Soylent Green Is People

The "Machine in the Garden" presents historic efforts to contrast technology and nature in an attempt to advance environmental agendas (whether admittedly or not). The illumination of the separation of humans and technology from nature as a polemic is rejected as being rehashed, and likely doomed to failure in a manner similar to historic efforts based on fear of the future. The argument is that we need to connect to the local; to underrepresented people and immediate ecologies along with the larger environment; to “make images of nature speak in local tongues”. Both Jarzombek and Ingersoll similarly argue the limitations of current thinking on sustainability, pointing out some of the shortcomings of sustainable architecture itself in the process. These include too much faith in society or the individual, not enough connection to the bigger (and urban) picture, or lack of concern for elements outside of the sustainable discussion (like aesthetics) as well as problems of depth, i.e. green as a marketing package.

"Design with City Nature" begins to make an argument for ‘sustainable’ efforts that can connect into existing systems of parks, industry and other urban elements. Without seeing them, I don’t know if these projects address all of the criticisms outlined in the writing, but no project could. They appear to be genuine efforts to effect change in a meaningful way.

If landscape urbanism is about the hybridization of disciplines and therefore urban design elements (including policy making, development, planning, architecture, and landscape) then a sustainable ecology should be a natural outcome. If landscape urbanism considers the suburb on equal footing with the city, if it understands the global in terms of the local, if it injects space with flexible possibilities, then it should be able to integrate into an environment that allows it to be “sustainable”. I don’t know if it is doing this or not, but I can see how the ideas would be considered compatible. Maybe it should be called something other than ‘landscape urbanism’, or ‘sustainable’; maybe ‘comprehensive design’, or just good work.

In terms of the proposal, the ‘operable graffiti museum’ can benefit from further sustainable analysis, but it will be one that considers larger aspects of sustainability, like integration into a community, an understanding of history and local culture, as well as a way to consume less, or tread lightly on the land. I think some consideration of ‘social sustainability’ has begun to happen through earlier investigations. In an effort to create a ‘lighter’ proposal (in terms of material used and economic to the impact on natural resources) the structure might become a framework and not a permanent structure, and any portion of the landscape that is carved out can be balanced on site, rather than trucked out. These strategies are additions to an overall effort in “designed to produce a net gain in environmental quality and in the overall quality of life”, which can happen in even in the least hospitable place. Maybe the future isn't so scary after all.