BOOK REVIEW

P. F. Downton: Ecopolis: architecture and citiesfor a changing climate

CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia, 2009, 607 pp, ISBN978-1-4020-9637-2 (paper); ISBN978-1-4020-8495-9 (hard); 25 cm; color illus

Robert McDonald

Received: 21 April 2009 / Accepted: 20 May 2009 / Published online: 2 June 2009

� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Landscape ecology in America has evolved over time

into a quantitative science. We are more likely to

discuss numerical output from a model than we are to

debate the definition of a landscape or argue about

what a patch is. At the same time, landscape

architecture, and to a lesser extent urban planning,

has become much more conceptual. Theoretical

debates about how to conceive of their craft and

how to describe the urban environment are the norm.

During my brief time at Harvard’s Graduate School

of Design, I saw this gap between landscape ecolo-

gists and landscape architecture firsthand. I had

hoped this book would help bridge this gap.

For landscape architects, this may be a useful book.

Dozens of beautiful color plates and hundreds of

black-and-white illustrations make this book a joy to

flip through. Paul Downton provides compelling

descriptions of his architecture projects in Australia

and elsewhere. For those interested in learning about

urban landscape architecture theory, there is a good

alphabetical summary of theorists. The book is also a

treasure-trove of interesting quotes, everything from

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance to Walt

Whitman.

Still, this book falls short of spanning the gap

between landscape ecology and landscape architec-

ture. This is ironic because the central theme of the

book is the author’s proposal that ‘‘architecture and

planning be redefined as sub-sets of urban ecology’’.

But being part of ecology, part of science, requires

epistemological assumptions that Downton is not

comfortable making.

The environment is more than just a text or

discourse, and writing about the sustainability of

cities is not the same thing as writing about the

aesthetics of art deco. This book treats the environ-

ment as a discussion point, and is more of a treatise

on different conceptions of the environment than the

environment itself. Scientists, of course, believe that

under all these words are facts, whether it’s kilowatt-

hours of electricity used or vehicle kilometers

traveled. Facts are hard and difficult things, and

sometimes our preconceptions about the world

obscure them, but we must attempt to measure them.

That’s why it is scandalous to ecologists to have a

book with ‘‘climate change’’ in its title, and yet little

quantitative discussion of steps architects can take to

reduce heating or cooling costs, reduce vehicle

kilometers traveled, or maximize wildlife habitat in

remnant habitat patches in urban areas. The book

mentions all these topics, but always while discussing

this or that theory of how to conceptualize a city. One

gets the feeling that to the author none of these

theories is right, any more than it is right or wrong to

like art deco. In reality, out of the architectural

R. McDonald (&)

The Nature Conservancy, Worldwide Office, Arlington,

VA 22203, USA

e-mail: rob_mcdonald@tnc.org

123

Landscape Ecol (2009) 24:849–850

DOI 10.1007/s10980-009-9366-4

projects created by practitioners of these theories,

some projects are quantitatively better at limiting

energy use and some are worse. On these terms,

projects are to varying degrees successes or failures.

There are other landscape architects and urban

planners trying to make these quantitative judgments,

among them Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy’s

work on car use in cities, Anne Spirn’s work on urban

pattern and human health, and everyone associated

with the LEED-ND process. With some work,

landscape ecology can speak to these quantitative

thinkers and tell them how particular urban patterns

affect ecological processes. But the chasm between

mainstream landscape architecture and landscape

ecology remains too large to bridge. There is only

so much a scientist can learn from an artistic

manifesto like this book, no matter how entertaining

it is to read.

850 Landscape Ecol (2009) 24:849–850

123