Alsop and Schwartz debate

Martha said it all! Thank Heavens we have her voice, vision and passion as part of our profession. Thank you for sharing this.

I saw that a while back. He does come off as pompous. If you’ve ever seen his work, you’ll agree that he should probably reel his attitude in a bit. Perhaps his concepts and the functionality of his structures shed a bit more light, but he has mastered the art of designing peculiar objects.

good grief! This is horrible..Schwartz did a terrible job – listen to Peter Calthorpe on contemporary architecture – they have commpletely abandoned the idea of connecting to the earth, to the human scale..fitting in to the neighborhood. Contempoary architects have completely abandoned the social responsibilty to public spaces, it is all sculpture, or maybe the interiors work, I don’t know..But good grief, don’t toast this guy – architects have completely failed society and then they call us gardeners!!! Enough, already…Nothing new, I k now, but to not even point out the failure of the ground plane, in the buildings of Koolhaas or – the guy who designed the guggenheim bilbao – sorry! Complete disregard for the social fabric….C’mon Martha, you don’t need to be nice to him!

“Having majored in architecture for a few years in college before switching to planning, I think architects and engineers still have the upper hand, but the next few decades will see more of these professionals recognizing, and eventually deferring, various skills and responsibilities to landscape architects. One of the biggest flaws in each profession is recognizing each of their own limitations: so many designers think they can do it all and better, and then they are put in their place, either by the clients who pay the bills or the communities who approve the projects.”

Precisely! There is a very good reason we have titles along with job descriptions of what we can actually do… and do well. As an LA, I may have a great working knowledge of building retaining walls because I DO understand grading and drainage and the need to move soil around to fit a design. However, even though I am trained and very adept at working with the geomorphic conditions of that site… unless I also have the expertise of the geologic conditions below the site (ie, soils report)… my walls may not pass the test of time.

I may be very aware of the need to incorporate design strategies to camouflage utility boxes within a large condo complex… however, if I am not privy to where the utility lines run into and through that space (ie civil plans)… my design for planting 36″ boxed trees adjacent to that utility line is never going to be brought to fruition.

The examples are endless of how we need to work together in order to make a project viable… not only aesthetically, but practically speaking as well. None of us can afford to believe that our respective professions are meant to cover all bases.

“I would argue that we all should have the traits of patience and adaptability to thrive as landscape architects. If you worry too much about who gets to do what, it probably is not the best profession to be in. Not because you should roll over, but that you need way more patience and adaptability to deal with those other things (water, weather, climate, soils, light, …) than you need to swallow your pride and deal with your role on a specific project.

Does that make any sense?”

Of course. although I’m not really sure who specifically you are referring to (if anyone) when you state “Not because you should roll over, but that you need way more patience and adaptability to deal with those other things (water, weather, climate, soils, light, …) than you need to swallow your pride and deal with your role on a specific project.”

If I’m not mistaken, I believe that one of Martha’s key points was that ‘our role’ as LAs in general had been erroneously defined.

Actually, I think there are a lot of generalities and blanket statements being thrown around in this interesting discussion that aren’t necessarily applicable to every situation. It is my opinion, however unpopular… that an architect has every right to create a building, irregardless of the ground plane. And, and LA has every right to create space that ignores existing buildings. That is part of the creative process… to include or to exclude depending on the design concept.

However… sometimes, I think we all get so hopped up on the icing, that we fail to even consider the cake until we actually have to bite into it.

Trace One, can you provide links to the specific New Orleans projects you are referring to? Thanks.

Do architects have a right to ignore the ground plane? Did you ever see the plaza around the World Trade Centers in new york? The wind was incredible…I think we learned in the sixties that design in general and urban buildings in particular do have a responsibilitiy to the public…So I disagree..It is like the AIG guys saying they have no responsiblity for the rest of us investing schmoes..Sorry, there is a social fabric…architects hae gone backwards intensely, in the past 10-15 years…they don’t even try..not all of them, of course..and of course Zoning regs generally enforce a sort of hideously realized design of the social fabric…But we all live all together. I hope we never see another plaza like the World Trade Centers, but every single hi-profile building contract that I can think of does an injustice to the human scale, these days..and that is where I live..