Environmental Journalism Portfolio

Environmental Journalism Portfolio Joseph Clancy Pg Dip LA, BA LA, BSc. Hort

Environmental

Journalism

Portfolio Joseph Clancy

PgDip LA,

BA LA,

BSc. Hort.


Joseph Clancy, Chief Editor/SMM

@ Landscape Architects Network

From Ireland, Joseph or Joe as his friends and family call him is a man that never stops, always

thinking, learning and doing, an unbelievable combination for anyone who wants to succeed in life.

Joe has taken on two positions for us, one as our chief editor and also as our Social Media Manager,

taking care of our Pinterest, Twitter and Google+ accounts.

Joe is a Horticulturist (BSc.) and Landscape Architect (Hons. BA). He has studied at Waterford

Institute of Technology and Senior College Dun Laoghaire. He has just completed studying for the

Honours Degree in Landscape Architecture at the University of Gloucestershire. When he’s not

hitting the books Joe spends his time working with various guerrilla gardening and environmental

groups in the Republic of Ireland.

Joe is currently running his own landscape design firm called Taproot Landscape and Planting Design,

with several designs being constructed at this moment. Also check out Joe’s blog Designing the

Landscape.

When it comes to Landscape Architecture Joe says:

“To me, Landscape Architecture is a medium for solving much of the problems in today’s world.

Whether environmental, social or economic, part of the solution lies within the hidden value of

landscape. Landscape influences our decisions, movements and perception of place. Landscape

Architecture is and will continue to be vital in mitigating the negative effects of urbanization on, not

just the environment, but ourselves. Landscape Architecture is art, science and society rolled into one

big mess”…………………….”and that’s why I love it.”

Joe is the all round go getter, rapidly gaining experience fueled with an unbeatable drive to

understand and be more.

-Scott Renwick,

Founder/Director

Landscape Architects Network

www.landarchs.com


Biophilic

Design in

Landscape

Architecture The Rise of Biophilia

What Makes A Biophilic City?

Top Ten Biophilic Cities


1.0 The Rise of

Biophilia


In the ever increasingly urbanized, technology dependent world, humanity is becoming further

and further estranged from nature. Our modern urban environments, devoid of nature, not only

impact our value system of all things natural, but our mental and physical health as well, leading to

nature deficit disorder in children, increased anxiety & stress, crime & obesity.

But what is the solution? Would greater interaction & immersion in nature realign our value

systems with a sustainable world, while positively impacting upon our health?

Yes, it would.

The theory behind such a solution, is known as biophilia, first used by Erich Fromm and later, was

further defined in E.O Wilson’s 1984 publication Biophilia and built on by Stephen Kellert’s The

Biophilia Hypothesis.

“Biophilia is the innately emotional affiliation of human beings to other living organisms. Innate

means hereditary and hence part of ultimate human nature”. – Edward O. Wilson

Biophilic design applies to the professions of landscape architecture, architecture, urban design and planning, among others…..

Biophilia literally means love of life and all things living. It is a theory that states humans have

evolved alongside and within nature, culturally, mentally and physically. The advent of the industrial


revolution and the occurrence of the majority of human populations living in urbanized settings have

only occurred in the last 200 years. This rapid change in the way we live as a race has had a

detrimental change on our health and that of the earths. Biophilic theory and biophilic design seek

to realign humanity’s value system with nature, while leading to improved health, greater

environmental values and thus sustainable living.

Ulrich demonstrated that views to nature decreased recovery times

In the 1980’s, Robert Ulrich led the way in proving how biophilia can positively impact upon human

health. Ulrich showed patients recovering from gall bladder surgery in hospitals, benefited from a

biophilic environment. Ulrich placed two groups; one, a control group, in a recovery room with a

view of nothing more than a brick wall and a second group with a view of a natural setting & wildlife.

The latter recorded an 8% faster recovery rate than the control group. These trials have been

imperative to modern hospital design and the incorporation of biophilic design, the best example of

which is Singapore’s Khoo Teck Puat Hospital (KTPH).


Khoo Teck Puat Hospital (KTPH), Singapore

Biophilic environments have also shown to reduce symptoms of ADHD, increase attention spans in

students and aid learning for those diagnosed with autism. In 2009, 16 children, all diagnosed with

either ADD or ADHD, were exposed to three settings with varying degrees of greenery. After a 20

minute walk in a park setting, the children experienced significantly greater ability to concentrate

and greater positive attention rates.


Nature Deficit Disorder & ADHD can be countered with access to nature

Interaction with nature from an early age, indeed at any age, can foster and encourage strong

environmental values and positive feelings & empathy towards nature, while lack of interaction can

lead to problems such as nature deficit disorder and biophobia.

A 2001 study measured the difference in crime rates over a two year period, in a large public

housing development in urban Chicago. A section of buildings that was surrounded by greenery was

compared with another that was devoid of surrounding nature. The study reported 52% fewer

felonies in the greener buildings, saving $162,200 for the Illinois Department of Corrections each

year. Furthermore, the results of the study found that some types of domestic violence were 25%

less prevalent in the greener housing developments.


Landscape architects are in a prime position to implement biophilic design in the public realm

Then there is the economics of biophilia; or instance, Singapore’s population has doubled to more

than 5 million in the last 25 years, with nearly 40% being foreign nationals. In that same time period,

Singapore devised a Green Plan aimed at luring investment into the area and drive economic growth

that concurrently increases quality of life and delivers more business to the city every year.

Singapore – The City in a Garden

Simple biophilic measures such as street trees for shade can increase property value by 7%, with 5%

premium on properties within 500 feet of a park. Retail shops also record 40% higher profit margins

with quality daylighting and 12% with urban greenery. Also, increasing views to nature from hospital


beds could save the American healthcare industry $93 million annually due to faster discharging of

patients!

Gardens by the Bay, Singapore, by Grant Associates

Still not convinced? Take these numbers from the Economics of Biophilia for New York City:

Daylighting reduces student absenteeism. Providing adequate daylighting to all students in New York

City public schools could re-engage$297 million in wasted taxpayer dollars and save $247.5 million in

lost parental wages resulting from missed school.

Biophilic work environments increase office workers’ productivity. Creating biophilic work

environments for many of New York City’s office workers would result in over $470 million in

recouped productivity value.

Biophilic landscapes reduce crime. Biophilic landscapes throughout the city could save New York

$1.7 billion in incarceration costs.


Biophilia can be used to produce positive impacts in desolate places such as car parks

This sampling of economic impacts of biophilia in New York City adds up to over $2.7 billion per year

in 2010 dollars. Though the monetary input is high, the enormous value of a biophilic city has the

potential to outweigh the costs by far, however the economic downturn, spiraling maintenance

costs of parks and the relative “discovery” of biophilia has deterred investment. Yet, biophilic design

could be used as measure to attract investment and mitigate against the effects of the recent

worldwide economic crisis (and create some jobs for landscape architects!) as shown in Singapore.


The path to a biophilic future is clear & we have already taken the first few steps…

Summary & Conclusion Biophilia for landscape architecture is a powerful approach to design. While green walls, green roofs, urban greening and more parks can all be seen as biophilic, it is up to landscape architects and landscape planners to locate these design elements effectively within the urban landscape. We have the tools, the knowledge and the empirical evidence, so why not? With rising rates of crime, mental health issues, obesity and the effects of global warming, a radical but proven solution is needed. Biophilic design of our environments can play a significant role in that solution. In the next section, we will look at just what makes a biophilic city……….


2.0 What

Makes A

Biophilic City?


In the last section, we discussed the empirical evidence and case studies proving the social, health

and economic benefits of biophilic design. But to what degree must a city engage in biophilia to be

classed as a “biophilic city”? Timothy Beatley describes a biophilic city as being “partly defined by

the qualities and biodiversity present and designed into urban life, but also the many activities and

lifestyle choices and patterns, the many opportunities residents have to learn about and be engaged

directly in nature, and the local institutions and commitments expressed, for instance, in local

government budgets and policies”.

So how do we classify a city as a biophilic city?

Hanging Garden in CBD, Singapore

According to the works of Timothy Beatley, Biophilic Cities can be indicated by the following

qualities:

Biophilic cities have abundant nature in close proximity to large numbers of urbanites

Green infrastructure programs, parklets & a high percentage land cover of green space would be

steps towards fulfilling this aspect of a biophilic city. New York City qualifies as a biophilic city in this

regard by PlaNYC’s goal of a public green space within a 10 minute walk of every resident by 2030,

while Seattle P-Patch program aims for one community garden per 2,500 city inhabitants!


The Highline, New York City

In biophilic cities, residents feel a deep affinity with the unique flora, fauna and fungi

found there

Incentive, education and encouragement from city authorities are necessary to catalyze this goal. It

measures not just the environmental values of inhabitants, but their knowledge of local and native

species. In New Zealand, the city of Wellington also has over sixty community conservation groups!

In the last two years alone, volunteer environmental groups have performed 28,000 hours of service

on Wellington’s 4,000 hectares of nature reserves. While in Oslo, Norway, over 81% of inhabitants

had visited the city’s surrounding forests in the last year, proving residents appreciation of the

natural landscape.


Vitoria-Gasteiz, Salburua Restored Wetland

Wellington, New Zealand

Biophilic cities are cities that provide abundant opportunities to be outside and to enjoy

nature

Urbanization causes severe fragmentation of habitats and nature, with land value at a premium,

resulting in little room for green space. Well connected green spaces and green corridors can

counter this problem, easing accessibility for urban inhabitants. Singapore has an extensive park


system, integrated by 200-kilometers of Park Connectors, in the form of elevated walkways. Oslo,

Norway is perhaps the leader in this category however, with an estimated 94% of the city’s residents

living within 300 meters of a park! Anchorage, Alaska has 1 mile (1.6Km) of natural walking trails per

1,000 residents. The trails are multi use and seasonal, offering everything from hiking to skiing.

Canopy Walk, Singapore

Biophilic cities are rich multisensory environments, where the sounds of nature are as

appreciated as much as the visual or ocular experience

The integration of natural spaces and ecological corridors into the urban fabric can create the

conditions necessary for multisensory, nature rich environments. Implementing a Noise Reduction

Plan or reducing levels of vehicular transport, would create “quiet zones”, with noise levels below 50

decibels (dB). Oslo, Norway is attempting an initiative of daylighting all eight of the city’s rivers. This

will form part of the Akersleva, a combined green and blue infrastructure corridor, connecting the

city centre inhabitants with nature in the very heart of the city, with 14 quiet zones planned within

the corridor.


The Akersleva, Oslo, Norway

Biophilic cities place importance on education about nature and biodiversity, and on

providing many and varied opportunities to learn about and directly experience nature

Education can result in reinforcing positive feelings about nature and encouraging sustainable living

among the general population. In Limerick City, Ireland, several environmental groups are working

with the support of the city council to educate the city’s population on biodiversity and native

wildlife species. Urban Tree Project and Limerick City Biodiversity Network have engaged the local

population with nature, while providing guided walks, lectures and online resources to educate the

city’s inhabitants on the importance of biodiversity.

Limerick City Biodiversity Network, Credit: Anthony Furlong


Biophilic cities invest in the social and physical infrastructure that helps to bring urbanites

in closer connection and understanding of nature

Investment in biophilic projects is an excellent indicator of a biophilic city. Timothy Beatley identifies

5% of a cities budget dedicated to biodiversity and at least 1 current biophilic project in operation as

indicative of governance in a biophilic city. Portland, Oregon, exceeds this and has invested heavily

in social & green infrastructure, with Portland having the highest parks per-capita acreage in

America. While Singapore’s N’Parks have an incentive program, entitled Skyrise Greenery, for green

roofs & living walls, offering up to 75% of the cost.

Tanner Springs, Portland, Oregon

Biophilic cities take steps to actively support the conservation of global nature

With cities being the epicentre of governance, innovation, employment and population, they have a

necessary role in the conservation of nature on a regional, national and international scale, given

their ecological footprint and negative impacts upon the environment. Such measures include; set

aside of land, designation for protected sites, the creation of a biodiversity action plan and focus on

compact development. In the city of Nagoya, Japan, 10% of urban land cover is set aside to be left in

an unmanaged wild state as nature preserves.

While Phoenix, Arizona has taken this a step further by purchasing over 17,000 acres of natural

desert for nature conservation, to help mitigate the negative effects of Phoenix’s urban sprawl.

Then there is Vitoria-Gasteiz, in Basque country, encircled by a green belt to restrict encroaching

development and to protect the internationally important restored wetland, the Salburua. However,

the city still intends to create the Anilla Verde Interior—“the interior green belt”!


Park Olarizu, Vitoria-Gasteiz

Summary & Conclusion These indicators focus on the protection, enhancement and introduction of nature into our cities, while encouraging interaction with nature by the city’s inhabitants through the process of environmental education and habitat restoration. With more than half of the world’s population living in urban centres devoid of nature, biophilic cities are no longer a choice. The benefits & criteria have been discussed, in the next section, we will discuss & countdown the Top Ten Biophilic Cities.


3.0 Top Ten

Biophilic Cities


From San Francisco to Oslo, New York to Seoul, we look at what makes these cities deserving of the

title “Biophilic”.

The qualities of a biophilc city have been previously discussed, so before progressing with our top

ten, maybe we should deal with a fair question: Can cities be biophilic?

Think about it, cities require a huge amount of energy input, displace and destroy nature while

creating a massive ecological and carbon footprint.

Doesn’t this make the title Biophilic City an oxymoron?

According to Dr. Stephen Kellert, author of “Birthright”, no, it does not. Every living organism

modifies their surrounding environment to suit their own needs. For instance, if it wasn’t for

elephants, the African Savannah would be a forest. To reject this view is to see humanity as being

separate from nature, a view which biophilic design seeks to rectify.

Cities may be unsustainable in many ways, but it doesn’t mean that they can’t be biophilic.

10. Wellington, New Zealand

Wellington makes the list for a number of reasons; for one, it boasts over 4,000 hectares of nature

preserves, in and around the city. In terms of governance, the city authorities include a team for

biophilic cities, with the goal of implementing the “Living City” program, which will aim to integrate

nature with the urban fabric. The love of nature by the city’s inhabitants is clear, with over 60

environmental volunteer groups, who together clocked over 28,000 hours of service in one year.

Mount Vistoria


9. San Francisco, California, USA

The city that gave the world Park(ing) Day makes the list for its innovative approach to introducing

green space into its sterile urban center. The use of “parklets” has been pioneered by the San

Franciscan city authorities, with green space installations being temporal and semi-

permanent. However, this action should not suggest that the city is void of nature, with the

surrounding hills and harbors alive with wildlife. The city authorities themselves have helped the

biophilic agenda by making funding available to communities with the “Pavements to

Parks” program.

San Francisco Golden Gate Park


Parklet

8. Seoul, South Korea

The capital of South Korea has a strong driving force, in the form of former Mayor Lee Myung-bak,

pushing forward biophilic measures in the city’s built environment. This is evident in the day lighting

of theCheonggyecheon River through downtown Seoul, requiring the removal of an entire elevated

motorway! The day lighted river now assists in urban cooling, biodiversity and storm water

management. The city of Seoul is also surrounded by several ecological parks, such as Saetgang

Ecology Park and Seonyudo Island Park, a former industrial sewage plant that has been remediated

and re-purposed as a haven for wildlife on the banks of the river Hangang.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheonggyecheon


Cheonggyecheon

Seoul Grand Park


Saetgang Ecology Park

Seoul Seonyudo Park


7. Philadelphia, USA

Philadelphia’s inhabitants have a strong affinity for nature, with urban rooftop farm projects such

as Cloud 9, the Philadelphia Urban Farm Network and the Philadelphia Orchard Project, which

created four new orchards in 2012, with the ultimate goal of planting 40,000 vacant lots! Then

there is the goal of the city authorities to re-engage the population with the waterfront. Race Street

Pier by James Corner Field Operations has achieved this. The Patch/Work project won the Cities

That Learn Award in last year’s Living City Design Competition, with a focus on “building a

sustainable community from within, block by block, parcel by parcel, patch by patch”.

Race Street Pier

Patch/Work – Winning Entry


6. Helsinki, Finland

Helsinki stands out as a biophilic city with its connected, integrated ecological network. Keskupuesto

Park, acts as an unbroken link between remnant woodland in the urban centre to the old growth

Paloheinä forest on the edge of the City, stretching for over 10 Km. The City of Helsinki also has

plans to re-engage the city inhabitants with the waterfront and natural environment.

“Helsinki, a place where you can actually walk from the center of the city, all the way out to old-

growth forest at the edge. That’s one definition of biophilic city”.

Then, there is the Helsinki Plant Tram Urban Garden; Taking people on a journey with nature,

through the city, supported by people who donate the plants to the garden! Awesome does not

begin to describe it. Have a look for yourself.

Helsinki Plant Tram


Helsinki Central Park


5. Portland, Oregon, USA

Portland’s city authority has taken vast steps towards becoming a biophilic city. It has begun and

completed a number of ecologically restoration projects, with a focus on storm water

management, with the most notable of these being Tanner Springs Park, a former industrial site.

The requirement of all properties and developments to manage their own storm water and an

incentive program by the City of Portland has led to the creation of rain gardens and bio-swales

throughout the urban fabric, enriching biodiversity.

Tanner Springs Park


4. Vitoria Gasteiz, Basque Country, Spain

The city is comprised of a series of concentric circles, with the forest and natural landscape on the

outer ring, followed by a green belt and then the city at the center. This structure offers abundant

levels of nature within the urban fabric, with the entire population living within 300m of a public

green space! However, the city intends to push this further by creating an “interior green belt”.

Other measures to increase nature within the city include wetland restoration of the Salburua, a

reduction in light pollution and horticultural education programs in community gardens. All of these

measures made Vitoria Gasteiz the European Green Capital in 2012.

Salburua


3. Oslo, Norway

Oslo is without a doubt the most biophilic city in Europe, with over two thirds of the city lying

within protected forest. The Akersleva river corridor is in the process of restoration, acting as a

green infrastructure corridor, connecting the city to the surrounding landscape. It forms part of the

City’s plan to daylight and restore all 8 of the rivers that pass through Oslo city center, with

programs aimed at reducing traffic and noise pollution with the introduction of pedestrian and quiet

zones to enrich the experience of nature within the city. It’s not hard to believe that over 94% of

Oslo’s inhabitants live within 300m of a public green space. These biophilic measures are clearly

working, with 81% of Oslo residents having visited their local forest park in 2012.

Oslo Botanical Garden


The Akersleva


2. New York City, USA

Mayor Bloomberg deserves a tip of the hat for driving biophilic programs in New York, but none of it

would be possible without the Green Guerrillas (Liz Christy), PlaNYC, Friends of the Highline,

the urban rooftop farmers and the residents in general. PlaNYC has set the goals of a public park

within a 10 minute walk by 2030, pushing the city to be up there with Oslo & Vitoria Gasteiz in

terms of green space access.

The Highline

New York leads the way in the re-purposing of abandoned infrastructure and industrial

sites; Brooklyn Bridge Park has re-engaged the inhabitants with the waterfront, while assisting in

urban regeneration; The Highline’s success has already been covered in great detail, offering

pedestrians an alternative transport route through the urban centre, above the city streets.


Brooklyn Bridge Park

Then there is Central Park, one of the world’s largest urban parks, opened in 1857. The city’s long

term commitment to supporting community gardens, investing in green infrastructure &

environmental education has proven its status as a biophilic city.

Brooklyn Grange Rooftop Garden


Central Park


1. Singapore

Singapore’s biophilic strategies originate nearly 50 years ago, with former Prime Minister Lee Kuan

Yew and his “Garden City” concept. It has undoubtedly been a success, with the population

doubling in the last 25 years, with nearly 40% being foreign nationals. Singapore has checked

urbanisation and development by increasing vegetative cover from 36% in 1986 to 47% in

2007 through various initiatives, like N’Park’s Skyrise Greenery program.

Bishan Park

Singapore has abundant access to nature, with the city connected to parks and natural landscapes

via 200 Km of elevated walkways and canopy walks. Even Singapore’s main streets are covered by

tree canopies, mitigating the urban heat island effect. Singapore is truly deserving of the title of a

“Biophilic City”. Gardens by the Bay, the restoration of the Kallang River through Bishan Park and

the Hanging Garden in CBD are just some of the award winning projects which have earned

Singapore the top spot on this list.


Gardens by the Bay by Grant Associates

Summary & Conclusion

The journey to becoming a biophilic city is no easy feat.

It requires an enthusiastic population and determined and supportive governance; along with

significant economic investment (however the monetary returns are much greater than the initial

input). The context and history of the city is important to consider as well, obviously a city with

abundant existing nature would be considered more biophilic, but only if it is accessible by the urban

populace.

These cities have enacted biophilic theory into reality and have proven its merit as part of a solution to many of the problems we face today.


Other Articles

& Publications


100 Lessons

Learned From

Studying

Landscape

Architecture


100 LESSONS LEARNED FROM STUDYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

#100 Drink coffee.

#99 Avoid negative people and those who hang around the watercooler.

#98 Help those who need help.

#97 Don’t waste your time with people who don’t want to work.

#96 Always be reading at least 3 books, on different subjects, which are related to

landscape architecture.

#95 Plan for the “What can go wrong, will go wrong” scenario.

#94 Never leave printing to the last minute.

#93Question your lecturers.

#92 Take breaks.

#91 Travel as much as possible.

#90 “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough” – Albert

Einstein

#89 Drink coffee.

#88 Post-design rationalisation is fantastic if you can pull it off, but never rely on it.

#87 Photoshop and AutoCAD do not make you a good designer.


#86 Always carry a notebook to write down & sketch ideas.

#85 Creativity doesn’t adhere to a 9-5 timetable.

#84 Phone home.

#83 Go to as many lectures and talks as possible.

#82 Google “Gestalt”.

#81 Make it multi-functional, make it fun.

#80 You will use the word sustainable so much, it will lose all meaning.

#79 “To achieve great things, two things are needed; a plan, and not quite enough time”.

– Leonard Bernstein

#78 Read Edward De Bono.

#77 When it comes to planting design and specification, KISS.

#76 Drink Coffee.

#75 Your computer will crash. You will lose all your work. Backup, backup, backup!

#74 Don’t replicate, innovate!

#73 Listen to music.

#72 Keep your workspace tidy!

#71 “Creative minds are rarely tidy”. – Carl Gustav Jung

#70 Engineers are the Oompa Loompas of the planning process.

#69 Planners have no souls. Don’t be fooled.


#68 Architects are not as self obsessed as you would think. They’re much worse.

#67 Crocus.co.uk will be your lifesaver if you know nothing about plants.

#66 Objectives don’t make sense if a SWOT doesn’t identify them.

#65 “A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add,

but when there is nothing left to take away”. – Antoine de Saint-Exupery

#64 Avoid energy drinks.

#63 Drink coffee.

#62 Students go to University to make mistakes. Just make sure you learn from them.

#61 Be silly, but never stupid.

#60 You will at sometime, spend several nights sleeping in the studio. They turn the

heating off at ten. Bring a blanket.

#59 Read Jan Gehl, Jane Jacobs, Ian McHarg, Piet Oudolf, Nigel Dunnett and Timothy

Beatley.

#58 Draw on BIG pieces of paper.

#57 Limitation inspires creativity.

#56 Ask “what the design wants to be”, not “what you want it to be”.

#55 Procrastination is a death sentence. JUST DO SOMETHING.

#54 Horizontal rain is a common occurrence in Ireland.

#53 No one knows what a landscape architect is or does.

#52 When rolling drawing sheets, roll them with the drawing side facing outwards. It

will avoid an unnecessary struggle on presentation days!

#51 Pantones are expensive, but never buy crayola.

#50 You cannot design a space without understanding “prospect – refuge” theory.

#49 Drink coffee.

#48 Pack rain gear for site visits.

#47 If you can’t take criticism and use it positively, you’re in the wrong career.

#46 Dream out loud.

#45 Don’t ever sketch an element literally.

#44 Good drawings are drawn hierarchically.

#43 If anyone ever suggests Begonias, say no. In the face. With a shovel.


#42 “Stupid”, “boring” and “pointless” first year studio exercises are the most important

lessons in design you will ever learn.

#41 Cool colours recede, warm colours advance.

#40 Studio is about developing a good design process, not the “perfect” project.

#39 Learn the language of design.

#38 Learn (and understand) the design principles as well as the back of your hand.

#37 A variety of uses, to attract a variety of users.

#36 When giving a presentation, start with general information and then move on to

specific details.

#35 During a presentation, make eye contact.

#34 Drink coffee.

#33 Never use “erm”, “kinda”, “its not great”, “i just” during a presentation or critique.

You might as well shoot yourself in the foot.

#32 “Less is more”. – Ludwig Mies Van Der Rohe

#33 Less is less is if you don’t understand Modernism.

#31 Leaving time for test printing runs will save you a great deal of stress and worry.

#30 Presentation boards should be legible from 10ft away.

#29 Give areas/elements within your design a name. It gives them character, identity and

a sense of reality. “Cloud Gate” sounds a lot better than “The Bean”.

#28 Mind mapping works.

#27 Take up meditation.

#26 The journey to a space and its experience, is just as important as the one within the

space.

#25 The most creative people are critical of their own thought process, constantly

assessing their thinking methods, seeking out and testing new ways to think and be

creative.

#24 Design like you give a damn.

#23 Printers break down.


#22 An idea is a specific mental structure by which we organize, understand, and give

meaning to external experiences and information.

#21 Revealing and screening, denial and reward are powerfully strategies for drawing

users through a space.

#20 A steeper slope will slow a person down and appreciate a framed view for longer.

#19 Design firms don’t want a standard CV. Show off your skills and add a bit of design

flair to your portfolio.

#18 Know your native species.

#17 Don’t be xenophobic in your plant choices.

#16 Perspective drawings will sell any project.

#15 If you can’t present, it won’t matter how good a designer you are, people won’t

understand your ideas.

#14 It can take 6 – 9 years to become a chartered landscape architect, from university

enrolment to professional exams.

#13 Hand drawing is not dead, so don’t pretend like it is.

#12 The Planting Design Handbook by Nick Robinson is a must read.

#11 Work with community groups for free. It will pay back in time.

#10 Drink coffee.


#9 Get out and raise awareness about landscape architecture. Talk to people on the street,

post about it on Facebook, get Involved.

#8 When intimidated by a project, start with the easiest tasks first. This will help you

build momentum and confidence as you progress.

#7 Ask for advice and help when you need it.

#6 Keep up to date with all the landscape architecture, architecture & design websites for

inspiration

#5 Design WITH models

#4 Making a final presentation model will always take longer than you think it will

#3 Landscape architects are design obsessed people. It will happen to you.

#2 Don’t take anything seriously. Have fun with it.

#1 Caffeine withdrawal is terrible.

Like the Article? Check Out the T-Shirt! http://landarchs.com/shop/?product=100-things

http://landarchs.com/shop/?product=100-things


Delivering the

Next

Generation of

Green

Infrastructure


It was a full house at the Garden Museum, located along the River Thames in London, on Monday

8th October 2012.

The reason?

The High Line Symposium organized by the Landscape Institute and hosted by the Garden

Museum.

The High Line Symposium was an event discussing green infrastructure projects from around the

world and the applications of similar initiatives to the city of London. Such projects included the

High Line in New York City, with the founders of the project talking at the event. However, the

focus of attention was the City of London’s design competition for a green infrastructure project that

re-thinks urban green space in London.

For those of you who don’t know, green infrastructure is a concept that focuses on ecosystem

services, habitat and green space connectivity, within and outside our urban centres in a more

sustainable way. The focus of green infrastructure (also known as GI) is to reduce reliance on grey

infrastructure (concrete piping, motorways, etc) and to apply natural systems to our service needs.

Director of the Garden Museum, Christopher Wood, kicks off proceedings

The symposium was opened by the Director of the Garden Museum, Christopher Wood, who

outlined the day’s events and the importance of green infrastructure in today’s urban environments.


Mr. Wood then went on to introduce Robert Hammond and Joshua David, the Founder’s of Friends

of the High Line and their “Most successful and Inspiring” story.

Robert Hammond, one of the founding members of Friends of the High Line

Kicking off the symposium, Robert Hammond took the audience through the story of the High Line.

Its history and former use, how he met Joshua David, the formation of Friends of the High Line and

their incredible story of struggle and success against all those who wished to tear down the High

Line.

Perhaps what was most striking about Robert Hammond’s presentation was his presence, use of

facts and language very similar to landscape architects and those within the design profession. The

occasional one liner was thrown here or there, such as:

“The gayest night lights ever”.

In reference to the High Line’s outstanding lights displays.


Robert Hammond tells the inspirational story of the High Line

There was no romanticism, but straight facts that showed not only the importance of the High Line,

but also green infrastructure.

Robert Hammond discussed the open idea competition held for the High Line. He described how

they were looking for “Not just design, but what happens on it (the High Line)”, stressing the

importance on the relationship between the design and the programming of events.


Joshua David (left) and Robert Hammond (middle) taking questions from the audience

Speaking on the selection process, Hammond stated that the “Lead was a LA, that’s very important”,

perhaps a vital point to remember, signifying the strengths of landscape architects in green

infrastructure projects.

Moving on to the success of the High Line, the numbers quoted by Hammond show the impact green

infrastructure projects can have on urban areas.

$112 million construction costs, $900 million tax revenue

$2 billion in economic development

12,000 jobs created directly or indirectly

3.7 million Visitors per year (more than the Statue of Liberty!)


A new landscape for London?

Aside from these numbers, what is more spellbinding is the fact that the High Line is still yet to be

finished! The discussion of the High Line showed a framework case study for how to realize green

infrastructure projects, the essence of the symposium’s purpose. With one of the greatest

landscape architecture projects ever undertaken discussed, the focus shifted to green infrastructure

projects planned for the City of London.


Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, delivers a pre-recorded message to the crowd on the importance of GI for the City of London

The day’s speakers included Matthew Pencharz, the Environment Advisor to the Mayor of London.

His presentation on “Greening a Green City” discussed how the city planned to get green

infrastructure projects built. Mr. Pencharz spoke of the Mayor’s goals for a “cleaner, greener, more

accessible London” and the ambitious goal of creating 100 pocket parks in the city of London.


Discussion revolves around the benefits and obstacles to GI in London

One of the most interesting presentations of the day was delivered by Tom Bottomworth of Natural

England on“Economic Evidence for Investigating in the Environment”. Perhaps the most elusive

aspect of GI to show tangible evidence for, this discussion focused on issues vital for landscape

architects to gain support for GI projects. Along with Ross Leben, a Land Economist of Ingham

Pinnock Associates, these presentations showed how successful GI projects will be become and how

their economic benefit, long dismissed and undervalued can now become a vital part of economic

recovery.


London will never be the same again.

The US Embassy in Nine Elms


Sue Illman, President of The Landscape Institute, addresses the crowd

Moving on from the discussed projects, the winner of the High Line for London Green

Infrastructure Ideas Competition was announced.

Fletcher Priest Architects won with a proposal for a mushroom farm under Oxford Street! A hugely

ambitious plan, the project would use abandoned underground mail tunnels originally used for

deliveries along Oxford Street for urban food production.


Fletcher Priest Architects being announced competition winners by Joshua David and Robert Hammond

Joshua David and Robert Hammond, co-founders of New York’s High Line, Dr Penelope Curtis,

Director of Tate Britain, Mark Brearley, Head of Design for London, and leading landscape architects

Kim Wilkie and Jo Gibbons made up the judging panel for the ideas competition. In second

place, the Lido Line by [Y/N] Studio, an idea to insert a clean, safe ‘basin’ in the Regent’s Canal which

would allow people to swim the ‘Lido Line’ from Little Venice to Limehouse.

Instead of runner ups, 3 highly commended projects were selected, which included

Bridge-It by HTA – A plan to construct new green linear parks that would link inaccessible

transport routes and corridors, improving access to green space and promoting sustainable

modes of transport.

Barge Walk by Erika Richmond and Peggy Pei-Chi Chi – This project would re-use barges

along Canary Wharf to create an edible landscape, linear park and restored wetlands.

Bus Roots by Wynne James – This design proposal would use bus shelters as raised gardens,

bird habitats and bug hotels. The use of miniature wildflower meadows on top of bus

shelters would be used to support such communities.


With a shortlist of 20 entries, tough choices were made...

From a shortlist of 20 entries, the judges did not have easy choices to make. But the competition

was the epicentre of a symposium that took the issues surrounding GI, dissected them, examined

the components and the conditions necessary to success and re-assembled to fit the urban fabric

of London.

(Right) Richard Reynolds's (of GuerrillaGardening.org) competition entry


Competition winners, Fletcher Priest Architects, check out the exhibition



A fantastic event that only confirmed, the need and desire for green space within our cities. While

much has been written about the “need” and the “benefits” of green infrastructure, the focus has

finally shifted to how we can implement green infrastructure projects.

Case studies such as the High Line and research showing the economic gains of GI projects (let’s

face it, monetary gain makes or breaks project proposals), has finally made the case for green

infrastructure undeniable in many respects.

The Landscape Institute & Garden Museum’s efforts have only added to the momentum of an

unstoppable force in the field of urbanism and landscape architecture.

Event: Delivering the Next Generation of Green Infrastructure (The High Line Symposium)

Location: Garden Museum, London, UK

Photographer: Joe Clancy

Date: October 8th, 2012


LA You Can

Sink Your

Teeth Into!


“Waiter, this landscape is delicious, I’ll have another”.

Not a line you’re likely to hear anytime soon, but something is changing in the fabric of our urban

landscapes. From industrialized cities, devoid of nature, to the picturesque link, urbanites have long

desired a Biophillic city. This desire has been matched with the rise of sustainable and bio diverse

planting schemes over the last few decades. But now in the western world, a new approach of

returning nature to the urban landscape has come to the fore, the edible landscape.

So, what is an edible landscape? Strawberry flavoured asphalt? (Eugh!) No. Edible landscaping is a

planting design philosophy where ornamental plants are replaced with plant species chosen for both

their ornamental and nutritional value. It requires greater plant knowledge than traditional planting

design practised by landscape architects, as spacing and landscape dynamics must be understood to

maximize yield. It follows much the same principles as Permaculture (Earth Care, People Care, Fair

Share), by replicating natural systems and using the edge effect to optimize produce.

“Nice gimmick, what’s the point”?

Edible landscapes takes planting for biodiversity a step further, by providing much needed winter

foods for urban wildlife, increasing the ecological richness of a space. It also brings food production

into the urban centre, reconnecting people with their food and to a larger extent nature. It can also

help bring economic income to communities surrounding the edible landscape. But let’s not forget

other important benefits that have a wider global impact from localized food production: Food

security and decreased fuel consumption/dependence. Two benefits that will become necessities

with encroaching peak oil.

Edible Landscapes, the future!

However, the idea of edible landscapes has several foreseen drawbacks. Issues of security, thievery

and food safety are serious and often make people wary of edible landscapes for such reasons.

http://landarchs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/77.png


Edible landscapes also require specialized training for successful management. Other needs such as

high irrigation levels and fertilizer inputs are off putting but can be countered through permacultural

practices.

Edible landscape projects worldwide have ranged from small scale guerrilla gardening troops to

urban food forests. It’s never boring either, ‘Fed Up’, a guerrilla gardening group from Kinsale,

Ireland, painted recycled milk containers, planted them up with herbs, salads, and edible fruits and

then attached them to lamps and sign posts around urban areas! Street art and urban farming, how

could it fail?!

Bombs away, a gorilla seed bomb waiting to explode, inset: planting lamp attachment

Edible landscapes can also be architectural stunning! Public Farm 1 in New York was constructed in

summer 2008 and opened to the public, functioning as an urban farm and outdoor social space for

urbanites and urban foragers. It consisted of cardboard tube planters arranged into a sweeping

elevated structure, dispelling the impression that urban agriculture is unattractive. This project

brought food production into a busy, social meeting place, connecting urbanism and ecology,

consumer and producer.


Public Farm 1


Chilling out at the farm

Edible landscape projects are becoming more common, evident in Seattle’s plans to create America’s

first urban food forest. A seven acre edible landscape, smack down in the centre of Seattle’s urban

fabric. Fruit bearing perennial, shrubs, trees and herbs will provide free food for foragers and local

wildlife. This project and others like it are seen as a way of revitalising the surrounding

neighbourhoods by providing food security, free food, economic income and a new space for

congregation, ownership and identity.

http://landarchs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/667.png


Seattle's new edible forest, you'll get lost but you won't get hungry, credit: Buena Vista Images/Getty

So, edible landscapes, another fad or another solution to urban problems for landscape architects to

use? Well let’s face it, cities and urban centres require huge inputs, drawing in food produced from

surrounding rural areas and even abroad. With approaching peak oil, rising food costs and the fact

that since 2008, half of the global population now live in cities, approaching 5 billion by 2030, cities

must become self sufficient, especially in food production. Edible landscapes provide spaces for

nutrition education and by providing free food to urban populations, could help alleviate the

problem of obesity in urban dwelling children.

Summary & Conclusions

So, what is the role of landscape architects? Well for one, although food production may be a

necessity, it’s not considered attractive or compatible with a social urban space. It is up to landscape

architects to dispel these myths, as WORK Architecture did with Public Farm 1 in New York to re-

connect people with their food and nature through active and passive means. Issues with security

are another issue, but the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks. We have moved from monocultures

with high inputs, to sustainable planting schemes and then bio diverse schemes; perhaps it is time

for sustainable, bio diverse, edible landscapes? A difficult, but achievable goal. This is not an easy

task for our profession, or indeed urban dwellers to undertake, but it shouldn’t be daunting, it

should be fun.

For Once, Don’t Listen to Your Mother and Play With Your Food!


Marina Park

Saga:

Part 1


The design for Marina Park, a 35 hectare sized site, located at Cork City’s Docklands, has been

awarded to Dutch landscape architecture firm OKRA and Irish based Dutch firm REDscape. The

project will be Ireland’s largest urban wetlands project.

Bit of background information on the project (www.savemarinapark.com):

“In an effort to reinvigorate Cork City – one of the few parts of Ireland that actually saw it’s

population decline during the Celtic Tiger years – Cork City Council set up the Docklands Development

Directorate in City Hall”.

“This is all common sense – a public park is a good idea because a lack of recreational space creates

all sorts of other problems in a community. Problems that normally find their way to the surface

through anti-social behaviour. Recognising this, the City paid in excess of €11.0m to purchase this

land in 2006”.

Consisting of a number of watercourses, wetlands, wet meadows and swales, the proposed design

will mitigate against flooding and manage stormwater from the adjacent docklands. The project will

also include new gathering spaces, concentrated around the east of the park, in a bid to assist urban

regeneration in the surrounding areas. These spaces will accommodate spectators on match days at

Pairc Ui Chaoimh stadium, which lies in the centre of the park.

The most supported element of the project is a large allocation of land for stormwater treatment

and sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDs). This is due to Cork City suffering from severe flood

events in recent years, with the occurrence of 10 year floods predicted.


However, the most controversial element of the park, the proposed 6 acre all weather sports pitch

adjoining Pairc Ui Chaoimh, has divided public opinion. This element of the design proves

controversial due to the fact that it cuts the park in half, while also consuming valuable space, which

opponents of the proposal say would be better used serving surrounding residential communities.

Numerous questions are raised further from the artist’s impression of the master plan. For one, it

shows a significant area of the “Atlantic Pond”/wildlife area being built upon, with little or no

surrounding greenspace to accommodate park visitors or amenity use. Furthermore, access

between the west and east sides of the park is restricted, especially on match days, with pathways

being closed for safety reasons.

The project has also been plagued with controversy, disputes, rezoning of land, conflicting

statements, accusations from the public on a lack of transparency and public disproval. While the


project itself has the potential to become one of the most notable parks in Ireland and indeed

Europe, it will not succeed if public concerns are not genuinely taken on board and addressed.

This project and the fallout it has generated, has shown two things; planning and development in

Ireland is still flawed; and communities are more determined than ever to have their voice heard.

The “Save Marina Park” campaign has been one of the projects main opponents. Being present at

every consultation and keeping affected communities updated via Facebook.

To students of landscape architecture, architecture, engineering, urban design and planning, this is a

case study (among many) to take note of. It shows how important public approval is and how

involved, organised, aware and educated communities have become. This can only be a good thing.

Communities support, shape and determine the ultimate fate of a park once it is constructed. If it

doesn’t meet their needs, concerns, the project will fail in numerous ways. If communities are

actively consulted, listened to and genuinely involved, the realized project will become a valuable

part of the community fabric, the park itself, shaping the community in a positive manner. It

reminds me of the saying, “Ask yourself what the design wants to be, not what you want it to

be”. However, I believe the main cause of trouble in this project, is not the fault of a designer, but

a lack of transparency and differing interests between the community and the authorities.



Overall, this project has massive potential; a strong, involved community and expertise in the form

of OKRA and REDscape, along with the natural beauty and ecological richness of the area

overlooking the River Lee. Let’s hope all issues will be solved, as with all controversial, unresolved

projects, it’s the community that suffers.


Marina Park

Saga:

Part 2

Interview with

“Save Marina

Park”


Continuing on from our first article of the series, we interview community activist Richard Cronin, to

find out the community’s side of the story from the Save Marina Park Saga. Save Marina Park was

founded in September 2011 after a local councillor informed a group of residents from Ballintemple

that the City Council planned to sell off part of the land set aside for Marina Park to the GAA at a

discount price. The city council had originally purchased the site for 11 million and now planned to

sell nearly half the site to the GAA for 2 million.

Des Cahill, a local Councillor, suspicious of the Cork City Council’s activities, suggested the formation

of the Ballintemple Residents Association. This led to a public meeting, where all concerned groups,

including local residents, GAA and local press where invited. According to Richard Cronin of “Save

Marina Park”, the community were quite vocal about their concerns, including; the GAA’s bad track

record with match day organisation, parking and that householders in the surrounding area would

be most affected by the GAA’s expansion. The conclusion of the meeting was that the community,

quite simply, wanted ownership of the decision making process. To have their views listened to,

taken onboard and used to shape the final product.


The site, as it exists now

“Save Marina Park” was formed after this meeting, in response to the rezoning of land for a second

GAA pitch. The group has always felt that this rezoning was the result of private interests, held by

those who were conflicted due to their biased views and associations with certain organisations.

The Save Marina Park group challenged the rezoning in January 2012, as they questioned the need

and indeed, the legality of the rezoning.

The primary goals of the Save Marina Park group are to reach a compromise with the city council,

the GAA and the Dutch landscape architects OKRA. While the group do not object to the GAA’s

proposal for a second pitch, they object to the proposed location, as it severs the park in two, while

also taking up prime amenity space. The fact remains that numerous NAMA sites surround the park,

and could be used as an alternative location for the second GAA pitch. The community group wish

to make clear that they seek a win-win situation, as they and the GAA will be neighbours for a long

time. According to Richard Cronin, “Save Marina Park is anti bad planning, not anti-GAA”.


However, the response from the city council to the community appeared confusing, and it became

clear that the city council intended to do things the GAA’s way. This was confirmed when Save

Marina Park lost the appeal to the city council’s rezoning of land for the second GAA pitch.

However, the community logged 120 written objections. A staggering number considering most

developments receive one or two objections. In reaction to losing the appeal, the community group

have sought and received media coverage in several national and local newspapers, to raise

awareness of the community’s concerns and plight. The next step for the community group is to

take their appeal to an Bord Pleneala, in an attempt to overturn the rezoning of land at Marina Park.


Artist’s impression with comments from Save Marina Park, Credit: Save Marina Park

“Save Marina Park” states that the park is important to the surrounding residents and communities

for several reasons; the amount of amenity space available to citizens of Cork City is 20% of the EU

average; the park will allow for a more sustainable community; counter social issues such as

vandalism; encourage growth in the only city whose population declined during the boom; to

mitigate against localized flooding; and to protect valuable habitats currently existing on site.

However, the inclusion of the second GAA pitch removes many, if not all of these benefits.

The main concerns of the community with the design put forward by OKRA, under Cork City Council,

is with the mentioned second GAA pitch, rezoning of land, but also the proposed stormwater

http://www.okra.nl/


management being dealt with on site from surrounding developments, instead of the capacity being

used to alleviate localized flooding. The community believes that surrounding developments should

deal with their own stormwater management within their own property. It has been suggested that

increased levels of stormwater entering the Atlantic Pond will damage habitats and affect species

such as migratory birds.

Overall, Richard Cronin of Save Marina Park has stated that while the consultation process was

terrible, he feels it could have been worse. Richard feels that decisions on the project were made

between interested parties before consultation with the public began. He now sees the matter

being taken out of local authority hands as Save Marina Park takes their appeal to an Bord Pleanála.


How it would look if the CCB land grab wasn’t facilitated by CCC, Credit: Save Marina Park


With all these factors taken into account, from the community’s perspective, it is clear to see how

any resident would be sceptical of the park’s “benefits”. The rezoning of prime amenity space to the

GAA, at a fraction of the price paid for the land by taxpayers, raises questions of vested interests,

conflicted interests and bias. The use of the parks proposed SUDs to manage stormwater from

surrounding developments and the lack of genuine consultation with the surrounding residents

seems only to confirm that Marina Park has been designed to serve the few and not the many

residents who will suffer due to a token consultation process and bad design.


Top 10

Awesome uses

of Plants


What are the most awesome, unique, awe inspiring, cool planting schemes and plant applications

in the landscape and beyond? Green roofs, living walls, green facades, phytoremediation, moss art,

green graffiti, and mass plantings; there is too much to choose from (I’ll probably end up doing a few

more of these!). Whether it’s ecological, functional, sensory or just simply visually stunning, here’s a

top ten countdown of my favourites. What’s yours?

10. Muscari River, Keukenhof Gardens ,Holland

Consisting of Muscari armeniacum, also known as Grape Hyacinths, the Muscari or “Blue River”

winds through 32 hectares of the gardens and woodland, at Keukenhof Gardens in Holland. Without

a doubt one of the most spectacular sights and most photographed scenes at Keukenhof. Along with

the overpowering visual impact of the planting scheme, the scent from the Muscari helps establish a

truly unique character for itself as an element of the landscape.

Muscari River, Keukenhof Gardens ,Holland


9. The Pothole Gardener

Not content with waiting for potholes to be fixed with boring, depressing tarmac, a guerrilla

gardener from East London who fills potholes with compost, colourful perennials/bedding plants and

then adds toys, doll furniture, etc to create mini landscapes, often with a comedic edge.

Result of a pot hole gardener

8. Gardens by the Bay, Singapore, Grant Associates

The most iconic aspect of the Gardens by the Bay is the Supertree structures. Steel structures,

ranging in height from 25 to 50m. These super structures harvest rainwater, generate energy

through photo voltaics and function as ventilation channels for the parks’ biomes. The structures

are clad with a living wall; consisting of Bromeliads, Orchids and Ferns. The living walls vegtation

passively cools the air entering the ventilation channels into the biomes.

Gardens by the Bay, Singapore, Grant Associates


7. MFO Park, Zurich, Switzerland

The steel structural facade houses an interior courtyard garden and elevated walkway while creating

a historical link to Zurich’s industrial heritage. The facade is colonised by numerous species of

climbers, vines and shrubs. The plant species is split between a mixture of deciduous, semi-

evergreen and evergreen; this allows for precious sunlight to penetrate into the interior courtyard

garden providing warmth during winter, while providing shade in the summer as the vegetation re-

colonizes the structure. The spreading vegetation symbolizes Zurich’s progression from an industrial

city to that of a sustainable and green one.

MFO Park, Zurich, Switzerland


6. ‘Bloom’ by Anna Schuleit

“Bloom” was a temporary living art installation and later on, a social artwork, located within the

walls of the now demolished Massachusetts Mental Health Centre. The installation celebrated over

90 years of the centre’s service and accomplishments, with the use of 28,000 flowers representing

“how flowers are a symbol of healing when they are given to the sick, yet patients of psychiatric

institutions rarely receive flowers. She decided to counteract this absence of colour and life”. Truly,

haunting and thought provoking.

'Bloom' by Anna Schuleit

5. Project: Elevated Wetlands, by Noel Harding Studio

Consisting of recycled plastic materials, the elevated wetland structures contain a recycled plastic

matrix hydroponic growing medium, which is colonized by native wetland vegetation. From the

wetlands, polluted water is pumped, by means of a solar powered pump, through the plastic matrix.

The heavy metal pollutants are then removed from the water supply and absorbed by the wetland

vegetation (phytoremediation), making the treated water safe to re-enter the watercourse. It is an

excellent example of art and function existing in harmony.


Elevated Wetlands, Location: Toronto, Designer: Noel Harding Studio, Neil Hadley

4. Public Farm 1 by Architecture WORKS

Public Farm 1 was constructed in 2008 as an educational and social space that functioned as an

urban farm. Edible vegetables, fruits, salads were located in raised planter columns which grave rise

to an eye catching structure. Along with the more obvious benefits, this planting scheme proved

that urban farms could be designed to be aesthetically stunning, while still performing the desired

function.

Public Farm 1 by Architecture WORKS


3. ‘A Wheatfield with Cypresses’ Green Wall, London’s Trafalgar Square, National Gallery

Based on Van Gogh’s painting of the same name, this living wall is a carbon copy, with plant choices,

based on the boldness of colour, arranged in blocks to represent the painter’s masterpiece. The

scene is brought to life with the added dynamics of texture and movement of the grasses in the

wind.

‘A Wheatfield with Cypresses’


2. Hitachi Seaside Park

Forget that it’s a monoculture and all the negative associations with such a planting approach. It’s

awesome. The pictures say it all.

Hitachi Seaside Park show casing a red sea of planting


1. Wisteria Tunnel at Kawachi Fuji Gardens, in Kitakyushu, Japan.

Magical. Graceful. Ethereal. Awesome. Need I say more?

Wisteria Tunnel at Kawachi Fuji Gardens, in Kitakyushu, Japan

So there it is, what did you think? What’s your favourite and which projects do think deserve to be

on this list (or the next one!)? I hope you enjoyed my countdown and are making a mental note of

where to take your next landscape adventure!


The Native

Debate


Are all native planting schemes as green as we are led to believe? Is it right to use strictly native

planting schemes over those including exotics? Is there any place for exotics in the native

landscape? Is “green guilt” for using exotics misplaced, or is it justified?

Native planting schemes in the landscape have become the centre of sustainable planting design

philosophies of contemporary landscape architecture. The desire to green our urban environments

has spilled over into the mainstream. People want a return to the nature, nature meaning native.

Native planting schemes have many benefits; acclimatisation to climate, less fertilizer inputs, frost

hardiness, water efficiency, plant – invertebrate relationships, habitat restoration, education

& paleoecology; all leading to a higher success rate of the scheme in terms of cost, public

acceptance and performance. On the other hand, many exotic species have not developed the

relationships with invertebrate species, especially pollinators. This can lead to less pollinator

numbers, due to less food, caused by the displacement of native species by exotic species in new

landscape developments. This can have serious impacts on the localized environment, not just

ecologically, but economically as well, for agriculturists and horticulturists. Exotics, by their

evolutionary nature are not accustomed to the climate of their host country, leading to planting

scheme failures in harsh frosts and droughts; this condition is exacerbated by the fact that many

exotics are raised in foreign plant nurseries, not allowing the exotic species to become acclimatized

to their new host country.

Is the way forward to head back towards our natural roots?

However, are native planting schemes the right (only) solution to new landscape designs? Is the use

of strictly native species in the landscape a form of xenophobia? The popularity of native planting

schemes is no doubt, down to the efforts of plantsmen such as Piet Oudolf, Noel Kingsbury and Nigel


Dunnett (check out the images below); but have these good intentions been hijacked by others for

“Green Washing” purposes, to reach LEED & BREEAM accreditation? The whole labelling of plants

“native” and “exotic” is a grey area in itself with the term “naturalized” being added to the mix,

further complicated by several definitions for a “native” plant, each contradicting the other.

“Won’t exotic/invasive species eventually become native over time, especially with climate

change?”

Planting scheme by Piet Oudolf


Planting scheme by Noel Kingsbury

Planting scheme from Nigel Dunnett

This leads us onto the debate ongoing in landscape ecology; the debate of conservation versus

biodiversity. Landscape architecture comes into this discussion with the use of native plant species

in the practice of habitat restoration. While it is a controversial view, some feel that the practice of


strict conservation is self defeating, especially in the face of climate change. It is argued instead,

that the focus should be on biodiversity, specifically maintaining and improving the levels of

biodiversity. Native plants cannot achieve this by themselves, due to the fact that they will become

displaced by climate change.

A stronger argument for the inclusion of certain exotics in planting schemes is their ability to thrive

in the urban environment. Cities pose stressful environments for native plants to survive in,

with less water, higher temperatures, presence of toxic metals in soil, etc. Suitable exotic species

are needed for situations like these, where natives would fail. This serves two purposes; firstly, it

helps ensure the success of the scheme; and secondly, it prevents the occurrence of a native

planting scheme failing, which would give bad press to the use of native plantings in the landscape.

City living, a harsh reality for native plants

The use of exotics in stressful urban environments is itself more sustainable and more “green” than

using a native planting scheme that would struggle to cope with the urban conditions. If a planting

scheme thrives and fulfils its purpose, then what is the problem? Having a native planting scheme

for the sake of it, in the wrong location, will lead to higher inputs and costs; defeating the

sustainable goals of such schemes. It really does come back down to “right plant, right place”,

whether native or not.


Let me say this, I’m not against the use of native planting schemes, how could I be? I know the facts

and their importance. But I also know their shortcomings. Native plants are effective in


environmental conditions similar to the ecologies they hail from. Urbanization and climate change

will mean the displacement and destruction of these ecologies. While this is tragic, a more worrying

point is the detrimental effect it will have on biodiversity, due to loss of habitat; that is if we solely

rely on native planting schemes. We should focus on what species have the most beneficial effect

on biodiversity (and can endure climate change/urban environments), not whether they are native,

naturalized or exotic. Like monocultures and polycultures, a healthy balance must exist, the results

themselves will hopefully end this misplaced botanical xenophobia and ensure future biodiverse

species richness in the face of climate change. I can’t possibly cover all the issues related to this

subject in this article, but I hope it will trigger positive discussion and debate.


“When The

Last River Runs

Dry………”


Water conservation is becoming more and more an ever evident occurrence in our daily lives in

the western world. While underdeveloped countries have dealt with the extreme effects of

droughts for decades, the Western world has escaped much of the hardship through quick fix

solutions. These include damming rivers, piping water halfway across the landscape and installing

more and more irrigation. Something’s gotta’ give, sooner or later.

The current problem in many cities and countries worldwide is declining precipitation rates, a

problem that is exacerbated by aging infrastructure. This is most evident in London, where a hose

pipe ban is currently in place. The situation is so dire at the moment that the ban is being touted to

be in place from now until early 2013. Other problems caused by a combination of intensive

agricultural practices and climate change include soil desalinization and desertification. But

worryingly, 40% of the world’s population currently faces water shortages, with water supply

expected to drop by 30% per person by 2030.

So what’s the problem and what does this have to do with landscape architecture? Well, we are the

ones who specify the lawns and planting schemes that need supplementary irrigation and fertilizers

to stay in pristine condition aren’t we? A worrying fact is that there is 3 times the amount of

irrigated lawns then there is irrigated corn in the US, considering there is no output from lawns, only

wasted input. Irrigation and fertilizer practices are an oxymoron of a solution really, considering

fertilizers raise the salinity of soil and require MORE water to dilute them and prevent a build-up of

toxic levels. But the overall point that defeats irrigation and fertilizer practices is that they are not

sustainable, I mean, if a plant can’t survive in a location by its own means, surely you have chosen

the wrong plant for the wrong place? With the realization dawning on our profession that water will

not always be abundant in our landscapes, changes in practice are necessary.

Solutions? First off, right plant, right place. Better education on plant choices in our profession is

needed. Native plants have an apparent advantage and are well adapted to a site’s climate, but are

not always the solution. Other factors must be taken into account, such as on site micro-climates

and especially in urban environments, the “Heat Island Effect”. This is where drought tolerant plants

come in, native is preferred, but we mustn’t restrict ourselves. It is better to be criticized for using

an exotic plant and for it to thrive than to use a native plant for “greenwashing” purposes and have

it fail. This will only backfire and give bad PR for native plant strategies.

Second, replacing fertilizers products with more sustainable practices. To avoid causing soil

salinization and hence needing more water, we, as landscape architects, should employ techniques

such as companion planting. Soil binders, nitrogen fixers, green manure and pest repelling plants

can ensure that a scheme has its required nutrients and soil structure.

Thirdly, if irrigation is essential, we must look at using water more efficiently. This includes using

grey water from residential and commercial premises for irrigation. Rainwater harvesting is also

another option, with the added benefit of managing all stormwater on site. Using potable water is

wasteful, while the other options help lower costs and relive pressure on infrastructure. Practices

such as these are vital when you consider that while only 3% of the Earth’s water is suitable for

irrigation & consumption, only 0.03% of this available for use by humans.

And finally, employing a planting philosophy that uses water efficiently and conserves it, otherwise

known as Xeriscaping. A practice defined in the early 80’s in response to droughts in the American


mid west, xeriscaping uses a mixture of native and drought tolerant plants and contoured

landscapes to use water efficiently. It is a practice that is gaining acceptance worldwide and will

become a vital element of present and future landscapes.

"Xeriscaping Makes Sense for Our Colorado Climate"


It is clear that the wasteful landscape elements and practices discussed cannot continue, not just

from an environmentally conscience or moral perspective, but from a financial one as well. With the

introduction of water charges and rising water costs due to scarcity, irrigation is soon to become an

expensive means of maintaining a landscape. Another factor making water wise schemes a

necessity is BREEAM. More and more developments are seeking BREEAM accreditation to raise their

projects value, meaning a must for sustainable practices, a cornerstone of which is water

conservation. BREEAM also has the side effect of acting as a “Greenwashing” tool, projecting a

positive PR image of a project to the public.

The question remains, what can landscape architects really do? BREEAM and sustainable landscape

practices are great and everything, but they’re not going to reverse the problem of water shortages.

While this is true, landscape architecture still has a duty as a profession to play its (vital) part in a

sustainable world that is adapting to a constantly changing, emergent environment.


Are

Monocultures

Dead?


Monocultures, or the use of one species in planting schemes and are falling out of favour in our

public schemes. More and more, people are asking for diverse palettes of plants in the landscape.

This has been due to a number of reasons, but mainly because of the shortcomings of one type

planting schemes. This article will summarize the downfall of monocultures, question the success of

their alternatives and look at their future, if any.

Monocultures became popular due the sense of unity and harmony they gave to a landscape. Mass

planting of a specific species can produce a stunning visual impact and provide stronger contrast

against a building or focal point. Monocultures were also as far from nature as one could get,

showing man’s manipulation of the landscape, the person being the centre of the universe, a

common philosophy held in the renaissance, when monoculture plantings were rampant. This style

of planting was a common landscape element in the Italian, French and Baroque Traditions, as well

as the Modernist and Minimalist design movements.

An example of monoculture planting, Hitachi Seaside Park, Hitachinaka City, Ibaraki Prefecture


Hitachi Seaside Park, Hitachinaka City, Ibaraki Prefecture

However, monocultures are extremely energy intensive in terms of maintenance and

fertilizer/energy input. They are also quite low on biodiversity, as the mono-specific species chosen

can only support a limited number of invertebrates and other major contributors to bio-diversity.

These types of planting schemes also have a limited window of function in the landscape, once the

species flowers, the visual interest in that planting bed has disappeared. These planting schemes are

also quite susceptible to pests and disease, while in comparison, biodiverse planting schemes have a

higher resistance to pests and disease. Low resistance to pest and disease leads to the use of

pesticides and fungicides, which can have detrimental effects on the surrounding environment and

poses a health risk to users of the public space. It was these factors, along with the post modernism

and green movement from the 60’s onward that contributed to the downfall of monocultures, a

downfall that is quite evident today.

The work of horticulturists and landscape designers such as Jens Jensen, Nigel Dunnett and Piet

Oudolf has only spread the message of polyculture planting schemes and their importance to the

public. This has led to a call for more biodiverse planting schemes and surroundings that are more

natural. It was this want of people in urban centres to interact with nature that led to the

picturesque movement.

From a development and planning point of view, new building standards and accreditation’s such

as LEED and BREEAM have made biodiverse, native and low energy input planting schemes a must

for many developments seeking to be labelled as “Green”, a label, which these days increases real

estate value.


So, with this in mind, monocultures; have poor biodiversity; high energy inputs; high costs; are

limited to seasonal rather that year round interest; are not the preferred choice of an informed,

environmentally conscious public and it isn’t wise to include them in your designs if you wish to

achieve BREEAM or LEED accreditation………….do monocultures have any future in our landscapes?

On functional grounds it would seem not, but let us not become cold, rationalist designers and let us

see the aesthetic opportunities that monocultures present. Plant species that require little

nutrients, are resistant to disease and have year round interest do exist, ironically, these said plant

species have come into the spotlight due the polyculture enthusiasts such as Jen Jensen and Piet

Oudolf. Perhaps the negative perceptions and the failures of monocultures are down to poor plant

knowledge and misuse? Look at the IADT campus in Dublin, Ireland. The entrance is a monoculture

of Calamagrostsis x acutiflora “Karl Foerster”. A species that flowers in the summer and it turns a

golden brown in the autumn twilight, while its architectural structure remains in winter, providing

habitat for overwintering invertebrates. It is cut back in early spring, but growth resumes and within

3 weeks it has a noticeable presence in the landscape. It can grow in dry and damp soil, suffers from

few pests and disease and requires no fertilizer inputs.

IADT campus in Dublin, Ireland. The entrance is a monoculture of Calamagrostsis x acutiflora “Karl Foerster”.

Or look at the “Salvia River” at the Lurie Gardens in Chicago, visual stunning, a long flowering season,

low maintenance and it attracts a large, visual, number of invertebrates such as

butterflies and bees.


Salvia River, Lurie Garden whose perennials were designed by Piet Oudolf


While I could go on, it would seem apparent that monocultures will continue to exist in our

landscapes, but not in the inefficient way they have in the past. For their use to be justified in

contemporary landscapes, a challenge is posed to landscape architects. If they are to be used they

must be sustainable, especially with the growing desire among clients for BREEAM excellence. The

question of biodiversity and monocultures is another issue to take on board, but perhaps examples

such as the “Salvia River” show that a combination of poly and mono is needed to satisfy aesthetic

and ecological concerns. Indeed, it is my opinion that only this compromise will see the accepted,

continued use of monocultures in the public realm, keep watching this space and see where it goes!

Documents

Environmental Journalism Portfolio