13.09.04
Response
Response – 1st reading:
• I agree with the new paradigm of ecologists viewing (and modeling) ecological processes as dynamic, even chaotically evolving systems. I also agree that ecologically sensitive design should not be the conglomeration of principles expressed as a kit of parts. This technique is often devoid of context or region. I liken it to a residential development full of different model homes. Landscape architects should employ an intrinsic knowledge of ecological processes to address and respond to the dynamic and ever-changing environments in which they design.
Response – 2nd reading:
• I think Cook fishes a bit too much for an argument, but still had some points relevant to our Venetian endeavors. Architectural drawing is speculative and a vital part of any design process. It should also remain so, as digital representations often times take too long to effectively produce in a design charette. This does raise the issue of taking care in the way architects and landscape architects represent their spatial and cultural ideas. This is essential when compensating for the dimensional shortcomings of drawing and the issues of scale and modeling. Drawing and speculation is a prime way of hypothesizing the disturbances an intervention will cause to a site.
Posted by dwd4f at 13:48 | TrackBack
synthetic ecology::articulating dynamism in the landscape
Robert Cook draws upon the emergence of a new ecological sensibility - the "new paradigm" as he calls it - while advocating a deeper understanding of the changes in ecosystems. Too often, designers seek to identify the climax or ideal moment in a habitat or plant community by which to model or graft their design upon. Whether or not this eco-sensibility is superficial, the argument Cook extends finds fault with a static snapshot of landscape ecology. What happens after the project is completed? What if the maintenance regime is not continued? Why don't designers allow for an emergent system of processes within their intentions?
I suppose the crux of this perspective is seeing the designer as catalyst, not simply as mastermind. Here, the author's role in manipulating the human intervention erodes with time, evolving with changes in the land. More specifically, human processes are designed to collaborate with or augment the ecological processes of 'nature.' Because, in the end, the new paradigm sees the existence of human and natural ecologies as virtually the same, shared ecology.
The question, then, is how to process the process? Where does the break between representation and articulated dynamism occur? And at what point does a design on the land become reposessed as piece of shared ecology? This articulation of process, of a design aesthethic that merges with and supports an emergent ecology, presents a method for dealing with a city of flows.
Posted by jrl6p at 13:41 | TrackBack
09132004.reading response
when discussing representation, can we consider the essentialism that evans describes to exist today through the use of computers in the design field? have CAD programs allowed for the translation between drawing and built form to become even easier? throughout the school, one can see numerous cases of highly manipulated graphics that start to allow the drawing of the design to become a work all of its own. however, in most cases, these graphics are just masking the design that is ultimately the most important piece. how as young designers can we move in-between the big business of construction drawings and pieces of art? is there a modern day ‘technique used by artists and architects to counteract the rampant instrumentality of essentialism?’ (15) maybe the answer to this lies in the time that it takes for the form to be translated from the drawing or idea.
i am surprised to see that Cook’s new paradigm of ecology was published in 2000. has the language and thought amongst landscape architects changed that greatly in four years? possibly with just one hour on the fourth floor of our building, one would start to understand how science and design go hand in hand in both landscape and architecture. space [and the ability to conceive of it] is a huge part of our fields, however it is not without consideration of time and science and definitely not thought of as a ‘static vision.’ (130) as designers, I believe that we are all working toward developing forms that are continuously progressing over time and are able to meet and contend with the chances that both ‘nature’ and culture produce.
Posted by kristy at 13:36 | TrackBack
A Disturbed Venice
Cook describes a healthy ecosystem as “an integrated, efficiently functioning entity that can be defined, described, and measured quantitatively.” In looking at Venice in this light, it is easily understood that Venice is not a healthy ecosystem, even for the simple reason that it does not function efficiently. The Venice of today relies upon the influx of tourists each day to be economically stable, and this is an unstable network. The real problem in this ecological system is that the cause of “disturbance” (i.e. the tourists) is not an external component, but has rather become an integrated part of the city’s life. Since the tourists have become part of the whole society of the city, Venice has lost its ability to reach equilibrium.
Another problem also appears, one of sciences versus aesthetics that Cook points out. In working with the maps and networks of Venice, it seems nearly impossible to make all decisions based scientific data without some personal interpretation. This is not necessarily a problem for the average tourist or visitor, but once the component of change or alteration of the city, based on these assumptions, is opened up, the possibility of immense problems and destruction/disturbance occurs. What are we basing our ideas upon – scientific data or aesthetic assumptions??
The idea that “all landscapes are vernacular landscapes” was also quite interesting because that seems to ring incredibly true for it is impossible really to have possession of the land. But this also speaks directly to one of the problems with Venice and why it becomes so overrun by tourists and lacks a place for the Venetians to inhabit. Can the places and spaces of Venice ever be constructed or rearranged to satisfy all those who use them??
Posted by aks3j at 10:25 | TrackBack
renewed paradigm
Although we are far from the way of life of our early ancestors, the "new paradigm" seeks to spur us to our roots. Robert Cook names Louise Mozingo's position the "new ecological aesthetic." Is the idea of assigning aesthetic value to ecological design really new? Is that not the way in which native societies build/t? The secret city of Machu Picchu utilized local building materials to create a place that was clearly a product of human engineering and aesthetic, but also visually and ecologically tied to its context. A site of social importance, the spring-fed terraces also served to religiously and nutritionally sustain a human population.
Presently, globalization and technology has increasingly divorced us from our native ecosystems. In a new paradigm, designers of Venice must seek to harness the two in order to enhance an affect upon our surrounding systems.
didn't see/pick up the Evans reading on Friday, entry/response to be continued.
Posted by akc2q at 10:05 | TrackBack
12.09.04
landscape arch in venice
A few comments in response to reading "Do Landscapes Learn? Ecology's 'New Paradigm' and Design in Landscape Architecture" by Robert E. Cook --
Cook's argument that the new paradigm in ecology has implications for landscape architecture is quite compelling: new paradigm = working landscapes/landscapes that work = a system of processes. This idea of LA as a system of processes is quite relevant for Venice. It challenges us to think about how landscape architecture/arch. can illustrate process in design -- not just in representation but in the actual (un)finished product.
Is history such a strong force in Venice that it keeps us from designing process? No -- I think it is perhaps the only way to evoke change in a city so entrenched in history. Landscape architecture as the way to innovative design in Venice? Now I'm just full of myself!
It does, however, have some validity. Water = process = design possibilities. Venice can evolve through 'disturbance' in the landscape. Perhaps the incorporation of water processes - such as filtration, collection, conveyance - into the design of landscape in Venice can be didactic and a necessary function of life in the city?