June 11, 2011 at 5:12 am #162229Jason T. RadiceParticipant
Here is an article updating the all out brawl between Architect Andreas Duany and Landscape Architect Charles Waldheim and their repected design theories. They met face to face (would have loved to have been there for this one!)
Enjoy!June 11, 2011 at 5:33 am #162237Tosh KParticipant
This seems obscenely shallow…
I would have liked to have read an article articulating the challenges Duany and Waldheim were responding to when they began taking their positions regarding urbanism (Duany I believe is responding to post-WWII suburban sprawl and Waldheim to the urban areas lacking consideration of pre-existing ecological functions). It’s my understanding that NU has pursued the cultural side and has successfully marketed the product (implementation as housing market allows, LU is gradually making its impact in urban infrastructure (implementation as infrastructure gets replaced -currently increasing as our aging infrastructure fails, europe’s is mostly older and therefore sooner). Each has gaps which is written here in part.
I’d like to see MVV’s response to being called a landscape urbanist – if I recall he takes a great deal of interest in the personal experience of space and meaning far more than the LU’s position. Not that it excludes the ideas of ecology and urbanism as a cultural construct, but MVV’s work is far more compelling than most LU work.June 11, 2011 at 11:29 am #162236Trace OneParticipant
Thanks for post, Jason!June 11, 2011 at 2:36 pm #162235mark fosterParticipant
I don’t know a lot about “landscape urbanism”, but it sounds like Arendt’s “conservation planning”. Are there substantive differences?June 11, 2011 at 8:43 pm #162234Roland BeinertParticipant
For anyone who wishes they could have seen this, take a look at the panelists for one of the general sessions at the ASLA convention: http://www.asla.org/2011meeting/EdGeneral.html
Mark, I don’t think landscape urbanism and conservation subdivisions are the same thing. Randall Arendt came to U of Idaho a few months ago and gave a talk and a workshop. I got the impression he was in favor of new urbanism, but thought incremental change was better than large projects.June 16, 2011 at 3:23 pm #162233Ben S.Participant
You can watch the Duany/Waldheim closing plenary at: http://www.cnu.org/closecnu19
Enjoy.June 17, 2011 at 2:38 pm #162232Alan Ray, RLAParticipant
Is this just architects trying to put us la’s in our place, and elbow in on our work?June 17, 2011 at 4:22 pm #162231Baxter (Gene) MillerParticipant
This topic was the conversation flow in the office this week. The video of the talk at the CNU was enlightening and thought provoking at the same time. I have felt the Landscape Urbanism was the correct approach, but there was no name given to it other than stewardship or design with nature neither of which were inclusive enough. And sustainable design was redundant as far as I am concerned. Because why would you design anything that was not sustainable. My hope is that there will be a series of BMP’s that will be prepared that does not require a point acquisition process.June 17, 2011 at 5:51 pm #162230Roland BeinertParticipant
Do you really think this is about landscape architecture vs. architecture? I really don’t think it is. There are plenty of landscape architects who support new urbanism. Personally, I think new urbanist principles are a great starting point for urban design.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.