SITE MATTERS
WORDS Sally Peake
NZILA President, Principal at Peake Design
IMAGES Glen Jansen
In this brief discursive article, I will explore how our view of sense of place as practicing landscape architects has changed over time and how this has affected our ability to create sense of place. I should also add that this will be a very personal view and reflects my own journey as a landscape architect and urban designer, although I hope it will also be provocative and relevant to today’s students and practicing professionals.
I will start with my ideas on what is and isn’t sense of place - and this means omitting the contemporary part of the question, which may be considered an oxymoron. This is because for successful placemaking to be present it has to be contemporary or relevant – that is “belonging to or occurring in the present” . By this I do not mean that it has to be “timeless”, more that it has to respond to those people using or passing through the space on a personal level.
This is in contrast to the definition in Wellington City’s Our Sense of Place, which considers that “sense of place is defined as its unique character or essence”, or Place + Differences = Sense of Place. I have a problem with this definition because it ignores the personal and emotional components of placemaking that I consider to be essential.
In terms of how the concept of landscape architecture and sense of place has evolved over time, my 1907 edition of The English Flower Garden and Home Grounds (first printed 1883) , William Robinson says of landscape architects, “stupid term of French origin implying the union of two absolutely distinct studies one dealing with varied life in a thousand different kinds and the natural beauty of the earth, and the other with stones and bricks and their putting together”.
This indicates firstly that English landscape gardeners thought that landscape architects were redundant, and secondly that design of gardens, parks, and civic spaces (and discussions about sense of place) were firmly about how best to imitate nature. In the background were debates about art and science or “human – environment relations” . By 1948 landscape architecture in Britain was strongly established as a profession and more influential in relation to wider environmental and social issues. However, debates over the role of techno-scientific rationality and aesthetic values continued and the role of “nature” was still important in providing sense of place. Nevertheless, landscape had moved beyond design of gardens and civic spaces, and was considered to be about “the relationship between the use and beauty of nature” and its “proper adaptation” (with reference to protection and planning). In this way, placemaking had moved beyond imitating nature and was now interconnected with social and cultural influences.
Over the intervening decades (dating back from the 1960’s and 70’s) our perception of landscape and its meaning have been thoroughly canvassed through research and practice. And, more recently, Francesco Repishti explores human-environment relations in Shifting Landscapes where he notes final acceptance of “the conflictual interaction between human activity and the environment” and considers the concept of landscape to include “every physical, human, cultural, social, perceptive and economic element”.
Clearly in my mind, therefore, sense of place is much more than our relationship with nature or place, even while our understanding of human-environment relations and what constitutes landscape or landscape architecture continue to be debated. For example, it has been suggested by Thwaites and Simkins that techno-scientific rationality and dualistic human-environment relations are a constraining influence to understanding place experience, and that this affects landscape architecture’s “capability to develop landscape conducive to the achievement of human fulfilment” (if in fact landscape architecture can be expected to achieve human fulfilment?).
Certainly, understanding how place is experienced is fundamental to the design process, but I suggest this lack of understanding is not the only reason why our contemporary public places are confused, complicated and overdesigned. A particular problem, in my opinion, is the design and implementation process itself, which has become regulated and over complicated. Indeed, design method has become its own area of study, with analysis/synthesis problem solving models and tools often perceived as a defining characteristic of the design profession. As a result we often get locked into rigid procedures and complicated methods that hinder both creativity and design (including inclusion of users and other stakeholders in design).
With regard to the implementation of designs, similar processes occur in the name of efficiency and transparency with formulaic and formalised production processes replacing unique place-based construction, including apprenticeship and craft traditions.
On a more personal level, I have always been interested in the extent to which a “responsive” design contributes to a valued and used place, and this formed part of my research and Master by Design studies at Unitec, where I explored ways of providing personal investment in public space (and, more specifically in that case, streets). By this I don’t mean only physical investment, but also (and perhaps more importantly) ‘imaginations’, where individuals and groups are able to develop their own physical and personal relationship with a place, not prescribed by regulation or use. In addition, I propose that we need to look at using a generative design and implementation process, one that enables a place to be adapted by users and be flexible over time. To take this a bit further, I suggest there are four key parts:
Firstly, providing for ‘imaginations’ means creating a place that offers a range of un-defined uses and flexibility for different users and experiences. This recognises that Auckland has different user groups with different backgrounds and that we should not impose our preconceived views on how places will be conceived or valued. Above all we need to provide space for imagination, uncluttered by ‘stuff’ (or at least have ‘stuff’ that is open to interpretation and use).
Secondly, and coupled with this, is the idea of unregulated use and development. I firmly believe that we should have undeveloped places and gaps in our cities, both for ‘imaginations’ and in order for a city/place to be robust. Cities need to be able to change over time (to grow and adapt to changing circumstances) and, in my view, creating stylised and completed places stifles imagination and precludes adaptation. For examples, I think of the early British community gardens that were commonly perceived as wasteland but were valued and used by children and schools to learn about the natural environment; and the successful Greening the Rubble and Gap Filler programmes in Christchurch where temporary design has enabled positive sense of place and engagement by the community.
For these reasons I have to confess that I am not a fan of codes and covenants on open space, which tend to lock in designs and regulate use of places. How can we encourage personal investment personalise in such places? Where is the ability to provide for emotional attachment? And how can they change or adapt over time?
Thirdly, we should not fear intuitive design. Apple Inc. has firmly demonstrated the continuing success of its products through the use of good design to meet the needs of its consumers. At the heart of the company’s success is the simplicity of using its devices, which virtually eliminates the need for an instruction manual - users find their way with ease and benefit as a result. We could learn from this – in the design and planning of our towns and public places. We need our places to be legible and responsive, and we need to be open to the idea of collaborative and non linear design processes. We also need to provide for existing and future users and their values and attributed meanings of place, without imposing our own conception of order or values.
Lastly, we need to look at embracing more flexible implementation processes to optimise place-based solutions and decisions. More and more, we rely on drawings and load the ‘front end’ of the design process with a rigid end plan. As a result we increasingly divorce ourselves from the site and potentially limit design solutions to those that most suit the selected implementation/construction process (often at a higher cost). Procurement options other than preselected tendering are rarely considered, so that working with an artist, craftsman, client or contractor to develop a unique and site specific design is extremely difficult. Most commonly this is also the process prescribed by Council, which is also likely to require acceptance of the lowest price.
So, to tie back to the start of this article, while I think as a profession we are strong on dealing with “the stones and bricks and their putting together”, I fear that we have not come far in embracing “the varied life in a thousand different kinds and the natural beauty of the earth” which are fundamental to us both as landscape architects and our creation of sense of place.
