Will Alsop Martha Schwartz debate landscape architecture
Having criticized Martha Schwartz and long considered Will Alsop the ‘Clown Prince of Architecture’ I was curious to hear them discuss Alsop’s philosophical notion that ‘No landscape architect should ever get hold of these [landscape] commissions because they have completely institutionalized the idea of public space’. As you can see, Alsop’s main complaints against the landscape profession are (1) there are too many about (2) they do not know their trees (3) they are doing too much urban design and master planning (which Alsop would rather do himself?).
Schwartz does a passable job of defending her turf but eventually blurts out the truth ‘You and I are very much alike in how we work’. It would also be interesting to hear Hitler and Stalin debating the philosophical notion that ‘Dictators should never be allowed to run countries’. They might even have agreed to design a Satellite Town - in Poland.
I was sorry to hear Schwartz slagging off garden design. It is a fine art of the highest order and it has laid the basis for the world’s most admired urban designs: Isfahan, Rome, Paris, Georgian London, Beijing and Washington DC. I would also like to refer them both to my proposed definition of landscape architecture.
Can anyone dispute that buildings must be designed in relation to landform, water, planting, and paving? Or that outdoor space should be beautiful, ecological and and socially useful? Are architects or landscape architects able to achieve this? Some are; some are not. Martha Schwartz seems better at aesthetic composition than at dealing with social and ecological issues. Alsop is a bozo: all sop with a dash of pop.
Bit of a love in … well sure Alsop is right to say landscape architects should know their trees… meaning they should have a profound understanding of the biosphere and of botany and horticulture… but what does he mean by saying there are so many, in the UK they are 3000 memmbers of the Landscape Institute (half the numbers in Germany and far fewer than the 30 000 architects in the UK) and yes so much English landscape architecture is institutional. Can’t think what he means by the slate and railway sleepers encountered when working in Paris, Mien Ruys popularised railways sleepers and Ben Jakobsen and John Brookes used them quite a lot in the 1960s.
Note sure why landscape architects cannot act as urban designers and indeed as masterplanners. Sounds all rather like professional masturbation. Martha needs to know that when an English man of Allsopp’s generation calls a female “My dear” he means abase yourself. She sucked up to him.
Interesting range of audience reactions ranging from the wide eye worshippers to the eye tightly closed thinking how can I bear any more of this.
Comment by Robert Holden — January 30, 2009 @ 7:53 pm
The excellent Project for Public Spaces (PPS) website http://www.pps.org/info/press/articlesbypps/landscape_arch_letters comments that: ‘Most of Martha Schwartz’s projects would easily get in our Hall of Shame, but so would Peter Walker’s, George Hargreave’s, some of Van Valkenburgh’s, EDAW’s and those of many other “name” designers.’
Comment by Tom Turner — January 31, 2009 @ 6:04 am
interestingly, most of those names are designers who try to design the landscape in an architectural style. i’ve always thought that landscape should never try to be architecture, although i understand the temptation. its alright for an architect to try and create a ‘wow’ building, and get a lot of press, but landscape architecture is a more subtle business. often the point of a landscape scehme is NOT to draw attention to itself, but work and flow quietly.
Comment by stefan — January 31, 2009 @ 11:02 am
‘Landscape should never try to be architecture?’
http://www.xarj.net/2007/gaudi-antoni-barcelona-photos/. Wow and subtle (and astonishing) at the same time!
Comment by Christine — February 1, 2009 @ 2:21 am
its okay for a landscape to contain architectural elements, but thats a different thing
i think the public has the right to wary about architects getting involved with public space. after looking at the visual history of my own town, im aware of how their experiments with modernism and urban planning, not to mention their egos! have ruined it beyond repair, as they have with towns and cities across the country. not a record to be proud of. approach with caution i say!
Comment by stefan — February 2, 2009 @ 10:53 am
I believe Will Alsop is either threatened by or lacks an understanding of Landscape Architecture today.
Comment by Andy — February 19, 2009 @ 12:30 am
I think Andy is correct.
It’s clear the Mr. Alsop is quite threatened by LA’s. For whatever reason, as I can’t believe he actually believes what he’s saying, he conveys a very ignorant point of view more consistent with someone either just out of work or just out of college. I’m not sure what this will do for his reputation ultimately.
Comment by Nick — October 29, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
Will Alsop may win a place in history as the founder of Buffoon Architecture.
Comment by Tom Turner — October 29, 2009 @ 5:36 pm