And in a state-by-state analysis, researchers found that landscape architecture services added the most to the economy of North Carolina — some $206.2 million in 2015, which is 2.7 times the national average.
Landscape architecture services were included in an analysis that covers 35 commercial and non-profit arts and design industries, such as publishing, motion pictures, performing arts, graphic and industrial design, and architecture services.
In case anyone doubts the value of the creative economy, the NEA and BEA’s data should put their concerns to rest. “The arts contribute $763.6 billion to the U.S. economy, more than agriculture, transportation, or warehousing. The arts employ 4.9 million workers across the country with earnings of more than $370 billion. Furthermore, the arts exported $20 billion more than imported, providing a positive trade balance.”
Other interesting findings: Creative industries are growing faster than the economy as a whole. Between 2012 and 2015, the “average growth rate was 2.6 percent, slightly higher than 2.4 percent for the nation’s overall economy. Between 2014 and 2015, the growth rate was 4.9 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars.”
In 2015, architectural services added $23.5 billion in value to the economy. Total industry output was $38.8 billion.
Fastest growth is seen in architectural services, web streaming and publishing, and performing arts presentation and design.
The American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) seeks a full-time summer communications intern. The intern will research and update ASLA’s sustainable design resource guides and write weekly posts on landscape architecture and related topics for The Dirt blog.
The internship is full-time Monday through Friday for 10 weeks, from June through August.
The intern will research and update resource guides on climate change, sustainable transportation, and other topics.
The intern will also create original weekly content for The Dirt, covering projects, events, and new publications.
The intern will also have the opportunity to attend educational and networking events at the National Building Museum, Harvard University’s Dumbarton Oaks, and other museums and think tanks in Washington, D.C.
Other communications projects may come up as well.
Current enrollment in a Master’s program in landscape architecture.
Excellent writing skills. The intern must be able to write clearly for a general audience.
Excellent photographic composition and editing skills.
Proven research skills and ability to quickly evaluate the quality and relevance of many different types of Web resources.
Excellent interpersonal skills and ability to interact graciously with busy staff members and outside experts.
Working knowledge of Photoshop, Google Maps, and Microsoft Office suite.
How to Apply:
Please send cover letter, CV, two writing samples (no more than 2 pages each) to firstname.lastname@example.org by end of day, Friday, March 30.
Phone interviews will be conducted with finalists the week of April 2 and selection will be made the following week.
The 10-week internship offers a $4,000 stipend. ASLA can also work with the interns to attain academic credit for the internship.
The internship is in-house located at ASLA’s national headquarters, which is conveniently located in downtown Washington, D.C., one block north of the Gallery Place/Chinatown Metro Station on the Red, Yellow, and Green Lines. Learn more about ASLA’s Center for Landscape Architecture.
In a new exhibition featuring the nature-inspired art work of pop master Andy Warhol, the Marie Selby Botanical Gardens in Sarasota Bay, Florida, brings back the “flower power” of the 60s, but with a fresh take. Warhol: Flowers in the Factory gives visitors a new look at Warhol’s enduring fascination with nature through a display of paintings, archival photography, and a unique collection of plants.
According to the Botanical Gardens, Warhol made some 10,000 images of flowers over the course of his career.
Four of the artist’s most well-known silkscreens, simply named Flowers, are now on display and inspired a horticultural riff on his work.
The Gardens write: “Over the years the blooms recreated in the Flowers series have been misidentified as anemones, nasturtium, and pansies. They actually represent hibiscus.” Those hibiscus are found in the bright, fun flower installations seen in the photo at top.
Beyond the hibiscus, epiphytes like bromeliads and orchids, which are the primary focus on the Selby Botanical Gardens’ collection and conservation efforts, have been organized into repetitive patterns inspired by Warhol’s work.
The displays by the horticulturalists are meant to “emphasize the seriality and modular design of Warhol’s work. Like many landscape architects, Warhol was inspired by the repetition of shapes and bright pops of color.”
The Marie Selby Botanical Gardens is the only botanical garden in the world dedicated to the study of epiphytes, those beautiful, delicate, and strange plants that live in tree canopies and survive on air, rain, and debris.
Also, learn more about Selby’s new master plan developed by landscape architecture firm OLIN last year, which will expand the green space in the 15-acre gardens by 50 percent and create a new demonstration site for green roof technologies for the 200,000-plus visitors who come every year.
The University College Dublin (UCD), known as Ireland’s “global university” with some 30,000 students from 120 countries, has launched an international design competition for an “urban design vision” that will result in a more-welcoming 23-hectare entrance “precinct” or district. UCD seeks an integrated design team of planners, landscape architects, and architects for the campus where writer James Joyce once studied. A second component of the competition is to create a concept design for a new Center for Creative Design.
According to the competition organizers, the entrance precinct is expected to better link the university to the city but also make the university landscape a landmark and raise the profile of the university both in Ireland and overseas.
The new space must create a strong sense of place — with “creativity, innovation, and sustainability” at the core of the new identity. The new precinct must be attractive, inspirational, accessible, and encourage socializing and pedestrian flow, while creating space for up to 355,000 square meters of development in a footprint of 66,700 square meters. Furthermore, the new precinct must be net-zero in terms of energy use.
UCD contributes some €1.3bn ($1.6 bn) to the Irish economy each year. The university seeks to become a top 100 university in the world by 2020.
Each of the five finalist teams will receive a €40,000 ($49,000) honorarium. But bring your A-game: architect David Adjaye and others are on the prestigious jury. Submissions are due March 26.
As part of their 2019 budget proposal, the Trump administration has released a $200 billion infrastructure plan designed to “stimulate $1.5 trillion in investment over 10 years,” reduce the approval process for projects to two years or less, increase investment in rural infrastructure, and “empower State and local authorities.”
The 55-page plan calls for:
An incentives program that would use $100 billion in federal grants to spur state and localities to ramp up investment in infrastructure such as “surface transportation and airports, passenger rail, ports, and waterways, flood control, water supply, water resources, drinking water facilities, wastewater facilities, stormwater facilities, and browfield and superfund sites.” The administration wants funds to be distributed only when states and localities hit progress milestones.
A $50 billion rural grant program for capital investments in transportation, broadband, water and waste treatment, water resources, and power and electric facilities. 80 percent of the funds would be distributed to states based on a formula that weights miles of rural roads and percentage of rural populations.
$20 billion for “transformative projects” that would have a “significant positive impact on the Nation, a region, state, or metropolitan area.” These funds would be for “ambitious, exploratory, and ground-breaking projects that have significantly more risk than standard infrastructure projects.” A third of the funds would be used for projects still in the early demonstration phase.
Another $20 billion would be set aside for credit programs designed to enable state and local governments to finance large-scale infrastructure projects under terms “more advantageous than in the financial markets.” Included in this section is an expansion of the EPA’s authority to finance federal flood mitigation, hurricane and storm damage reduction, navigation, environmental restoration, and restoration of aquatic ecosystems, along with more credit to incentivize state and local action in these areas. The Trump administration also calls for increasing “flexibility and broaden eligibility” to facilitate private investment in infrastructure.
Lastly, the Trump administration calls for selling more federal assets, including the Ronald Reagan National and Dulles International airports, and creating a new $10 billion revolving fund used to buy more modern federal property.
U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao recently said the administration is considering raising the gasoline tax to pay for its plan. The tax is currently 18.4 cents and has not been raised since 1993. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster noted that his state of Pennsylvania greatly benefits from the gas tax. He explained to Fox News that “every dollar a taxpayer in his largely-rural district pays in petrol taxes, they receive $1.70 in return.” Many groups are critical of the idea, arguing that raising the gas tax would hurt the middle class and those earning low-incomes — every “1 percent increase would take $1 billion out of consumers’ pockets.”
Democrats are highly critical of the Trump administration’s plan, as their own calls for $1 trillion in investment. On Trump’s plan, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), told The Hill: “This is the kind of plan you’d expect from a president who surrounds himself with bankers and financiers and wealthy people who don’t mind paying a $20 toll every time they go to work. It’s a plan designed to reward rich developers, large banks, and the president’s political allies, not to rebuild the country.”
Furthermore, the Democrats argue the $200 billion is the result of infrastructure cuts elsewhere in the proposed 2019 budget. Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said: “It’s not new money. It is the re-purposing of existing programs. They’ve moved the money from existing programs to their new programs and say they got $200 billion over 10 years. No, they don’t. It’s the same $200 billion that would be spent on ongoing programs.”
Organizations focused on creating a sustainable built environment are also critical. In a statement, Smart Growth America wrote:
“While the president calls for new resources for rural communities to support brownfields and broadband, he simultaneously proposes draconian funding cuts to critical federal programs that these local communities depend on, including HOME Investment Partnerships, Community Development Block Grants and the TIGER competitive transportation grant program.” Furthermore, “these proposals fail to recognize that the 21st century movement of people and goods requires a multimodal and interconnected approach that leverages both public and private sector investment and innovation.”
“The budget slashes or eliminates a series of existing infrastructure programs leaving many to see the administration’s opening bid as merely shifting resources and providing no new support. The proposal also envisions a dramatic shift to relying more heavily on state and local funding. APA has called for new infrastructure investment as a top legislative priority, but has repeatedly noted that any new program should not come at the expense of existing tools and resources.”
Environmental and conservation groups are also very concerned about any effort to gut environmental regulations. Alison Cassidy, a vice president at the Center for American Progress wrote: “the Trump plan would require significant changes to at least nine environmental laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Clean Air Act, and Clean Water Act.”
Furthermore, if the Trump administration is really concerned about the cost of slow environmental reviews, Cassidy argues the answer may be to fully fund the bureaucracies charged with making approvals. The Trump administration should instead “implement laws already on the books and ensure that the agencies involved with environmental review were fully funded. Over the past six years, Congress has enacted three major laws overhauling the environmental review process—but these laws haven’t been fully implemented yet.” An ASLA panel from last year reached similar conclusions.
However, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), which have given American infrastructure a D+ rating and call for $4 trillion in infrastructure investment, is more positive. ASCE President Kristina Swallow said: “The Trump Administration’s plan is a solid first step in having a real conversation about solutions for the nation’s aging infrastructure and a path to address our infrastructure investment deficit.”
Trump’s budget proposal also calls for cutting the budgets of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by 34 percent, the department of housing and urban Development (HUD) by 18 percent, and the department of transportation by 19 percent. But given Congress ignored the Trump administration’s last spending blueprint, we can assume they will again.
The brief shows a luscious new park in the middle of the campus, which connects corporate buildings on the east and west ends of the space. A “green loop” — which goes through the park, then through the center of the building, and then follows a “riparian habitat” — links Google employees and the community to the campus, shops and retail, and welcoming outdoor spaces. Adjacent to the park is a protected burrowing owl habitat.
According to the design team, the connecting pathways within the campus were designed to make access roads feel safe and easy to cross.
Landscape is used to draw in the neighbors. And in keeping with Google’s mission to support local ecosystems, they write: “our plans for the indoor and outdoor spaces include native habitats and vegetation designed to support local biodiversity and create educational opportunities for the community.”
The building itself is designed to connect Google to the neighborhood. The ground level offers events spaces, cafes and restaurants, while the upper level will use clerestory windows to bring in light. The bird-friendly building will feature a tent-like roof that will be embedded with photovoltaic panels.
Hargreaves Jones propose removing the few Redwood trees from the site — which aren’t “locally native” to the area and “possess many traits that make them undesirable when planted in urban areas outside their historic range” — and replacing them with locally-native trees and plants that will help re-establish “mixed riparian forest and oak woodland” ecosystems that once existed in the area. Part of this effort will include a “re-Oaking initiative” designed to bring back the lost ecology of the Santa Clara Valley. Furthermore, the landscape architects argue their approach will help the nearby burrowing owls, as there will be fewer perches for predatory falcons. Green infrastructure, including permeable pavements, will ensure all run-off is captured via the landscape.
Participatory design is “hands-on democracy in action,” argue the editors of the impressive new book Design as Democracy: Techniques for Collective Creativity. Participatory design (also known as cooperative or co-design) is a process in which a designer actively involves all stakeholders in a design process. Unfortunately, many of the best-known techniques to enable this approach, which have been used for the past few decades, have become stale. This has led to complacency among designers, and less-than-ideal outcomes for communities that need their help. To revitalize the approach and achieve better results, the authors call for making participatory design “truly democratic.” Furthermore, it must become “contextual, open, experiential, substantive, and holistic.”
One can tell the many editors, who are all landscape architects and professors, wrestled with themselves and perhaps each other to come up with a new synthesis of this design approach. The hard work of David de la Pena; Diane Jones Allen, ASLA; Randolph T. Hester, Jr, FASLA; Jeffrey Hou, ASLA; Laura J. Lawson, ASLA; and Marcia J. McNally paid off: the book is a well-organized compendium of proven techniques designers can apply in their projects. Their collective voice is determined and impassioned, which really helps make their case.
The editors note up front that none of these techniques will work if designers don’t have the right mindset when they begin to engage a set of stakeholders. And the right mindset can only come from close examination of oneself — one’s own history, preferences, position in society, and hidden biases. One section is worth quoting at length:
“Once we are clear on who we are are, we can see our position in society relative to the cultural and economic context of the community in which we plan to work. This in turn equips us with empathy rather than sympathy. This distinction is important because designers can find themselves in communities with acute needs that have been repeatedly ignored. Although providing technical assistance to a community in need is a critical role of participatory design, responding with sorrow or pity hampers one’s effectiveness. Sympathy, even when its grounded in understanding, can subtly convey to residents that only the designer’s expertise counts. Another pitfall lies in creating a patronizing process that diminishes the community’s self-worth.” For the editors, only fully self-aware designers can succeed at this work. Furthermore, designers who come in as arrogant experts risk doing real damage.
The book flows through the design process — starting with tools to help a designer achieve self-awareness, and then moving through how to interact with and learn from communities, reach an accommodation between “expert” and local knowledge, “catalyze new visions and certainty about the best course of action,” co-generate designs and co-construct, evaluate and improve, and, finally, how to “exercise power to make community improvements” actually happen. Each section has a few well-chosen techniques selected by invited contributors, which are detailed, illustrated with a case story, and then further qualified with a reflection on how to best apply.
One technique that helps a designer assemble the right team at the beginning is called “What’s in it for us?” Julie Stevens, ASLA, a landscape architecture professor at Iowa State University, explained how she applied this tool to develop and manage a team for a landscape project at the Iowa Correctional Institution for Women (ICIW). Stevens said the assessment helped her think more comprehensively about who should be on the project.
“I nearly dismissed an application from a potential intern, because his essay did not express any compassion for the prison population. In terms of what he offered to the project, I recorded that he had experience with construction tools and equipment. In terms of what the project could do for him, I recorded that this young, white man might benefit from a summer working with women from much less privileged and much more racially diverse backgrounds, which could open up new worlds as he engaged people both informally and through design. His inclusion on the team was validated when I saw him give an incarcerated woman a high-five after completing a difficult retaining wall.”
In the section “Going to the People’s Coming,” which covers how to start engaging with and learning from a community, Chelina Odbert and Joe Mulligan, with Kounkuey Design Initiative, discuss an ingenious technique they call Community Camera: Piga Picha, a “photo activity that helps residents introduce their community to an outside project team, and in the process, to see familiar places through a new lens.” Using the approach in Kibera, large slum of Nairobi, Kenya, they gave 30 diverse community participants a disposable camera. When the residents then got the photos back, “it was clear they were seeing very familiar sites from a new perspective — as spaces worthy of design consideration.”
The next chapter is on “Experting,” which focuses on how to “transfer the title of expert to members of the community” in order to further empower them and build their capacity to achieve goals. In one technique described by Kofi Boone, ASLA, a landscape architecture professor at North Carolina State University, cell phones are passed out to community members so they can be used to create video diaries. This way “community members can document their place-based stories independently, on their own time, in their own voices.” For a new park in the neighborhood of Chavis Park, a historically African American community, videos, which ranged from 30 seconds to 7 minutes, were geo-tagged to an interactive map.
Smart, proven techniques cover how to encourage communities to prioritize efforts through fair and transparent voting processes using dots and tokens and create a shared vision through citizen-generated collages. Then, Design as Democracy delves into innovative ways to get to meat of these projects — and really co-generate designs and co-construct.
On a simple level, co-generating first involves breaking down the design process into easy-to-understand elements and options that community members can then manipulate and use to create design options. But as they create the design together, the community enters a process that “requires negotiation and sometimes creative compromise.” Through this process, the outside designer can then “actively nurture” multiple designers in the community, giving them agency and authority. Community design teams can also use green rubber stamps to quickly illustrate priorities, feast on a “design buffet” and “collect food (design ingredients)” that can result in a novel design, or place representative models on a mat as part of “animated visioning.”
Co-constructing, or building together, then lets everyone experience the “joy and energy of building,” which in turn “imbues a sense of accomplishment, pride, and ownership like nothing else can.” To avoid burnout from long visioning and co-design processes, the contributors in this section instead call for quick prototyping and making things spontaneously. The goal is to make sure the process doesn’t become a drag. “Making alleviates frustration, anger, and apathy from process without products.”
More powerfully, co-constructing with a community can be restorative in itself. In a project at the Rab Psychiatric Public Hospital, the Design/Build Service Learning Studio at the University of Washington redesigned 50 percent of the landscape as healing gardens and then co-constructed them with patients and staff. Daniel Winterbottom, FASLA, explains that despite the challenges, “the patients commented they found the act of building therapeutic. Many said they gained a sense of purpose, renewed self-confidence and self-esteem, and an appreciation for the garden work as a respite from the mandated intensive and exhausting therapies.”
The editors conclude that “design is a political act.” And “participatory design is one of the most effective means in a democracy to create cities and landscapes that distribute resources and shape places to be sustainable, representative of diverse publics, well informed by local wisdom, and just.” But they seem to disagree on the extent to which participatory design should be used to actively fight injustice.
While landscape architects and planners should of course work with communities to map environmental injustices, should they engage in conflict to achieve their ends? For Randolph Hester, FASLA, professor emeritus of landscape architecture at University of California at Berkeley, “no truly transformative design occurs without confronting status quo powers.”
But going back to the beginning for a moment: What this book leaves out is basic guidance on to how to find and partner with existing community leaders who are seeking positive change, who have been fighting injustice. How can a planner or designer know they’ve found the right client in a community? What are the tools for evaluating whether to engage or not? And what does a designer owe a client if the client’s goals end up being different from the community’s?
Plus, grey areas around financing seem to be avoided. For example, many participatory design projects in developing countries are financed by government aid agencies, companies, and non-profits with their own agendas. How can an ethical, self-aware designer establish and finance projects in a transparent way that builds trust with a community?
Companies and organizations are buying and selling billions of dollars of carbon credits every year worldwide. Carbon credits are a financial instrument that packages one metric ton of carbon dioxide into a commodity that can be traded. For example, if a company participates in a required, or even voluntary, cap-and-trade system and has exceeded the annual quota for their carbon dioxide emissions, they can purchase a credit from another organization that has excess credits. Credits sometimes come from carbon offset projects, which are explicitly designed to sequester or reduce greenhouse emissions in a verifiable amount.
Carbon credits and offsets are verified by 3rd party organizations, who root their evaluation in standards and protocols. Registries verify the amounts of carbon bought and sold, as well as the projects actively sequestering or reducing greenhouse gases, and help package the credits or offsets. Exchanges are marketplaces where credits and offsets are traded. Typically, credits and offsets feature renewable energy, energy-efficiency programs, the capture of methane or other pollution, or the expansion or protection of forests.
But now, a few start-up organizations are trying to figure out to how to make it easier for cities across the country to turn the carbon stored in urban forests into credits and offsets. If well-designed, implemented, and monitored, these new models have the potential to provide new revenue streams for strapped urban parks systems, protect existing green spaces from development, and bring more greenery to our cities and suburbs.
City Forest Credits, based in Seattle, is a registry that has developed a “unique bundled credit” — that goes beyond just packaging carbon. Each credit includes “a metric ton of CO2; stormwater runoff reduction in cubic meters; air quality for O3, NOx, PM10, and Net VOCs; and energy savings in kWh/yr and kBtu/yr.”
City Forest Projects makes the case for their approach: projects are “implemented locally, with visible and quantified ecosystem benefits.” Furthermore, individuals, companies, and organizations can purchase credits in their own communities, keeping benefits local.
They’ve developed their own protocols for measuring the benefits of their credits. And on their website, they claim they have solid leads with a number of cities, including Austin, Texas, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to turn urban forests into credits that can be traded.
For example, “we are beginning to work with urban forest stakeholders in Austin to assess larger-scale urban forest carbon projects that could generate significant volumes of CO₂ storage.” And in Pittsburgh, “a group of conservancy organizations has been working for over four years to preserve from development a large, 660-acre parcel of forested land in the City of Pittsburgh. We have had detailed discussions with the groups as they work to preserve not just the land, but the trees as well. A preservation carbon project could help preserve the trees, generate revenues for maintenance, demonstrate stewardship, and keep the many benefits of trees for the residents of the city.”
While City Forest Projects still seems to be formulating their approach and finding a market for the credits, Urban Offsets, another organization, appears to be farther ahead.
Their model is a bit different from City Forest Project’s. They package already-existing “high quality carbon offsets,” which have already been verified by registries, further evaluate the credits according to more than 50 criteria, and then bundle these offsets with “community tree programs.”
Urban Offsets makes the case for their approach: “Our unique offering involves the bundling of purchased third-party verified carbon offsets with tree plantings in local communities. This methodology presents a one-two punch against the traditional methods of offsets. Our model gives you the best of everything: local trees with proven ROI and positive impact that truly reduce carbon emissions.”
Urban Offsets is now partnering with urban tree planting organizations in New York City, Atlanta, Phoenix, Tempe, Charlotte, Durham, Greensboro, St. Louis, and Fayetteville. In New York City, they are working with Bette Midler’s well-regarded organization, the New York Restoration Project, and in Charlotte, with TreesCharlotte. They state these organizations are ensuring the trees are well-maintained.
It’s important that the trees underlining these urban forestry-based financial mechanisms are in good health. Given the high mortality rates for urban street trees, maintenance needs to be guaranteed to ensure the credibility of urban forests as long-term financial assets.
Much of Urban Offsets’ efforts seems driven by demand from Duke University, and their carbon offsets initiative. The Ivy of the South seeks to be carbon neutral by 2024. To meet that goal, Duke University will need to “offset approximately 185,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent-emissions per year.” Urban Offsets is the “exclusive” provider of urban forestry offsets for Duke.
Boosting both the supply and demand for urban forestry credits and offsets is then critical to creating the market — and ultimately benefiting the tree planting non-profits, conservancies, and park systems that could really use the extra revenue.
Joining 17 other American cities, including Washington, D.C.; San Francisco; Seattle; and Ann Arbor, Michigan, New York City announced its $187 billion pension funds will divest $5 billion of fossil fuel investments. In addition, the Big Apple is joining Oakland and San Francisco, California in suing the five leading fossil fuel companies — BP, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Shell — for their central role in adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. According to NYC city government, the city is seeking billions to “protect New Yorkers from the effects of climate change” — covering both funds that have already been spent in the wake of Hurricane Sandy to make the city more resilient and expected future expenses, which are expected to be upwards of $20 billion.
At a press conference, Mayor Bill de Blasio said “we’re bringing the fight against climate change straight to the fossil fuel companies that knew about its effects and intentionally misled the public to protect their profits. As climate change continues to worsen, it’s up to the fossil fuel companies whose greed put us in this position to shoulder the cost of making New York safer and more resilient.” A recent report found just 100 companies are responsible for 70 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, with the five identified in NYC’s lawsuit as the largest historic emitters.
Some argue New York City’s action is important and will lead other major cities to follow the same path.
Bill McKibben, head of 350.org, told the The Guardian: “New York City today becomes a capital of the fight against climate change on this planet. With its communities exceptionally vulnerable to a rising sea, the city is showing the spirit for which it’s famous – it’s not pretending that working with the fossil fuel companies will somehow save the day, but instead standing up to them, in the financial markets and in court.”
And Jeffrey Sachs, a leading economist and professor at Columbia University, said: “This is a really big deal. Pension funds of other major US cities will follow, I think. New York is the neighborhood of the very big money managers. It’s a powerful, personal signal to them that they cannot keep funding the sorts of projects they have in the past.”
But business groups like the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) think these “hyper-political” moves are a “fundamental waste of the court’s time and the taxpayer’s resources.”
According to Crain’s New York Business, NAM senior vice president Linda Kelly argued cities can’t sue energy companies for their role in climate change because “a 2011 Supreme Court decision determined carbon-dioxide emitters cannot be declared a ‘public nuisance,’ as the federal Clean Air Act pre-empts such claims.”
However, San Francisco and Oakland, which filed legal actions against oil companies in 2017, have “sought to sidestep the 2011 ruling by pointing to swelling ocean tides, not greenhouse gases, as the relevant public nuisance.” And New York City is also focusing on the impact of sea level rise and increased flooding and the high cost of coastal resilience efforts.
Still, US universities are far behind UK universities in their pledges. As of August 2017, Times Higher Education reports that some $112 billion has been divested by universities globally, with more than half of that coming from UK universities.
The American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) announces its calls for entries for the 2018 Professional and Student Awards, the world’s most prestigious juried landscape architecture competition. Each year, the ASLA Professional Awards honor the best in landscape architecture from around the globe, while the ASLA Student Awards give us a glimpse into the future of the profession.
Award-winning submissions will be featured in Landscape Architecture Magazine and in many other design and construction industry and general-interest media. Award recipients, their clients and student advisors also will be honored at the awards presentation ceremony during the ASLA Annual Meeting and EXPO in Philadelphia, October 19-22, 2018. Award-winning submissions will also be featured in a video presentation at the ceremony and on the awards website following the event.
The prestige of the ASLA awards programs relies on the high-caliber juries that are convened each year to review submissions. Members of this year’s professional awards jury are:
Mark A. Focht, FASLA, chair, New York City Parks & Recreation, New York City, NY
Gerdo Aquino, FASLA, SWA, Los Angeles, CA
Anita Berrizbeitia, ASLA, Harvard Graduate School of Design, Cambridge, MA
Christian Gabriel, ASLA, U.S. General Services Administration, Washington, DC
Terry Guen-Murray, FASLA, Terry Guen Design Associates, Chicago, IL
Dale Jaeger, FASLA, Jaeger Landscape Architecture, Gainesville, GA
Sam Lubell, Architecture Writer, New York City, NY
Patrick Phillips, Urban Land Institute, Washington, DC
Barbara Wilks, FAIA, FASLA, W Architecture + Landscape Architecture, LLC, New York City, NY
Joining the jury for the selection of the Research Category will be M. Elen Deming, ASLA, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL, on behalf of the Landscape Architecture Foundation (LAF) and Ashley Steffens, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, on behalf of the Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture (CELA).
Members of the student awards jury are:
Roberto Rovira, ASLA, chair, Florida International University, Studio Roberto Rovira, Miami, FL
Kurt Culbertson, FASLA, Design Workshop, Aspen, CO
Andrea Cochran, FASLA, Andrea Cochran Landscape Architecture, San Francisco, CA
Tom Dallessio, Next City, Philadelphia, PA
Jennifer Daniels, ASLA, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC
Ray Gastil, City of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
Jeffrey Hou, ASLA, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Elizabeth Kennedy, ASLA, Elizabeth Kennedy Landscape Architects, New York City, NY
Lucinda Sanders, FASLA, OLIN, Philadelphia, PA
Both the ASLA Professional and Student awards feature five categories: General Design; Residential Design; Analysis and Planning; Communications; and Research. The Professional Awards also include The Landmark Award, while the Student Awards include the Student Community Service Award and Student Collaboration categories.