Five Traditions for Landscape Urbanism Thinking
The inspiring traditions in urban planning, design history and related fields may be useful for the development of landscape urbanism thinking to meet the needs and challenges of the ecological and sustainable urban form.
Over the past 10 years landscape urbanism, an arguably new theory of urbanism and urban design, began to be discussed, promoted and popularized among students in landscape architecture and urban design fields in North America and Europe. The core argument of landscape urbanism is that landscape, rather than architecture, can better define urban forms and experiences. Charles Waldheim describes this as “a disciplinary realignment [whereby] landscape replaces architecture as the basic building block of urbanism,” and James Corner considers landscape as an infrastructure of processes and field of operation.
Methodologically-speaking, I prefer to describe landscape urbanism as a “negative approach” as opposed to the conventional (“positive”) approach to urban development, in which urban growth is defined by built, gray infrastructure comprised of roads and pipes that provide services for the urban development. The negative approach considers the green and unbuilt ecological infrastructure (EI) that provides ecosystem services and acts as a framework to define urban growth and urban forms across all scales. It is a recessional figure-ground.
In this sense, five traditions in both the Eastern and Western planning theories and practices inspire the development of landscape (and ecological) urbanism. Feng-shui and geomancy The pre-scientific model of landscape urbanism thinking. The pre-scientific model of the negative approach is the Chinese ancient art of geomancy, or fengshui, which always gives priority to the natural pattern and processes of Qi or breath. Ordered from large to small, the entire national landscape (mountains and water courses) is considered as an interconnected dragon vein and a network of Qi movement. A sacred landscape infrastructure in the fractal form is a given pattern that any human actions must come to terms with. This model was applied to the establishment and construction of villages and cities, roads, bridges and even tombs. All are connected. In this sense, the sacred landscape forms the spiritual backbone or network of the sustaining living environment and becomes the infrastructure that bares genius loci. This tradition still flourishes in rural China and has, for thousands of years, defined the Chinese landscape’s cultural heritage and spiritual bearings. Classic examples of Chinese landscape cities are Hangzhou and the water system of Suzhou City. Feng-shui also exists inother cultures. The famous Incan Empire and Machu Picchu in South America were also based on geomancy and the city was ingeniously designed in harmony with the natural landscape. This is just one example.
Greenways
Landscape as infrastructure of recreation and aesthetic experience. In the US, parks and green spaces have served as fundamental infrastructure to solve urban problems such as congestion and sanitation since the late 19th century. Pioneered by Olmsted, the well cited examples include Boston’s Emerald Necklace and the Minneapolis parkway system. At the regional scale, green spaces are systematically planned as a metropolitan infrastructure, such as the one shown on Eliot’s plan for Massachusetts.A similar idea of natural system protection and green space planning is done even at the national scale in mining. This tradition of park systems and parkways, with its function mainly focused on recreation, has recently been adopted by the greenway movement in the US. However, it is enriched and integrated with more comprehensive functions including the protection of natural resources and natural processes, protection of cultural heritage, and the development of recreational amenities.
Greenbelt
Landscape as urban form maker. The third tradition of landscape as infrastructure in the Western world can be traced to the European practice of greenbelt, green heart and green wedge concepts. These are used by urban designers as stoppers, separators and connecters of urban development to create an arbitrarily good urban form. Greenbelts between city and countryside were established as a planning device during the deconstruction of most European city walls in the 18th and 19th centuries. The greening of formerly walled areas created promenades for recreational uses and city beautification. However, they continue to serve as separators of city and countryside, just as the walls did in the cities of the Middle Ages. At the end of 19th century, the idea of the greenbelt as city stopper was appropriated by Ebenezer Howard and became a fundamental element of his Garden City model. For a century since Howard, green spaces have been planned for structuring, and they define “good urban form”, such as greenbelts for compact cities like London and Berlin; green heart for conurbation; and green wedges for development control.
Similar ideas have been applied in Chinese city planning since the 1950s and still prevail today, such as the two greenbelt plans for Beijing. Current evidence, based on European countries, the US (Washington, DC region), Canada’s capital city of Ottawa, and even Chinese cities including Beijing, shows that these greenbelt and wedge dreams have more or less failed. Evidence also reveals that negative definitions of landscape forms (derived as an urban containment), are hardly successful for protecting open spaces in growing city regions. Instead, landscape must have a positive definition based on the uses and perception of people. This issue strongly supports the notion that in order to have a sustainable landscape and urban form, the conventional planning approach of architectural urbanism and economic development urbanism has to be reversed.
Partly for this reason, in the past decades, especially in the US, the greenway concept has more or less replaced the concepts of greenbelt, green wedge and green heart as urban form makers. Based on multiple case studies, researchers have demonstrated that greenways evolve from an urban design approach that attempts to impose both landscape form and land use function to an ecologically based planning approach that addresses natural factors, connections between natural and urban systems, public participation and support, and innovative government involvement.
The greenways concept has further developed into the more comprehensive and interconnected landscape called green infrastructure (GI). Considered as the maker of “urban form” within urbanizing and metropolitan regions, it is a tool for both “smart conservation and smart growth”.
Similar ideas have been applied in Chinese city planning since the 1950s and still prevail today, such as the two greenbelt plans for Beijing. Current evidence, based on European countries, the US (Washington, DC region), Canada’s capital city of Ottawa, and even Chinese cities including Beijing, shows that these greenbelt and wedge dreams have more or less failed. Evidence also reveals that negative definitions of landscape forms (derived as an urban containment), are hardly successful for protecting open spaces in growing city regions. Instead, landscape must have a positive definition based on the uses and perception of people. This issue strongly supports the notion that in order to have a sustainable landscape and urban form, the conventional planning approach of architectural urbanism and economic development urbanism has to be reversed.
Partly for this reason, in the past decades, especially in the US, the greenway concept has more or less replaced the concepts of greenbelt, green wedge and green heart as urban form makers. Based on multiple case studies, researchers have demonstrated that greenways evolve from an urban design approach that attempts to impose both landscape form and land use function to an ecologically based planning approach that addresses natural factors, connections between natural and urban systems, public participation and support, and innovative government involvement.
The greenways concept has further developed into the more comprehensive and interconnected landscape called green infrastructure (GI). Considered as the maker of “urban form” within urbanizing and metropolitan regions, it is a tool for both “smart conservation and smart growth”.
Ecological network
Landscape as infrastructure for biological conservation. The fourth tradition of landscape as infrastructure is rooted in biological conservation. Biologist Edward Wilson noted that in the expanding enterprise, landscape design will play a decisive role. Where environments have been mostly humanized, biological diversity can still be sustained at high levels by the ingenious placement of woodlots, hedgerows, watersheds, reservoirs, and artificial ponds and lakes. Master plans will meld not just economic efficiency and beauty, but also the preservation of species and races. Concepts such as ecological framework, ecological network, extensive open space systems, multiple use modules, habitat network and wildlife corridors, landscape restoration framework, ecological corridor, environmental corridors, framework landscape and eco-structure, etcetera, are made in different places with different emphasis for the preservation of biodiversity in the context of stressed landscapes. These concepts, although they vary slightly, all indicate that the philosophy of nature conservation is changing from species-centered and site protective approaches in early phases, into ecosystem-oriented ones, emphasizing the significance of deeply integrated conservation infrastructure.
In this tradition, the science of landscape ecology plays an important role. Since its emergence in 1939, and especially through its rapid development since the 1980s, landscape ecology has become the single most important discipline that provides a sound scientific base for the planning and design of landscapes. It is argued that unlike any other discipline, the landscape approach offers holistic assessment and planning tools to define and develop the interface between nature and culture. Hence, landscape, as the place of human interaction with nature, appears to be at the heart of sustainability. The definition of landscape as a heterogeneous land area composed of a cluster of interacting ecosystems is fundamental in such a way that it brings the discipline of landscape into a field of science. This is dramatically different from its poetic and picturesque past. While scientific research provides a great amount of knowledge about the processes, patterns and changes, new shifts are called upon to bridge the gap between scientific knowledge and its application where landscape sustainability becomes the key concept.
In this tradition, the science of landscape ecology plays an important role. Since its emergence in 1939, and especially through its rapid development since the 1980s, landscape ecology has become the single most important discipline that provides a sound scientific base for the planning and design of landscapes. It is argued that unlike any other discipline, the landscape approach offers holistic assessment and planning tools to define and develop the interface between nature and culture. Hence, landscape, as the place of human interaction with nature, appears to be at the heart of sustainability. The definition of landscape as a heterogeneous land area composed of a cluster of interacting ecosystems is fundamental in such a way that it brings the discipline of landscape into a field of science. This is dramatically different from its poetic and picturesque past. While scientific research provides a great amount of knowledge about the processes, patterns and changes, new shifts are called upon to bridge the gap between scientific knowledge and its application where landscape sustainability becomes the key concept.
Ecological infrastructure and ecosystems services
Landscape as integrated infrastructure for sustainable city and land. As a developed version of ecological network, ecological infrastructure gathers the most comprehensive meaning and is considered to be an important strategy to move built landscapes, metropolitan regions, and cities toward a more sustainable condition. The concept of ecological infrastructure originally emerged in the 1980s in two fields: ecocity study and conservation biology. According to available documents, the term ecological infrastructure first appeared in the MAB (Man and Biosphere) program of UNESCO. In the 1984 MAB report, five principles were put forward: (1) ecological conservation, (2) ecological infrastructure, (3) living standard of residence, (4) cultural and historical conservation, and (5) induction of nature into cities.
The principle of ecological infrastructure refers to the natural landscape and hinterland of the city, but is not clearly defined and overlaps with other concepts such as ecological conservation. In biological conservation studies, the term was first used to represent the habitat network and emphasized the biodiversity conservation function of landscape components such as core zone and corridors. From a practical perspective, the practices of ecological infrastructure in the Netherlands are good examples, such as the Dutch Ecological Main Infrastructure, which is made up of natural core areas; natural development areas; corridors or connections; and buffer zones.
But what makes the concept of ecological infrastructure such a powerful tool for landscape urbanism is its marriage with the understanding of ecosystems services. Four categories of services are identified: provisioning, related to production of food and clean water; regulating, related to the control of climate and disease, mediation of flood and draught; supporting, related to nutrient cycles and providing habitat (suitable living space) for wild plant and animal species; and cultural, related to spiritual and recreational benefits. In this sense, ecological infrastructure can be understood as the necessary structure of a sustainable landscape (or ecosystem) in which the output of the goods and services is maintained, and the capacity of those systems to deliver the same goods and services for future generations is not undermined. Ecological infrastructure can therefore be defined as the structural landscape network that is composed of the critical landscape elements and spatial patterns that are of strategic significance in preserving the integrity and identity of the natural and cultural landscapes and securing sustainable ecosystem services, protecting cultural heritages and recreational experience.
The principle of ecological infrastructure refers to the natural landscape and hinterland of the city, but is not clearly defined and overlaps with other concepts such as ecological conservation. In biological conservation studies, the term was first used to represent the habitat network and emphasized the biodiversity conservation function of landscape components such as core zone and corridors. From a practical perspective, the practices of ecological infrastructure in the Netherlands are good examples, such as the Dutch Ecological Main Infrastructure, which is made up of natural core areas; natural development areas; corridors or connections; and buffer zones.
But what makes the concept of ecological infrastructure such a powerful tool for landscape urbanism is its marriage with the understanding of ecosystems services. Four categories of services are identified: provisioning, related to production of food and clean water; regulating, related to the control of climate and disease, mediation of flood and draught; supporting, related to nutrient cycles and providing habitat (suitable living space) for wild plant and animal species; and cultural, related to spiritual and recreational benefits. In this sense, ecological infrastructure can be understood as the necessary structure of a sustainable landscape (or ecosystem) in which the output of the goods and services is maintained, and the capacity of those systems to deliver the same goods and services for future generations is not undermined. Ecological infrastructure can therefore be defined as the structural landscape network that is composed of the critical landscape elements and spatial patterns that are of strategic significance in preserving the integrity and identity of the natural and cultural landscapes and securing sustainable ecosystem services, protecting cultural heritages and recreational experience.
These five traditions and ideas about landscape as infrastructure and landscape urbanism finally unite on the basis of the understanding of natural capital and ecosystems services merged with the concept of ecological infrastructure. Other landscape elements such as cultural heritage corridors, riparian buffers and stormwater management systems, can also be integrated with ecological infrastructure.
It is important to recognize that the conventional approach to urban development planning, which is based on population projection, built infrastructure, and architectural objects, is unable to meet the challenges and needs of the ecological and sustainable urban form and development. It is in this situation that landscape urbanism thinking is valuable. Using the analogy of photography in describing film and picture, or figure and ground, the term “negative” can be used to describe the urban development model being negatively enframed by ecological infrastructure, not the other way around. To say it in another way, ecological infrastructure positively defines the urban form and growth pattern and safeguards sustainable ecosystem services essential for the city and people. Conventionally, landscape and green elements are negatively defined by architectural and built infrastructure. By positively defining ecological infrastructure for the sake of ecosystems services and cultural integrity of the land, the urban growth pattern and urban form are negatively defined. Ecological infrastructure builds a bridge between landscape urbanism, the disciplines of ecology – especially landscape ecology –, the notion of ecosystems services and sustainable development. It is the bridge between smart development and smart conservation.
It is important to recognize that the conventional approach to urban development planning, which is based on population projection, built infrastructure, and architectural objects, is unable to meet the challenges and needs of the ecological and sustainable urban form and development. It is in this situation that landscape urbanism thinking is valuable. Using the analogy of photography in describing film and picture, or figure and ground, the term “negative” can be used to describe the urban development model being negatively enframed by ecological infrastructure, not the other way around. To say it in another way, ecological infrastructure positively defines the urban form and growth pattern and safeguards sustainable ecosystem services essential for the city and people. Conventionally, landscape and green elements are negatively defined by architectural and built infrastructure. By positively defining ecological infrastructure for the sake of ecosystems services and cultural integrity of the land, the urban growth pattern and urban form are negatively defined. Ecological infrastructure builds a bridge between landscape urbanism, the disciplines of ecology – especially landscape ecology –, the notion of ecosystems services and sustainable development. It is the bridge between smart development and smart conservation.
Comments