Love James Corner’s - Pivoting Irrigators. Particularly how it discloses hidden topographies within a dominant structure to re-territorialize repressed ground. |

Rule #3 - Don’t forget Rule #1 

What Makes A Good Public Space?

Last Friday I went to a lecture by historian John Grabowski, Associate Professor of Applied History at Case Western Reserve University. He discussed the urban history of Cleveland, and ended by talking about what is going on in the city today. All of the first years are going on a field trip to Cleveland in a few weeks so we were all excited to see what is happening there. He showed us the redesign of the public square in downtown Cleveland that looks like this: 

(land-studio.org) 

When I first saw this rendering, I wasn’t all that impressed. Grabowski had talked a lot about this historic town square and how important it was. The redesign of the square is in part happening because the city will host the Republican National Convention next year. The white building in the upper left hand corner is a casino, across the street is a church, and in the background, what all downtowns need, more parking lots. My issue with this proposal is the way that it is bisected into two halves, and that there doesn’t appear to be a lot of places to sit. Another member of my cohort and I wondered if there was enough housing in this area to support active and constant use of the square. We were both shocked to discover this design was done by James Corner Field who did the Highline in NYC, a park that has received a lot of positive attention. 

I felt really good on my high horse about this critique, until I saw the old town square, which looked like this: 

(CBS Cleveland) 

Ouch. Even worse. All through-traffic, and pretty sad looking. Landscape architects renderings are always more attractive than a real picture though because of the bright colors they use (tricksters). Still I was shocked to see that this is what the town square looked like most recently. 

I’d like to say that this new perspective changed my opinion of the new rendering but it really didn’t. If Cleveland is going with the philosophy that any change is a good change then that’s fine. But I don’t think that way. I don’t think that public spaces should have to made over, over and over again because redesigns are done in haste. The most successful public spaces undergo minor alterations, of course, to meet the needs of successive generation, but their general design remains the same because it just works. 

This reminds me of all the faith planners and city officials put into redesigning downtown public spaces, particularly recently. CityArchRiver in St. Louis is a perfect example of this. Millions of dollars are invested into these projects, but they aren’t always supported by projects that make people (locals that is) want to go downtown. The Arch grounds project is behind schedule, and now the Kiener Plaza redesign project has been greenlighted. I still don’t think St. Louis has invested enough in the neighborhood to make these places successful beyond tourist destinations though. When I lived in St. Louis, I only went to the Gateway Arch once, and rarely went downtown unless I was going to a Cardinal’s game. I’m sure there are locals who have a different perspective than I do on this, but I think it’s hard for public spaces in a fragmented, parking garage-filled downtown to compete with the beautiful parks throughout the rest of the city. 

(cityarchriver.org) 

I know I’m a skeptic, but I promise I do want these public spaces to be successful. Because successful public spaces help make successful neighborhoods, help make successful cities. I just don’t believe planners and landscape architects and other decision makers are critical enough of these glossy plans. I can only hope that I’m wrong. 

“Why are there so often no people where the parks are and no parks where the people are?”- Jane Jacobs 

Please reference Rule #2

Please reference Rule #1

Counterpoints:

Truly and sincerely? 

Mostly due to the infinite complexities of life in urban environments. And stuff. 

Rule #2: Landscape architecture revels in anomaly. 

Rule #1: Landscape architecture is meaningless. 

Isn’t everything.

Only landscape architecture, politics, and Crank 2 starring Jason Statham

Rule #1: Landscape architecture is meaningless. 

Landscape architecture perfectly idealized and meaningless. Bravo!

Landscape architecture located. 

Please direct thanks and gratitude to Diller Scofidio + Renfro 

ékm architecture’s Stewart Biology terrace is a large central exterior space that connects the four pavilions of the Stewart Biology complex at McGill University in Montreal. About 9000 plants, including flowers, shrubs and trees were planted. The existing vegetation, including a rare Meta Sequoia, was conserved. Waterproofing of the surrounding buildings, including new membranes, flashing and drainage strategies were included in the mandate. I played in a central role in all phases of the project at ékm, from preliminary design to construction administration.

crushed it.