Joe began his presentation with a great introduction to contemporary urban climate research, which provided the essential framework with which to explore his entire project.  Background on the type of research that has been done, the findings, and some of the shortcomings fit the Urban Street Canyon project into the broader picture of urban climate research.  While the more mainstream points linking urban climate research to global climate change were interesting and important to include, I found the discussion of lesser known research especially intriguing.  I encourage Joe to expand the discussion about the changing surface of the planet within cities and about how cities will be the ultimate victims of climate change.  The arguments Joe presented were strong, so it was surprising to hear how under represented this research is; a discussion about these points would be interesting to include in the background section of the web presentation.

After giving a good introduction to contemporary urban climatology, Joe took a more detailed look at urban street canyons, discussing both their geometry and contributions to the urban climate.  The technical concepts were presented especially well with well-designed diagrams and charts illustrating the points.

I found it interesting that despite all the research Joe presented, the ideas of urban climatology have not been looked at outside of the relatively small body of researchers who focus on urban climatology. Why has the research been unable to penetrate other fields? Why haven’t planners been involved? Given the current public interest in climate change and sustainability, why haven’t the related elements of urban climatology been added to the discussion?  I encourage Joe to delve into these questions and to offer some insight on what the future might hold for urban climate research.

One part of this discussion I found particularly interesting was that the lack of visibility may be a possible reason for its inaccessibility to the public.  If Joe chooses to look at these ideas in the final write-up, it might be interesting to explore images of the urban climate. While the technical diagrams did a good job of presenting the research, they did not relate easily to everyday experiences of the city. Joe should explore images and presentation tools that might better relate to the general public.  For example, the sky factor views were expressive of the concepts Joe discussed and were easily related to common experiences.  Perhaps Joe could use images of snow drifts to illustrate the wind patterns? I know Prof. Spirn has some really interesting images of the model she made of Ohio that traces wind patterns through the city. Images (pictures or sketches) might help the reader relate better to the technical diagrams.  Even if urban climatologists and planners use relatable images, will it be enough to generate long-term and passionate interest?  What images can urban climatologists use that gets similar responses to sustainability’s sad polar bears?

Perhaps the only way to get public attention is to relate the research to catastrophe.  What might the tipping point be? At one point in the presentation, Joe mentioned the dispersion of pollutants and perhaps classifying heat as a pollutant to gain public interest.  I would be interesting in learning more about these ideas.

Overall I found the presentation informative and fascinating. I encourage Joe to take a critical look at the future of this field and how it might be integrated into public discussion. I look forward to reading the final write-up and maybe even a published article!

Disuse and Reuse of Railroads

I found Jaime’s presentation on the disuse and reuse of railroad corridors very interesting.  Much of the mega infrastructure that was such a powerful symbol for America during the 19^th and 20^th centuries is dying, but still represents a huge part of the landscape: a graveyard of industrialization.  As Jamie demonstrated, these monuments to our industrial past still have a significant impact on the natural processes and ecological systems that shape the environment today.   Jaime did a great job of demonstrating how the ideas of urban nature that we have been discussing this semester apply to these very specific and historically significant areas.

In reflecting on the three cases discussed in Jaime’s presentation, I find the emerging themes of re-wilding and constructed natural landscapes particularly interesting. I was fascinated by how the history of the rail system contributes to new ecosystems. In the Sudgelande example, the seeds that fell off of the trains contributed to new habitats after World War II.  I am reminded of the artist in New York that allowed a vacant lot to re-wild in order to show the natural landscape as it existed before urbanization, but, instead the lot grew invasive species that reflected the development of the city.  I wonder if the plants around the Sudgelande tracks reflect the trade history in and out of the city. Have any of the ecologists working in the area looked at the ecology from this perspective? I know that the design of the High Line integrates the historic tracks, how do they address the ecology?

The issues of natural re-wilding and constructed landscapes also speak to the themes of improvisational uses versus constructed design and informal uses versus formal uses. The case studies Jaime presented represented the range of natural and constructed and informal versus formal. It might be interesting to compare how the mix of uses in the case studies contribute to their success.

In thinking about all of these tensions that appear in these cases studies, I find myself wondering what the future of these kinds of spaces are.  The number of abandoned rail corridors is likely to go up and the vacancies might provide interesting opportunities for development. In the final write-up I think it would be interesting to hear Jaime’s stance on what the future might be for these kinds of parks. What can cities learn from the case studies? What approaches should cities take when addressing these abandoned spaces so they don’t become arbitrary? What factors need to be considered to gain the most from the opportunities theses spaces offer? How can the spaces be better connected to the cities and more meaningful to the residents?

I think the case studies Jaime presented are all interesting and offer interesting models to cities who may want to use the opportunities from vacant rail yards. Well done!

I appreciated Thom’s description of the current state of the Denver greenway in terms of the history of human intervention with the South Platte River. While much of the negative effects of man on the river system had to do with industrialization, it was interesting to learn that bureaucratic inaction was to blame for the slow recovery of the River. Discussing how the political and bureaucratic frameworks have functioned and currently function with the greenway adds an interesting dimension to Thom’s project.  I would be interesting to learn more about  how the catastrophic flooding of the river was a turning point in the development of the greenway. To what extent did the flood affect the various stakeholders? Is the flood still alive in Denver’s collective memory? Does the memory of the flood continue to affect the development and use of the greenway today?

I also found the discussion of the how the Denver tax system has affected the greenway’s development quite interesting.  If Thom chooses to discuss the political frameworks that shape the project in depth, it would be helpful to provide more detail about the tax system and how it serves the greenway.  How does it work? How is it perceived by the tax payers? How does the tax system contribute to the greenway’s development? Does it contribute to equitable development?

I also found it interesting that all the work has been funneled through one non-profit foundation that, Thom seems to suggest, is closely tied to city politics. What biases does this system impart? How does the foundation’s original vision relate to current residents’ needs and demands?  Has the foundation been able to adapt its mission over time? How will these dynamics affect the future of the greenway and its relationship to the changing urban population?

In addition to the discussion of the political systems that are at play, I was very interested in the discussion of the history of the relationship between the greenway and the residents of Denver. I think this would be a good theme to push in the final write-up of the project. In the discussion, Thom mentioned that the goals of the greenway foundation may no longer be congruent with the needs of the people who use the space. Who are the people the greenway is meant to serve and what are their needs? What are the inconsistencies between what the foundation provides and what the people want?

Toward the end of the discussion, we started to look at how the history of the Denver River and the outcomes of the greenway might contribute to further development of the space around the river and to Denver itself. For the final project, I think it would be interesting to include predictions about how the greenway might continue to develop and what its role in the community might be in the future.

Overall, I found the ideas about the Denver greenway that were presented and discussed intriguing, and I am looking forward to looking at the final product.

Bjorn took on a big topic when he decided to look at the role of geothermal energy in cities as a major heating source and a way to create place. He began with an introduction to the evolution of geothermal technologies and then discussed three case studies of the use of geothermal energy in Boise, ID, Reykjavik, Iceland, and Philadelphia, PA.

The background information he provided about geothermal energy technologies was essential to understand the three case studies presented. However, it was difficult to provide a comprehensive overview of the technology during such a short presentation. For the final write up, I think it is important to include this discussion, but, in order to make it doable, you might want to focus on the areas most relevant to the case studies and any conclusions you make. Based on the discussion in class, I think it would be especially helpful to examine how geothermal technologies affect natural processes. What are the risks? What are the implications of depleting the aquifers? How long is the technology viable? I also think it would also be interesting to compare geothermal energy with other sustainable energy technologies.  Because geothermal technology is such a large topic, and not all of it is relevant to your topic, it would be helpful to direct readers to good websites or other sources for more information that may be outside of the focus of the study.

One thing I found very interesting was that despite the long history of geothermal technology and the increasing need for alternative energy, geothermal energy has yet to catch on.  The discussion focused mainly on the lack of knowledge of local leaders, the lack of comprehensive studies and data on the plausibility of using geothermal energy, and the inability of geothermal energy to mesh with existing city heating systems. It would be interesting to include a discussion of maintenance and standardization problems. Overall, this discussion pointed to one of the biggest issues, which is the lack of precedents for using geothermal energy on a city scale in the US, especially in areas that have to convert from other energy technologies. How might the case studies help form precedents? Another interesting question that was brought up during the class discussion was how to get the technical information from the engineers to the public in an accessible way. Are there non-profit or advocate groups that do this work?

Although it was hard to fit all of the material into 20 minutes, I found the emerging ideas connecting geothermal energy sources to methods of place making over time extremely interesting. To further explore and focus this discussion, it might be interesting to separate these examples into artistic applications that make geothermal visible and into place making applications that use geothermal energy sources to create and define space. How do the two types of uses create different kinds of space? Do they communicate important ideas about geothermal technologies? In exploring the ideas about place making, it might be interesting to lookat the historical examples discussed in the beginning of the presentation.  I think it would be especially interesting to look at how the historic examples, such as Roman baths and settlement patterns, relate to the modern place making ideas discussed in class.

I thought the presentation was very interesting, however, I feel as though the time pressure prevented us from discussing everything you had researched. I think once you have determined your critical stance on the geothermal case studies and the place making ideas, the written part of your project will be more focused and you will be able to fit all the pieces together. Overall, I found this to be a very interesting project. I can’t wait to read the final version!

Reflections on “The Toronto Waterfront”

Erik gave an interesting and well researched presentation on the design competition winner for the Toronto Waterfront within the context of Toronto’s history and the emergence of the field of landscape and urbanism. I found that the presentation was not only informative about the specific project, but also provided an interesting inside look into the design competition world.

I really appreciated how you used integrated timelines in the presentation. It helped to illustrate interesting connections between the history of the Toronto waterfront and landscape and urbanism. I hope you can work this into your website design! A lot of the discussion afterward focused on the academic processes that played a role. While the presentation did include some background on this, it might be interesting to have this aspect play a larger role in the timelines, especially in how it connects to other political processes.

 During the discussion, one of the most interesting questions that came up was about the jury process. How was the winning design determined? How did the jury and competition process affect the decision?  Who was involved in the processes? How did academic connections and networks play a role? Where there other political organizations and major stakeholders that played a role? How were they involved? In addition to looking at how the design was chosen, it might also be interesting to explore the losing designs. How do the other short-listed designs compare to the winner? Taking a step back, it may also be interesting to explore why the design was chosen via competition. Were there other options considered? How did the competition process shape the final design? We started to discuss these topics in class, and I think including them would be a great addition to the project.

 Coming away from the presentation, my biggest question was, What’s next? What’s been implemented? How is the city planning for the long, phased implementation process? How will the drawn-out process fit in with the rest of the waterfront and the city?  How will the implementation of the project respond to time? Is the project adaptable? What will happen to the waterfront if the plan fails? What problems do you foresee? How might Toronto prepare for or respond to these problems? I think addressing the future in your conclusions, and your insights, would add a lot to the project.

 I found the process oriented approach–rather than focusing on the details of form–was especially interesting. I look forward to reading the final write up!

I found the ideas in this project fascinating. I am very interested in how different types of public art shape the urban aesthetic and, in particular, how different motivations from the groups responsible for the art contribute to that aesthetic.

I think structuring the study around the contributions of the artistic process and the actual product of the artistic intervention is very interesting.  I have found that there are a lot of supporters for a process oriented approach because, some argue, that it has more direct impact on the community and better addresses their needs.  For me, this always brings up the issue of time. After the participants have grown up or left the neighborhood, is there still a connection between the mural and the community? Is there a way to make permanent mural installations more flexible and adaptable to a changing community? Is there a way to integrate murals into the urban environment without losing the benefits of the process?

I do agree that it would be interesting to look at the motivations of the people behind the installation of the murals. Analysis the relationships between policy makers, funding organizations, and artists and how these relationships contributed to the final product could be very interesting. By looking at how the top-down structures impact even grass-roots organizations, other contributing factors may come up. For example, the Toppenish project seems to have strong connection to the tourism industry. How do economic factors play a role in the creation of the murals and what the murals ultimately represent?

In my own research, I have found that may people consider contemporary installations of public art to be too closely tied to political or economic motivations. As a result, the current body of public art is mediocre and doesn’t contribute artistically. How might the murals in these three case studies fit into this argument? If process is the driving force, does the artistic value of the final product even matter?  Another aspect of this is placement; where a city chooses to put art can be very significant. I think adding a discussion of where these murals are located and how that impacts their audience would help to explain how they fit into the urban aesthetic.

Farmers markets

One of the most interesting things I found in the discussion of farmers markets are the emerging arguments over what agricultural values farmer’s markets should represent. Should the farmers goods here be held to higher standards?  What agricultural practices must people adhere to in order to considered “farmers” in this context?  Are farmer’s markets a vehicle for getting special foods to a particular group of consumers? Or should they be about getting local foods to local consumers?

I have never really thought about these questions before. Growing up in a rather typical New England suburb, I have come to see farmer’s markets as a place to get local produce that is somehow better than what I can get at a supermarket. For me, I think farmer’s markets are more about local fresh produce than specialty organic foods.  I also wonder how these ideas translate abroad where outdoor markets are a much more common way of buying food.  How do different definition and values of agriculture shape the way people relate to farmers markets?

I think looking at the different ways in which people relate to farmers markets, not just the elite, would add some more depth to the analysis. Looking at the different ideas about farmers markets might also help to better clarify how farmer’s markets relate people to nature, agriculture and space.I think the thoughts on how to better connect farmers markets with natural systems is very interesting. I look forward to reading more about your proposal on your final website.

Freiburg

 I found Deva’s study of Freiburg particularly interesting because, as a cutting-edge green city, one would imagine that it embraces many of the themes of nature, sustainability, and resilience that we have been discussing all semester. However, it seems to me, that Freiburg has taken a more technology oriented approach that may remove it from both the city’s biological and ecological processes as well as sustainable systems that do not rely on advanced technologies.

How does the city define sustainability? What values concerning sustainability are implied by the city’s design? Who are the stakeholders that are shaping the sustainable practices? The ideas of tourism and marketing have been brought up a few times in the presentation and in people’s responses. How does the desired image of the city contribute to its sustainability goals? Because Freiburg’s identity is defined by sustainability, I think it is important to question how the city defines sustainability, especially in terms of how they practice it. Does their investment in technology reflect real values of sustainable living or do the city’s practices reflect marketing strategies?

It seems to me that Freiburg’s image is closely tied to technological advancements in sustainable design. A few people have commented on how this connection with technology may impact the city’s development and ability to stay cutting-edge. However, I think unwavering adherence to advancements in technology should be questioned. While replacing dependence on fossil fuels with renewables such as solar has environmental merits, it does not address how people relate to energy consumption or reduce their need.  I would be interest in seeing if Freiburg has made any significant effort to use existing traditions in design and architecture in innovative ways.  Even though modern advancements in sustainable energy technologies will have a big impact on our cities, I think it is important that people realize that these technologies aren’t the only driving force; design alone can make significant contributions.

When looking at the different definitions of sustainably and the different approaches taken to achieve it, it might be interested to look at other cities with similar sustainability agendas.

I grew up next to a cemetery, and I have always considered the cemetery to be just another element of public space. For me, Sleepy Hollow Cemetery was a natural place in which to play, to explore, and to learn.  At different times, the cemetery acted as a park, a playground, a dog walking area, and even a classroom, as Author’s Ridge was a common place to go to complete class assignments.  At various times in middle school, I studied the grave stones, memorials to Concord’s famous writers, and even the trees for a science project. At the same time, the cemetery was a place of rules. Increasingly, I have noticed the strictness with which people use the space.

In light of my experience with the cemetery, it was especially interesting to learn how the locations and perceptions of cemeteries reflect changing ideas about the relationship between nature and the city. I very much appreciated how Deborah traced the history of the cemetery movement through Boston-area cemeteries, many of which I have visited. I also found the clever use of primary sources in the forms of writings, images, and grave markers helpful in understanding how people related to death and cemeteries during the different cemetery movements discussed.

In both Deborah’s presentation and paper, I found the discussion of how emerging perceptions of “landscapes of life and death” contribute to changing uses of cemeteries particularly intriguing.  As I said, cemeteries have been frequently-used places in my life. In addition to Sleepy Hollow Cemetery, I spent a great deal of time in Mount Auburn Cemetery, which is located across the street from my middle school. Many of my art and earth science classes took field trips to this site and used it almost as a nature laboratory.  It had all the elements of nature that we needed and was a safe place for kids. In light of these experiences, I found it interesting that this landscape was created as a monument to “great men” and that, after it opened, it quickly became a new urban strolling ground.  Subdued forms of recreation have always been part of this landscape.

At the same time, I remember the Concord public high school being reprimanded for encouraging similar uses of Mount Auburn.  One of the freshmen science classes does an extensive leaf project, which requires students to collect leaves from common and uncommon trees around the Boston area. As usually happens with these sorts of projects, the parents end up doing the grunt work, which apparently resulted in masses of parents raiding Mount Auburn and pulling branches and leaves off a certain uncommon specimen.  Needless to say, the cemetery did not care for the disruption and tried to ban people from the practice.

From my experience, I agree with Deborah’s idea that cemeteries have become as much as for the living as the dead. However, I would argue that cemeteries really only support a certain subset of the population.  The design of cemeteries has catered to secular human uses, but for whom?  It seems as though cemeteries are generally accepting of limited recreational and educational uses, but what is that limit?

In expanding on the idea of recreational uses of cemeteries, it might be interesting to look at the regulations that control use. When are people allowed in? Are all areas open to the public? Are dogs allowed? Are there noise restrictions? Are there officials patrolling the cemetery? Regardless of people’s existing perceptions of nature and cemeteries, these factors would control their ability to use the space freely. Do these sorts of regulations contribute to people’s perceptions of cemeteries?

Continuing with on this theme, I would be interested to hear more about the role of environmental regulation and general cemetery policy. I can imagine that formal regulations would not only control where cemeteries can develop, but also affect how people use and relate to cemeteries. How do environmental regulations effect the location of new cemeteries? What about existing cemeteries? Do environmental regulations affect their development?  How do environmental regulations affect people’s use of cemeteries? Are perceptions changing as we learn more about the environmental hazards of traditional cemeteries?

I think it would also be interesting to explore the relationship between environmental regulations and cultural practices. How do they affect each other? Which one yields? Interesting examples to look at might be New Orleans and Venice, where high water tables and limited space change traditional practices of burial.  For example, due to lack of space and health concerns, Venice dedicated one island, San Michele, to burial. Burial practices were also adapted to the environment (i.e., burial is above ground, not underground) and emerging understandings of sanitation. Today, the island doesn’t have enough space and, as a result, bodies are exhumed after a certain number of years.  At the same time, religious and cultural practices are very much present, both in terms of Catholic traditions and the laws regulating that only Venetians can be buried there.

I found the presentation, the paper, and our discussion about how cemeteries reflect changing perceptions of nature very interesting. One might expect that because the definition of what a cemetery is at its core ─ a place where we bury our dead ─ culture’s perceptions of the space and society’s engagement of the space would also be clear cut. The presentation did an excellent job at showing that this is not the case. I think it would be interesting to go back to the initial readings about ideas of nature and see how the broader arguments in those papers are represented through the evolution of modern cemeteries.

Reflections on “Blue Cities”

Jaleh’s presentation demonstrated very thoughtful and thorough research on a very interesting project in Boston. I thought the project goals and the way in which the non-profit group presented their research and goals for the project were very interesting. However, I think it would have been interesting to look at outside opinions of the project from other organizations, academics, and neighbors.  Is the research well regarded by experts in the field? What have other organizations done in this area? How do local residents feel about the project? Are they supportive and active in its implementation or are they apathetic? I think looking into these areas would add depth to the solid foundation Jaleh has already created with her research of the Blue Cities Proposal.

For me, one of the most interesting aspects of the presentation and discussion was looking at the images created by the organization and the before and after photos.  The idea that these images failed to accurately represent the complex theories and concepts of the written proposal was fascinating. In the web essay, it might be interesting to include some of these observations. What specifically did not make it into these images? Who was responsible for the written plans and who was responsible for their translation? What was the source of the disconnect? How did this disconnect impact the plan and its implementation?

Another aspect of the project that I found interesting was its location in Alston, which has been going through a lot of neighborhood changes due to the secretive Harvard takeover of the area. How does this project relate to that time line? How did the report address these changes? I think it would be interesting to look closely at Harvard’s role in the neighborhood to what role it plays.

While addressing all of these areas is out of the scope of the assignment, I think it would be interesting to take a critical stance of the Blue Cities report and analyze one of these aspects in depth.  Based on the discussion we had following the presentation, Jaleh has clearly started to think about some of these issues and I think those views would be a very interesting addition to the work she has already done.

The readings over the course of this semester make strong cases for creating linkages between urban design and planning and environmental science. Although, in theory, it is clear that urban designers and planners should communicate with experts outside of the field, creating collaborations in practice has not been easy to achieve. In last week’s journal, I suggested that a major obstacle in creating communication between designers and ecologists is the lack of a commonly understood language.

Pickett, Cadenasso, and Grove’s article, “Resilient Cities: Models and Metaphor for Integrating the Ecological, Socio-economic, and Planning Realms,” begins by laying out communication strategies that address the different backgrounds of designers, planners, and ecologists and lays out the shared metaphor of the resilient city as a framework for collaborative projects. In my opinion, this article successfully explains how ecologists think about the world and address the world in their practice, which is useful for planners and designers that want to collaborate with ecologists (or ecological consultants).  It is also useful  in explaining how ecologists should analyze their assumptions before they collaborate with urban designers and planners.

Picketts, Cadenasso, and Grove focus on bridging communication gaps between ecologists and urban designers and planners through a shared resilient-city metaphor based on the non-equilibrium ecological model. When ecologists and planners can understand each other’s fields and approaches to the urban environment, true collaboration can be achieved.

The authors argue that real progress in urban design and planning can be made only when ecologists are integrated into the creative process. The authors suggest that the best way to bring ecology and urban design and planning together is to approach the urban environment as an ecological-social-infrastructural system that puts equal weight on the importance of social, economic, ecological, and natural processes.

However, this framework is still very theoretical. It is easy to argue that designers and planners should recognize the importance of ecological, social, and economic processes and focus on the interactions between these processes, but it is hard to create a working model that can achieve such grand goals. How can a planner possibly be responsible for understanding the complexities of every process in his project? Is it enough for planners to recognize processes and to engage specialists to work out their interactions?  Can this metaphor really bring together a variety of disciplines and encourage meaningful collaborations? Are planners networkers, facilitators, or doers? How can planners ensure a deep level of collaboration in their projects?

Tools for Collaboration: experiment meets design

Pickett, Cadenasso, and Grove’s article, “Resilient Cities: Models and Metaphor for Integrating the Ecological, Socio-economic, and Planning Realms,” and Felson and Pickett’s article, “Designed Experiments: New Approaches to Studying Urban Ecosystems,” use the incorporation of ecological experiments into design projects as a model for bringing the fields of ecology and urban design and planning together.  According to these articles, bringing ecological experiments into the design processes allows design projects to address a wider range of urban problems and to contribute to urban processes and growth.

The articles also point out the potential contributions ecological experiments made on long-term operation and maintenance of design projects.  As the TreePeople reports in last week’s readings pointed out, maintenance of planning projects can be especially difficult to plan for and to sustain over the life time of a project. In light of all the problems that the TreePeople’s projects had due to poor planning for maintenance, I am intrigued by innovative ways in which projects can plan for operation and maintenance in the long term. However, I found that the articles about designed experiments were lacking in terms of concrete strategies to demonstrate how design experiments contribute in the long term. The projects discussed in TreePeople’s report were also experiments that addressed both ecological and social processes in the city, yet the experimental aspect did not contribute to the long-term success of the project. Were the failures of these projects a result of the TreePeople organization not recognizing the potential of an experimental model in the long term, or is there a flaw in designed experiments argument?

Regardless of the designed experiments model’s contribution to long-term maintenance of a project, the Felson and Pickett article does a great job of promoting the use of ecological experiments to bring the fields of ecology and design together. However, as I read the article, I felt that it was written in a very different style from the section of the Pickett, Cadenasso, and Grove article on the same topic. For example, the Pickett, Cadenasso, and Grove article points out possible problems with the model and how it relates to practice, while the Felson and Pickett article focuses on positive outcomes.  Could this be because the Felson and Pickett article was written for funders?  Was one of the goals of the article to get people to accept the idea of conducting experiments on the urban environment, which has the potential for being controversial? What are the shortcomings of their proposals that are not explicitly discussed?

The notion of bringing ecologists into the planning process through designed experiments also raises the question of the role of experiment in urban design practice. Planning practice today is closely connected to presidents and case studies of the past. Does this mean that planning and design are an example of a type of social experiment? How have historic planning projects acted as experiments for current theory and practice? Do environmentally based design experiments follow this trend or do they introduce a new type or layer of experiment to the designed urban environment?

The role of water in city and environmental planning is fundamental. However, practitioners’ views about how water plays a role in the planning process and who should control water-process planning differ dramatically.  Planners, landscape architects, engineers, ecologists, project managers, and public, private, and non-profit organizations all have different roles to play when it comes to planning for water. Although I believe the stakeholders know they have different roles, each stakeholder has a different interpretation of the roles.  Contradictory interpretations of practitioners’ roles in the planning process will always lead to problems, which often result in planning failures.

In order to develop functional and innovative urban designs that address water in an ecologically sensitive way, changes must be made in the way in which the practitioners and stakeholders address problems and communicate. I believe good communication between planners, architects, scientists, and engineers is the key to successful creative and innovative design strategies. Furthermore, the practitioners must be able to communicate with the funders and the organizations that control implementation, as well as with the project managers that are responsible for the success of the project from conception to construction to long-term maintenance.  Although the need for good communication between various actors in a project may seem obvious, it is often difficult for people in different fields to understand each other’s practices and points of view. In order for these groups to communicate successfully, a common language must be developed.

The need for a common language in the planning process is illustrated by the wide variety of literature that deals with the issues of environmental planning and water management in cities. The differences between Thomas Dunne and Luna Leopold’s scientific book, Water in Environmental Planning, and the environmentally-based non-profit TreePeople’s report, “Rainwater as a Resource: A Report on Three Sites Demonstrating Sustainable Stormwater Management,” demonstrate a diverse range of writing about water and urban planning.

The two texts have very different angles on water: Dunne and Leopold’s book focuses on scientific applications of the hydrologic process in planning whereas the TreePeople’s report demonstrates a less scientific method based on the organization’s understanding of sustainability, climate change, and human health.  While both works have merit, they illustrate two ends of the spectrum that are difficult to apply practically. 

Dunne and Leopold’s book presents information that I believe is useful for planners to understand, but not necessarily to apply without collaborating with ecologists and environmental engineers.  The admitted failure of the projects cited in the TreePeople’s report also illustrates the benefits of applying the knowledge in Dunne and Leopold’s book. On the other hand, Water and Environmental Planning falls short when it comes to practical application, planning, and project management. While the TreePeople’s report does cover these issues, they are often brought up when they examine the failures or lessons learned from the projects, suggesting that experts in project management were just as necessary as ecologists and engineers. 

The Need for Ecologists and Engineers

Andy Lipkis, the founder and President of TreePeople, states that one of the goals of the organization is to implement projects that advance “the state of the art of adapting cities to increase their safety, civility, and sustainability.” Furthermore, he hopes the work of TreePeople can be built upon, taking lessons from their successes and failures, for further development and implementation of new technologies within the urban environment.

However, despite targeting innovators and problem solvers, the projects discussed in the report seem to lack contributions from specialized ecologists and engineers, even in fundamental aspects of the projects.  For example, in the case of the Broadous Elementary School, the report points to failures in choosing appropriate plants for the landscape, such as Redwood trees that are not adapted for the project’s climate.  These mistakes were not even connected to complicated site-specific issues, but rather connected to the regional climate, a basic element to consider in any environmentally-based landscape project.

The Need for Better Project Managment

According to the TreePeople report, the non-profit was responsible for both the conception of the project, for the project management, and for overseeing the design and installation process.  In addition, TreePeople was responsible for the community planning efforts and environmental education programs around the project. While TreePeople did involve a number of partners, the non-profit was still responsible for the majority of the project as well as many related community initiatives. This is a lot of responsibility for a small non-profit that, as we have seen, may not have staff that specializes in these area.

Perhaps because the organization took on too much responsibility or because it did not hire an experienced project manager, the projects described in this report had more failures than they necessarily had to.  For example, the report repeatedly pointed to problems with inadequate planning for long- and short-term project maintenance.  In the case of the Broadous Elementary School, TreePeople neglected to have a written maintenance agreement and, as a result, had non-contracted partners working without compensation, without which the project would have failed. The lack of a maintenance strategy is a major project-management mistake and can cause a project to fail even if it was successful through the construction phase.

I also find it interesting that one of the lessons learned in the Broadous Elementary School project is to allow at least twice the timeline necessary due to complications arising from liability issues and delegation of responsibilities.  While projects often do run over schedule, and plans should be made for such situations, the problems cited in the report seem to be issues that should have been dealt with in the early project-management stage and any future issues should have been foreseen and planned for appropriately. Although the TreePeople report puts a positive spin on many of the problems they encountered, I believe stronger planning and project management would have mitigated many of these problems.

Although I recognize that learning from failures is an important part of the development of planning, many of the mistakes that occurred in the projects cited in the TreePeople report could have been avoided if there were better communication between actors in different disciplines, better collaboration with ecologists and engineers, and more comprehensive project-management strategies.

The West Philadelphia Mill Creek Project tells two stories. One story is about planners, landscape architects, and university students solving puzzles involving nature’s role in a depressed neighborhood. The second story is about a community’s ability to explore the puzzles and find hope for the future through better understanding of the past.

Many planning projects begin in the same manner as the West Philadelphia Landscape Project: planners develop interest in a particular problem or neighborhood, explore it, and propose solutions, which may or may not get implemented. For many projects, this is the entire process. However, for the West Philadelphia Landscape Project, this was only the beginning. One of the fundamental goals of the project was to incorporate the usual top-down planning strategies with an innovative bottom-up approach that included community members most affected by the problem.  Although the West Philadelphia Landscape Project was never implemented in its entirety, the strategies for community involvement were successful in that they engaged the community and provided the community with lasting change. Using the urban landscape to educate and engage community students and the Web to educate and engage the community at large provide examples of valuable tools for community-based planning projects.

 Teaching Landscape Literacy 

After doing initial research on the Mill Creek neighborhood, UPenn faculty and students working on the project began to work with students at the Sulzberger Middle School.  The initial goal was to educate the students about the neighborhood’s history and the natural processes that shaped the urban landscape. Students used primary sources provided by their UPenn student mentors to learn about the neighborhood’s past and present. Eventually, students put together their recommendations for the future development of their neighborhood.

As students learned valuable lessons in the traditional subjects of science, ecology, math, and history using their neighborhood as an example, they also gained confidence in themselves and pride in their neighborhood and personal history.

Although this story is overwhelmingly positive, it is important to ask critical questions about the relationships between the top-down and the bottom-up planning approaches.  The project attempted to combine the comprehensive advantages of top-down planning with the community-oriented benefits of bottom-up planning; however, it seems as though the bottom-up initiatives were dependent on aspects of top-down strategies.  To what extent were the middle school students’ views and understanding of the landscape dependent on the views and previous findings of their UPenn mentors?  To what extent did the middle school students, and the process of teaching them, affect the plan for the area? To what extent did the educational programs affect the eventual outcome?

The Web: Process v. Product

The Internet, a relatively new medium at the time, was an essential tool for creating the community development strategy and for sharing the project with the world.  The process of creating the first website (and the one redesigned a year later in 1997) was tied to community goals; by participating in the creation of a website, the community claimed ownership of the project and shared their story with the world.  Thus, to the Mill Creek neighborhood, the website represented more than just the plan and success of the West Philadelphia Landscape Project; it represented the community’s place in the project.

The design and organization of the 1997 website illustrates the close relationship between the neighborhood community and the project. The website provides information about the original plan, database, and successful projects; it also focuses on the educational projects (SMS) and community members involved in the project.  The website is full of images. While many of the images are of  the neighborhood for research purposes, a significant number  seem to illustrate community self reflection and the neighborhood’s image of itself. Also significant in the 1997 website are the sections for news, which indicates the idea that the website is documenting a current project rather than reflecting project history. The website itself is a process that reflects – both in content and creation – the process of the neighborhood’s development.

The two most recent websites for the West Philadelphia Landscape Project have a slightly different feel. Although much of the information presented and resources provided are the same, the information seems removed from the people who were originally involved. In the original 1997 website, the information is presented in a way that feels close to the community, whereas the more recent websites described historical events. Both of the new websites have a “stories” section, which presents stories of the project from the points of view of the people involved in the project. Because the more recent websites were not created by people who were involved in the beginning of the project, the sites feel like documentation of completed projects. Unlike the original website, the more recent websites are product-oriented, not process-oriented. The goal is to present the information to an audience outside of the project, to people other than those who were involved in the project.

Both the process of community development that was incorporated into the project and the lessons learned from the project’s ultimate successes and failures are important on the community and global scales. One approach to presenting the information on the Web is not necessarily better because both approaches are useful for different audiences. Is there a way to combine these approaches? How can the resources of a top-down planning approach and the community needs of a bottom-up approach be combined successfully?

Although figuring out how to present information is challenging, I think it would be useful in projects like these to retain the process-oriented approach because it provides an avenue for future advancement of research and theory. Currently, there is no place for updated information on the project or for today’s community members to get involved. Is this a result of disengagement in the community or is the perceived disengagement caused by lack of opportunities? How can a website act as a catalyst for future action and involvement?

The Value and Cost of Community Engagement

The West Philadelphia Landscape Project placed significant emphasis on community engagement, which, in many ways, was extremely positive. Teaching area middle school students engaged them not only with their neighborhood and urban landscape, but also with their education, personal histories, neighborhood history, and community.  Involving the community in the creation of a website documenting the process was also important.  Not only did the website publicize the project and neighborhood story, it also gave the participants a real stake in the project as well as a sense of pride and ownership. From the viewpoint of community development, the community engagement strategies employed throughout the project were especially meaningful and had lasting effects.

That said, the project was never fully implemented. Despite the extensive research, active interest from the community and regional stakeholders, and the successes of the community development programs, the city never acted on the recommendations and even proposed types of development that was directly refuted by the research. Bureaucratic roadblocks prevented fundamental changes in the urban landscape from occurring.

Why did this happen? What was the role of the community engagement strategies in the ultimate failure to implement the physical plan? Where else could efforts have been focused that may have increased political support for the plan? What lessons can we learn from the successes at the community level and failures at a development level?

Fredrick Law Olmsted was an innovator in urban planning and landscape architecture.  He left behind an important legacy, which landscape architects and planners continue to build upon, emulate, and re-imagine to this day.

The 1930 Olmsted-Bartholomew Plan for the Los Angeles Region is one of the first major plans to follow Olmsted’s theories after Olmsted’s death in 1903. Framed by Olmsted’s theories and projects, the Olmsted-Bartholomew plan shows how followers of Olmsted built upon his innovative work.

The public response to the Olmsted-Bartholomew plan is also significant in understanding Olmsted’s legacy. Despite the detailed analysis, urgency, and persuasive arguments that went into the report, the report did not receive much attention and was never implemented. The report shows how landscape architects of the time saw the connection between nature and the city, and the response shows how the public understood and valued that relationship.

Ideas of Nature

As discussed in Spirn’s article “Constructing Nature: the Legacy of Fredrick Law Olmsted,” Olmsted believed that exposure to nature and participation in outdoor leisure activity had positive physical, mental, and moral effects on individuals. Olmsted also believed in the scenic qualities of natural landscapes; he often designed landscapes in ways that framed impressive, yet natural, views.

The Los Angeles Report tends to follow Olmsted’s theories about the benefits of nature, and it seems to suggest that constructed nature is designed only to serve the public. Although the report touches on drainage and ecological issues, it discusses nature primarily as a place for human recreation and leisure activities. Thus, the designs for nature focus on the construction of impressive landscapes and spaces that support recreational activities.

For these reasons, man-made nature does not need to reflect local nature. The report discusses how the ideal Los Angeles climate was created by the introduction of a water supply, which changed the desert landscape. Although nature is at the center of the plan, the landscape is entirely constructed by man and is not based on the local environment. 

Ideas of Recreation: A Park System for Whom?

The Olmsted-Bartholomew report cites the individual and societal benefits of recreation as the main reasons for incorporating a parks system into the Los Angeles Region and as the main consideration for park design. Thus, the definition of recreation plays an essential role in the plan.  In the interview with landscape architect Laurie Olin that follows the report, Olin indicates that the study does not provide an adequate definition of recreation and suggests that this might be a result of elite ideas of leisure common to the landscape architects of the time. What was the definition of recreation in the study and how does it impact the proposed designs?

The Olmsted-Bartholomew plan focuses on two main types of parks: local parks within the city and larger regional parks away from the center of the city.  These parks are designed to create places for daily use by local communities and places where large groups of people can partake in larger planned activities. Most of the activities the report mentioned were organized sports as well as play for educational purposes. Are these activities focused on the upper classes? Would working-class people have time to use these areas to their full potential?  

 The report states that lower-income communities are the first priority in the plan, but does this intention manifest itself in the actual plan? The report describes the focus on creating park spaces for low-income communities as beneficial to the individuals, their communities, and the region as a whole. Is this a reflection of Olmsted’s belief in nature as a catalyst for moral character building of the working class?  Is the priority of the parks plan really for the low-income communities or are these communities being targeted in order to benefit the elite classes?

To what extent do the ideas in the Olmsted-Bartholomew study reflect Olmsted’s ideas of recreation? If a study of similar scope were to be written today, how would contemporary definitions of recreation affect the overall design?

Views on Ideal Population Density , City Form, and the Automobile

 The Olmsted-Bartholomew report reflects fundamental theories concerning ideal population density, city form, and the role of the automobile that shape the overall plan for the parks system. The report repeatedly commends the low population density across the large region and the emerging automobile culture. The report also demonstrates a bias toward the value of single-family homes and distains apartment-style living; compact urban centers do not fit into the report’s theory of the ideal city form. The idea that the region should be auto-centric with a large population spread out over a large area has significant impacts on the distributed park system.

What changes would be made in the plan now that the negative effects of this kind of sprawl are known? How would the system of parkways be affected by modern traffic patterns? Would the integration of green space change people’s habits? Would a new plan focus on smaller, more accessible inner-city spaces?