyone misses each other, and misses each other’s comprehension. It’s the fallout of the pattern of disciplinary segregation.

Is this a good moment in history to reclaim the field of infrastructure that was taken hostage by civil engineering in the 20th century?

From our end, AECOM has inspired engineers who understand the simultaneous functionality at all scales with the ecological fundamentals. Very few professionals can deal with the integration of complex systems. We need to reeducate professions, the policy makers, the politicians, and the clients.

Is this departmental/disciplinary divide due to the municipal stronghold on urban projects that often lie beyond municipal borders, more legitimately dealt with at the scale of the region?

Strategies in the future must be interregional. These forms of collaboration lie in a more contemporary, more instrumental understanding of the region that can slide across the layers of federal, state, and municipal authorities. Regional governance in other countries is fundamentally different than in the United States. Take the United Kingdom and Canada, for example. The UK actually has federal policies about land use, and Canada has regional watershed organizations with major funding mechanisms in place and some legislative authority. The United States has little or no federal policies on land use, while regional organizations are limited largely to conservation. On this end, the United States has a lot of federal strings attached to federal funding. That’s what America does. It attaches strings to highway building and to mass transit construction. Depending on the administration du jour, funding mechanisms work like a gas pedal: Sometimes we press hard on road-related infrastructure and at sometimes on mass-transit monies. Given the limitations of a four-year term, the Feds are the least predictable in the American system and have very little to do with the actual designed landscape of America, irrespective of the General Services Administration (GSA) or the arts program and various piecemeal programs of design and planning. Public funding at the federal level is not a substitute for federal policy, nor is it a substitute for a national vision for our land.

Is there a simple, effective strategy that you could propose to the current administration to change this?

I’m dedicating myself at the moment to this very idea. In this era of infrastructure funding, we will see two phases of change. The first deals with shovel-ready projects and off-the-shelf projects like pothole patching that immediately stimulate the economy. But the second wave of projects should be much more strategic and address major questions about our future: Where do we want infrastructure, and how do we integrate it with urban fabric? Conversely, how does urbanism become more infrastructural? For example, what modes of transportation—light rail, heavy rail, freight rail—do we want? How do transportation systems tie in, and where do we position harbor and airport access? Simultaneously, there should be strings attached to these major infrastructure networks to combine and integrate urban land uses and urban configurations. I believe we need to research, determine, and mandate a ratio between development of previously used land within the sphere of existing or planned infrastructure versus development on unused land. I suspect it would end up being around 60/40. The current practice is practically 20/80. My strategy gives landscape [architecture] a leading role as the discipline that connects all the dots and sees the bigger picture. It’s not a Socialist policy; it’s a simple, nimble federal metric.

Are you recalling the New Deal Era of the 1930s?

There is nothing nostalgic about revisiting the greatness of FDR’s federal initiatives. The so-called alphabet of agencies that he created legitimately integrated almost a century ago what we call today blue, gray, and green infrastructure with urban development and cultural programs. It was a total synthesis of the built environment.

How did trust in federal governance and federal leadership wane?

The 1980s saw a lot of change. The winning of the Cold War by Reagan, who was a major promoter of small government, fed the distrust in the public perception of the federal government to a level that was inoperable. Barack Obama is fighting an uphill battle that involves rebuilding trust in the government for the common good. The task at hand is not so much about regulation or about federal takeover of programs like health care; it is about redressing the effects of a piecemeal and uncoordinated private sector that has dominated the past three decades by providing leadership from the public sector. We need to address long-term foreseeable and unforeseeable challenges: Remember, in the next 30 years, 50 percent of the built environment will be completely replaced. We’ve reached a tipping point, and it calls for an avant-garde integration of private, public, federal, state, and local strategies and roles.

Pierre Bélanger is an associate professor of landscape architecture at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design and is a registered landscape architect and urban planner.

NOTE: Since the date of the interview, AECOM subsequently announced that it has acquired Ellerbe Becket, a 100-year-old architecture, interiors, and engineering firm. Read press release.

19 thoughts on “Peering into the Future: An Interview with Joseph E. Brown, FASLA

  1. Marvin 12/08/2009 / 10:37 am

    I’m not sure I know where to begin with what is wrong with this interview and the views of Mr. Brown. I’m sorry I don’t have the time to eloquently state my case but I feel I need to comment.

    A few points:

    The interviewer starts by making a statement about a merger of intentions and objectives. There was no “merger”. EDAW was acquired by AECOM. They sold out. If Joe and EDAW sought out AECOM, it was with the intention of an exit strategy. Everyone in the profession that I have talked to feels sorry for the professionals at EDAW because they have lost their extremely valuable name and identity. It’s like they disappeared off the face of the earth. Then, did anyone find this sentence very creepy:
    “Regardless, we’ll be noticed very soon, as a major architectural firm acquisition is on the horizon…a move that will effectively complete the total service delivery capabilities of the organization.”

    The interviewer later states that Brown and EDAW never resorted to New Urbanism. Does he know who EDAW was? They not only resorted to New Urbanism, they were major purveyors of it. Has Mr. Belanger ever heard of Celebration at Disney? It is perhaps the apex of New Urbanism, it was an EDAW project, and it was one of many like it.

    Further on, we read that Brown thinks that small firms are overabundant and counterproductive. Well said by an employee of the largest AE Corporation in the world. Does he not see the irony in what he is saying? All over the world, people are talking about small, local companies, personalized service and are rebelling against the large, out of touch, faceless corporation. Perhaps in China larger still means better, but in the rest of the world AECOM and the market seem to be headed in different directions.

    Brown, Later: “Right now, there’s too much talk about sustainability…” Nice.

    Who deserves more criticism here? Brown or Belanger? Belanger has this question: “Is this a good moment in history to reclaim the field of infrastructure that was taken hostage by civil engineering in the 20th century?” How do you answer this when your company has just been acquired by a giant engineering firm? And, “held hostage”? Has the field of infrastructure really been held hostage?

    • Jody Brown 12/14/2009 / 3:29 am

      “Everyone in the profession that I have talked to feels sorry for the professionals at EDAW because they have lost their extremely valuable name and identity. It’s like they disappeared off the face of the earth.”

      I don’t know to whom who you are talking in the profession, but I assure you that thousands of EDAW people continue to do innovative, meaningful work all over the world. They haven’t dropped off the face of the earth and they certainly don’t need your pity. It’s a different name on the business card; stop being so precious.

      • Marvin Face 12/16/2009 / 10:20 pm

        Just because “…thousands of EDAW people continue to do innovative, meaningful work all over the world.” this does not mean that everyone in the profession does not perceive that EDAW has been erased from the planet. EDAW used to be a formidable name to compete against. Sorry, AECOM just doesn’t register. I imagine former and potential clients are confused at best.

        It is incomprehensible to me that AECOM would abandon the most recognizable name in planning the world over. It’s like Coca Cola renamed “Brown Drink” (no pun intended). Whether they NEED it or not, I DO pity them, and they DO deserve it. I wish AECOM the best of luck in their eternal quest to rule the world

  2. Tim Hansen 12/08/2009 / 12:08 pm

    It appears that Mr. Brown believes that a smaller firm, however skilled and well-meaning, is incapable of successfully managing or integrating disciplines in a project that requires landscape architecture, engineering and architecture. If I am accurately reading between the lines, no project more than an office courtyard should or could be undertaken by anyone less than a large firm with every possible consultant retained in-house in order to achieve the desired result. As a likely holder of significant stock in ACM, Mr. Brown is an ineligible proponent of the Big is Better philosophy. Further, I doubt that the number of projects that AECOM would be able to justify constitute 5% of the to-be-built environment.

  3. Ann B Daigle 12/08/2009 / 12:44 pm

    Perhaps both Mr’s Belanger and Brown should read the Charter of the Congress for the New Urbanism, so that they understand our principles. They should consider the methodology we pioneered: the purpose of a “charrette” is to bring all stakeholders and disciplines (all ateliers) to the same table, at the same time, to work together. Then they should review the ‘SmartCode Manual” and the website, Transect.org.

    There they will find the most complex, contextual and comprehensive work in the nation on the integration of diverse disciplines, challenges, and natural and urban elements, at all scales and ranges – from the region to the neighborhood to the block and lot. This effort represents the collaborative work of dozens of dedicated planners, engineers, architects, landscape architects, academics, sociologists, and government and citizen activists, who have been regularly debating through meetings, project charrettes and listserves for over a decade.

    While there is still much, much work to be done, New Urbanists are at the forefront of real and practical change, in metropolitan centers and in rural hamlets alike. They embrace the challenge, imagine the effective alternative, design it, develop strategy to legalize, permit and build it – then they critically measure it.

    New Urbanism is a “whole systems approach” that is international in scope. It is not now, and never was, “superficial.” The authors could benefit themselves, their communities and the world by joining rather than denigrating this innovative and powerful movement of passionate professionals.

    Ann Daigle, CNUA
    Community Planning & Design Strategy

  4. faslanyc 12/11/2009 / 11:21 am

    I think that Mr. Brown brings up some interesting points (the over-specialization of disciplines, too much rhetoric, not enough engineering, etc.). However, I don’t see any compelling reason why huge total service corporations are a better solution than, say, a smaller firm of 10 people that includes designers and engineers in various fields and specialties. That large size also brings with it serious limitations because of labyrinthine bureaucracy (billing systems, hierarchical chains of command) which limit their ability to respond quickly and with sensitivity and nuance. Additionally, these companies have a moral obligation to return a profit for their shareholders (which neither governments nor small firms have) which is not necessarily a variable you want mixed in to the discussion of how to do something as vital as reinventing infrastructure.

    He also doesn’t even consider the fact that almost all other general trends in technology, science, infrastructure, and culture are tending toward smaller, dispersed, resilient systems and entities (think housing projects v. favelas, sewage treatment plants v. on-site solutions, twitter/youtube/Wikipedia v. abc nightly news, trench warfare v. guerilla warfare/terrorism). In general, when competition gets more intense and the pace of change speeds up, the advantage is to the smaller and faster entity (this applies to war, boxing, biology, design firms).

    I work closely with several large engineering-based total service firms here in New York, and in the same building as EDAW/AECOM, and I am definitely not a believer…

    He is interesting and well spoken, but seems incredibly pedantic and something of a proselytizer, and therefore ineffectual. Boo.

  5. Jim Klein 12/12/2009 / 2:53 pm

    Congratulations on a fine interview. I wonder if this interview took place before or after the downfall of the Dubai Corporation.

    As a Principal in one of those tiny boutique firms that used to, on occasion, compete with and beat out EDAW on a project or two, I am relieved in these tight economic times to not have to compete with the name EDAW as part of our public-oriented practice.

    We are greatly saddened, however, by the complete loss of of the EDAW legacy – a large segment of the history of our profession and one of our profession’s biggest employers – swallowed up by AECOM, the Soylent Corporation of the design world.

    Obviously ASLA was saddened as well, giving EDAW a last gasp firm award before its untimely death. An award well-earned but a firm death that will hurt the stewardship ethic of our profession and society.

    In the meantime, we are delighted to continue on with our regionally-based boutique design practice helping communities plan for, manage, and design greenways, trails, parks, byways, streets, and neighborhoods. Our legacy is something we earn by collaborating with other like-minded professionals across all disciplines. We tailor our teams to the needs of the client and the public, not the needs of the corporate brochure. We, like may of the landscape architects trained in the 1970’s, continue on with a stewardship ethic that is rooted in the landscape we live in and the communities we serve.

  6. faslanyc 12/15/2009 / 1:47 pm

    interesting article here as a counterpoint to mr. brown:
    http://urbanomnibus.net/2009/06/work-and-the-open-source-city/

    the more i think about it, the more mr. brown’s stance makes me wretch. he brings up a few good points, but is so self-satisfied in presenting his view and methods that i can barely get to those points.

    Eckbo would never stop vomiting if he could read this interview.

    • Jody Brown 12/15/2009 / 11:33 pm

      I fail to see how your link acts as a counterpoint to the opinions of Joe Brown. Good luck with that blog!

  7. faslanyc 12/15/2009 / 11:57 pm

    just a different way of working, collaborating, sharing ideas, that’s all. you don’t have the overhead/rules/hierarchy inherent in a big corporation. of course you also don’t have the security and support that come with a corporation job either.

  8. David 12/18/2009 / 2:47 pm

    1. Yes, Mr. Brown sounds very creepy. While he is planning for world occupation and spending all his time developing horizontal matrixes Aecom has been having layoffs people for more than a year. I can’t help but see a parallel with George W. Bush “colonialism” while the economy in the US was slowing going into one of the worst recessions. Neither Joe nor George cared too much.

    2. Mr. Brown says: “I’ll be leveling the playing field among disciplines as opposed to the current cafeteria-style model of practice, which is inflexible and hierarchical”.
    Leaving alone the comical reference to a non-hierarchical corporation, unfortunately it is Aecom that is becoming like McDonald’s, serving billion of customers. I am sure that when Mr. Brown wants a good meal doesn’t eat at Mc Donald’s but at a small “boutique” place. Quality never comes with quantity. Aecom projects demonstrate it. They are average at best like a Big Mac. And the continuous references to the ecologies and the landscape have that greasy feel of a salad at Mc Donald’s.

    3. I know a lot of EDAW employees and they hated the so called merger and resisted at all cost for their name to be changed. Again Joe doesn’t care because he has other goals in mind.

    4. I agree with faslanyc that Mr. Brown is incredibly pedantic (his advice to Harvard is a pearl). Probably only a good corporate climber and not the greatest designer/developer/planner he thinks he is.

    P.S. to Jody: you are last name doesn’t make you a very believable defender of our hero. I bet you don’t eat at Mc Donald’s either.

    • Jody Brown 01/06/2010 / 8:51 am

      Yes, Joe Brown is just like George W. Bush. Listen to yourself, please. Are you high? LMAO.

  9. Elizabeth 01/03/2010 / 12:36 am

    I find all of these entries to be reiterating the same points. Either defending New Urbanist Theories (boring) or the integrity of small firms (these are not going away anytime soon).

    I wish these follow up conversation were focused on infrastructural projects and the opportunity for new synergies to come out of the “middle scale project” and Mr. Brown referenced.

    I don’t really care that the name EDAW is gone. I see the potential for something new to happen professionally. Landscape Architecture can move and should move beyond being just a service industry design profession.

  10. Craig Campbell 01/19/2010 / 4:20 pm

    It is unfortunate that questions like the following were not directed to Mr. Brown, as they are the ones many of us would have appreciated answers to:

    1) How was the decision made to basically dissolve EDAW in favor of being acquired by a large, mainly engineering firm?
    2) How far down the management structure was the decision discussed and input invited prior to this move?
    3) Was this move primarily made for economic reasons due to the downturn and the potential for large scale layoffs at EDAW?
    4) Which EDAW offices are likely to be closed as a result of this move?

    I agree with all of the points made by Marvin in the first posting, and am confident the future will prove that his analysis was correct.

    • Erik Miller 01/24/2010 / 8:00 pm

      Thanks for the questions, Craig

      1. EDAW joined AECOM in 2005. The motivation was pretty straightforward: access a wider pool of resources, collaborate with broader range of professionals, extend global reach, expand capabilities for clients.

      2. The decision to join AECOM was made by the EDAW Board of Directors and endorsed by unanimous vote of all principals.

      3. The move was made well before the current economic downturn.

      4. The renaming of EDAW (now Design + Planning at AECOM) won’t cause the closing of any local offices.

      Since 2005, several EDAW studios that operate in the same cities as offices of sister AECOM firms (for example, DMJM H&N, Spillis Candela, HSMM, Economics Research Associates (ERA), etc.) have moved into shared locations. Those local practices continue, in some cases under a different roof, but with the obvious efficiency of sharing space. (These firms are all united under the AECOM name now.)

      I think these co-locations are actually a good example of a value of EDAW joining AECOM: planners, landscape architects, ecologists, economists, environmental planners, architects, building engineers sitting side-by-side, working together from a project’s inception. Challenging, pushing one another. Accessing colleagues and knowledge from around the world.

      It begins to get at what Joe describes in the interview as the big picture task of integrating larger contexts. For example, when he talks about building on the “very significant” contribution of New Urbanism to confront “the real design and engineering project of making built, natural, and social systems function together.”

      I recognize there’s some cynicism out there, but the EDAW legacy – the people, the practice – continues. And AECOM is filled with people who want to change the world for the better as much as former EDAWers do. The fact is, designers and planners need to team up with engineers. Neither side can do it alone. And with the scope of the global challenges we face, it seems like this organizational approach is an avenue with promise and worth pursuing.

      Will it work? Will it help change the world for the better? We think so, but like you say, time will be the judge. I hope this helps clarify the background and motivation.

  11. Janet Smith 01/27/2010 / 2:13 am

    Belanger and Brown think they are “peering into future” when neither of them have the foresight to look past their own theories on landscape design and infrastructure. Belanger really only wishes he could compete with the best of them at Harvard thus surrounding himself with the likes of such sell outs, while Brown still thinks he runs the show. This is all just pathetic navel gazing Harvard public relations tactics, not actual investigative reporting. I’m mot impressed by either of them nor care to learn more about their large scale corporate propaganda.

  12. Irony Green 01/27/2010 / 8:57 am

    Why have I never heard of Janet Smith? She’s an absolute genius.

  13. Adam E. Anderson 02/03/2010 / 7:23 pm

    While I agree to the points made about the need for landscape to become a more integrated discipline into large scale infrastructure projects, the transformative process from boutique firms swallowed by multi-conglomerate agencies is as Faslanyc mentioned, an unnecessary step in the wrong direction.

    There is no reason given all current technologies available that smaller firms cannot act as effectively, if not more so in collaboration with all the required disciplines involved on a major project.

    The nimbleness of the boutique decreases internal communication inefficiencies and varied perspectives, fixed on the ultimate agenda, provide a checks and balance system perhaps less obtainable in the larger firm.

    Either way, large corporations frighten me.

  14. sitios 11/22/2011 / 9:18 am

    Remarkably well written piece of writing!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s