• Howett, “Ecological Values in 20th Century Landscape Design”(BJ)
• Holling, “Panarchy 101: Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological and Social Systems”(DH)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This is a blog for students in Stan Jones' LA 607 Seminar to post their responses to the weekly readings.
Mike Weir
ReplyDeleteReading: Ecological Values in 20th Century Landscape Design
I enjoyed this reading quite a bit because it felt a little more approachable that some of the more technical / theoretical articles we have read. Was struck me most was the seemingly constant meandering nature of the field of Landscape Architecture from its artistic origins with Olmsted up the late 1990’s where the field continued its evolution in the direction of ecology more so than beaux arts. It appears as if Landscape Architecture has wrestled with establishing a formal identity for almost its entire existence; it seems like this struggle is not over yet either. Given the field’s relative young age, I would anticipate this to continue as we become more knowledgeable about our local and global ecological context and the fragility of our planet. I found it interesting how sole individuals, versus groups of people, have created major perturbations in the field that have led to some of the most dramatic shifts one could imagine, effecting not only professionals’ views and practice, but even the universities training the next generation of landscape architects. The field seems to be fertile ground for risk-taking and bold experimentation that pushes its boundaries in ever-changing directions, ironically the opposite direction from identity-clarifying stability and institutional consistency.
Mike Weir
ReplyDeleteReading: Panarchy 101: Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological and Social Systems
This article quite possibly had the grandest scope of any we have read to date, detailing a theoretical framework (Panarchy) that could be called to bear upon the most complex systems in the quest for understanding them. What amazed me about the framework was its versatility, able to help explain the smallest systems imaginable (cellular scale) all the way up to the largest (global and beyond) all while spanning the realms of economic, ecological, and social systems. I can imagine many scientific framework endeavors over the years ending in disappointment when their applicability fails to be as broad and deep as Panarchy. The exciting element of this work is that it gives us another tool to help us navigate our history, understand our present, and guide the development of our future as members of local, regional, and global systems. I think it ties well into a few of the other reading we have done that outlined in their own manner how interrelated natural systems are and that the outputs of one system become the inputs for another. Panarchy just takes it a step further and explores more of the “why” and “how” behind it. Hopefully, like the article ends, this will help lead to better, more informed ecosystem management.
David Fothergill
ReplyDeleteReaction to readings 7/9/09
“Ecological Values in.....” Howett
Interesting to learn more about Olmsted and the genesis of American Landscape Architecture; the profession still struggles with similar problems of perception and with engineer’s lack of understanding of the “living landscape”. I believe people still judge effective landscape design simply on aesthetics which kind of makes it imperative to make projects presentable. “ ... a unique form of art in which the aim was to bring about a delicate balance, a synthesis of aesthetic, environmental, and social goods.” This is a good quote. I would like to see some of Warren Manning’s “National Plan for America”.
The thought of humans as a natural force with the ability to improve nature is provocative. Grady Clay is from Louisville, KY and still alive. Where do heavy metals go when plant material is used to mitigate their presence in soil? I enjoyed this article, probably because it did a good job building a position that humans have an active role in nature (or the reality we refer to with the word nature). I didn’t particular agree with Smithson’s fatalist views but would like to hear more of his philosophies. The readings are changing my personal conception of nature. There appears to be a duality of man vs nature but I also believe that man and nature are intrinsically linked. Finding the balance, reversing the verses to and, is perhaps where landscape architects above all are best skilled at performing.
“Panarchy 101” Holling
It seems as if the author is attempting to distill mysterious unknown processes into a series of smaller processes, a fractal-like approach. There are many similarities between ecological, economical, and societal systems. I am hesitant to buy in to the idea that something so complex can be simplified completely, but perhaps it captures the gist of the processes. I don’t understand what the author intended to mean with invasive species; is it a natural phenomena? I also don’t understand the reference to Pan; perhaps it is b/c the processes are ultimately wily and unpredictable. There appears to be some truth in the observation that systems are dependent upon disturbance, the more periodic the better because of a correlation with scale (periodic=small, less frequent= large). I liked the statement about how democracy is a good system for circumventing larger catastrophic change with more frequent reorganization. The same could be said of fire in fire dependent ecosystems. This is a very interesting article that I will need to re-read to have a better grasp of its entire worth.