[Tim Waterman]

A healthy combination of pragmatism and idealism is what’s called for at the moment. I think that at present we have as strong a sense of ourselves as a profession as we have ever had, combined with the certainty that the work we do can be a tremendous force for positive change.

On the other hand, we’re in a lousy job market that no amount of ‘soul-searching’ will rectify. You can’t seek inside yourself to correct a problem that is external and systemic (leave the soul-searching to the financiers). What you can do, though, is:

1) Create amazing visions – a bit of spare time and teamwork and drive spawned groups like Archigram and Superstudio
2) Keep designing – whether it is pro bono work or guerrilla gardening or small projects (there were a great many architect-designed chairs produced during the Great Depression)
3) Get involved – your professional organisation needs you to promote and defend landscape architecture – remember that you’re a member and not a beneficiary

Hard-headedness and determination wins the day over either rosy positive thinking or grey depression in times like these. And this is absolutely and utterly the time to act on all that idealism you learned in school!

[Tim Waterman]

I have recently wrestled with a cohesive definition, having just published “The Fundamentals of Landscape Architecture”.

I began with a quote from Kathryn Gustafson – “If there’s sky, it’s mine”. I love that quote! For me, that defines it. Here is the first paragraph of my introduction for those who aren’t satisfied with a simple 5 word definition:

“When asked where landscape architects work, many people might point out their back door to the garden. It would be more accurate, however, to look out the front door. The landscape is anywhere and everywhere outdoors, and landscape architects are shaping the face of the earth across cities, towns and countryside alike. Landscape architecture involves shaping and managing the physical world and the natural systems that we inhabit. Landscape architects do design gardens, but what is critical is that the garden, or any other outdoor space, is seen in context. All living things are interdependent and the landscape is where they all come together. Context is social, cultural, environmental and historical, amongst other considerations. Landscape architects are constantly zooming in and out from the details to the big picture the ensure that balance is maintained.”

From Tim Waterman, “Fundamentals of Landscape Architecture”, Ava Books, 2009. Shameless self-promotion, I know . . .

[Tim Waterman]

An earlier post displayed a standard misspelling for genius loci – it’s the ‘intelligence’ of the place, hence ‘genius’, rather than the taxonomical ‘genus’.

This is where Lancelot ‘Capability’ Brown got his name – speaking of the ‘capabilities’ of the place. ‘Sense of place’ is more or less the same thing, but such a hackneyed phrase that it is nearly meaningless.

Site, context and concept sort of sums it up. We assess and redirect the interplay of dynamic forces (human and otherwise) on and around a site, and apply a concept to serve as a convenient shorthand to allow for rapid comprehension.

[Tim Waterman]

I’m sorry I missed the conversation. This is an important topic. It might, perhaps, be more important to be vigilant about the work we already do instead of looking to ‘fringe’ markets. Building architects, many of them unemployed, are also looking to ‘diversify’ – and gosh, doesn’t the landscape look interesting. So many timely issues about climate change and sustainability . . .

(See building architects talking about their future at http://www.architecturefoundation.org.uk/news/2009/aug/and-now-what-rethinking-spatial-practice-watch-online)

Here in Europe we still haven’t effectively seized upon the European Landscape Convention as a treaty that we must support and defend. It is also an immensely valuable tool to promote the merits of our profession. What we need most is a concerted global effort to bring landscape architects’ voices to the forefront of discussions about sustainable futures.

A commonly heard complaint is ‘If only a landscape architect had been employed from the beginning.’ Why not begin to push for policy and law that places landscape architects up front in planning?

[Tim Waterman]

Thanks Adam,

I knew there would already be a bandwagon to be jumped upon! Perhaps I can help bring London on board. Google streetview has most of it covered now. I will stick myself into research as soon as my teaching duties let up a bit over summer.

[Tim Waterman]

Yes, definitely. It may very well need to be an interactive, but moderated project that uses a platform such as Google Earth. I think that it could get out of hand, with every firm putting all their work up, whether it was of merit/worth visiting or not, so perhaps it could be limited to award-winning, published, or historic landscapes and built works?

I am happy to help in any way I can, and I can write grants or ask for support, etc, etc, etc. There are many variables on such a project, though, that would need to be considered, and I think it would need the help of a whole community of users such as that of Land8lounge.

[Tim Waterman]

Kate,

I am sorry to have provoked a diatribe in this thread. You asked a simple question and deserve answers that stay on topic. I wish you best of luck with your choices. All issues aside, the UK is a great place to be.

Tim

[Tim Waterman]

It’s a wonderful program. I was a classmate of Matt’s, and I received my MLA in 2004. I’m now teaching and writing about landscape – and living in London where there is a small network of ex-RISD students. It is definitely hard work, and there are many times where you will be a bit lost in the dark, but it all adds up and you will be a very well-rounded professional with exceptional design skills, an ecological consciousness and expansive context. Providence is an odd town, but it has distinct charms and it is within easy reach of Boston and New York.

[Tim Waterman]

Dear Kate,

I’m an American who has worked and practiced in the UK, and I now teach landscape architecture at the Writtle School of Design in Essex. It is worth looking carefully at all the UK schools, as they each have their own specialties and each has quite a distinct character. The education you will receive in the UK is very different from the US in terms of the structure of the classes and schedule and also, to a certain extent, the subject matter. I love living (and teaching) in England, and I love being able to escape easily to the European mainland.

The Landscape Institute has suffered some upsets recently, as have so many other organisations. They have had notable triumphs as well, however, and I recommend looking at their new website at http://www.landscapeinstitute.org and their informational website (which I’m proud to say I helped to write) at http://www.iwanttobealandscapearchitect.com. Their recent conferences have been wonderful and the magazine has been steadily improving. I would highly recommend contacting them directly for more information about schools and education in the UK. They are always helpful.

Good luck!

[Tim Waterman]

Hi Lucy,

I posted the article below on Talking Landscape under the title “EGM mired in misunderstanding and mistrust”. It’s a bit long, but maybe it will help a bit:

“Last week’s Extraordinary General Meeting of the Landscape Institute’s membership was a demoralising and sorry affair, with discussion revolving around intractable absolutes based upon ‘principle’. Alarming, truly, when the key strengths of our profession are the ability to see and evaluate context and nuance and to frame a long-term vision.

It is particularly vexing that this misunderstanding should come at a point when the Landscape Institute has finally been showing real focus and ambition, based in the knowledge that the answers to the pressing issues of our day, such as climate change and the insecurity of our food supply are to be found in the landscape. Not once in the EGM did either the membership or the Institute staff think to evaluate the bigger picture and the LI’s long-term goals.

The meeting consisted almost entirely of a discussion based in the erroneous assumption that the LI seeks to dissolve the library and archive – the intention, rather, seems to be to relocate both, but still under the aegis of the LI. I have read back through communications from the LI, and not once was there mention of putting it all in the bin. It came as a shock, then, to spend a depressing evening discussing empty conjecture. And the rancour was in full flow – one member actually compared the relocation of the archive to the Kristallnacht. This is reckless, dangerous hyperbole that shows an utter lack of context.

Further, mention was made of the RIBA’s recent relocation of their archive to the V&A – -as a bad example. I think it sounds delightful to have our profession’s patrimony lodged in such an august institution. Can we please consider this possibility? I would be happy to make a small donation towards the cause.

I am utterly dedicated to the idea that our profession holds many of the keys to a better future – that building architecture is the profession of the last, often disastrous century and that holistic, large-scale and wide-ranging work in landscape urbanism, architecture, planning and management could well save the planet. I think that those greats represented in the archive would agree, especially Sir Geoffrey Jellicoe, whose “Landscape of Man” points directly to such scope and possibility.

I beg of the membership for cool heads to prevail. Can we frame this discussion in terms of the future and in terms of the most pressing priorities both for the profession and for the planet? Compromise will clearly be necessary, and we must base any future discussion upon clear understanding and communication.”

[Tim Waterman]

The issue of landscape is quite central to the work that we do, and seeking to diminish its importance in the title could possibly be counterproductive. Will Alsop, the architect and (for better or worse) urban designer has taken the profession to task recently, stating that he consistently works with landscape architects with no understanding of soils, plants, geology, etc. I had occasion to argue with him, and to change his mind a bit, but I still left with the nagging feeling that he was, to a certain extent correct. We have become so defensive about the title, and we’ve tried so hard to distance ourselves from garden design that we have put ourselves at a remove from what has historically been our stock in trade. Worse, we are competing directly with building architects when we build treeless, plantless, “iconic” (argh!) spaces. If anyone asks me about diseases on their azaleas, I’ll answer them happily, but I’ll also take a bit of time to explain the scope of the profession.

There are a couple of terms I have come to appreciate recently, and to try to use with regularity:

“The architectures”, which refers to the whole set of spatial design and planning professions, including town planning, interior architecture, landscape architecture, building architecture, and even often civil engineering. This reflects the interdisciplinary nature of the work we all do, and helps to play down the role of the egotist/prima donna and establish collaborative practice and mutual understanding as the order of the day.

“Environmental architecture” is a term I ran across at Waterstone’s bookstore, which allowed them to conveniently place urban design together with landscape architecture. Interestingly, many of the ‘garden porn’ books that the RIBA bookstore most irksomely likes to identify as landscape architecture are shelved in the gardening section or in photography.

I still don’t see a good alternative to the term landscape architect, and the key is to educate the public about what the landscape means and what it includes (namely, everything – “If there’s sky, it’s mine.”, proclaims Kathryn Gustafson). The landscape – and not just the environment – needs to be moved high up on the political agenda and it needs to be lobbied for and shouted about most vigourously.

Ultimately, though, I think I might like to be called simply an architect, and then I can go on to explain to people that I work with the landscape, which, of course, they’ll understand because of all that education. It may well be time to bring the architectures together under one roof again, especially if we can all learn to share. The future of the planet may well depend upon such a holistic structure – and for a lot more humility and understanding from all the architectures.

[Tim Waterman]

Gabriel,

Many thanks for your images. They’re great – and thanks also to the others who have contacted me with images.

I will be finishing up the initial image list over the weekend, but I may well come back with more requests as the book shapes up. Everyone should feel free to continue to send images over the weekend.

Best wishes,
Tim

[Author]

Posts