If you folks haven’t already seen it, I can’t recommend this article on Will Allen, founder of Growing Power and a ‘street farmer’ in Milwaukee, highly enough. I’m not even going to pull a quote from it – just go read the whole thing. Given a choice between having the career of Rem Koolhaas, or the career of Will Allen, I’m not sure which I’d pick – though I would argue that Allen’s work has a far bigger impact socially, and potentially ecologically and economically, in a given locale than Koolhaas’s (obviously this ignores the ability of Koolhaas and similarly distinguished members of the academy to shape theoretical discourse on urbanism – but now that the era of iconic city images is drawing to a close, or at least shifting priorities, how much does this academic influence matter? This is something I need to think on more).
Maybe the bigger issue here is that such a choice isn’t ever presented to young designers of buildings and cities. Reading this reminded me of an experience I had when I was about halfway through architecture school. As I was walking toward Thom Mayne’s new (at the time) Federal Building, I passed a percussionist absolutely shredding on a set of upturned buckets. The street, for blocks in either direction, was alive with his soundtrack – it enveloped that corner of the city. Coincident with this experience, I could see the top of Mayne’s building towering above the rest the city as I drew nearer. The disparity in affect between the vibrant immediacy of the drumming and the iconic, static Federal Building was almost comical. This guy with twenty bucks worth of buckets and old pans was adding more to the social milieu than a few hundred million dollars worth of contemporary architecture. Contra Ouroussoff, I wasn’t even allowed into the lobby, nor were any government workers “mingling with the masses” in the plaza.
There are a ton of counters to an argument which contends bucket percussionists are a more valuable addition to a city than contemporary architecture; by no means is this an argument I’m trying to make. (An obvious one: when done tactically, with a sensitivity to the surrounding urban condition and a sound financial foundation, this sort of development can act as precisely the sort of anchor which attracts new shops and residences, and thus pedestrians, and thus drummers.) I think where I was heading, before getting wildly off-course, was that I get incredibly excited by things like urban farming, which have all the excitement and accessibility of street performances; combined with the social, ecological, and economic transformative potential of the very best traditional architectural and urban projects (‘traditional’ is meant here to signify projects which revolve around the creation of form and space, not an aesthetic style). I wish that strategies like these were awarded more credit in the upper echelons of architectural and urbanist discourse.
Ah, also, I apologize for the terrible pun in the title.
I think that you’re getting at a really important question, which I’ve been dancing around for a while as well. I haven’t really come to any particular conclusions at this point (though maybe if we talk about it I will), but I’ve noticed that the things that I am most interested in studying (as a landscape architect) or that I am most interested in the effects of on the landscape are generally not things designed by landscape architects at all.
I tend to think, along the lines of what Varnelis has suggested, that this is an argument for expanding the field of interest for the design disciplines, not for abandoning them. But it could also be that the study of landscape/architecture ought to move more towards what the study of philosophy is: an inculcation into a way of thinking with a very broad and loosely-defined set of applications, rather than apprenticeship in a particular set of skills.
[…] one such strategy for applying architectural tactics to a much broader set of situations and materials, Stephen, from Rebar (who are perhaps the best current example of a group doing such things, at […]
Hey guys,
Nice couple of posts since i last stopped in.
This post specifically speaks to me. As someone very interested in issues of urbanism, landscape, ecology and infrastructure but without any (as of yet) formal training in the fields (and as the current holder of a previosuly earned graduate degree) i continually am trying to ascertain whether or not i shoudl go back to school in order to get some “credentials” to allow me to more easily enter the fields. Even just from a networking perspective. The hardest part for me isn’t even do i go back to school, but for what? It seems like there are so many ways to get at such issue. The more i think about it the more i am convinced that (at least for me)an March o rLarch isn’t necessarily the way to go. Almost seems like community orgamnizing or some sort of degree in sustainable development or some sort of unified interdisciplinary program that crosses all boundaries (of which i have found maybe 2-3 worldwide) would be the best fit. The basic idea though that it may be easier to “effect” change within the context of social/community development and outreach as opposed to a specific professional degree seems if anything to gain more truth as times continue to move forward…
Any suggestions?
I think those are very good questions, Nam, and I’m not sure I can really answer them.
I do think there’s a lot of value in the kind of thinking that architects and landscape architects do, and that probably the best way to be trained in that kind of thinking is through a degree program.
But, with that said, I’m also pretty sure that its possible to learn to think architecturally without studying architecture in a formal context. And that it would be great to have more people who are not trained as architects but are dialoguing and working with the design disciplines (though not necessarily within the design disciplines). And that where we choose to go to school and what we choose to study is overrated in terms of its determinative effect on future options (though, as you say, networking with like-minded people is one of the most important functions of grad school).
I’m curious about the interdisciplinary programs you’ve found — what/where are they?
Totally agree with you re: the value of March and Larch just i feel sometimes they are too focused on site/object specific issues. Although obvs many people in both professions have done outstanding job thinking at larger scale and along mor epolicy/implementation lines.
I will look over my notes once i get home from work and pass on.
But off the top of my head i am thinking along the lines of recent programs (at a number of state schools and actually my old alm mater U of F is in process of doing this as well) wherein they at a minimum combine landscape architecture and urban planning programs/degrees to focus on larger landscape scale urban issues. Thus heightening the ecological/landscape but alsourban/planning/policy nexus that exists within such work.
[…] against that background, and what we know about how cities develop, ‘designer’ seems a remarkably inefficient career choice, at least when acting in isolation. Most of the urban projects we would love to see implemented […]