Download - The relationship between landscape representation and landscape design

This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]On: 09 October 2014, At: 20:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of ArchitecturePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjar20

The relationship between landscaperepresentation and landscape designDermot Foley a & Eimear Tynan aa Dermot Foley Landscape Architects , Malpas Street, Blackpitts, Dublin 8 ,IrelandPublished online: 24 Feb 2012.

To cite this article: Dermot Foley & Eimear Tynan (2012) The relationship between landscape representationand landscape design, The Journal of Architecture, 17:1, 119-129, DOI: 10.1080/13602365.2012.659916

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2012.659916

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjar20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13602365.2012.659916

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2012.659916

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The relationship betweenlandscape representation andlandscape design

Dermot Foley, Eimear Tynan Dermot Foley Landscape Architects, Malpas Street,

Blackpitts, Dublin 8, Ireland

Landscape representation

The purpose of this essay is to outline the relation-

ship between current trends in landscape architec-

ture and the forms of representation used by

landscape architects.

Current trends are represented primarily by

means of the eye-level perspective, which is widely

used by leading practitioners such as SLA, West 8

and Gross Max.1 There are many reasons for this,

including the increasingly competitive and global

nature of today’s landscape architecture profession,

the growing influence of ecology and natural

process,2 the phenomenon of image saturation,3

and not least the tendency of landscape architecture

imagery to be used for story-telling rather than the

construction of ‘real’ projects.4 Perhaps more impor-

tant, however, is the fact that landscape architects

are frequently asked—by clients, planning auth-

orities and others—to convey the atmosphere and

character of a place, for the purposes of marketing

a commercial development or displaying how an

individual user will experience the future landscape

of a public park. The complexity and open-

endedness of external spaces, merging and inter-

connected, with open volumes of tree canopies

and other landscape materials, calls for a form of

representation which is visually succinct, allowing

an almost instant impression, and at the same

time suitably vague, avoiding the finished and com-

plete. The eye-level perspective is the most efficient

way of achieving this. Its indeterminacy allows the

designer to suggest and the viewer to imagine, in

a way to which the plan drawing is less suited. The

eye-level perspective, with its suggestive quality,

can allow viewers, if not to see by their skin,

at least to feel that they are somehow in the

landscape.5

Eye-level perspectives, such as those produced by

Dermot Foley Landscape Architects for the South

Boston 2200 project, a finalist in the Shift Boston

Ideas Competition (2009), describe a dynamic land-

scape changing with tidal movement and rising sea

levels (Fig. 1). The perspectives elicit an almost

instant response, trigger emotional engagement and

give the viewer the impression of understanding the

entire project within seconds. Even though complex

and abstract plans were produced as part of

the design process for this project, the eye-level

119

The Journal

of Architecture

Volume 17

Number 1

# 2012 The Journal of Architecture 1360-2365 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2012.659916

Figure 1. Dermot Foley

Landscape Architects,

South Boston 2200,

three perspective views

of proposed tidal

landscape, 2008.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

0:11

09

Oct

ober

201

4

perspectives remain the drawings most likely to be

published owing to their unmediated visual appeal.6

The communication of more basic design ideas

and the decision-making process itself can also be

assisted by the use of the eye-level perspective

(Fig. 2): the image shown here is of a basic three-

dimensional drawing but it conveys several layers

of information—the scale of the space as seen by

the user; the scale and rhythm of the brick and

other materials; the character of the plants; and

120

The relationship between

landscape representation

and landscape design

Dermot Foley, Eimear Tynan



Landscape for a

residential

development,

perspective view of

proposed materials,

2007.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

0:11

09

Oct

ober

201

4

some indication of the construction technique. Even

though this drawing tends towards the abstract it

represents the proposals more accurately than a

combination of plan, section and elevation, in a

way which corresponds to an individual’s expected

experience of the future landscape and which

cannot be emulated by a bird’s-eye perspective. It

is more than a combination of plan, section and

elevation because the information is presented in a

composite way which triggers the rapid response

and sense of understanding. It is at the same time,

however, inferior to the combination of plan,

section and elevation, as it offers only an isolated

portion of the proposal and fails to connect the

detail with the totality.7

It is arguable that the contemporary use of the

eye-level perspective as the primary means of rep-

resentation in landscape architecture was first

tested by Humphry Repton and Uvedale Price.

While Repton’s methodology evolved during his

career, he eventually aligned his practice somewhat

with the ideas espoused by Price.8 Both Repton and

Price contributed to the debate on scenic aesthetics.

Both put forward a naturalistic approach, although

they differed on the detail, and both were con-

cerned with landscape as seen.9

Repton was one of the first landscape designers

to practice in a fashion which is recognisable to con-

temporary landscape architects. The opportunities

for Repton, but also the trials and tribulations of

his career, were born out of rapid technological,

social and political change. His clients were socially

and demographically diverse, the size of the

estates and commissions were smaller than those

of his well-known predecessors, the array of pub-

lished ideas and opinions more extensive and the

profession more competitive. In addition, the wide-

spread impact of technology on the landscape,10 in

ways not directly related to garden design, heralded

the modern profession of landscape architecture as

a wide-ranging design discipline associated as much

with logistics and infrastructure as with gardens.11

Repton communicated ideas and manipulated

scale and perception through his before-and-after

watercolours (Fig. 3). Although he claimed that

these images were intended to exercise the mind

and were not intended simply as pictures,12 he laid

the foundation for the contemporary reliance on

the eye-level perspective as the primary means of

communication for landscape architects.

Landscape design

Before the end of the eighteenth century, landscape

design was communicated primarily through plan

and bird’s-eye view. These drawings were used to

illustrate an imposed order and fixed spatial compo-

sition. Plans were read and understood as strategies

for manipulating space and resources for functional

and economic reasons but also, most importantly, as

an explicit cultural act. Natural processes played a

role but that role was secondary. Critically, the

cultural act of landscape design was intended for

and understood only by an elite minority of clients,

practitioners and critics (Fig. 4).

The influence of natural process as we understand

it today was expressed by Uvedale Price and taken

up to some extent by Repton. Price promoted the

notion that, given time, and protected from the

Improvers, nature would provide its own scenery.13

In doing so he was contemplating what others

121

The Journal

of Architecture

Volume 17

Number 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

0:11

09

Oct

ober

201

4

122





Figure 3. (Top)

Humphry Repton

(1752–1818), ‘View

from my own cottage,

in Essex. [with overslip]’

from his Fragments on

the Theory and Practice

of Landscape

Gardening (London, T.

Bensley and Son, 1816),

hand coloured aquatint,

Yale Center for British

Art, Paul Mellon

Collection.

(Bottom) Humphry

Repton (1752–1818),

‘View from my own

cottage, in Essex.

[without overslip]’ from

his Fragments on the

Theory and Practice of

Landscape Gardening,

(London, T. Bensley and

Son, 1816), hand

coloured aquatint, Yale

Center for British Art,

Paul Mellon Collection.Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

0:11

09

Oct

ober

201

4

123

The Journal

of Architecture

Volume 17

Number 1

Figure 4. Jean

Delagrive, Map of

Versailles, 1746

(courtesy of Historic

Urban Plans, Inc.,

Ithaca, New York, USA).

The abstract nature of

the plan is a tool in

communicating

concepts such as

imposed order or the

absolute power of the

French monarch. Plan

drawings such as this

are often difficult to

interpret.



Time-line illustration of

the two related themes

of natural process (as

found) and image,

2010.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

0:11

09

Oct

ober

201

4

such as the Smithsons, a century and a half later,

called as found. The importance of the relationship

between Repton’s preferred type of image and the

realisation that as found natural process could

drive landscape architecture is best considered in

terms of a time line which highlights how topical

Repton’s and Prices’s thoughts are for today’s land-

scape architects (Fig. 5).

Allied to that, current landscape design ideas are

communicated to and generated by a wide array of

protagonists, including but not limited to clients and

professionals. The eye-level perspective is the tool of

124





Figure 6. Maurice

McDonagh, Raised

Circle, first installed in

Sculpture in the

Parklands (top) and

several years later

(bottom) with

colonising birch and

willow (photographs,

top, by James Fraher/

Kevin O’Dwyer;

bottom, by Dermot

Foley Landscape

Architects).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

0:11

09

Oct

ober

201

4

choice for disseminating ideas to a wide-ranging

audience. The scenic aesthetic of such images is

arguably of more importance and is more complex

than many landscape architects are willing to

concede.14 It is, however, criticised by protagonists

of the ecological aesthetic,15 although ironically it

is perhaps the only type of image capable of captur-

ing the meaning and relevance of designed land-

scapes derived from ecological processes.

Many landscape architecture projects are now

emerging with no particular pre-ordained spatial

composition.16 Process and relationships are pre-

sented as the main organising devices, but a fixed

spatial composition is avoided. This design approach

defines what might be called equational landscapes;

that is, landscapes organised on the basis of a

number of variables, or stimuli, over which the

designer has control.17 Changing one of the vari-

ables sets in motion a process which, although pre-

dictable, is not actually designed in the conventional

sense. It is this type of landscape that Anita Berriz-

beitia refers to when she cites Stuart Kaufmann

(1995): ‘A system poised on the edge of chaos is

capable of producing an overwhelming response

to small, discrete stimuli’.18

In Landscape Strategy for Sculpture in the Park-

lands (2008), by Dermot Foley Landscape Archi-

tects, the variables include time, hydrology,

relative location of layered substrates and intensity

of use (Fig. 6). Time is a factor in all landscape archi-

tecture, but here it is not just a question of waiting

for a particular spatial composition to unfold

through, for example, the growth of trees. Time,

as it relates to the spatial development of particular

parts of the site, is continuously re-set in different

ways on different parts of the site. For example,

selected areas are periodically cleared to expose

the substrate and re-start the ecological process

of succession.

Equational, or process-driven landscape design is

an emerging landscape architecture practice. The

phenomenon is, at least, well established at a theor-

etical level, even though not yet widely practised.

Although there are earlier proposals such as

125

The Journal

of Architecture

Volume 17

Number 1



Comparative plans of

Versailles, Blenheim and

Downsview, 2010.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

0:11

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Neumann and Reichholf’s Ecopark for North Munich

(1995), the OMA/Bruce Mau entry for Toronto’s

Downsview Park (1999) is perhaps the most widely

debated example of process-driven landscape

design for a major public open space (Fig. 7). This

project represents the latest chapter in the tran-

sition, as described below, from Renaissance to

Baroque to English Style to Modern.

The experience of the Baroque garden is sub-

stantially one of movement, from point to point,

along a main axis. Secondary axes, views and topo-

graphy all contribute to the complexity of the

experience, but the visitor is aware of arriving at

a particular point, and leaving that point to move

on to the next point. Surfaces, horizontal, some-

times inclined, and vertical, play a critical role in

establishing the perspective and vanishing point

which is fundamental to the experience. A central

tenet of the English Style is an emphasis on the

surface as opposed to the point. The complex

three-dimensional quality of the surface erases

the single-point perspective and imparts a feeling

of moving from point-locale to point-locale,

where it is not always possible to determine

126







Perspective view of

proposed space for

Qingpu New Town

Landscape and Urban

Design Competition,

2008.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

0:11

09

Oct

ober

201

4

whether a point is being arrived at or departed

from. The location of the point-locale is still critical

but the move away from precise points pre-empts

today’s practice, with the location or even existence

of points not always significant. At Downsview, the

pictures, or eye-level perspectives, by OMA/Bruce

Mau, could have been taken from any point on

the plan. They do not relate to a fully fixed and pre-

127

The Journal

of Architecture

Volume 17

Number 1


Landscape Architects

and Estudio Marti

Franch, Perspective

view for Valdebebas

Urban Park Design

Competition, Madrid,

2009.

Figure 10. Dermot

Foley Landscape

Architects, Perspective

view of proposed river

park for Oltretorrente

Landscape and Urban

Design Competition,

Parma, 2008.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

0:11

09

Oct

ober

201

4

conceived spatial sequence and they do not relate

to particularities of the site such as topography.19

Aspects of the Downsview project will take

decades to unfold but, since the competition,

observers have been critical of the use of certain

types of drawings and unsure of the role played

by the eye-level perspective.

The eye-level perspectives shown in figures 8, 9

and 10, which describe proposals for Qingpu New

Town (Fig. 8; 2009), Valdebebas Urban Park

(Fig. 9; 2009) and Oltretorrente Urban Design

(Fig. 10; 2008), are important tools of communi-

cation and typify the perspectives or pictures used

by Dermot Foley Landscape Architects. As with the

OMA/Bruce Mau perspectives used for the Downs-

view project, they do not explain an overall strategy.

That the viewer’s imagination, however, can over-

come the limitation of frame and viewpoint, and

imagine the rest of the proposed experience,

underlies the deceptive nature of the picture, prom-

ising everything and revealing little. In overcoming

the limitation of frame and viewpoint the viewer

bypasses the complexity of the proposed landscape

and avoids a lengthier but possibly more fruitful dis-

course which would have been triggered by the plan

and other more abstract methods of drawing. It is

precisely because landscapes are so complex, not

despite that fact, that we reduce them to pictures.20

Recent work with video by Christophe Girot at the

Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule (ETH),

Zurich and Krystallia Kamvasinou at the University

of Westminster has the potential to enhance the

qualities and overcome some of the limitations of

the fixed eye-level view point in representation,

but for the moment the eye-level perspective

remains the format most likely to be employed by

practitioners.21

Notes and references1. E. De Jong, ‘Vistas of the Imagination’,‘Scape, 1

(2008), pp. 38–46. De Jong cites the explosion in com-

puter-aided design as one of the reasons for the return

to the scenic qualities of the perspective image,

although he does not distinguish between the bird’s-

eye view and the eye-level perspective.

2. I. Thompson, ‘The Picturesque as Pejorative’, Studies in

the History of Gardens and Designed Landscapes, 26

(2006), pp. 237–248.

3. J. Pallasmaa, The Eyes of the Skin (Chichester, Wiley,

2005), p. 21.

4. M. Dorrian and G. Rose, eds, Deterritorialisa-

tions. . .Revisioning Landscapes and Politics (London,

Black Dog Publishing, 2003), pp. 13–14. Dorrian

and Rose, quoting John Brinckerhoff Jackson and

Denis Cosgrove, succinctly describe the historic

back drop to recent changes in meaning and rep-

resentation of landscape, which have partly influ-

enced the increased emphasis on the eye-level

perspective.

5. J. Pallasmaa, The Eyes of the Skin, op. cit., p. 10.

6. L. Kieper, ‘Envisioning Boston’, The Boston Business

Journal (April, 2010), p. 33.

7. M. Dorrian and G. Rose, eds, Deterritorialisa-

tions. . .Revisioning Landscapes and Politics, op. cit.,

p. 121.

8. S. Daniels, Humphry Repton: Landscape Gardening

and the Geography of Georgian England (New

Haven, Yale University Press, 1999).

9. J. Berger, Ways of Seeing (London, Penguin, 1972).

10. S. Daniels, Humphry Repton, op. cit.

11. Contemporary landscape architects provide services as

diverse as appraisals of route selection for proposed

128





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

0:11

09

Oct

ober

201

4

motorways, mitigation of industrial development and

rehabilitation of contaminated land as well as the

more conventional services such as landscape design

for commercial developments and garden design for

private individuals.

12. S. Daniels, Humphry Repton, op. cit.

13. Ibid., p. 115. According to Daniels, for Price the Pictur-

esque was inherent in the landscape, an objective

quality that could be discovered (or found).

14. Just as Repton defended his water colours as more

than just pictures, today’s landscape architects often

use eye-level perspectives as unbiased, accurate

renderings of future landscapes evolving from

natural process. In both cases the impossible is prom-

ised and the eye-level perspectives, although evoca-

tive, can neither predict the exact spatial qualities of

a landscape derived from the scientific principles of

ecology, nor replicate the actual experience of the

future landscape.

15. For a discussion of the complexities of establishing a

nature aesthetic as opposed to a (predominantly

visual) landscape aesthetic see K. Soper, ‘Privileged

gazes and ordinary affections: reflections on the

politics of landscape and the scope of the nature

aesthetic’, in, M. Dorrian, G. Rose, eds, Deterritoriali-

sations. . .Revisioning Landscapes and Politics, op. cit.,

pp. 338–348.

16. Examples include Neumann and Reichholf’s Ecopark

for North Munich (1995), the OMA/Bruce Mau entry

for Toronto’s Downsview Park (1999), and the Land-

scape Strategy for Sculpture in the Parklands by

Dermot Foley Landscape Architects (2008).

17. D. Foley, ‘Sculpture in the parklands – equational land-

scape’, paper presented at the As Found conference,

University of Copenhagen, 2010.

18. A. Berrizbeitia, ‘Scales of undecidability’, in,

J. Czerniak, ed., Downsview Park Toronto (Munich,

Prestel Verlag, 2001), p. 120.

19. Ibid., K. Hill, ‘Urban ecologies: biodiversity and urban

design’, p. 100.

20. C. Bell, J. Lyall, The Accelerated Sublime (London,

Praeger, 2002), p. 8.

21. C. Girot, ‘Experimental videos on the perception of

landscape’, in, E. Mertens, ed., Visualising Landscape

Architecture (Basil, Birkhauser, 2010), p. 119;

K. Kamvasinou, ‘Notation timelines and the aesthetics

of disappearance’, The Journal of Architecture, 15

(2010), pp. 397–423.

129

The Journal

of Architecture

Volume 17

Number 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

0:11

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 2

0:11

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Download - The relationship between landscape representation and landscape design

Top Related