landscape architecture/ architecture criteria, process, and case...

CLAUDIA DINEP and KRISTIN SCHWAB

Sustainable SITE DESIGN

Criteria, Process, and Case Studies

for Integrating Site and Region

in Landscape Design

Sustain

able SITE D

ESIGN

Landscape Architecture/ Architecture

A new framework for designing sustainable landscapes that respond to the opportunities and challenges

of their surrounding regions

ISBN: 978-0-470-18783-8

DIN

EP • SCH

WA

B

4-COLOR GLOSSY

From project inception through implementation, Sustainable Site Design sets forth a comprehensive approach to context-informed sustainable landscape design. This approach emphasizes the need to under-stand each site’s unique potential for sustainability, especially in relation to the ecological, social, economic, and cultural conditions of its regional setting. The book aims to integrate the concerns of regenerative landscape function with the quest for memorable, meaningful form.

Chapter 1 introduces the framework, developing a set of fi ve criteria to help you defi ne the sustainable outcomes for any landscape design project: connectivity, purpose, meaning, effi ciency, and stewardship. The remaining chapters address six essential questions to guide the design process to fulfi ll these criteria:

• What people, resources, and strategies help guide sustainable site programming?

• How are the needs of project stakeholders incorporated into project scoping and direction?

• What site design potentials are revealed by the site-to-context relationship?

• How is sustainable design articulated through cohesive, artful, and well-crafted forms and space?

• How does design effi ciency serve multiple goals in sustainable landscape design?

• How can design incorporate meaning to connect user and place?

In addition to offering strategies and methods that address these questions, each chapter is centered on a detailed and heavily illustrated case study of a built landscape architectural project. These case studies represent a broad range of design styles, scales, locations, and programs.

Following the authors’ careful guidance, you’ll learn the principles and processes needed to design land-scapes that are not only sustainable, but also meet the needs of the communities they serve.

CLAUDIA DINEP, ASLA, former principal with the fi rm of Rolf Sauer and Partners in Philadelphia, currently consults, lectures, and writes on landscape sustainability.

KRISTIN SCHWAB, ASLA, is a licensed landscape architect and an Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture at the University of Connecticut.

01_187838_ffirs.qxd:Dinep 9/25/09 10:11 AM Page ii

Sustainable Site Design

01_187838_ffirs.qxd:Dinep 9/25/09 10:11 AM Page i

01_187838_ffirs.qxd:Dinep 9/25/09 10:11 AM Page ii

Sustainable Site DesignCriteria, Process, and Case Studies for Integrating Site and Region in Landscape Design

Claudia DinepKristin Schwab

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

01_187838_ffirs.qxd:Dinep 9/25/09 10:11 AM Page iii

This book is printed on acid-free paper. oCopyright © 2010 by Claudia Dinep and Kristin Schwab. All rights reserved.

Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey

Published simultaneously in Canada

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any formor by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except aspermitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the priorwritten permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy feeto the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400, fax(978) 646-8600, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission shouldbe addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ07030, (201) 748-6011, fax (201) 748-6008, or online at www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and the author have used their best effortsin preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or com-pleteness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantabilityor fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives orwritten sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situa-tion. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor the authorshall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to spe-cial, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

For general information about our other products and services, please contact our Customer CareDepartment within the United States at (800) 762-2974, outside the United States at (317) 572-3993 or fax (317) 572-4002.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. For more information about Wiley products, visit our web site at www.wiley.com.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:

Dinep, Claudia, 1968-

Sustainable Site Design: Criteria, Process, and Case Studies for Integrating Site and Region inLandscape Design / Claudia Dinep, Kristin Schwab.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-470-18783-8 (cloth)

1. Ecological landscape design. 2. Sustainable design. 3. Building sites. I. Schwab, Kristin, 1961- II. Title.

SB472.45.D45 2010

712—dc22

2009018430

Printed in the United States of America

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

100%TOTAL RECYCLED PAPER

100% POSTCONSUMER PAPER

01_187838_ffirs.qxd:Dinep 9/25/09 10:11 AM Page iv

http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions

http://www.copyright.com

http://www.wiley.com

v

Contents

Preface, vi

Acknowledgments, x

1 Landscape Sustainability Framework and Criteria, 1

2 Program Development—Menomonee Valley Industrial Center, 17

3 Stakeholder Influence—Whitney Water Purification Facility, 59

4 Regional and Site Assessment—Sandstone Visitor Center, 97

5 Form-Making—Paradise Valley Residence, 143

6 Design Efficiency—Gannett/USA Today Headquarters, 181

7 User Experience—Tanner Springs Park, 223

Glossary, 261

References, 265

Index, 271

02_187838_ftoc.qxd:Dinep 9/25/09 10:09 AM Page v

vi

Preface

INTRODUCTIONThis book was written to assist landscape architecturepractitioners, students, and clients in developing dynamicsustainable landscape design resolutions. As sustainablelandscapes are increasingly requested and required, land-scape architects are expected to respond to ever morecomplex sustainable programs. All too often convention-al—and even sustainable—design approaches fall flat inresponding to critical challenges by failing to comprehendthem within a broader context—a consideration that pro-vides potential two-way benefits for both site and context.Our examination of sustainable design approachesemployed in the United States within the last ten yearsrevealed that the primary characteristics distinguishing themost successful outcomes were those that incorporatedthe qualities of the context within the site design. Multi-dimensional integration of contextual elements, whetherin the immediate adjacency or regional scale, has shownitself to be an essential ingredient in achieving sustainablegoals such as ensuring environmental quality, connectingto significant open space, cultivating community, andimproving regional aesthetics. This book provides criteria, aprocess, and case studies for looking beyond site-only solu-tions to integrate regional and site concerns and maximizesustainable landscape design potentials.

The built projects examined for this book, all designed byleading firms in the profession, successfully integrateregional phenomena with site sustainability resulting inefficient, purposeful, and meaningful places that cultivateconnections between people and the landscape. Study ofthese projects revealed the following conclusions:

1. Site sustainability encompasses cultural as well as eco-logical concerns.

2. A design process inclusive of stakeholders is the basisfor a landscape’s long-term success.

3. Regional factors interrelate with and are inseparablefrom factors critical to site design.

4. Strong design form actualizes sustainable concepts inthe landscape.

5. Constructions designed to achieve multiple purposesare efficient and cost effective.

6. Places that hold meaning for people encourage stew-ardship.

This book addresses a variety of needs within the environ-mental design industry. Practitioners such as landscapearchitects, architects, and developers can use this book totailor their own design processes toward sustainability, stu-dents can use it as a framework for envisioning new direc-tions, and clients can utilize it as a resource to direct andsubstantiate their visions.

THE SUSTAINABI LITYCRITERIA AND DESIGNPROCESSOver the last fifty years, many have contributed to thedevelopment of contextual sustainable design. Perhapsmost influential has been Ian McHarg’s Design with Naturewith its focus on assigning value to regional processes.Others, such as Frederick Steiner’s The Living Landscape;Joan Woodward’s Waterstained Landscapes; WencheDramstad, James Olson, and Richard Forman’s LandscapeEcology Principles; William Marsh’s Landscape Planning:Environmental Applications; and Carol Franklin’s FosteringLiving Landscapes, offer useful guides to landscape sus-tainability. Still others such as Kevin Lynch’s Site Planningand James LaGro’s Site Analysis: Linking Program andConcept in Land Planning and Design have provided gen-eral site planning guides that encourage the considerationof context.

03_187838_fpref.qxd:Dinep 9/25/09 10:09 AM Page vi

The Sustainability Criteria and Design Process vii

In Chapters 2 through 7 of the book, the design process isdeveloped, led by six essential questions that fulfill the cri-teria. These questions focus on areas where the sustainabledesign process differs from that of conventional design ingenerating sustainable outcomes—Program Development,Stakeholder Influence, Regional and Site Assessment,Form-Making, Design Efficiency, and User Experience.Finally, strategies and methods for addressing the questionare paired with a sustainable design case study that strong-ly exhibits that particular aspect of the design process.

Program DevelopmentWhat people, resources, and strategies guide sustainablesite programming?

Stakeholder InfluenceHow are the philosophies and needs of neighbors, commu-nity members, and other project stakeholders purposefullyincorporated into project scoping and direction?

Regional and SiteAssessmentWhat sustainable site design potentials are revealed by theconsideration of context?

Form-MakingHow is sustainable design articulated through cohesive,imageable, and artful form and space?

Design EfficiencyHow does design efficiency serve multiple goals in sustain-able landscape design?

As these sources testify, while a process is a useful guide,the design of landscapes can never be formulaic andattempts at confining the process produce uninspiredresults. Landscape architect Steven Krog writes, “Wedelude ourselves in believing that by energetically invokingthe process we will definitely arrive at a creative designsolution. We can only dissolve this obeisance by facing thegreat risk-by recognizing that creation/invention is an emo-tion, intuition, intellect, and energy-intensive task” (Krog1983). Yet armed with the requisite energy and skills, aprocess does provide critical direction for the complex taskof defining and developing sustainable site goals and out-comes.

At the heart of this book’s examination are two ingredientsessential to achieving successful sustainable site design—the defining of sustainability criteria and a process to ful-fill them. The rationale for the sustainability criteria andprocess is rooted in a review of existing literature thatexplores sustainability within the context of landscapearchitecture, site design, and planning. This frameworkvalues environmental health and function, site access andspatial organization, as well as aesthetics to reconcilepeople with nature, to balance development practiceswith natural resources, and to foster healthy communi-ties. As such, it differs from conventional designapproaches as its emphasis is broader in scope and itssustainability potentials extend outside traditional projectlimits.

In Chapter 1, the notion and significance of context inte-gration is examined and the set of five criteria, gleanedfrom the case study research, is developed. Each of the cri-teria contributes to and expands on the relationshipbetween a site and its context:

Connectivity

Purpose

Meaning

Efficiency

Stewardship

03_187838_fpref.qxd:Dinep 9/25/09 10:09 AM Page vii

viii Preface

User ExperienceHow can design incorporate “meaning” to connect userand place?

THE CASE STUDIES A report summarizing research commissioned by theLandscape Architecture Foundation in 1997 concludedthat the case study method is a highly appropriate andvaluable approach to advancing the knowledge of thelandscape architecture profession.

The primary body of knowledge in landscape architec-ture is contained in the written and visual documenta-tion—that is, stories—of projects…

…these cases provide the primary form of education,innovation, and testing for the profession. They alsoserve as the collective record of the advancement anddevelopment of knowledge in landscape architecture . . .

From the range of knowledge that can make up a casestudy, at least three levels of information are possiblein a case study analysis. The first, and simplest, is aproject abstract. The second is a full project case study.The third is a more in-depth case study with contextualor specialized material. While each may have a differ-ent audience, the greatest need, especially in teaching,is for the more detailed case studies of the second andthird nature. (Francis 1997)

This study and report spurred an increase in case studypublications, begun by those published by ProcessArchitecture, and Spacemaker Press in the United States.The Landscape Architecture Foundation has been instru-mental in continuing this progress with the publication ofcase studies that center both on more general landscapetypes (Urban Open Space: Designing for User Needs), andon specific seminal landscapes (Village Homes: ACommunity by Design and Paris-Lexington Road:Community-Based Planning and Context SensitiveHighway Design).

At the same time, while a variety of sustainable tools andchecklists are available, most are specialized to focus ontheory or techniques but do little to offer case study analy-ses of built work. In addition, at the time of this writing,we found most case study books analyze finished designsbut do not deconstruct the design-journeys that led toproject completion. In seeking successful design strategies,we interviewed top firms, took note of projects highlight-ed in industry journals, and visited award-winning projects.The six projects selected represent a breadth of designstyles, scales, locations, designers, and processes.

To develop the mapping diagrams and background infor-mation for the case study projects, we traveled across theUnited States from Connecticut to the Pacific Northwest tothe Virginias and the Desert Southwest. The projects arefound within diverse biomes and settings from a denselysettled industrial park to a suburban residence to a pristinerural park. Each area with its unique cultural qualities,regional character, natural limitations, and cultural prac-tices, revealed forms, functions, and philosophies thatshaped the sustainable approaches taken. The map dia-grams in the case studies, created specifically for the book,are based on the design process information provided bythe landscape architecture firms. While the mappingshown does not necessarily reflect the mapping producedby the firms, it illustrates issues inventoried, assessed, orconsidered that are evident in the design resolutions.

Each case study is used to illustrate a particular dimensionof the design process but also to more generally exemplifythe contextual landscape basis of the landscape sustain-ability framework and criteria. Toward this end, the casestudies first lay out the regional conditions that form thelandscape context and later the sustainable site design out-comes of six widely varied projects. They are formatted forease of comparison to one another. The projects are:

Menomonee Valley Industrial Center, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Sandstone Visitor Center, Sandstone, West Virginia

Whitney Water Purification Facility, Hamden, Connecticut

Paradise Valley Residence, Paradise Valley, Arizona

03_187838_fpref.qxd:Dinep 9/25/09 10:09 AM Page viii

The Case Studies ix

The design solution is analyzed at a variety of scaleswith regard to two sustainability dimensions that werealso used in the regional context analysis: landscapeform (the site’s organization, spatial framework, andmaterials), and site design function (the site’s stormwa-ter management, planting, human use systems, andsite management strategies), as well as site design inte-gration (the creation of meaning through elements thatengage the user with dimensions of sustainability).

Outcomes

The project’s predesign and postdesign conditions arecompared with regard to the program/site/context rela-tionship. The use of design techniques that contributeto site-level sustainability are identified and distin-guished from techniques that contribute to sustainabil-ity of the larger landscape beyond the site. The casestudy’s specific fulfillment of the five landscape sus-tainability criteria developed in Chapter 1 is outlined to establish its exemplification of the framework.Finally, other examples of similar sustainable projectsare identified.

Gannett/USA Today Headquarters, McLean, Virginia

Tanner Springs Park, Portland, Oregon

The format for the case studies, which unfolds through themapping and analysis of the projects’ site/context relation-ships, forms the basis for the sustainable design processguidelines. The presentation of the case studies is notmeant to interpret each designer’s own design process, butrather to reveal to the reader the sustainable outcomes inrelation to both site conditions and context conditions. Theformat includes:

Overview

The project’s inception is explained and the designconcept is briefly introduced.

The client and designer philosophies are outlinedthrough an examination of their project goals and pre-vious experiences. General sustainability trends in landuse and program types comparable to the case studysubject are also explored.

Context

The project’s context is explored at a variety of scalesfrom the entire United States, down through its multi-state region, watershed, metropolitan, or local areaand neighborhood, to the immediately adjacent condi-tions of the site. This context is described throughthree dimensions: form, (the physical features of thecontext), function (the ecological and human systemsand processes at work in the region), and philosophy,(the attitudes toward development and conservation inplace in the region). The overall sustainability of theregional context is evaluated as a basis for examiningthe site and its design solution as either a sustainableintegrator or a sustainable pioneer.

Site

Design considerations are first presented in the form ofan examination of the predesign site, an analysis ofthe most influential scales of context, and an explana-tion of the ecological and cultural dimensions of theprogram development. An example of a conventional(versus sustainable) approach to the same type of proj-ect that exists in proximity to the case study site is alsopresented.

03_187838_fpref.qxd:Dinep 9/25/09 10:09 AM Page ix

x

Acknowledgments

We are indebted to the following landscape architectsfor providing us insight into their design processes:

Tavis Dockwiller of Viridian Landscape Studio, MatthewUrbanski and Chris Gates of Michael Van ValkenburghAssociates, Herbert Dreiseitl and Gerhard Hauber fromAtelier Dreiseitl, Mike Abbaté of Greenworks PC, WilliamWenk and Greg Dorolek of Wenk Associates Inc., SteveMartino and Andrea Cooper of Conservation DesignForum, and Michael Vergason and Doug Hays of MichaelVergason Landscape Architects.

Special thanks to Joe Bivona for his dedication and skill inmapping research, obtaining image permissions, and gen-erating graphics. We would also like to acknowledgeUniversity of Connecticut landscape architecture studentsKatherine Liss, Jameson Secco, and Mary-Kate Casey. Weare grateful to the anonymous reviewers of this book andgive thanks to colleague Mark Westa for his review, DanButtrey for graphic assistance, and Dr. Mary Musgrave forher guidance and encouragement. This research was sup-ported by a faculty grant from the University ofConnecticut. The editorial staff at Wiley, especiallyMargaret Cummins and Lauren Poplawski, were helpfulwith the evolution and development of the manuscript.

Additional thanks to the Oriental Café in Storrs,Connecticut, where we had the good fortune of spendingmany working lunches. We owe this work to the patienceand support of our families, especially Rich, Emily, Garrett,Ted, and Katia.

04_187838_flast.qxd:Dinep 9/25/09 10:11 AM Page x

Achieving sustainable environmental design encom-passes myriad efforts on the part of both profession-

als and the public. These efforts—grassroots awarenesscampaigns that challenge individual citizens to cometogether to champion good planning for their communi-ties, the realignment of our regulatory structures to facili-tate and encourage healthy patterns, the retooling andretraining of our construction and materials industry, andthe development of planning and design methods thatinform and guide professionals’ design processes and ulti-mately the built environment—are all essential to reversingthe destructive patterns of sprawl and the subsequent lossof nature and community that permeate contemporarydevelopment of our environment. The complexities andinterrelationships of these needed efforts are daunting, yetnearly every person, organization, and profession has arole to play and perspective to contribute.

1

LANDSCAPE + DESIGN + SUSTAINABILITYThe relationship between and intersection of these threeconcepts—landscape, design, and sustainability—form thebasis for this book and define the role of the profession oflandscape architecture. Landscape, referred to by FrederickSteiner as the connective “tissue” of our world, is themedium that hosts, links, and conveys the vast complex ofecological and cultural systems in an intricate fabric oflandform and habitats. Though it can be divided into manytypes of units, it does not and cannot exist independent ofits larger whole. Through design, humans plan their tech-nological interventions and express creative urges to satis-fy individual and societal needs. When deployed in thelandscape, design takes on the dynamism of a living, fluid,and changing medium, where decisions made at a sitescale have direct impact on and connection to larger scalesand vice-versa. Finally, the urgent call for sustainability ofhuman development of the environment requires that webegin to recognize the critical role landscape and itsdesign—landscape architecture—must play in uniting frag-mented places, healing degraded systems, and engaging

1 LANDSCAPE SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK AND CRITERIA Always design a thing by consider-

ing it in its largest context, a chair ina room, a room in a house, a housein an environment, an environment

in a city plan.

—Eero Saarinen

05_187838_ch01.qxd:Dinep 9/25/09 10:10 AM Page 1

nological development of Geographic InformationSystems. McHarg’s work and that of his contemporariesand colleagues, most notably Philip Lewis, focused onlarge-scale planning projects such as The Woodlands resi-dential community in Texas. These concepts and methodswere also applied to site-scale design in determining boththe suitable uses for a site, as well as how it might bedesigned to fit within its surroundings.

Second Generation:1975–1995This period is benchmarked by several divergent out-growths of land planning models developed in the earliergeneration.

Regenerative Design. The work of John Lyle, practitionerand professor at California Polytechnic State Universityat Pomona, developed the concept of regenerativedesign focused on site-scale subjects. Regenerativedesign is the idea that development does not just con-sume resources, but also can regenerate or producethem. Examples of regeneration are recharging ground-water, reusing graywater, producing edible crops in thelandscape, or harvesting solar energy (Lyle 1992). TheCenter for Regenerative Studies at California PolytechnicState University is a living laboratory for these concepts.

Ecological Design Firms. Meanwhile, ecological designfirms such as Andropogon Associates in Philadelphiaand Jones & Jones in Seattle, both early proponents oflandscape sustainability, developed systems-based andcontext sensitive ecological approaches evident inlandmark designs such as the Crosby Arboretum andParis Pike.

Reclaiming Landscapes. Also during this period, a boldsocial approach to reclaiming abandoned human land-scapes can be identified through projects such asLawrence Halprin’s Freeway Park, which reconnectedthe divided pieces of Seattle; Richard Haag’s GasworksPark, which reclaimed the waterfront site of a formergas utility for recreation; and later HargreavesAssociates’ Byxbee Park, a former industrial site alongthe San Francisco Bay.

2 Landscape Sustainability Framework and Criteria

people in healthy relationships with nature. From this per-spective, land is a continuum of cultural and ecologicalinfluences and responses, where a site boundary acts as afilter rather than a wall, and design holds the potential todraw and propel positive influences to and from the site.

EVOLUTIONSustainability in landscape architecture until recently wasviewed as a specialized branch of the field, heavily associ-ated with ecological design. However, the synthesis of thecultural and ecological qualities of landscape architecturaldesign reflected in contemporary built work blurs the oncesharp line between ecological design and culturally reso-nant “high design.”

Several critical benchmarks in landscape architectural the-ory and practice have contributed to current views aboutsustainability within the profession (Ndubisi 1997). Thesebenchmarks can be considered within three significant“generations”: the first generation occurring roughlybetween 1960 and 1975 and sparking a general awaken-ing and shift in design approach toward ecological aware-ness; the second generation occurring between 1975 and1995 and developing more scientific and specialized areasof interest; and the third/current generation from 1995 topresent, which can be characterized as moving towardintegration of sustainability within the more generalizedpractice of landscape architecture.

First Generation: 1960–1975Systems-Based Model for Landscape Planning. Alongsidepublic outcries critical of the status quo such as RachelCarson’s Silent Spring and the founding of environmentalmovements such as Greenpeace, Ian McHarg’s landscapeplanning techniques in his book Design with Nature in1969 represents the first explicit and systematic considera-tion of natural and cultural resources in landscape architec-ture (McHarg 1995). His “layer-cake” approach to deter-mining land use suitability remains the gold standard fordesign methodology across all disciplines dealing with landuse analysis and planning and set the stage for later tech-


Regional Identity. A focus on regional identity, bothcultural and ecological, is part of this generation’s con-tribution. The insight of Michael Hough in his bookOut of Place (1992) and regionally inspired built workby practitioners such as Phoenix-based Steve Martinoembody the value of distinctive regional context in cre-ating landscapes that are “of the place.”

Schism between “High Design” and Ecological Design.Along with the more specialized identity of ecologicaldesign within the larger profession of landscape archi-tecture, a growing dialogue and debate about the roleof creative form-making in sustainable design wasforming. There was a strong impression that the pro-fession was still rewarding design work that did notgive adequate consideration to ecological function orhealth, while there was also a common observationthat many of the ecologically conceived projects lackedinspiring or memorable form. This debate was crystal-lized in a 1992 forum featured as a cover story byLandscape Architecture Magazine entitled “Is itSustainable? Is it Art?”

Third Generation:1995–Present

The Metrics Approach. The current generation of sus-tainability in landscape architecture is characterizedfirst by a growing interest in the metrics for ecologicalfunction and economics in the built environment. TheLeadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)Green Building Rating System, developed by theUnited States Green Building Council, provides adetailed checklist for incorporating a range of ecologi-cally based sustainable design principles into architec-tural development projects. Site-related componentsare not a central focus of the system.

Construction-Based Sustainability. The SustainableLandscape Construction book produced by WilliamThompson and Kim Sorvig in 2000 provides importantsite-based technical focus for sustainable design imple-mentation. Advances in native plant production andconstruction technologies have bolstered the ability to

Evolution 3

implement site elements that were once not possiblewithin conventional construction practices. In a similarvein, the concept of low-impact design calls forrecharge, filtration, and other on-site treatment meth-ods for stormwater engineering in a time when waterresource conservation has become a focus.

Applied Ecological Principles. Articulation of appliedecological principles at the landscape scale has been acritical contribution of Dramstad, Olson, and Formanas developed in their 1996 book, Landscape EcologyPrinciples in Landscape Architecture and Land-UsePlanning. The ecological structure and functioning ofland in corridors, patches, mosaics, and matrices pro-vide a new language for land-use planning that pro-tect ecological integrity and connectivity.

Ecorevelatory Design. Eco-revelatory design is intendedto reveal and interpret ecological phenomena, process-es, and relationships (Brown, Harkness, Johnston1998). This concept has brought exciting synergy ofvisual drama/appeal and ecological process of suchphenomena as stormwater conveyance and reuse thathas fueled a new brand of innovative form-making.

Mainstreaming of Sustainability. A particularly promi-nent aspect of the current generation is that sustain-ability is moving away from being viewed as a special-ized type of landscape architectural practice, focusedexclusively on ecological concerns, toward a moremainstream concern for all landscape architecture proj-ects. The concerns of “high design” that emphasizerigorous attention to form-making are being mergedwith the concerns for ecological integrity.

The Next GenerationAs nearly all of the influences just outlined begin to con-verge, built work is exhibiting a critical synthesis of ecolog-ical, social, and cultural landscape considerations. As the“green revolution” takes hold in the global environment, achief concern for the future of sustainable site develop-ment is the need to integrate larger planning efforts tocombat sprawl, conserve ecologically intact open space,and create more livable communities with the more specif-


coordination of larger systems of transportation, buildingmassing, and other elements. This is on the heels of itswidely followed and highly influential program for sustain-able building construction, in recognition of the growingconcern for the larger community context.

Yet this is not a book about land use or community plan-ning per se. While professional planning activities addressimportant analysis, strategy, and policy direction, theyrarely result in direct built work. Rather, this effort is aimedat approaching the basic building block of development:the site, that singular piece of the larger land complex,whether it contains a building or exists primarily as a land-scape—with an eye toward regional context, applyingplanning principles to site design. Sites that are conceivedwith an overview of the larger, hierarchical systems of theenvironment, both ecological and cultural, stand a muchbetter chance at protecting and enriching—sustaining—the site environment and its inhabitants. Further, sites thatdesign experiences, elements, and visual character thathelp site users “read the texts of their surroundings” gobeyond physical resource conservation achievement to cre-ate meaning based on understanding of our relationshipsand interactions with our environments (Steiner 2002).Designing with context in mind holds potential not only forthe sustainability of the site itself, but also for the greatersustainability of the neighborhood, area, or region.

Now more than ever, information without clear and appro-priate frameworks for selection and application can becounterproductive and even damaging. The frameworkpresented here retains focus on site design, but aims tostrengthen or repair connections to context that are lost orunrealized through piecemeal site planning. Further, it aimsto utilize sensitive and artful site design to reveal andexpress regional values and identity.

This framework offers a way to consider and integrateinformation about context—in the form of physical con-structs such as watersheds and neighborhoods, and in theform of nonphysical constructs such as local history andcommunity attitudes—in the process of site design. It iden-tifies two basic contextual situations for a sustainable sitedesign problem: pioneer and integrator.


ic and detailed design of sustainable sites. The projectsreviewed for this exemplify the benefits of such integra-tion. Future approaches must utilize context-informed sitedesign to address the broader range of criteria included inplanning-scale projects.

CONTEXTThe information age has brought a dizzying and seductiveamount of unfiltered data to our fingertips. Often it istempting to simply tune out context, as it provides toomuch information and can derail the process of defining aproblem and taking action. Yet, the tremendous efforts wemount to make objects and technologies sustainable and“green” must all be viewed within the appropriate con-text. The energy efficiency of using corn as a biofuel, forinstance, has been rejected, viewed within the context ofhow much energy it takes to produce the corn. Similarly, acentral problem with sustainable site design is one of con-textual scale and integration, where piecemeal solutionsnegate possibilities for larger cohesive ecological and socialfunction and identity. Simply put, individual green build-ings or sites do not necessarily add up to green neighbor-hoods, communities, or regions:

Not that all our earnest recycling, our water-scrimpingshowers, our labors to cool the planet are futile, butour larger lapses raise the fundamental question ofwhere and how—and whether—we should be build-ing anew. …The vision of a sustainable planet beginswith the individual but requires planning on a largescale—not just locally, but regionally, nationally andinternationally—to endure. It becomes increasinglyclear that only if we encourage and participate in landplanning on a larger and political scale can we consid-er ourselves builders of a truly sustainable world andnot just hammer-wielders building little green islandsin a sea of subdivided land.

—Jane Holtz Kaye 2002

The U.S. Green Building Council has recognized this needfor larger-scale planning through its LEED ND(Neighborhood Development) program, which is aimed atneighborhood-level planning to provide better control and


Sustainable PioneerWhere the project’s region is generally more challenged inecological and/or cultural terms, the site can be considereda sustainable pioneer. Three of the case studies presentedlater in the text, a corporate headquarters in McLean,Virginia, a private residence in Phoenix, Arizona, and anindustrial development in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, fit thisdescription. The design for a sustainable pioneer site canintroduce sustainable form, function, and philosophy to alarger area that lacks integrated cultural and ecologicalhealth. The term pioneer connotes the idea that these proj-ects are trailblazers, leading a trend that will grow andtransform the larger environment. The sustainable pioneersite can impart its trailblazing effect in a variety of ways. Itcan revitalize lost or broken networks of cultural or ecolog-ical function between the site and its surroundings, or rein-troduce forgotten heritage or invisible bioregional charac-ter of the area. Nevertheless, it can also create self-relianceand wholeness for the site independent of its surround-ings. In other words, it may have an important catalyzingeffect on the surrounding lands or it may simply be onesmall island of sustainability unto itself, which whenrepeated across the region will create the transformation.

Sustainable IntegratorA sustainable integrator is a site whose design can reflectthe health and stability of its sustainable context. Three ofthe case studies presented later in the text, an urban parkin Portland, Oregon, a water purification facility inHamden, Connecticut, and a park visitor center inSandstone, West Virginia, fit this description. The successof each can be said to be linked to the intact political, cul-tural, and ecological character of its region. These projectsanswer the question: How do we build upon the success ofthe surroundings? Integration or connectivity of ecologicaland human systems is recognized as one of the key crite-ria for sustainability in this framework. There are two kindsof contextual connectivity addressed here: physical andsymbolic. Physical connectivity, such as improvement of aportion of a stream buffer along a larger system, improvesregional ecological health. Symbolic connections, such asuse of repurposed local materials, provide a vehicle for

Criteria 5

human engagement critical to sustainable site making. Thesustainable integrator project can knit together discontinu-ous intact systems and typically improves upon the site’spredesign value and health.

CRITERIAExisting frameworks for creating and evaluating sustainabledesign fall primarily into two categories: those that offerqualitative, theoretical, or values-based criteria; and thosethat prescribe specific quantitative or standards-based crite-ria (Edwards 2005). While many of the former tend to behighly influential and formative, the most actively utilizedand applied systems tend to be the latter, where focused,tangible, and measureable directives and benefits are iden-tified. The widely followed LEED program, mentioned earli-er, for instance, is a point system for design and certificationof high-performance green buildings. This program consid-ers the embodied energy of materials and systems used inthe building process and the operation of a building and itssite. The benefits of certification, in addition to the energysavings and other environmental resource gains, includelong-term economic benefit and the cachet of social con-sciousness that accompanies the attainment of silver, gold,or platinum certification levels. It rates sustainability in theareas of sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy andatmosphere, materials and resources, indoor air quality,innovation and design process. A similar program for themeasured evaluation and recognition of designed land-scapes has been introduced with the Sustainable SitesInitiative, a joint effort of the American Society ofLandscape Architects, the Ladybird Johnson WildflowerCenter, and the United States Botanic Garden. The areas offocus for this program are hydrology, soils, vegetation,materials, and human health and well-being.

An essential characteristic of these types of frameworks—and what makes them so eminently attractive and useful—is that they can be applied to nearly any project, regardlessof site or its place within the urban to rural transect of thedevelopable environment. Another key characteristic isthat they retain clear focus on measureable technical andscientific criteria, leaving artistic, cultural, and social criteriacleanly out of the mix for the most part.


tainability, others pushing for new conceptions of beautyand imageability to embrace the “messiness” of nature. Tothis end, the framework also develops qualitative criteriathat address questions of form-making and meaning relat-ed to sustainability and context.

With the ultimate goal to derive sustainable site designprocess guidelines, what follows here is a baseline estab-lishment of criteria for sustainable landscapes. These crite-ria serve both to further define a sustainable landscapeframework in which site and regional concerns are inte-grated and to provide the basic parameters used for theselection of the case studies, which illustrate the qualitativeoutcomes. The criteria draw from many wide-ranging andfoundational developments in thinking about land, land-scape, planning, design and case study research, and placethese within five major themes for implementing and eval-uating landscape sustainability. The five landscape sustain-ability criteria: connectivity, meaning, purpose, efficiency,and stewardship, each in their own way forge a relation-ship between a site and its context.


Alternatively, the framework presented here is centered oncrafting sustainable landscapes based largely on a site’srelationship to its unique natural and cultural context. Thiscontext may be rural or urban, Northeastern orSouthwestern, environmentally or economically stable ordistressed—all these and many other contextual conditionscreate distinct opportunities and challenges for sustainabledesign. Context relevant to site design occurs at a range ofstrategic scales that begins at the regional level—theCentral Plains/Midwest region for instance—and proceedsthrough state, watershed, local, and neighborhood levels,right down to the site-adjacency context where a site’sphysical relationship to its neighbors is direct and tangible.In some contexts, native plant communities may be a par-ticularly relevant factor; in other contexts, patterns of his-toric development and land use may be a more relevantfactor. While these aspects cannot be easily measured, theydo offer specific opportunities and needs for sustainability.

The aesthetics of sustainability in the landscape have longbeen a point for debate, some arguing that attention tovisual quality has been sacrificed by the concern for sus-

Comparative Criteria forSustainable LandscapeDesignThe following provides brief comparative outlines for sever-al frameworks that exist for sustainable design.

Qualitative Frameworks:

Andropogon Associates’ Ecological Site DesignGuidelines

• Create a participatory design process

• Preserve and re-establish landscape patterns

• Reinforce the natural infrastructure

• Conserve resources

• Make a habit of restoration

• Evaluate solutions in terms of their larger context

• Create model solutions based on natural processes

• Foster biodiversity

• Retrofit derelict lands

• Integrate historic preservation and ecological manage-ment

• Develop a monitored landscape management program

• Promote an ecological aesthetic

Sanborn Principles—Urban Design Foundations forSustainable Communities

• Healthy indoor environment for occupants

• Ecologically healthy

• Socially just

• Culturally creative

• Beautiful

• Physically and economically accessible

• Evolutionary


Values of Place—Essence of Timeless Design, Human-Centered Building, and Personal Responsibility

• Diversity

• Beauty and aesthetics

• Accidental meeting places

• Surprise and discovery

• Resource efficiency

• Leaving your mark

• Human form emerging naturally from its place

Principles of Smart Growth—www.smartgrowth.org

• Range of housing opportunities

• Walkable neighborhoods

• Community and stakeholder collaboration

• Distinctive attractive communities with sense of place

• Development decisions are predictable, fair, and cost-effective

• Mix land uses

• Preserve open space in critical areas

• Variety of transportation

• Place new development where existing infrastruc-ture/development occurs

• Compact building design

Sustainable Landscape Construction Principles—Thompson and Sorvig

• Keep healthy sites healthy

• Heal injured sites

• Favor living, flexible materials

Criteria 7

• Respect the waters of life

• Consider the fate and origin of materials

• Know the costs of energy over time

• Celebrate light, respect darkness

• Quietly defend silence

• Maintain to sustain

Quantitative Frameworks:

LEED—New Construction v2.2

• Sustainable Sites

• Water Efficiency

• Energy and Atmosphere

• Materials and Resources

• Indoor Air Quality

• Innovation and Design Process

LEED-Neighborhood Development—Pilot Program

• Smart Location and Linkage

• Neighborhood Pattern and Design

• Green Construction and Technology

• Innovation and Design Process

Sustainable Sites Initiative

• Water Waste

• Water Pollution

• Biodiversity and Invasive Species

• Resource Waste

• Energy

• Soil

• Air


cumstances, Alexander’s methodology uses more of a“recipe” approach with a list of somewhat idiosyncraticpatterns that can be applied to any problem and location.

Technological advances in digital geographic informationsystems and satellite imagery allow us to instantaneouslyzoom from viewing the entire earth from outer space toour own backyard or latest project site. A vast array of geo-graphic systems information floats out in cyber space, andthough there are widely varying scales of accuracy and pre-cision, designing with spatial context in mind has neverbeen more possible.

Site to Context Connections

The most tangible work of landscape architecture—thecreation of places of meaning, visual delight, and spatialidentity—occurs at the site scale at which human percep-tion operates. But we can look to critical contributions oflandscape architecture that occur at larger scales of plan-ning like the neighborhood or community, which, thoughless tangible and visually iconic than site-scale design out-comes, are equally compelling and arguably more valuable.Much of the most important 19th-century work of land-scape architect Frederick Law Olmsted—the “EmeraldNecklace” of the Boston Parks system, the Stanford cam-pus, Chicago’s Columbian Exposition—occurred at thelarger planning level, where study and understanding ofthe neighborhood, the community, and the region allowedfor sensitive siting and land use relationships. These sameplanning examples, with their far-reaching impacts onwhole communities, however, also come with familiar sitesthat have imageable, physical qualities. The Backbay Fens,Commonwealth Avenue Parkway, and the Public Gardenare memorable landscapes precisely because they fit with-in and enhance their urban context and larger open spaceframework. The linking of larger community planning con-cepts and knowledge of site context with more immediatesite planning and design concepts provides powerfulresults on many levels.

The new urbanism movement is an example of society’sgrowing recognition of the need to think outside the build-ing and think outside the site, to address the needs of sus-tainable smart growth. With its combination of principlesthat emphasize pedestrian connectivity, mixed land uses,


ConnectivitySustainable landscape solutions must evidence:

• site to context connections

• cultural systems and natural systems connections

• temporal connections that recognize the life of land-scapes over time

We live in an era and culture where phenomena like frac-tal geometry and Google Earth have begun to give us newviews of how things are interconnected and in many cases,how these connections have become compromised ordestroyed. Fractals, a term coined in the 1980s by mathe-matician Benoit Mandelbrot, are objects with geometricstructure that display self-similarity at various scales.Magnifying a fractal structure reveals small-scale detailssimilar to the large-scale characteristics. Although fractalshave similar patterns at a variety of magnified scales, thesmaller-scale details are not identical to the whole. In fact,its structure is infinitely complex, though the process ofgenerating it is based on an extremely simple equation.The phenomenon of similarity at various scales provides awindow on the order, structure, and organization of com-plexity. With a visual appeal that comes from its balance ofcomplexity and unity, the concept of fractals has beenapplied and examined in the creation of fine art and otherfields in which geometry is relevant.

Fractal patterns are found across vast scales everywhere innature in small objects such as snowflakes and ferns, aswell as large landscapes such as coastlines and mountainranges. Ian McHarg, in Design with Nature, first directedenvironmental designers to notice these patterns and buildwith environmental fitness in mind, so that these patternscould be preserved and woven throughout the built envi-ronment. The book A Pattern Language, written by archi-tect Christopher Alexander in the 1970s, applies the ideaof observing and linking successful or proven human pat-terns at different scales to the built environment. Fromregions, communities, neighborhoods, and sites, down tobuildings, rooms, and windows, A Pattern Language pro-poses a hierarchical, structured way of designing. WhereasMcHarg developed a systems-based methodology thatresponds to each design subject’s unique qualities and cir-


compact development that allows for open space preserva-tion, well-defined districts, and the importance of the civicrealm, new urbanism calls for a return to the patterns oftraditional town planning and a rejection of the patterns ofunplanned sprawl that dominated the second half of the20th century. More importantly, it places the design of sitesand architecture within a very contextual realm—eachpiece of the community is dependent on its neighborhood,district, and community structure. Many of the concepts ofnew urbanism can be traced back to the ideas of KevinLynch and his theory of good city form. In Image of theCity, Lynch defines the memorable elements of the city asrelated to him by everyday citizens—landmark, district,node, path, edge. These are connective elements andstructures that organize urban environments and makethem legible, interesting, diverse, and whole.

In creating site-to-context connections, we can think aboutfunctional physical connections such as circulation corri-dors, vegetation patches, or hydrological features, whichencourage the larger flow and health of the landscape. Wecan also think about spatial connections such as how a sitemay be configured as an open or a wooded site to eitherlink with or contrast against its surroundings. Another wayto think about site-to-context connections is in programdevelopment, where the type of park you might wish todevelop is highly dependent on the surrounding land usesand the variety of other parks that are available in the localarea. Finally, we can use formal connections to context tocreate unity and meaning related to regional vernacularmaterials and architecture and natural forms.

Natural and Cultural SystemsConnections

An end to thinking of natural and cultural landscapes asoccurring in two separate realms was suggested byMcHarg and elaborated on by Anne Whiston Spirn in TheGranite Garden. The growing trend toward renewal of nat-ural process in urban environments through stream day-lighting and dechannelization, urban forestry, green roofs,and permeable paving is proof that integration of naturalprocess in human development is not only possible, butneeded and desired.

Criteria 9

The scientific concept of ecology has, until very recently,been studied primarily within the realm of the naturalworld and has not been applied to the physical develop-ment, or design, of the human world. While the notion of“human ecology” was explored as a branch of sociologyand geography in the early 20th century, it became discon-nected from the physical world to focus on more econom-ic, demographic, and political approaches. FrederickSteiner proposes a new interpretation of human ecology,which denies this historic disconnection and encouragesmore integration of physical and social science. EcologistRichard Forman and his colleagues broke this barrier intheir development of landscape ecology principles thatwere specifically developed for use in landscape architec-ture and land use planning. Steiner, a landscape architect,proposes that the critical issues of sustainability and sus-tainable development require that we more actively andaggressively engage these principles in applying the con-cepts of ecology to the planning and design of built humanenvironments (Steiner 2002). The integration of humanand natural forms and functions—as in regenerativehuman ecosystems such as wetlands stormwater treat-ment systems—is a critical expression of connectivity.

Temporal Connections

The concept of historic preservation originated throughthe effort to preserve historic buildings and other antiqui-ties. Buildings are nearly completely human constructs;they can be enormously imposing and influential, but caneasily and instantaneously be demolished. They representvery particular eras of human culture, evoking powerfulform associated with history and a society’s collectivememory. Alternatively landscapes endure and evolve overmillennia, but are in many ways ephemeral and trans-formable. The image of cultural history reflected in land-scape can be subtle and vulnerable, especially when inter-mixed with that landscape’s natural history. The landscapeacts as a canvas over which cultures and ecological forcesplay out; seasonally, yearly, in eras and epochs. The con-cept of historic preservation has evolved to encourage aless static, more layered notion of history, in which ruinsand artifacts of older ideas can comfortably and function-ally coexist with new uses, forms, and ideas. Scholars of


landscape created the term topophilia: “the affective bondbetween people and place or setting,” to describe this forceof environmental experience.

The creation of meaning in the landscape can take the formof the gestalt—through the creation of a holistic sense ofplace. It can also take the form of smaller elements withinthe site that provide momentary engagements of the siteuser with specific processes or phenomena, such as aboardwalk that brings the user through a restored wet-lands, or a bench placed at a point that focuses the user ona distant view of landform.

Sense of Place

Genius loci, latin for the “spirit of place,” is a concept thathas been linked to landscape and place-making ever since18th century poet Alexander Pope wrote his Epistle IV:

Consult the genius of the place in all;That tells the waters to rise, or fall;Or helps th’ ambitious hill the heav’ns to scale,Or scoops in circling theatres the vale;Calls in the country, catches opening glades,Joins willing woods, and varies shades from shades,Now breaks, or now directs, th’ intending lines;Paints as you plant, and, as you work, designs.

Since that time it has developed as one of the most wide-ly agreed principles of landscape architecture: that land-scape design should be inspired by and seek to preserveand enhance the unique character, function, and history ofa site within its context. The creation of meaningful andmemorable landscapes—landscapes that sustain us physi-cally and mentally—is nearly always derived from a carefulanalysis and expression of the spirit of the place.

Reflection of and respect for regional culture and ecology isone of the most powerful forms of deriving meaning andsense of place. Michael Hough in Out of Place advocated fora regional sensibility in the development of landscapes at atime when the homogenization of our built environmentwas beginning to be recognized. The unique built patternsand forms of an area which have evolved in answer to itsparticular geographic and historic context comprise thecommunal identity that sets one region apart from anoth-er—such as the southwestern United States with its arid cli-


the cultural landscape, including most notably May Watts,J. B. Jackson, Kevin Lynch, Roderick Nash, and WilliamCronon, have examined the American landscape for itsimprint of our history and changing cultural constructs.Designers such as Richard Haag, in his 1970s GasworksPark, were among the first to apply a new, more layeredand living historic sensibility to the design of open spacesites.

MeaningSustainable site design solutions must evidence:

• a well-defined sense of place

• engagement of site users with landscape process andphenomena

In the study of the social scientific concept of hermeneu-tics, which is “the art of understanding,” philosopherWilhelm Dilthey proposed the notion of the hermeneuticcircle: “In order to understand the determinate meaningsof the parts of any whole, we must approach the partswith a prior sense of the meaning of the whole; yet we canknow the meaning of the whole only by knowing themeanings of its constituent parts. This is not a vicious cir-cle, in that we can achieve a valid interpretation by a mutu-ally qualifying interplay between our evolving sense of thewhole and our retrospective understanding of its compo-nent parts.” (Abrams 2005)

The hermeneutic circle of emotional, intellectual, and con-ceptual meaning and identity in the landscape is an impor-tant component of sustainable design within the In Site/Outframework, and a concern that is relatively absent in mostother frameworks. While many indigenous landscapes holdspecific meaning for people in their natural form, createdlandscapes can utilize creative expression that interpretsand reveals human ecological and cultural interactions withthe landscape, and conveys an attitude for protection ofand integration with intact indigenous landscapes. The con-veyance and understanding of site meaning associated withsustainable processes and phenomena can create affinityfor landscapes that inspire stewardship for the site itself andgreater understanding of its place in the larger environ-ment. Yi Fu Tuan’s study of environmental perception of the


mate and mid-20th century era of development as com-pared with the northeastern United States with its temper-ate climate and mid-18th century base of development.

Recognizing a site’s place within the urban/rural transect isa critical aspect of creating appropriate patterns of densityand character in the built environment. The concept oftransecting was first developed as a methodology for doc-umenting and understanding the physical world, where a line was drawn across a landscape and sampling of bio-logical or geophysical phenomenon performed to drawconclusions about the larger landscape’s pattern and char-acter. Applied to human development and environmentalplanning, the concept has been used to combat the indiscriminant application of the sprawling pattern andcharacter of suburban development to nearly all newdevelopment, regardless of context. This has begun tobolster both compact and dense development in moreurban areas, as well as clustered and open space conser-vation-minded development in more rural areas.

Process and PhenomenaEngagement

Joan Woodward, in Waterstained Landscapes, offers a com-pelling and poetic call to integrate bioregional character,form, and function in the design of sites. The concept of“waterstain” is explained as the regional patterns of con-trasting conditions—wet spots in a dry landscape forinstance—that create the figure (or matrix) as perceivedagainst the ground (or patches) in a landscape. While sug-gesting an ecological imperative, she emphasizes the spiri-tual and aesthetic urge for identity and meaning that canbe satisfied with landscapes that reflect the combinedimprint of natural systems and cultural systems. In answerto our vast and growing collection of generic and overlystandardized places which James Kunstler skewers in TheGeography of Nowhere, Woodward chronicles her ficticiouscharacter’s quest to know and understand the “waterstain”of her arid Colorado Front Range region and apply thisknowledge to the design of her home landscape. Thisrequires looking beyond the heavily irrigated urbanizedregions into the larger regional scales of the landscape.

The concept of eco-revelatory design was articulated andexplored in the 1998 traveling exhibition of work mounted

Criteria 11

by three colleagues from the University of Illinois atUrbana-Champaign. The concept centers on the design oflandscapes to reveal and interpret ecological phenomena,processes, and relationships (Brown, Harkness, Johnston1998). The exhibit included both real and visionary projectsfrom a variety of academic and private practitioners thatinnovatively expose, juxtapose, or narrate ecologicalprocesses from regenerative fire, to stormwater con-veyance and reuse, to urban soils regeneration. This con-cept is in part a reaction to a conventional treatment oflandscape to hide or disguise “unsightly” processes such aspiped stormwater, and in part a reaction to the standardpractice of costly and artificial suppression and control ofecological landscape process, as with monocultural land-scapes of lawn and heavily pruned shrubs.

These themes were sounded earlier through the work ofRobert Thayer, professor of landscape architecture at theUniversity of California at Davis, who explored the chal-lenges of sustainable landscape design in his 1994 bookGray World, Green Heart. Thayer posits that in contrast tomainstream landscape architecture of the time, whichremained driven by cosmetic notions of aesthetic quality,design that fosters active and engaging user experience ofregenerative processes, such as open stormwater con-veyance, is a powerful tool for creating understanding,acceptance, and diffusion of sustainable practices. “One ofthe problems today is that the average citizen no longerrealizes he or she is a part of nature. Landscape architects,more than almost any other profession, have the potentialof reconnecting that citizen with nature by immersing himor her in an experience; by promoting, for example, urbanforestry and allowing the land to breathe instead of impos-ing extensive paving . . .” This was the salient conclusionof architect Bob Berkebile on the proper role and greatestpotential contributions of landscape architecture to sus-tainable development in a 1992 forum sponsored byLandscape Architecture magazine.

PurposeSustainable site design solutions:

• treat landscape as spatial and living medium

• fulfill land-based cultural and ecological program goals


Land-Based Program Goals

Common land use designations assign purpose to land pri-marily through architectural identity: commercial, residen-tial, or industrial, for instance. In this schema, the purposeand potential function of the landscape is reduced to sup-portive roles such as entry, parking, visual framing, etc. Thesole category in which the landscape itself is the primarysubject is typically “open space,” which conveys a sort ofblank quality and little sense of value or function. Withinthe realm of open space, landscapes are defined as park,preserve, greenway, green, etc.—also not very useful fordirecting program development. Sustainable landscapedesign is aided by the development of landscape-basedprogrammatic function for all landscapes, whether openspace sites or sites that accommodate development.People live in houses, shop in stores, and get medical treat-ment in hospitals. These are architectural program typesthat are based on how people use different types of build-ings. In the landscape, we don’t typically accommodatethese specific types of cultural uses, but instead are con-cerned with satisfying a combination of cultural and eco-logical purposes. Cultural functions such as civic or socialgathering and quiet contemplation are integrated withecological functions such as stormwater management andlandscape restoration. The notion of integrating concernsof context in sustainable site design supports the need forland-based programming as it expands the potential func-tion of a site by connecting to its larger neighborhood orregional opportunities and goals.

EfficiencySustainable site design solutions:

• require relatively low resource inputs for implementa-tion and maintenance

• create economic, human health, and social benefits

• satisfy multiple land uses

The relationship between conservation and efficiency wasfirst explored during the progressive conservation move-ment of the early 20th century, at a time when the percep-


The landscape is omnipresent and everywhere—oftenthought of as the ground upon which figure is set, or theblank canvas—and as such there is the tendency for it tobe thought of and treated as background or negativespace in development. Most environmental designers rec-ognize the positive spatial, living, and dynamic qualities oflandscape and the need to create hierarchy by assigningrelative importance to some landscapes as primary spacesand allowing others to be treated as the connective tissueor interstitial spaces. Due to unawareness, this distinctionoften gets lost in translation to the built environment.

Landscape as Spatial and Living Medium

The treatment of landscape as background has a numberof distinct unsustainable effects. First, it generally diminish-es the care and attention given to land and its critical eco-logical and cultural systems which collectively form thebasis for regional sustainability. The spatial qualities oflandscape—the creation of enclosure, canopy, and a senseof scale and proportion, to name a few, through the con-figuration of landform and vegetation—can provide strongphysical identity that generates focus on and value for thelandscape, independent of understanding and meaningdiscussed above. This was the original impetus for therecognition of the value of the types of landscapes thatnow comprise our National Park system. While it is difficultfor most people to relate the landscape of Yosemite to thatof their own backyard or neighborhood park, the livingand life-giving physical systems and their need for care arethe same. In developed landscapes, the creation of posi-tive, highly valued form and function is not dependent onits size or on the funds invested, but rather, the spatialtreatment and organization of the elements used in thelandscape.

A second unsustainable consequence of allowing the land-scape to be treated as background is that it diminishes theunderstanding of the landscape as a living, dynamic, inte-grated organism. Segmenting the land into individuallyowned parcels, unrelated to landform patterns, creates aframework by which this understanding is thwarted andthe site landscape is treated as independent of its neigh-bors, its larger functional identity and physical lifelines.


tion of unlimited resource abundance was beginning tofade, but rapid scientific progress instilled a sense of powerto extend the resource base, using good economic andpolitical planning and technology. The reclamation idealwhereby marginal lands were improved to become moreuseful, such as draining swamps and irrigating desserts,exemplified this interpretation of conservation as efficiency(Nash 1990). By the 1990s, the flaws in this exploitativeapproach had become evident to all but the mostentrenched. Vice-president Al Gore, with his book Earth inthe Balance and later film An Inconvenient Truth, broughtunprecedented awareness of the natural resource andglobal warming crisis to a listening and sobered public.

Conservation of natural resources through the “reduce,reuse, and recycle” mantra was the original plea that led toour current green revolution. Most widely accepted con-temporary criteria for sustainability are still centered on the concept of efficiency, primarily as pertains to use ofenergy, water, and other materials so as to maintain adependable, renewable supply of these resources. Butincreasingly a more comprehensive view of conservationconnects such efficiency to healthy systems—physical sys-tems such as atmospheric and hydrological systems, agri-culture and public health; as well as social systems suchcommunities, economics, and education.

Low Inputs

The xeriscape movement, where drought-tolerant plantingsare suggested as a replacement for irrigated landscapes inarid zones, is a landscape-based example of efficiencyrequired as a result of expanding need for a limitedresource. The Sustainable Landscape Construction hand-book developed by William Thompson and Kim Sorvig wasthe first comprehensive landscape-focused set of guidelinesthat addressed efficiency in the developed landscape. Withprinciples that encourage low-input landscapes throughwater, soil, and indigenous vegetation conservation; siteprotection and repair; impermeable surface reduction; lightand noise pollution control; and recycled, renewable, andlow-embodied-energy materials use, the strategies are pri-marily geared to design implementation- and construction-stage decisions rather than site planning and visual designdecisions.

Criteria 13

The treatment of water in the landscape is perhaps one ofthe most crucial and evolving forms of resource efficiency.While elaborate and costly stormwater systems aggressive-ly remove water from conventionally designed and engi-neered sites, conversely, substantial energy is expended onintroducing off-site water to sites to irrigate plant material.So a basic means of reducing water and energy inputs isthrough the creative harvesting of water from where it isnot desired—on structures, pavements, and high-trafficareas—and applying it where it is desired—in vegetatedareas and subsurface aquifers.

Self-Maintaining

Another important aspect of the efficiency criteria relatedto low inputs is the need for landscapes to be more self-maintaining. The postconstruction life of built landscapes,whether planned as such or not, typically ends up involvingintensive and “one-size-fits-all” maintenance regimes.Endless mowing, irrigating, fertilizing, and replanting cyclesare aimed at maintaining a cultural landscape ideal that isnot in tune with natural cycles or patterns. While small, oreven larger, areas of the landscape may be desired as lawnor more controlled or culturally expressive vegetation, theseareas should be more targeted while larger areas of thelandscape could be allowed to exist as naturalized areasthat are established to eventually require little to no main-tenance. Natural plant communities and landscape formssuch as meadows, woodlands, and wetlands provide readily adaptable forms that can be meshed with largerlandscape context or exist as isolated patches. While nomanaged landscape can truly be “maintenance free,” thesenaturalized types of spaces offer reduced labor and cost,visual drama inspired by nature, and ecological biodiversity.In undeveloped nature, landscapes evolve and change com-pletely in response to natural forces; it is important to dis-tinguish between these and human naturalized landscapesthat do involve some degree of control and management.

Economic, Health Benefits: Value-Added Landscapes

In The Ecology of Commerce, economist Paul Hawken likensthe evolution of economic systems to that of ecological


Department of Environmental Protection is an example ofprograms that are aimed at addressing what journalist andchild advocate Richard Louv has termed “nature-deficit dis-order”:

As open space shrinks across America, overuse increas-es. Meanwhile, the regulatory message is clear: islandsof nature that are left by the graders are to be seen,not touched. . . . . The cumulative impact of overde-velopment, multiplying park rules, well-meaning (andusually necessary) environmental regulations, buildingregulations, community covenants, and fear of litiga-tion sends a chilling message to our children that theirfree-range play is unwelcome, that organized sportson manicured playing fields is the only officially sanc-tioned form of outdoor recreation. . . . Countless com-munities have virtually outlawed unstructured outdoorplay, often because of the threat of lawsuits, but alsobecause of a growing obsession with order. . . . Thesedense donuts of [modern suburban] development offerfewer places for natural play than the earlier suburbs.In some cases, they offer even fewer natural playspaces than the centers of old industrial cities.

In nature-deficit disorder, Louv is talking about “nature” asecologically functional and biodiverse landscapes in whichthere are few prescribed uses. He uses examples of bothdesigned and naturally occurring landscapes that offerexperiences to children that are open-ended, dynamic, andself-directed, thus stimulating creativity and curiosity, aswell as physical challenge and activity—benefits that pro-vide real answers to declining childhood health trends. Thisphenomenon can easily be extended to the adult popula-tion, also plagued by similar health problems. This is botha cultural and an environmental issue in which the land-scape offers efficient alternatives to costly and controver-sial medical treatment.

The concept of “low-impact design” is aimed specifically atthe design of stormwater management systems thatencourage on-site treatment, thereby creating fewerpotentials for negatively impacting downstream sites.Another less pejorative way of thinking about design is tothink of the net positive effects that a “high impact” proj-ect might have—as in remediating a brownfield, creatingimproved air quality, or restoring a degraded habitat area.


systems. In immature ecosystems, such as an early successional grassland, there is lots of biomass production,little biodiversity, lots of energy expended, and rapid change.As the ecological system goes through successional changetoward a more mature stage, it gains biodiversity and makesuse of its biomass to become elegantly free of waste.Hawken likens this contrast to our economic system, which in its early stages did not assign the true costsof waste, inefficiency, and environmental degradation to themarket, to encourage mass-production, mass-consumption,and massive waste and destruction. In what he hopes will beour more mature and wiser next stages, Hawken sees eco-nomics and development becoming much more alignedwith environmental systems to make the reduction and elim-ination of waste, inefficiency, and environmental degrada-tion profitable (Hawken 1994).

Many of the most basic sustainable landscape elementssuch as native plants and permeable paving were previous-ly often deemed by project clients as too expensive toimplement. This was largely a function of the major mar-kets for plant materials, design and engineering expertise,and skilled construction labor being geared to provideexotic plant palettes and impermeable paving systems. Asthe extreme inefficiency and cost of building exotic land-scapes that require constant infusions of water, fertilizer,and energy becomes increasingly economically unsustain-able, and ideologically undesirable, new types of landscapetreatments are fueling the rapid retooling and reeducationof our markets and workforce to provide relevant andresponsive solutions.

As the economic, social, and health value of landscapebecomes more highly documented and quantified—increased values for property located next to protectedopen space; energy savings, oxygen production, air pollu-tion control, and water purification attributed to urbanforests—it is increasingly viewed not as simply an amenity,but as critical infrastructure.

The United States is slowly beginning to connect modernchildhood health epidemics such as obesity, allergies,depression, and attention deficit disorder with lifestylesthat emphasize sedentary “virtual” activities such as com-puter use and television viewing, and living environmentsthat offer little access to nature and unstructured play. The“No Child Left Inside” campaign of the Connecticut


Multi-Use Landscapes

Another aspect of efficiency is the maximization of land-scapes by allowing them to serve multiple functions. Justas we are beginning to realize the efficiencies of mixed-usearchitecture to reduce travel needs, increase pedestrian-friendly environments, and create new synergies for com-munities and commerce, we can see the benefits ofencouraging landscapes to satisfy more than one focusedneed. Infrastructure such as water treatment can be satis-fied simultaneously with the needs of public open spaceand of environmental repair. The contemplative landscapeof a residential site or a park can also provide biodiversehabitat for wildlife and new understanding of the functionand beauty of the natural world. The prescriptive use andidentity of landscapes for very specific functions—a deten-tion pond, for instance—limits the possibilities for multiplefunctions that energy expended on such an element mightproduce. Detention ponds are typically formed and man-aged for one single purpose: to temporarily hold stormwa-ter at the low point of the developed site and release it ata controlled rate to prevent flooding downstream. Whensuch ponds are also formed and managed to provide visu-al beauty, wildlife habitat, or recreational functions thisincreases the efficiency of the resources being expendedon the pond.

The green infrastructure movement is in part a reaction togrowing awareness of the negative effects of creating sin-gle-purpose, highly technological utilities and infrastruc-ture that are viewed as undesirable neighboring land uses,as described by the NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) syn-drome. Decreased property values and visual quality, andoften dangerous or unhealthful conditions have been asso-ciated with highway systems, water treatment facilities,energy and communication grids, and other infrastructurefacilities and systems. This is causing us to reconsider boththe function and the form of these utilitarian land uses onwhich we all depend and which are omnipresent in thelandscape. Rob Thayer’s examination of the perceptual,functional, and symbolic dimensions of technology in thelandscape suggests that technologies that are generallyperceived to be sustainable (highly productive, renewable,environmentally benign, and safe), such as wind farms,have higher acceptance from the public. He posits thatconventional infrastructure utilizes technologies and forms

Criteria 15

that are typically perceived of with fear or distaste andtherefore is approached with disguising strategies in its sitedesign (fencing, screening, hiding). Sustainable technolo-gies, especially when integrated with open space, can be awonderful neighboring land use to a variety of developedareas, including residential neighborhoods.

This approach extends to nearly all other land use relation-ships; directing program development and improvinglandscape character to benefit both the site client andneighboring sites makes for not only “good neighbors,”but increased property values through improved neighbor-hood cohesiveness and identity.

StewardshipSustainable site design solutions:

• involve collaborative and participatory design processes

• evoke a sense of long-term responsibility of site users,constituents

One of the standard tag lines of the landscape architectureprofession has been “stewardship of the land.” Bob Scarfochronicled the notion of land stewardship through theages with his seminal article Stewardship: The Profession’sGrand Illusion, and argued that the profession’s claim onthis title is generally unsupported by its body of work. Asstewards in the more historical sense, subsistence farmersintimately knew their land and understood its limits andcapabilities, facing severe and immediate consequenceswhen they did not manage their land sustainably. As stew-ards who are many steps removed from direct contact withthe land, landscape architects have not typically beentrained nor do they have the incentive to create designsthat are truly sustainable in this sense. In the global era inwhich we live, the polar forces of interconnectedness andspecialization have created an environment for which noone takes specific responsibility and in which narrowdimensions of environmental problems are studied to theexclusion of integrated, holistic thinking.

At the root of the modern stewardship dilemma is the con-cept of environmental ethics. Aldo Leopold was among thefirst to articulate a new branch of ethics that wouldaddress the relationship of humans to the environment. At


a well-recognized component of sustainable design out-comes. Users who have been involved in the process canoffer valuable first-hand knowledge of the design site andits history, as well as commitment to manage and care forthe site into its future. Randy Hester in his bookCommunity Design Primer distinguishes between commu-nity design—designing with people, and professionalplacemaking—designing for people. Originally associatedwith aiding underprivileged populations in overcomingenvironmental injustice and anomie through the empower-ment of design decision-making, the community designmovement has been widely applied to sustainable designefforts to create better ecological outcomes and publicstewardship. The art of involving stakeholders in the designprocess is a delicate one, requiring a balance of the needfor professional expertise with the sensibility and insight ofthe user. But it yields outcomes in which stakeholders areinvested and which reflect the values and spirit of cooper-ation that make for sustainable sites.

Long-Term Care and Responsibility

In addition to stakeholder involvement during the designprocess, stewardship is derived from the involvement ofstakeholders in the long-term management of the land-scape site. This means both the physical maintenance ofthe site, as well as the general sense of ownership andresponsibility for the site, that stems from the combinedimpact of clients, site neighbors, and maintenanceproviders. For many public landscapes the client may bethe technical owner, but the neighbors who surround thesite are the eyes and ears who watch over the site andinhabit it most directly, while the maintenance providercontrols the actual care given to the landscape.

The care of sustainable sites typically involves unconven-tional and relatively new maintenance regimes thatrevolve around more naturalized types of landscapeprocess. While this is greatly aided by the explicit specifi-cation of site management guidelines provided by thedesigner, adjustment and monitoring of the managementregime as the landscape establishes, changes, andmatures is critical.


this time, prior to the later revelations of Rachel Carson onthe environmental and human health effects of industrialdevelopment, Leopold, a forestry scientist with the SoilConservation Service, was alarmed by recreationalexploitation of the natural environment. His concept of the“land ethic” would suggest the later movement of deepecology in which nature holds intrinsic value of its own,apart from its value to humans. Scarfo and others haveargued that ethical training for landscape architects hasbeen focused on professional business ethics and not on the land ethic. Ecological thinking is being addressed in some cases, but less by way of ethics than through tech-nical and scientific training. Of course, this issue onlyunderscores the lack of a land ethic that is espoused by ourgeneral population. In an age where ethical lapses on thepart of corporate and government leaders is at the fore,sustainability is less linked with a land ethic than it is witheconomic survival and national security.

In Grey World, Green Heart Thayer examines the “cogni-tive dissonance” that results when we are aware thatsomething—such as landscapes that are dominated by thecar culture—is bad for our health and the environment, yetthat same something is permeating our world in a seem-ingly intractable cycle of continuation. The ideal landscapeof our personal, controllable environments (which subtlyaccommodate our cars) is out of sync with the real land-scape of the uncontrollable and chaotic wide world.Making sense of this dissonance and bringing the twolandscapes into better balance requires a willingness towork toward and recognize the nature and value of incre-mental improvements in the larger landscape, as well ascoming to terms with the real impacts of our personalideals and lifestyles (Thayer 1994). Promoting public andprofessional adherence to a land ethic can be aided by thecreation of places that reveal the connections betweenideal and real landscapes.

Participatory Design

The need to effectively, appropriately, and meaningfullyinvolve clients, users, and constituents in both developingthe design goals and crafting a design solution for a site is


2 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTWhat people, resources, and strategies help guide sustainable site programming?

Menomonee Valley Industrial Center

Sustainable design is not a reworking of conventional

approaches and technologies, but a fundamental change in

thinking and in ways of operating.

—Carol Franklin

17

(Credit: Nancy M. Aten of Menomonee Valley Partners)


mental impact of the design, but not necessarily representa net gain for the site. The Paradise Valley Residence proj-ect illustrates a clear departure from this type of approach,where the parking element of the program is developed asan outdoor entry courtyard space that happens to accom-modate cars and use permeable desert paving that gives asense of regional identity. In this example, an approach tosustainability is integrated throughout all four of Lynch’sdimensions of program, not as an end-point decision aboutthe type of paving or drainage to use. This chapter on sus-tainable program development offers a specific look at con-sensus building, visioning for sustainability, and the poten-tials of the program/site/context relationship.

STRATEGIES FORPROGRAMMING DEVELOPMENT• Assess the client’s attitude toward the landscape, knowl-

edge of sustainability, their needs and desires. While manyclients who pursue sustainable design are very wellinformed, to some, sustainability is a goal they have littleknowledge of. They may not fully understand what a sus-tainable landscape might look like, how it functions, whatit offers the user, its costs, or what it requires to maintain.In either case, misconceptions are common such asassuming sustainability means a no-maintenance land-scape or that a meadow is as low-growing as a lawn. On the other hand, a client may have one overarchingconcern, for example a deer problem that will drive theirinterest in sustainability to the exclusion of other issues ofequal or greater importance such as stormwater quality.During the programming process assess the client’s under-standing of your expertise and the end product they areseeking. Invest the time to discuss both your own and theclient’s conceptions of sustainability. Visit sustainablesites with the client. As much as possible, work towardaligning your and the client’s expectations to avoidpotential misunderstandings later in the design process.

• Find precedents to emulate. Successful, time-tested pro-grammatic elements in previously built designs aresources of inspiration and offer proof to you and to the

18 Program Development

BACKGROUND“Programming” is visioning and determining key features toinclude in a site design. Any kind of programming, whetherfor conventional or sustainable projects, follows a circuitouspath from initial project inception to final project installation.The sequence from program definition to program resolu-tion is at turns exhilarating and frustrating because of theever-changing variables that encompass working with thelive mediums of landscape and people. There is no silver bul-let to simplify the task as it unfolds in relation to myriad fac-tors unique to the particular project type, the client anddesigner philosophies, the project stakeholders, the site loca-tion, regulatory requirements, and so on. Perhaps KevinLynch offers the most comprehensive yet simple guide toprogramming in his book Site Planning, where he describesit in terms of four key dimensions: package, population, performance, and pattern. The “package” is the set of ele-ments or activities the design needs to satisfy, the “popula-tion” considers the needs of prospective users of the site,the “performance” signifies the function of site elements,and finally “pattern” suggests the use of relevant examplesor precedents for certain types of individual program ele-ments or project types. These four elements synthesize thebasic building blocks of all design programming.

Chapters 3 through 7 in this book each contain aspects ofsite design that specifically facilitate sustainable site pro-gramming—stakeholder involvement, landscape analysis,the creation of form, construction techniques, and consid-eration of the site visitor. As each of these chapters will illus-trate, the first and most significant aspect of sustainableprogramming is the integration of sustainability into everyconsideration both large and small; from site planning thatacknowledges neighboring functions to the smallest detailthat references local industry, sustainable goals must be atthe forefront of decision-making. Often sustainability isapplied as an “add-on” to a conventional approach to pro-gramming, where performance is the main dimensionaffected while the other dimensions are largely unaffected.For example, a parking lot element of a design could spec-ify permeable paving rather than impermeable paving toencourage on-site stormwater management. This decisionmakes a slight, albeit valuable, change in its function butdoes not alter the use or perception of the site design.These types of projects can reduce the negative environ-


landscape architecture/ architecture criteria, process, and case...

Documents