Paradoxes of Green: Landscapes of a City-State, a new book by Gareth Doherty, ASLA, director of the masters in landscape architecture program at Harvard University Graduate School of Design, is a successful hybrid of landscape writing and ethnography focused on the island nation of Bahrain. It presents a portrait of Bahrainis’ rich and evolving relationship with their landscape as well as a model for future studies.
“Landscape, when perceived through color, reveals aspects of relationships previously hidden,” Doherty writes in his book’s introduction. Paradoxes’ main inquiry is into Bahrain’s relationship with the color green. Why green? Because it’s associated with greenery, and greenery “is at the heart of the political struggles over the land,” Doherty tells us. Why Bahrain? “Bahrain is small.” Good enough.
While Doherty’s approach may seem like a gimmick, the results are truly novel. Situated in the milieu of ethnography, Doherty spends a year in Bahrain speaking with laborers, real estate developers, farmers, and government officials, constructing a forensic composite of green. The book satisfyingly explores green’s tendencies, as well as the social and built infrastructures that support it.
If green is the book’s central character, then the central conflict revolves around water and its accompanying politics. Bahrain is seeking to maximize its green space and improve its sustainability metrics — these are admirable but directly conflicting goals. As it is, almost half of Bahrain’s freshwater goes towards watering lawns and washing cars in the hot, dusty city-state. Doherty figures that parks and roadside planting strips need 18 liters of water per day per square meter. Would Bahrain’s leaders be open to using grey water or native desert vegetation to conserve precious freshwater? That’s a step too far, at least for now. But as water’s strategic relevance overtakes oil’s in the Gulf, attitudes will change.
Before oil and the unsustainable pursuit of beautification in the form of lawns and noodle-shaped beaches, Bahrain’s green was most prominent in the form of date palm groves. The groves have diminished over the last century, but Doherty finds them still incredibly impactful. Their grey-green fronds stand in stark contrast to the surrounding environment, and their presence creates a micro-climate in the desert. In the past, the groves supported a culture that saw farmers name their trees as they would children. Their decline has coincided with the rise of residential compounds, some with green-painted roofs. Needless to say, Doherty is skeptical if this paint represents fair compensation for what’s been lost.
Doherty insists on walking to get where he’s going in Bahrain. He meticulously catalogs his encounters with green, and walking allows him to encounter very many. This penchant recalls similar tendencies in the writers Bruce Chatwin and Rory Stewart. Both are known for their travel writing (and, to greater and lesser extents, their interest in the Middle East).
Intentionally or not, there’s an element of the travelogue in Paradoxes. It’s no Road to Oxiana, nor does it aspire to be. It’s undeniable the book has benefited from its glimpses into Bahraini culture and life. Future writings on landscape would benefit from an ethnographic, travelogue approach.
“There is no new water. We can’t make more. We have to recycle and manage it better,” said Josiah Cain, with Sherwood Design Engineers at the 2017 Greenbuild in Boston. The Earth’s water is 97.5 percent saltwater and just 2.5 percent freshwater. A very small amount of freshwater is actually available, given most of it is frozen or found in clouds. As the population heads towards 10 billion and agriculture demands only increase, every drop of water counts. We need to stop doing wasteful things like washing streets and irrigating plants with potable water.
As water becomes more precious, we can soon expect there will be different qualities of recycled water, used for different purposes. Black water, another term for toilet water, may soon be another type of reused water more widely used. As Clark Brockman with SERA Architects said, “we can go from ‘yuck to yay’ and reuse black water in a safe, feasible way to save water and energy and reduce costs.”
Cain sees a future in a highly-urbanized world where water is managed via “decentralized, adaptable infrastructure platforms.” Blending tanks will take in black water. After solid waste has been removed, the tanks will cleanse and dilute the black water with rainwater, so it can be reused as grey water for commercial, industrial, and agricultural uses.
According to Ronen Barkan with Fluence, it makes sense for large countries like the U.S. and Canada to use decentralized water recycling systems. The most effective use of recycled black water is agricultural irrigation. “That water doesn’t need to be the best quality.” With higher levels of purity, which also adds to the cost, recycled black water can also be used in “building cooling towers and toilets.” The technology for these systems is already there, but it’s the cost that’s the most important factor. If treating black water costs much more than using potable water, then it won’t happen.
Beyond getting the cost right, there also needs to be trust that recycled black water is safe to use. Regulators want assurances that water recycling systems will function as engineers claim they will. At the Codiga Resource Recovery Center at Stanford University, Sebastien Stilmans said, firms, developers, and regulators can test systems and gain confidence that they work. He helps manage the facility, which pushes 1,000 gallons of black water from Stanford’s campus through test beds every day. “We then analyze the results and give objective feedback.” Already, there is a network of testing facilities that are helping regulators accept and approve decentralized waste water treatment systems.
Google is already looking into black water recycling for its California headquarters, as it assesses the amount of every type of water that comes into contact with its site. To reduce potable water use in its landscape, Google remade it with native plants. Drew Wenzel with Google said “the goal was to recreate the natural habitat of the region.” In evaluating the creation of a blending system for rainwater and blackwater in order to further reduce campus demand for potable water, they are uncovering the regulatory landscape is complex. To achieve scale with these water recycling systems, “lots of rethinking is required.”
If we want to make the shift to a green economy this century, then we need the workforce with the skills to get us there. If we want to address the crisis of climate change and accelerate our path to future sustainability and resilience, those working in green industries today and in the future continually need new knowledge and skills. At the 2017 Greenbuild in Boston, green building industry education experts discussed employment trends, changes now occurring in higher and vocational education, and what future workplace skills will be needed.
According to Charles Vescoso, American Technical Publishers, in the U.S. renewable energy jobs are now at nearly 800,000 and growing 12 times as fast as other jobs; and there will be 3.3 million jobs in the green building industry by 2018, supporting a $190 billion industry. (In an earlier session, U.S. Green Building Council [USGBC] president Mahesh Ramanujam said the entire “LEED economy,” which includes all employment associated with LEED-certified buildings, now tops 8.4 million jobs and has resulted in $550 billion in investment).
Catholic University architecture professor Patricia Andrasik said universities have been driven to reconsider their missions to meet the market’s demand for employees with practical skills in sustainability and to address climate change, the global ecological crisis, and rising inequality.
In terms of teaching sustainability, Andrasik said there are now even more disciplines involved, with greater interdisciplinary collaboration. Sustainability is now intrinsic to the study of engineering, architecture, landscape architecture, public health, urban planning, real estate, finance, business, policy, and many scientific fields. Because the innovations are coming so fast, Andrasik said curricula are essentially being re-written every year.
Andrasik herself runs the LEED Lab at Catholic University, which offers “applied sustainability education.” Students install and test green building energy meters, read data logs, study dashboards. They are being taught how to “track performance and find mistakes” in operational green buildings, and developing skills in green building management. The course, which was developed in conjunction with the U.S. Green Building Council, is now being used by 25 universities.
Institutions of higher education are also now making even stronger commitments to turn their campuses into showcases of sustainability, using best management practices. Following the birth of the environmental and sustainability movement in the 1970s, universities began staffing up for sustainability in the 1980s and 90s. In the 00s, there was a bump in hiring professionals who can maintain increasingly complex green building systems, but it was really from 2008-2012, as university’s academic priorities evolved to address climate change, where Andrasik saw the greatest jump. “Campus operations are now aligned with academics — efficiency has been driven to a new level.”
Vescoso said outside higher education, in the world of vocational training, there is also a shift towards blending classroom education on sustainability with field training. With these programs, which aim to train building and landscape-related technology installers, technicians, and maintainers, “the focus is now on why we do things a certain way; before it was just how to do something.” For example, the Net Zero Plus Electrical Training Institute in California is a net-zero building that is also a classroom, where students learn about the science and also get hands-on experience with solar panels, micro-grids, and other technologies.
Beyond all the new knowledge and job-related skills, there is also a need for new workplace skills. For Elaine Aye, with Green Building Services, employees in fast-moving green industries need to be “adaptive, independent, collaborative, creative, innovative, and self-directed” in pursuing the triple bottom line: economic, social, and environmental benefits.
Multiple decades into her own career, Aye explained how she has gotten four certifications in the past decade in order to stay up to date. “I have to keep my mind alert and learn to adapt.” And she said more employees are like her and demand training through in person or online tools so they can continually improve their own skills.
The workplace itself is also constantly changing: it’s now “the most diverse ever,” in terms of age, social and cultural differences, and educational backgrounds.
“To make the world work for 100 percent of humanity, in the shortest possible time, through spontaneous cooperation without ecological offense or disadvantage of anyone.” This is the ethos that drove the work of Buckminster Fuller, an influential 20th century designer, engineer, and inventor. Every year since 2008, the Buckminster Fuller Insititute has awarded a $100,000 prize to an especially-promising organization or individual embodying Fuller’s systems thinking and “comprehensive, anticipatory design science.” So far, the award has provided ten projects — including landscape architect Kate Orff’s Living Breakwaters — with the extra push in both publicity and funds to advance in scale, complexity, and ambition.
Past winners were prompted by moderators such as Andrew Revkin, senior reporter at ProPublica, and Susan Szenazy, publisher and editor-in-chief of Metropolis magazine, to reflect on the evolution of their winning projects and discussed systemic approaches to the challenges of our time.
The 2107 winner is Bhungroo, from the Gujarat state of India (see video above). Bhungroo, which means “straw” or “hollow pipe” in Gujarati, is a simple, inexpensive system that enables farmers to capture and store water during peak monsoon season and then retrieve the water during the dry season. The invention allows female farmers below the poverty line to be self-sufficient year round, breaking free from cycles of debt and repression.
The organization also fosters a model of collective ownership over the stored water among the farmers. The co-founder Biplab Ketan Paul described the selflessness and “golden hearts” of the women farmers he works with as what inspires and sustains the project. When asked about the experience of winning the prize, he beamed and said, “We’re still in a dream.”
The idea for ecological design pioneer John Todd’s project, which won in 2008, came from close contact with ecological and economic crisis. He had been hired by a foundation to study ecological impacts of mountaintop removal and valley-fill mining in Appalachia, but, he said, “my colleagues and I became so horribly depressed at the scale of the devastation that we actually couldn’t function.” He changed course to find a regenerative, solutions-oriented approach, and his winning project — The Challenge of Appalachia — was born.
Todd’s solution — which aims to help Appalachian communities, boost the economy, and support the ecosystem — is a model for long-range biodiversity and socio-economic stability tailored to the region. When asked what an urban application of the same principles might look like, Todd said the surfaces of buildings have enormous potential as substrate for “all kinds of living systems that purify air, treat sewage, and generate foods.”
The 2013 winner, Ecovative, a bio-materials company, manifests the Fuller maxim, “to change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” Ecovative’s goal is to end the use of plastic and styrofoam packaging materials made from fossil fuels, replacing them with materials made from fungus that are fire retardant, self-healing, and decompose after use. Ecovative grows these materials in their facilities in New York state. The mycelia lifecycle depends on a local supply chain — the materials are derived from metabolizing agricultural waste such as cornstalks or straw, which would have otherwise been discarded.
With the funds from the prize, the company focused on democratizing the technology with grow-it-yourself kits. Gavin McIntyre, co-founder and chief scientist, quickly learned the company must appeal to more than just a customer’s ethical impulses. “I really wish people would buy things just because they are green and good for the planet, but, unfortunately, that doesn’t happen. We must be able to provide additional cost savings and value.” Their pursuit seems to be going well, as, in just one year, the company was able to displace 1.6 million pounds of plastic from the supply chain.
Paying homage to Fuller’s emphasis on holistic approaches, the final panel of the day looked at the social implications of the work the winners do.
“Global inequality was not an accident, it was created by design.” said Greg Watson, director of policy and systems design at the Schumacher Center for New Economics. “We have been trained to think this is the real world. But the real world is what we create.”
The winners are a “beacon of hope and powerful counterpoint to the intellectual bankruptcy that threatens humanity’s continuous voyage aboard spaceship Earth. Gaia will survive our insults, and it’s really up to us to ensure that we continue to ride.”
This guest post is by Chella Strong, Assoc. ASLA, landscape designer at SWA/Balsley in New York City.
The C&O Canal National Historic Park is at a crossroads — it can either be subtly restored, enlivened by the local ecology, and made more accessible, or dramatically re-imagined and redesigned. Earlier this month, landscape architecture firm James Corner Field Operations presented preliminary conceptual designs to revitalize the canal — offering a spectrum of alternatives, ranging from the understated to the bold.
At the public review session in Georgetown, Alison Greenberg, head of the non-profit Georgetown Heritage, and a partner of the National Park Service in the revitalization efforts, said: “the goal is celebrate and respect the park’s historic character and sense of place” while also making the one-mile stretch of the 182-mile park that runs through Georgetown “sustainable, maintainable, ecologically-sensitive, safe, and accessible.”
Asking the community and visitors what they love about the place, James Corner, ASLA, discovered they most appreciate the “rocky aqueduct, the views of the river, the shade trees, the ability to stroll and have a quick escape to nature, the water, and the serenity.” He described the canal as a “corridor of melancholic charm where you can immerse yourself in pleasure.”
Still, he thinks the canal is also “sadly derelict, feels abandoned, and is unsafe” in places, which is debatable. “There’s no seating, lighting, and the narrow paths create safety issues.” Furthermore, there is a lack of access.
The dilemma for Corner is “how to maintain the heritage — the authenticity — while also promoting new social uses.”
There are concerns, though, that Corners’ proposals are perhaps over-designed for such a historic site. Darwina Neal, FASLA, former past president of ASLA, told us: “Rather than responding to the concern that ‘first and foremost, we have to respect the history that’s here’ — as stated by Kevin Brandt, the National Park Service’s superintendent of the C&O Canal — it seems like the designers are trying to turn this into an on-grade ‘High Line.’ As a landscape architect for the National Capital region of NPS, I worked on many projects along the canal from 1964 until I retired in 2009, and it is possible to improve the safety, accessibility, and functionality of this section of the canal without adversely impacting its historic integrity, as many of these proposals would, if implemented.”
Corner walked the 100-plus members of the community who attended the public review meeting through key aspects of his firm’s concepts.
He reiterated that his firm’s ideas are “not fixed or final; we want to use these to evaluate how people feel, and then shape the design.”
Towpath: Now a narrow gravel path with some opportunistic plants, the towpath could be kept the same width as it is now (7 feet) but paved over to improve safety; expanded to 11 feet, through the use of a cantilever, in order to provide space for seating; or widened out to 14 feet, which would also offer opportunities for more plants along the edge, but shrink the profile of the canal itself, also at great cost. A few members of the community noted that limiting the width of the towpath would help keep the space from becoming over-crowded — and help prevent the canal from turning into “Georgetown’s High Line.”
Mile Marker Zero: Many people who live in D.C. haven’t even been to this spot, the start of the 182-mile-long canal. Here, Field Operations offered options that will improve access for both pedestrians and bicyclists, with option B offering the easiest connections with existing networks.
Rock Creek Landscape: According to Field Operations, “This is the missing link between the C&O canal that we know in Georgetown and that area around Mile Marker 0. The challenge here is connecting the towpath with the plethora of bridges and overpasses created by the Whitehurst Freeway. We imagine a boardwalk under K street, and along a carefully-restored creek landscape; an immersive walk through nature and a critical connection for D.C.” The boardwalk path through the forest in Alternative B is far more intrusive into the Rock Creek landscape.
Rock Creek Confluence: Here, Corner presented some of the most transformational proposals. Where the canal turns the corner and heads west, Field Operations wants to introduce paths and bridges to improve connectivity and extend the canal’s towpath and also clean up what is an overgrown, neglected area and turn it into an picnic spot or amphitheater. “We can restore the visual corridor to all the locks.”
Locks: When one of the canal locks is finally restored later this year, at a cost of $6.5 million, there will be a canal boat pulled by mules. One of the main tourist draws for the canal, the mule yard, which is found between 29th and Thomas Jefferson Streets, is also the location of the current NPS office. Field Operations offered different options for the NPS office, boat ticket area and launch, and mule staging area.
The Walls: These proposals could really change the feel of the space and have major implications for preservation: Where the canal meets Wisconsin Avenue, Corner proposed cutting into the stone wall to create “more generous access” — a considerable length of stairs and terraces — while also offering wheelchair access with a new elevator. Along Potomac Street, he wants to unify the spaces on either side of the canal — Fish Market Square and Market House Plaza. One option brings in a High Line-like step seating. These options really open up the canal to downtown Georgetown; it will be the decision of the community, historic and design review boards, and NPS if that degree of access is what’s needed.
The Grove: The most straight-forward and constrained of Corner’s proposals. Field Operations simply proposes planting some more trees and stabilizing the path.
The Bend: A stretch between Potomac Street and 34th Street, could be a space for “verdant, garden-like setting with shade” and High Line-like chaise lounges. Field Operations also wants to redevelop the 34th street bridge to make it more accessible. This proposal would dramatically change the vibe of this now-rustic stretch.
The Aqueduct: Another set of bold proposals for a strange space now covered in graffiti, but with its own charm. Corner wants to rehabilitate the structure and create a series of “stepped terraces” to an overlook, potentially framing the views within a trestle. Also in this section of the landscape, Field Operations proposed creating better pedestrian and bicycle connections to the Capital Crescent trail and towpath.
A recent study found 85 percent of parents allow their children under the age of six to use technology at home, despite concerns that too much time with phones, tablets, and computers cuts into their time playing outside. Another study found one-third of all children worldwide spend less than 30 minutes a day outside and half spend less than an hour a day outside, which is lower than the average amount a prison inmate spends outdoors. Meanwhile, childhood obesity rates throughout the developed world have skyrocketed. Now one in five children in the U.S. are obese. What can landscape architects do to combat these trends?
We all spend too much time on our digital toys! When I see a group of teens walking down the street together and texting other friends, I have to admit I feel confused. But lately I’ve been trying to be more optimistic about the role of technology in our lives. I think it’s clear that technology has some benefits for kids—they have access to information quickly and they can connect easily to a wider group of friends. With my son, he’s able to find really obscure musical composition events for teens in Boston in a way he wouldn’t have been able to do before. So, there are real benefits with technology.
Do phones disconnect us from the natural world? Probably, I think. There are lots of studies that say, yes, it does. But I don’t want to be too nostalgic. I think we have to accept that the world has changed. We live a hybridized life.
Just recently, we went to see the redwoods in Northern California, Max had no desire to pull out his phone when we were hiking even though on the car ride there he was texting with friends. It’s really about how compelling a place is.
Young people these days are very nimble. They’re able to toggle between two worlds and use technology to help them better understand the world that they inhabit. As landscape architects, we must embrace the fact that people live in both digital and analog worlds.
But there’s clearly a connection between childhood obesity and technology. As landscape architects, we can help municipalities and cities plan their neighborhoods better because it’s the daily rituals that really matter.
Instead of focusing on large centralized parks, it’s important for us to also advocate for a more atomized green neighborhood plan where kids can walk through a pocket park, a neighborhood park, every day, or even twice a day.
For the Chicago Botanic Garden, you designed the five-acre Regenstein Learning Campus, which features grass-covered mounds, a waterway channel, willow tunnels, nature play, and discovery gardens. How do you define nature play? And how do you design a space that will really encourage it?
The Chicago Botanic Gardens is an amazing place for families and kids. When we first started working on the project, the Botanic Garden was interested in creating a place that went beyond just visual beauty and encouraged multi-sensory engagement. They wanted to create gardens that encourage kids to touch things; places where the leaves rustle in a way that really encourages listening. Through this process of engagement in a multi-sensory garden, children learn something about natural processes.
As I’ve said, I think “nature” is a pretty loaded word. I’m not sure that anything near Chicago is really “natural” anymore. Instead, what we did was to try to capture and abstract natural systems.
Programming was also very important to the Botanic Garden. We engaged the community to create complex and layered programming for visitors of all ages; from toddlers to seniors. We also worked closely with the design team to create an integrated inside/outside classroom experience.
You have said that your design for the campus also encouraged “inquiry-focused learning.” Can you explain what that is? And why it was important to encourage?
I’ve been interested in this since the beginning of my practice. How do we teach kids through hands-on learning?
We work with kids to understand how we can make playgrounds and landscapes that move away from the homogeneity of off-the-shelf playground equipment, and encourage hands-on learning- this encourages kids to ask questions.
We’re interested in etching deep memories. I’m very opportunistic about creating these places for children-especially in the city — you have to be. We work with families and try to find these moments — in pocket parks or pop up parks.
I am not necessarily concerned about kids and their interaction or lack of interaction with the natural world, but more with the kind of digital and analog worlds we’re making for them. For example, the homogeneity of playgrounds is a real issue. You can go to Omaha or Boston and see the same play equipment. The games they play have answers already defined by some adult somewhere. Even with Legos. When I was a kid, you would spill out like a whole bunch of Legos and then create your own world. Now you know you’re making a boat at the end. And kids love it. I know they do, but I really feel, as a landscape architect, that we need to create places that highlight open ended experiences, places that encourage children to be inquisitive and creative.
Having said that, all we can do as landscape architects is to strive to create environments that engender inquiry. “Imagination” should be a verb, right?
Maybe the answer is that we should try to create landscapes that are more open-ended, that allow for the imagination to thrive for children and adults. Adults need to play as well; they need to be able to find different interpretations in the landscapes we create.
You said the land forms you designed applied the “concept of the dignity of risk,” which is such an interesting phrase. Can you explain what you mean? And why is it important to incorporate that into designed nature play areas?
Too much of our built environment is designed from a place of fear. I understand there are concerns with litigation, but this is an idea that our client emphasized at the Chicago Botanic Garden.
We discussed different ways of bringing kids up to various elevations as a way of encouraging discovery play– we studied tree houses and land forms which would allow kids to move up and down and run around.
The only constraint the Botanic Garden had was that the landscape had to be accessible to all kids. In all of our work, we’re trying to create landscapes that allow for kids to understand the range of what their body can do but also challenge them to discover new things.
You brought nature play indoors, too, at the Crown Sky Garden at the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago. You transformed 11,000 square feet space on their 11th floor into an interactive engaging healing garden for ailing and recovering children and their families. The space is designed to offer access to light and plants, reduce stress and boost physical activity, while offering a safe space for children with compromised immune systems. How did you design the space to protect patients’ immune systems?
We met with families, caregivers, and patients for days and just tried to understand what was important to them. The difference between this garden and some of the other healing gardens we’ve designed is that this was the only garden they had. Within this singular garden, we had to pack in a lot of aspiration and hope.
Working on these healthcare projects, I’ve learned to be a better listener. I remember that as we were working through this project, President Obama talked about the empathy deficit. I think as a landscape architect I always strive to be more empathetic and really hear people’s stories — and learn how that can help me better understand their aspirations and needs.
We had to make a decision while we were working on this project, as all these requirements emerged. Each time we said — “Well, we want water. We want to hear the sound of trickling water” — they would present evidence that if we did that, a certain population at the hospital could contract Legionnaires’ disease. We decided we wanted a garden that was accessible to everybody.
When I interview patients, I’ll go to their bedside and meet them. It’s the most fragile patients, especially in pediatric hospitals, who need these gardens the most. So, the last thing we wanted is a sign that said, “patients with these kinds of immune deficiencies are not allowed in the garden.”
We had to put aside our preconceived notions of what healing gardens are and really start to abstract nature in order to create this indoor experience for these families and patients.
At the Crown Sky Garden, it was the client who actually saw in us the possibility of merging our arts background and our ability to creatively innovate with materials with our interest with kids. We learned we had a way of transforming the landscape that’s artistic, but also compassionate.
With ubiquitous technology increasingly winning the competition for attention, how does nature play need to evolve, or perhaps co-evolve with technology? Do landscapes need to be designed to be resilient to technological or cultural change?
Kids find their own hybrid definition of digital and analog play. They’re able to easily text friends in the car while playing some video game and then go into the park and put the phone in their pocket and run around and climb a tree. I don’t think one necessarily precludes the other.
We need green spaces that are more accessible, but what’s more important today than ever before is creating something compelling in a park that will draw kids there. I have yet to see technology in the landscape advanced enough to compete with technology a teen has in their phone.
However, merging technologies into the landscape itself so that our landscapes become a large video game is something I don’t buy. Our technology is just not advanced enough. Kids are incredibly smart. They’ll look at that and say, “Well, that’s lame,” you know?
Throughout our design process at the Crown Sky Garden, we worked closely with different constituents. We worked with families and patients and brought two options. We brought an option that used more natural materials, and then we brought in a design that had more innovative materials — materials people hadn’t seen before — more contemporary materials built in innovative ways. I’d say 99-percent of kids were drawn to those. They said, “Cool, that’s amazing. I’ve never seen that before.”
Innovative materials draw kids. They ask a lot of questions: “What is this? How is it made?” They really wanted something that was more open-ended and unique — something that was beautiful, interesting, strange, and vibrant. Maybe there is something to this.
Lastly, you’re known for your truly-innovative explorations with materials. For example, you’ve created wave forms out of stone for the Alexander Art Plaza in West Palm Beach. And you have sculpted metal in many of your projects. You seem to enjoy transforming the properties of materials. Nothing appears static. What is your creative process for approaching materials?
Like kids these days, we approach the process in a hybrid fashion. We use both analog and digital tools. Personally, I love technology. It’s really transformed the kind of landscapes we can make. It’s allowed us to inhabit our landscapes in ways that I could never do when I started my practice. I love being able to walk through the landscapes we make in Rhino.
But then I’m also a little suspicious of those beautiful but singular perspectives that have emerged from these rendering technologies; that’s not how our perception works. In one minute, our eye can see 3,000 different perspectives. In singular perspectives, we tend to pick the hero shot and neglect the shots that don’t look at great. For us, we use walk-throughs to say, “well, this spot doesn’t look so great. Let’s try to work on it further.” The fluidity and kinetic qualities that you talked about in some of our work comes from this technology.
We’ve been talking about community engagement and being empathetic. For us an empathetic community allows for us to find new ways of designing. it just helps make our work richer.
And meeting with people also builds trust. It builds trust between us and our client groups. Our clients often have very high expectations — they are patients in a hospital, developers who are building very high-end developments, etc. Through our process, they enter a shared design space with us; one that is a collective experience that hopefully yields a unique landscape in the end.
Young Landscape Architect Works to Shape the Future– San Diego Downtown News, 11/3/17
“Growing up in Tempe, Arizona, Magnusson was influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright’s architecture, and had opportunities to explore several of his commercial, institutional and residential projects.”
Michael Maltzan Architecture to Expand ArtCenter College of Design– The Architect’s Newspaper, 11/3/17
“ArtCenter College of Design has unveiled renderings of a new, two-phase master plan created by Michael Maltzan Architecture that aims to reposition the college as an expansive, urban campus connected by pedestrianized open spaces, new housing, and student amenities.”
Lines Are Drawn Over Design for a National World War I Memorial – The New York Times, 11/8/17
“When it was built in 1981 as part of an architectural revival of Pennsylvania Avenue, Pershing Park was a downtown oasis of tree line and water fountain steps from the White House. In the years since, the park has fallen into disrepair and has become a haven for homeless people and pigeons.”
Rarely have I worked on a project that I feel is quite as timely and potentially impactful as the Beach 41st Street Garden. With images of Texas, Florida, and the Caribbean fresh in our minds, this story of how nature has helped one Queens, New York, community heal following Hurricane Sandy is incredibly relevant.
When we finished shooting this past spring, it was months before the name Harvey had been uttered on a weather forecast. But by the time September had arrived, and with it a new wave of destructive storms, we at TKF felt a renewed sense of urgency to shine a light on what we had learned through our work in Queens post-Sandy.
When Sandy’s storm surge engulfed the Rockaways, the devastation was intense. You get a visceral sense of what the residents of Beach 41st Street, a New York City housing residence, lived through in the voice of Celeste Grimes, one of the resident gardeners we interviewed for the film. She described it in apocalyptic terms.
In 2014, TKF chose the Beach 41 Street garden as a site to receive one of only six grants awarded to clusters of cross-disciplinary research teams to study how healing green spaces help individuals and communities recover following various kinds of trauma.
The team that applied for funding on behalf of the Beach 41 Street project included social scientists Lindsay Campbell and Erika Svendsen of the US Forest Service; Keith Tidball, Director of the Cornell Cooperative Extension Disaster Education Network at Cornell University, Craig Desmond of Ecotone Building, and landscape architect Victoria Marshall, ASLA.
The team collaborated on a plan that would enable residents to revive the gardens and space; a healing exercise intended to meet what researchers understand is a desire innate in people to connect with nature, particularly in times of deep distress and trauma caused by nature.
For years now, social scientists, civic ecologists, horticultural therapists — among others — have been gathering evidence of the innate connection between people and nature, terming it biophilia. Expanding on that concept, Keith Tidball originated the term “urgent biophilia” to describe the intense need that arises post-disaster to connect with nature.
What the research team saw happening at the Beach 41st Street garden — between the gardeners and community and green space — was a living enactment of urgent biophilia. As they worked to restore the gardens, they were at the same time restoring themselves.
What we often miss in the media is the full scope of the damage that remains in the aftermath of the immediate aftermath of a storm. We know that recovery extends far beyond reconstruction and restoration.
But if our communities are to heal fully following natural disasters like Sandy, Harvey, Irma, Maria — and the countless future storms that are sure to arise in the coming weeks, months and years, we can’t ignore our green infrastructures. They are, without a doubt, essential to our well-being.
This guest post is by film maker Alden E. Stoner, who is also a board member of the nonprofit TKF Foundation.
After three years of flat carbon dioxide emissions, the burning of fossil fuels is expected to reach a record high in 2017, increasing global CO2 emissions by 2 percent to 41 billion tons. According to the Global Carbon Project, which published its findings in three scientific journals, the increase is driven in part by rising coal use in China. The report authors note, however, that there are uncertainties in the data, and actual growth figure could be anywhere from 0.8 to 3 percent.
To keep the global carbon dioxide ppm levels below 450, which corresponds to a 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) temperature increase, countries party to the Paris climate accord agreed to reach peak emissions by 2020 — with China and India given another decade — and then decline to zero emissions by the end of the century.
The Guardian writes: “whether the anticipated increase in CO2 emissions in 2017 is just a blip that is followed by a falling trend, or is the start of a worrying upward trend, remains to be seen.”
China’s emissions, which account for nearly a third of the total, are estimated to rise this year by 3.5 percent, as local governments invested in construction and infrastructure projects to boost economic growth.
On Chinese emissions, Lauri Myllyvirta, Greenpeace climate and energy campaigner, told The Wire: “This year many local governments reverted to the old playbook of using infrastructure and construction projects to create demand and prop up local economies. In many regions that has meant rolling back on the restructuring of the economy and an uptick in smokestack industry output.”
U.S. emissions are down just 0.4 percent, a fall from an average reduction of 1.2 percent over the past decade. The New York Times writes: “Much of the fall in American emissions has come as increasing supplies of natural gas, wind and solar power have driven hundreds of coal plants into retirement. But emissions from sectors like transportation and buildings remain stubbornly high, and with the Trump administration dismantling domestic climate policies, it is unclear how far the country’s emissions will continue to fall in the coming years.”
And EU emissions reductions in 2017 — just 0.2 percent — are significantly lower than the 2.2 percent decline seen over the past decade. This is especially worrying as Europe bills itself as a climate leader.
There are some positive trends though: India’s emissions grew just 2 percent, down from the 6 percent average seen over the past decade. In total, The New York Times reports, “at least 21 countries have managed to cut their emissions significantly while growing their economies over the past decade, including the United States, Britain, France, Germany, and Sweden. These countries have steadily transitioned away from energy-intensive industries — or have outsourced manufacturing to countries like China — while increasing investments in efficiency and cleaner energy.”
The signatories of the Paris climate accord are now meeting in Bonn, Germany, to review and hopefully ratchet up the voluntary commitments each country makes to reduce their carbon emissions. Causing protests, the Trump administration hosted a panel promoting coal and nuclear power, which included a delegation of fossil fuel executives. Former Vice President Al Gore and other Democratic senators and governors also staged an “anti-Trump revolt” at the conference, arguing the federal government doesn’t represent all of the U.S., and many cities and states are still aiming to achieve the U.S.’s prior commitments made under Obama.
Meanwhile, Global Carbon Project lead researcher Corinne Le Quéré, a professor at the University of East Anglia, told Wired more countries must follow Britain’s lead if the world is going to reach zero emissions between 2050 and 2100. To do so, they need to enact tough legislation that requires reductions: “The world needs to follow by the UK’s example. The Climate Change Act commits us to reducing our CO2 emissions by 80 per cent of what they were in 1990. If every nation had one of those, by 2050 we will be well on the way to a low carbon economy globally.”
Five years ago, New York City began the long task of recovering and rebuilding in the wake of Sandy, one of the worst storms in the U.S. history in terms of physical devastation and loss of life. According to the National Weather Service, the cyclone generated a “worst case scenario for storm surge for coastal regions” in New York and its neighboring states. Today, as severe storms correlated with climate change escalate nationwide, is the city better prepared for the next mega storm? The answer is yes and no.
More nimble than the federal government, New York has taken a tactical, diversified approach to solutions that has some advantages. The NYC Panel on Climate Change 2015 triggered new thinking about human health risks and vulnerable populations and also built awareness that flood risk reduction must account for stormwater in the future.
OneNYC, an on-going mayoral initiative, seeks to strengthen community-based organizations to prepare and respond to disasters.
And the Department of City Planning (DCP) has recognized that the city’s zoning codes are ossified, opening significant opportunities for designers to produce a more resilient urban realm.
However, with the exception of Build It Back projects, no federally-funded resilience program has been implemented, leaving New York area residents virtually as vulnerable as, and certainly more frustrated than they were immediately after the storm.
More local agencies need to move the needle towards better waterfront planning and design by addressing ecological system benefits and increasing awareness of neighborhood needs. And the city needs to take steps to curb the root causes of climate change in the absence of federal leadership. If nothing else, the many resilient design lessons learned from Sandy have revealed the need for widespread change at the federal, local, and community levels.
At the federal level, most resilience implementation funding is based on stringent Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) requirements, including the reconstruction of a damaged or destroyed property in the same location and elevation and using the same materials. The National Flood Insurance Program requires that you rebuild on affected land even if it is repeatedly flooded. Low-lying areas demonstrate that these approaches are no longer fiscally responsible. Relocation must be considered.
A post-Sandy design team, including Mathews Nielsen Landscape Architects (MNLA), McLaren Engineering Group, Garrison Architects, LTL Architects, Sage & Coombe Architects, and several city agencies, worked to address beachfront restoration location concerns in Brooklyn, Staten Island, and Queens by providing modular, elevated lifeguard stations and comfort stations on their own “islands” to recoup area beaches. The team employed integrated wave attenuation and topographic change along with shoreline plantings to mitigate future storms.
Locally, slow decision-making on FEMA-certified projects by operationally-strapped city agencies is being exacerbated by federal and local flood protection data variances. Additionally, FEMA’s maps do not adequately account for sea level rise and rapid rain accumulation, and it is politically challenging to change National Flood Insurance Program maps. Federal agencies should consider local conditions and seek to provide broader solutions on a local basis.
New York realizes that resilience requires a regional response, but action often succumbs to inertia in the face of budget shortfalls and cost uncertainty due to natural and physical conditions related to soils; contamination; utilities relocations; and stormwater collection, storage tanks, and pumps; and other considerations.
Many touched by Rebuild by Design planning and design efforts now feel they are not getting promised ecosystem services and broader community benefits and remain concerned about aging infrastructure, basement and street flooding, contamination, water quality, zoning, and related issues.
Communities are often confused by projects that purport to offer “protection” versus “flood risk reduction.” The elevation of these measures seems guided more by available construction dollars than by intelligent, regional strategies.
In partnership with Civitas, MNLA developed a visionary plan to support growing sentiment that the East River waterfront can serve as a major recreational and environmental resource for East Harlem, the Upper East Side, and all of New York City. We researched and analyzed conditions from 60th Street to 125th streets and conducted in-depth community and stakeholder outreach.
The result is a plan that identifies short, medium, and long-term opportunities that combine strategies to protect neighborhoods from storm surge, improve water quality, create littoral habitat, and expand waterfront recreation. This multi-faceted design approach is an example of feasible design solutions that can restore resilience to a critical link along Manhattan’s waterfront.
The key post-Sandy takeaway is that federally-promulgated resilience measures can have negative impacts on communities.
Instead, every dollar must be directed towards projects that provide multiple benefits that fuel future storm resilience.
As designers, we can enhance results through inclusive and comprehensive communications with all of our constituencies during the design process, engaging a spectrum of urban challenges, and proposing multi-faceted solutions for our clients.
This guest post is by Signe Nielsen, FASLA, a founding principal of Mathews Nielsen Landscape Architects (MNLA) and practicing landscape architect and urban designer in New York since 1978. Nielsen is also a professor of urban design and landscape architecture at Pratt Institute in both the graduate and undergraduate schools of architecture and serves as president of the Public Design Commission of the City of New York.