In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

91 Chapter 2 TECHNIQUES also takes up this notion, but deals with time in relation to the techniques and technologies used to “speed up or slow down” natural processes, procedures that are necessary to physically rebuild the grounds of the sites where the firm works. Though it is frequently stated that landscape architecture straddles art and science, the practice of landscape architecture has little to do with science. It is conceptually informed by science (understanding nature ) but it is formed by engineering and technology (transforming nature). All landscapes are technological , if landscape is defined as nature intervened upon. The actual and perceived degree of intervention represents varying degrees of control in the aesthetics and functions of landscapes. Though the words “technique” and “technology” are closely related , sharing the root techne (art, skill), they are not synonymous. Technique refers to a particular construction or method whereas technology is a system of such means.1 So while our landscapes are technological in general terms, it is techniques— the relationships among forms, details, and materials —that create the interface between technological and natural systems. As our ideas about nature A landscape is thus a space deliberately created to speed up or slow down the process of nature. . . . It represents man taking upon himself the role of time. —J. B. Jackson We must remember that most landscape problems are so plastic, so little under the control of functional requirements, that any number of solutions is possible. —Garrett Eckbo THE PREVIOUS CHAPTER DEALT WITH HOW HARGREAVES ASSOCIATES INTERPRETS THE HISTORY OF EACH SITE AS A MEANS TO INTRODUCE “MATTERS OF TIME” INTO PLACES THAT HAVE BEEN LITERALLY AND FIGURATIVELY LEVELED. THIS CHAPTER 92 chapter 2 change, the techniques used for constructing, maintaining , and managing our landscapes change with it. Nowhere is this more evident today than in the rise of codes and systems of measurement that attempt to quantify “sustainability.”2 Sustainability, once defined as the responsible use of resources so as not to compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, today encompasses not only natural resources but also social equity and economic growth. Striking a balance among this triad of concerns is not simple, as the goals of each can be at odds with the others. Furthermore, questions of form, experience, and program are not typically factored into definitions of environmental sustainability because they are presumed to be peripheral , rather than integral, to the social and functional demands placed on landscapes.3 Much of the recent emphasis on infrastructure and environmental performance is often positioned in a way that downplays other aspects of landscape such as its connotative or qualitative characteristics; however , design cannot be reduced to quantifiable criteria alone, and form does not simply follow function . Moreover, what we demand of landscape in terms of its function expresses an attitude about natural processes and can never be unbiased. This chapter considers several Hargreaves Associates projects that respond to hydrological infrastructure in different ways: Sydney Olympic Park, sold as the first “green” Olympics venue, focuses on water recycling and water quality; Guadalupe River Park, which involves reconfiguring river embankments to minimize flood damage, a project in which sustainability is defined primarily in terms of economics and human safety; and Brightwater Wastewater Treatment Plant, which like Sydney also focuses on water recycling, water quality, and habitat restoration. The point of the comparison is not to provide a clear definition of sustainability but rather to show that, as a social and political concept, it is highly variable in its interpretation and application. Even Hargreaves Associates does not subscribe to a single approach, as is evident in the range of projects shown here. Hargreaves asserts that sustainability permeates the firm’s work but does not form the underlying design strategy.4 The other authors in Hargreaves Associates’ monograph Landscape Alchemy support this reading. One author notes that Hargreaves Associates has “always incorporated groundbreaking sustainable technology within [its] work, without making this overtly the mission”; another notes that sustainability is central to Hargreaves Associates’ work in a variety of ways, and that its related concept—ecology—is an “inevitable and pragmatic, rather than political or philosophical, issue in the work.”5 However, as the circumstances surrounding these projects show, these criteria are never simply pragmatic (apolitical ), and as time has progressed, the kinds of sustainability measures that Hargreaves Associates has incorporated in its projects have changed, a change reflecting shifting environmental concerns. Early projects like Candlestick Point Park and Byxbee Parks use little or...

Share