Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 4, 2010 at 12:47 am #166678Jonathan StaldineParticipant
Definitely going to check out that BricsCAD! Thanks for the heads up!
December 4, 2010 at 12:46 am #166679Jonathan StaldineParticipantAs a student, I see this everyday I’m in studio. Two of our professors have awesome hand graphics, and the ability to draw something beautiful and expressive on the spot is really impressive. Other faculty are much more reliant on technology. As a studio, I think we have a respect for the old school, but we tend to want to integrate technology wherever we can. I personally feel like hand graphics have a lot more to communicate, if they’re done well. Sketchup looks cartoony unless you really know what you’re doing with it. my hand graphics are pretty decent, but my perspectives look a lot tighter and go a hell of a lot faster if I throw down a quick and dirty sketchup underlay than using a perspective chart.
June 15, 2010 at 3:13 pm #169115Jonathan StaldineParticipantI pretty strongly agree with Andrew, it’s actually a fact that really bothers me sometimes… even in the academic world. I recently had a project involving a stream reclamation near Boise. The so-called creek is heavily channelized, with banks largely in excess of 1:1 slopes, in gravelly, sandy soil prone to high salinity. Nasty. Our objective stated a naturally inspired reclamation, but most of my classmates dropped the natural concept at regrading the stream and introducing sinuosity back to it’s character. A ‘riparian corridor’ of between 150 to 300 feet wide was more or less the status quo and most did not follow native plantings at all – instead we were encouraged by the instructor to remove massive amounts of topsoil and replace it with soil brought in. All this in an area that receives around 9 inches annually, largely in the fall and winter months.
I feel that often times a meadow is a wonderful concept, but it fails in practice, and it is hardly suitable to shady sites. If that became the next big thing, how will the future prove it to be any different than ground covers? If anything, it can introduce a host of new problems, new vectors, and definitely new concerns. I’m from NE Wyoming, short grass prairie land, and believe me it is rather flammable, particularly when you add in ecological plantings like sagebrush.
Many times a whole plant becomes pariah labeled as highly invasive or noxious when in fact, only the species or particular cultivars are really of concern. Creeping Jenny is a notorious groundcover, but the cultivar ‘Aurea’ is much, much more behaved. Properly bounded, and routine maintenance instructed and enforced there is no reason why we should all cast away groundcovers.
On a whole level, I believe that we should develop a greater understanding of the nature and character of our own surroundings. I’ve noticed that a lot of what happens in this field seems to be driven by fads and trends. Pick up any monthly issue of Landscape Architecture and I can almost guarantee that somewhere within it’s covers green roof structures are exalted, meadows are praised, and bioswales are end-all-be-all answer to the sins of modern man. Properly sited, any one of those things can be a great asset. But they are not a holistic answer to every question, nor is banishing all groundcovers, or striking Groundcover from the English language.
Sorry Thomas, but blanketed “answers” have never really served the world well.
-
AuthorPosts