Here is a little taste of a part of
Peter Walker's South Coast Plaza Tower and Town Center Park project. Sadly I was there a little bit too early in the morning to get the project in its best light, but the sculptural quality of the clipped boxwood hedges remains impressive on my second visit to the project. The ability of the hedges to create space and exhibit light at different times of the day is really spectacular.
Beyond the rhythmic design quality, though, I was also struck by two thoughts as I wandered through this landscape. One, I was intrigued by the opportunistic spider webs that have begun to cover the tops of the hedges. It seemed to reinforce the reality that any design, particularly landscape architecture projects dealing with living organisms as materials, will have unexpected outcomes. Perhaps some spider infestation was expected, but the large prevalence on the tightly clipped tops of the shrubs suggests that the design's sculpting of the hedges actually generated a more positive condition for spider habitat to flourish. Second, in this day and age of sustainability concerns, I was left wondering whether projects with large maintenance inputs will be worth maintaining long into Southern California's future? To be fair to the designers, I am not being critical of their choices as this project is over 20 years old and reflects a different era and attitude. But, the question remains as to whether the aesthetic quality of the project still merits the costs of its upkeep? And, how do clients or designers make that decision? Or, in a related question for issues of preservation, at what point does a project's significance justify the energy it takes to maintain it, not just culturally, but ecologically? Especially as concerns over water use, restoration of biodiversity, and energy use increase in the near future, Los Angeles's design community and citizenry are faced with the challenge of balancing regenerative design with aesthetic expression in our existing and future designed landscapes.
Beyond the rhythmic design quality, though, I was also struck by two thoughts as I wandered through this landscape. One, I was intrigued by the opportunistic spider webs that have begun to cover the tops of the hedges. It seemed to reinforce the reality that any design, particularly landscape architecture projects dealing with living organisms as materials, will have unexpected outcomes. Perhaps some spider infestation was expected, but the large prevalence on the tightly clipped tops of the shrubs suggests that the design's sculpting of the hedges actually generated a more positive condition for spider habitat to flourish. Second, in this day and age of sustainability concerns, I was left wondering whether projects with large maintenance inputs will be worth maintaining long into Southern California's future? To be fair to the designers, I am not being critical of their choices as this project is over 20 years old and reflects a different era and attitude. But, the question remains as to whether the aesthetic quality of the project still merits the costs of its upkeep? And, how do clients or designers make that decision? Or, in a related question for issues of preservation, at what point does a project's significance justify the energy it takes to maintain it, not just culturally, but ecologically? Especially as concerns over water use, restoration of biodiversity, and energy use increase in the near future, Los Angeles's design community and citizenry are faced with the challenge of balancing regenerative design with aesthetic expression in our existing and future designed landscapes.
No comments:
Post a Comment