Architects discover Public Realm

The news that Architects Stanton Williams have won the competition to design the new King's Cross Square, was met with a resounding, "Meh!", at my house.

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=426&storycode=3162081&channel=783&c=1

While I'm generally pleased to see public realm projects enjoying a higher public profile, I'm less impressed that so many of them are going to architectural practices. Just off the top of my head, some other notable examples of this would be the Dover seafront which went to Tonkin Liu, and the Maidstone Public Realm that went to Letts Wheeler - both Architects and both pretty high profile competitions.

While I'm not necessarily suggesting that Architects are incapable of designing public realm (I think most good designers can probably turn their hand to anything). It does beg the question that if Architects are designing our public spaces, then what do Landscape Architects do? Having spent 5 years at University, followed by another 2 years studying in practice how to design external spaces, I'm a little concerned by this development. I guess that if this were to become the norm, then that's the point when I pack up my clicky pencils and do something else. Masterchef perhaps?!?

A big part of my dislike of the term 'landscaping', derives from the perception that Landscape Architects are only there to specify areas of grass and shrubs. I'm still haunted by the experienced developer who told me that he didn't need a Landscape Architect, as he had some guys who could put down grass and plant hedges. Weirdly this perception seems to be on the increase, perhaps due to the spread of the term 'urban design'. Until fairly recently urban design was generally agreed to be part of the Landscape Architect's remit (the pedant in me wants to say that urban design is a process, but I think that this particular battle has been lost), but with the rise of professionals who call themselves "urban designers", urban and hard landscape work seems to be be moving away from landscape architects.

In my experience, most Architects like to have a bit of a crack at designing the externals, but very rarely do they seem to understand either the fundamentals or the technicalities of designing landscape. The typical approach is to draw up the bits of the site they want for the important stuff like buildings and roads first, before filling the remaining landscape with some fancy shapes and squiggles. After which they'll usually try and post-rationalise what the landscape will be used for. If you're really unlucky, they may just want you to detail and specify their designs...





I guess you have to look at what the Architects that are getting this work are doing, that Landscape Architects aren't. Looking at the websites of the ones I've just mentioned, what struck me (other than how few public realm projects they've actually put on the ground) was the quality of the cgi's and renders they've used to illustrate the projects. To be honest, I've not seen many Landscape Architects, producing images of this quality. I think that Architects also have a little more cache with clients, and suspect that the higher turnovers of buildings also gives them a bit of an advantage on PQQ's.

It's another example of why Landscape Architects need to work harder at marketing themselves, and illustrating what they can do.

Meh!

Landscape Architecture for Dummies #1

I've written pretty extensively in the past about why I don't like the term, 'landscaping', applied to the fields of design and landscape architecture.

Despite my often indignant writing, I understand that for the majority of the population, landscape architecture is not really something they're familiar with and that many lack the vocabulary to discuss it. As it happens my default response when, 'landscaping', crops up in conversation is generally to smile my most patient, parish vicar smile and explain what the correct terms would be. You see, I actually think that using the correct terminology is helpful to all involved. Here's an example:

I was recently (but to protect the guilty, not that recently) asked by an architect to review a design and access statement that he had prepared for a new building, for 'landscaping' content. Apparently it had not gone down that well with the local authority. In his summary of 'landscaping' he described the area to north of his building as 'landscaped', the area around the building as 'to be landscaped' and similarly, the area south of the building, also as 'to be landscaped'. In actual fact, the area north was existing woodland, the area around the building was to be planted as gardens and the area south of the buildings was to be hard paved. Do you see the problem? This kind of sums up why using 'landscaping' as a catch all for our work is such a problem, because it doesn't really explain what is actually being done.

So in a benevolent effort to spread the gospel of landscape architecture, I thought I'd produce a brief glossary of landscape terms:

landscape - the stuff all around us from when we step out of our, houses, offices and generic buildings, and look around. A particularly handy term to use, when you're not referring to buildings.

soft landscape - the stuff that grow; trees, shrubs, grass and all things green.

hard landscape - the stuff in the landscape that isn't green; think surfacing, furniture and other man-made features.

existing vegetation - trees and shrubs that are already there. In fact they're free - how cool is that?!?

landscaping - mowing the lawn, tarmac-ing and general maintenance done by men with pick-ups and overalls.

For more a more thorough, if rather USA-centric list of terms, see ASLA's Landscape Architecture Glossary:

http://www.asla.org/nonmembers/publicrelations/glossary.htm

If that left you felling a little overwhelmed, my advice is to just try to memorise the top two or three. Or maybe just the top one - 'landscape'.

Imagine, and I'm looking at you Mr Architect, how much time you'll save over the course of your life by referring to 'landscape', as opposed to 'landscape-Ping!'. Think of every 'Ping!' as a second you won't spend with your children or designing your masterwork (perhaps future man will consider your sargasso blue, clad distribution shed in a similar light to the works of Palladio). And what is the carbon footprint of every superfluous 'Ping!' Not only will you help to preserve the sanity of pedantic landscape architects, but you'll also help to save the planet too!

Landscape-PING!

So I think I need to start with the boring stuff. What’s this blog about? Other than allowing me somewhere to spout off my sometimes, irrational views about the modern world (like who the hell thought that flavoured water would be a good idea?). Anyway, as I’m a Chartered Landscape Architect and hence spend quite a lot of time thinking about this, it seemed not a bad starting point for me to write about landscape architecture.

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrm, but there’s a problem here, isn’t there? You don’t know what landscape architects do or what landscape architecture is about, do you? What do you think it is then?

No! Don’t say that word, godammit!!!

OK. *Takes deep breath*

Well for a start don’t worry, I suspect you’re in good company here, as not many people seem to know what a landscape architect does either. Sadly, I’d probably include many of the people I seem to encounter through work in that too. But where can you find out, you cry?!?

Well you would think a good place to start would be the Landscape Institute’s website, http://www.landscapeinstitute.org/, seeing as how they’re like, the people what look after landscape architects (including me of course). Hmmmmmm, not a lot of explanation of what we do there, but there is the lovely slogan, “The Landscape Institute – Inspiring great places.” Not really inspiring an understanding of landscape architect unfortunately. Handily, it also has a link to http://www.iwanttobealandscapearchitect.com/. This is the Landscape Institute’s propaganda site for grooming children into the profession; luring them to their gingerbread house on Great Portland Street with pictures of fountains, fopps and fauna. To be honest, you’ll actually have to look pretty hard amongst, “The Genius of Place” and “The Power to Change”, before you find some sort of definition, but here it is:

“Landscape architecture combines environment and design, art and science. It is about everything outside the front door, both urban and rural, at the interface between people and natural systems. The range of ways in which landscape architects work is staggering.”

It continues in that vein for some time and then if were beginning to get some sort of idea about the subject, it then has videos of a whole load of landscape architects, giving ‘their definition’ of landscape architecture. Anyone would think we are a little bit unsure ourselves. Personally, I think it’s ‘staggering’ that we can’t all agree on a common definition. So here’s mine.

Landscape architecture is the design of exterior space.

Easy and inclusive of trees, planting, paving, management, urban design, masterplanning, ecology, public realm and a whole heap of stuff that is not immediately springing to my befuddled, mind. Crucially for me, it has nothing to do with landscaping.

You see landscaping, pronounced, “land ·skeyp ·PING (see what I did there?) is often assumed to be one in the same with landscape architecture, and there our problems start.

We all like gardening and some people think landscape architects are gardeners. Gardeners are game amateurs - cheery, ruddy faced types, with muddy fingers, no bra’s and who turn up at your house unannounced and makeover your garden, accompanied by the Batley Colliery Brass Band. But would you want Alan Titchmarsh and Charlie Dimmock involved with your multi-million pound urban regeneration scheme?

Landscaping is the commercial end of gardening, but their reputation is less cosy. You see landscape-ping is closely associated with tarmacing. People who do tarmacing turn up at your house unannounced, tell you they they’re doing some landscaping round the corner and that they can do you a great deal on a new drive, before edging your house with flapjack, slapping you with the Royal Bank of Scotland’s debt and threatening to sell your Granny to the white slave trade if you don’t pay up.

So you see, people round the country are assuming that landscape architects are either bumbling amateurs or the type of people you see running away from Roger Cooke. I hope you see my problem and why I hate the term landscaping with such vehemence.

My solution is simple.

The first rule of landscape architecture is, you do not talk about landscaping.

The second rule of landscape architecture is, you DO NOT talk about landscaping.

Finally, if you really have to say that word, adopt an incredulous expression and pronounce it “landscape-PING!?!”, as if you’ve never heard it applied to your profession before.