[Noah Mabry]

Mostly agreed. Although we may be able to recite the names of the starchitects (and not so starchitects), the general public cannot.

 

However, I don’t think thats what I’m after when I copmlain about people not knowing what LAs do. I think its just important for landscape architecture as a proffession to have a certain ammount of public awareness, so that when projects arise the people who are the best for the job are actually the ones who are called upon.

 

Also the author of the article makes a good point about preservation. If the public is more aware of the creators of landscapes, then they will more highly value their creations as culturally significant. This is one of the many reasons I’m a big fan of the CLF’s work.

[Noah Mabry]

Thanks Aaron! It’s nice to see some positivity on these boards from time to time…..especially for us recent grads who’ve had a rough time these last few years. I really try to take the long view of things hoping there’s still 40 or 50 years of LA work ahead of me!!

[Noah Mabry]

I suppose I never intended to proclaim the entire body of Field Ops/Corner’s work as superior to everything else. I was really just trying to comment based on the context of the article. That is to say those who are labled as landscape urbanists are producing stuff that I really find compelling. I didn’t mean to get pigeonholed into being some sort of Cornerite.

 

I also hadn’t taken into consideration the whole argument on personal style when making my previous comment either. In fact I may actually have a hard time distinguishing his work from that of other designers if I didn’t know better, but once again, in the context of why NUs and LUs cant get along I was not intending to make a point on any firm or person’s unique style. Which, I suppose, means I should not have called out an individual designer.

 

 

 

  

 

 

And on the point of people skills I think I’d rather talk with an average designer who really  

[Noah Mabry]

Nick, oddly enough I was recently talking with someone about my annoyance with designers over-intellectualizing of projects (mostly just to look genius-er than thou) and one of the points I made was that the highline is not that at all. I suppose if you gave Corner 5 uniteruppted minutes that my point could easily be proved null, but I really think the concept and execution of that project was extremely straight foreward. Also I did recently see a talk where he went way deep into construction process.

 

Anyway, my main point was that this seems like some sort of silly playground “my theory can beat up your theory” argument. The two ideas (in my view) just aren’t polar opposites. They seem like strategies, not paradigms.

[Noah Mabry]

I agree that the article paints LAs as arranging shrubs until 1980….that makes no sense.

 

And as for your direct question….I guess I’m just a sucker for the highline and fresh kills.

[Noah Mabry]

HA! I think you’ve got the gist of it with your post title Jason. I suppose this means we all have to take a side and dig in huh?

 

Maybe I haven’t read quite enough, but why is it that these are are only two options and we must go for one or the other 110%? This sort of reminds me of the split between modernism and mchargism (for lack of a better term)…ie form vs ecology. Why cant they meet based on the problem at hand.

 

I love living in the city and on the whole like new urbanism, but at no point will everyone live in the city so lets deal with that reality the best we can. And on the other hand the best landscape urbainsts (Corner especially) are producing some of the most beautiful, genius landscape work ever, at least in my opinion.

 

I guess I am just glad the story made such a big deal out of LAs, and the fact that they mentioned the landscape urbanism bullshit generator (allbeit with a fit for print name).

 

 

[Noah Mabry]

I totally agree trace. It could be that I just really lucked out with some pretty cool landlords, but I just don’t see the advantage to buying a house anytime in the near future. For years the mantra was that buying a house was an investment that couldn’t go wrong…HA! Also the trend in people hopping from city to city for work is only going to increase, so whats the point of getting stuck with an unsellable house. For too long our society has been pushing the idea that you have to own your dwelling place to be considered successful.

[Noah Mabry]

 

The important thing to notice is that this was a National Association of Home Builders cenference (not exactly the vanguard of the design world). I think that the reason that they were presenting those boilerplate design ideas was more an outcome of who was putting on the event. The NAHB is basically a “we’ll build whatever sells” organization so to me its pretty positive that the gist of the article was them saying that the market is shifting to demand more walkable urban development.

 

 

 

[Noah Mabry]

Hi Nikko.

 

You have a few different points of inquiry there but to hone in directly on the last part…”retain the rural feel to it while letting the adjacent areas being developed” I would recommend looking at a talk by Shane Coen of Coen and Partners. Its on iTunesU if you search for the “Down the Garden Path” lecture series at Princeton.

 

I don’t want to sound like too much of a fanboy as I have mentioned this same talk in a recent post on another thread, however the firm’s work is really beautiful and addresses the very issue you are looking at. I really think that if people want to live outside the city that these projects are an excellent example of how to retain the rural aesthetic and value the context of the place in which they are built.

[Noah Mabry]

I do understand the point that not everyone wants to live in the city, even if it were the most wonderfully designed neighborhood imaginable. However, the prevailing suburban model is not a sustainable alternative in the long run. As Jim Kuntsler says our suburbs are a fantasy cartoon versions of living in the country. The whole article sets up this straw man of super high density crime ridden cities that nobody would ever want to live in because the only transportation is a poorly thought bus system. I think that the real New Urbanist ideal lines up more closely with what was laid out by Roland. 

 

A great example of excellent town design for people who actually want to live in the country that has real value for the people who live there is the work of Coen and Partners. I recently found a talk Shane Coen gave as part of a lecture series at Princeton on iTunes. It’s free and can be found by searching “Down the Garden Path” on iTunesU. He shows how thoughtful design can form viable communities outside of the city proper and not meaningless blobs of development filled with cloned housing stock that ignores it’s context. 

[Noah Mabry]

Although I agree that doing anything compelled only by blind faith is unwise I also dont buy this guy’s argument. First of all if you really love the burbs that much go ahead and live in them, but don’t pretend your promoting sustainability based on the fact that your developement has acres of lawn that you call “pervious area”. Also it seems to me that he is merely substituting his “faith” in curvy roads and full front porches in place of new urbanist design standards he decries in the article (one of which is front porches, oddly enough). He also sets up a total false dicotomy of safe lush lawns of the burbs and high rise high crime cities. And what is more faith based than trusting a software package to do all the designing for you?

 

I really think that since WWII our predominant developement pattern has been the suburbs and therefor until recently there really hasn’t been much of a choice. Our cities are undergoing real changes and a lot of younger people are moving to more urban environments. I will say though that either side acting holier than thou doesn’t much move the discussion in any productive way.

 

[Noah Mabry]

ditto.

 

also i think this article was really focusing on industrial design which is a bit of a different animal.

[Noah Mabry]

As far as HP goes I have always liked their news coverage and I just think the other stuff they throw in the mix is, as you say, dissapointing. I check it all the time for real news, so the fact that this is the chosen platform for TCLF is great and I can’t believe I haven’t stumbled across a post before. It looks like Birnbaum has been blogging there since this summer, so I guess I have some (very quick) reading to catch up on.

 

Birnbaum was a visiting proffessor while at Ohio State when I was there and I attended a lecture he gave at the time. He’s a really thoughtful guy and I really like that the foundation does. We bulldoze stuff in this country so carelessly, and built landscapes are often undervalued anyway I’m glad there’s an organization to defend the ones that are culturally significant.

  

[Noah Mabry]

Amy,

 

Thanks for the link. HuffPo’s non news sections are so often polluted with celebrity gossip and psuedoscience new agey fake health news crap that it makes me happy when something awesome like this gets in.

 

I totally agree with the premis here that LA needs some sort of strong publically visible crit in order to really establish itself as a leading design field in the public psyche.

 

I also noticed the first comment was by Beth Meyer who is extremely articulate and knowledgable on this subject.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Noah Mabry]

I understand your point and agree. It’s just that it seems like right now a lot of firms that are posting for entry level jobs are giving a lot of preference to MLAs. I’ve also heard directly and indirectly from employers that anything above cad/graphics robo work is reserved for advanced degree holders.

[Author]

Posts