:: image via Metropolis
It seems like we just accept most of the projects out there with little critical discussion. Part of it is that we are happy to see these project get built - especially amongst all of the riff-raff of photoshoppy goodness out there in the digital world. I'm using this as an example, which not be warranted, but it's illustrative of the path of dialogue and the usage of simplistic descriptors for benefits. For example, the description of the project goals, where Metropolis mentions that Balsley: "...created a monoculture of evergreens that emulates northern forests. The goal was to achieve a tranquil place rather than a pretty or functional one."
:: image via Metropolis
How many projects can get away with a description like that without being thoroughly skewered, aside from the landscape architectural. I really do like the design in it's utter simplicity - but we need to frame it in terms that reference both the design intent and the potential. Does the implementation of a monoculture make sense? Is something that is visual and not useful for residents in an interactive way? Does it actually fulfill the stated environmental benefits such as the "...addition to the standard benefits of storm-water retention and insulation for the building, the trees improve air quality."?
:: image via Metropolis
It's a question of the difference between the artistic and environmental, and how the line often gets blurred. This is not a social or environmental solution... it merely inherits those benefits from the use of landscape materials in an urban setting. While realistic (and built!) it is an artistic solution, and a good one at that. But is that the point? This seems like one of those trees and ivy solutions that worked in the 1970s, and we are ripping out for their dated and overly simplistic palette that perhaps may but probably won't age well. Either way, it'll probably pick up an ASLA award next year, so whadda I know? :)
0 comments:
Post a Comment